Dumb question: where are the Catholic 'liberals' in this forum?

[PJR]

You have a great point. I would also say that the exact same set of descriptions holds true for those on the other end of the spectrum. Whatever we are calling it here. I am orthodox so that’s not it, heterodoxy from a traditionalist bent or something.

Talking to some of the uber-trads is like talking to a radical leftist. I don’t see much difference. Both are absolutely right and everyone else is an idiot.

Fulton Sheen had a great show on EWTN contrasting this very subject yesterday.
The Barrister:

Yeah, but it’s that 1% that’s the killer!

I’ve yet to find a liberal who isn’t bigotted.

I’ve yet to find a liberal who is open to all viewpoints.

I’ve yet to find a liberal whose “broad-mindedness” extended beyond those things with which he/she agreed with.

And I’ve yet to find a liberal who is tolerant of any other viewpoint except a liberal viewpoint.

Besides which, “liberal” should not be used when describing one’s faith. One is either orthodox or heterodox. Sometimes it’s that simple.

 

[dwc]

Lisa, I wasn’t using the term liberal in a political sense, but in the descriptive sense. I agree with you that, when speaking politics, liberals are often equally as unwilling to respect an opposite viewpoint as they accuse conservatives as being.

When I used the term liberal above, it was to describe an attitude toward thinking in general, as defined in the dictionary, not as in a political stance. Likewise, in my dictionary, “conservative” is defined as tending to oppose change, moderate and cautious.

Politically, I’m an independent. I try very hard to vote in accord with the Church’s moral and social justice teachings.

I see that it’s impossible to separate these terms from their political usage.

And:

Talking to some of the uber-trads is like talking to a radical leftist. I don’t see much difference. Both are absolutely right and everyone else is an idiot.

Yep, I totally agree with this. I would add the same is true when speaking to people on the far ends of the political spectrum as well.

 

[space_ghost]

The Barrister:

Yeah, but it’s that 1% that’s the killer!

I’ve yet to find a liberal who isn’t bigotted.

I’ve yet to find a liberal who is open to all viewpoints.

I’ve yet to find a liberal whose “broad-mindedness” extended beyond those things with which he/she agreed with.

And I’ve yet to find a liberal who is tolerant of any other viewpoint except a liberal viewpoint.

Besides which, “liberal” should not be used when describing one’s faith. One is either orthodox or heterodox. Sometimes it’s that simple.

…you probably just need to get out more…

 

[Lisa_N]

dwc:

I see the term feminazi freely tossed around on this forum, and it is NOT restricted to pro-abortion positions. I’ve been attacked here for daring to state that people should be able to come to this apologetics site and ask for the reason behind the church’s stance on women priests without self-proclaimed orthodox members jumping in and trying to shut down the discussion. ?

Generally detailing the reason behind certain teachings such as male priests, DOES shut down the discussion because how are you going to argue. This is what we do. This is why we do it. End of the discussion from what I can tell.

Basically what I see are people who disagree with the teachings who try to argue the point, not based on scripture or tradition but based on changing the Church to suit some modern philosophies. My best friend is a cradle Catholic and an incredible dissident. She thinks there should be women priests because “it would be nice to see a woman up there for a change.” When pressed she admits there is no basis other than her desires for a perceived equality or the selfish desires and ambitions of women who wish to be priests.

Honestly some of these ‘discussions’ are simply non-starters.

dwc:

Question: how is it orthodox (in the sense of accepting the Church’s teachings) to actively reject the church’s authority in allowing women lectors and extraordianary ministers and altar girls? How is it orthodox to reject JPII’s teachings on the honor and dignity of women?

I think there is a difference between choosing to take communion from the priest or a male and actively defying the church teachings. Now if someone stood up in mass and said 'I’m not taking communion from any %#&%(&#( woman and they can ditch the altar girls while they are at it…" that’s another story. But to me this is like going to a particular parish because you prefer something about the parish, not because you are defying Church teachings. Do you see where I am going?

That being said one of our EMs said that she knew people avoided her line and it was hurtful as she is an extremely devout and orthodox Catholic. But let’s face it, we are free to make these choices and hopefully the people who see themselves here will do a bit of soul searching about their motives.

Lisa N

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

I think there is a difference between choosing to take communion from the priest or a male and actively defying the church teachings. Now if someone stood up in mass and said 'I’m not taking communion from any %#&%(&#( woman and they can ditch the altar girls while they are at it…" that’s another story. But to me this is like going to a particular parish because you prefer something about the parish, not because you are defying Church teachings. Do you see where I am going?

