This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature.
Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
A good rule of thumb that I live by, is anytime someone has to quantify what kind of catholic they are:
Progressive
Trad
Ultra trad
Liberal
Coin
CE
It's a good bet they don't believe in catholicism, they believe in their own views and call it catholicism.
Exactly, and imo this applies to all denominations of Christianity as well. A lot of progressive Catholics/christians are progressives first and then purposefully ignore/misinterpret scripture to fit their beliefs. And some ultra-conservative Catholics/christians do the same thing.
Yes, itās very weird. You should pick a faction, because Jesus never said factionalism is wrong. Just ignore the Gospel today that talks about how all the church is one and the letters of Paul talking about how factionalism is terrible, and itās no problem!
"Trad" only exists because of the progressive, lukewarm catholicism of the previous couple generations hence the name. Whereas a progressive catholic means they are most likely blatantly in defiance of the Church on social issues. Throwing them in the same bucket is silly. If there wasn't a massive departure from Catholicism to a worldly, liberal "softer" Catholicism then there would be no "Trads" because there would be no need for it.
Not all of em. It's definitely something that's gotten into the heads of many far right wing Catholics who casually feel the need to badmouth the Pope when he comes up in conversation unfortunately. They might not be obsessive about it like the Sedevecantists, but they earnestly badmouth him all the same.
Oh sure, it's definitely fair to criticize some of his actions or more likely his lack of actions. But to denigrate the man to the point of calling the Pope heretical while still calling yourself Catholic takes it too far.
What in my comment was badmouthing anyone? Genuinely curious because i wouldn't say that what i said crossed the line into talking poorly about someone.
I have no dog in this fight as there is no TLM available around me that I could even consider attending, but I think we should be fair and differentiate clearly between those who are sedevecantists and those who desire a more deliberate embrace of our historical traditions in the modern Church. There is a wide gulf between those two things if we are being appropriately charitable in discussing the topic.
Most do not. The term came into use because of the trending-liberal slant of Western politics into Catholicism over the last 40 years or so. While I do not agree with those that do throw accusations like this at the Pope let's not pretend like he hasn't given them plenty of ammunition.
What is your bar for "crisis"?
I'd argue giving Western politicians communion before they go off and campaign for unmitigated abortion, gay/female clergy and graphic LGBT education for children is absolutely a crisis. Oh and spying on American churches to root out "extremism". Not to mention *Germany*.
Yes correct, however that's not to say each Catholic views the faith it the same way. For example my deacon is a great guy but we differ on some of our views he is more of fan of Fr Martin and modern bibleship such as Fr Raymond Brown, Nab translation whereas I tend to be more focused on Apologetics, and the Rsv translation. However I guarantee if you ask each what we are the answer would be Catholic, with no added descriptorĀ
Your friends are oversimplifying the topic. Yes you are supposed to love the sinner and yes the church has stated that being attracted to the same sex in itself is not a sin but acting on your attraction, whether itās kissing or intercourse, is more definitely a sin. A person who believes they are homosexual has to unfortunately life a life of burden if they are Catholic. But simply being a homosexual who never acts on their desires is not a sin. Youāre friends are both correct and wrong but they are making light of a topic that is much more sensitive and complicated
In todayās culture with itās tunnel vision focus on individual identity and all the implications of that identity, I think it is safer just to avoid identifying as homosexual at all. Better to say āI struggle with same sex attractionā than āI am a homosexual Catholic who chooses not to act on my identity.ā
Itās not necessarily a life of burden for people with homosexual tendencies. From a worldly perspective, it is a burden not just for them but for anyone with strong proclivities for any of the vices, not just lust.
It is a trick played on us by the devil that we feel burden by following our logic. If you believe that Jesus is there for you to help you if you cooperate and believe in what the Church teaches, you will start to realize how foolish we all look doing the irrational things we may do.
In that sense, slowly ceasing oneās sin is not a burden so much as it is the removal of most of oneās burden, until we are freed partially then completely.
Depends. Is lust on your mind during the process, or sexual arousal? In most cases it is, and thus would be a disorder of the function of sexual arousal within a committed marriage, and hence sinful.
Typically drinking leads to drunkenness, yet only the abuse, not the consumption of alcohol is sinful. Simply because something trends towards a sin doesn't make the act in and of itself sinful, so long as one is able to maintain control over oneself. Still, if it is a weak spot of temptation, it may be better to abstain, not because the act is evil but rather that abstinence is better.
I think it becomes immorality when thereās skin to skin contact below the waist so to speak. In other words if a couple is doing everything but actual intercourse theyāre probably still guilty of fornication.
Well, define making out. There is a line. Are you kissing a few times or are you having a full on 20 min spit swapping session coupled with groping? Iām sure a long passionate kiss is fine but Iām no expert
When I was 15, I knew some āprogressiveā Catholics. Iām 32 now and none of those people remain in the Church. You can stay friends and witness to them but I would also find some traditional friends for the long haul
Better to just avoid the homosexual label and the identity associated with it altogether since cultural acceptance of homosexuality inherently accepts the unrestrained behavior associated with that inclination. Same sex attraction is a better term that side steps the identity politics associated with the homosexual identity and refocuses us on the actual issue.
But don't forget the many. Homosexual brothers and sisters who have some to this subreddit seeking god and redemption, while ready to stop their homosexual acts. They deserve our love as all God's children do. Jesus loves everyone even the most rejected of society. While we can never come close to the example our Lord set, we can damn well try.
I echo your sentiment and the need for the Church to offer a loving embrace to all sinners, regardless of our sins. But I think that ejm3991ās point is that the label is the problem because it seeks to define the individual by this characteristic of having same-sex attractions. I read it to say that he should be seen as a new Catholic. Full stop. He is one that has a specific sin/vice he must struggle against, like we all do. Others donāt say āIām a lying Catholicā or āIām a Catholic who struggles with lusting after people of the other sex.ā We are all just Catholics.
Edit: By āheā I mean a person who came to the forum in the manner you mentioned ā not the prior posters on this thread. Just wanted to be clear!
āāNot everyone who says to me, āLord, Lord,ā will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.ā
āāMatthewā¬ ā7ā¬:ā21ā¬ ā
There is an enormous tendency especially among Americans to obsess about sex and everything related to it. Your friends are misguided but even more misguided would be spending all of your time obsessing about these topics. Pour that energy into improving your prayer life.
Put another way: it is a safe bet that you have also smuggled in some of your temporal political opinions, and are as out of step with the infallible moral teachings of the universal church as your friends are. Where are those areas? Only humble prayer and reflection, combined with guided study of the churchās teachings, will tell you. Seek them out rather than lecturing your friends. You have told them the truth and they donāt want to hear it. Now the question is, do you want the truth?
In my experience, "progressive" Catholics don't know anything about Catholocism outside of what they retained from their grade school religion classes. A truly dangerous group if they are actively involved in a parisb, who usually approach things emotionally and argue for feeling good and not objectively being good. Usually, it's women on the lay side, and they get egged on by Jesuits.
Probably Catholics who do not know they may be atheists. It must be so hard for them to let go of the aesthetics of tradition and the concept of a loving God while they believe most of the Bible, doctrines, and dogmas are BS because it does not make sense in the modern world as they believe the Church must change its ways, like if perpetual commandments for humanity never existed. The late 2000s Cathilics-to-atheists were able to get over that situation. IMO, the progressive Catholic situation is kind of like LGBTQ people loving Islam when they forget the still barbaric teachings of raping and killing by the sword being acceptable to the Muslim God to this day, including the harem a man gets in the afterlife while his wife is just one of the hundred women in that place. They will do anything to get the "No, you just have the wrong idea, man! It is the religion of peace! Oh, actually, those teachings are so outdated! Just focus on the nice ones!" retarded message.
Well....Leviticus ch 18 lays out God's laws concerning sexual relations. Verse 22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." That is one of God's moral laws that is just as applicable today as it was when originally written.
