Are you a Liberal?

[consumedconvert]

Today, both our majority current political trends are Liberal. Neither the liberals, with their acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, and extramarital sex, nor the conservatives, with their worship of money, the stock market, and US military power, act in accordance with the commands of God.

This I TOTALLY agree with.

Where’s a Catholic party when you need one?

 

[SanJudas]

Where’s a Catholic party when you need one?

Let’s start one. I propose the “Chestertonian Party” based on the teachings of GK and Hillaire Belloc.

Now all we have to do is get several hundred thousand signatures in each state where we want to run candidates, plow through a few tons of paperwork, and raise at least $20,000,000.

And then get people to vote for a political party based on the idea of right and wrong and personal sacrifice.

Piece of cake.

 

[PHX_Paul]

Are You a Liberal?

I don’t know what the term means anymore. The current political definition has drifted away from it’s original meaning. I don’t know what a conservative is anymore, either. I am politically an independent- both major political parties are abominations.

Paul

 

[CapIV]

It is a heresy at its source, since it promotes the idea that man is not bound to obey the law of God.

no it doesn’t. Keep in mind that there are at least twenty different versions of Philosophical Liberalism. This is always a problem when debating philosophical issues. John Stuart Mills version of liberalism is at its source a heresy. As are most of the liberal
thinkers. (which is why they have all been condemned by the Pope; such as Locke, Hobbes, Rouseau, etc). However, this doesn’t mean that certain parts of classical liberalism do not have basis in truth. Ex: State ought not meddle in the affairs of their citizens, in so far as suppressing vice.

Aquinas himself says:

“human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained; thus human laws prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike”. Second article of question 96 in the Summa Theologica

As Aristole and Aquinas point on, forcing virtue on the non-virtuous does not make them virtuous since in order to be virtuous, one must make a CHOICE and WANT to be virtuous. It is here, that this facet of classical liberalism is essential to Catholic theology.

And you are way off calling modern liberalism a more refined classical liberalism, they are two completely different things. Just as philosophical conservatism is much different than modern political conservatism. Conservatism traditionally means that you don’t like change or you justify the society you have. Conservatism now means LESS government intervention. (which is actually closer to classical liberalism)

 

[Spiller]

Can you or Ethelzguy ever make a post on this forum without cruel, over-generalized, negative statements about traditionalists?

Just as soon as you quit making stultified and bigoted comments about those you personally judge not to be “traditionalists.”

 

[moderate_trad]

Just as soon as you quit making stultified and bigoted comments about those you personally judge not to be “traditionalists.”

When have I ever done so? Seriously, I’m not being cute… I really hadn’t realized that I made any bigoted comments and would seriously like to know which ones could have offended people. You may even answer me by PM if you’d like.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

no it doesn’t. Keep in mind that there are at least twenty different versions of Philosophical Liberalism. This is always a problem when debating philosophical issues. John Stuart Mills version of liberalism is at its source a heresy. As are most of the liberal
thinkers. (which is why they have all been condemned by the Pope; such as Locke, Hobbes, Rouseau, etc). However, this doesn’t mean that certain parts of classical liberalism do not have basis in truth. Ex: State ought not meddle in the affairs of their citizens, in so far as suppressing vice.

Aquinas himself says:

“human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained; thus human laws prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike”. Second article of question 96 in the Summa Theologica

As Aristole and Aquinas point on, forcing virtue on the non-virtuous does not make them virtuous since in order to be virtuous, one must make a CHOICE and WANT to be virtuous. It is here, that this facet of classical liberalism is essential to Catholic theology.

St. Thomas simply teaches that the State should not supress all vice, which not one has ever advocated. Here’s the link to the portion of the Summa where it is discussed: newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm

And you are way off calling modern liberalism a more refined classical liberalism, they are two completely different things. Just as philosophical conservatism is much different than modern political conservatism. Conservatism traditionally means that you don’t like change or you justify the society you have. Conservatism now means LESS government intervention. (which is actually closer to classical liberalism)

All liberalism promotes the same basic error, which is that man is not bound to submit to the law of God.

