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

[Prodigal_Son1]

"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

I just see dialogue necessary to share the fullness of truth. If we don’t proceed correctly, people can shut down and then we’re beating our heads on the wall. If you go to the link, you’ll see he speaks warnings not to fall into.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

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

Socialism is explicitly condemned by the Church. It is centered on the idea of man being nothing more than a utility of the State. That man’s only good is what he can contribute to the State through his labor.

You really ought to take another look into orthodox Church teaching on the subject.

 

[pnewton]

Socialism is explicitly condemned by the Church. It is centered on the idea of man being nothing more than a utility of the State. That man’s only good is what he can contribute to the State through his labor.

You really ought to take another look into orthodox Church teaching on the subject.

Here is a good explaination I found. I think it good to remember that while socialism, as normally defined, historically defined and ecclessially defined is condemned, much of what is called “socialism” in politics is not, in fact, socialism.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2942

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

:fyi: I like labels. Labels clearly define and distinguish things.

Labels are good.

Labels keep you from consuming something, beit physical, ideological, or theological, which may in fact kill you!

Just food for thought…

 

[Tarpeian]

I just see dialogue necessary to share the fullness of truth. If we don’t proceed correctly, people can shut down and then we’re beating our heads on the wall. If you go to the link, you’ll see he speaks warnings not to fall into.

@Prodigal

I agree, but would add, a dialogue without reason, and action is futile. The fullness of The Truth acknowledges, and incorporates faith and reason. Muslim’s deny reason. Some protestant sects reject reason, wether they admit it or not, and some do! Belloc stated correctly, “there are only two alternatives for society, Catholicism or chaos.”

The biggest failure or biggest success of Vatican II, depending on one’s view of the council, is dialogue without action. For fifteen years I personally have been hearing, and reading about “The Spirit of Vatican II, and the new evangelization.” This is wishful thinking, and sadly, I was forced to remove my rose colored glasses. How many laity will read the Holy Father’s Encyclical? How many cleric’s? Those of us who do will we act? The purpose of communism was to act. Communist rightly considered that a meeting (dialogue), in which people merely talked without resulting action, was a total waste of time. We would do well to take a play from their playbook. If 1- 2% of a segment of society (gays), can change the legislation in this country, Why can’t 30% or 15% of Catholic’s? Have you ever had a dialogue with the gay community? It doesn’t exist! They are the most militant faction in the world. They are not interested in dialogue. The Pro Choice community is not interested in dialogue. Youtube the recent Texas abortion filibuster two weeks ago, and you will see action not dialogue. They won through (disgraceful) action. They have won the cultural war by action not dialogue. We can start to win back the culture, with reasoned argument’s, and our argument’s can’t be defeated because they are rooted in Christ. But it must be coupled with action, not false ecumenism because we don’t want to offend. We live in a protestant country, but Catholic’s by number are the largest religious group in this country. The abortion problem, and every other moral problem in this nation is a Catholic problem. It would be nice to have other faith tradition’s join us, but in the final analysis it’s not necessary.

Dialogue by itself is futile. We can be the greatest apologist in the world, but we must act.

I will stop because I think I have strayed from the OP’s topic. For that I apologize.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Tarpeian]

It amazes me when reading Belloc and Chesterton the insights he had almost a century ago. “Socialism is explicitly condemned by the Church. It is centered on the idea of man being nothing more than a utility of the State. That man’s only good is what he can contribute to the State through his labor.”

I think it was Belloc who said, capitalism leads to socialism. And Chesterton who said, ": “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” The middle class has been wiped out and men have become wage slaves. Man has become a commodity stripped of his dignity.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Abu]

Beryllos #24
“Politically Liberal Catholics” is a useless generalization.

As are all political terms for Catholicism. Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties. Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful to the teaching of the Church.

No Catholic teaching is “liberal” or “conservative” on anything, as these terms are political and may be interpreted in multitudinous ways.

With regard to free enterprise, nothing could be clearer than the words of the acknowledged Saint John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
‘CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’
“CA 43. The Church has no models to present;”

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

Catholics have a duty to follow the Church’s real teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

@Prodigal

I agree, but would add, a dialogue without reason, and action is futile. The fullness of The Truth acknowledges, and incorporates faith and reason. Muslim’s deny reason. Some protestant sects reject reason, wether they admit it or not, and some do! Belloc stated correctly, “there are only two alternatives for society, Catholicism or chaos.”

