Part One
Part Two
Why discontented liberals remain in a Church that continuously frustrates them is not easy to understand; it is not because of a belief in the Church’s divine character. They sometimes cite the Eucharist as their reason for staying, but logically their principles require them to believe that Protestant eucharists are equally valid.
Being a Catholic is reduced to the lowest common denominator, as by an NCR reader who explains it thus—“Relationships that I simply could not continue in a practical way with the hundreds of people over all of these years,” an explanation that could apply equally to professional organizations, alumni clubs, or groups of hobbyists. Another reader attends a “progressive” parish, “not because I need Catholicism to grow spiritually, but because this inclusive community nourishes me in ways I have not found elsewhere.”
A feminist declares that “women don’t need the Vatican. We don’t need the bishops. That is the real threat.” But in fact they do, because their identity is forged in obsessive rebellion against Church authority.
The repeated charge that those within the hierarchy are power-hungry is to a great extent an expression of the liberals’ own obsession with power, which is a major reason why they remain in the Church. A woman recounted in the NCR that she had not attended church for a long time, until another feminist “helped me see the power in greeting people before Mass.”
43 comments:
A parish near to me did a survey of its parishioners asking them various questions as to what they thought. Reading the answers I wondered whether the local tennis club doing a similar survey might not get exactly the same answers.
Nicolas Bellord
I wonder when the term Liberal Catholicism started to be used? I am sure that even forty five years ago it was unheard of as either you were a Catholic and accepted the Church's teachings in their entirety or you no longer accepted them and were lapsed or had joined another church. There was no in between.
The article quotes a female 'bishop' who says she 'ordains' women: 'Yes I am excommunicated but I remain .... in the Church.' I fail to understand how anyone can say this and also why they should wish to remain in a Church whose teachings they are so much against.
The comments are interesting especially the description of a nun in a velour jumper suit, sneakers and purple hair. Perhaps all her order looked like that? I remember years ago seeing an amusing tv sketch by Peter Cook featuring an order of leaping nuns. (Because their convent had been infested with snakes they had to do a lot of jumping!) This is beginning to seem not all that far fetched after all.
I was pleased to see that the Liturgical Dance Workshop did not look as if it was oversubscribed!
The division now of Catholics into Liberal and Conservative seems to echo the division in the C of E between Low Church and High Church. Will we one day have to ask someone, whether laity or cleric, who says they are Catholic which category they are in? I find this quite unsettling.
Dom Hugh Gilbert is appointed bishop of Aberdeen! Great!
"Why discontented liberals remain in a Church that continuously frustrates them is not easy to understand;"
I could just as easily turn this around, Father, and say: "Why discontented traditionalists remain in a Church that continuously frustrates them is not easy to understand;"
I would then slightly alter your next sentence and remove the word 'not' to read: "it is because of a belief in the Church’s divine character."
The 'illiberal' liberals have held sway for over 40 years and this is why so many people abandoned their faith. Unfortunately, they still have too much of a grip at the moment on the levers of power so it will take some time before we see the situation improving.
I think there is an obvious reason as to why such individuals remain "in" the Church and that is quite simply that no one anywhere else would give them so much as the time of day!
The photo looks like Tai Chi in action.
However, I like it because I expect you would have seen something similar in the worship of the early church.
This picture I see as illustrating your intended point, albeit not entirely successfully, but at least the lady is totally involved vicerally, with restrained but acceptable movement.
Sadly, such involvement does not always happen in my church, where the PP is unaware that drowsiness and fidgeting is a consequence of lack of movement and hard pews.
I won't make a fuss about this one on behalf of middle-aged charismatic people (like my restrained fury expressed in an earlier comment on the American priest's ageist pictures).
I can see you had the best of intentions.
Regards.
These people need the Church more than they care to admit. Their whole identity is forged from opposing Church teaching. Without something to kick against they would cease to have anything to say.
"A woman recounted in the NCR that she had not attended church for a long time, until another feminist 'helped me see the power in greeting people before Mass'...”
Good Lord! Is that what we have become? The most important part of Mass is the greeting at the door?
The Church as Wal-Mart...