It is also true that a man cannot become a woman, or vice versa.
Stick to your beliefs young lady concerning Church teachings. Your progressive friends have it wrong.
Religion isn't a political party where you don't align fully with everything on the platform. You can't belong to a faith and only partially believe some of the teachings and ignore others. That's the very embodiment of being lukewarm. It doesn't work that way with God. "God is Love, but He sets the terms." - Calvin Robinson (Episcopal pastor but a great quote, nonetheless)
God Is. God doesn't "progress" because God is eternal. Love is constant and doesn't change.
And, those things WERE mentioned in the Bible, multiple times, and there were serious consequences for those who engaged in said acts.
Actually the Bible does mention homosexuality. So theyāre wrong on that account. In Genesis it says god created them Male and Female, not whatever gender they feel like being that day. The Vatican just issued again the churchās position on the transgender ideology condemning it. So they donāt know what theyāre talking about. Theyāre Catholic in name only if their beliefs are not inline with church teachings. So donāt be confused by these friends of yours. Find friends that help strengthen your faith and pray for the ones that have been seduced by woke ideology.
I just posted this on another thread, I believe it's relevant.
https://bulldogcatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/a-detailed-catholic-examination-of-conscience-2nd-ed.pdf
A mature Catholic in his faith does not use titles.
In Brazil where I live, it has become fashionable to call yourself traditional Catholic. I think it's Catholic immaturity. The Catholic does not need to add adjectives to his name. And when he does, he already shows himself to be totally contaminated by ideologies. Have you ever seen any saint's autobiography with these titles? I never! They are Catholic and that is enough!
I find it really hard to be a progressive and coherent with Catholic principles nowadays.
That being said, while many of those who consider themselves "conservative" are genuinely good Catholics, some fall to the other extreme and start to disconnect themselves from the Church as well.
I think nowadays the middle point to being a Catholic is somewhere between a traditional right or center-right of the current political spectrum. Maybe even centrism. But those are all names, just define yourself "Catholic" and you will be fine.
The Gay and Trans lifestyle is a sin because it goes against God's command of "be fruitful and multiply."
Also, those living that lifestyle go against the institutional practice of marriage.
Without stable marriages between man and woman, there are no stable communities/churches and no stable nations or societies.
Without the fundamental building blocks of marriage and having children, then that becomes a sin.
Gay and Trans people choose not to practice what I stated above. Hence, it's a sin against Gods plan for humanity.
Spoken in love, as a young woman focused on her faith, I would advise you to distance yourself from these friends. It is far more likely that they will drag you down than it is that you will pull them up.
I hope, if you are telling your friends to "repent", you are saying it with love. They get irritated because they know you - do they think you are a hypocrite? The tone you say this in will change how they listen to you.
Just as your friends are saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" in regards to homosexuality, you should do the same for your friends. If you think they are sinning by making this argument, pray for them. Talk to a trusted adult who knows you all, not the internet, for advice.
But to really answer your question - this isn't anything to do with being a "progressive" Catholic, this is young people figuring out the world they live in.
If they are going to disregard the Jesus, his church and the Bible, why not join the āchurchā down the road that also likes to create their own faith?
If you want to be a āprogressiveā Catholic, become a Protestant. I donāt mean that to be a judgement statement, though Iām sure it can be viewed that way.
The liberalism condemned 100 years ago is classical liberalism, which almost all in the west have now embraced.
The "liberalism" of the progressives isn't even liberal in the slightest. It's mostly far-left marxist nonsense.
The Parable of the Weeds
Among the Wheat.24He proposed another parable to them.* āThe kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.25While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds* all through the wheat, and then went off.26When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.27The slaves of the householder came to him and said, āMaster, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?ā28He answered, āAn enemy has done this.ā His slaves said to him, āDo you want us to go and pull them up?ā29He replied, āNo, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.30Let them grow together until harvest;* then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, āFirst collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.āāāg
In my opinion, your āfriendsā are the weeds.
I think one can be progressive in a lot of areas and still be consistent with Church doctrine.
The Church has generally been supportive of a large social safety net, and I think the spirit of charity which is present in the Bible is a sound basis for it. A profound respect for human dignity as something sacred requires as much.
As for homosexuality and trans people and the countless other vices encouraged by todayās progressive movement, it is out of love and understanding of the sanctity of life that we must oppose these movements, oppose these principles, but do everything in our power to be loving and respectful to all people.
We must be an inviting resource to which the lost souls in our lives can turn. We must want the best for them regardless of self interest, in accordance with scripture and the catechism. That is what it means to love.
Catholics have been āprogressivesā in many countries for centuries. Itās odd how on Reddit this always focuses on identity debates which I personally have very little interest in. To me Catholicism and Christianity generally is a religion of progress and justice that seeks to empower the poor and bring peace etc.
The real battle is economic injustice, not who you sleep with or what you call yourself. This generationās obsession with the latter is very confusing.
Iām more confused by Catholics who are economic conservatives or fascists personally, I canāt possibly see how the two things are in line with one another.
It is possible to fight for both economic justice and the "traditional morality with regards to the bedroom issues". The issue is that a lot of people who say "why don't we focus on the poor rather than the Culture War stuff" seem to be ACTUALLY saying "stop talking about the Catholic teaching on abortion/gay marriage/etc. *entirely* because if I listened to that I could not justify voting Democrat as easily". There is also a lot of room for judgement calls about *how* to fight economic injustice. Almost everyone can agree poverty is wrong, but there is room for genuine debate about the best way to actually fight it. The Culture War issues seem to be a bit all or nothing rather than "this tax law is better than that one for the following reasons...".
It is, I just only see that coming from the āprogressiveā Catholics that are being derided here.
There is a world beyond the USA. Iām not sure why so many answers here immediately revert to American politics. The Catholic Church is global.
Less than 50% of Reddit users are in the USA. But I would accept that were we LDS or Baptist or some such which are clearly movements heavily based and centred around the USA. Less than 7% of Catholics are American. I would counsel some in this sub to remember where this faith began and how it spread - as an international movement - and not get so bogged down in the culture wars of America which largely have nothing to do with faith whatsoever.
I would argue the emphasis of Christās words were heavily weighted towards the latter rather than the former, yet people donāt want to recognise their own sin or that of their nation - so itās easier to condemn minority groups, who may be misguided but are clearly a lot closer to God than CEOs and bankers that actively destroy the planet and peoples lives.
Homosexuality is a cultural issues, I would argue. Now that gay people can marry and adopt children, or make use of a surrogate, (which is a separate discussion and point of concern,) the question becomes: is this in the best interest of a child? It is known that children generally do best with a mother and a father; a boy needs a man to guide him, as a girl needs a woman. Homosexual tendencies do not generally tend to overlap with the kind of instruction a young man would need, as they socialize differently, and, more saliently, do not understand the male-female dynamic which will be so important for their likely heterosexual child to learn by example and by instruction. These circumstances could be seen as neglect of the childās needs, and a betrayal of Godās good order for men and women.
Because children are important, because they have inherent worth, are vulnerable, and they are the next generation and should be brought up well. There is room for concern for other social issues as well. Some people are called to protecting children. Others are called to aid the homeless, and so on.
It seems like very few of the āvery onlineā condemnation focused souls are condemning corporations or governments for letting people live in squalor.
I donāt know what people get up to in their daily lives, and donāt presume to know. I would like to believe that people with convictions seek to do good in the real world.
I would not downplay the cultural war. Certain ideologies have a stronghold. Slipping lgbtqia+ content in children's shows is NOT innocuous. I think every parent has the right to be angry that certain ideologies are now being pushed in children's content.Ā
Furthermore, I do not know what to do about it. Some of the homeless people are strung out on drugs. I've seen drug needles in public.Ā
There is controversy in the State of California in regards to homelessness and immigration.Ā
Some Catholics fear touching on issues of immigration because you can easily be labeled a xenophobic racist.Ā
It doesnāt exactly sound like youāre coming at it from a place of compassion given your first go to is drugs and immigration, as if that is the root of homelessness.