Liberals tend to up play prudential judgments on social issues and down play moral issues and doctrine. Church disciplines must be obeyed, but one may hold a contrary opinion to a limited degree.

 

[dwc]

Generally detailing the reason behind certain teachings such as male priests, DOES shut down the discussion because how are you going to argue. This is what we do. This is why we do it. End of the discussion from what I can tell.

This is not the situation I spoke of. In the specific instance I refer to, a poster was dealing with a nominally Catholic friend and asked advice on how to respond to the friend’s objections to the church’s refusal to ordain women. He asked for references, links, advice. In response, several posters basically responded that there would never be women priests, quit bringing this up, they’re tired of the topic, etc. Can you see the difference? A poster was asking for help and the uber-orthodox became so worked up over the very mention of the topic that it was as though they didn’t even comprehend what the poster was asking for.

I think there is a difference between choosing to take communion from the priest or a male and actively defying the church teachings

Sorry, I don’t see the difference. You say defying, I say rejecting. A distinction, yes, but I don’t think it matters here. The church says woman are permitted to be extraordinary ministers. People on the thread justified this because they felt the eucharist became something less when received from a woman’s hand. This is a rejection of what the church teaches.

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

Actually I find in practice that liberals are totally UNWILLING to hear the other side

There are more than a few liberals on this Board who have discussed things with you with civility and intelligence, and the same from you in return. So why this ridiculous statement that is belied by your experience here?

As to the question on the thread, there are a number of liberal Catholics here.

I’d hope so. This is not the Reactionary Rightist Neo-Fascist Forum, you know.

 

[flameburns623]

fix:

I think I get your point and it is a valid one. Part of the answer may be that they specfically choose not to post here or they are not aware of this one forum. Either way, it does not mean they are not large numbers of liberal Catholics out there.

One other point, imo, many times there may be some liberal posters here. I am not accusing anyone, but at times those who are* liberal *usually do not state they reject Church teachings. They up play the prudential decisions about social teachings and down play moral teachings. I have said many times that some like to try to combine truth with error while never publicly denying the truth. Few will say publicly they embrace heresy, they try to coat it a bit and sneak it in under the radar. Look for code words like pastoral, or accusations of *judging, *or intolerant.

I am not saying there is a heretic under every bed, but there is plenty of poor catechesis and plenty of moral relativism that is thinly covered by claiming to be Catholic, but not too Catholic.

There’s still some desire to confound the issues at stake going on. Yes, Catholic social teaching is moderate-to-liberal on the political spectrum, leaving out the matter of abortion or gay rights which are generally deemed more conservative issues. And many people are not thoroughly consistent in their views–they might advocate a more moderate view on abortion and birth control, f’r’instance whilst opposing gay marriage and/or female priests. However MOST people have fairly-well harmonized their views on issues with some particular approach to theology Hence, on-balance one will find that a professed Catholic who opposes Humanae Vitae as representative of the Catholic position always and everywhere, will also usually oppose a hierarchic approach to Church governance; will support at least some measure of softening of the Church’s stance on abortion; will give some credence to the idea that women priests should be considered; will want a ‘kinder gentler’ attitude towards homosexuals; will have very good things to say about Basic Christian Communities, Liberation Theology, and leftist political theories generally; and is likely to be rather experimental in his or her attitudes towards liturgy and theology.

Will every Catholic liberal take ‘liberal’ positions in each and every area I mentioned? Heck, no: and Bill Buckley, the American arch-conservative once supported the legalization of marijuana–usually an issue only for liberals or libertarians–in an effort to remain consistent with his conservative political views. Will liberal Catholics usually come right out and declare themselves smarter than Tradition or the Magisterium? Will they openly declare themselves in active rebellion? Naw–they’ll appeal to things within Tradition (or at least within ‘tradition’ with a little ‘t’) and to peripheral Magisterial documents or other sources to suggest that THEY are being more faithful to ‘true Catholicism’ than the current ‘reactionary’ cabal in the Vatican.

It may well be that this forum is self-filtering for liberals however: it tends to be conservatives and not liberals who put an emphasis upon apologetics, the chief purpose of this forum. I considered this possibility before I created the thread. I rather thought, however, that we’d see some folks come forward saying “Oh, this is a ‘hostile enviornment’ for that sort of thing, but there’s a forum over at www.WhereverLiberalCatholicsGather that is a real hotbed for heterodoxy”.