I just finished reading these articles and I have to say that I'm happy that I live in my own little "Trad" world. These people have long since left the Church. I read some of their quotations and it's like hearing ramblings of the insane. They are however just carrying their premise to its' logical conclusion. These people and their ilk have been coddled, supported and affirmed in their delusions for 40 years by authority. They have been those who have been running the household. While the "Trad" crank of an auntie or uncle were hidden in the cellar or attic as embarrassing relics of a bygone age. I had to laugh out loud reading some of the quotes. I know I would have lost my faith long ago had I not retreated into my "Trad" world.
These nuns remind me of my dotty old great aunts (in the 1940s) whose husbands (if they were still around) went along with the latest nonsense for a peaceful life.
They are surely strong practical evidence against 'ordaining' women.
"Why discontented liberals remain in a Church that continuously frustrates them is not easy to understand; it is not because of a belief in the Church’s divine character".
A) They are not liberal and should not be allowed to claim such a title!
B) The bad are filled with passionate intensity and remain in the Church because no one else would have them or allow them such freedom. But then...we are a Church of sinners which always has room for another.
James said:
'These nuns remind me of my dotty old great aunts (in the 1940s) whose husbands (if they were still around) went along with the latest nonsense for a peaceful life.
They are surely strong practical evidence against 'ordaining' women.'
What a patronising and sexist comment! If nonsense is the only evidence needed citing, in order to stop ordination, there's a few men's vocations I would be questioning.........
Ordination is a gift from God, not a status achieved through a chaps hard work and common sense!
Father Ray's blog doesn't need a boost to his blogcounter stats. by that kind of sweeping, inflamatory comment.
The ordination of women is not under discussion here so your sexist, even anti-family remark, is not helpful.
The actions of a good few "dotty old great uncle" priests have damaged the church in a way "liberals" never could.
Father
If you do not distance yourself from the sentiment expressed by "James Walker", I fear you will have no elderly aunts to butter the scones at St Mary Magdalene very shortly!
Oh come on - surely the comment by James Walker was tongue in cheek - wasn't it?
Fr Emeritus is right: these people are not liberals. They're rigid, sclerotic, hardline ideological fanatics: "of the world, but not in it".
Pelerin
The (fictional?)James Walker comment? Hurtful, not a joking matter.
Trampolining nuns also in the Peter Cook film "Bedazzled". Never laughed so much at any film.
Men, including Dudley Moore, in nun drag of course.
Was that Father Ray at the back (left) of the hall resisting the urge to liturgically dance with my mother.
Sorry Mum your secret is out. (-:
What or who is a lay minister, please?
I only ask because it's not a term I know and seems a bit of an oxymoron.
I don't think they are 'liberal' necessarily. I think they may be what St John Vianney called 'luke warm'. But I don't think being liberal is quite the same as being charitable.
I do wish the Church would throw off these terms of liberal, neo-con, traditional and so on. Either you follow the faith or you don't.
Unfortunately 'liberalism' allows for poor catechesis, poor preaching, pick-and-choose faith. All very convenient for some. Modernism by another name.
Pelerin's right, we could end up with some wanting a High or Low, Orthodox or non-Orthodox Latin Church. But Truth will surely prevail and we'll end up with a smaller Church, just like B16 said.
I think people might be feeling a little sensitive this week at ageist and sexist and disabled jokes because things were getting quite vitriolic on another blog, especially in the comment section. Also, it is only certain group of Catholics always being mocked for their infirmities(also I have heard their sexuality being 'justifiably'attacked) and the excuse often given, is that those insulting them have been far too nice to them, for far too long, to no avail.
Are liberal Catholics being treated like the jewish people in world war two? First de-personalized, then wished dead, then what. I myself, who consider myself orthodox in the making(trying to be) have been accused of allsorts of hidden hersies for sticking up for the minority, by some very strict Catholics. I was quite suprised.
I think it's important to be aware of our heart, in this area. Self aware. Before it's examined by someone else, on Judgment Day.
Happy Father's day, Father Ray, by the way!
Shadowlands,
As a Catholic of Jewish origins I find that incredibly offensive!
