Are you a Liberal?

[PoliSciProf]

Pax et Caritas, I need to take your arguments one at at a time because of the limitations of the CA Forums. re: The status Vatican II: John XXIII and PaulVI intended this council to be Ecumenical, not just “pastoral.” Here are excerpts from the closing statement of Paul VI:

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

Do we agree on what is Ecumenical and infallible? The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (the New Advent website–check it out):
*That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? *

The notion that Vatican II is merely pastoral and not ecumenical is simply not true. I gather from your many posts that the current Catechism is wrong, that Vatican II errors, that the recent popes are “modernists” and hence wrong. You have not persuaded me. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Please let me know if I misread your many complex posts.

In a like spirit, please respond to the questions in my post:

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?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“Classical Liberalism” and modern liberalism are two completely different things. As is libertarianism.

Politically, liberalism cannot be a heresy since it deals only with the state. Put simply, classical liberals believe that the state ought not meddle in the affairs of its citizens.

This is greatly different from a modern liberal, who believes in a high level of government intervention. (national healthcare, welfare, etc.)

Liberalism is only a heresy when treated as a sort of John Stuart Mills morality. (everyone leaves everyone to his own morality). Here it is clearly a heresy and practical relativism.

And none of these definitions of liberal has anything to do with “open–mindedness”. (which is another definition of liberal.)

I suggest all of you start defining your terms a bit better. Especially when it comes to centuries old language. (for example, Gothic means “light of God”, yet Gothic today means something entirely different".) You shouldn’t go about proclaiming everyone sinful when you yourselves misunderstand terms. No one is going to hell because they think that the government should provide healthcare or anything like that.

“Liberalism”, as defined in that book, seems to be some kind of secular (?) anticlericalism. ISTM that the author was extrapolating from Spanish or maybe continental “liberalism” of some kinds. When one hears Hitler & Stalin being called “liberals”, one knows there has been a crossing of lines somewhere. The book was written in 1880 - but why should Spanish liberalism of 1880, however much a bad thing there or then, be the same sort of thing elsewhere & another time ?

The Church can’t be Catholic without being open-minded - IOW, without being, in some sense, liberal Otherwise, it acquires the mind of a sect.

 

[consumedconvert]

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

Of course not!

I’m ALL conservative, and you’re ALL liberal!

…just kidding!

The problem with a labels like “liberal” and “conservative” is that they are so malleable.

Think about the classic metaphor: conservative=right, liberal=left.

So who is conservative? Why, he who is to my right or ever so slightly to my left. Who is liberal? He who is further to my left. But where am I?

Think of it another way. To Stalin, Reagan was a liberal. After all, he believed in a free economy. To a Muslim Fascist, you are a liberal if you believe in freedom of religion, or if you even believe you should not kill those who disagrees with your religion.

In matters of religion, I’ve heard the Catholic Charasmatic movement called very liberal and very conservative. I’ve heard the Pope called very liberal and very conservative. The paradigm breaks down completely, because where is the reference point? If we pop off saying this Bishop is Left, and this one is Right, where is our reference point?

Is caring for the poor and the sick and the needy a liberal cause? Is working hard to support your family a conservative cause? Aren’t they both Catholic causes?

The paradigm is useful in politics as long as you have a solidly understood context, but when discussing religious matters the paradigm darn near collapses.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually, I don’t know of an instance where Christ endorsed anything political.

Before anyone throws up the following verse, I’d like to explain my position on it.

Caesar and what was Caesar’s was of this world. Christ said this, not only to foul up a plan to persecute Him but also, to demonstrate the difference of worldly things and spiritual things.

Most of the posts I’ve seen discussing “liberals” or “conservatives” are no more than ad hominen attacks on those who have different political views and spirituality is used as a “big stick”. This is not rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God, the things that are God’s, in my opinion. It seems to be more of an attempt to mix the two.

I think to choose either is going too far, in one direction or the other. Proper positioning seems to be moderate, or centered if it makes more sense.

Just my :twocents:

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

Might He have been leaving them answer their question for themselves ? I don’t think He can be appropriated by any interest-group - I don’t think His teaching fits into any partisan programme; I thinki t is too big for any, has something in common with all, & is a rebuke to all - because His Kingdom is not of this world, & can’t be located within it.​

If He could be appropriated by one group, I think He would have been a far smaller man.

Just my 2d.

 

[Genesis315]

Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI affirmed that man has no obligation to the law of God–in fact, quite the opposite. What they did advocate is the traditional Catholic truth that man cannot be coerced into making the act of faith–it must be free or it is not true faith–and that he cannot be forced not to either. Restrictions in this matter can, however, be imposed by the state if the common good (not just a positivist “order”) is harmed. How these two authentic freedoms are carried out in a pluralistic society depends on a lot of things–but generally given the diverse current make-up of modern society, a very broad freedom is generally advocated (as Pius XII also stated may be the best course in such situations). Martin V, Bl. Gregory X, and Paul III for example, advocated similar positions in their times in places where there were many pagans or Jews or where Catholics were unjustly persecuting such peoples (people who advocated forcing them to come to the faith or doing violence against them if they didn’t, were excommunicated in each instance).