All in all however, this thread seems to be successful in answering my question. Thanks for all the participation!

 

[flameburns623]

cecelia:

From what I’ve seen in these responses, most of us are arguing from a dichotemy that does not apply to the Catholic Church, and because we’re doing so, we can’t seem to get a handle on the issue. Let’s not use the dichotemy of liberal/conservative because the Catholic Church cannot and should not be reduced to such terms. These are political terms and as such should stay within the political realm. If anything, we should understand what Catholicism is, align our consciences to its truth, and then proclaim this truth to the world. So either we’re Catholic or we’re not. We can’t be “Liberal Catholic” or “Orthodox Catholic” because that implies that Catholicism can be a number of things and that each is legitimate. Catholicism can only be itself. Just like God can be only God. He can’t be a good God or a bad God. He can only be God. The Catholic Church as the mouthpiece of God, as the vessel for the Deposit of Faith can only be Catholic. It can’t be liberal or orthodox. We have let the Culture, which is largely secularist in general and anti-Catholic in particular, to define the Church and then we as Catholics react to the Culture’s defining the terms of the argument and then we internalize such definitions and quibble among ourselves. In this spiritual battle, that’s just what Satan wants the Church Militant to do, to quibble amongst itself about who it is. Confusion reigns, Satan advances.
Rather than react to the Culture and fight internally, let us just proudly proclaim that we are Catholic. Now for those who do not accept the Truth of the faith, they can do one or the other: they can study further to discover the truth, or they can reject truth. But they cannot reject truth and call themselves Catholic. Really, the liberal and conservation labels are really a way for many Catholics to take refuge in a partial Catholicsm which deludes many into thinking they can still call themselves Catholic. We need to therefore eshew these labels and insist on just the term “Catholic” which encompasses both the identity, the theology,and the practice of the Church founded by Christ. I for one will not call myself liberal or conservative Catholic. I will call myself Catholic, and if I somewhere down the line I stop believing in what the Church professes, than I will be honest enough to call myself a non-Catholic. It’s not liberal or conservative Catholicism that’s going to save the world, it’s Catholicism in all its fullness, the moral aspect, the sacramental aspect, the social justice aspect, the devotional aspect, all of Catholicism as it has been handed to us from the Apostles.

All you’ve done is define the traditionalist-conservative approach to Roman Catholicism. You’d love to deny the liberals an existence within Roman Catholicism because it would make it easier to explain Church teaching to outsiders. However, liberal Catholics do exist, they publish extensively and are often lionized by the secular media. Andrew Greeley and Hans Kung both define themselves as Roman Catholics as well but would deem you benighted and hopelessly medieval in your dependence upon what they deem to be a reactionary Magisterium. Both are Catholic liberals par excellance and only the two whom I can think of off the top of my head. (Yes, Kung is no longer licensed as a ‘Catholic theologian’, but he is NOT excommunicated and still openly calls himself Roman Catholic–he did so only this past week on the BBC).

Neither Greeley nor Kung are likely to post here–but they openly declare themselves to be spokesmen for great masses of Roman Catholics like themselves. My question has been, repeatedly–don’t those great masses of followers of Greeley, Kung, and others own computers? Are they unable to articulate their views in an open forum where others could challenge them? Or, as has been suggested by ‘fix’–is this forum largely self-selecting only for those of a more-conservative bent?

 

[Richardols]

flameburns623:

apologetics, the chief purpose of this forum.

Chief purpose of the Forum? Not at all. Apologetics is only one topic/thread on the Forum and isn’t even appropriate in the In the News topic/thread.

 

[YinYangMom]

The Barrister:

Yeah, but it’s that 1% that’s the killer!

I’ve yet to find a liberal who isn’t bigotted.

I’ve yet to find a liberal who is open to all viewpoints.

I’ve yet to find a liberal whose “broad-mindedness” extended beyond those things with which he/she agreed with.

And I’ve yet to find a liberal who is tolerant of any other viewpoint except a liberal viewpoint.

Besides which, “liberal” should not be used when describing one’s faith. One is either orthodox or heterodox. Sometimes it’s that simple.

Hello Barrister, I’m YinYangMom, a liberal who isn’t bigotted, who is open to all viewpoints, whose broad mindedness extends beyond things with which I agree and who is quite tolerant of convservative viewpoints.

