In the Spirit: Can a Catholic also be a liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From Madison’s Wisconsin State Journal:

(snip) Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether “a Catholic can be a liberal.” Kreeft called it “a very challenging question” and said he’d never spoken on it before.

Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call “modernists” or, more derisively, “cafeteria Catholics,” people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.

There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a “pro-life Catholic.” You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.

“To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal,” he told the crowd.

Comments?
 
Amen!

There are many Protestants who refuse to leave the Church.
 
The child in us wants to feel good without following principles or values, and wants to believe that everything will be fine with less effort, sacrifice, and maturity. It’s only natural. The responsible adult who feels a duty and obligation to mature knows better and is willing to accept this responsibility to mature. Responsible, mature adulthood can still be a fun and deep existence, but in a very different way. It’s strange, but it’s almost as if people who enjoy childhood too much have an arrested development into adulthood, i.e. becoming spoiled and intolerant of responsibility. Ironically, it has less to do with money than most people think. It’s much easier and feels better to dream nice dreams.

Liberal entertainment is more likely to be shallow and temporal rather than deep and serious, so it’s much easier for the public to get steered into the shallow instant gratification we enjoyed so much as children without seeing it (or wanting to see or admit it). The problem is that it’s dangerous for a nation to have too many narrow minded adult children whose egos refuse to see the problem.
 
KScoyote said:
Amen!

There are many Protestants who refuse to leave the Church.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I’ve heard it said that the Church is an equal opportunity offender. We are neither liberal nor conservative because there is truth on both sides, which we uphold.
 
Define “liberal” Catholic. I guess I am one of them, because I’m in favor of certian things that make hardline orthodox Catholics cringe .I have zero problems with any of my beliefs, and I don’t try to enforce them on others. Ironically, I’m so far to the right poltically that no one would ever call me “liberal”. I’m radically pro-life, but I’m in favor of :: gasp :: female altar servers. I have no problem with people playing instruments in church.

The problem is that “liberal” isn’t properly defined.
 
Depends how liberal they are.

@Rascalking

Here are a few definitions:

"[The Liberal Catholic] therefore 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 first conception of faith being naturalistic, in the development and application of that conception, either to the individual or to society, the same naturalistic element evolves itself. Hence it follows that the Liberal Catholic’s appreciation of the Church has no foundation in its supernatural character. The Church does not address herself to his sympathies as a supernatural society whose first and supernatural end is the glory of God and the salvation of souls. It is on her social and human side that he regards her with affection…Liberal Catholics talk and write about her as a simple human development, accepting, in the blindness of their false conception, the naturalistic definition of faith. They thus eviscerate the Church, making her the mere husk of what she really is.
Click to expand...
  • “Liberalism is a Sin” by Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany
Liberal Catholicism has been defined as “in essence a trend among sincere Catholics to exalt freedom as a primary value and to draw from this consequences in social, political, and religious life, seeking to reconcile the principles on which Christian France was founded with those that derived from the French Revolution”.[1]
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia article on Liberalism in general, including Liberal Catholicism:
newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm
Click to expand...
 
+Like any discipline . . . medicine, law, etc., the Christian Faith of the Catholic Church has a distinct set of Christian beliefs and doctrines as its foundation . . . and there is no allowance whatsoever within the Church for any sort for the . . . “supremecy of personal opinion” . . . liberal or otherwise . . . any more than there is in law or medicine . . . quite the opposite . . .we accept the Faith in faith . . . and obey to gain true success . . . below is a quote from . . . Catholic Answer’s Forum apologist **Peggy Frye ** . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **
**Re:
Is it true that Catholics are free to choose,
with serious consideration,
which Church teachings to obey? **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors: **
:compcoff:
**Motu proprio **
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
Catholics are not free to “choose which teachings to obey.”