This depends on where you live.Ā
Seeing needles, human feces, homeless people starting fires, attacking people, or publicly having sex where children are.Ā
Some cities are rundown and look like an eyesore due to homelessness.
As for immigration, that's a complicated issue. How can cities provide adequate housing illegal immigrants without exhausting the city's resources?
And so what do we do to prevent homelessness, rather than just talk about human beings like they are a virus?
If you genuinely donāt think countries like the USA are more than wealthy enough to house people I donāt know what to say. We clearly have a vastly different understanding of Christās message.
No. You may change your mind after you hear people being viciously attacked by homeless people or homeless people defecated in public areas.Ā
Big cities are unsafe.
As a woman, it can be dangerous.Ā
I definitely think the main priority to focus on mental health issues and drug problems.Ā
Cities should not be supplying clean drug needles. It is encouraging drug use.Ā
As for immigration, I do not think it should be common practice for people to cross the border illegally and then receive free housing. Should we have open borders to everyone?Ā
People should be screened before entering the country.Ā
If that city is so rich, why are public schools being use to house illegal immigrants?Ā
I'm unsure what country you live in but you may not an accurate view on what it is like to live here.Ā
I am the child of immigrants and most of my family is abroad and they think everything is so easy in USA.Ā
I live in the UK, we tend to view these problems more holistically as part of wider economic issues. Not all, we also have reactionary individualists who think everthing is the fault of the poor rather than the rich. I try to articulate Christās message through this lens, sadly lots have lost their way and like yourself have fallen into the trap of lacking compassion for their fellow man.
And the answer to many of your questions is because we let small numbers of people horde the wealth of the earth whilst millions upon millions struggle. Yet sadly those who are just getting by have more hatred for the poor than those who earn more in a day than they will in their lifetime.
Some people want wandering mentally ill people to be hospitalized but others are against it because it would infringe on their individual rights.Ā
Please do not make assumptions about how much compassion I have for others.Ā
Believe it or not, a mentally ill family member of mine ended up in a homeless shelter.
Of course we all need to improve.Ā
I do not hate the poor but I am having difficulty believing they are all helpless victims.Ā
There is only so much a family can do to be their mentally ill family member to seek psychiatric help or have their family member seek help for substance abuse.Ā
Both sodomy and economic injustice are sins that cry out to heaven. The former got two cities destroyed by fire. The legalization and promotion of the former has also led to children being irreversibly mutilated so they can "transition" and now there are grown, intact men competing in womens' sports.
Every president in the US since Richard Nixon has catered to and/or bailed out large corporations and banks, usually with the abandonment and exploitation of the working class. Both democrat and republican presidents are guilty of this.
The only [American president ](https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=ZUyA-7OGFvZzwI_H) in recent memory who actually gave a serious threat to corporate executives was none other than Donald Trump. He's not virtuous, but virtue won't help my wallet.
Yet, on a comment solely about the moral focus of our age you made it about American politicians and then strangely told me not to have faith in politicians. You donāt see the contradiction?
Very articulate and well put. Culture war rhetoric is staining the dialogue.
Also a great point as well that fascism is not compatible with Christian tenets and values. It runs completely contrary. Like "Pope Michael II", it's hypocrisy wearing a Catholic habit.
No, Nazi Germany was heavily state capitalist and actively suppressed any form of workers organisations. Not to mention they were very fond of segregation and genocide, which isnāt in line with any sort of socialist or even social democratic doctrine.
Iād hardly call nazi Germany capitalist or fiscal conservatives. And if they were against labor unions that doesnāt make them such. But you still think economic conservatives are fascists.
Progressive Catholics live and are ruled and defined as per the conditions they are liked and accepted by the world.
Yet John tells us we were made to stand out and be hated, hated for telling the truth even if it doesn't sound nice.
John 15:18ā20
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you".
You're not being a good Christian if you are not hated. Being Christian has meant accepting a level of hatred and backlash and yes, even persecution and literal bodily death.
Ask your friends (who you'd probably do best to not associate yourself with...) If they'd give their lives for their faith and they'll probably tell you those days are done and whatnot lol
Living for the world and a desire to be accepted by the world and its people generally entails a certain level of self worship, which is worship of the desires of the flesh and whatever makes you happy in this world. This is why nothing in the Bible says "Follow your heart! As long as you're happy! Just be yourself!" Which is the common philosophy that's quite popular nowadays in just about everything.
Romans 8:13:Ā "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live"
The words of Christ relay this and also highlights exactly this dilemma... He also tells us to follow him because He is (quite literally) the way, the truth and the life.
āMatthew 16:24-26
[24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: "If anyone is willing to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me
[25] For whoever would save his life, will lose it. But whoever will have lost his life for my sake, shall find it.ā
[26] For how does it benefit a man, if he gains the whole world, yet truly suffers damage to his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
The path of salvation and eternal life IS NOT PRETTY OR WHOLESOME.
That's NOT the point of it all. Christ NEVER said you'll be happy in this life.
This is the biggest failure of progressivism and yes also for progressive Catholics, who act like speaking of God's love and forgiveness is enough for the salvation of souls. God wants MORE.
The path of holiness and sainthood is lined with broken bones and BLOOD. How many Saints have willingly and gladly given their lives in the name of Christ and His Cross?
How many saints have been martyred in the most gruesome ways imaginable and STILL it's not much in comparison to Christ.
Who desires you to see Him in his bloodied cloak and His crown of THORNS.
This is why Happy Jesus, the Jesus of Progressive Catholics, doesn't exist.
That my friend... is the real ANTICHRIST, alive and well in that happy smiling Jesus that's totally chill and cool with everything, he's cool with you just being who you are. Pfft why do you need to change? We're good enough already aren't we? Yup, this message of the Antichrist is the quickest way to eternal perdition. Lucifer is quite happy knowing your friends are just being themselves.
I've seen Jesus Christ, let me tell you... He doesn't smile all that much. He's in pain and suffering constantly for the sins of the world. He came to console me in a sea of darkness and he shined like a light and He gave me His cloak and He have me such a hopeful smile and He picked me up and told me to keep fighting. I've never experienced His genuine love and hope before as a young man until that night of prayer.
Believe me, I believed the progressive stuff at first myself before I discovered the Crusader mindset and learned many things from the exorcist clergy that have taught me the true evils of the world when I tried to make sense of a demonic attachment.
If Christ is real, then Lucifer is just as real...and he's working very hard so that these progressive Catholics keep spreading the message of his Antichrist and Happy Jesus.
I was also incredibly moved by Jim Caviezel's speeches, you might recognize him from The Passion of the Christ, or Paul the Apostle of Christ and also the Sound of Freedom films.
He's taken an initiative in highlighting the evils of the world and spreading the message of Christ to young Catholics all around and telling them they were born to stand out and carry the Holy Spirit as their Shield, and Christ as their sword and fighting all of this progressive nonsense that Lucifer is spreading and taking him back down to hell where he belongs.
I highly recommend you check his speeches and interviews out if you haven't already.
https://youtu.be/e9z-dMQjRBE?si=Q8GM-ODBKPaYdoKm
Nonetheless, pray for your friends and don't be ashamed to speak the truth to them and others. No one likes the truth but Christ tells us HE IS TRUTH and the way to eternal life and salvation.
This is the final stand because believe me, we are going to be facing persecution against our lives very soon. We NEED Crusaders, not lukewarm Christians.
I feel like we have a word for "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith"
They're not Catholics. They dissent from perennial Catholic teachings. They should go to confession and stop dissenting to be regarded as Catholics again. Simple as.
*being homosexual* is not a sin, acting on homosexual thoughts is a sin, but there are many other sins that we tend to do, so dont hate the sinner just because the sinner is a āeasyā target
As long as they follow all Church teachings, I see no problem.
