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

[CMatt25]

So, if you determined that Christ’s Church on earth disagreed with your personal views, you would choose yourself over the Church. I’m sure you would make a great pope for your own church. The nice thing is you wouldn’t even need a Magisterium.

No if I was as certain as faith allows one to be about a determination after praying for the Holy Spirit’s guidance, I might though choose as the reformers believed, believing in faith that they were still choosing Christ. That’s one of those things about beliefs. It’s all about faith.

 

[harlen]

What is a liberal?
*
A Liberal is somebody who’s presumption is “Yes”. A “No” requires a great reason. (Individual freedom can only be restricted for overwhelming reasons)
*
An Authoritarian is somebody who’s presumption is “No”. A “Yes” requires a great necessity. (Everything is banned unless a freedom is sought & granted by authority)

The opposite of a “Liberal” is an “Authoritarian”

Naturally, the rich (and anyone else who believes they do well in the status quo) tend to be conservative, fearful of disorder and drawn to authority. Hence Authoritarianism and Conservatism are linked.

And naturally the poor and oppressed are drawn towards change that might establish their freedom.

So the oppressed Puritans that emigrated to the Americas were, non-conformist, anti-authoritarian, freedom-seeking individuals. But people are people, and when they governed their own communities some quickly converted to Authoritarianism.
And they were distorted Liberals; puritanically over-repressed in their intimate life they over-emphasised the economic freedom of making money.
I think that, for Americans, this distortion of “liberty” is there in the nation’s birth.

So “Can a liberal be a Catholic?” The question presupposes the church is only (or crucially) “Authoritarian”.

Of course, it was ever the case that those in authority think it’s a good thing, so we would expect the Magisterium to have a high regard for authority & obedience. But She also teaches a gospel of freedom and liberation. Moreover virtually all changes made by the Magisterium (in teaching or practice) follow, rather than lead, the faithful. Ideally, there should be a “fruitful tension” between liberalism and authority.

But there is a sense in which the conservatives sit safely in their trenches, while the battle for deeper understanding and doctrinal development is fought by souls who risk themselves. Authority is important because we all can delude ourselves, but it does not, by its very nature, innovate & adapt.

And, in our day, I think the Magisterium has got itself in a bit of a pickle over some sexual matters.
Because our Theology of sexuality was written by celibates (informed by Greek dualism through some of the early Fathers) the presumptive answer to every question has been a big “No”, except for the absolute minimum necessary for continuation of our species.
So the “minimum necessary” (sexually) has become the “maximum permissible”.
The seamless, complex life of human intimacy is reduced to the basic “farmyard act”, any variation, anything else, or anything additional is “disordered”. This Greek, flesh-hating Natural Law is unsustainable with the results of modern studies.
People may hear a church that says abortion is wrong, but when she also teaches, for example, that a man is forbidden to enable his wife to achieve orgasm, with manual or oral help, during or around intercourse, they will dismiss us out of hand. (Today we know over two thirds of women can only exercise their God-given orgasm in this manner).

The Church needs to fully study, and engage with, all the human sciences to avoid another Galileo event. It took the Magisterium 370 years to apologise for mistakes made with Galileo, and I think frankly that’s a luxury, and an arrogance, we can’t afford, if the gospel is to be preached & heard.

Finally,
It is possible to err by emphasis.
The very fact that when we talk of “sin”, “living in sin”, immoral lives" we mean “sex” shows a huge distortion of emphasis has ocurred.
It is such a distortion of the gospel (by weighting) that “an error of teaching” if not quite a teaching error.
Christ was much more concerned with justice for the poor than the church appears to be in its priorities
Whilst I applaud pro-life campaigners, I am (as a British Catholic) beyond dismay that any Catholic could oppose universal healthcare and call themselves “Catholic”. Why is support for care of the sick not pro-life issue? Why is it not a litmus test of orthodoxy?

