Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[lil_flower_luv]

Thank you, the 7th one and SVP!

May our Lord Bless you.

 

[chaunceygardner]

In my earlier post (#170), I discussed the issue of “labeling” and then categorizing people based on labels. I pointed out that there is a continuum, or really many continuums, from very conservative to very liberal, on almost every issue. I would be considered liberal on some, but conservative on others. So what does that make me? It seems that it depends on which issue is being discussed.

I could say I am pro-life (against abortion) and I would be called conservative. I could say I was against war and the death penalty and I would be called liberal. What would I be called if I advocated both positions (which would be true as I have supported BOTH right-to-life organizations and pro-peace organizations).

Not everything or everyone can be labeled as completely Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate.

If you forget about contemporary meanings for liberal and conservative and apply their original definitions, then a Catholic would have to be liberal if he or she was a true follower of Christ. Jesus was not only liberal, He was a radical (a threat to the political and religious status quo). He was condemned to a horrible death because he was so radical.

If we truly wish to follow Him, to be Christian, we too must be as liberal as He was. As we learn in the Gospel reading from this Sunday, going just half way (moderation) is not enough.

 

[diggerdomer]

Simply- NO

Liberalism in todays world is completely at odds with the Catholic Church.

Did you read all this Thread?

Your statement is a complete generalization and incapable of critique or discussion because it’s so vague. You give no basis for your claim, no definition of what you mean by liberalism, etc. Read the thread, please, then feel free to clarify if you’d like to.

 

[fix]

No. God doesn’t contradict Godself. We just can’t seem to ever get it 100%.

I believe the Bible is the Living Word of God, and the Word of God is continually, gradually, revealed to us over time. It is an unfolding conversation and not a stagnant, unchanging book of rules. I am a contextualist, not fundamentalist. And way back in my freshman year of high school, my Theology teacher said that Catholics interpret, or are supposed to interpret, the Bible contextually, not literally. For example, Christians used to use the Bible (or rather, parts of the Bible) to justify slavery. Now, Christians use that same Bible to say that slavery is absolutely unacceptable with no place in the Kingdom of God or on Earth.

Now as Catholics, of course we use more than the Bible for our philosophy. However, as God’s Truth is continually revealed to us, it forces us to re-examine our Canon Law. The Truth is the same. Our understanding changes because we’re finite and imperfect and don’t always “get it” the first time.

Again, look back at this past Sunday’s Gospel, which included Mark 10:2-11. Moses’ “law” permitted divorce, but Jesus said Moses wrote that law because of their hardness of hearts. From the beginning, God made us male and female, the two shall become one flesh, whatever God joined no human can separate etc, etc. You all can obviously read so I won’t type the entire passage.

The letter of the law, which the Pharisees clung so desperately to, wasn’t in sync with what God really wanted. Laws change, God doesn’t. The Truth (capital t) is the same, though truth (lowercase t) changes. I don’t want to turn into a Pharisee who is more concerned with following laws to the letter than walking in the Light, the Spirit of God.

We have the magisterium that gets it right as Christ promised. As for the Mosaic law that was imperfect and as for the Pharisees Christ said to do exactly as they say.

 

[Jason_1977]

Hi all~

I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?

Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…

~Therese

Why would anyone want to be a liberal?:coffeeread:

 

[otjm]

Why would anyone want to be a liberal?:coffeeread:

That would, as has been noted repeatedly in the thread, depend on how one defines liberal. The Church itself has said that it is neither liberal nor conservative; it is here to preach Christ, and Him crucified.

However, in the world, as oppsed to Church, there are political issues that are divided up into liberal and conservative positions.

One might reasonably say that supporting the right of people to unionize is liberal. The Church certainly has supported that right - does that make the Church liberal? Some people do not want to hear what the Church has said about that, insisiting that the Church needs to stick to morals and faith. The Church in turn says that this is a moral issue; and some people don’t want to hear about moral issues that run contrary to their opinions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why would anyone want to be a liberal?:coffeeread:

So they can have high moral standards? (no torture, racism, etc.)