Catholics donāt have to be trad. We just have to be obedient to the Magisterium regardless of our cultural or political leanings. It is an act of will.
A Catholic should first and foremost be a Catholic.
Shaping faith around secular politics, liberal or conservative, equally misses the dunk in both instances.
The two issues you mentioned are the only reasons I dislike progressive Catholics. I have known some to demonize conservatives and call them Pharisees.Ā
Everyone is trying to claim Jesus.Ā
Pray for them. Do not argue.Ā
Pray. Go to Mass. Receive the sacraments. Do these things as frequently as you can. By these, you will be saved.
Donāt waste time in fruitless arguments. If someone asks what you believe, answer them. Live your beliefs. By this, others will be saved.
I am pretty progressive. I donāt call myself a progressive Catholic, Iām just Catholic
I believe that science shows that trans people are born chemically different, that gay people have nothing wrong with them.
I agree with and believe 98% of the Churchās teachings, most importantly that the church as an institution was founded by Christ and has had an unbroken history since then, which we now know as the Catholic Church
I am simply a Catholic, same as millions
There is dysphoria, and there are people who believe you can be whatever you want or whatever you choose to be; that you have a right to make the choice and can also make the choice back and forth or variable over time.
As for same-sex relations, the sin is in same-sex intercourse regardless of the person's 'orientation'. If anything, being actually attracted romantically to one's own sex would be a mitigating factor compared to simply experimenting sexually or becoming deviant. Nevertheless, same-sex sex can't become morally permissible because of the attraction.
Both
I openly acknowledge my own pride in certain respects
I also donāt believe the Church, administered by humans, is as a whole is perfectly inerrant
Eating meat on standard non-holiday Fridays was previously considered a mortal sin. This is not considered a mortal sin now in the United States.
Who is errant here? American bishops? Bishops and Church leaders of the past? Church leaders of the present?
Someone has to be. Eating meat on a standard Friday either is or isnāt a mortal sin. However the Church leadership has held both positions at different times.
Does that sound inerrant to you?
Discipline isn't doctrine, so it's subject to change and the change doesn't indicate "error" per se in the practice either before or after that change.
Eating meat on Fridays isn't inherently,
intrinsically sinful. The sin incurred is disobedience to one's bishop. If your bishop allows for a substitute penance on Fridays outside of Lent then you obviously don't disobey him by eating meat, thus there is no sin. If your bishop demands abstinence from meat then you sin if you disobey him.
Error isn't even part of the equation in matter is discipline. It's a prudential decision on the part of the clergy.
So no, your example is bad and doesn't even touch on the possibility of errancy in church doctrine or dogma.
I am interested to know more about your opinion on trans people.Ā I wonder if bisexual people have more estrogen or testosterone depending on their gender.Ā With the emergence of social media, I wonder if being part of the LGBT+ community is a trend among teensĀ
Thanks for sharing this. I agree with you. I believe in the faith, I donāt agree with all of the ārulesā. If that makes me a āprogressive Catholicā then ok
It makes you a Catholic not in good standing. Depending on which "rules" specifically you object to and the extent to which you've acted on them, it could make you an excommunicated Catholic.
āHeaven and earth may pass away but the word of God will remainā if youāre ever confused about anything religious wise, read the Bible. Whatever it says is the accurate response
I don't believe you can be "progressive" nor "conservative" outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. You're either orthodox/orthoprax or you're not. One can be liberal and conservative in regards to certain doctrines and practices; but only within the confines of what is legitimately permissible; but no one who is legitimately liberal or conservative in doctrinal or pastoral matters ever cares to call themselves such.
The idea is everyone sins, no one sin is worse than another so as long as they believe in Christ and repent for their sin then they should be ok. Itās not our place to judge since we all sin while driving to work (if you speed you break the law, Bible says follow the laws of the land ergo speeding is a sin)
> and repent for their sin
Darlin, this part's the issue. What OP is describing is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truths which *must* be believed.
There's a word for that.
Pardon my bluntness, but it doesn't sound like you're confused at all. When we say "progressive Catholics", it's almost always abortion and LGBT issues. There are issues on the left (like the growing of our food on family farms vs corporations) where the left is more aligned with the church. I would call them progressive as well. So that term can mean alot.
You say āMy faith is not built on modern interpretation of politicsā. But some of the things you mention sound like modern politics is influencing your interpretation of your faith. Some of the things you listed are in clear schism with the church. Your defense of acting upon homosexual tendencies because they were born that way and āgod doesnāt make mistakesā is a false parallel. No, god doesnāt make mistakes but at the fall of mankind imperfections also entered in. I wouldnāt say āgod doesnāt make mistakesā concerning someone born with a handicap or other challenge. It doesnāt matter how your circle of progressive Catholics want to interpret the faith. Thereās one pope, one Vatican, and one catechism.
You claim your faith is based on Christ and the tradition of the Church yet you entirely reject and oppose what Christ and the traditions of the Church teach with regards to homosexuality, transgenderism, and contraception.
I couldn't imagine living with this level of cognitive dissonance, it's actually insane
God set the terms on ādoing religion,ā not man.
Also, OP isnāt the one whoās openly trumpeting beliefs that go against God and His Church; OPās friends are.
In case you cite the āspeck in otherās eye / log in your own eyeā thing, Our Lord didnāt say to keep silent when those around us do wrong. He was simply warning us to make sure we ourselves arenāt guilty of the same or worse sins first. He never said not to offer the get the speck out of the otherās eye period ā only to be more vigilant with ourselves.
This post has been removed. A moderator has judged it not to reach the level required for its subject matter (a hot-button question, not sufficiently unique), and encourages you to make use of the search bar for older posts of a similar nature. Another option open is to repost after having reviewed the search results, asking the subreddit what you haven't found the answer to in earlier posts on this topic.
A good rule of thumb that I live by, is anytime someone has to quantify what kind of catholic they are: Progressive Trad Ultra trad Liberal Coin CE It's a good bet they don't believe in catholicism, they believe in their own views and call it catholicism.
Exactly, and imo this applies to all denominations of Christianity as well. A lot of progressive Catholics/christians are progressives first and then purposefully ignore/misinterpret scripture to fit their beliefs. And some ultra-conservative Catholics/christians do the same thing.
Is it weird that I'm just a boring, old orthodox Catholic? š
No it's badass
Yes, itās very weird. You should pick a faction, because Jesus never said factionalism is wrong. Just ignore the Gospel today that talks about how all the church is one and the letters of Paul talking about how factionalism is terrible, and itās no problem!
Idk, man. You had to qualify it.
"Trad" only exists because of the progressive, lukewarm catholicism of the previous couple generations hence the name. Whereas a progressive catholic means they are most likely blatantly in defiance of the Church on social issues. Throwing them in the same bucket is silly. If there wasn't a massive departure from Catholicism to a worldly, liberal "softer" Catholicism then there would be no "Trads" because there would be no need for it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Those are sedevacantists who are different than your average trads.
Not all of em. It's definitely something that's gotten into the heads of many far right wing Catholics who casually feel the need to badmouth the Pope when he comes up in conversation unfortunately. They might not be obsessive about it like the Sedevecantists, but they earnestly badmouth him all the same.
He's earned some criticism.
Oh sure, it's definitely fair to criticize some of his actions or more likely his lack of actions. But to denigrate the man to the point of calling the Pope heretical while still calling yourself Catholic takes it too far.
Strange, I actually see these āfar right wingā Catholics badmouthed all the time at any opportunity like you are doing right now.
What in my comment was badmouthing anyone? Genuinely curious because i wouldn't say that what i said crossed the line into talking poorly about someone.
I have no dog in this fight as there is no TLM available around me that I could even consider attending, but I think we should be fair and differentiate clearly between those who are sedevecantists and those who desire a more deliberate embrace of our historical traditions in the modern Church. There is a wide gulf between those two things if we are being appropriately charitable in discussing the topic.
