Why do progressive Catholics stay in the Church?

[sedonaman]

I would like to say something as a bit of a personal wish. I really really wish people would stop using the word “liberal” as it relates to politics in these discussions. …

Perhaps you would prefer “change-oriented” and “tradition-oriented” in lieu of “liberal” and “conservative” respectively. However, I think the connection to politics is appropriate because the liberals in politics and in the church are struggling to get power at all costs and to have secular ideas brought into it as a means to get their beliefs on what is right forced on the rest of us.

As I posted earlier about Jesus’ commission to his apostles to teach the world, bringing secular ideas into the church is the gospel commission in reverse.

 

[sedonaman]

From the article in the OP: "It is an error of vocabulary to assume that “the Church” is a direct synonym for “the hierarchy,” “the bishops,” “the Vatican.” (I could have guessed without looking that this article would be from the Huffington Post.)

Under usual conditions, of course, conservatives would not make this statement for they most normally submit their will and intellect to the Church, meaning the totality of that which has been handed down from the apostles and preserved by the Holy Spirit Himself. It is an act of obedience which recognizes the Kingship of Christ and believes within the depths of the heart that Revelation which they know to be true.

Perhaps this will help answer the question, harsh though the words may be:

I gotta get that book !

 

[St_Francis]

I gotta get that book !

Here is a link to the book online.

 

[JohnCS]

I don’t care for the term progressive because there is nothing progressive about tearing down the church.

 

[CMatt25]

I mentioned before I thought this was related somewhat to the teaching “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. This doesn’t, I think, just affect people in self-identification. I suspect it may also lead to people who have real problems with CC teachings to stay in the Church rather than leave.

First of all, if people are told that whatever they think or do they are still a Catholic in some sense, it seems logical to say “although I disagree about the CC teaching on contraception, I will remain here, because I am still part of the Catholic Church”.

And I also think there is kind of a gut reaction among many people. Having been taught their whole lives that Catholicism IS the Church, they have a hard time leaving that. If they accept that even unconsciously, they may come to the conclusion that some of her teachings are wrong - and of course it is true that the CC has never been a perfect institution, so may be able able to see the things they disagree with in this light.

Also, they probably find the argument that they are subjecting the Church to their reason as somewhat unconvincing. What is sometimes glossed over in that is even those who choose to submit their reason and will to the Church have done so because they believe that the Church is what it claims to be. No one advocates just taking the word of any institution or person that it is God’s direct messenger - lots of crazy people have claimed that. And when people do that, choose to be Catholic, they have subjected the content of Catholisism to their scrutiny. I think that how this fits together is something that could many times be better presented, because when some people claim that “real” Catholics never do it is clearly false.

Good points. The Church teaches Baptism permanently bonds you to the Church. So even Nancy Pelosi, who is pro choice but who at the same time might also support efforts on behalf of the poor, as a result of her Baptismal bond, is Catholic.

 

[Aristotelian]

This is one person’s perspective. What are your thoughts?

huffingtonpost.com/mary-c-gordon/why-i-stay-catholic_b_526812.html

I’m not quite that militant, but there are similar reasons. I grew up in the Church, I think the worship is pretty, and I like the feeling I get from taking communion.

I don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God; I don’t really think God cares much about us, and I certainly don’t buy into the Church’s teaching on sexuality. I stay because it’s my culture, and because I enjoy the feel of the worship. I do wish it would become more modernized, and so more respectable to be part of.

This “progressive” Catholic’s two cents.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t care for the term progressive because there is nothing progressive about tearing down the church.

There is if you are a liberal, because they are revolutionaries who want the whole establishment torn down, no matter how good it is.They are change oriented. They naively assume it will be replaced by something more to their liking [see “hope” and “change”], but they would be wrong. One of my colleagues fled the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 and had lived under communist rule for most of his life. He told me they had a saying: “A revolution eats its own children.” The “children” in this case are the useful fools who tore down the old and put the new regime in power. This is what Hitler did and what Stalin did, the theory being that if someone put you in power, he can also remove you.

 

[sedonaman]

Here is a link to the book online.

Thanks much!

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t care for the term progressive because there is nothing progressive about tearing down the church.

but there is about rebuilding it afterwards
That’s a jk ppl. My carpentry skills are so great as to completely rebuild

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

The issue of labels is tricky indeed.

I
So for me, the question becomes, why do those who espouse a materialist view of the world try to impose that on the Church? Why do they not instead leave for a more salubrious climate?

Are you saying they should move to Florida? Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Good point!

Via Dolorosa, I do understand that the issues go much further and I emphasize MUCH, but I just wanted to get a cross-section of much larger issue.I understand that. On progressives, more so today it seems, they want to adapt history more so to fit the agenda rather than base it off of truth and learn from the mistakes.I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that progressives wish to adapt the history of the Church to fit what they may be saying? It’s much like the idea that time is more of a cycle than it is linear, we seem to make the same mistakes every few hundred years or so because we tend to forget history and assume we’re smarter than the previous generation.

I’m not sure I understand this statement either. Sorry I put in a 12 hour day and my brain is not working the way I want it to.
Never mind you don’t have to respond unless you want to. I hope I’m a little smarter tomorrow. I’ll reread your post. God Bless.