For example, one of the errors of Liberalism is that the State should be separated from the Catholic Church; and, along the same lines, that the State does not have a duty to promote the Catholic religion. That is one of the errors of Liberalism.

Tell me which form of Liberalism teaches that the State has a duty to promote the Catholic religion and the divine positive law?

Liberalism may have its degrees and its branches, but the fundamental errors are the same; and it is the fundamental errors that have been condemned by the Church.

Here’s another chapter from the book:

CHAPTER 10:
LIBERALISM OF ALL SHADES CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH

Liberalism of every degree and all forms has been formally condemned; so much so (53) that outside of the motives of its intrinsic malice, it stands under the formal ban of the Church, which is sufficient for all faithful Catholics. It would be impossible for an error so widespread and so radical to escape condemnation.

Upon its appearance in France at the time of the Revolution, the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man, which contains in germ all the follies of Liberalism, was condemned by Pius VI. Later the baneful doctrine infected all the countries of Europe. In Spain it first took the name of Liberalism, under which it has since been known everywhere.

Upon the occasion of the appearance of the first errors of De Lamenais, Gregory XVI., in his Encyclical Marari Vos explicitly condemned Liberalism, as it was then understood, taught, and practiced by the constitutional governments of Europe. Later on, when the full tide of the deplorable deluge had submerged all Europe, carrying all before it, God raised up to His Church Pius IX., who has justly passed into history as the Scourge of Liberalism. Liberal error under all its forms, shapes, and shades has been unmasked by this Pope. That his words might carry, as it were, more authority on this question, Providence has willed that these reiterated condemnations (54) of Liberalism should fall from the lips of a Pontiff who, at the beginning of his pontificate, was hailed by Liberalists as their own. But he left no refuge to which their error might have resort. The numerous Briefs and Allocutions of Pius IX have clearly shown to Christian peoples what this baneful heresy is, and The Syllabus has put on the final seal of condemnation. Let us see the principal contents of some of the Pontifical documents. Amongst all that we might place before our readers, we will cite only a few.

On the 18th of June, 1871, responding to a deputation of French Catholics Pius IX spoke thus:

“Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of the States; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me: the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary.”

In a Brief, 6th of March, 1873, addressed to the Circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, the Sovereign Pontiff thus expresses himself:

"People are not wanting who pretend to (55) form an alliance between light and darkness, and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal Catholicism, which based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals; they lead their partisans to esteem, or, at least, to tolerate iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters. Those who thus conduct themselves, are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combated a declared error."

In the Brief of the 8th of May of the same year speaking to the Confederation of the Catholic Circle of Belgium, the same Holy Father said:

*“What we praise above all in your religious enterprise is the absolute aversion which, as we are informed, you show towards the principles of LiberalCatholicism and your intrepid determination to root them (56) out as soon as possible. In truth you will extirpate the fatal root of discord and you will efficaciously contribute to unite and strengthen the minds of all in so **combating this insidious error, much more dangerous than an open enemy ***because it hides itself under the specious veil of zeal and of charity, and in so endeavoring to protect the people in general from its contaminating influence. Surely you who adhere with such complete submission to all decisions of this Apostolic Seat and who know its frequent reprobations of Liberal principles, have no need of these warnings.”

In the Brief to the La Croix, a Belgium journal, on the 24th of May, 1874, the Pope thus expresses himself:

*“We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfill, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against **LiberalCatholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error.” ***

continue

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

On the 9th of June, 1873, Pius IX wrote to the president of the Council of the Catholic Association of Orleans, and without (57) mentioning its name, depicts pietistic and moderated Liberalism in the following terms:

"Although you have not, strictly speaking, to combat impiety, are you not perhaps menaced on this side by as great dangers as those of the group of friends deceived by that ambiguous doctrine, which, while rejecting the last consequence of error, obstinately retains the germs, and which, not willing to embrace the truth in its fullness, and not daring to abandon it entirely, exhausts itself in interpreting the traditions and teachings of the Church by running them through the mold of its own private opinions."