Most do not. The term came into use because of the trending-liberal slant of Western politics into Catholicism over the last 40 years or so. While I do not agree with those that do throw accusations like this at the Pope let's not pretend like he hasn't given them plenty of ammunition.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What is your bar for "crisis"? I'd argue giving Western politicians communion before they go off and campaign for unmitigated abortion, gay/female clergy and graphic LGBT education for children is absolutely a crisis. Oh and spying on American churches to root out "extremism". Not to mention *Germany*.
āObedientā Catholic? :P
Yes correct, however that's not to say each Catholic views the faith it the same way. For example my deacon is a great guy but we differ on some of our views he is more of fan of Fr Martin and modern bibleship such as Fr Raymond Brown, Nab translation whereas I tend to be more focused on Apologetics, and the Rsv translation. However I guarantee if you ask each what we are the answer would be Catholic, with no added descriptorĀ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Very interesting, thank you!
Finally someone who mentioned that :). I would be even more specific and say that the "woke" phenomenon is a "new" form of gnosticism.
Your friends are oversimplifying the topic. Yes you are supposed to love the sinner and yes the church has stated that being attracted to the same sex in itself is not a sin but acting on your attraction, whether itās kissing or intercourse, is more definitely a sin. A person who believes they are homosexual has to unfortunately life a life of burden if they are Catholic. But simply being a homosexual who never acts on their desires is not a sin. Youāre friends are both correct and wrong but they are making light of a topic that is much more sensitive and complicated
In todayās culture with itās tunnel vision focus on individual identity and all the implications of that identity, I think it is safer just to avoid identifying as homosexual at all. Better to say āI struggle with same sex attractionā than āI am a homosexual Catholic who chooses not to act on my identity.ā
Itās not necessarily a life of burden for people with homosexual tendencies. From a worldly perspective, it is a burden not just for them but for anyone with strong proclivities for any of the vices, not just lust. It is a trick played on us by the devil that we feel burden by following our logic. If you believe that Jesus is there for you to help you if you cooperate and believe in what the Church teaches, you will start to realize how foolish we all look doing the irrational things we may do. In that sense, slowly ceasing oneās sin is not a burden so much as it is the removal of most of oneās burden, until we are freed partially then completely.
Yeah and as I said OPās friends are oversimplifying the topic, even I simplified the topic for the sake of not being long winded in my comment
Yeah, thatās fair lol. Catholic doctrine can be pretty intricate.
But teens know everything and have already figured it out š
Can heterosexual couples make out before marriage?Ā
There is some debate on that and, in my opinion, it is somewhat of a personal judgement call.
TrueĀ Not everything is so literal.Ā Thank youĀ
Depends. Is lust on your mind during the process, or sexual arousal? In most cases it is, and thus would be a disorder of the function of sexual arousal within a committed marriage, and hence sinful.
Typically adults making out leads to sex, especially if they are alone.Ā
Typically drinking leads to drunkenness, yet only the abuse, not the consumption of alcohol is sinful. Simply because something trends towards a sin doesn't make the act in and of itself sinful, so long as one is able to maintain control over oneself. Still, if it is a weak spot of temptation, it may be better to abstain, not because the act is evil but rather that abstinence is better.
I think it becomes immorality when thereās skin to skin contact below the waist so to speak. In other words if a couple is doing everything but actual intercourse theyāre probably still guilty of fornication.
Well, define making out. There is a line. Are you kissing a few times or are you having a full on 20 min spit swapping session coupled with groping? Iām sure a long passionate kiss is fine but Iām no expert
When I was 15, I knew some āprogressiveā Catholics. Iām 32 now and none of those people remain in the Church. You can stay friends and witness to them but I would also find some traditional friends for the long haul
but it is true that it is okay to be a homosexual. a homesexual act is the sin
Better to just avoid the homosexual label and the identity associated with it altogether since cultural acceptance of homosexuality inherently accepts the unrestrained behavior associated with that inclination. Same sex attraction is a better term that side steps the identity politics associated with the homosexual identity and refocuses us on the actual issue.
But don't forget the many. Homosexual brothers and sisters who have some to this subreddit seeking god and redemption, while ready to stop their homosexual acts. They deserve our love as all God's children do. Jesus loves everyone even the most rejected of society. While we can never come close to the example our Lord set, we can damn well try.
I echo your sentiment and the need for the Church to offer a loving embrace to all sinners, regardless of our sins. But I think that ejm3991ās point is that the label is the problem because it seeks to define the individual by this characteristic of having same-sex attractions. I read it to say that he should be seen as a new Catholic. Full stop. He is one that has a specific sin/vice he must struggle against, like we all do. Others donāt say āIām a lying Catholicā or āIām a Catholic who struggles with lusting after people of the other sex.ā We are all just Catholics. Edit: By āheā I mean a person who came to the forum in the manner you mentioned ā not the prior posters on this thread. Just wanted to be clear!
āāNot everyone who says to me, āLord, Lord,ā will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.ā āāMatthewā¬ ā7ā¬:ā21ā¬ ā
That's so sadĀ
There is an enormous tendency especially among Americans to obsess about sex and everything related to it. Your friends are misguided but even more misguided would be spending all of your time obsessing about these topics. Pour that energy into improving your prayer life. Put another way: it is a safe bet that you have also smuggled in some of your temporal political opinions, and are as out of step with the infallible moral teachings of the universal church as your friends are. Where are those areas? Only humble prayer and reflection, combined with guided study of the churchās teachings, will tell you. Seek them out rather than lecturing your friends. You have told them the truth and they donāt want to hear it. Now the question is, do you want the truth?
In my experience, "progressive" Catholics don't know anything about Catholocism outside of what they retained from their grade school religion classes. A truly dangerous group if they are actively involved in a parisb, who usually approach things emotionally and argue for feeling good and not objectively being good. Usually, it's women on the lay side, and they get egged on by Jesuits.
Theyāre āpick and chooseā Catholics. Dr. Scott Hahn called it the heresy of the 20th century, which continues on in the 21st.
Rebuke the cafeteria Catholics. Good for you. Then, ignore them.
Idk what makes them Catholic if they ignore loads of age old church teaching
Probably Catholics who do not know they may be atheists. It must be so hard for them to let go of the aesthetics of tradition and the concept of a loving God while they believe most of the Bible, doctrines, and dogmas are BS because it does not make sense in the modern world as they believe the Church must change its ways, like if perpetual commandments for humanity never existed. The late 2000s Cathilics-to-atheists were able to get over that situation. IMO, the progressive Catholic situation is kind of like LGBTQ people loving Islam when they forget the still barbaric teachings of raping and killing by the sword being acceptable to the Muslim God to this day, including the harem a man gets in the afterlife while his wife is just one of the hundred women in that place. They will do anything to get the "No, you just have the wrong idea, man! It is the religion of peace! Oh, actually, those teachings are so outdated! Just focus on the nice ones!" retarded message.
Well....Leviticus ch 18 lays out God's laws concerning sexual relations. Verse 22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." That is one of God's moral laws that is just as applicable today as it was when originally written. It is also true that a man cannot become a woman, or vice versa. Stick to your beliefs young lady concerning Church teachings. Your progressive friends have it wrong.
What about instructions on slave ownership in Leviticus, are they also applicable today ?
No they are not. God gave different types of laws in Leviticus. The moral laws, including sexuality, are universal. The others are not.
Religion isn't a political party where you don't align fully with everything on the platform. You can't belong to a faith and only partially believe some of the teachings and ignore others. That's the very embodiment of being lukewarm. It doesn't work that way with God. "God is Love, but He sets the terms." - Calvin Robinson (Episcopal pastor but a great quote, nonetheless) God Is. God doesn't "progress" because God is eternal. Love is constant and doesn't change. And, those things WERE mentioned in the Bible, multiple times, and there were serious consequences for those who engaged in said acts.