I wrote this which traces this doctrine and the practical application of it through the centuries:

Part I
Part II

The general position of the Church today is that the best approach to converting the world is not through force, but through preaching and holy living. Pope Paul III advocated the same approach in the Americas, declaring in Sublimus Dei that such are not to be deprived of their liberty in any way, even if they be outside the faith, and that they should be converted instead by preaching and example of holy living.

Also, in regards to the Syllabus, it is not meant to stand on its own, but one must read the actual allocution cited.

 

[Genesis315]

What Pax strictly defined as “Liberalism” in the first post–man not having an obligation to revealed truth–also called or associated with “Rationalism” or “Naturalism” is very much a sin. Where he errs is seeing an absolute duty of the state to suppress all false religious activity (I don’t think he is seeing a duty of the state to force people to be Catholic, but that would be an error as well). Rather, there are practical considerations that are different depending on the nature of the population–be they completely Catholic or more diverse. Sadly, there are no completely Catholic societies. Surely it is reasonably protecting the common good for a completely Catholic country to not permit sects to enter and cause dissensions, etc.

However, in a more diverse place, if one wants to bring others to the faith, and that coming to the faith must be free, it has always been the policy of the Church to not use force, but preaching and holy living–it is only when such preachers/Christians are violently attacked is physical force used (and rightly so).

Pax has a problem with the advocation of a broad freedom to be granted in modern societies, but this is a valid prudential judgment that does not fall under the error of Liberalism. Again, I cannot recommend enough the two links I provided above.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What Pax strictly defined as “Liberalism” in the first post–man not having an obligation to revealed truth–also called or associated with “Rationalism” or “Naturalism” is very much a sin. **Where he errs is seeing an absolute duty of the state to suppress all false religious activity **(I don’t think he is seeing a duty of the state to force people to be Catholic, but that would be an error as well).

I never said the State has a duty to supress all false worship. In fact, I quoted Pope Leo XIII saying that it is sometime best for the State to tolerate errors.

What I do say, and what the Church says, however, is that the State does have the right to supress false religion if it choses. It also has the duty to promote the one True religion. There are times when it is more prudent for the State to tolerate false worhsip, but false worhship can never be elevated to a “right”, since it is contrary to a duty - the duty man has to obey the first commandment.

Many never has a right to sin, since our rights come from God and God gives no one the right to violate his commandments.

Toleration of error is one thing, but claiming that error has “rights” is another. The Church does permit the toleration of error, but never claims that error has rights, or that people have a right to profess an error. I provided the quote from Libertas of Pope Leo XIII that explains this.

Rather, there are practical considerations that are different depending on the nature of the population–be they completely Catholic or more diverse.

Right, that is why the principal of toleration must sometimes be applied. The circumstances are what determine that.

Pax has a problem with the advocation of a broad freedom to be granted in modern societies, but this is a valid prudential judgment that does not fall under the error of Liberalism. Again, I cannot recommend enough the two links I provided above.

Actually, I don’t have a problem with the principal of toleration being applied in today’s world, since that is what prudence would dictate. One could not make American a Catholic country today and forbid false worship tomorrow. That would end in chaos. Therefore, if somehow American became a Catholic country next week, it would have to apply the principal of toleration, but never could it claim that people have an inherent right to violate the first commandment by practicing false worship.

Where Liberalism departs from Catholicism is when it professed that man has the right to sin.

The difference between saying the State should tolerate error and sin, and saying people have a right to profess error and sin, may seem subtle, but it is not. It is two fundamentally different concepts, and one is totally false, since no one has the right to violate God’s law - even though it may sometimes be prudent for the State to tolerate such violations.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas, I need to take your arguments one at at a time because of the limitations of the CA Forums. re: The status Vatican II: John XXIII and PaulVI intended this council to be Ecumenical, not just "pastoral."

**Do we agree on what is Ecumenical and infallible? ** The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (the New Advent website–check it out):
That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

The notion that Vatican II is merely pastoral and not ecumenical is simply not true. I gather from your many posts that the current Catechism is wrong, that Vatican II errors, that the recent popes are “modernists” and hence wrong. You have not persuaded me. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Please let me know if I misread your many complex posts.

There is one distinction that you are not making. Ecumenical does not equal infallible, unless “the conditions are met”. If you notice, the encyclopedia quote you provided says that an ecumenical council is infallble when it “satisfies the conditions above”.

I’m sure if you read the “conditions above” it will lay out the four conditions defined at the First Vatican Council for Infallibility. An ecumenical council is not infallible on the bases that it is ecuemnical. There must be more. It must engage the extraordinary magisterium by defing a dogma. That’s what would make it infallible.