In an address to the Bishop of Quimper, and speaking in reference to the general assembly of the Catholic Association of that diocese, the Pope said:

*“Assuredly these associations are not wanting in the obedience due to the Church, neither on account of the writings nor the actions of those who pursue them with invectives and abuse; but they might be pushed into the slippery path of error by the force of those opinions called Liberal; opinions accepted by many Catholics who are otherwise honest and pious, and who, even by the very influence which gives them their piety, are easily captivated and induced (58) to profess the most pernicious maxims. ***Inculcate, therefore, Venerable Brother, in the minds of this Catholic assembly that, when we have so often rebuked the sectaries of these Liberal opinions, we have not had in view the declared enemies of the Church, whom it would have been idle to denounce, but rather that those, of whom we are speaking, are such as secretly guard the virus of Liberal Principles which they have imbibed with their mother’s milk. **They boldly inoculate this virus into the people’s minds, as if it were not impregnated with a manifest malice, and as if it were as harmless to religion as they think. They thus propagate the seed of those troubles which have held the world in revolution so long. Let them avoid these ambuscades. Let them endeavor to direct their blows against this perfidious enemy, and certainly they will merit much from their religion and their country.”

With these utterances from the mouth of the Vicar of Jesus Christ our friends as well as our enemies must see that the Pope has said in divers briefs, and particularly in the last citation, in a general way all that can be said on this question, which we are studying in its details. (59)

The fundamental errors of Liberalism, whatever its shade, are the same: The independence of man and society from the duty to obey God. Many are the tactics used in this battle.

One of the main tactics is to focus all attention of the “rights of man”, but never to mention his duties. This in and of itself is a distortion, since man’s rights are associated with, and flow from his duties. The Liberals, however, distort the order and place man’s rights at the summit to the exclusion of his duties… and they go further by proclaiming rights that man does not possess - rights which are, in reality, a violation of his duty towards God.

Here’s an interesting article on some of the ways in which Liberalism deceives the unwary.

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030523.html

 

[CapIV]

Saying that classical liberalism promotes man being independent from God’s Law isn’t the same as it actually promoting man from being independent from God’s Law. Both JPII and Benedict XVI have praised those governments who have promoted religious freedom. Considering the historically harsh treatment of Catholics by state governments in America, I am glad that the American state has removed itself from promoting a religion.

Again I stress; Pope’s condemning certain liberal thinkers or certain facets of liberalism is not the same as: anyone with any liberal ideas is sinful. And again I stress, what was being condemned in the 1700’s and 1800’s is not the same as today. Liberal has many different definitions. And many different tenets. Just you saying that all of the definitions are the same doesn’t make them the same.

And you are really reaching it if you think that there aren’t plenty of influential Catholic theologians (like Aquinas, who I quoted) don’t have certain classically liberal tendencies.

I am by no means a “Liberal Catholic”. I happen to condemn “Liberal Catholicism” as well. But the picture you are painting is not accurate and is frankly, quite close to hate mongering. Sorry.

Liberal Catholicism is better defined as; Catholic’s that believe in relativism. Which we can all agree is a heresy. But calling someone heretical because they believe in religious freedom, or that the government shouldn’t tax, or that the government should tax; give me a break. Start worrying about things that really matter, like abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, poverty, war, etc.

 

[ethelzguy]

This I TOTALLY agree with.

Where’s a Catholic party when you need one?

Down at the KC Hall.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Saying that classical liberalism promotes man being independent from God’s Law isn’t the same as it actually promoting man from being independent from God’s Law. Both JPII and Benedict XVI have praised those governments who have promoted religious freedom.