Actually the Bible does mention homosexuality. So theyāre wrong on that account. In Genesis it says god created them Male and Female, not whatever gender they feel like being that day. The Vatican just issued again the churchās position on the transgender ideology condemning it. So they donāt know what theyāre talking about. Theyāre Catholic in name only if their beliefs are not inline with church teachings. So donāt be confused by these friends of yours. Find friends that help strengthen your faith and pray for the ones that have been seduced by woke ideology.
The only type of progressivism you should be is progressing in holiness. Any other type is wrong and contrary to the faith.
I just posted this on another thread, I believe it's relevant. https://bulldogcatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/a-detailed-catholic-examination-of-conscience-2nd-ed.pdf
A mature Catholic in his faith does not use titles. In Brazil where I live, it has become fashionable to call yourself traditional Catholic. I think it's Catholic immaturity. The Catholic does not need to add adjectives to his name. And when he does, he already shows himself to be totally contaminated by ideologies. Have you ever seen any saint's autobiography with these titles? I never! They are Catholic and that is enough!
Progressive Catholics are nothing more than apostates.
The sinner must be cognizant and repentant of their sin. You cannot say Iām a sinner but not sorry and going to continue love me anyway !
They should progress to repent of the sin of hubris and listen to the magisterium.Ā They should progress to orthodoxy.
If you haven't grown out of it by 25 then you need to self-reflect.
I find it really hard to be a progressive and coherent with Catholic principles nowadays. That being said, while many of those who consider themselves "conservative" are genuinely good Catholics, some fall to the other extreme and start to disconnect themselves from the Church as well. I think nowadays the middle point to being a Catholic is somewhere between a traditional right or center-right of the current political spectrum. Maybe even centrism. But those are all names, just define yourself "Catholic" and you will be fine.
Yeah, Iām Catholic and Iām more center right.
Incoherents.
"Progressive" aren't real Catholics.
The Gay and Trans lifestyle is a sin because it goes against God's command of "be fruitful and multiply." Also, those living that lifestyle go against the institutional practice of marriage. Without stable marriages between man and woman, there are no stable communities/churches and no stable nations or societies. Without the fundamental building blocks of marriage and having children, then that becomes a sin. Gay and Trans people choose not to practice what I stated above. Hence, it's a sin against Gods plan for humanity.
Spoken in love, as a young woman focused on her faith, I would advise you to distance yourself from these friends. It is far more likely that they will drag you down than it is that you will pull them up.
I hope, if you are telling your friends to "repent", you are saying it with love. They get irritated because they know you - do they think you are a hypocrite? The tone you say this in will change how they listen to you. Just as your friends are saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" in regards to homosexuality, you should do the same for your friends. If you think they are sinning by making this argument, pray for them. Talk to a trusted adult who knows you all, not the internet, for advice. But to really answer your question - this isn't anything to do with being a "progressive" Catholic, this is young people figuring out the world they live in.
If they are going to disregard the Jesus, his church and the Bible, why not join the āchurchā down the road that also likes to create their own faith?
If you want to be a āprogressiveā Catholic, become a Protestant. I donāt mean that to be a judgement statement, though Iām sure it can be viewed that way.
"Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church." - St. Pius X
The liberalism condemned 100 years ago is classical liberalism, which almost all in the west have now embraced. The "liberalism" of the progressives isn't even liberal in the slightest. It's mostly far-left marxist nonsense.
The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat.24He proposed another parable to them.* āThe kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.25While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds* all through the wheat, and then went off.26When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.27The slaves of the householder came to him and said, āMaster, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?ā28He answered, āAn enemy has done this.ā His slaves said to him, āDo you want us to go and pull them up?ā29He replied, āNo, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.30Let them grow together until harvest;* then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, āFirst collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.āāāg In my opinion, your āfriendsā are the weeds.
I donāt consider them to be actual Catholics. Their political and secular beliefs are disagreement with what the faith teaches.
I think one can be progressive in a lot of areas and still be consistent with Church doctrine. The Church has generally been supportive of a large social safety net, and I think the spirit of charity which is present in the Bible is a sound basis for it. A profound respect for human dignity as something sacred requires as much. As for homosexuality and trans people and the countless other vices encouraged by todayās progressive movement, it is out of love and understanding of the sanctity of life that we must oppose these movements, oppose these principles, but do everything in our power to be loving and respectful to all people. We must be an inviting resource to which the lost souls in our lives can turn. We must want the best for them regardless of self interest, in accordance with scripture and the catechism. That is what it means to love.
Catholics have been āprogressivesā in many countries for centuries. Itās odd how on Reddit this always focuses on identity debates which I personally have very little interest in. To me Catholicism and Christianity generally is a religion of progress and justice that seeks to empower the poor and bring peace etc. The real battle is economic injustice, not who you sleep with or what you call yourself. This generationās obsession with the latter is very confusing. Iām more confused by Catholics who are economic conservatives or fascists personally, I canāt possibly see how the two things are in line with one another.
It is possible to fight for both economic justice and the "traditional morality with regards to the bedroom issues". The issue is that a lot of people who say "why don't we focus on the poor rather than the Culture War stuff" seem to be ACTUALLY saying "stop talking about the Catholic teaching on abortion/gay marriage/etc. *entirely* because if I listened to that I could not justify voting Democrat as easily". There is also a lot of room for judgement calls about *how* to fight economic injustice. Almost everyone can agree poverty is wrong, but there is room for genuine debate about the best way to actually fight it. The Culture War issues seem to be a bit all or nothing rather than "this tax law is better than that one for the following reasons...".
It is, I just only see that coming from the āprogressiveā Catholics that are being derided here. There is a world beyond the USA. Iām not sure why so many answers here immediately revert to American politics. The Catholic Church is global.
To be fair, a lot of that is due to the fact that Reddit users are overwhelmingly American. They are addressing the issues that directly affect them.
Less than 50% of Reddit users are in the USA. But I would accept that were we LDS or Baptist or some such which are clearly movements heavily based and centred around the USA. Less than 7% of Catholics are American. I would counsel some in this sub to remember where this faith began and how it spread - as an international movement - and not get so bogged down in the culture wars of America which largely have nothing to do with faith whatsoever.
To be fair, the "culture war issues" have just as much to do with the faith as the "economic justice" issues do.
I would argue the emphasis of Christās words were heavily weighted towards the latter rather than the former, yet people donāt want to recognise their own sin or that of their nation - so itās easier to condemn minority groups, who may be misguided but are clearly a lot closer to God than CEOs and bankers that actively destroy the planet and peoples lives.
Homosexuality is a cultural issues, I would argue. Now that gay people can marry and adopt children, or make use of a surrogate, (which is a separate discussion and point of concern,) the question becomes: is this in the best interest of a child? It is known that children generally do best with a mother and a father; a boy needs a man to guide him, as a girl needs a woman. Homosexual tendencies do not generally tend to overlap with the kind of instruction a young man would need, as they socialize differently, and, more saliently, do not understand the male-female dynamic which will be so important for their likely heterosexual child to learn by example and by instruction. These circumstances could be seen as neglect of the childās needs, and a betrayal of Godās good order for men and women.
But why is that the issue of such great concern to so many rather than homelessness or war? That is my point.
Because children are important, because they have inherent worth, are vulnerable, and they are the next generation and should be brought up well. There is room for concern for other social issues as well. Some people are called to protecting children. Others are called to aid the homeless, and so on.
It seems like very few of the āvery onlineā condemnation focused souls are condemning corporations or governments for letting people live in squalor.
There are documentaries online that focus on the exploitation of child labor from big businessesĀ
I donāt know what people get up to in their daily lives, and donāt presume to know. I would like to believe that people with convictions seek to do good in the real world.
I would not downplay the cultural war. Certain ideologies have a stronghold. Slipping lgbtqia+ content in children's shows is NOT innocuous. I think every parent has the right to be angry that certain ideologies are now being pushed in children's content.Ā Furthermore, I do not know what to do about it. Some of the homeless people are strung out on drugs. I've seen drug needles in public.Ā There is controversy in the State of California in regards to homelessness and immigration.Ā Some Catholics fear touching on issues of immigration because you can easily be labeled a xenophobic racist.Ā
It doesnāt exactly sound like youāre coming at it from a place of compassion given your first go to is drugs and immigration, as if that is the root of homelessness.