 

[Dana_Laine]

Hello, I am new to Catholic forums. I was searching for Father Carapi, since I have been listening to him on EWTN on Saturdays and Sundays. I considered myself a liberal, but, probably I cross over on issues. I am against abortion. But, I am for helping the child and person after he is born. I was sent to a Methodist Church all my childhood. My mother and her mother were Methodists, even though they didn’t attend church except Easter and Sunday. They sent their children there. I got my first Bible when I was about 7 or 8. It was a King James and the words were hard. But, I knew I was seeking Jesus, and loved Jesus all my life. So, I read only the words in red, which were Jesus’s words. I continued to do this long, long after I was able to read the black words. By the time I read the black words, I was in my early teens, and they were only confusing. Last year, I began hearing Father Carapi on TV. His messages were instructive, he was like a teacher, a good one. I had only heard preachers, many good ones, but they referred to beliefs which I couldn’t practice, even though I didn’t disagree with them. I know I am liberal, because I know Jesus was liberal. He spoke the truth. Sometimes I think maybe people would be better off, if they only read the red words as children. I am grateful for Father Carapi’s teaching skills. I cannot imagine what he is talking about when he speaks of the Holy Mother. Oh, I know that is Mary, but protestants never mention her much, except she gave birth to Jesus. I wonder, can’t a good liberal Methodist be against abortion, without being actively involved in politics? I went to great lengths to help my sons and their wives, so they could avoid abortion. There has been none in my family. I am poor, because I chose to raise children, and help raise other children who otherwise may have been aborted. For now, I will just keep listening to Father Carapi, because his words are like the red words, and I know they are the truth.

 

[otjm]

Hello, I am new to Catholic forums. I was searching for Father Carapi, since I have been listening to him on EWTN on Saturdays and Sundays. I considered myself a liberal, but, probably I cross over on issues. I am against abortion. But, I am for helping the child and person after he is born. I was sent to a Methodist Church all my childhood. My mother and her mother were Methodists, even though they didn’t attend church except Easter and Sunday. They sent their children there. I got my first Bible when I was about 7 or 8. It was a King James and the words were hard. But, I knew I was seeking Jesus, and loved Jesus all my life. So, I read only the words in red, which were Jesus’s words. I continued to do this long, long after I was able to read the black words. By the time I read the black words, I was in my early teens, and they were only confusing. Last year, I began hearing Father Carapi on TV. His messages were instructive, he was like a teacher, a good one. I had only heard preachers, many good ones, but they referred to beliefs which I couldn’t practice, even though I didn’t disagree with them. I know I am liberal, because I know Jesus was liberal. He spoke the truth. Sometimes I think maybe people would be better off, if they only read the red words as children. I am grateful for Father Carapi’s teaching skills. I cannot imagine what he is talking about when he speaks of the Holy Mother. Oh, I know that is Mary, but protestants never mention her much, except she gave birth to Jesus. I wonder, can’t a good liberal Methodist be against abortion, without being actively involved in politics? I went to great lengths to help my sons and their wives, so they could avoid abortion. There has been none in my family. I am poor, because I chose to raise children, and help raise other children who otherwise may have been aborted. For now, I will just keep listening to Father Carapi, because his words are like the red words, and I know they are the truth.

Welcome to the Forum! Keep listening to Father Corapi and you won’t go far wrong.

 

[itinerant1]

"It is common to advise Catholics to make up their minds to accept the political doctrines of the day; but it would be more to the purpose to recall the ideas of Catholic times."

~ Lord Acton: Political Thoughts on the Church

 

[itinerant1]

So they can have high moral standards? (no torture, racism, etc.)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that liberalism promotes high moral standards. Is that interpretation accurate? Do you mean political liberalism?

If so, what do you mean by “liberal”? Who would be your examples of this liberalism that have high moral values? Provide some recognizable names.

In the everyday use of the term liberal in the popular media, someone like Bill Clinton is considered a political liberal. However, under his administration the program of “extraordinary rendition” was used by the CIA to kidnap suspects and transport them to foreign countries to be tortured. (Of course, this practice dramatically escalated under George W. Bush, and torture then became standard operating procedure, which was micro-managed by the media darling Donald Rumsfeld.)

Also, Clinton was very pro-abortion in his policies, but not quite as pro-abortion as Obama. There are no moral values here to speak of.