 

[sedonaman]

What is a liberal?
*
A Liberal is somebody who’s presumption is “Yes”. A “No” requires a great reason. (Individual freedom can only be restricted for overwhelming reasons)
*
An Authoritarian is somebody who’s presumption is “No”. A “Yes” requires a great necessity. (Everything is banned unless a freedom is sought & granted by authority)

The opposite of a “Liberal” is an “Authoritarian”

…

I agree with this only to a point. The burden of proof is on the advocate of social change. Liberals never justify their ideas by explaining “why”; they demand that conservatives justify “why not”. Hence, we get arguments for women priests, alter girls, etc., that amount to no more than “it’s only fair”. Conservatives unfortunately too often fall into this trap. So the conservative is the one whose presumption is “No” unless justified; the liberal is the one whose presumption is “Yes” – even if confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Attitudes to change versus the status quo define the political Left rather than the political Right. It is not conservatives who are for the status quo but rather Leftists who are against it.

Note that this implies that the two sides of politics are not mirror images of one another. It is suggested that Rightists are simply indifferent to change rather than opposed to it whereas Leftists actively need change. Leftists and Rightists have different rather than opposite goals.

Whatever Rightists might want, however, wanting to change the existing system is the umbrella under which all “Western” Leftists at all times meet. … That permanent and corrosive dissatisfaction with the world they live in is the main thing that defines people as Leftists. That is the main thing that they have in common.

The Rightist, by contrast, generally has no need either for change or its converse. If anything, Rightists favor progress - both material and social. So when Rightists are conservative (cautious), it is not because of their attitude to change per se. On some occasions they may even agree with the particular policy outcomes that the Leftist claims to desire. When they resist change, then, it is mainly when it appears incautious - and they are cautious generally because of their realism about the limitations (selfishness, folly, shortsightedness, aggressiveness, etc.) of many of their fellow humans. So it is only vis-a-vis Leftists that the Right can on some occasions and in some eras appear conservative.

Leftists do not of course want just any change. In particular, they want change that tends in the direction of tearing down or drastically revising existing authorities, power structures, and social arrangements. And this generally takes the form of advocating greater equality between people. What the Leftist ultimately wants in this direction however is fairly heroic in its dimensions and unlikely ever to be fully achieved in at least contemporary Western societies so the Leftist always has a corrosive discontent with the world he lives in and therefore is permanently in a position of wanting change from the way things are.
“Authoritarianism Is Inherently Leftist”
By John Ray

Therefore, the opposite of liberal is authoritarian is not true; liberalism IS authoritarian: force must be used to implement their ideas. That’s why they are always turning to the force of government, if not taking over the government altogether. The gay rights movement is the perfect example.

 

[harlen]

Therefore, the opposite of liberal is authoritarian is not true; liberalism IS authoritarian: force must be used to implement their ideas. That’s why they are always turning to the force of government, if not taking over the government altogether. The gay rights movement is the perfect example.

---

“Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and democracy” (Wikipaedia)

The fact that force has been used to overthrow authoritarian organisms in order to establish liberal democracies does not mean they are equitable or synonymous.
(e.g. Overthrow of Hitler’s Reich to establish modern euro states).
Unfortunately Authoritarian organisms are unlikely (by their nature) to yield to a polite request to transform into their antithesis.
It is not the person who uses force to regain his freedom who errs, but he that takes it away in the first place. (Authority)
In a secular democratic state there is no right to trangress on the freedoms of others (see J S Mill )
So “Turning to the force of Government” could mean “asking the democratic state to defend their freedom”.
The debate should be about whether the freedoms sought are transgressive of the rights of others…as in abortion.
This is much more difficult with regard to gay rights. When St Paul condemned certain sinners the words he used were the Greek words for males who used boy protstitutes, and the boys themselves. Their was no concept of the possibility of people being innately homosexual at that time. We now know that not only did “God made them male & female” but he made some people in between, and perhaps gay as well. And we know a great deal about homosexual behaviour in the animal knigdom. If you ignore modern learning of what nature teaches us, for a Pauline view what nature taught the Greeks you are headed for a Galileo scandal…
e.g.
1 Corinthians.

