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

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
flameburns623:
One possibility amongst many is that a ‘liberal Catholic’ would see the Pope as a ‘first among peers’, and would reject the rather strict pyramidical hierarchy which you embrace. There would be a sense that the Pope, bishops, priests, etcetera would practice some measure of ‘collegiality’ one with another and with the laity. The Church would not be seen so much as ‘teaching Christ’s Truth’ as ‘spreading the Good News of His Love and embracing the Truths of all things as they are relevant today’. But bear in mind–I have no particular sympathy for liberalism and thus am charicaturing the position more than accurately describing it.

I believe there’s a big difference between a 'liberal Catholic" and a Catholic who is a Liberal or Democrat.

It was my impression from the original post that the person was asking where the Catholics who are liberal in their ideals are and why they aren’t posting…
yet they went on to define the liberal ideals as being all those things the Church is opposed to…
That was not a valid conclusion, in my opinion.
 
40.png
PJR:
Catholic social teachings can be quite liberal, from a political stand anyway. But unfortunately the term itself now seems to carry such a negative connotation it could be equated with being evil.

I agree with SG, I don’t seem to fit the pigeon hole.

I think it is really scary when ideas are labeled this way. It really doesn’t allow for any honest development in our economy, government or our faith for that matter.

A priest in my diocese is an economist and writes a wonderful column on the Church’s teachings of social justice and economic policies. Because many of the issues seem to reflect ideologies shared in the ‘liberal’ camp, he is now being labeled left-wing. This label has become a kiss of death.

I am liberal in some political areas and I thought I was actually quite conservative religiously. I love our Church’s rich traditions, both big T and t. I think the Church teaches the fullness of the truth and do my best to be obedient. I like the old, but am not worried about the new. I trust that the Church will defend the T, and develop the t, in fidelity to Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I think I’m in the same pigeonhole as you, PJR.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
I believe there’s a big difference between a 'liberal Catholic" and a Catholic who is a Liberal or Democrat.

It was my impression from the original post that the person was asking where the Catholics who are liberal in their ideals are and why they aren’t posting…
yet they went on to define the liberal ideals as being all those things the Church is opposed to…
That was not a valid conclusion, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I am the ‘original poster’ to this thread–if by this you intend to mean the one who initiated this thread. I’ve been trying to refine the question I asked and not get sidetracked by semantics about what liberalism ‘is’ or ‘is not’. My surprise is that while a few Catholic liberals publish widely, and while the press can find some purported Catholic persons-on-the-street who advocate liberal ideas–no one appears willing to come to a forum such as this and actually articulate and defend such ideas in a give-and-take sort of manner. On the other hand the traditionalists happily do so, within the limits of the rules of this forum. There are plenty of folks prominently posting on this forum who are also openly members of the Pope Pius the Whichever Society.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post here by any member of the Rainbow Sash folks, the Catholics For a Free Choice, or whatever other dissident Catholic pressure groups there might be. Nor do I see freelance dissidents posting in great numbers, unless you count ‘former Catholics’ who are now practicing some other faith. As I think I have said several times–the media would have one to believe the dissident movement amongt Roman Catholics is enormous. Are they all computer illiterate, despite the enormity of their numbers? Or are they all controversy-averse? Or bereft of any possible rejoinders which might stand up under scrutiny in an open forum? I am only speculating but I think the idea that there are vast numbers of ‘dissidents’ or ‘liberals’ or whatever one might opt to call them is vastly overstated. As I have also said several times.
 
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.
 
40.png
buffalo:
From Liberalism is a Sin -

Liberalism “is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, ‘I will not serve.’” (Ch. 3).

“Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because within it are comprehended all heresies. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.” (Ch. 3).
Click to expand...
****Lucifer, The First Liberal

****While many political opinions and projects are lumped together under the name of liberalism, we should remind ourselves of its most fundamental basis. As Leo XIII explains, liberalism begins with the rejection of both natural and divine law; the “followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality” (LP, n.15). Morality comes neither from God nor human nature…

While many understand liberalism as a freedom for certain political equality and civil rights, more fundamentally liberalism is a freedom from the moral law and the teaching authority of the Church. One cannot speak of “Catholic liberals” without contradiction, or at the very least, equivocation. Liberalism, like socialism and Communism, has been condemned by Pope after Pope in the social encyclicals. If we are tempted to minimize the evils of this error, we would do well to remind ourselves that Pope Leo XIII presents Lucifer to us as the original liberal.