Here’s a few quotes to make my point:

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966.

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

Cardinal Ratzinger: "“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

Vatican II did not intend to exercise infallibility, and as such did not do so. Infallibility, whether at an ecumenical council or by a Papal decree, has certain conditions that must be met. Vatican II did not intend to meet these conditions, and did not do so (as Pope Paul VI admitted above).

 

[EasterJoy]

I never said the State has a duty to supress all false worship. In fact, I quoted Pope Leo XIII saying that it is sometime best for the State to tolerate errors.

What I do say, and what the Church says, however, is that the State does have the right to supress false religion if it choses. It also has the duty to promote the one True religion. There are times when it is more prudent for the State to tolerate false worhsip, but false worhship can never be elevated to a “right”, since it is contrary to a duty - the duty man has to obey the first commandment.

Many never has a right to sin, since our rights come from God and God gives no one the right to violate his commandments.

Toleration of error is one thing, but claiming that error has “rights” is another. The Church does permit the toleration of error, but never claims that error has rights, or that people have a right to profess an error. I provided the quote from Libertas of Pope Leo XIII that explains this…

Actually, I don’t have a problem with the principal of toleration being applied in today’s world, since that is what prudence would dictate. One could not make American a Catholic country today and forbid false worship tomorrow. That would end in chaos. Therefore, if somehow American became a Catholic country next week, it would have to apply the principal of toleration, but never could it claim that people have an inherent right to violate the first commandment by practicing false worship.

Where Liberalism departs from Catholicism is when it professed that man has the right to sin.

The difference between saying the State should tolerate error and sin, and saying people have a right to profess error and sin, may seem subtle, but it is not. It is two fundamentally different concepts, and one is totally false, since no one has the right to violate God’s law - even though it may sometimes be prudent for the State to tolerate such violations.

I think you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So, since people have no right to profess error and sin, you believe that the state should be given the right–because the state has no rights, save those given to it by the governed–to suppress religions it judges to be false? Or don’t you? Which is it? It seems to me that if people do not individually have the right to discern the truth, then in practice you have given the state the right to discern the truth for everybody. That thought makes my skin crawl.

What, in our history, makes you think for a second that if the state were to choose one “true” religion to promote, it would be the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church? What makes you think that if the state were to promote Catholicism, that there would be no corrupting influence on Catholicism as a result?

We have a bad system, but it is the best we’re going to come up with until Christ returns.

America has never been a Roman Catholic country. Anglican, yes, but not Roman Catholic, not remotely. We have had one Catholic president, and he got elected by promising that the Pope would have no political authority over him. The best we’ve ever managed is to be tolerated.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

That’s probably because you are not understanding certain distinction.

So, since people have no right to profess error and sin, you believe that the state should be given the right–because the state has no rights, save those given to it by the governed–to suppress religions it judges to be false? Or don’t you? Which is it?

The State does not receive its right from the citizens. All rights come from God. If you consider things in their proper perspective, everything begins to make sense. The following is the proper perspective…

1.) **God’s Rights: **God has all Rights. Therefore, God has the right to command certain things of man.

2.) Man’s coprresponding duty: Man then has the corresponding duty (obligation) to do what God commands. Not only individual men, but the State also has an obligation to fulfill its duties toward God.

3.) Man’s rights: Lastly, men as individuals, and the State itslef, has the right to fulfill its duties towards God. Let’s take an example…

Since God’s first commandment forbids false religions, and since the State has the duty to obey the commandments of God, the the State has the right to forbid false religion - since this corresponds to its duties towards God.

Now, the State can tolerate false worship (which is a violation of the law of God), just as God tolerates violations of His law. But what the State cannot do is claim that man has a “right” to violate any of God’s laws, since our true rights come to us from God, and God gives no one the right to violate his laws.

What Liberalism does is proclaims that man has the right to violate God’s law. It inverts the order and places man’s right at the top, to the exclusion, and detriment, of his duties. It cimpletely ignores God’s rights and mans duties, and fucuses all attention of the “Rights of Man”, going so far as to claim that man has inherent rights, that are, in reality, a violation of God’s law.

The encyclical Libertas, that I have referred to a few times, discusses this in great detail.

It seems to me that if people do not individually have the right to discern the truth, then in practice you have given the state the right to discern the truth for everybody. That thought makes my skin crawl.

That is because you are viewing it incorectly. The Church and State are supposed to be united, like they were during the middle ages. Since the supernatural is above the natural, the State is supposed to be subordinate to the Church. So, in reality, it is the Church that “discerns the truth” (for lack of a better word), and the State who implements it. The State has the right to frame morally indifferent laws independent of the Church (such as trafic laws, etc.), but it has no right to frame laws in opposition to what the Church teaches.

What, in our history, makes you think for a second that if the state were to choose one “true” religion to promote, it would be the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church?

