Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope's new encyclical?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never said that the Pope was giving a political message.

“Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope’s new encyclical?”

That seems to suggest there’s something political in what the Pope says in the encyclical.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope’s new encyclical?”

That seems to suggest there’s something political in what the Pope says in the encyclical.

No. It suggests that some Catholics are politically liberal. There’s no single term for the ones I’m referring to that can please everyone. But an example would be “Catholics for Choice”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. It suggests that some Catholics are politically liberal. There’s no single term that can please everyone.

To wonder if politically liberal Catholics are happy with it, and then show something that represents disappointment, as something they would feel, is politically motivated, or has appearances of being politically motivated, in my honest opinion. It suggests that a group of partisans won’t like what he’s teaching, because he’s talking politics. He speaks spiritually, and his guidance should be viewed as such, and not through the political eye, from any group of partisans.

 

[livingwordunity]

The word “liberal” understood today in a political context, is very different from the word liberal as defined by Holy Mother Church.

“Liberalism, wether in the doctrinal or practical order is a sin.In the doctrinal order it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments.” Father Salvany

Pax,
Tarpeian

That’s why I tried to make a distinction by calling it “politically liberal Catholics”. Next time, I’ll just use an example like “Catholics for Choice” instead of trying to label it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s why I tried to make a distinction by calling it “politically liberal Catholics”. Next time, I’ll just use an example like “Catholics for Choice” instead of trying to label it.

So, is it safe to say you are sowing political divisions and using the Holy Father’s word to do it?

You have another thread about racist words. You realize that name calling is a form of prejudice? Why not reach out to others with love and see if your message of ‘righteousness’ is better received?

 

[andrewstx]

The description of progressivism is wrong. And to loosely toss progressivism, democratic socialism, Marxist-Leninist nomenklatura states in with them is like tossing the monarchism of the Action Française in with eugenicist-genocidal paganism of Nazism, or the neoliberalism of what passes for conservatism in modern America with the old varieties which not only stressed hearth and home, but also equality and fairness in their non-ideological forms.

Pope Francis is not joking when he warns the faithful about the reduction of faith to ideology. One meets it every day in the American church.

Thank you Jay. I truly disturbs me when individuals think they know better than the Holy Father who wrote that encyclical. They put their politics either left or right ahead of their religion, and frankly I often question their Catholicism.

 

[livingwordunity]

So, is it safe to say you are sowing political divisions and using the Holy Father’s word to do it?

You have another thread about racist words. You realize that name calling is a form of prejudice? Why not reach out to others with love and see if your message of ‘righteousness’ is better received?

I didn’t do any name calling. Do liberals now consider it offensive to be called a liberal? As I explained, the ones this thread is about is Catholics whose ideology is like “Catholics for Choice”. Wouldn’t you say that “politically liberal” is a term that fairly describes them? I’m not the one who sowed the seeds of division. The seeds of division come from the sin of pride when people think they know better than the Church knows about faith and morals, and they start leading others into confusion about what the Church teaches. I’m only acknowledging that there are divisions among Catholics. How can divisions be healed if they aren’t first acknowledged to exist? I would edit the OP and change the title to something more like Are groups like “Catholics for Choice” happy with the Pope’s new encyclical? But there’s no way to edit a thread or post after 20 minutes.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The description of progressivism is wrong. And to loosely toss progressivism, democratic socialism, Marxist-Leninist nomenklatura states in with them is like tossing the monarchism of the Action Française in with eugenicist-genocidal paganism of Nazism, or the neoliberalism of what passes for conservatism in modern America with the old varieties which not only stressed hearth and home, but also equality and fairness in their non-ideological forms.

No, it is in fact not wrong. Their labels are all pretenses, their means and ends are all identical. Control, on their terms, to build their so-called “utopia” on earth by the means at their disposal.

Don’t tell me that you can’t see this?!

Pope Francis is not joking when he warns the faithful about the reduction of faith to ideology. One meets it every day in the American church.

I don’t “reduce my faith to ideology”. My faith forms my ideology. That’s why I’m a Distributist.

 

[epan]

I didn’t do any name calling. Do liberals now consider it offensive to be called a liberal? As I explained, the ones this thread is about is Catholics whose ideology is like “Catholics for Choice”. Wouldn’t you say that “politically liberal” is a term that fairly describes them? I’m not the one who sowed the seeds of division. The seeds of division come from the sin of pride when people think they know better than the Church knows about faith and morals, and they start leading others into confusion about what the Church teaches. I’m only acknowledging that there are divisions among Catholics. How can divisions be healed if they aren’t first acknowledged to exist? I would edit the OP and change the title to something more like Are groups like “Catholics for Choice” happy with the Pope’s new encyclical? But there’s no way to edit a thread or post after 20 minutes.