The biggest failure or biggest success of Vatican II, depending on one’s view of the council, is dialogue without action. For fifteen years I personally have been hearing, and reading about “The Spirit of Vatican II, and the new evangelization.” This is wishful thinking, and sadly, I was forced to remove my rose colored glasses. How many laity will read the Holy Father’s Encyclical? How many cleric’s? Those of us who do will we act? The purpose of communism was to act. Communist rightly considered that a meeting (dialogue), in which people merely talked without resulting action, was a total waste of time. We would do well to take a play from their playbook. If 1- 2% of a segment of society (gays), can change the legislation in this country, Why can’t 30% or 15% of Catholic’s? Have you ever had a dialogue with the gay community? It doesn’t exist! They are the most militant faction in the world. They are not interested in dialogue. The Pro Choice community is not interested in dialogue. Youtube the recent Texas abortion filibuster two weeks ago, and you will see action not dialogue. They won through (disgraceful) action. They have won the cultural war by action not dialogue. We can start to win back the culture, with reasoned argument’s, and our argument’s can’t be defeated because they are rooted in Christ. But it must be coupled with action, not false ecumenism because we don’t want to offend. We live in a protestant country, but Catholic’s by number are the largest religious group in this country. The abortion problem, and every other moral problem in this nation is a Catholic problem. It would be nice to have other faith tradition’s join us, but in the final analysis it’s not necessary.

Dialogue by itself is futile. We can be the greatest apologist in the world, but we must act.

I will stop because I think I have strayed from the OP’s topic. For that I apologize.

Pax,
Tarpeian

It seems your view is opposing the view of the Pope’s call for dialogue, even with those that oppress the Church. It could also be interpreted to be against Christ’s teaching to do good to them that persecute you. The two teachings have similarities.

The difference between Communism and Christianity is the power behind each. One has men, and the other the Holy Spirit.

Why something can’t, or can, change could very well depend on faith, or lack of faith. Do we believe we need men, or ourselves, to make changes, or do we believe God can make changes? If our faith is misplaced, it very well could be that God is trying to show us the weakness of one chosen.

Dialogue is where all begins, or lack of dialogue is where all ends. That teaching comes from one Holy Spirit chosen to lead the Church. Whether it makes secular sense to us, or not, we should listen to what the Holy Father says.

 

[lynnvinc]

It might be that liberal Catholics will be happier with the Pope’s new encyclical on faith than conservatives (who I’m sure will also be quite happy with it), because liberals have so many more issues they are concerned about – world poverty and hunger; devastation, harm, and death from climate change and other serious environmental harms; racism and oppression; cruelty and inhumanity; the first world especially grossly harming the 3rd and 4th world peoples (without even realizing or acknowledging it), etc., while conservatives mainly have only abortion and ss marriage as their concerns.

Liberals just wouldn’t be able to persist in their endeavors without strong faith and hope, but would become demoralized and give up.

Faith is foundational to hope, and hope foundational to charity, true love. And those without good works are either like the good thief nailed to the cross beside Christ (willing but unable to do good works), or those who do not really have true faith, according to St. James.

As St. John of the Cross points out faith is in things we don’t yet know, perceive, or understand completely, and hope is in things we don’t yet have; and when we attain heaven we don’t need faith and hope any longer because we have attained what we had faith in and hoped for, and only love remains. That’s why he suggests we reject attachment not only to our worldly goods, but also to our spiritual fantasms (visions, mystical experiences, etc), because these are “not God,” but distractions from our ultimate goal of union with God. And there is the idea, since the time of Jesus and St. Thomas of “blessed are those who have not seen but believe.” Also, one cannot see God and live (in other words, one will get the full vision of God only in heaven).

It seems St. John of the Cross saw faith as Pope Francis does as a special “light” beyond and above our human lights, one that guides us in the dark night of the soul, which we have to enter into, leaving worldly attachments aside, to achieve union with God. He saw faith as darkness in human terms, because we do not in human terms “see” was is held in faith; if we did (as we will in heaven or perhaps glimpse in some mystical visions), then it would not be faith but based on actual seeing and knowing. *

The 1st 5 stanzes of St. John of the Cross’s “One Dark Night”:

One dark night,
fired with love’s urgent longings

• ah, the sheer grace! -
  I went out unseen,
  my house being now all stilled.

