The Failure of Liberal Catholicism

From The Catholic World Report
Part One | Part Two

Interesting excerpts:

Losing the people who went to church merely for social reasons, yes.

But the Episcopal Church has so many adult converts that we have a term, "cradle Episcopalian," to describe the minority who have been Episcopalian all their lives.

And by the way, trotsky, what are you doing quoting a self-identified "orthodox (i.e. conservative) Catholic" publication on "the failure of liberal Catholicism"?

that they are the "true" members of the faith, and the rotten corrupt conservative leadership is merely a figurehead. This is used to rationalize their continued membership in and monetary support of the institution itself. It is as if being a liberal Christian in most sects requires the use of blinders so that the reality does not have to be acknowledged. I posted this to help shine a light on this phenomenon.

"The liberal movement is disproportionately made up of elderly people who look back nostalgically to the 1960"

"the liberals .. engage in “Orwellian churchspeak”

&c&c

Hard for many liberal believers to acknowledge that they are not the vast majority that they think they are.

This sums up the religious-right attitude:

'Liberal Catholics are in full flight from what they consider the neurotic guilt inflicted on them by their religious upbringing, but this sense of oppression is mainly confined to teachings about sex.

The concept of “social sin”—racism, colonialism, unjust economic and social structures—whatever validity it might have, imposes on people a burden of guilt that they can never lift, because social sin is precisely defined as sins whose perpetrators do not fully recognize their complicity, so that they must be lashed over and over again.'

I.e. morality is JUST conformity to certain rules about sex. The savage viciousness and intolerance with which the Christian (and other religious) Right act toward those who transgress against these rules is well-known; and in my view is often linked to a basic desire to keep women in their place: abortion and even contraception are evil because they make it easier for women to step out of their place; gays are evil in part because their existence helps to blur traditional gender roles. The guilt that makes people feel they are going to Hell for sexual 'sins' can be extremely damaging.

But at the same time, the religious right-winger *rejects* other forms of morality. They hate to be made to feel guilty for co-operating with and benefitting from a social system that oppresses the poor, ill or otherwise vulnerable. They explicitly reject liberalism as morally soft; but implicitly (and in this article unusually explicitly) they reject it also as too morally tough, with regard to non-sexual sins.

If I were a religious person, I would say that these are the new Pharisees. As I'm not, I will simply say that they are nasty, mean-spirited hypocrites, who flagrantly defy the principle, common to all main religions and secular morality, of treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself.

A Bill Donohue clone in many ways.

These are the people we are up against. And the liberal believers who belong to this church and support it with their time and money are not helping, I don't think.

on whether the liberal believers stand up against the Right, or not.

Some do. Doubtless not enough.

However, speaking as a nonbeliever and very strong secularist, whose oldest friend is a left-wing Catholic: I think that we have to be a bit careful about 'guilt by association' on all sides. Just as atheism does not make you an accomplice of Stalin or Mao just because they happened to be atheists, so religion does not usually in itself make you an ally of hardline right-wingers (I say 'usually' as there are undoubtedly some sects and churches and religious institutions where it does).

I think state secularism is vital, partly because a democratic state must be equally for ALL its citizens, whatever their beliefs, and partly because those who would wish to impose Church or Mosque or Temple on the state are almost always authoritarians in every possible way. However, I don't think that religious individuals are necessarily RW, authoritarian or even anti-secularist. I think that on the whole, kindly-inclined people will use their religion, whatever it is, or their secular values in the cause of kindness. Harshly-inclined people will use their religion or secular values in the cause of harshness.

Perhaps I have this different perspective because I live in a country where religion has been less associated with the Right than in America. It's true that the Church of England used to be called the 'Tory Party at prayer', but that was more because Establishment types tended to choose the Established church, than because the religion made them right-wing. In any case, by the time that I was very politically aware, the Church was being a big thorn in Thatcher's side by criticizing her harsh policies toward poor and vulnerable people. There *has* always been a certain Christian Right element in this country, and it's getting worse lately (or maybe just intruding more into my own backyard in and around Oxford, not to mention my having to deal with an acquaintance who is slightly nuts in this respect). And I do predict that in the next few years, we will also be seeing an increasing level of collaboration between Christian and Muslim social conservatives. However, I don't think it will ever reach the American level; and, while I would like to see the Christian (and Muslim) liberals stand up a bit more to their right-wing counterparts, I think that the religious left, as well as the atheists and secularists, are more outspoken and influential than their American counterparts seem to be.

My self-identification as an atheist and the groups I give my time and money to, in no way support or aid the repressive Soviet regimes of the past or any other officially totalitarian governments of the present.

As long as the Catholic Church as an institution can depend on its liberal members for their support and numbers, they will continue to have vast influence over national and global policies. Liberal church members can claim all they want that they are working to change the church from inside, but the reality of the self-perpetuating Catholic power structure would indicate they are pissing into the wind. I felt the two-part essay referenced in my initial post was a good example of this.

I grew tired of the dogma, the judgmental worldview, and the massive leap of faith required to believe it.

Thank you!

I was actually a convert to Catholicism, but I begin to realize I had acted too fast and made a mistake. When we prayed for the sanctity of marriage I didn't say amen, because I knew they meant "God stop gay marriage." I eventually gave up I couldn't handle all the problems I mentioned. I'm now looking into Buddhism, it seems a lot better for me. No dogma or judgmental attitude. They don't seem to take a negative stance on social issues such as gay marriage. Best of all for me anyway no massive leap of faith since the 4 Noble Truths are based around logic and common sense. However, I'm taking my time this time and making sure its for me. All I know for sure is I gave Christianity a chance and in the end found it to be full of dogma, bigotry, and illogical thinking.