Again, you are missing the point. You are viewing it from the practical level and mixing truth with error. The State only has the duty to profess the Catholic religion, since it alone is true. If a State chose to profess a heretical or false religion, it would be in violation of the first commandment. Therefore, it has no right to do such a thing. Remember, rights flow from and correspond to duties. In order to understand true rights, the duties must be considered first (which Liberalism never does).

In order for the State to fuflful its duty to God, it must profess the true religion.

What makes you think that if the state were to promote Catholicism, that there would be no corrupting influence on Catholicism as a result?

Well, we have over 1000 years of the States professing the true religion. Certainly all was not perfect, since we are dealing with fallen humans who have tendencies to sin, but it was properly ordered, and was much better than anything we have today.

We have a bad system, but it is the best we’re going to come up with until Christ returns.

Not true: The best system is what was practiced for about 1500 years of Christianity - where the State is united to the Church and promotes its laws. That is the ideal.

Be careful what you wish for.

Be careful of what we have now because very soon Christianity will become a hate crime. As Jesus said, we are either for him or against him. This applies to the State as well. An agnostic State (which is what American is) is not for Christ. Therefore, by definition it is against him, and this is becoming more and more evident each decade.

 

[tr1954]

What a great topic! I praise all who contributed to this discussion, and I have to say Pax et Caritas makes excellent points & observations. However I do have trouble understanding something. Below I pasted the some of the answers Pax et Caritas is giving, and I agree with those. What I have problem understanding is the conclusion he draws. So let’s start:

The State does not receive its right from the citizens. All rights come from God. If you consider things in their proper perspective, everything begins to make sense. The following is the proper perspective…

1.) **God’s Rights: **God has all Rights. Therefore, God has the right to command certain things of man.

2.) Man’s coprresponding duty: Man then has the corresponding duty (obligation) to do what God commands. Not only individual men, but the State also has an obligation to fulfill its duties toward God.

3.) Man’s rights: Lastly, men as individuals, and the State itslef, has the right to fulfill its duties towards God. Let’s take an example…

Since God’s first commandment forbids false religions, and since the State has the duty to obey the commandments of God, the the State has the right to forbid false religion - since this corresponds to its duties towards God.

Now, the State can tolerate false worship (which is a violation of the law of God), just as God tolerates violations of His law. But what the State cannot do is claim that man has a “right” to violate any of God’s laws, since our true rights come to us from God, and God gives no one the right to violate his laws.

OK…here’s my question… how this fits into what God says in Sirach 15:18 ?

“18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him”

Isn’t man’s choice assured by God Himself? If that what Sirach 15:18 says, than the question of man’s free will is a right, which comes directly from God…isn’t it? We all hope that man chooses good, but if man chooses good or bad THAT becomes his right given by God Himself…isn’t that true?

What Liberalism does is proclaims that man has the right to violate God’s law. It inverts the order and places man’s right at the top, to the exclusion, and detriment, of his duties. It completely ignores God’s rights and mans duties, and fucuses all attention of the “Rights of Man”, going so far as to claim that man has inherent rights, that are, in reality, a violation of God’s law.

The encyclical Libertas, that I have referred to a few times, discusses this in great detail.

But in light of Sirach 15:18 aren’t the liberals right, when they proclaim that man does indeed has a right to violate God’s law? By choosing evil, or death (as Sirach points it out) THAT is man’s choice and is his right, coming from God Himself…isn’t it?

I agree with just about everything you stated in this tread, and I consider myself a traditionalist. But I had to ask you to explain my dilemma, which seems to me is somewhat in line what the libs are saying. To me it sounds that God does give man a chance to follow, or not follow His laws. And that choice does become man’s right. Which makes perfect sense, if we agree that liberalism is a sin…LOL!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

OK…here’s my question… how this fits into what God says in Sirach 15:18 ?

“18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him”

Isn’t man’s choice assured by God Himself? If that what Sirach 15:18 says, than the question of man’s free will is a right, which comes directly from God…isn’t it? We all hope that man chooses good, but if man chooses good or bad THAT becomes his right given by God Himself…isn’t that true?

But in light of Sirach 15:18 aren’t the liberals right, when they proclaim that man does indeed has a right to violate God’s law? By choosing evil, or death (as Sirach points it out) THAT is man’s choice and is his right, coming from God Himself…isn’t it?

I agree with just about everything you stated in this tread, and I consider myself a traditionalist. But I had to ask you to explain my dilemma, which seems to me is somewhat in line what the libs are saying.

That is an excellent question, and the Church has an excellent answer. I’ll give you the answer and then refer you to a document that discusses that very point you raise.

First, we must distinghuish between natural liberty (free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what we are cabable of doing, whereas moral liberty is what we are allowed to do.

Natural liberty is the necessary foundation for moral liberty. That is because, in order to chose, we must have the ability to chose. The ability to chose (free will) is natural liberty.

