Liberal Protestantism and Liberal Catholicism

InsideCatholic.com ^ | 12/08/08 | David R. Carlin

[Salvation]

Liberal Protestantism and Liberal Catholicism

by David R. Carlin   

12/08/08

 

Catholic liberals (by which I mean theological liberals, not political liberals) never cease to amaze me. On the one hand, they appear to have a sincere devotion to their religion. On the other, they campaign for moral and theological changes that, if carried into effect, would tend to destroy their Church.

 

Why do I say this? Because the history of Protestantism has made it perfectly clear what happens when a Christian church turns liberal or modern. Unless a Catholic is quite unfamiliar with the sad history of liberal Protestantism, he would not call for the theological liberalization or modernization of Catholicism.

 

In America, liberal Protestantism has always had three characteristics: (1) It is an attempt to find a compromise or via media between traditional Christianity and the fashionable anti-Christianity of the day. (2) In seeking this compromise, it drops certain traditional Christian beliefs as so much excess baggage. (3) To atone, so to speak, for this weakening of doctrine, it intensifies its moral commitments.

 

Three great "moments" in the history of American liberal Protestantism illustrate what I mean here. The first was the emergence of Unitarianism in the first quarter of the 19th century. The fashionable anti-Christianity of the day was Deism -- as found, for instance, in one of the writings of Tom Paine (The Age of Reason). So Unitarianism, in pursuit of a via media, dropped the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Original Sin, and a few other Christian doctrines. To make up for these discards, it strongly committed itself to the anti-slavery cause.

 

The second moment was the emergence of Modernism at the close of the 19th century and the opening of the 20th, at a time when the fashionable form of anti-Christianity was Agnosticism (e.g., Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley in England, and, in the United States, that skeptical windbag Robert Ingersoll). Modernistic Protestantism did not, like the earlier Unitarians, openly reject traditional doctrines so much as it affirmed its beliefs in these doctrines in an equivocal way. For instance, your modernistic Protestant would claim to believe in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.; but when you carefully examined what he meant by these beliefs, you would find that he didn't really hold them at all. Instead, he believed in something else, but he twisted the meaning of the traditional Christian phrases so that they would apply to his new and very non-traditional beliefs. (Many liberal Protestants --Marcus Borg, for example -- do the same thing today.) To make up for this casting off of doctrine, the modernist had a strong commitment to the "social gospel."

 

The third moment was the response to the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s. This Revolution was the then-fashionable form of anti-Christianity, and it remains the fashion today. Liberal Protestantism, searching as ever for a via media, gave its conditional blessing to premarital sex, unmarried cohabitation, abortion, homosexuality, and -- more recently -- same-sex marriage. I say "conditional" because, instead of giving a blanket endorsement to these practices, as anti-Christians did, liberal Protestantism said it would endorse them only when those undertaking them did so in a thoughtful, prayerful, and loving way. In this third moment, the intensification of moral commitments no longer has to do with corollaries of Christian morality -- as in the earlier cases of abolitionism and social justice -- but with a strong commitment to elements of an anti-Christian sexual morality.

 

 

Liberal Protestants of any one generation have always said something like this: "We'll discard elements A, B, and C of traditional Christianity, but no more; we'll stop there." But the next generation says: "If our parents could drop ABC, we'll drop DEF -- but we'll stop there." Of course, it never stops. Once the "right to drop" is embraced, eventually everything will be dropped.

 

For the better part of 200 years, then, liberal Protestantism has been emptying itself of Christian content. First it got rid of Christian doctrinal content; more recently it has got rid of Christian moral content. Of course the liberals will claim that they have got rid of the inessential "over-beliefs" of Christianity and have boiled the religion down to its essential content, namely love of neighbor. That this love of neighbor largely consists of tolerating and encouraging what Christianity has always counted as serious sin is a reductio ad absurdum of that claim.

 

Who can be surprised, then, that the Protestant denominations that have been seriously infected with liberalism (the so-called "mainline churches") are rapidly declining in numbers, not just in relation to the national population generally but even in absolute numbers?

 

And who can be surprised that American Catholicism, many of whose members turned in a theologically liberal direction after Vatican II, is also declining? The Catholic decline, to be sure, is masked by the sloppy way in which American Catholicism counts its members. You're counted as a Catholic if you were baptized Catholic. That means that millions and millions of people are counted as Catholic who are quite indifferent, and in many cases downright hostile, to Catholicism. If, more realistically, we count as Catholic only those who continue to be somewhat serious about the religion -- for example, by going to church once a week -- we'll see that there has been a steep decline.

 

Those Catholics who are not ignorant of the history of liberal Protestantism cannot, if they are honest with themselves, favor the theological liberalization of Catholicism. But, of course, some historically well-informed people are not honest with themselves, while vast numbers of Catholics -- including many Catholic priests and more than a few Catholic bishops -- are immensely ignorant of the history of liberal Protestantism. And so Catholicism in America continues to slide downhill.

