An orthodox (small “o”) Catholic by definition has no problem with anything the Pope teaches. And that’s what I am.
I like that definition. Popes teach truly. Some don’t teach enough (or don’t get their true message out there enough at times). And if one would ask even some of us “o”-rthodox Catholics what they thought of the Pope’s latest encyclical, or for that matter any encyclical that person might see the questioned one gulp hard with an “uh-oh” look upon their face.
As to the question proffered in the thread title - I am not a “politically liberal Catholic” myself and can’t answer for them. I am a “personally liberal Catholic” in some respects (that might not agree with the most popular interpretations of the word liberal. IOW I believe I should be “liberal” in giving one’s OWN time, money, love, knowledge, counsel, and prayers to those around them who need help. That said, to the question.
This was a substantial bit of work on the part of Francis. Per the light of the question, I did find one excerpt (the paragraphs are long too - and this ONE graf I have broken into several pieces for easier analysis) that seems to hit upon something some “poitical liberals” might not like. The longstanding view that man is the crown of nature and has a place of a responsible steward of it < this last sentence is mine, not Francis’.
Excerpt from section titled : A light for life in society
- How many benefits has the gaze of Christian faith brought to the city of men for their common life! Thanks to faith we have come to understand the unique dignity of each person, something which was not clearly seen in antiquity.
- In the second century the pagan Celsus reproached Christians for an idea that he considered foolishness and delusion: namely, that God created the world for man, setting human beings at the pinnacle of the entire cosmos. “Why claim that [grass] grows for the benefit of man, rather than for that of the most savage of the brute beasts?”[46] “If we look down to Earth from the heights of heaven, would there really be any difference between our activities and those of the ants and bees?”[47]
- At the heart of biblical faith is God’s love, his concrete concern for every person, and his plan of salvation which embraces all of humanity and all creation, culminating in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
- Without insight into these realities, there is no criterion for discerning what makes human life precious and unique. Man loses his place in the universe, he is cast adrift in nature, either renouncing his proper moral responsibility or else presuming to be a sort of absolute judge, endowed with an unlimited power to manipulate the world around him.
Section (paragraph) 1: It’s not ALL liberals. But I have met some that would disagree with most of this. Per statement: Some only portray Christianity as a negative, having brought worse evils upon “man” than any others and so it must be criticized more until it is gone - THEN shall they move on to other “bad things” besides “organized religion” of which the oldest and foremost one is Catholicism.
The dignity of each person of course would include the unborn. And does not agree with the justified class warfare which seems to be mandatory prerequisite for one to be considered “a politically liberal” person - so much so that a “politically liberal Catholic” must be so in THAT order to maintain their cred … barely acceptable would be the well crafted bit of sophistry " I’m pro-life. But I don’t believe in forcing my religion on anyone!" < This is like multiplying by zero - the second part cancels out and swallows the substance and morality of the first statement, IMO.
Section 2: A second century pagan view that is still re-echoed today in liberal circles. Though in 1800 years the absurdity has “evolved” to: Man is no more than an animal. A positively mutated monkey who has overpopulated himself and endangered the planet. Man ought not have more rights than a spotted owl, or a snail darter. Saving the lives of THESE are important. Unborn humans (an overpopulated species) … not so much.
Section 3 while us small “o” orthodox Catholics see this as a perfectly sensible statement defining our faith … some “political liberals” would blanche and call this “triumphalism”. There is such a thing. But the idea that Catholicism (and in fact Jesus) are in anywise “better than” anyone elses ideas on salvation … or philosophy of life … or subscription to another political or religious leader is " … just not open-minded" or socially “judgemental and divisive”.
Section 4 REALITIES? He SAID that? Oh, no he di-in’t!
The man is implying more than ONE absolute! Which everyone KNOWS there aren’t any … and that another person’s truth is always just as good (that’s the liberal way of inclusion, diversity, tolerance, and unity in the knowledge that no one can know anything “for sure” and so relatively “it’s all the same, and doesn’t matter” therefore we can all have peace (unless someone starts THIS stuff up like FRANCIS!).
Again these “liberal views” aren’t the views of all liberals. But they’re fairly familiar views, and not conservative, and not very moderate, so by deduction …
This cartoon illustrated ONE important thing about relative morality and relativity in general. There can be an absolute truth in mathematics that is not negotiable. Doubt it if one will … don’t go building a bridge based on an emotional approximation of the needed prerequisites per strength, tension, etc.
:crying: