Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Faithdancer]

No matter how you try to reinterpret this passage, Jesus only mentioned sexual sins. In addition to this, forgiveness does not mean that punishment is no longer necessary or deserved. Finally, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Thus, the primary purpose of Jesus’ answer is to escape from the trap, nothing more.

Sorry, starshiptrooper, I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptural passage in question where Jesus mentions “sexual sins.” He simply says that the one who is without sin may cast the first stone. Then he tells the woman that her sins are forgiven, and to go and sin no more. Where does he do anything else in this passage but forgive her? Where does he punish her, or recommend punishment for her? Far from reinterpreting the verses, I take them at face value. Jesus points out that all are sinners, and he then forgives. To interpret the passage as some sort of battle of wits between Jesus and the Pharisees, however- I just can’t go there with you.

Again, a depiction of Jesus as needing to “escape the trap” of the Pharisees attributes human motivation or vulnerability to Jesus. It is irrelevant what the goals of the Pharisees were; what is truly relevant is what Jesus’ words are. And his words are entirely consistent with his nature: all-compassionate, all-merciful, all forgiving, which are divine, not human qualities.

 

[Sister_Terese]

I don’t think so. If by being “liberal” you are referring to political liberalism. Liberalism, at least by today’s standards, encompasses much marxist, atheistic, and socialistic tenets which are inconsistent and contrary to Church teachings (i.e.: abortion, birth control, Church vs. State, same-sex marriages, homosexuality, etc.). In modern western liberalism, there is no room for God, let alone the Catholic teachings–which are a “contradiction” to most modern issues. But, Our Lord said Himself that He came as a “contradiction” to pit brother against brother, etc. When I think of modern liberalism as encountered in the catholic arena, I think of the Kennedys, Cuomo, Pelosi, et al. So, in that sense, the answer must be an unequivocable NO.

 

[lynnvinc]

"You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion…(Cardinal Raymond Burke)

Now I have a bit of a problem with eliminating ALL abortion. Not in my personal regard, for I would sacrifice my own life to give birth to my child, but I know many people are weak-hearted, esp women, and we can’t really expect ALL of those faced with a life-threatening pregnancy to sacrifice their lives to save their unborn babies…otherwise they go to prison for having an abortion.

(It also seems a bit unfair that a man killing someone in self-defense is allowed to get off the hook, but not a woman for abortion to save her own life (in a society that has banned ALL abortions not matter what), tho again, I would sacrifice my own life rather than kill someone in self-defense – I aspire to be a true pacifist – but not all are that stalwart…and I’m not sure I am either, unless I’m put to the test sometime (hope I’m not).)

Now if only it were men who bore children, not weakling women, then they would be able to tough it out, I’m sure, and go thru with life-threatening pregnancies

I remember watching THE CARDINAL, the Cardinal by conscience had to allow his unconscious sister to die in childbirth rather than give permission for a partial-birth abortion. And the last scene, a beautiful girl, the daughter who was not aborted. That was the right decision, though in real life such decisions would be very difficult, except for the very upright of heart and stalwart types.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Sorry, starshiptrooper, I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptural passage in question where Jesus mentions “sexual sins.”

According to Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, the word Jesus uses for ‘sin’ means sexual sin.

He simply says that the one who is without sin may cast the first stone. Then he tells the woman that her sins are forgiven, and to go and sin no more. Where does he do anything else in this passage but forgive her? Where does he punish her, or recommend punishment for her?

All I said was that forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive concepts. Do you disagree with that?

Far from reinterpreting the verses, I take them at face value. Jesus points out that all are sinners, and he then forgives.

Nope, Jesus condemns the Pharisees as hypocrites and forgives the woman. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus uses a very specific word for sin. He was clearly referring only to His audience, not all humans.

To interpret the passage as some sort of battle of wits between Jesus and the Pharisees, however- I just can’t go there with you. ]Again, a depiction of Jesus as needing to “escape the trap” of the Pharisees attributes human motivation or vulnerability to Jesus.

You may take your quarrel up with St. John. He specifically says that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. Thus, Jesus’ reply was meant to escape from the trap set by His foes.

 

[Hastrman]

According to Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, the word Jesus uses for ‘sin’ means sexual sin.

Shh, don’t confuse them by mentioning the fact it wasn’t written in English!

 

[AHapka]

So the bottom line is Barack Obama is not affecting abortions, not at all. Women are the only ones who affect abortions and they will procure them regardless of who is in the White House.

I disagree with you that only women affect abortions. If the father insists and continually pushes that the mother have an abortion, it may influence a mother “on the fence” to go through with it who might otherwise not have. On the other hand, a father who tells the mother that he will support her, and help her with the baby, and be loving and caring may very well prevent an abortion that otherwise may have occured because the mother felt helpless.

And of course Barack Obama supports abortions. He states that he is a liberal. A liberal, by definition, is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, then you are not a liberal. And to call yourself one is to lie.

 

[Faithdancer]

Shh, don’t confuse them by mentioning the fact it wasn’t written in English!

I doubt that anyone here believes that Scripture was originally written in English, Hastrman. So why make the comment?

At any rate, In addition to adultery the definition of the word in question, “Αναμαρτητος” includes “fornication, etc” according to Clarke’s Commentary. Further, in accordance with Jesus’ own preaching, thinking of sexual sin is morally the same as committing the act (Matthew 5:28). Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that not only the Pharisees, but anyone else within earshot, or any other adult male then or now, and presumably a number of adult females, are guilty of “sexual sin.”

For some mysterious reason, those charged with translating Scripture from ancient Greek into modern English chose to simply use the word “sin” and not “sexual sin” or “adultery” in this passage and elsewhere. I don’t know if they were interpreting in light of a belief that all human beings are sinners and whatever the specific sins they have committed, they should not judge others based on whether the sins of the others are more or less grave than their own- in other words, a belief that we all, at some time or another, commit grave and mortal sins, whether adultery, “fornication etc.” or something else. Well, as I said, I don’t know why they chose to interpret in this way and use the more general word, “sin” but it would be interesting to know.

But that’s not the deeper issue- it’s whether the passage is intended to display Jesus’ fine legal mind, scoring points and winning some kind of victory against the Pharisees- or it is truly about a “teaching moment,” as we say in education, wherein Jesus teaches us about compassion, empathy and mercy. I think that the most important lines of the story occur at it’s conclusion: "Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11 NAB). Not only is this the crux of the whole story, it is fundamental to understanding Jesus’ message that repentance and contrition are key to salvation.

 

[Carlan]

For those Catholics who are pro-life and also concerned about social justice and the environment, for example, they are stuck between parties. The best spokesman for such Catholics was probably the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago who spoke of the Catholic position on abortion and social justice isses as a “seamless web.” Some bishops have argued that no Catholic should vote for a candidate who is not pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion), which would make Catholics a single-issue voting bloc that would likely vote for Republican candidates. Other bishops view this as only one of many important issues that Catholic voters should consider.

!

These days I also find my self in the middle as you described, however as a Dem I could not bring myself to vote for President Obama because of his pro choice beliefs but then I could not vote for Senator Mc Cain either,because of his morality concerning family. Sooooo… I’m stuck again it looks like, with all the very extreme right people in competition this time around.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Eugenius]

A liberal, by definition, is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, then you are not a liberal. And to call yourself one is to lie.

This has to be a joke, right?

 

[Eugenius]

I don’t think so. If by being “liberal” you are referring to political liberalism. Liberalism, at least by today’s standards, encompasses much marxist, atheistic, and socialistic tenets which are inconsistent and contrary to Church teachings (i.e.: abortion, birth control, Church vs. State, same-sex marriages, homosexuality, etc.). In modern western liberalism, there is no room for God, let alone the Catholic teachings–which are a “contradiction” to most modern issues. But, Our Lord said Himself that He came as a “contradiction” to pit brother against brother, etc. When I think of modern liberalism as encountered in the catholic arena, I think of the Kennedys, Cuomo, Pelosi, et al. So, in that sense, the answer must be an unequivocable NO.

Let’s try the flip side and ask how a Catholic can be a conservative Republican. There is equal opportunity for disgust on just one issue alone…divorce. We’ve already had one divorced and remarried President Reagan flaunting his immoral, adulterous, anti-family lifestyle and in the last election we had another adulter try to get into the White House. I have yet to hear of one Repulican candidate call on Americans to strengthen our families by repealing no-fault divorce, so apparently the high divorce rate is acceptable to them and conservatives want to install them as role models. Somehow these jokers call themselves “pro-family” and the party faithful swallow it hook, line and sinker. I don’t want this type of morality running the country either.

 

[estesbob]

Let’s try the flip side and ask how a Catholic can be a conservative Republican. There is equal opportunity for disgust on just one issue alone…divorce. We’ve already had one divorced and remarried President Reagan flaunting his immoral, adulterous, anti-family lifestyle and in the last election we had another adulter try to get into the White House. I have yet to hear of one Repulican candidate call on Americans to strengthen our families by repealing no-fault divorce, so apparently the high divorce rate is acceptable to them and conservatives want to install them as role models. Somehow these jokers call themselves “pro-family” and the party faithful swallow it hook, line and sinker. I don’t want this type of morality running the country either.

So pro-abortion Canidiates are all opposed to divorce and live exemplary lives? I will have to admit this is one of the more bizarre rationales I have seen for supportingt the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[AHapka]

This has to be a joke, right?

What would make it a joke? It’s what I’ve been taught my whole life.

 

[Hastrman]

So pro-abortion Canidiates are all opposed to divorce and live exemplary lives? I will have to admit this is one of the more bizarre rationales I have seen for supportingt the slaughter of the innocents.

Well, basically, a liberal is one who believes he can use other people’s tax money to buy indulgences for that. You know, because the welfare state is absolutely, 100% consonant with human dignity.

 

[Carlan]

So pro-abortion Canidiates are all opposed to divorce and live exemplary lives? I will have to admit this is one of the more bizarre rationales I have seen for supportingt the slaughter of the innocents.