Hello from another Roman Catholic Lay Minister whose name appears below the Parish Priest on church correspondence.
"Liturgical lay ministries include lectors (Ministers of the Word) who proclaim scriptural (the Bible) passages during the Eucharist, altar servers and acolytes who assist the presider at the altar, cantors and music ministers who lead the singing, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who serve during Mass and/or who take Holy Communion to the sick and homebound, and ushers or ministers of hospitality who direct the seating and procession of the assembly."
Jacob Gold said...
'Shadowlands,
As a Catholic of Jewish origins I find that incredibly offensive!'
I know Jacob, it is, isn't it? my mother feels the same way. That's why I pointed it out. At least you have been able to keep your name though. My mother's ancestor's had to change theirs, to Dunlevy, from Levy, in order to get work, when they settled in Ireland. Where do your ancestors herald from, originally? It's unusual to meet catholics with similar ancestral history?
shadowlands, all I can say is that you must have missed the comments section of the National Catholic Register, and the constant vitriol and passive-aggressive psychobabble that comes from the liberal wing, which frequently makes snide aspersions about (among other things) trad priests with a liking for smells-and-bells and lace, nudge-nudge, know what I mean...
To me, both sides look as ridiculous and as unpleasant as the other, so I think I'll stick with trying to be a less terrible Catholic.
Neither ultra-trad obsessionalism nor Liberal anything-goes thinking is good for one's faith.
Excellent articles but we must be beware of making ad hominem on so-called liberals. One needs always to seek the truth and demolish error with sound argument.
But remember there also equally noxious ideas being promoted at the other extreme. I have been fortunate enough to be able to visit Fatima frequently over the last 25 years and am a devotee thereof. However over the last two days I have been horrified to find a website www.fatima.org where an article supporting Bishop Williamson and his denial of the holocaust can be found. I went to it because I was told I ought to listen to Father Kramer whom Pro Ecclesia had got to replace Cardinal Burke at the last moment. It was utter drivel asserting that George W Bush gave orders to invade Afghanistan on the Tenth of September 2001, that Al-Qaeda was not in Afghanistan, that Al-Qaeda is really the CIA and run by Muslim-hating Jews, that Bin Laden died many years ago etc etc. All of this apparently prophesied by Our Lady in secrets that the Vatican have suppressed. So we need to watch our backs at the same time as we are dealing with so-called "Liberals"
Nicolas Bellord
Mr. Gold, I do not believe that Shadowlands was intending any offence towards Jews or the memory of those who suffered, or died, as a result of the Shoah.
What Shadowlands does is point out that the process which culminated in the Shoah had its roots in subtle Nazi suggestions and 'minor' inconveniences which later grew into a fully-fledged persecution.
Perhaps Shadowlands is concerned that the depersonalisation of Catholic 'liberals' by those of us who proclaim orthodoxy will lead to something more cruel, more judgemental and certainly less Christ-like. I believe that such a thing is already happening. One has only to read comments on certain blogs to see that real hatred exists regarding those considered to be 'unorthodox' or 'liberal'. (Such comments remind me of the Pharisees).
Obviously, one cannot place the lambasting of Catholic 'liberals' on an equal level as the Nazi treatment of the Jews, but the insiduous process is the same and Shadowlands is right to point it out.
Great topic, Fr Ray. I have come to accept that the Liberal Catholics have become victims and every bit as much disadvantaged as those of us who would like a return to traditional liturgy.
They know it's game over, but they often don't know where to run. The era of Navel-gazing liturgy has spun it's course and they do know this, but they have worked themselves into a slight snooker hole.
We need to find a way to help them return.
Invite a friend to the Tridentine Mass tomorrow. It could save their life.
We are bringing a local family to our once monthly Tridentine Mass, next week. They are coming round ours after for Sunday lunch.
This is the New Evangelisation, folks.
Pelerin: I wonder when the term Liberal Catholicism started to be used? I am sure that even forty five years ago it was unheard of as either you were a Catholic and accepted the Church's teachings in their entirety or you no longer accepted them and were lapsed or had joined another church. There was no in between.