 

---

David R. Carlin is the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

[jenk]

I live in a rural area. I believe small groups anywhere closely represent large groups anywhere, microcosms. I gave a short informational speech at my local Daughters of Isabella meeting prior to election day about Obama’s voting record on abortion, and talked about what the Vatican and leading bishops were saying about Obama and the Democrat Party.

Judging from the looks I got, and one very outspoken woman, about 30% were astounded and probably already Republicans. About 30% were visibly uncomfortable, not sure if they were Democrats or just hate controversy. About 30% were angry one woman raised her hand in defiance of the news and said, “well, to hear you tell it, we are only supposed to vote Republican.” I said, “that’s just what the Vatican is saying, ma’am.” She continued, “well that’s not right, I think we need to help poor people.”

By the way, the other 10%, probably didn’t hear a word I said.

The Catholic Faith consists of many people who attend Mass regularly and do not even consider the abortion issue much maybe because it is unpleasant, maybe because they figure it is the law of the land, or maybe because they don’t know the Democrat Party is wholly pro-death.

Anyway, that’s what I think.

[JSteff]

“I voted for the candidates who fell in line on most of my issues and would be most supportive of our troops in harms way.”

Interesting. To be truly supportive of our men and women in uniform, (my daughter was over in the Middle East) any candidate would have to have been in power.

So that is how I voted, knowing that bHo would not be and would work against the country our troops serve. So considering I had blood over there, I was very interested in who would have a chance to be the commander in cheif of our troops.

McCain was NOT the best candidate available to us, but given the realism of the election, there was NO other who had a chance to be the Commander in Chief.

So then the REALISM is that there was not other choice. All other votes I thought would be wasted and were, except to make me “feel” better.

“Feeling” is not what is best for our troops. Us doing it would be selfish considering where they are. They are not allowed to work on feelings, those are a luxury for folks here who are safe and cozy in the U.S. Our troops did not have a luxury of voting or working under every 3rd or 4th string candidate. Particularly based on our “feelings”.

Given that reality, I voted what had the best chance that they would have the best Commander. As I said all other votes were wasted or against the troops best interests.

But that was my opinion and I had blood under the gun and voted accordingly.

[incredulous joe]

I’m afraid that I honestly don’t follow your logic.

Who did you vote for?

[incredulous joe]

It is a strange mix.

I’m not familiar with Daughter’s of Isabella.

I’ve done some consulting work for several religious orders and Catholic organizations. Recently, I discussed a position with a religious order about assisting them in th area of marketing their ministry and vocations.

I would not necessarily say that this order was liberal, or for that matter conservative, but the vast majority of these sisters do not wear habits and my quick research on them, prior to speaking with them, shows activism on behalf of sex workers in Asia and water rights. They also view the UN as a viable source of dialogue on world issues.

I was confused as to why abortion would not be at the top of their list?

Very nice women, performing selfless work and living prayerful lives, but maybe a little soft in the head on political issues.

The more conservative women’s religious orders seem to be experiencing a renaissance, while what I would call the more liberal seem to be graying, diminishing and dying off.

I never got to a stage in my discussion with this group on what my recommendations would be for bolstering vocations, but they might not have been readily accepted anyway; put on a modest habit, get myspace and facebook accounts and go down to the youth Mass in DC on January 22nd and you will be certain to meet lots of young women who are very interested in serving God and might even consider making a lifetime commitment of service if there were a stronger commitment to issues such as pro-life and “one man, one woman”.

In fairness to this particular order they do have ministry in Rachel’s Vinyard, which is a very valuable ministry. The women in this movement are one of the greatest assets to the pro-lifers. It just seems to me that it would be better to address the abortion issue before it gets to this stage.

[laotzu]

I am currently “In between churches”

If you are near San Antonio, I belong to a Baptist church that I am proud to recommend.

[Alex Murphy]

For the better part of 200 years, then, liberal Protestantism has been emptying itself of Christian content. First it got rid of Christian doctrinal content; more recently it has got rid of Christian moral content. Of course the liberals will claim that they have got rid of the inessential "over-beliefs" of Christianity and have boiled the religion down to its essential content, namely love of neighbor. That this love of neighbor largely consists of tolerating and encouraging what Christianity has always counted as serious sin is a reductio ad absurdum of that claim.

"...These two world views [Christian theism vs naturalist, impersonal matter or energy shaped by impersonal chance] stand as totals in complete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results--including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.
It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to produce different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that they will bring forth different results..."
- Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, page 2.

Who can be surprised, then, that the Protestant denominations that have been seriously infected with liberalism (the so-called "mainline churches") are rapidly declining in numbers, not just in relation to the national population generally but even in absolute numbers?

And who can be surprised that American Catholicism, many of whose members turned in a theologically liberal direction after Vatican II, is also declining? The Catholic decline, to be sure, is masked by the sloppy way in which American Catholicism counts its members. You're counted as a Catholic if you were baptized Catholic. That means that millions and millions of people are counted as Catholic who are quite indifferent, and in many cases downright hostile, to Catholicism. If, more realistically, we count as Catholic only those who continue to be somewhat serious about the religion -- for example, by going to church once a week -- we'll see that there has been a steep decline.

