Why I Often Criticize Progressive Catholicism

Last updated on: February 28, 2026 at 11:07 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

Why I Often Criticize Progressive Catholicism 2026-02-28T23:07:49-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

AI image created by the author.

Recently, one critic chastised me for my continued criticism of progressive Catholicism. His accusation rests on the assumption that any disagreement with my “fundamentalist” take on Catholicism amounts to disagreement with Catholicism itself. Specifically, he claims:

I equate my interpretation of Catholicism with Catholicism itself.
Progressive Catholics merely disagree with me, not with the Church.
My constant appeals to doctrine function as a power move rather than a theological claim.

Yet he offers no concrete examples to show where my understanding of Catholicism departs from the Church’s actual teaching. Anyone familiar with my writing already knows where progressive Catholics and I part ways. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, I will explain systematically why I often criticize progressive Catholicism.

I criticize progressive Catholicism because many within that movement challenge the Church’s perennial teaching on the human person. They express openness to redefining human sexuality and often align themselves with the broader LGBTQ agenda. They dissent from the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination, especially as articulated in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. They reject the Church’s prohibition of contraception and support politicians who expand access to abortion.

In short, this dispute does not center on me. It centers on whether defined Catholic teaching binds all Catholics.

The Crucial Distinction: Private Interpretation vs. Magisterial Authority

My critic attempts to discredit me by labeling me a “fundamentalist.” But what is fundamentalism? In fundamentalism, a person equates his reading of Scripture with the meaning of the text itself. Under that framework, criticism of his interpretation becomes an attack on Scripture.

As a Catholic, I operate under a different authority structure. I submit to the teaching authority of the Church. The Church—not I—defines doctrine. My obligation as a Catholic requires assent to what the Church teaches, not the elevation of my private interpretation.

Therefore, when I criticize progressive Catholicism, I appeal to defined doctrine, not to my personal reading of events or texts. I appeal to the Church’s own stated authority.

What Counts as “Objecting to the Faith”?

Notice what I do not claim. I do not claim that progressives are not Catholic, nor do I claim that disagreement in tone constitutes dissent from Church teaching. I focus instead on specific progressive claims that:

Publicly argue that defined Church teaching remains malleable.
Treat magisterial moral teaching as a product of historical conditions rather than binding doctrine.
Appeal to conscience in ways that override defined teaching.

Again, the disagreement does not concern me personally. It concerns how Catholicism understands and exercises its own authority.

Concrete Examples of Doctrinal Tension

Now I will offer concrete examples to support my argument.

After the release of Humanae Vitae (1968), several Catholic moral theologians publicly dissented, chief among them Fr. Charles Curran. Shortly after the encyclical appeared, Curran worked with other theologians to issue a formal statement of dissent. That statement eventually gathered more than 600 signatures from Catholic theologians and philosophers.

In response, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared Curran no longer suitable or eligible to teach Catholic theology at Catholic institutions. As a result, The Catholic University of America removed him from its faculty.

Curran’s dissent extended beyond contraception. He publicly rejected Church teaching on “the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse, and homosexual acts.”

Moreover, many progressive Catholics remain open to—and even hopeful for—the eventual ordination of women, despite the clear teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Organizations such as the Women’s Ordination Conference openly advocate for this change.

Finally, public figures such as Fr. James Martin, S.J., and Cardinal Robert McElroy represent a prominent progressive Catholic voice that emphasizes accompaniment and inclusion under the banner of a “pastoral approach.” While they do not formally deny doctrine, their framing materially reorders how the Church treats sexual morality.

These examples do not concern my tone or personal interpretation. They represent real theological tensions within the Church—tensions with real consequences.

Why This Is Not “Obsession with Sex”

Some who read this will claim that my critique of progressive Catholicism reflects a conservative “obsession with sex.” That charge misunderstands both the tradition and my argument.

The Church and her theological tradition do not treat lust—or sins associated with lust—as the worst sins. In Dante’s Inferno, those condemned for lust occupy one of the upper circles of Hell, punished as sinners of weakness rather than calculated malice. C.S. Lewis describes pride as far more diabolical than lust. St. Thomas Aquinas ranks sins directly against God as more grave than sins of the flesh.

Yet the prevalence of lust and sexual immorality in modern culture heightens the urgency with which Catholics must address these matters. Sexual sins engage powerful passions and often form habits. They usually arise from weakness rather than malice. Precisely for that reason, clarity functions as mercy, and the Church’s moral guardrails protect fragile wills.

When pastoral language shifts from “this is grave matter requiring repentance” to “this is complex, nuanced, and perhaps not binding in many cases,” the shift does not remain neutral. Ambiguity does not heal weakness; it stabilizes it.

The Real Question: Does the Magisterium Bind?

For Catholics, defined teaching binds the faithful. Moral doctrine is not negotiable, and Church authority is real. Therefore, when someone argues against defined teaching, he does not merely disagree with me; he disagrees with the Church.

The Church teaches, and we assent. That structure defines Catholic ecclesiology. If someone rejects that structure, the problem does not lie with me. It lies with Catholicism’s own self-understanding.

Final Thought… Authority, Not Ego

This debate does not concern tone, politics, or personality. It concerns whether Catholicism means what it says about authority—whether doctrine develops in continuity with the past or dissolves into modern revisionism, and whether pastoral care strengthens weak wills or anesthetizes them.

The issue does not pit me against progressives. It asks a more fundamental question: Does the Magisterium bind, and do we assent?

All faithful Catholics know the correct answer to that question.