In darkness, and secure,
by the secret ladder, disguised,

• ah, the sheer grace! -
  in darkness and concealment,
  my house being now all stilled.

On that glad night
in secret, for no one saw me,
nor did I look at anything
with no other light or guide
than the One that burned in my heart.

This guided me
more surely than the light of noon
to where he was awaiting me

• him I knew so well -
  there in a place where no one appeared.

O guiding night!
O night more lovely than the dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the Beloved into his Lover.*

 

[Abu]

Lynnvinc #69
**How contradictory of Billy Graham when Christ teaches so clearly in the Sacred Scriptures the necessity of hearing His Church which He equipped with infallibility, wrote nothing, and whose Apostles then gave us His teaching as Catholics in His Church – which Billy Graham failed to accept.

 

[Carlan]

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.

:thumbsup:Well said! Peace, Carlan

 

[Tarpeian]

It seems your view is opposing the view of the Pope’s call for dialogue, even with those that oppress the Church. It could also be interpreted to be against Christ’s teaching to do good to them that persecute you. The two teachings have similarities.

The difference between Communism and Christianity is the power behind each. One has men, and the other the Holy Spirit.

Why something can’t, or can, change could very well depend on faith, or lack of faith. Do we believe we need men, or ourselves, to make changes, or do we believe God can make changes? If our faith is misplaced, it very well could be that God is trying to show us the weakness of one chosen.

Dialogue is where all begins, or lack of dialogue is where all ends. That teaching comes from one Holy Spirit chosen to lead the Church. Whether it makes secular sense to us, or not, we should listen to what the Holy Father says.

“My view is not opposed to the Holy Father’s call for dialogue, even with those that oppress The Church. It could also be interpreted to be against Christ’s teaching to do good to them that persecute you. The two teachings have similarities.”

My view properly understood, conforms to Holy Father’s plea, and that of Our Lord. It does not waver nor is it watered down. For if it was it would lack Charity.

Let me give just one example for the sake of clarity.The Second Vatican Council’s Decree On Ecumenism."

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:

1. “The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.”

Allowing Catholic Cathedral’s to be used for protestant ordinations does just that, it gives protestant’s and uninstructed Catholic’s, the impression protestantism, and Catholicism are just two branches of the same Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything the disservice which such compromise’s with Catholic Truth do to protestants, is greater than done to Catholic’s. Even if Catholic’s are confused as to the distinction between truth, and error at least they belong to The One True Church, and have the blessings of seven valid Sacraments.

To quote the Decree on Ecumenism once more. “'For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”

If we truly love are separated brethren, we must regard such gestures of the lending of Catholic Cathedral’s for protestant ordination’s as anti-ecumenical.

So properly understood my position is one with The Vicar of Christ, and Our Lord. I hope I have cleared up any confusion I may have created.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[lynnvinc]

How contradictory of Billy Graham when Christ teaches so clearly in the Sacred Scriptures the necessity of hearing His Church which He equipped with infallibility, wrote nothing, and whose Apostles then gave us His teaching as Catholics in His Church – which Billy Graham failed to accept.

Yes, that is sad. Also I used to think it sad that when he had “altar call,” with the choir singing “Oh Lamb of God, I come I come,” there was no Eucharist there. It was a great emptiness.

I was also a Protestant earlier, and we were taught basically to hate Catholicism, so the problem is they’ve been brainwashed against Catholicism, which is very sad. Luckily I did perceive God’s call to the one True Church, but others perhaps have not.

That’s why is behooves us Catholics to truly live the faith and truly follow our leader, Pope Francis, in order to draw all people to Christ.

Just heard on the news today that Pope Francis has told all the top Catholics leaders to change in their luxury cars for humble cars.

Are the conservative Catholics happy with the Pope’s new admonitions to live more simply?

I was reared a conservative before I became liberal and Catholic, and I wonder about my own desire to live more simply, protect creation, and put human lives before economic wealth considerations, wwhether it comes from my conservative upbringing, or maybe that’s why I left conservatism and Protestantism to become a Catholic and a liberal.