"13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Some dodgy argumentation there! If the shroud is genuine, Jesus had long hair himself as did most men everywhere at that time…except for those drawn into the Greek fashion of the time. (presumably Paul).

 

[sedonaman]

“Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and democracy” (Wikipaedia)

Right. And what we have in this country is authoritarianism in various segments of society. The schools have become “islands of oppression in a sea of freedom.” This is a place where certain ideas are not spoken, even if they are true. It is a place were the pursuit of truth has been replaced by political advocacy. It is a place that has given us affirmative action and diversity as “goals” without proof of their benefit. It is a place where homosexual so-called “rights” are their current cause célèbre. They gave us “political correctness” [Note]. In short, they are indoctrination centers, from K-12 and into higher ed, that tell us what to think, not how to think. This migrates out to the society at large, for who wants to be considered uneducated?

The fact that force has been used to overthrow authoritarian organisms in order to establish liberal democracies does not mean they are equitable or synonymous.
(e.g. Overthrow of Hitler’s Reich to establish modern euro states).

I fail to see how national defense is Leftist in nature. Try to convince the Code Pink Lefties who tried to get the military recruiters banned from Berkeley.

In a secular democratic state there is no right to trangress on the freedoms of others (see J S Mill )
So “Turning to the force of Government” could mean “asking the democratic state to defend their freedom”.
The debate should be about whether the freedoms sought are transgressive of the rights of others…as in abortion.
This is much more difficult with regard to gay rights. …

I don’t see why. I didn’t mean to start an argument over the homosexual issue, just using it an example of how they are appealing to government force to tell the rest of society what to think. I’ve heard them myself.

Note: political correctness: n. - A crusade to ignorance characterized by a rejection of truth that conflicts with ideology.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m a rather liberal Catholic myself, though pro-life for sure. I’m considering becoming a Quaker instead.

 

[CMatt25]

Christ was much more concerned with justice for the poor than the church appears to be in its priorities. Whilst I applaud pro-life campaigners, I am (as a British Catholic) beyond dismay that any Catholic could oppose universal healthcare and call themselves “Catholic”. Why is support for care of the sick not pro-life issue? Why is it not a litmus test of orthodoxy?

:clapping: For some of us Americans care of the sick *is *very much a pro life issue. To be fair those who oppose universal healthcare can call themselves Catholic if they are members of the Catholic Church thru the Sacrament of Baptism or otherwise have been received into Her thru a rite of initiation. But I agree with much of what you have said here. God bless you and peace.

 

[rlg94086]

What is a liberal?
*
A Liberal is somebody who’s presumption is “Yes”. A “No” requires a great reason. (Individual freedom can only be restricted for overwhelming reasons)
*
An Authoritarian is somebody who’s presumption is “No”. A “Yes” requires a great necessity. (Everything is banned unless a freedom is sought & granted by authority)

The opposite of a “Liberal” is an “Authoritarian”

Naturally, the rich (and anyone else who believes they do well in the status quo) tend to be conservative, fearful of disorder and drawn to authority. Hence Authoritarianism and Conservatism are linked.

And naturally the poor and oppressed are drawn towards change that might establish their freedom.

So the oppressed Puritans that emigrated to the Americas were, non-conformist, anti-authoritarian, freedom-seeking individuals. But people are people, and when they governed their own communities some quickly converted to Authoritarianism.
And they were distorted Liberals; puritanically over-repressed in their intimate life they over-emphasised the economic freedom of making money.
I think that, for Americans, this distortion of “liberty” is there in the nation’s birth.

So “Can a liberal be a Catholic?” The question presupposes the church is only (or crucially) “Authoritarian”.

Of course, it was ever the case that those in authority think it’s a good thing, so we would expect the Magisterium to have a high regard for authority & obedience. But She also teaches a gospel of freedom and liberation. Moreover virtually all changes made by the Magisterium (in teaching or practice) follow, rather than lead, the faithful. Ideally, there should be a “fruitful tension” between liberalism and authority.

But there is a sense in which the conservatives sit safely in their trenches, while the battle for deeper understanding and doctrinal development is fought by souls who risk themselves. Authority is important because we all can delude ourselves, but it does not, by its very nature, innovate & adapt.