Religious liberty is a formally condemned error. The reason John Paul II and Benedict XVI have praised governments who have promoted religious freedom is because John Paul II and Benedict were/are Liberals. No one likes to say that (including myself), but it is a fact.

Considering the historically harsh treatment of Catholics by state governments in America, I am glad that the American state has removed itself from promoting a religion.

You are confusing truth with error. The problem is that American did not promote the **true **religion. It was founded by heretics and therefore persecuted the real Christians (Catholics). If America was a Catholic country, and forbade heresy (like the Catholic countries of old used to do), that would be a positive good.

You seem to be advocating the Separation of Church and State, which is a formally condemned error. It is, in fact, one of the errors of Liberalism.

The followings are several formally condemned proposition found in the Syllabus of Errors. In other words, anyone who believes the following propositions are in error:

#77 "In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusiopn of all other forms of worship - CONDEMNED (Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX # 77).

In other words, the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all else. The contrary opinion is an error.

#55 "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church - CONDEMNED (Syllabus #55)

The idea that the State should be separated from the Church is condemned, as well as the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion professed by the State.

Pope Pius IX: "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. " vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.html.

And again I stress, what was being condemned in the 1700’s and 1800’s is not the same as today. Liberal has many different definitions. And many different tenets. Just you saying that all of the definitions are the same doesn’t make them the same.

It is the exact same fundamental error.

And you are really reaching it if you think that there aren’t plenty of influential Catholic theologians (like Aquinas, who I quoted) don’t have certain classically liberal tendencies.

I’m glad you brought that up again.

St. Thomas (and the Church) have always allowed for the toleration of a certain amount of vice. Human nature is such, that a certain amoung of vice must be tolerated. The Church has even allowed for the toleration of false religions and heresies, when necessary.

The difference between the Church’s toleration for some error and vice and Liberalism is that Liberalism claims the individual has a “right” to practice his error and/or vice.

That is the difference. It is the difference between tolerating error and/or vice (which is what the practice of the Church, and claiming that the person has a right to be in error or practice a vice.

Here’s a good quote from Libertas, which is an excellent encyclical of Pope Leo XIII in which he condemned the modern Liberties:

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: “33. Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne.** For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest**, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. … But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, “neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good.”(11) This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.”

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true - that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

I am by no means a “Liberal Catholic”. I happen to condemn “Liberal Catholicism” as well. But the picture you are painting is not accurate and is frankly, quite close to hate mongering. Sorry.

The fact that you used the term “hate mongering” is more telling than you realize.

Liberal Catholicism is better defined as; Catholic’s that believe in relativism.

“Conservative” Catholics today are usually only conservative on moral issues, not doctrinal issues. Therefore, they still have a problem with “moral relativism”, but have no problem with indifferentism. Relativism is to morality what indifferentism is to the faith..

This is the camp that you are in. You have a problem with the person who claims to have a right to chose his own morality, while at the same time you have no problem with the person who choses his own religion. I bet you are much more bothered by birth control, or unjust war, for example, that the heresy of Protestantism, which is far worse.

But calling someone heretical because they believe in religious freedom, or that the government shouldn’t tax, or that the government should tax; give me a break. Start worrying about things that really matter, like abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, poverty, war, etc.

I told you. You promote “religious liberty” (which is rooted in indifferentism), but detest moral relativism. You think the things that really matter are moral issues, but have no problem with doctrinal issues. You have been more influenced by Liberalism than you realize.

I’m living in the same world as you are and trying to keep the faith, just like you. I am not subjectively judging you, or looking down upon you for being heavily influenced by Liberalism. But, since we are to do to other what we would have them to do ourselves, I am going to recommend that you read Libertas. If you have the faith to submit to what this encyclical teaches, you will be cured of your intellectual disease. It might be a little difficult to understand at first, but it is worth reading. You should actually read it a few times in order to grasp all of it. Here’s the link.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

On thing to keep in mind if you read it is that the term “natural liberty” is the same thing as “free will”. He starts by distinguishes between natural liberty (free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what we are capable of doing (which is just about anything), and moral liberty is what we are allowed to do. If you keep that in mind, it will make it easier to understand.

