Are you a Liberal?

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So who exactly defines who the “magisterium” is and what they say or said or will say? And who has been assigned officially to interpret what the “magisterium” says or said or will say? If you mean Pope, than say so, but please don’t go throwing out labels just because they sound Catholic.

The Magisterium is comprised of the Pope and those bishops in union with the Church. The Magisterium is the official teaching body of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We know what they have said. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What will be said in the future, is only known by the Holy Spirit. You make is sound like they just sit around thinking, gee, what can we do next. If that is an erroneous impression, than please accept my apologies. But such was conveyed by the tone of your questions.
Prayers &a blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

A number of posts ago, I posed the following to Pax et Caritas.

**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, after reading your subsequent posts, I think I know your answer. However, the posts on this very interesting thread (thanks for starting it by the way) are long and complex. Could you give me your answer to my queries so that I can be sure I understand your argument?

Yes.

Question 1: Are liberal democratic states the best protectors of religious freedom? If you think about what a liberal democratic state is, it is an agnostic form of government at best; atheistic at worst. An agnostic form of government probably would be a better protector of religious freedom since it is agnostic, and as such does not profess a single religion. Therefore, whether a person worships God, the devil, a tree, or whatever, they are equally “free” to do so. Good and evil are placed on the exact same level as there is no distinguishing between truth and error.

In the same way, I would say that a liberal democratic state would be a better protector of a women’s right to choose, than would a Catholic country. After all, since the liberal government is, in essence, agnostic, it would be less likely to force one groups morality on another.

The problem with both scenarios is essentially the same: It is the refusal of the State (for whatever reason) to acknowledge the true religion, which it has a duty to profess, and to conform its laws to the laws of God.

Ideally, the state will acknowledge the true religion, and conform its laws to God’s law, as made known through the true religion that the state professes. When such a state exists, it will often forbid (at least public) profession of a false religion, since false religions are contrary to God’s law. It will also forbid immoral practices such as homosexuality and abortion, since these are also contrary to God’s law. The ideal state will promote what God promotes and forbid what He forbids so that the people will tend toward good and away from evil. A liberal democratic state will conform its laws to the “will of the people” (or the will of the legislators) without reference to the will of God. To the extent that the people (or legislators) become immoral and corrupt, so too will its laws.

**Question 2: ***Was Franco’s Spain superior to the US. *The short answer is yes, because Franco’s Spain was a Catholic country. It may not have been as pleasant for women who wanted to have abortions, or for heretics, but it was more in line with the objective good. Therefore, it was better.

I have one question for you: Have you ever read Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII? As a political science professor, I would be very interested in your thoughts on that encyclical. It goes into this subject in great detail. If you have time to read it, please do respond and let me know what you think. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is read that encyclical.

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

 

[po18guy]

What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.

The difference is the reason for doing that which you do. If it is done out of simple autonomy, out of simple self-interest, it is without foundation and meaningless regarding the Kingdom and your salvation. If it is done out of love of God, and obedience to Him, it is efficacious and serves to store treasure up in Heaven.

Liberalism performs actions that are similar to those who serve only the Lord. However, liberalism acts out of self aggrandizement, in a Pharisaic manner, such as praying on street corners. Liberalism removes God from the picture, and exalts the individual.

 

[Brother_Kevin]

Are not liberal democratic states the best protectors of Religious Freedom?

That would be a “No”.

worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693
“[San Francisco] Officially Condemns Catholic Church”

In America, liberals routinely hold and advocate positions that are antithetical and diametrically opposed to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Sadly, the worst offenders in Washington might be Catholics ( Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, et al).

Consider the idealogy of those individuals loudly proclaiming the “right” of mothers to murder their children, confiscatory tax policies, the abolition of private property rights, the teaching of deviant sexual behaviors to underage school children, the abolition of our borders and unrestricted immigration, taking money from those who earned it to give to those who have not, giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants while charging out-of-state tuition to legal citizens, turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism, violating the Constitution by impinging on, restricting and marginizalizing free speech and the right to worship as we please.

The list goes on and on. While there are many in Washington who claim to be “conservatives”, their lack of action speaks louder than words.