Yes, we quit using the terms "heretic" and "schismatic" because it was bad for ecumenism, hurt people's feelings, smacked of Catholic triumphalism, etc., etc., etc. But it seems to me the shelving of those words has mainly served to make Catholics believe that, like the monsters that used to live under their beds when they were children, there are in fact no such things as heretics and schismatics. And if heretics and schismatics do not exist, then neither do heresy and schism; and therefore, there is nothing wrong with dissenting from Catholic doctrine, since everything is equally valid.
Terry: The photo looks like Tai Chi in action.
However, I like it because I expect you would have seen something similar in the worship of the early church.
They had Tai Chi-type movement in the early Church??? Well, you made the assertion; you now bear the burden of proving it.
Sadly, such involvement does not always happen in my church, where the PP is unaware that drowsiness and fidgeting is a consequence of lack of movement and hard pews.
The Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented in an unbloody manner, is not worth keeping still and awake for one hour, whether you like it or not?
Anagnostis: Fr Emeritus is right: these people are not liberals. They're rigid, sclerotic, hardline ideological fanatics: "of the world, but not in it".
Never thought I'd agree with Anagnostis on something, but I couldn't have put this better myself.
Thanks, Trisha. I get it now.
Santoeusebio:
Haven`t you been following the antics of Fr Kramer and Fr Gruner and co over the last couple of decades?
In his little rag titled "The Fatima Crusader", Fr Gruner stated that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of a cabal which was set up to destroy the Church! These fellas aren`t exactly good, level-headed quotable Catholics!
According to himself (!), Fr Gruner is about the only true defender of the true message of Fatima left on the face of the earth. i often wonder how he and his associates felt when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope......
In spite of what he claims, Fr Gruner was long ago relieved of his priestly faculties.
Why do these "liberals" need the Church? Every parasite needs a host to suck the lifeblood out of. These termites know which side their proverbial bread`s buttered on.
@ Anita Moore
You wrote:
"They had Tai Chi-type movement in the early Church??? Well, you made the assertion; you now bear the burden of proving it."
Not a problem.
There is research material on movement in early Judeo-Christian worship on the Web-slow and rhythmic or fast and furious.
Here is a sample:
"In the two earliest Christian liturgies recorded in detail, dance is used in the order of service. Both Justin Martyr in A.D. 150 and Hippolytus in A.D. 200 describe joyful circle dances. In the early church, dance was perceived as one of the 'heavenly joys and part of the adoration of the divinity by the angels and by the saved'.
Gagne, R., Kane, T. & Ver Eecke, R.
(1984) Dance in Christian Worship.
If you are able to get the replay of BBC Radio 4 today- the SUNDAY programme online (religious broadcasting) you will hear why our Church is challenged, and it is not because of Liberalism.
Best Wishes
Thank you Anita! - though I think it's likely we agree on a great deal more than you suspect ;o))
@Lay Minister PL and Father Ray
PL you wrote:
"The actions of a good few "dotty old great uncle" priests have damaged the church in a way "liberals" never could."
You might wish to watch:
BBC1 Tueday 10.35pm
Breaking the silence
The individual priests, now elderly, wrote letters asking for forgiveness but the damage to the Church is done.
The fathful older priest must feel utterly betrayed by these people, far more than at the disloyalty of the "liberals"?
For a professor of history James Hitchcock is strangely uncritical in his thinking. His argument seems mostly 'ad hominem,' based on a series of dotty remarks which you could parallel with equally dotty remarks from traditionalist Catholics.
Blogs like this one attract a large number of commenters who, considering they presumably regard themselves as true Catholics, show a disturbing lack of charity towards fellow-Christians - the barely concealed fury against nuns who exercise in track-suits etc. I find this far more upsetting than disagreement about what the Church should be like, as if we have not always had such disagreement. I wonder, Fr. Blake, if you can he happy with your bedfellows.
Conspiracy theories are always exciting for those whose main activity is getting worked up about things they do not approve of, but I believe there is no such thing as "liberal Catholicism" which could come to an end. There are only tendencies and people who hold certain views, but no coherent movement.