Moral liberty sets the boundaries for our natural liberty. Although we are “capable” of doing anything (because we have free will - “natural liberty”), we are only have a “right” to do what is permitted. That’s why a women does not have a “right” to kill her child.

What is permitted is that which falls within the law - beginning with the natural law (which is stamped upon our nature), and also extending to the Divine Positive law (revelation).

Since our rights proceed from God, obviously we do not have a “right” to do what God forbids. Therefore, we have not right to lie, or murder, or violate any just laws.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty”.

“Rights” are a moral power. Therefore, man only has a true right to do what is true and good. We need to be sure not to confuse what we have the ability to do, with what we have the “right” to do. After all, women have the ability to murder their children, yet they have no right to do so.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: “For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State”.

You question was excellent and it gets right to the heart of the error of Liberalism. They confuse free will (what we are able to do), with moral liberty, and claim that man has a “right” to do whatever he pleases.

The encyclical that discusses this very point is the one I have been quoting from. If begins with a discussion of natural liberty and moral liberty, and then applies it to concretely.

Here’s a link: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

 

[EasterJoy]

Again, you are missing the point. You are viewing it from the practical level and mixing truth with error. …The best system is what was practiced for about 1500 years of Christianity - where the State is united to the Church and promotes its laws. That is the ideal.

I’m sorry to be practical again, but…that might be a really great ideal, when most of the population is Catholic. As it is, we are about 25% of the population. Our choices are these: a non-Catholic religious state or a state which doesn’t favor one religion over another but allows us free exercise of our religion, and which does not prevent the enactment of just laws simply because the laws reflect Catholic teaching. This is something that some in the separation-of-Church-and-state crowd think they are entitled to. They are not. Catholics should be able to advance political ideals for no other reason than that the Church teaches it. Why not, even from a secular standpoint? Everyone else is allowed to advance their own thinking, simply because that is what they think.

Also from a practical standpoint: there must be free exercise of religion allowed to the point that sin is not encouraged. It is not virtuous to have pogroms. It is gravely immoral. So even if you find yourself in a formally Catholic country, a total intolerance of injustices towards those who are outside the Church, as divine justice demands, will from a practical standpoint, require a certain amount of religious tolerance, will it not?

I also do not think that history shows that giving clerics the opportunity to advance themselves by political activity or position was a good idea. Quite to the contrary! When clerics were given secular power, it had too much of a tendency to corrupt the Church heirarchy. It attracted men to the episcopacy for the wrong reasons. The current heirarchy are wise not to repeat that mistake.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Easterjoy,

Easterjoy,

Keep reading along as a post additional chapters of the book.

The following is from Chapter four. This chapter addresses something that was touched in earlier, which almost no one realizes. It explains how sins against Faith (such as heresy) are the worst kinds of sin. Sins against faith exceed murder (abortion), adultery, or any other kind of other sin. The only sin that is worse would be formal hatred of God.

“Conservatives” today have a real problem with moral relativism (which pertains to morality), but very little problem with religious indifferentism. As stated earlier, relativism is to morality what indifferentism is to faith.

CHAPTER 4: THE GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF LIBERALISM

"Liberalism is a mortal sin. But Catholic theology teaches us that all sins are not equally grave, that there is even a distinction of degree in venial sins. There are also degrees in the category of mortal sin, (27) just as there are in the category of meritorious works. The gravity of sin is determined by the object at which it strikes. Blasphemy, for instance, which directly attacks God Himself, is a sin of much graver character than theft, which directly attacks man. With the exception of formal hate against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable unless he be in Hell, the gravest of all sins are those against faith. **The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order, and sin is sin in so far as it attacks this supernatural order at this or the other point; hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this order at its very foundations. To destroy the foundations is to destroy the entire superstructure. **To cut off the branch of a tree will not kill it; but to lay the ax to the trunk or the roots is fatal to its life. Henceforth it bears neither blossom nor fruit. St. Augustine, Cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: Hoc est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. "This the sin which comprehends all other sins."

"The Angel of the Schools [St. Thomas] expresses himself with his usual clearness on this point: **“The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and (28) God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.” **

"When sin against faith is simply a culpable privation of the knowledge of God, it has not the same gravity as a direct and formal attack upon dogmas expressly defined by revelation. In this latter case sin against faith, so grave in itself, acquires that degree of gravity which constitutes heresy. It then contains all the malice of infidelity, and becomes an express protestation against the teachings of faith or an express adhesion to a teaching which is condemned as false and erroneous by the faith itself. Besides the deadly sin against faith itself, it is accompanied by hardness of heart, obstinacy, and the proud preference for one’s own reason over the reason of God Himself.

