Definition of "liberal" catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
christofirst said:
The way I see it, when it comes to sin, a conservative looks for reasons to condemn, while a liberal looks for reasons to excuse.
Click to expand...
Well I was pretty judgemental before I became conservative. I’m not sure I agree with your thesis here. But that’s fine. All good.
 
TaylorDonBarret said:
I think “conservative” - in the sense of clinging to the past - can be an error. Especially when you consider the fact of doctrinal development. The earliest Christians didnt have a clear doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Someone who wanted to “conserve” the unclarity of the first century on that matter would be in error. Likewise, I think there is something unCatholic abut the idea that the official teachings of the Church are moving in the wrong direction. To be Catholic means you believe Christ has promised The Holy Spirit will protect the Church from error and guide her into all truth. That means development of official teaching within the Church is guaranteed to be positive. “Conservatives” sometimes appear not to believe this, based on their reaction to Vat2, Pope Francis, etc.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be those who lean towards religious pluralism, moral relativism, universalism, and changing doctrine to compromise with changing culture.
Click to expand...
I’m going to be clear. Anyone who has issues with Vatican II (the Council itself) is NOT conservative. You cannot be conservative and dissent against authority. This is why you don’t see many conservatives protest the same what progressives protest (not libertarians to protest, but conservatives typically don’t except for peaceful demonstrations against things like abortion - which often have a prayer component.)

Also, as my good archbishop once said to the media about being labeled “conservative,” it is a bishop’s job to be conservative and to conserve the teachings of the ancient church.

The Church calls us all to be conservative. To carefully reflect on the ancient teachings of the Church to make sure currently developments are in keeping with the past.

The whole idea of doctrinal development in the Church is a very conservative process, which is why doctrinal development often takes generations worth of prayer, writings, debates, discussion, research, etc.

Being conservative does NOT mean blindly clinging on to the past. It means to make sure that change is consistent with the past and that we conserve what is worth saving and only change what must be changed.

Conservatism rejects the idea that old things must be replaced because they are old.

A conservative is a conservationist.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
You cannot be conservative and dissent against authority.
Click to expand...
sorry I was going to give an example in secular politics of Milo Y, the alt right “troll”. Seems current politics has examples of right wing conservatives being the rebels.
ok normal conversation can be resumed now
 
Last edited:
christofirst said:
. The way I see it, when it comes to sin, a conservative looks for reasons to condemn, while a liberal looks for reasons to excuse.
Click to expand...
Or, a conservative looks for reasons to condemn, while a liberal looks for reasons to love the sinner anyway.
 
goodcatholic said:
40.png
phil19034:
You cannot be conservative and dissent against authority.
Click to expand...
sorry I was going to give an example in secular politics of Milo Y, the alt right “troll”. Seems current politics has examples of right wing conservatives being the rebels.
ok normal conversation can be resumed now
Click to expand...
Milo Y is NOT a conservative. He is a libertarian.

Not all Republicans and people on the right are conservatives - actually I would argue that most on the right are not pure conservatives. After all, the conservatives surely did not vote for Donald Trump during the Republican Primaries.

Libertarians (who exists in BOTH the Republican Party & Democratic Party) are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (or defiant). They typically side with the political party that focuses on the issues they care about the most. So Milo is a right leaning libertarian, while most Holywood Executives and many CEOs in the Democratic Party are actually left leaning libertarians.

There are a lot of libertarians out there, and the number among the youth are growing.

I would argue that along with socialism & libertarianism are the two fastest growing political ideologies growing in the United States and that is NOT a good thing.

NOTE: as a political science major, I could discuss this all day. 🙂

God Bless
 
Last edited:
angel12 said:
40.png
christofirst:
. The way I see it, when it comes to sin, a conservative looks for reasons to condemn, while a liberal looks for reasons to excuse.
Click to expand...
Or, a conservative looks for reasons to condemn, while a liberal looks for reasons to love the sinner anyway.
Click to expand...
Conservatives do not look for reasons to condemn. That is a very uncharitable thing to say about us and to say about a huge number of priests and bishops (if not a majority)

However, I would say that conservatives do have a tendency to ERROR on the side of JUSTICE when attempting to properly balance Justice and Mercy.

While a liberal does have a tendency to ERROR on the side of MERCY when attempting to properly balance Justice and Mercy.

In other words, a conservative may error with misplaced justice, while a liberal may error with misplaced mercy. However, both are misplaced and in error. This is where are Catholic Social teaching comes into play, because the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that it is Justice vs Mercy, but rather a “BOTH / AND.”

Bishop Barron gave the best talk I’ve ever hear about balancing Justice & Mercy during the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia. I love how he says uses a wine analogy, saying that we Catholics don’t fight over white wine vs red wine, but that we go for a health pink wine! It’s totally worth watching and I’m so happy I saw it in person.


God Bless
 
Leaves a liberal time earlier than mass ending, (after the homily, before the Eucharistic prayers)
 
Opposite of the ‘Early Christians.’