thewandererpress.com/a3-6-2003.htm
 
40.png
flameburns623:
I am the ‘original poster’ to this thread–if by this you intend to mean the one who initiated this thread. I’ve been trying to refine the question I asked and not get sidetracked by semantics about what liberalism ‘is’ or ‘is not’. My surprise is that while a few Catholic liberals publish widely, and while the press can find some purported Catholic persons-on-the-street who advocate liberal ideas–no one appears willing to come to a forum such as this and actually articulate and defend such ideas in a give-and-take sort of manner. On the other hand the traditionalists happily do so, within the limits of the rules of this forum. There are plenty of folks prominently posting on this forum who are also openly members of the Pope Pius the Whichever Society.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post here by any member of the Rainbow Sash folks, the Catholics For a Free Choice, or whatever other dissident Catholic pressure groups there might be. Nor do I see freelance dissidents posting in great numbers, unless you count ‘former Catholics’ who are now practicing some other faith. As I think I have said several times–the media would have one to believe the dissident movement amongt Roman Catholics is enormous. Are they all computer illiterate, despite the enormity of their numbers? Or are they all controversy-averse? Or bereft of any possible rejoinders which might stand up under scrutiny in an open forum? I am only speculating but I think the idea that there are vast numbers of ‘dissidents’ or ‘liberals’ or whatever one might opt to call them is vastly overstated. As I have also said several times.
Click to expand...
They really don’t have arguments that would succeed here in this forum. They want to change Christ’s teachings and they feel it is best to do it through dissent and protest, until the Church gets with the times.
 
I agree that a lot of the social teaching of Catholicism is in the liberal camp (universal health care, taxes, etc.). But a heck of a lot of it is in the extreme conservative camp (pro-life et al).

I see the difference of “quality of life” teachings and “sanctity of life” teachings. The sanctity of life issues is non-negotiable. (WARNING personal opinion to follow) I think the Church embraces a lot of the quality of life issues because of how incredibly selfish Catholics (blanket statement not meant to offend) are. If every Catholic paid tithes like the Protestant Churches, we could stop most of the quality of life issues dead in their tracks. Let’s face it Christ never talked about redistribution of wealth, but for individual believers to do everything they can for the poor.

Another $.02 worth.

Anton

PS Can I take 4 cents off my offering for this week?😃

Anton
 
Ok, OP. Just smack me if I get this wrong…

Are you asking why the whatever society posters are engaged in debate? Or are you saying that the liberal catholics should get on the band wagon and debate if they are really out there, because the other side is here if force?

I don’t think you can get away from the semantics you are trying to avoid. I think it is central to the question. The SSPX’ers have a ‘conservative’ label. That automatically places them in a more postitive position here-even though they are schismatics-than a ‘liberal’ in schism. And while pointing out any liberal view, you can quickly be labeled as a card carrying heretic. Not so if your views are considered conservative. I have given my self a head ache.

“How much wood would a woodchuck chuck…”
 
The term “liberal” is very deceptive. There are plenty of “conservatives” who would not agree with the following statement:

**2832 **As leaven in the dough, the newness of the kingdom should make the earth “rise” by the Spirit of Christ. This must be shown by the establishment of justice in personal and social, economic and international relations, without ever forgetting that there are no just structures without people who want to be just.
 
Can we just post this in every thread debating this issue?

Thanks Cecelia.
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
flameburns623:
I am the ‘original poster’ to this thread–if by this you intend to mean the one who initiated this thread. I’ve been trying to refine the question I asked and not get sidetracked by semantics about what liberalism ‘is’ or ‘is not’. My surprise is that while a few Catholic liberals publish widely, and while the press can find some purported Catholic persons-on-the-street who advocate liberal ideas–no one appears willing to come to a forum such as this and actually articulate and defend such ideas in a give-and-take sort of manner. On the other hand the traditionalists happily do so, within the limits of the rules of this forum. There are plenty of folks prominently posting on this forum who are also openly members of the Pope Pius the Whichever Society.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a post here by any member of the Rainbow Sash folks, the Catholics For a Free Choice, or whatever other dissident Catholic pressure groups there might be. Nor do I see freelance dissidents posting in great numbers, unless you count ‘former Catholics’ who are now practicing some other faith. As I think I have said several times–the media would have one to believe the dissident movement amongt Roman Catholics is enormous. Are they all computer illiterate, despite the enormity of their numbers? Or are they all controversy-averse? Or bereft of any possible rejoinders which might stand up under scrutiny in an open forum? I am only speculating but I think the idea that there are vast numbers of ‘dissidents’ or ‘liberals’ or whatever one might opt to call them is vastly overstated. As I have also said several times.
Click to expand...
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.
 