**"Hence heretical doctrines, and works inspired by them, constitute the greatest of all sins with the exception of the formal hate against God, **of which only the demons in hell and the damned are capable. **Liberalism then, which is heresy, and all the works of Liberalism, which are heretical works, are the gravest sins known in the code of the Christian law. (29)
**
"Liberalism is, therefore, a greater sin than blasphemy, theft, adultery, homicide, or any other violation of the law of God, save in such case as where one acts in good faith, in ignorance, or thoughtlessly.

“It is true that modern naturalism does not so regard or understand the case. But the law of the Church in matters of morals and doctrine is unchangeable; it ordains today as it did yesterday, and heresy is always heresy no matter what the shape it takes. Appearances may be fair, and the devil may present himself as an Angel of light. The danger is the greater as the outward show is more seductive. Heresy has never been so insidious as under its present form of Liberalism. Its range is so wide that it touches upon every note in the scale, and finds an easy disguise in its protean facilities. But its most fatal shaft is in its plea for “liberty of mind.” This in its own eyes is its cardinal virtue. “Intellectual freedom from dogmatism” is its boast, a boast in reality the mask of ignorance and pride. To meet such an enemy requires no ordinary courage guarded by a sleepless vigilance. When encountered it is obligatory upon the Catholic conscience to resist it with all the powers of the soul. Heresy and all its works are sins; Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches (31) all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.” END CHAPTER 4

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No, but I have been called a liberal and modernist in this venue. This is something laughable among the people who know me.

Ditto
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[PrayforMallory]

Ditto
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Haha yeah I know what you mean.

I watched the Papal Mass with the Patriarch of Constantinople and kept thinking “liberal,” because I read someone on a sede forum’s description of the Pope.

It was really funny.

 

[Cristiano]

« …] un liberale americano non sarebbe chiamato liberale in nessun paese europeo; lo chiameremmo un radicale di sinistra. Viceversa, un liberale italiano negli Stati Uniti sarebbe definito un conservatore.» Giovanni Sartori

Translation:
« …] an American liberal would not be called liberal in any European country, we would call him a leftist radical. However, in the United States an Italian liberal would be defined as a conservative.»

 

[EasterJoy]

Easterjoy,

Easterjoy,

Keep reading along as a post additional chapters of the book.

The following is from Chapter four. This chapter addresses something that was touched in earlier, which almost no one realizes. It explains how sins against Faith (such as heresy) are the worst kinds of sin. Sins against faith exceed murder (abortion), adultery, or any other kind of other sin. The only sin that is worse would be formal hatred of God.

“Conservatives” today have a real problem with moral relativism (which pertains to morality), but very little problem with religious indifferentism. As stated earlier, relativism is to morality what indifferentism is to faith.

CHAPTER 4: THE GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF LIBERALISM

"Liberalism is a mortal sin. But Catholic theology teaches us that all sins are not equally grave, that there is even a distinction of degree in venial sins. There are also degrees in the category of mortal sin, (27) just as there are in the category of meritorious works. The gravity of sin is determined by the object at which it strikes. Blasphemy, for instance, which directly attacks God Himself, is a sin of much graver character than theft, which directly attacks man. With the exception of formal hate against God, which constitutes the deadliest of all sins and of which the creature is rarely culpable unless he be in Hell, the gravest of all sins are those against faith. **The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order, and sin is sin in so far as it attacks this supernatural order at this or the other point; hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this order at its very foundations. To destroy the foundations is to destroy the entire superstructure. **To cut off the branch of a tree will not kill it; but to lay the ax to the trunk or the roots is fatal to its life. Henceforth it bears neither blossom nor fruit. St. Augustine, Cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: Hoc est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. "This the sin which comprehends all other sins."

“The Angel of the Schools [St. Thomas] expresses himself with his usual clearness on this point: "The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and (28) God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.”

"When sin against faith is simply a culpable privation of the knowledge of God, it has not the same gravity as a direct and formal attack upon dogmas expressly defined by revelation. In this latter case sin against faith, so grave in itself, acquires that degree of gravity which constitutes heresy. It then contains all the malice of infidelity, and becomes an express protestation against the teachings of faith or an express adhesion to a teaching which is condemned as false and erroneous by the faith itself. Besides the deadly sin against faith itself, it is accompanied by hardness of heart, obstinacy, and the proud preference for one’s own reason over the reason of God Himself.

**"Hence heretical doctrines, and works inspired by them, constitute the greatest of all sins with the exception of the formal hate against God, **of which only the demons in hell and the damned are capable. **Liberalism then, which is heresy, and all the works of Liberalism, which are heretical works, are the gravest sins known in the code of the Christian law. (29)
**
"Liberalism is, therefore, a greater sin than blasphemy, theft, adultery, homicide, or any other violation of the law of God, save in such case as where one acts in good faith, in ignorance, or thoughtlessly.