I’ll also be very happy to continue this discussion with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Religious liberty is a formally condemned error. The reason John Paul II and Benedict XVI have praised governments who have promoted religious freedom is because John Paul II and Benedict were/are Liberals. No one likes to say that (including myself), but it is a fact.

That’s enough for me to disregard the rest. Because the Popes have made decisions in the best interest of the Church and not your idea of what you want, you call them liberals? :tsktsk:

To be a Catholic in full communion with the Church is to believe in the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit protected Church as promised by Christ our Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

That’s enough for me to disregard the rest. Because the Popes have made decisions in the best interest of the Church and not your idea of what you want, you call them liberals? :tsktsk:

To be a Catholic in full communion with the Church is to believe in the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit protected Church as promised by Christ our Lord.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

I am convinced that if a heretical Pope were elected who taught that Jesus was a false prophet, 99% of the Catholic would follow. They would disregard all that was taught by the Church for 2000 years and follow the current novelty.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: “There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life”

1. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
2. **But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill,
   that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. **This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor”,(7) rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin".

That is the teaching of the Church, and it is as unchangeable as truth itself - which is what it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am convinced that if a heretical Pope were elected who taught that Jesus was a false prophet, 99% of the Catholic would follow. They would disregard all that was taught by the Church for 2000 years and follow the current novelty.

That is the teaching of the Church, and it is as unchangeable as truth itself - which is what it is.

That’s kind of a stretch don’t you think? I ask you to name one heretical thing either Pope has taught that is remotely close to calling our Lord a false prophet. Stating hypotheticals to endorse your words takes away any credible point you may have had in my opinion.

In my opinion, it is just my opinion, there are too many instances of laity trying to run the Church nowadays as opposed to letting the Magisterium do their job and putting our trust in the Lord.

I stand by my statement, To be a Catholic in full communion with the Church is to believe in the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit protected Church as promised by Christ our Lord. (I have bolded and underlined part of the statement as so there will be no confusion on your part that what I have said is through Christ our Lord.)

Edited to add, you realize the differences in the world and the difficulties our Popes must go through 135 years after the Pope you are quoting?

I for one am quite proud of Pope Benedict’s work to re-unify Christians to the best of his ability.

The liberalism vs. conservatism arguments work against His Holiness’ work of unification, in my opinion. He is working on changes but does not want to shock and awe with overnight changes, that would widen divides as opposed to unify.

Like I said, Trust in the Lord.

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[PoliSciProf]

**Pax et Caritas **writes: "Religious liberty is a formally condemned error. The reason John Paul II and Benedict XVI have praised governments who have promoted religious freedom is because John Paul II and Benedict were/are Liberals. No one likes to say that (including myself), but it is a fact."

Does this mean that Dignitatis Humanae is in error? This encyclical was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965 with the support of 2308 Bishops at Vatican II (70 were opposed). The following is from Dignitatis Humanae:

***2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.***

Are not liberal democratic states the best protectors of Religious Freedom? Or, are you asserting that Francisco Franco’s Spain (1938-1975) is superior to the U.S., for example?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

That’s kind of a stretch don’t you think? I ask you to name one heretical thing either Pope has taught that is remotely close to calling our Lord a false prophet. Stating hypotheticals to endorse your words takes away any credible point you may have had in my opinion.