So, I am not sure what you mean by liberal. Definitions are essential to properly understand what someone is talking about, and I’m sure you don’t want to be misunderstood.

 

[AHapka]

But, I am for helping the child and person after he is born…I know I am liberal, because I know Jesus was liberal. He spoke the truth.

This is true of conservatives as well, so I don’t see your point? Please explain.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that liberalism promotes high moral standards. Is that interpretation accurate? Do you mean political liberalism?

If so, what do you mean by “liberal”? Who would be your examples of this liberalism that have high moral values? Provide some recognizable names.

In the everyday use of the term liberal in the popular media, someone like Bill Clinton is considered a political liberal. However, under his administration the program of “extraordinary rendition” was used by the CIA to kidnap suspects and transport them to foreign countries to be tortured. (Of course, this practice dramatically escalated under George W. Bush, and torture then became standard operating procedure, which was micro-managed by the media darling Donald Rumsfeld.)

Also, Clinton was very pro-abortion in his policies, but not quite as pro-abortion as Obama. There are no moral values here to speak of.

So, I am not sure what you mean by liberal. Definitions are essential to properly understand what someone is talking about, and I’m sure you don’t want to be misunderstood.

The irony on these forums is just overwhelming lately, if I pop “liberal” into the on line dictionary here what it replies:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous:
b. Generous in amount; ample:
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate:
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum:
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

I’ll bet you did not realize the most important word in your post, it was “here”

hope that helps

 

[itinerant1]

The irony on these forums is just overwhelming lately, if I pop “liberal” into the on line dictionary here what it replies:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous:
b. Generous in amount; ample:
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate:
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum:
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.

I’ll bet you did not realize the most important word in your post, it was “here”

hope that helps

You consulted a dictionary, which is more effort than many folks would expend. However, dictionary definitions are a starting point only. I noted what you highlighted.
However, these definitions are rather terse and simple. But you are referring to a distinctive kind of attitude.

Now, where and how does a political liberalism of this nature fit into America’s current political culture and party system? (My question makes no assumption as to whether this kind of liberalism is or is not in accordance with any contemporary political organization.)

 

[the_7th_one]

So they can have high moral standards? (no torture, racism, etc.)

Liberals have as many moral failures as conservatives. It mcomes back to the point that to be Catholic is to take positions based on Morla and Ethical standards.
To be Liberal or Conservative is to take positions based on Idiology. Idiological thinking tends to dismiss moral standards that do not help the cause and advance ones that do help.

 

[docgm]

Absolutely you can It depends what liberal means In USA anything that isnt following the Republican party is considred liberal

To all you Catholics who vote Republican (and I am sure many of those supported the WAR inIRAQ)

How is it defending Catholic Teaching to support the war In Iraq ??? The pope said it was wrong The POPE .And many Catholics who vote Republican consider it " just" .I dont know based on what teaching

please explain how the overwhelming majority of Europoean catholics consider the war in Iraq wrong but many so called catholics in this country think the opposite?.How is inadvertent killing -over innocent160000 Iraqis by Lancet study pro life???it isnt just about abortion to be pro life

 

[otjm]

Absolutely you can It depends what liberal means In USA anything that isnt following the Republican party is considred liberal

To all you Catholics who vote Republican (and I am sure many of those supported the WAR inIRAQ)

How is it defending Catholic Teaching to support the war In Iraq ??? The pope said it was wrong The POPE .

I would suggest that you actually look up what the Pope said about the matter. I do not believe that you are actually quoting what he said, but rather what the general impression was of what he said - which was inaccurate.

And many Catholics who vote Republican consider it " just" .I dont know based on what teaching

The teaching is called the Just War Theory. and if you want to see what a very well thought out and considered discussion of the Iraq war according to the Just War Theory is, look for the work that George Weigel did on the matter. Whether you agree with it or not, it is something that everyone should read. Many people say there is no such thing as a Just War anymore, but they are reacting rather than thinking through the issue. It is not something that gets decided of coffee and Danish on a Saturday morning. And interestingly, some people who reacted to his writing, from the comments they made, gave the impression that their approach was “Don’t confuse me with the facts! I already have my mind made up!”

please explain how the overwhelming majority of Europoean catholics consider the war in Iraq wrong but many so called catholics in this country think the opposite?.

to begin with, the overwhelming majority of Catholics in Europe don’t even go to Mass on a weekly basis; the statistics, depending on the country, are between 15% and 5%. Why would I care a fig about what they say? If they can’t get their own morality straight by going to Mass regularly, why am I going to have them lecture me on other moral matters?