“It is true that modern naturalism does not so regard or understand the case. But the law of the Church in matters of morals and doctrine is unchangeable; it ordains today as it did yesterday, and heresy is always heresy no matter what the shape it takes. Appearances may be fair, and the devil may present himself as an Angel of light. The danger is the greater as the outward show is more seductive. Heresy has never been so insidious as under its present form of Liberalism. Its range is so wide that it touches upon every note in the scale, and finds an easy disguise in its protean facilities. But its most fatal shaft is in its plea for “liberty of mind.” This in its own eyes is its cardinal virtue. “Intellectual freedom from dogmatism” is its boast, a boast in reality the mask of ignorance and pride. To meet such an enemy requires no ordinary courage guarded by a sleepless vigilance. When encountered it is obligatory upon the Catholic conscience to resist it with all the powers of the soul. Heresy and all its works are sins; Liberalism is the root of heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches (31) all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils.” END CHAPTER 4

I can read the encyclicals on the Vatican web site.

Nevertheless, we are not in a postion to call the shots in this country, are we? You must know history as well as I do. If there is no freedom of religion, we will be among those who will be legislated against. If there is no freedom of speech, we will be among the muzzled. If discrimination based on religious belief is allowed, it will be “Catholics need not apply” all over again.

Furthermore, keep in mind that when Catholics have been allowed to attempt to legislate faith–which cannot be done–it has been used as permission to commit all sorts of sins against Protestants and non-Christians, causing a scandal against the Church which exists to this day.

It is not as if the pogroms and religious wars in our past can be defended on the basis of having done any good. Attempts at forcible conversion repel, not convert. We do not need inquisitors, out enforcing correct thought. Who will be saved by that? We need prophets, out proclaiming and living the truth. That is what converts souls to Jesus Christ, and converting souls to Him is the whole ballgame.

Are Catholics bound to support laws which are in compliance with the laws of Heaven? Surely. Are we bound to shout down all who speak a word otherwise? No, particularly not if it is foreseeable that there will be a scandal against the Gospel as a result.

We must keep in mind not only the ends that we want, but also the ends that we are most likely to get. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing, and the main thing is to win souls for Christ. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I’ll go ahead an respond to you points.

I can read the encyclicals on the Vatican web site.

If there is no freedom of religion, we will be among those who will be legislated against. If there is no freedom of speech, we will be among the muzzled. If discrimination based on religious belief is allowed, it will be “Catholics need not apply” all over again.

Again, you are mixing truth with error. Error has no rights, and no government has the right to forbid Catholics from practicing the true faith. Therefore, when the government is agnostic or athiestic (like our is), it is better for Catholics if they do not forbid them from practicing their faith.

The following is a formally condemned error.

Syllabus #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"

Furthermore, keep in mind that when Catholics have been allowed to attempt to legislate faith–which cannot be done–it has been used as permission to commit all sorts of sins against Protestants and non-Christians, causing a scandal against the Church which exists to this day.

The Catholic State has every right to forbid violations against the first commandment, which is what Protestantism and non Christian “religions” are. The State can also attach a penalty to the violators of that just law. One of the penalties can be burning at the stake. Therefore, when the Church sanctioned that practice - for about 1000 years - it was not being unjust or causing a scandal.

It is not as if the pogroms and religious wars in our past can be defended on the basis of having done any good. Attempts at forcible conversion repel, not convert.

No one is advocating forced conversion. Forbidding someone from practicing their false religion publicly, is a different thing from forcing them to become a Catholic.

We do not need inquisitors, out enforcing correct thought.

I disagree. I think we do need inquisitors and the current Bishops need to be the first ones examined. Then, when 99% of them are removed from their position for being heretics, we can install some good ones and let the restoration move ahead.

You do realize, don’t you, that what you are saying is implicitly condemning about 1000 years of Catholicism.

Who will be saved by that?

The Catholics will be saved because they will not be misled by the heretics.

Are Catholics bound to support laws which are in compliance with the laws of Heaven? Surely. Are we bound to shout down all who speak a word otherwise? No, particularly not if it is foreseeable that there will be a scandal against the Gospel as a result.

Forbidding the public practice of false religions and heretical sects (as the Catholic Church did for 1000+ years) is not a scandal against the Gospel. The scandal is promoting the worst heretics to Bishop and allowing them to mislead millions of Catholics, which is precisely what happend during the 26 year reign of John Paul the Great.

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing, and the main thing is to win souls for Christ. Everything else is secondary.

What do you think the primary duty of the Pope is? It is not the conversion of souls. It is the protection of the faith. The Church must protect the faith, while the missionaries bring souls into the Church.

By the State forbidding false religions, it is doing its part to protect the faith, and the faithful. And, believe it or not, that is a good thing.

 

[EasterJoy]

That you are rightly against the sin of liberalism does not mean that the rest of your arguments hold water.

