DU Catholics - what's your take on this?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1737323,00.html

I have only the barest knowledge of inter-Church issues, and would be interested to know what you think of this idea of where things are going.

At least official liberal Catholicism.

Any vestiges of liberalism were systematically stamped out by the extreme right-wing John Paul II. Instead of the cuddly old man that the world saw him as, he was actually the leader of a quasi-fascist coup, orchestrated by the fraud now posing as pope.

They purged seminaries of anyone who was left of Mussolini. They required right-wing loyalty oaths for anyone who wanted to advance in the church hierarchy.

They made instant saints of anyone -- no matter their saintly qualities -- who was a rabid right winger.

Instead of naming cardinals and bishops for their piety or intellectual abilities, they named simpletons who were ideologically pure -- which is how Ratzinger managed to be elected pope with no muss, fuss or bother.

JP II will be named a saint some day soon -- but it will be by a church he destroyed.

often found in this nation's Catholic Churches.

progressives can do about it, just have to wait it out. As a Catholic, the hypocrisy no longer astounds me. I am an e-mail friend with Fr. Greeley, he of course, does not condone my thinking but hasn't told me to shut up either. I still hear from him, especially when I compliment him on one of his books....LOL.

When Bush goes, right-wing crappola will fade from the forefront of our nation for a while.

As far as the church itself, American Catholics are still far removed from the European church and pretty much do what they want. The Pope Benedict era will be the last attempt to keep American Catholics "in line," and the right-wing factions will be up front for a while, but it won't last.

Here's an article that spells out the future:

Younger Catholics Becoming Increasingly Liberal, Studies Show

In a recently released book titled “American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Church,” University of Connecticut Professor and Emeritus of Sociology William d’Antonio confirms a consistent trend among younger Catholics – in every survey since 1987, younger Catholics have become increasingly more liberal and less practicing in their faith and values.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080217/31223_Younger_Catholics_Becoming_Increasingly_Liberal,_Studies_Show.htm

Princess Leia gets it:

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. "

Hope you're right - the only dog I have in this is my oldest sister, who converted to Catholicism a couple of years ago, but who's perfectly capable of taking care of herself. Should be interesting to watch from the outside. :hi:

Though if you go over to lay groups like Catholic Answers, you only get the most rabid of Catholic Conservatives, who are the loudest and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The current conservative movement actually wants a smaller, more "orthodox" church. This is also taking advantage of the sex scandals. This means the bishops get loyal followers who will not rock the boat and not question anything. It in the end still comes down to temporal power and prestige.

Church to actually be Catholic?

The current movement tries hard to narrow the focus so small that only they are included in it. The practical definition is 100% or nothing by those who call themselves "orthodox". It misrepresents the Church and the diversity in it. It all comes down to those who thing the people should serve the Church and not the Church serve the people as it should be.

yet the people are also supposed to be there for the Church (the Body of Christ). Catholics are bound to follow all teachings of the Church, not just those they agree with. Heck, if it was okay for people to disagree with any teaching they desired, then some could say rape or murder was acceptable. The Church is not democratic in any way, nor are Jesus' teachings. People either commit their lives to all of it, or they don't.

It assumes a binary approach to thinking. It throws personal interpretation of your own lives out the window. Remember, the people writing things are fallible. Unquestioning fallible-created teachings is a recipe for lots of corruption and sorrow if theological interpretations go unchallenged.

infallible. Personal thought or ideas are fallible. One can disagree with a Church teaching all they want, so long as they still obey that teaching.

it will also become much more faithful and devout. Catholics who like to pick-and-choose will either leave the Church, or will wake-up and embrace the full faith...most will likely just leave. Either way the Church will quite likely be smaller in numbers, yet stronger in following and faithfulness, which will then cause the Church to grow over time...people love strong voices and that is where the Church is now heading. People who wanted to see a brand new faith simply will never get what they want, unless of course they leave the Church for some other non-Catholic denom.

Which is the worst possible thing to happen. The second half of last century put the Church beyond the religious ghetto it was put in the past. Catholics are mainstream since JFK, the current movement is to shut the doors, hide away and live in fear of fire and brimstone of the big, scary world. We need a church of leaders from the Pope down to the lowest person in the pew. That means independent thinking at all levels. A smaller church will be more dogmatic but thing about all that is lost when you get to that point.

When people see the faithfulness, they will come back and flock to the Church. God/Christ does not operate under a democracy, neither does His Church. I can hold any opinion I want, yet if my opinions contradict the faith on issue of faith and morals, then I am simply wrong.

The Church will be unrepresentative of the world around it. It will not be able to relate to the world around it, it will be a "us vs them" mentality which is a spiritual desert. God gave us all minds to think and other talents to use. Turning out mind off is the worst thing possible to become blind followers. Remember, the Church is fallible, everyone in the hierarchy in Rome is human just like you and I. Pledging blind obedience means we are at the mercy of their shortcomings and have no check and balance to keep the institution renewed each generation.

The people in the Church are fallible, the faith itself is infallible and so are certain statements by the Pope or the Universal Magisterium. Catholics are always free to use their minds, and in fact should use their minds in all matters. In the end, most people have left the Church not because of abortion, or birth control or divorce or any of those things; rather, they have left because they really have not bothered to learn what the Church teaches and why. Most Catholics cannot even name the commandments, or tell you why the Eucharist is believed to be the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thousands of Protestants flock to the faith every year, including many ministers, because they learn from the outside what the Church teaches and why.

The Church will likely shrink, but that will only be temporary. After some time (I am guessing perhaps 20 years) the Church will begin to flourish and grow like never before. The Church is in a period of severe purification for sins committed by its own clergy and members (including all those Catholics who think they can pick and choose). And just like a lawn, get rid of the weeds and watch the grass flourish.