"...Ours is a post-Christian world in which Christianity, not only in the number of Christians but in cultural emphasis and cultural result, is no longer the consensus or ethos of our society.

Do not take this lightly! It is a horrible thing for a man like myself to look back and see my country and my culture go down the drain in my own lifetime. It is a horrible thing that sixty years ago you could move across this country and almost everyone, even non-Christians, would have known what the gospel was. A horrible thing that fifty to sixty years ago our culture was built on the Christian consensus, and now this is no longer the case..."
- Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster

[HamiltonJay]

“Liberal” Catholics are nothing more then heretics and blasphemers.

They really should leave the church, and take their pick of the pleathera of watered down dumbed down theologies already wandering about the wasteland.

[Ransomed]

I bet the clergy, in general, are more liberal than the laity. I bet the bishops, in general, are way more liberal than the rest of the clergy. It’s a testament to America and the Catholic faith that the laity isn’t even more liberal, in my opinion.

Freegards

[HamiltonJay]

Some of them are, a minority, and that’s the problem. They are not being shown the error of their ways or being told to leave, by and large.

Of course a lot of the Catholic Church’s problems in the US go back to a horrific decision that allowed “gay but not practicing” into the priesthood. This has caused some diocese to become nothing more than orgy houses for these sickos as they trade favors and position amongst each other, and drive anyone in the ranks opposed to their nonsense out to the boonies.

The Pope really needs to clean house in many of these dioceses, and many of the laypeople have no idea how bad their dioceses are in regards to this mess.

[Ransomed]

I believe that some day in the future, the Church will look back at the bishop’s refusal to use public discipline in order to teach what the Church believes about baby butchery as a scandal dwarfing the homosexualist priest scandal. But I reckon it’s possible that we wouldn’t have the abortion scandal without the homosexualist priest scandal.

Freegards

[jenk]

The D of I is a laywoman’s service organization within the Catholic Church. We are sort of the female version of the Knights of Columbus. We raise money to give to various causes in the community, as well as scholarships.

I wouldn’t call us a strange mix. I believe any group of Catholic women would have a similar mix of people. Some vote pro-life, some believe they must vote Democrat because the Democrats have successfully labeled Republicans as rich people who do not care about the poor. It is as though the abortion issue is not as important to them.

I have come to realize that many Catholics still believe Kennedy was the best president because he was Catholic. They don’t necessarily pay attention to politics and, if you think about it, if one is only passively listening to politics, one would not hear anything about Mr. Obama’s abortion stance. It was above his pay grade.

My point is that the Catholic vote typically goes Democrat not because most Catholics are leftists like Ted Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden etc... but because they do not understand that the Democrat party is officially the party of death.

[incredulous joe]

I agree. I'm not apt to fault Catholics who vote for Obama for being knowledgeable of the issues. I do think there is a certain tendency to “avert the eyes” to the truth.

My mom grew up what I call “trade union democrat” and. for whatever reason, despite the tremendous changes in the party politics, was unable to ever switch over to the GOP, despite the fact that she was not really in agreement with most of their policies.

It's very strange and not particularly based on logic and for this reason I really don't mix it up with this kind of mentality. It leads to arguments that can never be won.

Curious what the Catholics who loved Kennedy so much thought about the fact that he was responsible for wire tapping of MLK, cheated on his wife and possibly was responsible for the death of Marylin Monroe.

More “averting of the eyes” and circular arguments.

[steadfastconservative]

I agree with what you’ve said here. I would especially agree that those who fall away from the Church do so out of laziness or apathy. They stop going to Mass regularly and quickly become infected with the hedonism and relativism of our culture.

And your observations really aren’t off topic. Only 25% to 30% of baptized Catholics practice the faith and attend Mass on Sundays. The other 70% to 75% are counted as Catholics in surveys about the political and religious beliefs of Catholics even though most of them rarely if ever attend church and many of them have left the Church entirely.

[jenk]

yup.

[Desdemona]

I bet the clergy, in general, are more liberal than the laity. I bet the bishops, in general, are way more liberal than the rest of the clergy.

The young ones coming through the ranks now, no. They are not liberal in any way and there are MANY choir directors and liturgists bemoaning that fact. I hear it all the time. Sorry, people, but the 80's are gone and the liberal bishops are retiring and dying out.

[Ransomed]

Well, I hope you are right. My own limited observations would tend to support what you’ve said. But the whole hierarchy really messed up when you’ve got whole areas of the country where well edjumacated Catholics are the exception. In my own diocese, there are generations of Catholics that don’t know what’s what on account of the lack of teaching.

Freegards

[SuziQ]

Isn’t it AMAZING how politics and religion KILL???

Wrong. PEOPLE who have distorted both, are the ones who do the killing.

[briarbey b]

Wrong. PEOPLE who have distorted both, are the ones who do the killing.
****
Seems even Christ could not avoid such a poisonous mixture of politics and religion...what makes people think they can?

[marshmallow]

Liberal Protestantism and Liberal Catholicism

Liberal Catholicism is Protestantism.

[Coleus]

bttt.