And, in our day, I think the Magisterium has got itself in a bit of a pickle over some sexual matters.
Because our Theology of sexuality was written by celibates (informed by Greek dualism through some of the early Fathers) the presumptive answer to every question has been a big “No”, except for the absolute minimum necessary for continuation of our species.
So the “minimum necessary” (sexually) has become the “maximum permissible”.
The seamless, complex life of human intimacy is reduced to the basic “farmyard act”, any variation, anything else, or anything additional is “disordered”. This Greek, flesh-hating Natural Law is unsustainable with the results of modern studies.
People may hear a church that says abortion is wrong, but when she also teaches, for example, that a man is forbidden to enable his wife to achieve orgasm, with manual or oral help, during or around intercourse, they will dismiss us out of hand. (Today we know over two thirds of women can only exercise their God-given orgasm in this manner).

The Church needs to fully study, and engage with, all the human sciences to avoid another Galileo event. It took the Magisterium 370 years to apologise for mistakes made with Galileo, and I think frankly that’s a luxury, and an arrogance, we can’t afford, if the gospel is to be preached & heard.

Finally,
It is possible to err by emphasis.
The very fact that when we talk of “sin”, “living in sin”, immoral lives" we mean “sex” shows a huge distortion of emphasis has ocurred.
It is such a distortion of the gospel (by weighting) that “an error of teaching” if not quite a teaching error.
Christ was much more concerned with justice for the poor than the church appears to be in its priorities
Whilst I applaud pro-life campaigners, I am (as a British Catholic) beyond dismay that any Catholic could oppose universal healthcare and call themselves “Catholic”. Why is support for care of the sick not pro-life issue? Why is it not a litmus test of orthodoxy?

Well, in your twisting of Church teaching regarding universal healthcare, female altar servers (they still aren’t “favoured,” though they are allowed) and claim that the Magisterium’s teaching regarding Natural Law in sexual issues is “unsustainable,” you are certainly making the case for those who believe a Catholic can’t be ‘liberal.’ …well, at least in the case of faithful Catholics…apostate Catholics, perhaps.

 

[harlen]

(1)
I think this debate is heavily flavoured by political loalties.
The Gospel does not fit any of these.
A Catholic is somebody who is Catholic (universal) first.
He/she trims their politics to fit the faith not vice versa.
So he/she cannot emphasise care of the unborn and downplay care of the sick, that is error by emphasis.
And to bang on about personal sexual issues, and downplay the huge issues of greed and social justice is the same. A distorted Gospel is an erroneous Gospel.
This is the twisted Gospel preached by the economically comfortable (and therefore conservative/authoritarian).
Ever since Christianity became “establishment” (Post Constantine) it heavily downplayed the social gospel as it was now run by comfortable people.
But in the same sentence that Christ condemned “sexual immorality” he also condemns greed!!! (Mk 7. 20-22) And his only recorded act of violence and anger was against the Temple traders.
But we live in greedy nations, run by the greedy (not the gays), and they have erected an economic system that says “Greed is good”.*** If you live with this horrendous crime and transfer the weight of your moral focus to personal sexual morality you assist the continuance of this evil by moral diversion.***

(2) Jesus was often a “Liberal”

Jesus was a practicing Jew, but he felt free to really annoy the “conservative/authoritarian” priesthood. (e.g. Mk 7)
*
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [f]

17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” *

Here Jesus liberalises rules on ritual washing, and the bar on consumption of “unclean” foods, and the early Christians liberalised and dispensed with other revered customs such as circumcision. This was all way more “liberal” than female servers.
Ask yourself, if you were a devout, conservative Jew of the time; if you “ticked all the boxes”, and avoided all these sinful things…would you not have been furious with this “liberalisation”.
Well they were furious and we know what they did.

All I am saying is the Gospel must not be distorted by emphasis.
And you cannot accept the cultural/political/religious inheritance you have as a true, undistorted datum. It is distorted. It is distorted mostly by greed and under-regulated capitalism that has forgotten its only moral justification was to serve the common good.
If we bolster this evil whilst attacking other evils, we are more “blind guides”.