Again, you are mixing truth with error. Error has no rights, and no government has the right to forbid Catholics from practicing the true faith. Therefore, when the government is agnostic or athiestic (like our is), it is better for Catholics if they do not forbid them from practicing their faith…

I just don’t see the practical value of your point. If Spain forbids the practice of Islam, are you going to go to the United Nations and argue that Spain may forbid Islam, but Saudi Arabia may not forbid Catholicism? How are you going to find a leg to stand on with this? You are preaching to the choir if you’re telling me that Spain is forbidding a false religion, while Saudi Arabis is forbidding the true one. I think you are mixing fantasy and reality.

The following is a formally condemned error.

Syllabus #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"

The Catholic State has every right to forbid violations against the first commandment, which is what Protestantism and non Christian “religions” are. The State can also attach a penalty to the violators of that just law. One of the penalties can be burning at the stake. Therefore, when the Church sanctioned that practice - for about 1000 years - it was not being unjust or causing a scandal…

First off…you are talking again about a Catholic state. We don’t have one of those. We’re not going to get one, except by converting enough of the population to Catholicism (and a specific sentiment within Catholicism, at that) to change the Constitution. Dare I say that ain’t gonna happen?

The State can legislate moral behavior and has a duty to do so, but no one can legislate faith. Faith is a gift. How can it be moral to punish someone for having failed to receive a gift? Only God, for God alone can judge the circumstances under which it was not received.

If you legislate that people who do not believe in the True Presence must attend Mass anyway, you are essentially legislating sacriledge! That is the reasonable outcome of a law like that. So no, I can’t see legislating the practice of faith, even in a Catholic country. It causes more sin than it prevents. It is one thing for the Church to do so, for she can exact appropriate consequences, including excommunication where she deems it appropriate. It is quite another for the state to exact consequences of the kinds that states have open to them. That is a horse of a different color.

No one is advocating forced conversion. Forbidding someone from practicing their false religion publicly, is a different thing from forcing them to become a Catholic…

Again…
a) What goes around, comes around.
b) If you think it doesn’t cause scandal to burn heretics at the stake, it is difficult to imagine that you are not advocating for forced conversion.

I disagree. I think we do need inquisitors and the current Bishops need to be the first ones examined. Then, when 99% of them are removed from their position for being heretics, we can install some good ones and let the restoration move ahead.

You do realize, don’t you, that what you are saying is implicitly condemning about 1000 years of Catholicism.

The Catholics will be saved because they will not be misled by the heretics.

Forbidding the public practice of false religions and heretical sects (as the Catholic Church did for 1000+ years) is not a scandal against the Gospel. The scandal is promoting the worst heretics to Bishop and allowing them to mislead millions of Catholics, which is precisely what happend during the 26 year reign of John Paul the Great.

What do you think the primary duty of the Pope is? It is not the conversion of souls. It is the protection of the faith. The Church must protect the faith, while the missionaries bring souls into the Church.

By the State forbidding false religions, it is doing its part to protect the faith, and the faithful. And, believe it or not, that is a good thing.

Where did you get the idea that the Pope’s role is defense of the faith, and not the conversion of souls? This is a new one on me…and, may I say, Heaven forbid! Have we forgotten the Great Commission?

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name of the FAther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world.” Matt. 28:20

Having addressed that point, let us remember that we do have an “inquisitor”, only now the office is the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. As you are aware, that is the office formerly held by our Holy Father. They can declare bishops to be in heresy, and have them excommunicated or declare them to be in schism. Are you suggesting that we should figure out a way to have an Inquisition against our inquistors, then?

Are you advocating going back to the days of burning people at the stake for heresy? Would not Saul have been given that sentence, after all, before becoming St. Paul? Would you have burned St. Augustine for heresy, while he was yet a Manachean? It is not for us to exact vengeance on those who refuse the Gospel! To burn heretics at the stake is a grave offense against the hope of conversion.

“If anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town, and once outside it shake its dust from your feet. I assure you, it will go easier for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement that it will for that town.” Matt. 10:14-15

“Bless your persecutors; bless and do not curse them…never repay injury for injury. See that your conduct is honorable in the eyes of all.*** If possible, live peaceably with everyone. ***Beloved, do not avenge yourselves; leave that to God’s wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay’ says the Lord’. But ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; by doing this you will heap burning coals upon his head.’ Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.” Rom. 12:14,17-21

I have this challenge for you: find one single place in the entire New Testament were Christians were charged to take vengeance on non-believers. I don’t need any chapter and verse telling me that they are subject to the consequences of not believing. I want a verse that gives any indication that we should be the ones handing out the consequences. You will find in the Scriptures that the consequences of heresy are expulsion from the Church, not death. This was the long-standing custom of the Church.

So yes: burning heretics at the stake was entirely a scandal upon the Church. That was wrong, and I do not fear to say so explicitly. To be honest, I can’t believe there is a soul still living who would argue otherwise. They burned Joan of Arc with that kind of thinking, for crying out loud! If it came to that, I’d gladly take our discussion before Cardinal Levada, the current Prefect for the Propogation of the Doctrine of the Faith.