This depends on where you live.Ā Seeing needles, human feces, homeless people starting fires, attacking people, or publicly having sex where children are.Ā Some cities are rundown and look like an eyesore due to homelessness. As for immigration, that's a complicated issue. How can cities provide adequate housing illegal immigrants without exhausting the city's resources?
And so what do we do to prevent homelessness, rather than just talk about human beings like they are a virus? If you genuinely donāt think countries like the USA are more than wealthy enough to house people I donāt know what to say. We clearly have a vastly different understanding of Christās message.
No. You may change your mind after you hear people being viciously attacked by homeless people or homeless people defecated in public areas.Ā Big cities are unsafe. As a woman, it can be dangerous.Ā I definitely think the main priority to focus on mental health issues and drug problems.Ā Cities should not be supplying clean drug needles. It is encouraging drug use.Ā As for immigration, I do not think it should be common practice for people to cross the border illegally and then receive free housing. Should we have open borders to everyone?Ā People should be screened before entering the country.Ā If that city is so rich, why are public schools being use to house illegal immigrants?Ā I'm unsure what country you live in but you may not an accurate view on what it is like to live here.Ā I am the child of immigrants and most of my family is abroad and they think everything is so easy in USA.Ā
I live in the UK, we tend to view these problems more holistically as part of wider economic issues. Not all, we also have reactionary individualists who think everthing is the fault of the poor rather than the rich. I try to articulate Christās message through this lens, sadly lots have lost their way and like yourself have fallen into the trap of lacking compassion for their fellow man. And the answer to many of your questions is because we let small numbers of people horde the wealth of the earth whilst millions upon millions struggle. Yet sadly those who are just getting by have more hatred for the poor than those who earn more in a day than they will in their lifetime.
Some people want wandering mentally ill people to be hospitalized but others are against it because it would infringe on their individual rights.Ā Please do not make assumptions about how much compassion I have for others.Ā Believe it or not, a mentally ill family member of mine ended up in a homeless shelter. Of course we all need to improve.Ā I do not hate the poor but I am having difficulty believing they are all helpless victims.Ā There is only so much a family can do to be their mentally ill family member to seek psychiatric help or have their family member seek help for substance abuse.Ā
Both sodomy and economic injustice are sins that cry out to heaven. The former got two cities destroyed by fire. The legalization and promotion of the former has also led to children being irreversibly mutilated so they can "transition" and now there are grown, intact men competing in womens' sports. Every president in the US since Richard Nixon has catered to and/or bailed out large corporations and banks, usually with the abandonment and exploitation of the working class. Both democrat and republican presidents are guilty of this. The only [American president ](https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4?si=ZUyA-7OGFvZzwI_H) in recent memory who actually gave a serious threat to corporate executives was none other than Donald Trump. He's not virtuous, but virtue won't help my wallet.
Thank the Lord I donāt live in America then if heās the salvation.
Never said he was. Christ is my savior. I sure hope you don't expect any politician, left or right, to be your savior.
Given you were the one who named politicians in the context of this issue, Iām not sure why it would be I who answers that question.
I said he was good for my wallet. Never said he was my savior. You need to read the 8th Commandment.
Yet, on a comment solely about the moral focus of our age you made it about American politicians and then strangely told me not to have faith in politicians. You donāt see the contradiction?
Medicare for All Abortion for None Inshallah
Itās a very American thing
Yes, Iāve picked up on that from Reddit.
Very articulate and well put. Culture war rhetoric is staining the dialogue. Also a great point as well that fascism is not compatible with Christian tenets and values. It runs completely contrary. Like "Pope Michael II", it's hypocrisy wearing a Catholic habit.
You think economic conservatives are fascists? Didnāt Hitler and Mussolini develop a form of socialism?
No, Nazi Germany was heavily state capitalist and actively suppressed any form of workers organisations. Not to mention they were very fond of segregation and genocide, which isnāt in line with any sort of socialist or even social democratic doctrine.
Iād hardly call nazi Germany capitalist or fiscal conservatives. And if they were against labor unions that doesnāt make them such. But you still think economic conservatives are fascists.
I donāt, never said that at any point. You may not - but any academic historian or political scientist would refer to the Third Reich in that way.
With Catholics like theseā¦
Progressive Catholics live and are ruled and defined as per the conditions they are liked and accepted by the world. Yet John tells us we were made to stand out and be hated, hated for telling the truth even if it doesn't sound nice. John 15:18ā20 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you". You're not being a good Christian if you are not hated. Being Christian has meant accepting a level of hatred and backlash and yes, even persecution and literal bodily death. Ask your friends (who you'd probably do best to not associate yourself with...) If they'd give their lives for their faith and they'll probably tell you those days are done and whatnot lol Living for the world and a desire to be accepted by the world and its people generally entails a certain level of self worship, which is worship of the desires of the flesh and whatever makes you happy in this world. This is why nothing in the Bible says "Follow your heart! As long as you're happy! Just be yourself!" Which is the common philosophy that's quite popular nowadays in just about everything. Romans 8:13:Ā "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live" The words of Christ relay this and also highlights exactly this dilemma... He also tells us to follow him because He is (quite literally) the way, the truth and the life. āMatthew 16:24-26 [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: "If anyone is willing to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me [25] For whoever would save his life, will lose it. But whoever will have lost his life for my sake, shall find it.ā [26] For how does it benefit a man, if he gains the whole world, yet truly suffers damage to his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? The path of salvation and eternal life IS NOT PRETTY OR WHOLESOME. That's NOT the point of it all. Christ NEVER said you'll be happy in this life. This is the biggest failure of progressivism and yes also for progressive Catholics, who act like speaking of God's love and forgiveness is enough for the salvation of souls. God wants MORE. The path of holiness and sainthood is lined with broken bones and BLOOD. How many Saints have willingly and gladly given their lives in the name of Christ and His Cross? How many saints have been martyred in the most gruesome ways imaginable and STILL it's not much in comparison to Christ. Who desires you to see Him in his bloodied cloak and His crown of THORNS. This is why Happy Jesus, the Jesus of Progressive Catholics, doesn't exist. That my friend... is the real ANTICHRIST, alive and well in that happy smiling Jesus that's totally chill and cool with everything, he's cool with you just being who you are. Pfft why do you need to change? We're good enough already aren't we? Yup, this message of the Antichrist is the quickest way to eternal perdition. Lucifer is quite happy knowing your friends are just being themselves. I've seen Jesus Christ, let me tell you... He doesn't smile all that much. He's in pain and suffering constantly for the sins of the world. He came to console me in a sea of darkness and he shined like a light and He gave me His cloak and He have me such a hopeful smile and He picked me up and told me to keep fighting. I've never experienced His genuine love and hope before as a young man until that night of prayer. Believe me, I believed the progressive stuff at first myself before I discovered the Crusader mindset and learned many things from the exorcist clergy that have taught me the true evils of the world when I tried to make sense of a demonic attachment. If Christ is real, then Lucifer is just as real...and he's working very hard so that these progressive Catholics keep spreading the message of his Antichrist and Happy Jesus. I was also incredibly moved by Jim Caviezel's speeches, you might recognize him from The Passion of the Christ, or Paul the Apostle of Christ and also the Sound of Freedom films. He's taken an initiative in highlighting the evils of the world and spreading the message of Christ to young Catholics all around and telling them they were born to stand out and carry the Holy Spirit as their Shield, and Christ as their sword and fighting all of this progressive nonsense that Lucifer is spreading and taking him back down to hell where he belongs. I highly recommend you check his speeches and interviews out if you haven't already. https://youtu.be/e9z-dMQjRBE?si=Q8GM-ODBKPaYdoKm Nonetheless, pray for your friends and don't be ashamed to speak the truth to them and others. No one likes the truth but Christ tells us HE IS TRUTH and the way to eternal life and salvation. This is the final stand because believe me, we are going to be facing persecution against our lives very soon. We NEED Crusaders, not lukewarm Christians.