The Code of Canon Law no 750 clearly states:

Can. 750

§1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Church even when not speaking ex cathedra must be shown (e.g., truths contained in the Catechism, and that artificial contraception is sinful).​
Lumen Gentium no 25:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”​
And Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes no. 50 makes it clear that
“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot.” (Acts. 4:20)​
Is it o.k. to be a cafeteria Catholic? Pope John Paul II says,
“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.” (Pope John Paul II in his speech to the Bishops in 1987)​
Can the faithful form their own consciences when it comes to the teachings of the Church? No.
“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is** Christ Himself**, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.”​

:compcoff:
Dignitatis Humanae
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html​
. . . all for Jesus+​
 
markomalley said:
From Madison’s Wisconsin State Journal:

(snip) Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether “a Catholic can be a liberal.” Kreeft called it “a very challenging question” and said he’d never spoken on it before.

Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call “modernists” or, more derisively, “cafeteria Catholics,” people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.

There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a “pro-life Catholic.” You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.

“To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal,” he told the crowd.

Comments?
Click to expand...
It comes down to the infallibility of the Church. The Church’s teachings are not final because they are infallible, instead they are infallible because they are final - e.g. there is no higher authority on earth (Same applies to the US Supreme Court, for example).

In Pope John Paul’s Encyclical: Fides et Ratio he says:

“the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the one who lives by belief.
In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.”

In the Church we have a wisdom tradition that is more than 2000 years old. It has produced the wisdom of saints, mystics and doctor’s of the church that form the rock of our faith. While individually we may each question what we hold as true, it would be ignorant and careless to ignore the collective wisdom of the tradition and not attempt to understand the basis for it’s teachings. Liberal or conservative, we all suffer from “ignorance” and are individually responsible for seeking out the true teachings of the church.
 
Rascalking said:
Define “liberal” Catholic. I guess I am one of them, because I’m in favor of certian things that make hardline orthodox Catholics cringe .I have zero problems with any of my beliefs, and I don’t try to enforce them on others. Ironically, I’m so far to the right poltically that no one would ever call me “liberal”. I’m radically pro-life, but I’m in favor of :: gasp :: female altar servers. I have no problem with people playing instruments in church.

The problem is that “liberal” isn’t properly defined.
Click to expand...
You should consider Leo XII’s Encyclical, Libertas Praestantissimum (On the Nature of Human Liberty) June 20, 1888. A couple of key quotes:

(snip)

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation.

(snip)

To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists

There is a world of difference between female altar servers (authorized by the Holy Father in 1988) and utter disregard of doctrines (such as womynpriests or the use of abortafacient BC).
 
Depends on how “liberal” is defined. The Catholic Church played a strong role in the formation of unions and preventing communist influence in them. The Catholic Church remains a strong defender of various social issues that some would consider liberal, especially on immigration.
I think we forget that the Vatican remains an essentially European institution. Vatican officials find many “Americanisms” strange (i.e. lack of universal health care). President George Bush is probably the best pro-life president we’ve had in a long time yet, according to John Allen, many Vatican officials found Bill Clinton easier to work with…

American definitions of liberal and conservative aren’t necessarily applicable to international understandings of those terms…
 
Jesus_123 said:
+Like any discipline . . . medicine, law, etc., the Christian Faith of the Catholic Church has a distinct set of Christian beliefs and doctrines as its foundation . . . and there is no allowance whatsoever within the Church for any sort for the . . . “supremecy of personal opinion” . . . liberal or otherwise . . . any more than there is in law or medicine . . . quite the opposite . . .we accept the Faith in faith . . . and obey to gain true success . . . below is a quote from . . . Catholic Answer’s Forum apologist **Peggy Frye ** . . .

]
Click to expand...
This was so hard to read that I just quit within 2 sentences and began to ignore it. All the colors, font sizes, face icons totally lost me.
 
markomalley said:
There is a world of difference between female altar servers (authorized by the Holy Father in 1988) and utter disregard of doctrines (such as womynpriests or the use of abortafacient BC).
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said, and I’m against women priests and abortofacient birth control. However, I’ve been called a liberal because I’m in favor of female altar severs, guitars in church, and things like Catholics smiling and not taking themselves so seriously. So, I guess I’m not liberal…am I? Beats me. I just call myself Catholic.
 