One tendency is to believe that the Catholic Church should be faithful to the example of its founder. There are many members of the Catholic Church today, I would suggest, who find it hard to see the example of Christ in the current trend towards reinstating old-style exclusive sectarian triumphalist Catholicism with rigid adherence to "the teaching of the Church" (meaning the opinions of the pope, including what the Church itself does not define as infallible truth) as the criterion for deciding who should be in and who should be out. Call this a liberal tendency if you like, if that is your favourite pejorative term. Such "liberals" are people who only want the Church to be as radical as its founder.
I'm impressed that this discussion has been very broad, without the "moderation" and censorship that could be expected from some other blogging priests.
Thank you Father Ray.
I hope the nice lady in the photograph has not written to you asking for its removal or, alternatively, inviting readers of the blog to join the liturgical dance group. I'm much too lazy.
I see this form of worship as acceptable if it does not detract from "The Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented in an unbloody manner" (Anita Moore) when stillness and quiet prayer are, of course, required.
What dissolves your point, Ignatius, is that every person on this thread (I'm willing to bet) has had up-close, practical, personal experience of the "liberals" portrayed in Hitchcock's articles, at parish, diocesan, national or curial level; I can say this with confidence because no-one in the last forty years has been immune to their tyrannical and intolerant agenda-serving, their partisan bitterness and spite-fuelled hypocrisy. Everybody knows it like the back of their hand.
What dissolves your point, Ignatius, is that every person on this thread (I'm willing to bet) has had up-close, practical, personal experience of the "liberals" portrayed in Hitchcock's articles, at parish, diocesan, national or curial level; I can say this with confidence because no-one in the last forty years has been immune to their tyrannical and intolerant agenda-serving, their partisan bitterness and spite-fuelled hypocrisy. Everybody knows it like the back of their hand.
Exactly. Yet another point of agreement with Anagnostis.
Terry: I'm not buying your proof. Perhaps you can come up with a magisterial document supporting your assertion.
Ignatius seems to criticise the 'rigid adherence to the teachings of the Pope.' That is what I 'signed up' to when I finally realised that the Catholic Church was indeed the one true Church founded by Our Lord.
And that is why I find it so difficult to understand why people still call themselves 'Catholic' when they seem to dissent from even one important teaching of the Church. It just does not make sense.
"What dissolves your point, Ignatius, is that every person on this thread (I'm willing to bet) has had up-close, practical, personal experience of the "liberals" portrayed in Hitchcock's articles, at parish, diocesan, national or curial level; I can say this with confidence because no-one in the last forty years has been immune to their tyrannical and intolerant agenda-serving, their partisan bitterness and spite-fuelled hypocrisy. Everybody knows it like the back of their hand."
Anita Moore and Anagnostis, methinks you do protest do much - perhaps because with so much undischarged bile in your system you are eager to see offence everywhere. I don't know it like the back of my hand, for one, and apart from the tiny number who respond to blogs like this I dare say neither do most Catholics. When you have a great big axe to grind conspiracy theories are so much exciting than sober truth.
Pelerin, everybody is really a cafeteria Catholic, including those who protest most vehemently against the notion, because everybody will have always have something about the Church that they disagree with. (Remember how traditionalists dissented from Pope Benedict's opinion on possible use of condoms). People called "liberal" who simply want the Church to show Christ-like leadership and do not see it in the present set-up are not going to be driven out by totalitarian dogmatism. As baptised members of the Church they are just as much Catholic as anybody else and will continue working for the Church to become what it should be, knowing that "ecclesia semper reformanda."
Ignatius,
The thing is for Catholics there is nowhere else to go, not being part of the Church, or fully in communion with her, doctrinally and sacramentally is not an option.
Pope Benedict's condom statement needed clarification because it created "difficulties" but I would hope it created no "doubts" about the divine origin of the Church and her teaching.
As Newman says, "A thousand difficulties do not make a single doubt", doubting, he would say was a serious a sin against faith.
Ignatius: Anita Moore and Anagnostis, methinks you do protest do much - perhaps because with so much undischarged bile in your system you are eager to see offence everywhere.
Nope -- no rash judgment here!
I don't know it like the back of my hand, for one, and apart from the tiny number who respond to blogs like this I dare say neither do most Catholics.