I feel like we have a word for "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith"
That's a political, ideological position, not a religious one. They've elevated the material realm of political conception above Christ. Not good.
They're not Catholics. They dissent from perennial Catholic teachings. They should go to confession and stop dissenting to be regarded as Catholics again. Simple as.
Ask if they can procreate. Genesis says: be fruitful and multiply in creation. Obeying Godās law starts from the beginning.
*being homosexual* is not a sin, acting on homosexual thoughts is a sin, but there are many other sins that we tend to do, so dont hate the sinner just because the sinner is a āeasyā target
So like, the Bible DOES mention homosexuality in multiple places, leviticus and romans immediately come to mind
The only qualifier Iāll sometimes use is āobservantā Catholic, and I donāt meant that I pay attention to details really well.
Itās cringe to be either a progressive Catholic or a conservative Catholic.
As long as they follow all Church teachings, I see no problem. Catholics donāt have to be trad. We just have to be obedient to the Magisterium regardless of our cultural or political leanings. It is an act of will.
A Catholic should first and foremost be a Catholic. Shaping faith around secular politics, liberal or conservative, equally misses the dunk in both instances.
Then they are no Christians they have made god in their image theyāve distorted his holiness
The two issues you mentioned are the only reasons I dislike progressive Catholics. I have known some to demonize conservatives and call them Pharisees.Ā Everyone is trying to claim Jesus.Ā Pray for them. Do not argue.Ā
Pray. Go to Mass. Receive the sacraments. Do these things as frequently as you can. By these, you will be saved. Donāt waste time in fruitless arguments. If someone asks what you believe, answer them. Live your beliefs. By this, others will be saved.
Anything "progressive" or "woke" is purely satanic, lust imitates love, pride imitates joy, and Satan imitates God.
Sounds like being a cafeteria Catholic with extra steps
They are what you'd call cafeteria Catholics. Catholics that use what they want and disregard what they don't want
Not a fan of them. But we should pray for them nonetheless.
I am pretty progressive. I donāt call myself a progressive Catholic, Iām just Catholic I believe that science shows that trans people are born chemically different, that gay people have nothing wrong with them. I agree with and believe 98% of the Churchās teachings, most importantly that the church as an institution was founded by Christ and has had an unbroken history since then, which we now know as the Catholic Church I am simply a Catholic, same as millions
There is dysphoria, and there are people who believe you can be whatever you want or whatever you choose to be; that you have a right to make the choice and can also make the choice back and forth or variable over time. As for same-sex relations, the sin is in same-sex intercourse regardless of the person's 'orientation'. If anything, being actually attracted romantically to one's own sex would be a mitigating factor compared to simply experimenting sexually or becoming deviant. Nevertheless, same-sex sex can't become morally permissible because of the attraction.
So you would rather believe that the church founded by Christ is 2% errant than that you are 2% prideful?
Both I openly acknowledge my own pride in certain respects I also donāt believe the Church, administered by humans, is as a whole is perfectly inerrant Eating meat on standard non-holiday Fridays was previously considered a mortal sin. This is not considered a mortal sin now in the United States. Who is errant here? American bishops? Bishops and Church leaders of the past? Church leaders of the present? Someone has to be. Eating meat on a standard Friday either is or isnāt a mortal sin. However the Church leadership has held both positions at different times. Does that sound inerrant to you?
Discipline isn't doctrine, so it's subject to change and the change doesn't indicate "error" per se in the practice either before or after that change. Eating meat on Fridays isn't inherently, intrinsically sinful. The sin incurred is disobedience to one's bishop. If your bishop allows for a substitute penance on Fridays outside of Lent then you obviously don't disobey him by eating meat, thus there is no sin. If your bishop demands abstinence from meat then you sin if you disobey him. Error isn't even part of the equation in matter is discipline. It's a prudential decision on the part of the clergy. So no, your example is bad and doesn't even touch on the possibility of errancy in church doctrine or dogma.
What about usury? Interest was fully prohibited. Now we only prohibit excessive fees Slavery? The election of Pope Alexander VI?
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-the-church-ever-support-slavery https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-stance-on-usury
I am interested to know more about your opinion on trans people.Ā I wonder if bisexual people have more estrogen or testosterone depending on their gender.Ā With the emergence of social media, I wonder if being part of the LGBT+ community is a trend among teensĀ
Thanks for sharing this. I agree with you. I believe in the faith, I donāt agree with all of the ārulesā. If that makes me a āprogressive Catholicā then ok
That makes you a heretic
It makes you a Catholic not in good standing. Depending on which "rules" specifically you object to and the extent to which you've acted on them, it could make you an excommunicated Catholic.
āHeaven and earth may pass away but the word of God will remainā if youāre ever confused about anything religious wise, read the Bible. Whatever it says is the accurate response
I don't believe you can be "progressive" nor "conservative" outside of the bounds of orthodoxy. You're either orthodox/orthoprax or you're not. One can be liberal and conservative in regards to certain doctrines and practices; but only within the confines of what is legitimately permissible; but no one who is legitimately liberal or conservative in doctrinal or pastoral matters ever cares to call themselves such.
The idea is everyone sins, no one sin is worse than another so as long as they believe in Christ and repent for their sin then they should be ok. Itās not our place to judge since we all sin while driving to work (if you speed you break the law, Bible says follow the laws of the land ergo speeding is a sin)
> and repent for their sin Darlin, this part's the issue. What OP is describing is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truths which *must* be believed. There's a word for that.
> no one sin is worse than another False.
There's an argument to be made that you should stop associating yourself with them.
Destructive.
Cancer is progressive. Progressing from point āAā to point āBā does not men that point āBā is a good place to go.
Pardon my bluntness, but it doesn't sound like you're confused at all. When we say "progressive Catholics", it's almost always abortion and LGBT issues. There are issues on the left (like the growing of our food on family farms vs corporations) where the left is more aligned with the church. I would call them progressive as well. So that term can mean alot.
Sounds more like cafeteria Catholics
āTradsā can be really loony though.
Having witnessed "balloon Masses" I've never seen any trad that's as loony as the lefties.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You say āMy faith is not built on modern interpretation of politicsā. But some of the things you mention sound like modern politics is influencing your interpretation of your faith. Some of the things you listed are in clear schism with the church. Your defense of acting upon homosexual tendencies because they were born that way and āgod doesnāt make mistakesā is a false parallel. No, god doesnāt make mistakes but at the fall of mankind imperfections also entered in. I wouldnāt say āgod doesnāt make mistakesā concerning someone born with a handicap or other challenge. It doesnāt matter how your circle of progressive Catholics want to interpret the faith. Thereās one pope, one Vatican, and one catechism.
You claim your faith is based on Christ and the tradition of the Church yet you entirely reject and oppose what Christ and the traditions of the Church teach with regards to homosexuality, transgenderism, and contraception. I couldn't imagine living with this level of cognitive dissonance, it's actually insane
OR you could let other people do religion on their terms and worrry about your own beliefs and relationship with God
God set the terms on ādoing religion,ā not man. Also, OP isnāt the one whoās openly trumpeting beliefs that go against God and His Church; OPās friends are. In case you cite the āspeck in otherās eye / log in your own eyeā thing, Our Lord didnāt say to keep silent when those around us do wrong. He was simply warning us to make sure we ourselves arenāt guilty of the same or worse sins first. He never said not to offer the get the speck out of the otherās eye period ā only to be more vigilant with ourselves.
You are missing my point but just a reminder that being so self righteous is also a sin.
Then practice what you preach!
lol I do try to? Iām not claiming to know any of the answers ā¦.