You write that "the faith itself is infallible" - what do you mean by "the faith"? Does it involve particular teachings concerning the world, or do you mean by it a more metaphysical set of beliefs such as the Eucharist?

faith as given by Christ and the apostles. Sometimes it impacts only believers, other times it impacts the entire world, or is at least applicable to the entire world. For example, non-Catholics do not believe that the Eucharist is the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, yet I know of no-one who would disagree with the truth that murder is wrong.

Or the Earth-centered universe?

often says evolution is possible, perhaps even likely, and that if evolution is true, then it is true because God made it so.

between morals and science. Still, wasn't the idea of a heliocentric cosmos once a great heresy? And it was only during JPII that evolution was pronounced compatible with Church teachings. What of what came before and the idea of infallibility?

of the Church clergy at one time or another. Yet, most of those statements are not binding on the faith unless they are in the form of an encyclical or infallible statement. Most of the times in history members of the Church (even Popes) would make statements to steer Catholics away from certain ideas, yet those statements were never binding. A good example if Harry Potter. The Chief Exorcist of Rome and Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was Pope) both have made negative statements about HP, warning Catholics about those books. Yet, neither of those "opinions" were binding on the faithful.

Most of the times in history members of the Church (even Popes) would make statements to steer Catholics away from certain ideas, yet those statements were never binding.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the imprisonment of Galileo and the ban on the publishing of his works.

Galileo was ordered not to advance or publish those works by the Church. The Church had not at that time come to any formal conclusion about his research, other then to assume that his ideas were wrong. The Church, at that time, was in control of a great deal of the government and of the laity in spiritual matters, and Galileo's ideas at that time posed what they thought was a threat. His in-house confinement was done more on the civil level, then on spiritual levels. The Church was wrong, and has admitted that. Yet, one cannot properly view Church history through a lens of 2008, one must travel back in time to determine what was really going on.

And if it wasn't one of those, was it infallible?

or morals. Example: When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly because the Holy Spirit protects him from error in the areas of faith and morals. Yet, such statements are incredibly rare, only a handful throughout history. However, if the Pope speaks about disciplines of the Church, or about civil matters like the war in Iraq, or even that Galileo affair, then his view carries merit, but is not infallible. That is exactly why the Church carries the infallible faith through the generations and millenniums, yet still makes some fairly horrible mistakes and horrible sins like the abuse scandal. Priests, Bishops and Popes are sinners like the rest of us, they make mistakes, they hold many wrong opinions regarding worldly stuff, yet the Pope and the Church (Universal Magisterium) is protected from making errors when making formal and binding announcements of faith and morals (a very rare thing nowadays). Most the early councils when the faith was developed were infallible.

That is a pertinent statement.

You are correct in that most of the growth is coming from Protestants coming in, but most of them are only choosing to go after the most conservative interpretations, as their old denominations are not as conservative enough for them. What you have is a growth of people who thrive on following using divisive theology.

There are extremely few statements which have been declared "fallible". Remember ex cathedra has only been around since Vatican I, after the loss of the Papal States and even the Popes of the time thought it was an attack on the office.

What you consider weeds will actually be flowers of many different types being pulled out. The grass will be behind a armed fence line, to continue your metaphor. The Catholic Church was not intended to be a type of elite club where only picked perfect chosen ones would be welcomed, everyone is welcome in the Catholic Church. We are all fallible, all sinful, why do some mean inclusion and some exclusion?

Remember, this movement gained steam as Rome still has not worked through the sexual abuse scandals, and they are digging up the old controlling ways to try to compensate without truly accepting responsibility. What you will have by having blind followers is nobody question any affairs, financial or otherwise. There is some faux-utopian past which is always talked about before Vatican II, which covers a power grab on this temporal plane which should not be happening.

matters of faith should be well considered and studied. I am saying that once a person has concluded that the RC faith is the full truth, and they commit their lives to Christ through His Church, then dissent is not to be done against formal Church teachings., Now, that does not mean we don't remain vigilant against abuses like the sex abuse scandal or even financial thefts from people inside the Church. One can hold and abiding faith, and yet still have two feet on earth.

While infallible statements are indeed few, the faith does have a repository of infallible teachings that were simply never declared infallible on a one-by-one basis. The Catechism and the Catholic Bible are sure places to start.

Remember, "truth" does not leave the door open to anything but official interpretations. When you get into mass declaration of infallibility you close the door in an attempt to close all different interpretations. I have come across many Catholics who consider everything to be infallible, no matter what it is. It seriously stifles growth in the Church as you are only limited to an "official" interpretation and nothing else that different experiences would allow. The Church is not binary but an infinite set of greys when you consider it is worldwide and all the people in it and how it relates to them and them to the Church.

When it does come to sex abuse or financial thefts, encouraged unquestioning following suppresses any check and balances. If you are not to question anything, then you would be under more pressure not to report anything "for the good of the Church institution", you would introduce denial along the lines of "if the church is infallible, then my priest or bishop taking money must be correct". You have then a couple who really use the power of their position. Remember the human weakness towards accumulating power over others. It is one thing to have powers of a higher office, it is another to not use them.

left the teachings of the Christ behind when it declared infallibility. For what is man in God's sight, His creation, not His Equal.

which means the Holy Spirit does protect men from making errors in these areas.

Thank you very much for a robust and respectful conversation. I registered here just yesterday after having been linked to this site from another site carrying this story. I think I have likely said enough, so I am posting my gratitude and thanks for a very interesting talk.

Take care.