birdog1960

then there's this including comments from several irish bishops. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ireland.gay.marriage.referendum.meet.the.priests.who.are.voting.yes/54392.htm are they not Catholic either? "Of course we cannot leave our religiously based moral convictions outside the polling station, but we do need to remember the difference between civil and religious law." "As a follower of Jesus, the a la carte Jew who recognised when certain laws had run their courses, I am convinced that now is the right time to have marriage equality"

ireland is about 85% Catholic yet a referendum on gay marriage passed by a large measure. Same-sex marriage was backed by 62 percent of voters in one of the largest turnouts ever in a referendum in Ireland, marking a dramatic shift in a traditionally Catholic country that only decriminalised homosexuality two decades ago. ​are all those irish catholics actually not Catholics?

if you refer to discord between church teaching and Catholics personal views, then the majority of American catholics meet that criteria: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/03/vatican-synod-on-family-highlights-discord-between-church-teachings-and-u-s-catholics-views-2/

i know exactly what you want. you want everything labelled in neat boxes with yes/no answers. you want a checklist that defines a person as a Christian by the percentage of "correct" answers she gives. that's simplistic and ridiculous. but it makes it easier for those without much in the way of intellect.

only when he speaks ex cathedra. francis is yet to do that. i don't think benedict did it at all. there are actually very few examples it's a common misconception. don't feel obliged to feel embarrassed.

rubbish. the church is not of one opinion on every subject. there are many practicing, active Catholics considered in good standing that are not in lock step regarding theology. there has always been theological debate within the vast church. it occasionally leads to excommunication and censure but pretty rarely. America is unique in habving generally conservative bishops but quite liberal nuns and laity, in general. in some of the rest of the world, there is a much more liberal prevailing attitude of bishops and priests, for example in S america from which Francis came. This article http://www.thenation.com/article/167986/american-nuns-guilty-charged explains one aspect of the schism in the american church. things have softend somewhat since then. the resolution of the inquiry into the nuns did not result in them losing their positions much less excommunication. an olive branch was extended. tensions still exist and there is more to play out but it's clear that there are liberal Christians within the church including the clergy. if positions are ultimately deemed incompatible with the faith, i suspect some will move to other Christian faiths. I actually know a nun that has done that. oh and the affirmation was for me to act as godfather in a parish in another country where i was unknown. it was in writing.

i could not care less what you have difficulty seeing. very often it appears you have difficulty recognizing the truth. i'm in good standing within the church. it was recently affirmed formally for a baptism. Catholicism is a galaxy (the largest) within the universe of Christianity. It is the parent to all other forms. in those ways they are related. you all turned this into a defense of my personal beliefs. i'm quite comfortable with them. the Catholic heirarrchy has also become much more tolerant of different opinions since the election of Francis. remember those mouthy liberal American nuns that were brought to heel? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/the-vatican-s-rare-nod-to-american-nuns.html# that's over. while they've softened some positions, so has the church. are you Catholic or do you just imagine this extremely rigid and unforgiving institution? your impression seem badly misguided to me. regardless, the discussion originated on the possibilty of the existence of liberal Christians. the argument is ridiculous on its face and should have been left at that.

once again, i don't accept your authority to define Christianity. every reformed church, beginning with martin luther, within Christianity has chosen their own version. by your reasoning, they are all illegitimate. some people actually believe that. i don't. i see it as a big tent that can accomodate many different people. i think each flavor likely has gotten some things right and somew things wrong. as pope francis has said, christianity should act as a field hospital for the sick in faith and spirit. it should be inclusive and inviting not exclusive and condemning. “The thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds. ... And you have to start from the ground up. From “A Big Heart Open to God,” America magazine Sept

who asks them to believe? you? some conservative bible college graduate preacher? i largely follow the beliefs and doctrine of the Catholic church. in some areas i disagree. So do millions of Catholics and Christians. by your reasoning, anyone using birth control is not a legitimate Catholic. anyone that supports the death penalty is not Christian. it's just not that simple and you are certainly not entitled to decide who is Christian and who is not. in Catholicism we have the cathecism. it documents the interpretations of these biblical passages and applies them to everyday life. it's based on tradition in most cases. sometimes the pope speaks ex cathedra on such issues but very rarely. there is much within the history of the church that illustrates the importance of these interpretations and vestiges remain.. Stations of the cross for example. relics. statues. it should be remembered that there were many illiterate believers until very recently.

wow. it'sa almost like 3 separate but possibly not separate posters attempted the same weak strategy to invalidate my incluysion in Christianity. i doesn't matter if it one of you or 3 of you. you are not in a position to make the call. the litmus test is God as judge. there is no other. and of course i don't believe a literal interpretation of the bible. how old was methusala? does 40 days always actually mean 40 days? was the world created in 6 days? no. this is for people that cannot understand symbolism and ancient literary devices. this is why the Catholic church for centuries interpreted the bible for people.

i don't agree with your assumption that this question is a litmus test to validate one's Christianity. it's that simple. btw, we are all sinners. there would be no Christians if sinners were excluded.

ba,ha,ha,ha...you as the moral compass? defining what is and isn't Christian? snort, snort, belly laugh! there are millions of Christians that would by any reasonable definition be considered liberal. and with a wave of your hand you deny them the possibility of being legitimate because of their beliefs. such opinions just don't seem very charitable, er,.. Christian... judge not...

back to ignore. you're not worth the trouble. you add nothing to the discussion

no, i'm not going to respond. my opinion on that issue is irrelevant to the discussion as is my opinion on gay marriage or women priests or a plethora of other issues. i'm making the point that there are a large number of liuberal Christians in direct contradiction to another poster that stated this not to be the case. and i have amply shown him to be wrong and shown my assertrion to be true. it's a technique ya'll should try some time.

what? huh? all i see is the far to common ppp argument of "because i say so". you're not very good at attacking my argument. you're woefully inadequate at building your own.

even more liberals

i can reconcile it in the same way so many other millions of modern liberal Catholics do: I see a few absolutes: eg the ten commandments and "do unto others as..." much of the rest is based on tradition and are gray areas and imo open to interpretation. i'm not silent on my views. hasn't got me excommunicated yet and i doubt it will. if so, i can always become an anglican or episcopalian.

why do you require a checklist of issues of agreement with the pope to debate the question of the prevalence of liberal catholics. i agree with him on very many things. not all things. even that statement is not relevant to the argument.

i've shown plenty of strong evidence. you've shown none. game, set, match. my link says that the pope does not find homosexuality itself to be sinful. i agree. i don't agree about female priests. so what. this started in reference to liberal Christians. ample proof has been presented re their prevalence. none has been given to disprove it.

no, the argument is that there are a great many liberal Christians and specifically, liberal Catholics. there are many in Mass. alone. but i can't let you get away with characterizing jfk as anything but a liberal. it's not integral to my argument but it is so. here's another quote from the same speech: Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. franklin roosevelt…so where are the quotes that support your position?

did you read the link within the link. he praised george meaney during that speech in front of the liberal party. face it. you're wrong. he most definitely was a liberal and defined the word and himself.

"During the 1960 presidential campaign, when Republicans tried to make the term liberal anathema, Kennedy embraced it. A liberal, he said in one speech, “cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties,” and under that definition, he said, “I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’” from the new republic article i linked.

i don't think so. conservative Catholics might. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23489702

no, i don't. i believe i'm in agreement with the pope here: "who am i to judge?"

i am against abortion as a religious matter. i'm against the death penalty for the same reason. i don't believe the state is required to follow religious principles. same for same sex marriage. the state and church are appropriately searate.