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

[Prodigal_Son1]

Liberals are never happy and that’s OK with me. God Bless Pope Francis; may he continue to make them more and more unhappy.

Even though I can’t recall him saying liberal, or conservative. He speaks spiritually, which is outside the political spectrum, or so it seems.

 

[ManOnFire]

I thought ‘Politically Liberal’ and ‘Catholic’ were of a necessity mutually exclusive terms.

Not according to the liberal soldiers who rush to defend the wishes of the unelected media elites who are slowly changing public opinion via the media. Conservative behaviors lead to stronger families who are less dependent. PREVENTION is the best medicine. The soldiers would never dream of promoting conservatism to help the masses avoid the vast majority of dependency.

 

[livingwordunity]

I am sorry. I am having a hard time understanding here. I thought ‘Politically Liberal’ and ‘Catholic’ were of a necessity mutually exclusive terms.

Technically, someone can be a straight up heretic and excommunicated and still be a Catholic just by virtue of their baptism. But, of course, if an excommunicated heretic doesn’t repent of this mortal sin before they die they will end up in Hell even being technically Catholic.

 

[Beryllos]

livingwordunity, in my opinion, “Politically Liberal Catholics” is a useless generalization. There is no well-defined group by that description. There exists only a broad spectrum filling the range from what you would probably call “ultra-liberal” to “ultra-conservative.” Where you draw the line between “liberal” and “conservative” is up to you.

Are “liberal” and “conservative” anything more than labels by which to divide us?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

livingwordunity, in my opinion, “Politically Liberal Catholics” is a useless generalization. There is no well-defined group by that description. There exists only a broad spectrum filling the range from what you would probably call “ultra-liberal” to “ultra-conservative.” Where you draw the line between “liberal” and “conservative” is up to you.

Are “liberal” and “conservative” anything more than labels by which to divide us?

 

[Et_Cetera]

Like how the Pope says that people should use their free will to avoid sinful behaviors (which leads to poverty in many cases)?

Most people in a state of poverty are in their state due to factors beyond their control such as poor health, mental illness, a failing educational system, a culture of poverty that they were born into, etc. Not everyone starts from a level playing field, even though many on the right like to insinuate that they are.

Also: Livingwordunity, you stated that you want to keep this thread clean and free of fighting, but you made a thread to attack “liberal” Catholics.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not sure what you Americans mean by liberal.

Aren’t all American political parties pro gay marriage and pro abortion?

In Canada all of ours are.

Probably the same in Britain and Australia too.

So I imagine by some definitions anyone that voted in those four countries is a liberal.

I’m lucky I actually have a pro-life/anti-gay marriage, Catholic government minister as my MP!

The Republican party isn’t pro gay marriage and pro abortion. It’s for traditional marriage and is pro-life, at least officially.

For now.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Depends if I’m a political liberal (defined by the political tone of this forum).

Anyway, here are my more “liberal” views:

Death Penalty
Waterboarding
Immigration
Regulation–finances and big businesses
Private sector unions
Social Security
Progressive taxation

I would say environment as well but I don’t think it’s an “untouchable taboo” like some think it is per Benedict XVI.

So am I a liberal?

---

I haven’t read it yet, but I’m looking forward to it especially because it seems reminiscent of St. Augustine.

 

[fix]

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” - Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis

Because I think it went something like this for them:

http://blog.themistrading.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/lucy.jpg

Anyone can do a quick search on these fora and find plenty of examples where self identified Catholics will support homosexual acts and unions in direct contradiction to Church authority. Many more will claim they accept the teaching but will nuance it so much one can no longer recognize the teaching.

And still more will quibble about the descriptors used.

 

[Brendan]

Probably the same way anti-liberals felt about all the stuff the Pope has said about the poor.

Nope. I don’t know anyone of any political stripe that does not believe that the poor should be assisted. The main points of difference are the means of that assistance (public vs private).

That differs from gay 'marriage in that the disagreement is on if it should exist in our society at all.

 

[Jaysuitical]

Nope. I don’t know anyone of any political stripe that does not believe that the poor should be assisted. The main points of difference are the means of that assistance (public vs private).

That differs from gay 'marriage in that the disagreement is on if it should exist in our society at all.

In the book published three years ago, now reissued as Pope Francis in His Own Words, the Holy Father strongly links work with human dignity -- that in building & creating people discover their worth. 

Unfortunately, far too many who are economically secure think that somehow, if they offer help on an individual level, they are relieved from any necessity to make certain that working people receive a living wage by working a normal work-week of 40 hours -- that they aren't denied benefits by having their hours minimized, that they aren't cheated in other ways. 

Anyone who defines themselves as 'liberal' or 'conservative' in 21st century America is cutting themselves off from half of the Church's social teaching. As Bishop Sheen said, the atheism of the left denies God's love for man, the atheism of the right denies man's love for neighbor.

 

[andrewstx]

I am sorry. I am having a hard time understanding here. I thought ‘Politically Liberal’ and ‘Catholic’ were of a necessity mutually exclusive terms.

I think the exact opposite. To me politically far right. tea party ultra conservatives pick and choose. I seen the far right as picking and choosing and especially when it comes to social justice.

The far right emphasizes the encyclical which condemns communism as they should, but they ignore the very next sentence that condemns laissez-faire unlimited capitalism.

Can we have it both ways, or just choose the parts we agree with and ignore or even worse deny the rest?