<Mortal sin is mortal sin and we don’t try to justify any of it as far as I am concerned.In case you are resorting to kidding yourself, we are all sinners and eventually we must face up to it no matter about politics…Dems or Reps.
In the end it is the woman who chooses to abort. And that is where the convincing matters most, God in the end will deal with those guilty of involvement only he knows for sure. And in the end all will get their due.In the meantime we pray!
Peace, Carlan

 

[estesbob]

<Mortal sin is mortal sin and we don’t try to justify any of it as far as I am concerned.In case you are resorting to kidding yourself, we are all sinners and eventually we must face up to it no matter about politics…Dems or Reps.
In the end it is the woman who chooses to abort. And that is where the convincing matters most, God in the end will deal with those guilty of involvement only he knows for sure. And in the end all will get their due.In the meantime we pray!
Peace, Carlan

The abortion exception raises it’s ugly head again No one suggests we should legalize rape because after all men are going to rape anyway And no one suggests it would be licit for a Catholic to support a canidate who wants to legalize rape. But of course the abortion exception doesn’t apply therei

 

[ManOnFire]

These days I also find my self in the middle as you described, however as a Dem I could not bring myself to vote for President Obama because of his pro choice beliefs but then I could not vote for Senator Mc Cain either,because of his morality concerning family. Sooooo… I’m stuck again it looks like, with all the very extreme right people in competition this time around.
Peace, Carlan

The unelected media creates public opinion. The farther left the media goes socially (and it certainly has), the farther right the right appears to move, relatively speaking, even if the right stands still. That’s the advantage the unelected leftist media has in creating public opinion. They have made the unthinkers believe that you are not “in” or “correct” unless you agree with their opinions. That’s why we will continue to see the family driven off the cliff unless more people wake up to see that socail liberalism is causing ill people, then getting elected as the cure, only to institute more illness to the blind who refuse to See what’s happening here. The funny thing about Deception is that many just can’t See it.

 

[ManOnFire]

Let’s try the flip side and ask how a Catholic can be a conservative Republican. There is equal opportunity for disgust on just one issue alone…divorce. We’ve already had one divorced and remarried President Reagan flaunting his immoral, adulterous, anti-family lifestyle and in the last election we had another adulter try to get into the White House. I have yet to hear of one Repulican candidate call on Americans to strengthen our families by repealing no-fault divorce, so apparently the high divorce rate is acceptable to them and conservatives want to install them as role models. Somehow these jokers call themselves “pro-family” and the party faithful swallow it hook, line and sinker. I don’t want this type of morality running the country either.

Baby steps first. We need to clean up society with social conservatism first, then maybe we’ll find that an admirable politician like Rick Santorum will become electable. Unfortunately, the pop culture media has led so many astray that we are a long way from that at this time.

 

[Carlan]

The abortion exception raises it’s ugly head again No one suggests we should legalize rape because after all men are going to rape anyway And no one suggests it would be licit for a Catholic to support a canidate who wants to legalize rape. But of course the abortion exception doesn’t apply therei

And around and around you continue to go. And that’s your way, and fair enough, but we are all trying , amongst us, to live our lives as we are called to do.You give the impression, for the most part,estesbob, all fall far short of the perfection you have attained.
Life is a process for all of us, the good and the evil, and as it is plain to see, all are not in the same place at the same time…we continue to pray!
Peace, Carlan

 

[estesbob]

And around and around you continue to go. And that’s your way, and fair enough, but we are all trying , amongst us, to live our lives as we are called to do.You give the impression, for the most part,estesbob, all fall far short of the perfection you have attained.
Life is a process for all of us, the good and the evil, and as it is plain to see, all are not in the same place at the same time…we continue to pray!
Peace, Carlan

It does not take perfection to not vote for a pro-abortion canidate-just obedience to the Church

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

A liberal, by definition, is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, then you are not a liberal. And to call yourself one is to lie.

Hm. Well, that is an interesting and very confining definition of liberal. It has the benefit of being simple, though. At least with this definition, we all know whether or not we are liberals. Using that definition, we can also answer the OP- which from the beginning I have thought impossible. Hooray for simple definitions!

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with the definition. Since on the majority of current political issues, I am pretty predictably liberal, I generally consider myself politically liberal but also pro-life. I am not going to jump into a million different specific issues here, but my political beliefs are informed by my Catholic faith, and generally specifically by the USCCB. There is a lot of room for political disagreement in the Church.

The conversation will continue to spin in the same circle as everyone present has a different notion of what the word means, evidenced by debates over whether or not Jesus or Abraham Lincoln were liberal. Liberal, staying relatively close to its denotation without worry of connotation generally means open to, or pursuant of, change. But in specific contexts it certainly means a variety of much more specific things. Are you liberal on the subject of abortion? No one could mistake the meaning of that question. (Though a troublemaker might argue that since current laws protect abortion rights liberal might mean the opposite of what is obviously intended.) Are you a liberal Catholic? That might mean are you politically liberal and Catholic, or it might mean do you think the Church is outdated and needs to get with the times. Are you an economic liberal? A social liberal? Does the word just mean democrat? Does it mean progressive? Is it the opposite of conservative?