40.png
Listener:
The term “liberal” is very deceptive. There are plenty of “conservatives” who would not agree with the following statement:

**2832 **As leaven in the dough, the newness of the kingdom should make the earth “rise” by the Spirit of Christ. This must be shown by the establishment of justice in personal and social, economic and international relations, without ever forgetting that there are no just structures without people who want to be just.
Click to expand...
I doubt there are many posters here who self identify as conservative that reject that statement. They may reject the way some want to accomplish those intentions.
 
40.png
cecelia:
From what I’ve seen in these responses, most of us are arguing from a dichotomy 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 dichotomy 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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I am a political liberal, but I am an orthodox Catholic. I don’t recognize the term “liberal Catholic” to mean a heterodox Catholic any more than I recognize the term “conservative Catholic” to mean an orthodox one. The sedevacantists, the schismatics, etc. consider themselves “conservative Catholics.” I don’t agree.

And I am insulted when the likes of “flameburst” has the ignorant gall to speak of liberal Catholics and then wonder why we don’t speak up and support the ordination of women, birth control and abortion. Why should the orthodox liberal defend heterodoxy? Or conversely, why should the orthodox conservative defend the SSPX or the sedevacantists?
 
40.png
fix:
One other point, imo, many times there may be some liberal posters here.
Click to expand...
Yes, right here, and I post a lot.
I am not accusing anyone, but at times those who are* liberal *usually do not state they reject Church teachings.
Click to expand...
Why should we liberals state that we reject Church tedachings if we are orthodox Catholics? Madam, why haven’t I heard you, a supposedly conservative Catholic, defending the SSPX?

Are you claiming that all “conservative” Catholics follow the teachings of the Church right down the line without any deviation?
 
space ghost:
Politically speaking, i agree with 99% of the definition below…

…hard to pidgeon hole… there are so many definitions of liberal… i like the one in the dictionary… and you can find variations in different dictionaries…
    • Not limited to or by established, or authoritarian attitudes, free from bigotry.
    • Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, **and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. **
    • Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
      *]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.
      Code: 
        Theologically speaking, i consider myself pretty conservative and orthodox....
Click to expand...

  1. 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.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Yes, right here, and I post a lot.
Click to expand...
I did not specify any poster. It was a general comment.
Why should we liberals state that we reject Church tedachings if we are orthodox Catholics? Madam, why haven’t I heard you, a supposedly conservative Catholic, defending the SSPX?
Click to expand...
I do not follow the thought?
Are you claiming that all “conservative” Catholics follow the teachings of the Church right down the line without any deviation?
Click to expand...
Nope, I am saying that there are more people who identify as liberal who are heterodox than those who identify as conservative that are heterodox.
 
40.png
fix:
Nope, I am saying that there are more people who identify as liberal who are heterodox than those who identify as conservative that are heterodox.
Click to expand...
No problem with that as your personal opinion. I think, however, you’d be hard pressed to document that, and especially to define what liberal and conservative mean in the context of your statement.
 
40.png
dwc:
I agree that liberal is commonly used in this manner here, but that is not the most common use of the word, at least in my experience. I think spaceghost makes a good point about the definitions of liberal, as I have very often heard it used as respectful and tolerant of the views of others, and open to exploring new ideas. That doesn’t necessarily translate into interpreting standards more loosely or freely, just being willing to think about them, and to allow others to discuss them.?
Click to expand...
Actually I find in practice that liberals are totally UNWILLING to hear the other side…witness pies in the face of conservative speakers or the refusal of the DNC to allow ANY prolife Democrats to speak at their convention. Respectful and tolerant is NOT how I would typify the liberal thinker.

As to the question on the thread, there are a number of liberal Catholics here. Many proudly voted for John Kerry despite his stance on abortion.

Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top