 

[Justin1982]

I’m not sure I understand this statement either. Sorry I put in a 12 hour day and my brain is not working the way I want it to.
Never mind you don’t have to respond unless you want to. I hope I’m a little smarter tomorrow. I’ll reread your post. God Bless.

Sorry I kind of switched gears into more of a general statement about progressives changing history. They alter the history of the US to make changes to the government and I also believe they attack the Church pretty ruthlessly from the outside through media and completely ignore the 2000 years of history of the Church because of the stand taken against many of today’s moral issues. I’ve been Catholic for a whole 5 days I have no doubt that the attacks kept me a way for a long time so essentially I believe it scares many more away.
I hope that clears up my statements for you.

 

[fkjuliano]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Perhaps the Holy Father and the rest of the Hierarchy are just more merciful than I. In fact, I am sure they are, but in the cases of Sr. Chittister, of Maureen Dowd with her ridiculous and mendacious op-eds about the Church, and of our friend Aristotelian (who disbelieves the divinity of Jesus Christ), since they do not recognize that the Church is a divine institution, what benefit can they possibly derive from taking Holy Communion? Far from their gaining anything spiritually, St. Paul teaches us that precisely the opposite is true:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:27-29[/BIBLEDRB]

It seems to me, therefore, that their formal exclusion would benefit the Church while doing the unfaithful no harm.

 

[peary]

To keep the rest of us on our feet?

 

[sedonaman]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.
…

I think part of it has to do with avoiding the appearance that a bunch of men are beating up a poor old woman. The Church thinks long term and seems content to wait until they pass on, although I believe one could make the case that the defiant ones have a moral obligation to find truth elsewhere if they think it doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church.

 

[Tigg]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Please post more on this if you come to that understanding. The Cath Encylopedia states, "Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offense. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness."

If this is, indeed, the underlying rationale, then I cannot see the benefit to excommunicating the Sister Joans of this world (for the good of their eternal salvation.) They are proud of what they do and consider themselves brave trailblazers fighting the oppression of women in the Church. Progressive Catholics, even on this forum, praise them for their work. I have seen posts that laud them for defying the bishops on healthcare, for instance after it was proven it would include abortion funding. And here is the very crux of the issue. None of them believe the teaching magisterium because of their conviction that they are intellectually superior. Much much prayer is needed!

 

[Tigg]

Here is a link to the book online.

I did look! Thanks for this…I’m finding it invaluable to enriching my understanding of WHY without any judgment or condemnation of progressives.

 

[Tigg]

I don’t normally get too much from Michael Voris, but he’s been doing a series of segments on progressives in the Church and this particular one brings up a very valid point. During the 45 years the progressives have had such a loud voice within the Church, there have been fewer converts and less growth when you factor into consideration the large influx of immigrants from heavily populated Catholic countries. Why? Because progressives do not believe in absolutes, there is no longer much evangelization. This is completely contrary to the Mission of the CC which is the spread of the gospel and the conversion of souls.

youtube.com/watch?v=9b1dhLg2a1E

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I am studying the practice of excommunication with a goal of understanding why it is not applied more often. Why is it that someone like Sr. Chittister (who supports abortion and the ordination of women) is allowed to insult the Church and deride its divinely inspired teachings while still calling herself a Catholic nun? By officially retaining her status as part of the Church she gains undeserved credibility.

Perhaps the Holy Father and the rest of the Hierarchy are just more merciful than I. In fact, I am sure they are, but in the cases of Sr. Chittister, of Maureen Dowd with her ridiculous and mendacious op-eds about the Church, and of our friend Aristotelian (who disbelieves the divinity of Jesus Christ), since they do not recognize that the Church is a divine institution, what benefit can they possibly derive from taking Holy Communion? Far from their gaining anything spiritually, St. Paul teaches us that precisely the opposite is true:
[bibledrb]1 Cor 11:27-29[/bibledrb]

Since you are researching the practice of excommunication, why do you think that bishops who reported sex abuse or those who were victims of sex abuse would be excommunicated if they spoke of it.?

It seems to me, therefore, that their formal exclusion would benefit the Church while doing the unfaithful no harm.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t normally get too much from Michael Voris, but he’s been doing a series of segments on progressives in the Church and this particular one brings up a very valid point. During the 45 years the progressives have had such a loud voice within the Church, there have been fewer converts and less growth when you factor into consideration the large influx of immigrants from heavily populated Catholic countries. Why? Because progressives do not believe in absolutes, there is no longer much evangelization. This is completely contrary to the Mission of the CC which is the spread of the gospel and the conversion of souls.

youtube.com/watch?v=9b1dhLg2a1E

The root of the matter is the Council’s declaration on Religious Liberty. It was cast by liberals, and was interpreted by the liberals who seized control of the Church in such a way as to encourage indifferentism. An anecdote from the time tells me a lot. A trendy priest invited a jazz band to play black hymns etc. at mass. The band was near the altar. Came communion time and the priest was walking around handing out hosts as it were candy. He offered it to one of the musicians and he refused. Offered a second time, he vigorouly shook his head. The priest moved on. After mass, the person observing this scene went to the man and asked why he had refused. He replied: “I’m Baptist.” he understood the meaning of communion: the priest did not.