 

[harlen]

Right. And what we have in this country is authoritarianism in various segments of society. The schools have become “islands of oppression in a sea of freedom.” This is a place where certain ideas are not spoken, even if they are true. It is a place were the pursuit of truth has been replaced by political advocacy. It is a place that has given us affirmative action and diversity as “goals” without proof of their benefit. It is a place where homosexual so-called “rights” are their current cause célèbre. They gave us “political correctness” [Note]. In short, they are indoctrination centers, from K-12 and into higher ed, that tell us what to think, not how to think. This migrates out to the society at large, for who wants to be considered uneducated?

I fail to see how national defense is Leftist in nature. Try to convince the Code Pink Lefties who tried to get the military recruiters banned from Berkeley.

I don’t see why. I didn’t mean to start an argument over the homosexual issue, just using it an example of how they are appealing to government force to tell the rest of society what to think. I’ve heard them myself.

Note: political correctness: n. - A crusade to ignorance characterized by a rejection of truth that conflicts with ideology.

(1)
I agree schools should teach “how to think not what to think”. I agree wholeheartedly.
But what would employers think of schools emphasising Philosophy & Logic as the fundamentals?
And do you really believe your political elite wants a population who can think (critically)?
They need a population trained in consuming ready-packaged thoughts.

(2)When the southern blacks called for government to enforce their rights, where did you stand?
[A great many “practising, conservative christians” thought their rights (priviledges) were being trampled by an authoritarian government. But, as J S Mill’s dictum allows, there exists no “right” to be prejudiced, nor to take away the rights of others in the first place.]

 

[Jordan719]

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.

I cringe when I see female altar servers, and any musical instrument other than the organ is straight from the devil!

J/K

If I have a daughter, she won’t be an altar server though. The Church, however, says under special circumstances they can be. So your not heretical yet.

 

[rlg94086]

All I am saying is the Gospel must not be distorted by emphasis.
And you cannot accept the cultural/political/religious inheritance you have as a true, undistorted datum. It is distorted. It is distorted mostly by greed and under-regulated capitalism that has forgotten its only moral justification was to serve the common good.
If we bolster this evil whilst attacking other evils, we are more “blind guides”.

In other words, you challenge the infallibility of the Church. How is that Catholic?

 

[sedonaman]

… So he/she cannot emphasise care of the unborn and downplay care of the sick, that is error by emphasis.
And to bang on about personal sexual issues, and downplay the huge issues of greed and social justice is the same. A distorted Gospel is an erroneous Gospel. This is the twisted Gospel preached by the economically comfortable (and therefore conservative/authoritarian).
Ever since Christianity became “establishment” (Post Constantine) it heavily downplayed the social gospel as it was now run by comfortable people.
But in the same sentence that Christ condemned “sexual immorality” he also condemns greed!!! (Mk 7. 20-22) And his only recorded act of violence and anger was against the Temple traders.
But we live in greedy nations, run by the greedy (not the gays), and they have erected an economic system that says “Greed is good”.*** If you live with this horrendous crime and transfer the weight of your moral focus to personal sexual morality you assist the continuance of this evil by moral diversion.***

Now you are emphasizing greed and completely ignoring envy. There are two commandments against envy; where is the one against greed? The USCCB have said that not all moral issues are of equal weight. do you know more than they do? So, I don’t think you are correct in saying emphasis is error. You have contradicted yourself by siding against greed at the expense of ignoring envy.

The last person I oppressed was a defiant employee who wouldn’t obey my lawful orders. I can’t even get my eggs fixed the way I want them in a restaurant. I write to my representatives and get standard Paragraph 47 as a reply. And you say I am the oppressor?

And I don’t think homosexuals are “oppressed” either. They have a higher than average income; they have a higher average level of education; no one is keeping them from owning property; no one is keeping them from voting; certainly no one is keeping them from petitioning for redress of grievances; and they have a disproportionally high impact on laws and society. So, cry me a river.