To answer your question directly, “Catholics for Choice” would be considered to be moderate conservatives, by most standards.

The real problem with your original question is that you did not give any clear sense of what “liberal” means to you.

What does it mean?

 

[livingwordunity]

To answer your question directly, “Catholics for Choice” would be considered to be moderate conservatives, by most standards.

The real problem with your original question is that you did not give any clear sense of what “liberal” means to you.

What does it mean?

What do you believe is “conservative” about “Catholics for Choice”? How do you define “conservative”?

What I consistently see are the positions of liberal Catholics is that despite what the Church says they think women can be ordained, and despite what the Church says they think that the Church should embrace abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”. I say they are political because of their political activities to promote all these things. This attitude is consistent among liberal Catholics in Europe, Canada, Australia, UK, Mexico, South America, and the USA.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I didn’t do any name calling. Do liberals now consider it offensive to be called a liberal? As I explained, the ones this thread is about is Catholics whose ideology is like “Catholics for Choice”. Wouldn’t you say that “politically liberal” is a term that fairly describes them? I’m not the one who sowed the seeds of division. The seeds of division come from the sin of pride when people think they know better than the Church knows about faith and morals, and they start leading others into confusion about what the Church teaches. I’m only acknowledging that there are divisions among Catholics. How can divisions be healed if they aren’t first acknowledged to exist? I would edit the OP and change the title to something more like Are groups like “Catholics for Choice” happy with the Pope’s new encyclical? But there’s no way to edit a thread or post after 20 minutes.

Is it so hard to accept fellow Catholics without labels? Why is it soooo important that one must persist in using other, secular, labels? Are we all a part of the body of Christ, or do you think we should exclude some because of weaknesses we perceive? Wouldn’t that put us in place of the Judge, who will judge us all?

Christ didn’t change out any of the Apostles, yet they ran away from Him when he was arrested, Peter denied Him, and Thomas doubted Him. The people who think they know better are doing something Christ did not teach, or command. He taught to love one another as He loved us, including our enemies. He taught to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He taught to do good to them that persecute us. He taught us not to look at the splinter in our brothers eye, while a beam was in our own eye. How many ways does He have to tell us not to judge others, lest we be judged before we take heed?

Let’s say some Catholics come on here and posted an unhappiness with the encyclical. Is that reason for some of us to rejoice? Are some of us more righteous than others? Who of us can say?

As I said, you have another thread discussing names people use against one another. You know the use of ‘politically liberal Catholics’ and their view of the Church’s teaching making them unhappy is basically the same thing. It’s a choice of dividing. It’s setting ourselves up as more righteous. It’s publicly, and anonymously on these forums, deriding others because of their weaknesses, as if we don’t have our own. He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

The Holy Father spoke on building bridges and not walls, even with those who oppress the Church, and to keep dialogue open. He called all Catholics to that. Using names, to set ourselves apart, is definitely building walls in my honest opinion. People are going to shutdown otherwise and the wall is up.

 

[pnewton]

As I explained, the ones this thread is about is Catholics whose ideology is like “Catholics for Choice”. .

If that is the case, I do not see where it matters. I would bet that if anyone did exist who actuall thought the Church might change on the issue of abortion, they would be alone, or nearly so, in that opinion.

 

[holyrood]

I would bet that if anyone did exist who actuall thought the Church might change on the issue of abortion, they would be alone, or nearly so, in that opinion.

I have a friend who very proudly calls herself Catholic while bashing and sneering at various cardinals, calling the Church itself medieval, and energetically supporting abortion and all sorts of sexual behaviors blatantly against Catholic teaching. And she is absolutely sure that the Church will sooner or later come to see things her way. Just a matter of time. There are plenty like her out there.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

I’m very happy with it. BTW Check my sig lol

 

[livingwordunity]

Is it so hard to accept fellow Catholics without labels? Why is it soooo important that one must persist in using other, secular, labels? Are we all a part of the body of Christ, or do you think we should exclude some because of weaknesses we perceive? Wouldn’t that put us in place of the Judge, who will judge us all?

Christ didn’t change out any of the Apostles, yet they ran away from Him when he was arrested, Peter denied Him, and Thomas doubted Him. The people who think they know better are doing something Christ did not teach, or command. He taught to love one another as He loved us, including our enemies. He taught to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He taught to do good to them that persecute us. He taught us not to look at the splinter in our brothers eye, while a beam was in our own eye. How many ways does He have to tell us not to judge others, lest we be judged before we take heed?