To the extent Catholics don't know it, they're either in on it or brainwashed. It is our duty to alert them to their peril.
When you have a great big axe to grind conspiracy theories are so much exciting than sober truth.
Some conspiracy theories are actually real, however much they be ridiculed.
Pelerin, everybody is really a cafeteria Catholic, including those who protest most vehemently against the notion, because everybody will have always have something about the Church that they disagree with.
No: "everybody" is not a cafeteria Catholic. Some Catholics actually accept the Church's doctrine in its entirety. You will not find a single saint who persisted until death in dissent from any article of the Catholic faith. To say say "everybody" is a cafeteria Catholic is just a trick to deceive the unwary and salve the speaker's conscience.
(Remember how traditionalists dissented from Pope Benedict's opinion on possible use of condoms).
This is the height of dishonesty. Read the book. The Pope never expressed the opinion attributed to him. Even if the Pope held the opinion which is falsely imputed to him, his private opinion is not doctrine.
People called "liberal" who simply want the Church to show Christ-like leadership and do not see it in the present set-up are not going to be driven out by totalitarian dogmatism. As baptised members of the Church they are just as much Catholic as anybody else and will continue working for the Church to become what it should be, knowing that "ecclesia semper reformanda."
People called "liberal" want to re-make the Church in their own image. They are Catholic in name only. The name of "liberal" is equally deceitful, because the only thing they distribute liberally is the blows of their mailed fists against those who oppose them. They do not believe the Church is the Holy Bride of Christ, and they do not love her as she was constituted by Christ. They view the Church as a mere political institution which they seek to destroy from within. They are wrong, their agenda is harmful and it must be defeated.
Pope Benedict's condom statement needed clarification because it created "difficulties" but I would hope it created no "doubts" about the divine origin of the Church and her teaching.
Indeed. The facts are facts. A). he wasn't binding the faithful to a matter of belief. i.e. dissenting from an opinion isn't dissent in the Catholic sense. But this is all moot because B.) He didn't approve condom use, and I believe this was clarified later.
I meant to say that we must be careful not to make "ad hominem" attacks but the word "attacks" got left out. But now we have one:
"methinks you do protest do much - perhaps because with so much undischarged bile in your system you are eager to see offence everywhere."
I think that adds nothing to the argument.
If I can explain how I see my faith. Somewhere in the New Testament - it came up in a recent Gospel reading - Christ says it is not sufficient to say "Lord, Lord" but we need to follow his commandments. Well we can start with the decalogue but then Christ developed these further. Thus "Do not commit Adultery" was extended to having lustful thoughts. Then we were left with the Holy Ghost who is there to guide us further and the keys of the Kingdom were given to the Church. Thus we look to the Church for guidance as to the meaning of the Gospels and how they apply to-day and we further listen to the Pope for further guidance. If we find these teachings to be difficult to understand then surely we should read the encylicals such as "Evangelium Vitae" to better understand the arguments in support of the teaching. And there is more in the form of orthodox books etc. At the end of the day one comes up with a coherent framework of teaching known as the Magisterium and if you read deeply enough it all seems pretty rational. As you get older one can see the disasters that not adhering to the teaching brings.
However in a neighbouring parish, which I would describe as leaning to the liberal, I heard a sermon to the effect that we were only bound to take account of the infallible pronouncements of the Church and there had only been two or three in the last couple of centuries - presumably the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption being two of them. Effectively we could dump the rest of the teaching in that same period.
I am afraid I simply do not buy that and the disasters that are falling on the Church now are the direct result of pretending that a whole lot of things that were previously regarded as wrong are now understandable if not actually okay. It seems to me that there are some who do not even enter the cafetaria!
SunnaB16: I am sorry but I have never heard of Kramer and the other priest until now. I have concentrated on reading the seven volumes of "Documentacao Critica de Fatima" published by the authorities at Fatima - seven volumes in Portuguese that you only take you up to 1930 so far. So nothing much about any secrets which I regard as fairly peripheral to the central message of conversion, prayer and sacrifice.
Nicolas Bellord
Post a Comment