(1)
I agree schools should teach “how to think not what to think”. I agree wholeheartedly.
But what would employers think of schools emphasising Philosophy & Logic as the fundamentals?

It would depend on what the employee was hired for.

And do you really believe your political elite wants a population who can think (critically)?
They need a population trained in consuming ready-packaged thoughts.

Well, here is where we can agree. Part of that political elite is the idea factory: academia, the institution established to promote thinking. In promoting their ready-packaged thoughts, they have inadvertently claimed that human knowledge is complete. What do you think about that?

When the southern blacks called for government to enforce their rights, where did you stand?

I was only 13 when Brown v. Board of Education was issued. I remember the paratroopers forcing integration in Little Rock. I felt that blacks should have been treated fairly. I still do. But I don’t think they should be given everything they ask for just because they play the race card. Blacks have some serious soul-searching to do because other minorities are entering this country and passing them up economically. I personally believe they are behind because they, as a group, have failed to meet opportunity with preparation.

[A great many “practising, conservative christians” thought their rights (priviledges) were being trampled by an authoritarian government. But, as J S Mill’s dictum allows, there exists no “right” to be prejudiced, nor to take away the rights of others in the first place.]

Here is where I decided you don’t know what you are talking about. We are enjoined to avoid those who would lead us into sin. How do you know if someone is that way? You have to judge. And those in prison have had their rights taken away from them lawfully. That’s what prison is all about.

 

[harlen]

Now you are emphasizing greed and completely ignoring envy. There are two commandments against envy; where is the one against greed? The USCCB have said that not all moral issues are of equal weight. do you know more than they do? So, I don’t think you are correct in saying emphasis is error. You have contradicted yourself by siding against greed at the expense of ignoring envy.

The last person I oppressed was a defiant employee who wouldn’t obey my lawful orders. I can’t even get my eggs fixed the way I want them in a restaurant. I write to my representatives and get standard Paragraph 47 as a reply. And you say I am the oppressor?

And I don’t think homosexuals are “oppressed” either. They have a higher than average income; they have a higher average level of education; no one is keeping them from owning property; no one is keeping them from voting; certainly no one is keeping them from petitioning for redress of grievances; and they have a disproportionally high impact on laws and society. So, cry me a river.

It would depend on what the employee was hired for.

Well, here is where we can agree. Part of that political elite is the idea factory: academia, the institution established to promote thinking. In promoting their ready-packaged thoughts, they have inadvertently claimed that human knowledge is complete. What do you think about that?

I was only 13 when Brown v. Board of Education was issued. I remember the paratroopers forcing integration in Little Rock. I felt that blacks should have been treated fairly. I still do. But I don’t think they should be given everything they ask for just because they play the race card. Blacks have some serious soul-searching to do because other minorities are entering this country and passing them up economically. I personally believe they are behind because they, as a group, have failed to meet opportunity with preparation.

Here is where I decided you don’t know what you are talking about. We are enjoined to avoid those who would lead us into sin. How do you know if someone is that way? You have to judge. And those in prison have had their rights taken away from them lawfully. That’s what prison is all about.

You say not not all moral evils are of equal weight and that is true.

Gospel Emphasis
All the prophets, & Jesus Himself, emphasised “social justice and oppression of the poor” far above sexual sins. “Social justice and oppression of the poor” is modern jargon for "If you did it to the least of my brethren you did it unto me".
That is why we say, even in officially post-christian societies, that a nation is judged by how it treats the poor, the sick and the imprisoned. Because that is how Jesus says we will be judged. And did not Paul say “The love of money(greed)is the root of *all *evil”
Did not Jesus say it was harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of gheavan than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle?
And did he not ask an ardent follower to give all he had to the poor? And did not the church described in Acts practice a primitive communism? (Indeed the very appeal of Communism was that it brought the part of the gospel that had been “edited-out” to the poor, but without God it was death-loving)
And truly you have detected that I think this emphasis of the prophets and of Jesus is more moral.