Let’s say some Catholics come on here and posted an unhappiness with the encyclical. Is that reason for some of us to rejoice? Are some of us more righteous than others? Who of us can say?

As I said, you have another thread discussing names people use against one another. You know the use of ‘politically liberal Catholics’ and their view of the Church’s teaching making them unhappy is basically the same thing. It’s a choice of dividing. It’s setting ourselves up as more righteous. It’s publicly, and anonymously on these forums, deriding others because of their weaknesses, as if we don’t have our own. He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

The Holy Father spoke on building bridges and not walls, even with those who oppress the Church, and to keep dialogue open. He called all Catholics to that. Using names, to set ourselves apart, is definitely building walls in my honest opinion. People are going to shutdown otherwise and the wall is up.

Ok. You make a valid point. I was rubbing it in a bit.

 

[Tarpeian]

Is it so hard to accept fellow Catholics without labels? Why is it soooo important that one must persist in using other, secular, labels? Are we all a part of the body of Christ, or do you think we should exclude some because of weaknesses we perceive? Wouldn’t that put us in place of the Judge, who will judge us all?

Christ didn’t change out any of the Apostles, yet they ran away from Him when he was arrested, Peter denied Him, and Thomas doubted Him. The people who think they know better are doing something Christ did not teach, or command. He taught to love one another as He loved us, including our enemies. He taught to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He taught to do good to them that persecute us. He taught us not to look at the splinter in our brothers eye, while a beam was in our own eye. How many ways does He have to tell us not to judge others, lest we be judged before we take heed?

Let’s say some Catholics come on here and posted an unhappiness with the encyclical. Is that reason for some of us to rejoice? Are some of us more righteous than others? Who of us can say?

As I said, you have another thread discussing names people use against one another. You know the use of ‘politically liberal Catholics’ and their view of the Church’s teaching making them unhappy is basically the same thing. It’s a choice of dividing. It’s setting ourselves up as more righteous. It’s publicly, and anonymously on these forums, deriding others because of their weaknesses, as if we don’t have our own. He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

The Holy Father spoke on building bridges and not walls, even with those who oppress the Church, and to keep dialogue open. He called all Catholics to that. Using names, to set ourselves apart, is definitely building walls in my honest opinion. People are going to shutdown otherwise and the wall is up.

The Church has been building bridges since Vatican II. The result is a weakened Church, watered down faith, and scandalized Catholic’s. I believe the Church would do well to revisit Our Holy Father B-16’s address at Regensburg. You can’t have a fruitful discussion when faith is devoid of reason. Reason without faith produces a secularism that cannot address the most fundamental of human questions about origin, destiny and meaning. Secularism is a scourge that has infected Holy Mother Church for a myriad of circumstances. To not preach authentic Catholic Doctrine, in season and out of season, allows this infection to mutate, and spread. It gives rise to confusion, and scandal to Catholic’s. Salvation is on the line, and now more than ever, we need to pray to The Holy Spirit, to give The Vicar of Christ the courage to preach, The Deposit of Faith entrusted to him, by Him, even if it offends. Judas chose to leave, and Our Lord did not stop him, and The Church was strengthened. The same will happen today when our bishops, and Holy Father imitate Our Lord’s example.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church has been building bridges since Vatican II. The result is a weakened Church, watered down faith, and scandalized Catholic’s. I believe the Church would do well to revisit Our Holy Father B-16’s address at Regensburg. You can’t have a fruitful discussion when faith is devoid of reason. Reason without faith produces a secularism that cannot address the most fundamental of human questions about origin, destiny and meaning. Secularism is a scourge that has infected Holy Mother Church for a myriad of circumstances. To not preach authentic Catholic Doctrine, in season and out of season, allows this infection to mutate, and spread. It gives rise to confusion, and scandal to Catholic’s. Salvation is on the line, and now more than ever, we need to pray to The Holy Spirit, to give The Vicar of Christ the courage to preach, The Deposit of Faith entrusted to him, by Him, even if it offends. Judas chose to leave, and Our Lord did not stop him, and The Church was strengthened. The same will happen today when our bishops, and Holy Father imitate Our Lord’s example.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Pope Francis: Lower defences and open doors

“Your fidelity to the Church still needs you to stand strong against the hypocrisies that result from a closed and sick heart. But your main task isn’t to build walls but bridges. It is to establish a dialogue with all persons, even those who don’t share the Christian faith but “who cultivate outstanding qualities of the human spirit” and even with “those who oppress the Church and harass her in manifold ways. … Through dialogue it is always possible to get closer to the truth, which is a gift of God, and to enrich one another.” Pope Francis reiterated that dialogue means “being convinced that the other has something good to say, making room for their point of view, their opinion, their proposals, without falling, of course, into relativism. For dialogue [to exist] it is necessary to lower the defences and open the doors.”