How is inadvertent killing -over innocent160000 Iraqis by Lancet study pro life???it isnt just about abortion to be pro life

First, please site the source of your statistics. I have seen all sorts of numbers bandied about as to who killed how many; they are primarily estimates from people who were not there.

 

[diggerdomer]

docgm;5831795:

Absolutely you can It depends what liberal means In USA anything that isnt following the Republican party is considred liberal

To all you Catholics who vote Republican (and I am sure many of those supported the WAR inIRAQ)

How is it defending Catholic Teaching to support the war In Iraq ??? The pope said it was wrong The POPE .

I would suggest that you actually look up what the Pope said about the matter. I do not believe that you are actually quoting what he said, but rather what the general impression was of what he said - which was inaccurate.The teaching is called the Just War Theory. and if you want to see what a very well thought out and considered discussion of the Iraq war according to the Just War Theory is, look for the work that George Weigel did on the matter. Whether you agree with it or not, it is something that everyone should read. Many people say there is no such thing as a Just War anymore, but they are reacting rather than thinking through the issue. It is not something that gets decided of coffee and Danish on a Saturday morning. And interestingly, some people who reacted to his writing, from the comments they made, gave the impression that their approach was “Don’t confuse me with the facts! I already have my mind made up!”

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq as initiated by the U.S. meets the just war criteria?

I wasn’t sure. Thanks for any clarification.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hi all~

I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?

Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…

~Therese

I’m not sure if you are a convert to the catholic faith or not, but reading this tells me it’s not political ignorance at play here in your question.

Catholics in general, are typically democrats over history in the US.

This has changed over recent times, and I will not speculate on why it has.

I would rather ask, why so many catholic politicians were (may he rest in peace) and are pro abortion.

 

[otjm]

otjm;5832370:

docgm;5831795:

Absolutely you can It depends what liberal means In USA anything that isnt following the Republican party is considred liberal

To all you Catholics who vote Republican (and I am sure many of those supported the WAR inIRAQ)

How is it defending Catholic Teaching to support the war In Iraq ??? The pope said it was wrong The POPE .

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq as initiated by the U.S. meets the just war criteria?

I wasn’t sure. Thanks for any clarification.

the Just War Theory is not a simple “put in your quarter, turn the handle and get your answer” type of machine. As I noted, I suggest that people actually read what Weigel wrote. They may not agree with his analysis, but it is one of the better, if not best expositions of Just War Theory I have seen - and I went to Viet Nam, while some of my classmates from the seminary went into alternative service, medical corp, jail or Canada. I am not exactly unaware of the therory, and most people are not trained enough either in philosphy (including logic) or moral theology to be able to deal with as complex an issue as this. Thus many simply fall back on a simplistic emotional response - whether that is for or against the war.

I don’t think Bush lied to the American people; but I do believe that he and the adminsitration put the best spin on it they could. I do believe he was given horrible advice.

So what I am suggesting is in response to the question: How is it defending Catholic teaching to defend the war - is that there is actually Catholic teaching; there has been one very intelligent and well thought out individual who has done a study of the issue according to the Just War Theory, and has written the results. I did not say, nor do I imply that I agree with him. But there are a lot of Catholcis of the opinion that there no longer is any such thing as Just War Theory or the if there is, no war any longer would apply. Most of them have a level of knowledge about the Theory that is the equivalent of not having enough sense to come in out of the rain. In other words, they have no intellectual honesty nor rigor and they look at the question with their answer already made up.

I am not suggesting that the war meets the criteria of Just war; but Weigel does, and before anyone goes off half cocked about the matter, I suggest that they get the article; read it throug once, then read it a second time taking notes. They might actually learn something - what a unique thought.

And note - that is not in reference to you. I simply tire of people acting as if they know something when their knowledge base seems to come from the popular press - the intellectual equivalent of a Cracker Jack Box.