You cannot claim to be a Catholic (or even a Christian) and condone abortion.
You cannot claim to be a Catholic (or even a Christian) and condone homosexuality.

There are such things as objective Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. It is not intolerant or hateful to point that out.

Liberalism, as practiced in America and much of the rest of the world today, is permeated with moral relativism. IMHO, this is pure evil.

Perhaps I’m overstating this, but I honestly see no difference between the lies being told by libeals today, such as “It’s a woman’s right to choose” and “Two gay people may marry each other, it doesn’t hurt anybody else”

and this:

“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. (Genesis 3:4 )

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

PoliSciProf,

I just read back through your earlier posts in this thread. In post #34 you quoted Vatican II, presumably to counter what I was saying. I responded in post #37 by asking you to tell me if the quote you provided in #34 was not contrary to the quote I then provided from Quanta Cura.

Now, although I am not fan of Vatican II, and personally think that a future Pope will declare it null and void, nevertheless, it can almost always be reconciled with what the Church has alwasy taught.

In many places it appears to teach the exact contrary of what the Church has always taught, but it actually does not. That is one thing that is very interesting about, not only the documents of Vatican II, but other post consiliar documents: they appear to say what they don’t actually say.

You are a Professor, and I assume very educated. I want to see if you can reconcile the quote from Vatican II that you gave in post #34 with what I am saying. Can you show how what Vatican II taugth is not contrary to what I have been saying in this thread? Believe it or not, it actually does not contradict what I have been saying. In fact, I’m pretty sure I have even stated what the Vatican II quote teaches.

But the tricky part is trying to “interpret” what it says, because, on the surface, it appears to say something else.

Let’s see if you can solve the riddle by interpreting Vatican II “in the light of Tradition”.

 

[cdfost]

You cannot claim to be a Catholic (or even a Christian) and condone homosexuality

Does the church not teach that you are allowed to be a homosexual so long as you remain chaste as found in the Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

CCC III.§2.10.6.II.2357-2359

 

[ethelzguy]

Does the church not teach that you are allowed to be a homosexual so long as you remain chaste as found in the Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

CCC III.§2.10.6.II.2357-2359

This has always been my understanding.

Marriage is the Sacremental Union between one man and one woman.

Sexual relations outside of that union is fornication or adultery.

Fornication and Adultery constitutes Sin.

Period. It doesn’t get more succinct than that.

Tendencies or temptations toward homosexual “behavior” is no different that tendencies or temptations toward being a thief.

It is not a sin to have homosexual tendencies. It is a sin to act on them.

If only the rest of Catholicism were so succinct.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Tendencies or temptations toward homosexual “behavior” is no different that tendencies or temptations toward being a thief.
It is not a sin to have homosexual tendencies. It is a sin to act on them.

Did you get that from me? That is the exact same thing that I always say.

A person is not defined by their tendencies, but by their actions. A person is not a thief because they are tempted to steal. They are a thief if the actually go through with it. So too, a person is not a homosexual if they have that disordered tendendy. They are a homosexual if they act on it.

If only the rest of Catholicism were so succinct.

It actually is when the fine details are understood. That is what the theology of St. Thomas does. It break everything out into categories and makes the obscure clear.

That’s why the modernists hate St. Thomas, and why Pope St. Pius X said that the theology of St. Thomas is the antidote for modernism

 

[kmleo]

Can you point me to sources for this “Theology of St. Thomas”?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Can you point me to sources for this “Theology of St. Thomas”?

His greatest work is the Summa Theologica. Here’s a link where you can purchase the five volume set: christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=00063&event=2018SBF%7C671790%7C70506

And here’s a link to most of the Summa online: newadvent.org/summa/

 

[kmleo]

Thanks!!!

 

[Brother_Kevin]

Does the church not teach that you are allowed to be a homosexual so long as you remain chaste as found in the Catechism:

Yes the Church teaches exactly that.

I intentionally chose the word “condone” in my post. One might as easily use the words “engage in” and still be true to the Catechism.