My point was that I run across Catholics all the time who explicitly reject a dogma of the faith because John Paul II taught the contrary. There is one thread (which I will try to locate) where people were rejecting the clear and infallible teaching that the old Covenant is null and void, on the basis of John Paul II’s teaching that “the old Covenant was never revoked by God”. The new US Catechism teaches the same error. The Church has consistently taught that the old Covenant was replaced by the new and is now void. It also taught infallible (at the Council of Florence) that it is a mortal sin for someone to practice the old law. Yet, in spite of the numerous quotes that were posted, these people completely rejected them in favor of John Paul II’s novelty. I wish that was the only example.

In my opinion, it is just my opinion, there are too many instances of laity trying to run the Church nowadays as opposed to letting the Magisterium do their job and putting our trust in the Lord. stand by my statement, To be a Catholic in full communion with the Church is to believe in the Magisterium and the Holy Spirit protected Church **as promised by Christ our Lord **

But what if the magisteriim teaches what has been formally condemned? There is no guarantee that the Bishops will not fall into error. During the Arian crisis, between 97% and 99% of the Bishops were Arian heretics (according to Fr. Jurgins). What we can be certain of is that the faith will never change. Infallible pronouncements are just that - infallible. Pope have taught heresy in the past, and at one point just about all of the Bishops were heretics, but what has never happened is that an error became true simply because of a change in the date on the calendar.

When Pope Honorious and Pope John XXII were teaching heresy, and when the Bishops during the Arian crisis fell away, God was still in charge of the Church. Being in charge of the Church does not mean that everything will always be wonderful. He was in charge of the Church during the Great Western Schism when there were three reigning “Popes”, and when every Cardinal alive was supporting an Anti-Pope (and not the real Pope).

In my opinion, the crisis we are in is far worse than the Arian crisis or the Great Western Schism. Today we have Popes teaching and promoting errors that have been formally condemned.

The Holy Ghost does protect the Church, but at times he also allows serious things to take place. The gates of hell will not prevail, which means the Church will get through the current crisis… but how many will remain true to the faith, and not fall into heresy?

Edited to add, you realize the differences in the world and the difficulties our Popes must go through 135 years after the Pope you are quoting?

That does not nullify the truth, or turn error into truth. Errors will always be errors and the truth will always be the truth. Truth is indepenedent of the number of people who hold fast to it.

I for one am quite proud of Pope Benedict’s work to re-unify Christians to the best of his ability.

Please read this encyclical. It is short and easy to understand. And it was written not too long before Vatican II:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

Like I said, Trust in the Lord.

Me too. I also trust that the Church did not lie to us and leas us into error for 2000 years. Therefore, I trust in the Lord, hold fast to what the Church has always taught, and reject what it has formally condemned.

One final note: God, through many of his saints, has warned us about the current crisis. Our Lady of Good Success (an approved apparition from the 1600’s), actually gave the date that it would take. The date was “the second half of the 20th century”, which gives me hope that it will be ending soon, since we are now in the 21st century.

I am thankful for all that Pope Benedict is doing for the Church, but at the same time, I will not abandon what the Church has always taught for the contrary, nor will I embrace an error - no matter who is teaching it.

 

[rwoehmke]

As has always been the case there are certain doctrines and dogmas taught by the Church that will never change. Each Pope in his time must struggle with maintaining those truths, but at the same time constantly making changes in the ordinary teachings of those who went before him to fit a changing world. He must apply the unchanging truths to a world that is constantly changing and therein lies the snare for those who believe that every papal pronunciation that has occurred over the past 2000 years is exactly applicable today…

The Bishops at Vatican II recognized this when they spoke of the Church as being a “pilgrim Church”, a Church on a journey through time growing and changing in those things that need to be and are able to be changed. Why else would Jesus have told Peter that what he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and what he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven?

That is why the center of the liberal/conservative divide as described by the OP is constantly moving to the left. The good that is in the left is preserved and the bad is eventually discarded. That which is no longer of use or valid from the right is also discarded. Not all new or old ideas are bad and on the whole we move forward and change. I would certainly question the judgement of anyone who considered John Paul II and Benedict XVI to be liberals. They are the Lord’s instruments for preserving the vitality of his Church.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

**Pax et Caritas **writes: "Religious liberty is a formally condemned error. The reason John Paul II and Benedict XVI have praised governments who have promoted religious freedom is because John Paul II and Benedict were/are Liberals. No one likes to say that (including myself), but it is a fact."