 

[livingwordunity]

The Church has been building bridges since Vatican II. The result is a weakened Church, watered down faith, and scandalized Catholic’s. I believe the Church would do well to revisit Our Holy Father B-16’s address at Regensburg. You can’t have a fruitful discussion when faith is devoid of reason. Reason without faith produces a secularism that cannot address the most fundamental of human questions about origin, destiny and meaning. Secularism is a scourge that has infected Holy Mother Church for a myriad of circumstances. To not preach authentic Catholic Doctrine, in season and out of season, allows this infection to mutate, and spread. It gives rise to confusion, and scandal to Catholic’s. Salvation is on the line, and now more than ever, we need to pray to The Holy Spirit, to give The Vicar of Christ the courage to preach, The Deposit of Faith entrusted to him, by Him, even if it offends. Judas chose to leave, and Our Lord did not stop him, and The Church was strengthened. The same will happen today when our bishops, and Holy Father imitate Our Lord’s example.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Tarpeian]

Pope Francis: Lower defences and open doors

"Pope Francis reiterated that dialogue means “being convinced that the other has something good to say, making room for their point of view, their opinion, their proposals, without falling, of course, into relativism. For dialogue [to exist] it is necessary to lower the defences and open the doors.”

I have not wrapped my feeble intellect around this statement. My concern given the current state of society (live for the moment), devoid of any effort to apply logic and reason. I have witnessed Roman Catholic’s who grew up in the 1950’s, and it’s considered by some, to be the pinnacle of Catholicism in this country. They knew and lived The Faith! In some cases it’s these very Catholic’s, who by word, and deed have been infected with the disease of Relativism. I would argue that “to lower the defenses and open the doors,” is what infected so many in Holy Mother Church in the first place.

We believe we have The Fullness of Truth. Why is it “necessary to lower the defenses and open the doors”? Eve was convinced that the serpent had something “good to say”, making room for his “point of view”, his “opinion”, his “proposals.” Adam and Eve did not have a darkened intellect.The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God (preternatural) were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

Our Lord in His humanity, entertained Satan only after 40 days in the desert with no food to prepare Himself for the father of lies. Even then he said, “begone Satan.” I hope I don’t come across as a pessimist, hopefully just ignorant But human frailty being what it is, and living in times of debauchery rarely seen in history, are we prepared to lower the defenses? I know many who are in “pain” when they miss a meal and their stomach growls I am confused by that statement. I owe my neighbor my Charity.

Disclaimer:
I’ve only begun to study, and understand the Vicar’s Encyclical.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Tarpeian]

"Pope Francis reiterated that dialogue means “being convinced that the other has something good to say, making room for their point of view, their opinion, their proposals, without falling, of course, into relativism. For dialogue [to exist] it is necessary to lower the defences and open the doors.”

I have not wrapped my feeble intellect around this statement. My concern given the current state of society (live for the moment), devoid of any effort to apply logic and reason. I have witnessed Roman Catholic’s who grew up in the 1950’s, and it’s considered by some, to be the pinnacle of Catholicism in this country. They knew and lived The Faith! In some cases it’s these very Catholic’s, who by word, and deed have been infected with the disease of Relativism. I would argue that “to lower the defenses and open the doors,” is what infected so many in Holy Mother Church in the first place.

We believe we have The Fullness of Truth. Why is it “necessary to lower the defenses and open the doors”? Eve was convinced that the serpent had something “good to say”, making room for his “point of view”, his “opinion”, his “proposals.” Adam and Eve did not have a darkened intellect.The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God (preternatural) were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

Our Lord in His humanity, entertained Satan only after 40 days in the desert with no food to prepare Himself for the father of lies. Even then he said, “begone Satan.” I hope I don’t come across as a pessimist, hopefully just ignorant But human frailty being what it is, and living in times of debauchery rarely seen in history, are we prepared to lower the defenses? I know many who are in “pain” when they miss a meal and their stomach growls I am confused by that statement. I owe my neighbor my Charity.

Disclaimer:
I’ve only begun to study, and understand the Vicar’s Encyclical.

Pax,
Tarpeian

"We believe we have The Fullness of Truth. Why is it “necessary to lower the defenses and open the doors”? Except to win souls for Christ, not to entertain false ecumenism.

Sorry I hit the send button to quick.

God Bless,
Tarpeian