I agree with Peter Kreeft. Liberal on gay ‘marriage,’ abortion,. embryonic stem cell research? No, that is not compatible with Catholic teaching and neither is voting for a political candidate who supports these when you have an alternative candidate who does not supports them or less than.
 
There is a sense in which liberalism has been condemned by the Church. If we are talking about that sense (and it’s a narrow definition), then no, you can’t be a liberal and be a Catholic. A lot of what many people consider “liberal,” however, is actually permitted by the Church. One poster here has mentioned girl altar servers and guitars in Church. Those options are permitted by the Church (she FAVORS male servers, as it’s a ministry that fosters vocations to the priesthood, but she ALLOWS female servers; similarly, she states that the pipe organ and Gregorian chant have pride of place, but she still allows the guitar), so you wouldn’t be considered a “liberal” BY the Church, though you may well by some of your fellow Catholics.

I don’t think “liberal” or “conservative” are terribly useful adjectives to use when talking about the Church or one’s relationship to it. More useful and accurate would be the terms “orthodox” and “heterodox.” If you are an orthodox Catholic, you adhere to all the Church’s moral and dogmatic teaching. If you’re heterodox, then you don’t…and if you don’t, then you’re not a Catholic. And when applying labels, it’s important to ask “by what authority does someone say this?” or “by what authority does someone say that?” I would pay attention to what Teresa of Avila or Catherine of Sienna, Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo (not to mention the Popes, who actually hold the charism of infallibility promised by Christ) said before I’d listen to Joe of Sioux City (or Joanie Chichester or Bernard Fellay, for that matter).

I find this most helpful: From HH Pope Benedict XV’s Encyclical *Beatissimi Apostolorum: *

*“23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
*
 
I am quite liberal and would be labled pretty far “left” on this forum but not by Canadian or European standars. Among my friends, my opinions on certain issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc, set me apart from some commonly held notions of the American Liberal. I don’t have any vocal right-wing friends IRL.

I am also rather liturgically conservative which coupled with my political liberalism can be an uncharacteristic combination. I would really like to join the Knights of Columbus but I am conserned that I wouldn’t fit in, in an ocean of the Right. Perhaps the KofC is not this way.
 
markomalley said:
From Madison’s Wisconsin State Journal:

(snip) Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether “a Catholic can be a liberal.” Kreeft called it “a very challenging question” and said he’d never spoken on it before.

Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call “modernists” or, more derisively, “cafeteria Catholics,” people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.

There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a “pro-life Catholic.” You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.

“To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal,” he told the crowd.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Do you mean politically liberal or theologically liberal?
 
ringil said:
I am quite liberal and would be labled pretty far “left” on this forum but not by Canadian or European standars. Among my friends, my opinions on certain issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc, set me apart from some commonly held notions of the American Liberal. I don’t have any vocal right-wing friends IRL.

I am also rather liturgically conservative which coupled with my political liberalism can be an uncharacteristic combination. I would really like to join the Knights of Columbus but I am conserned that I wouldn’t fit in, in an ocean of the Right. Perhaps the KofC is not this way.
Click to expand...
I am a woman, but I identify with much of what you’ve said. I am pretty far “left” politically speaking, but am pro-life (and actually quite “traditional” or “conservative” in my way of doing things). My political positions are informed by my faith. But I am not “liberal” in terms of my faith (if “liberal” means dissent from Church teaching…) But I do strive to be generous (or liberal) in sharing my faith and the love of Jesus with others.

I would like it if the terms just became less charged overall. I am sometimes conservative and sometimes liberal, sometimes both at once! Both have the capacity to be good things in a person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top