Does this mean that Dignitatis Humanae is in error? This encyclical was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965 with the support of 2308 Bishops at Vatican II (70 were opposed). The following is from Dignitatis Humanae:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

I’ll let you tell me if the above contradict what the Church taught before the council. Keep in mind that Vatican II was merely a pastoral council and was not infallible. That means that it is theoretically possible for it to have taugth error. With that in mind, I will allow you to tell me if the above, contradict the following:

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura: "For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition; Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

Does that contradict Vatican II? Keep in mind that the above document is considered by most theologians to be infallible, as it meets to conditions for Papal Infallibility given at the First Vatican Council. And I can produce numerous other magisterial documents that teach the same as Quanta Cura.

All of the following are condemned propositions from the Syllabus or errors:

**X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM **

1. [It is an error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
2. [It is an error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the **public **exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Notice the underlined portion of the Vatican II document you quoted. Continuing on with the Syllabus…

1. [It is an error to believe that] Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

**III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM **

15.[It is an error to believe that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

Do you beleive that the above propositions are errors? Regarding the last one, do you believe that “very man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”. If so, you are adhering to a formally condemned error.

The reason it is an error is that man is bound to obey all of God’s commandments, including the first. The first commandment prohibits false worship. Therefore, man is not morally free to profess whatever religion he chooses. He is only morally free to profess the true religion.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

1. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself. (18)

1. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

1. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

"Such are the radical principles of Liberalism.

First off, no. As defined in the mid-1800s, I am not a liberal. As defined at CA…well, it depends on who you talk to. As noted, people around here can’t even agree on John Paul II and Benedict XVI!

The problem with the discussion is that it uses the word liberal to mean two different things.
I would say that we have a left and a right to our politics in this country, and that they differ about what those things are about which they are liberal.

Currently, conservatives are “1800s liberal” when it comes to money and economics. My money, my business, my property: all these are mine. Let me run them my way. I should be free to publish, sell, or build whatever will be profitable. The free market should be allowed to enforce morality, if anyone cares. As for you, you get whatever health care and economic opportunity you can find for yourself. Not my problem. What I hand over to God and country are a grievous tax on what is rightly mine. I’m not saying that every conservative is like that. I’m saying that is the area where you will find conservatives acting “1800s liberal.” Meanwhile, those who are on the left are ready to write laws making about all manner of constraint on economics, based on moral considerations, such as protecting the poor and vulnerable.

Current liberals, on the other hand, are “1800s liberal” when it comes to behavior and social convention. My body and personal morals (whether it be for drugs, sex, abortion, what have you), my sense of social etiquette, my decision about who I treat like a spouse and what kind of “contract” I have with that person. If I want to have kids without a dad, its my business, but it is your responsibility to help me feed them.

As for the press, the left wants to constraint hateful speech. The right wants to constrain profane speech. Neither kind of speech can be defended on moral grounds, but only on the grounds of “1800s liberalism”.

What either right or left considers their most hallowed rights differs greatly. That there is a sense of entitlement is shared by both sides. Both bemoan the “tyranny of the majority” and the activism of the courts, only over different things.

Having said that I’m not a liberal, I will say this: there are worse problems for a society to have. Where every religion is not treated as the same, it is sometimes Catholicism that is suppressed. Where morals are enforced by the state on economics, the morality follows secular principles, not religious ones. Where people are not forced to hire people they would rather not associate with, Catholics can count on being some of those odd ones out.

Our system is a lousy one, but once you get all the ideas off the ground and try to make them work, it beats the alternatives.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think we’re all liberals in some ways and conservatives in other ways.