Liberally Late for mass all the time. 🤭
 
Here is an explanation of a Liberal Catholic from the famous 19th century book “Liberalism is a Sin.”
The Liberal Catholic assumes as the formal motive of the act of faith, not the infallible authority of God revealing supernatural truth, but his own reason deigning to accept as true what appears rational to him according to the appreciation and measure of his own individual judgment. He subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts Revelation, not on account of the infallible Revealer, but because of the “infallible” receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of faith. He believes in the independence of reason. It is true he accepts the Magisterium of the Church, yet he does not accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth. He reserves, as a coefficient factor in the determination of that truth, his own private judgment. The true sense of revealed doctrine to him is not always certain, and human reason therefore has something to say in the matter, as for instance, the limits of the Church’s infallibility may be determined by human science. Within lines thus prescribed, the declarations of the Church to him are infallible, but these limits are not to be determined by the Church herself. Science will do that for her. She is of course infallible, they say, but we will determine when and in what she shall speak infallibly. Such is the absurdity which the Liberal Catholic falls into by placing the formal motive of faith in human reason.

The Liberal Catholic calls himself a Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgment does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects; he is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus, unwittingly, he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence, he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand, they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance.
Click to expand...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm
 
Just to clarify my post above, that book is working with the concept of Liberalism as the ideology that subordinates faith to reason and excludes the authority of revelation from public life. It has nothing to do with specific positions taken by American political parties–in fact, both parties and the whole American system is thoroughly Liberal.
 
Last edited:
To me, it would take a little more than just pro-life.
  1. The Democratic Party has become very anti Freedom of Religion, opting for an much less “freedom of worship.”
And for anyone who thinks they are the same thing, they are not. Freedom of Religion means that you can practice your faith publicaly without fear. Freedom of Worship means you can go to Church, but hat your religion should remain private.

China, for example, has freedom of worship, but they don’t have Freedom of Religion.

However, if more Dems would be pro-life, then I would vote for more of them on the state level.
  1. An the federal level, Democrats tend to go against the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. They prefer a strong federal government like Canada, which is the opposite of what the founders designed. I prefer the power residing at the state level and domestic policy being handled at the state level.
  2. for me (as a political scientist and student of political fever), my preference for the Republican Party goes beyond policy. Even when I used to be liberal and voted for democrats, I could never see myself leaving the Republican Party. Reason: I’m a pure republican. I believe that a republic is a far more superior form of government over a democracy.
The Republican Party supports republicanism, while the Democrats support more direct democracy. I don’t believe in direct democracy and greatly fear it, as I strongly believe (like the founders) that a republic is far better than a direct democracy.

In closing: if Democrats were more pro-life, I would vote for a lot more of them on the state level, because I like a lot of their ideas on a state level, but not on the federal level - as I don’t believe the federal govt should be involved with domestic policy. To me, the federal govt should be primarily dealing with only defense, international relations, currency, and interstate disputes.

God Bless
 
I do agree with much of what you said, or maybe better, I can see your point. One of my favorite images of Our Lord is the one below of Christ Pantocrator. If you cover the left side of his face, the right side appears stern and harsh, even fierce. I see this as the face of justice. But if you cover the right side, the left side of his face appears benevolent, gentle and welcoming. This I see as the face of mercy. Two aspects of Christ, never one without the other. This is a paradox, and one of the reasons I don’t usually get involved in these discussions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
goodcatholic said:
I think Im considered a liberal catholic on here then. I like the Protestant emphasis on conscience and personal relationship with God. You can call me a Cathprot. if you want.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that does not qualify.

These positions are within the orthodox Catholic teaching.

On the old board, it was considered name calling to use the terms 'rad trad", “prot/prots” and similar words.
goodcatholic said:
I think others might disagree with you on here.
Click to expand...
It would be difficult to find any position that is not disputed on here!
 
EvangelistVictor said:
#1 We know homosexuality and killing babies are mortal sins. #2 But so its not helping the poor and those in need a mortal sin.

So conservatives only focus on #1, and hate #2.

Liberals focus on #2, and hate #1.

So which of these groups is in risk of the fires of hell?
Click to expand...
They both are. And since they are allowing the earth to warm excessively, they all are at risk of a burning earth.

Since they are ignoring nuclear proliferation, they risk causing the earth to burn.

There are a number of issues to consider beyond the few being discussed here. They may have more impact on which party one joins.
 
“Oh, how LIBERAL and gracious our Lord was! He filled me with the faith and love that come from Christ Jesus.”
( 1 Tim 1:14 ) .
 
phil19034 said:
I prefer the power residing at the state level and domestic policy being handled at the state level.
Click to expand...
How did that work out with slavery?

I prefer Democracy, because it at least recognizes that every person has a voice, ie some worth. The problem with having the republic as the sovereign entity is that it is too easy, and tempting, to ignore the rights and voices of individuals. The republican gerrymanders, because dominating the government is more important than allowing people to vote fairly. The republican breaks into his opponnents HQ because holding on to power is more important than respecting others. The republican sells weapons illegally because the republic’s convenience is more important than the law. The republican undercuts law enforcement, because the republic’s interests are more important than the safety of individual’s.

And those are just some problems that Republicans have been convicted of in the last 50 years. I do not understand why anyone would choose to belong to such a corrupt party, unless they wanted to be corrupt too. Democrats have problems too, but at least they have the individual’s voice as a core value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top