Funny, in that I could have written your post with ‘conservative’ in place of ‘liberal’ as that has been my experience so far. Now I’d have to say ‘I’ve met few conservatives’ as opposed to ‘I’ve yet to find a conservative’.

 

[dwc]

It may well be that this forum is self-filtering for liberals however: it tends to be conservatives and not liberals who put an emphasis upon apologetics, the chief purpose of this forum.

I think this is true. I also think that people gravitate toward those who hold similar views. The orthodox tend to gather together here, the progressive/liberal Catholics probably have their own forums. Just because they’re not attracted to this site doesn’t mean they’re not out there and it doesn’t mean they’re unable to articulate powerful arguments. Have you done a google search to find other forums? I haven’t, but you seem interested in mixing it up with some liberal Catholics. I would imagine you could find them, but you’d have to venture into their territory.

 

[Richardols]

flameburns623:

Neither Greeley nor Kung are likely to post here–but they openly declare themselves to be spokesmen for great masses of Roman Catholics like themselves. My question has been, repeatedly–don’t those great masses of followers of Greeley, Kung, and others own computers? Are they unable to articulate their views in an open forum where others could challenge them?

This is a nice Forum to be sure, but it hardly is THE place where orthodox or heterodox Catholics are obliged to post their opinions.

Though, I’d guess, Karl Keating wishes it were THE Great Forum of Catholic Exchange of Ideas.

 

[YinYangMom]

flameburns623:

My question has been, repeatedly–don’t those great masses of followers of Greeley, Kung, and others own computers? Are they unable to articulate their views in an open forum where others could challenge them? Or, as has been suggested by ‘fix’–is this forum largely self-selecting only for those of a more-conservative bent?

There’s just no point to people like that to spend any time here. They aren’t looking to convert devout Catholics to their point of view - they know they don’t stand a chance. Their time is better spent on a ‘Catholic’ board whose members are mostly cafeteria or in-name-only because they can influence them. They don’t want to debate, they want to woo people over to their position.

I wouldn’t waste anytime at a Planned Parenthood sponsored forum speaking the Truth about abortion, would you? Or would you speak about the Truth at less obviously aligned boards whenever the topic came up?

 

[Richardols]

dwc:

The orthodox tend to gather together here, the progressive/liberal Catholics probably have their own forums.

Why not, the orthodox vs. the heterodox rather than the orthodox vs the liberals? Politics need not be part of every religious discussion.

 

[flameburns623]

Richardols:

This is a nice Forum to be sure, but it hardly is THE place where orthodox or heterodox Catholics are obliged to post their opinions.

Though, I’d guess, Karl Keating wishes it were THE Great Forum of Catholic Exchange of Ideas.

That’s true but EWTN is the only English-speaking Catholic network of which I am aware, at least in North America, and Catholic Answers is a prominent part of that network’s programming. That’s how I found this forum. I’d tend to think liberal Roman Catholics would at least be aware of it.

 

[space_ghost]

space ghost:

…and the pirana just keep circling and circling… looking for someone to tear limb from limb… well, at least they are consistent…

Peace:thumbsup:

http://www.drag-gear.com/pool/images/pd05.jpg

still fishin?

 

[flameburns623]

Richardols:

Why not, the orthodox vs. the heterodox rather than the orthodox vs the liberals? Politics need not be part of every religious discussion.

‘Liberal’ is not strictly a political term as was explained very early in this thread. And religious liberals would not define themselves as heterodox. They’d have their own pet names for conservatives.

 

[dwc]

Why not, the orthodox vs. the heterodox rather than the orthodox vs the liberals? Politics need not be part of every religious discussion.

Richard, you’re the one who inserted politics into my statement, not I. I referred to progressive/liberal Catholics. As in their approach to Catholocism.

 

[YinYangMom]

flameburns623:

That’s true but EWTN is the only English-speaking Catholic network of which I am aware, at least in North America, and Catholic Answers is a prominent part of that network’s programming. That’s how I found this forum. I’d tend to think liberal Roman Catholics would at least be aware of it.

If by ‘liberal Roman Catholics’ you are referring to those who are trying to get the Church to change on all those points listed in the first post then I would be surprised to learn any of those Catholics would watch EWTN or listen to Relevant Radio. After half an hour it is obvious the two stations present the Truth…the stuff they don’t want to hear…I would imagine it would get their blood boiling.