There is extremely disturbing news on this front coming from Brazil:

worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69775

 

[maggiemay2u]

It always somewhat amazes me that political “conservatives” tend to believe that every political “liberal” favors every issue that disturbs the “conservative”. As a “liberal” I do not assume that all “conservatives” favor war, capital punishment and torture and believe that global warming is a myth. As far as the issues mentioned by the good Deacon, I believe all women should choose life , I think the Church is very wrong on its position on gay marriage, I think cloning of a human being would be wrong,
I’m against creating embryos for stem cell research and at age 77 I’m certainly against euthanasia. (I guess my disagreement on gay marriage does me in !!!)
I do believe that because one is willing to be labeled a “liberal” or a “conservative” one does not surrender his or her right to think and make judgments of his or her own .

Bob–I am truly interested in your views on gay marriage. How has the Church veered off course? I read and reread the thread trying to find your comments that explained a view so very different than mine. Please elucidate!

 

[eelpis]

What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.

To be liberal is to be generous. I don’t think most will agree.

 

[Robster7]

Better a liberal than a libertine!

Liberals like their liberty; libertines like their liberty a lot!

 

[maggiemay2u]

*What I find interesting, is that (according to this thread) it is a sin to be “liberal”.

Yet, from a socio-economical standpoint, Jesus Christ was the quintissential “liberal”.

Even in his religious teachings, he could have been considered a “liberal”…(Let the one among you without sin…)

Go Figure.*

Where in this post did I make a cruel, over generalized, negative statement about traditionalists?

To be liberal is to be generous. I don’t think most will agree.

Maybe the devil is in the details. I don’t see Christ as a liberal at all, especially measured by today’s liberal thought as presented in the media. I see Christ as the quintessential (thanks, I love that word) conservative. Individual responsibility, coupled with the recognition and condemnation of evil as it exists. He didn’t seem to hesitate to tell folks to give up their sinful ways.

I am very generous(liberal) with my own money–I believe that’s what Christ called me to be. Nowhere that I have found in the NT is Christ telling the government to be generous. He didn’t talk about the government giving everything to the poor, or how difficult it would be for the government to get into heaven, at least from what I’ve read.

Maybe I just haven’t read the right passages.

 

[Robster7]

The meaning of liberal and conservative, as political terms, changes with every generation and political movement.
There is nothing per se that makes either one inherently wrong; just the morality of the positions they advocate.

Some people unfortunately confuse the political orthodoxy of opinions with their ethical morality.

We as individual Christians are called to help the disadvantaged in what ever way we can, and do it with love.

It’s not bad that government tries to aid the disadvantaged, just that it tends to be impersonal, and there is a practical limit to what it can accomplish.

Social programs are not bad, but their existence does not exempt us from exercising charity ourselves.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nowhere that I have found in the NT is Christ telling the government to be generous. He didn’t talk about the government giving everything to the poor, or how difficult it would be for the government to get into heaven, at least from what I’ve read.

Maybe I just haven’t read the right passages.

You also won’t find anyone representing the government of Christ’s time asking, “What must we do?” Since Jesus didn’t talk a lot about what “they” should be doing, it isn’t surprising that the passages you are looking for aren’t there.

I guess it depends, then, on whether one thinks of the government as a “they” or as a “we”.

 

[maggiemay2u]

You also won’t find anyone representing the government of Christ’s time asking, “What must we do?” Since Jesus didn’t talk a lot about what “they” should be doing, it isn’t surprising that the passages you are looking for aren’t there.

I guess it depends, then, on whether one thinks of the government as a “they” or as a “we”.

He did allow Pilate to do his thing, mandate we render to Caesar and not allow his apostles to interfere with the government operation-- He did exhort us all to sell all that we own, give it to the poor and follow Him.

I think it’s kind of cheeky of us to tell bazillions of taxpayers who might not agree with our charitable choices what to do with their money, and I think the reverse is true. Maybe we’d all be better off if we went with the founders who let the churches take care of the poor.

 

[Brother_Kevin]

To be liberal is to be generous. I don’t think most will agree.

The facts disagree with you:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
•Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

•Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

•Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

•Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

•In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

•People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.

startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17032146.html