 

[livingwordunity]

It might be that liberal Catholics will be happier with the Pope’s new encyclical on faith than conservatives (who I’m sure will also be quite happy with it), because liberals have so many more issues they are concerned about – world poverty and hunger; devastation, harm, and death from climate change and other serious environmental harms; racism and oppression; cruelty and inhumanity; the first world especially grossly harming the 3rd and 4th world peoples (without even realizing or acknowledging it), etc., while conservatives mainly have only abortion and ss marriage as their concerns.

Liberal political groups talk a lot about poverty, but these groups have done nothing significant about it. The only things these liberal political groups have actually done is to create a culture of increased acceptance of abortion and homosexual behavior in the world.

 

[triumphguy]

Liberals talk a lot about poverty, but they (collectively as a group) have done nothing about it. The only things liberals (collectively as a group) have actually achieved is to promote abortion and homosexuality in the world.

Who are these liberals that as a group have done nothing about poverty?

Are you talking specifically about the US of A?

Cos’ without “liberals” (like Adam Smith) you wouldn’t have a capitalist system and a free market economy, which has done everything to raise the standard of living of the world.

 

[livingwordunity]

Who are these liberals that as a group have done nothing about poverty?

Are you talking specifically about the US of A?

Cos’ without “liberals” (like Adam Smith) you wouldn’t have a capitalist system and a free market economy, which has done everything to raise the standard of living of the world.

When I say “liberal” I’m talking about as the term is most commonly used today in Western world politics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Liberal political groups talk a lot about poverty, but these groups have done nothing significant about it. The only things these liberal political groups have actually done is to create a culture of increased acceptance of abortion and homosexual behavior in the world.

What significant measures have been instituted by either political party? It seems to me, that both parties, which currently have control in various areas of government, have either worked for, prevented action of the other, or sat idly by, and allowed the cultures you attribute to one party. If any of that is true, it means both parties are complicit in the problems listed. We know the decline has taken place under both parties, that have been in control at different times, in different areas of government.

Seems the point is, no political party is ‘righteous,’ above another.

 

[livingwordunity]

What significant measures have been instituted by either political party? It seems to me, that both parties, which currently have control in various areas of government, have either worked for, prevented action of the other, or sat idly by, and allowed the cultures you attribute to one party. If any of that is true, it means both parties are complicit in the problems listed. We know the decline has taken place under both parties, that have been in control at different times, in different areas of government.

Seems the point is, no political party is ‘righteous,’ above another.

But what I don’t like is how one group claims to be doing so much for the poor when in reality they are doing nothing for the poor (in fact, the poor and middle class are becoming worse off) and everything to promote pet agendas like abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”.

 

[triumphguy]

When I say “liberal” I’m talking about as the term is most commonly used today in Western world politics.

I just find the term confusing the way it’s used on this forum and others, since without liberals

there wouldn’t be a United States, or Canada or modern Britain etc
there wouldn’t be the idea of private property
there wouldn’t be laissez faire capitalism
there wouldn’t be a modern legal system
there wouldn’t be democracy
there wouldn’t be free market economy
there wouldn’t have been independence for nations
there wouldn’t be women’s votes
there wouldn’t be separation of powers

Famous Liberals include
Adam Smith
John Stuart Mill
Hobbes
Locke
Thomas Paine
Jefferson
etc., etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But what I don’t like is how one group claims to be doing so much for the poor when in reality they are doing nothing for the poor (in fact, the poor and middle class are becoming worse off) and everything to promote pet agendas like abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”.

So, is it better to have one group, who makes no claims, and does nothing significant in reality?

It’s similar to one group saying they are strictly pro-life, yet they do nothing significant to change it when they have had opportunity, and partisans rush to their defense. Patronizing actions is not significant. Both parties do that, to maintain blocs of voters. Partisans will only point a finger at one party, and become complicit in the action, or inaction.

We can’t trust in men to change things. When we place our trust in men, it very well could be that God is leaving issues in the hands of men to show us how our trust is misplaced. Remember, we all have free will. If we trust, pray, and place all faith in Him, then maybe we’ll see our trust is no longer misplaced and see significant changes.

Through Him, and Him only, will we find righteousness. There is no righteousness in a political, secular party, of man.

The decline in our situation happened through the administrations of both major political parties. Neither side did anything, even though both had opportunities.