 

[Tarpeian]

By politically liberal Catholics, I mean Catholics on the left, the ones who hope that the Catholic Church will one day give a stamp of approval to abortion, euthanasia, so-called “same-sex marriage”, etc. From what I’ve seen, they seemed to want to believe that this Pope was the one they were waiting for to make all of these radical changes to the Church. But as we see, it didn’t happen. This actually happened in much the same way when Pope John Paul II was first elected. The politically liberal Catholics liked him at first but then turned on him once they found out he wasn’t going to make the changes they wanted. By the way, I’m calling them “politically liberal Catholics” rather than just “liberal Catholics” because some people will say that there’s a difference between the two. I personally don’t see the difference.

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

 

[Tarpeian]

By politically liberal Catholics, I mean Catholics on the left, the ones who hope that the Catholic Church will one day give a stamp of approval to abortion, euthanasia, so-called “same-sex marriage”, etc. From what I’ve seen, they seemed to want to believe that this Pope was the one they were waiting for to make all of these radical changes to the Church. But as we see, it didn’t happen. This actually happened in much the same way when Pope John Paul II was first elected. The politically liberal Catholics liked him at first but then turned on him once they found out he wasn’t going to make the changes they wanted. By the way, I’m calling them “politically liberal Catholics” rather than just “liberal Catholics” because some people will say that there’s a difference between the two. I personally don’t see the difference.

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

 

[Beryllos]

You can say that again!

 

[Tarpeian]

Sorry for the double post.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I think the exact opposite. To me politically far right. tea party ultra conservatives pick and choose. I seen the far right as picking and choosing and especially when it comes to social justice.

The far right emphasizes the encyclical which condemns communism as they should, but they ignore the very next sentence that condemns laissez-faire unlimited capitalism.

Can we have it both ways, or just choose the parts we agree with and ignore or even worse deny the rest?

Because many fail to realize that the real problem is not about the labels used. Both “liberals” and “conservatives”, or even “tea party-ers”, all have the same mentality in regards to government. They all want the right amount of government that it will take to get what they want from government.

The problem underlying all of the politicization is Progressivism, the idea that government ought to take care of you like a nanny or a parent.

Ultimately this ideology is going to exploit anyone and everyone at one point or another.

Capitalism can be a force for good, so long as there are plenty of capitalists. Capitalism becomes croney capitalism when a few capitalist elites get in bed with the government and then that government then picks winners and losers based on the largest contributor to their job security. It requires a progressive political mentality to sell the government out to elite capitalist interests.

And we all know what happens when progressive liberalism and Statism(Socialism) take over a government. All you need to do is look to modern day China, Europe, Cuba, North Korea, or any number of other progressivist states that exist in the world today.

Or if you want to look into history, you have Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.

Why we keep insisting on trying an experiment that throughout history has failed over and over again is beyond me.

 

[Jaysuitical]

Because many fail to realize that the real problem is not about the labels used. Both “liberals” and “conservatives”, or even “tea party-ers”, all have the same mentality in regards to government. They all want the right amount of government that it will take to get what they want from government.

The problem underlying all of the politicization is Progressivism, the idea that government ought to take care of you like a nanny or a parent.

Ultimately this ideology is going to exploit anyone and everyone at one point or another.

Capitalism can be a force for good, so long as there are plenty of capitalists. Capitalism becomes croney capitalism when a few capitalist elites get in bed with the government and then that government then picks winners and losers based on the largest contributor to their job security. It requires a progressive political mentality to sell the government out to elite capitalist interests.

And we all know what happens when progressive liberalism and Statism(Socialism) take over a government. All you need to do is look to modern day China, Europe, Cuba, North Korea, or any number of other progressivist states that exist in the world today.

Or if you want to look into history, you have Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia.

Why we keep insisting on trying an experiment that throughout history has failed over and over again is beyond me.

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.

 

[epan]

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” - Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis

Because I think it went something like this for them:

http://blog.themistrading.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/lucy.jpg

I don’t understand the question.

What is a politically liberal Catholic?

I guess you mean these people?

thelccusa.org

Here is an excerpt from a homily:

Consider a few examples, among many others we could cite. We all know what the Roman Church teaches about homosexuality, and about issues of reproductive choice. Let’s see what our Canon Law requires us as members or clergy to believe and to teach about these issues. Hmmm…can’t find any mention of them. Now, using our Concordance and a copy of the Bible, let’s go looking for what Christ Himself said about these issues. Here’s what He said about homosexuality…

…

…

…

That’s right. He said nothing. Now, let’s see what He said about reproductive issues…

…

…

…

Right again. Christ said nothing about artificial methods of birth control. And these are just a few of many examples of the difference between Roman “teachings,” and the “silence” of both the Liberal Catholic Church, and Christ Himself.

Perhaps there’s a point in here somewhere. Perhaps we should pursue this mission: teaching about things Christ actually said, rather than spending our time worrying about things He never said, or worrying about what the Roman Church says. Perhaps, by remaining silent about these subjects, we can stay true to our stated intent: to offer to those who seek us out “the widest measure of intellectual liberty and respect for the individual conscience,” and “freedom of interpretation of the Scriptures, the Creeds and the Liturgy.”

So, there is your answer.

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t see a political message in anything the Pope has said. He offers spiritual guidance, not political. It seems there might be a problem of people trying to interpret spiritual through political, or for some type political advantage. The Gospel is not meant to be a big stick to guide others into a particular political view. It is to guide us to His kingdom.

I never said that the Pope was giving a political message. My point is that his message must have been a big disappointment for those who were hoping that the new Pope would embrace abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”. But I love the message in his encyclical.