Sexual Sins
I am fortunate to be clearly heteroeosexual by nature, but I regard that as a pure gift. It is therefore easy for me to avoid the “sins” that homosexuals may be judged of.
It is the same with the rich, it is easy for them to obey the law (Although they sometimes break it to get even more!).
There is little virtue where there is no temptation. The rich, and those of straight, or low libido may suffer the luxury of being able to obey rules more easily.
I do not stand able to judge the reported experience of gays, that they are such by nature. And, insofar as I have sinned, heterosexually, I cannot be their judge if they give in to their nature sometimes. But there are obviously plenty of Christians who have never sinned, and stand with stones in hand.

Minorities calling for force from Government to enforce their rights
Sorry I wasn’t clear on whether (at the time) you supported Federal Government being called in to assist Southern Blacks enforce their rights?

Your use of prisoners to challenge Mill’s dictum didn’t. Those in prison lose their rights because they first took away the rights of their victims.

 

[harlen]

In other words, you challenge the infallibility of the Church. How is that Catholic?

When we Catholics debate with Protestants we always start telling them how very, very, very rarely papal infallibility is used.
Yet, when we debate amongst ourselves, some Catholics act as if every utterance from the Magisterium carries the same level of infallibility.

The church may be infallible, but
(1)That is always seeking fuller expression & exploration.
(2)It does not mean that Catholic teachers always & everywhere have preached a gospel unaffected (& undistorted) by their own cultural, national & economic allegiances.
The encyclicals concerning social issues are hardly reported, let alone at the head of the average Catholic’s agenda. These encyclicals have at least as much importance as Humanae vitae but they are effectively ignored in emphasis

 

[harlen]

Just as Paul said in Galatians “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” So there can be neither “Liberal” nor “Conservative” in our Church for we are all one.
It is a lamentable tendency to deal with this by thinking, “the other group to me” is not the “true” Catholic. But this is older than the hills.
Paul composed his exasperated and agitated rebuke to certain legalistic Galatians who wanted to impose the Mosaic Law on new Christians.
This time Paul was definitely a “Liberal”, but as we see in references to his condemnation of certain sexual transgressions “Conservatives” identify with him too.
And you can bet the Christians Paul was addressing were more divided than today’s “Liberals” & “Conservative/Authoritarians”. Indeed the history of the early church is riven with extremely acrimonious and divisive disputes, as Christology was worked out in reaction to every new interpretation.
It has been so ever since, and the Irish Catholicism my mother gave to me was very heavily Jansenistic.
But these divisions may not be the best use of our energies as we face the onslaught of the New Atheists promoting their Mechanistic worldview.

The Catholic Church has much to offer that all people (including Liberals & Conservatives) are seeking. The direct mystical experience of God, and the journey toward it in contemplative prayer, is possibly the richest gift the church has to offer. But this rich vein is not tapped enough, and the re-sacralising of the Liturgy has a part to play in this.
The more we meet in contemplative prayer, and in Christ, perhaps the less we will suffer these divisions, but it remains possible that they have some limited purpose in causing us to strive to overcome them.
I’m going away for Christmas now and cannot post for 3 weeks as I won’t have internet.
So I wish you all happy & holy Christmas.
Let’s hope the God of Love who chose to be born “As the least of his brethren” in an animal shelter will find us humble enough to be born in each of us too again.
And, whether it’s a “Liberal” or a “Conservative” thing, it was Christ’s “thing”, to make this definitive statement and option. He chose to be born wretchedly poor and outside the zone of the comfortable And He came for sinners. And He will judge us simply & solely on how we treat the Hungry, Thirsty, Naked, Sick & Imprisoned. (Matt 25:31-46)

 

[sedonaman]

…
Paul composed his exasperated and agitated rebuke to certain legalistic Galatians who wanted to impose the Mosaic Law on new Christians.
This time Paul was definitely a “Liberal”, …

I disagree. In this context, Paul was conservative, and the Galatians were liberal. He did not want the change they were advocating. Change is what defines a liberal. Liberalism’s demands can never be satisfied; like the universe, they are ever-expanding. That’s why liberalism is a sin liberalismisasin.com. You might want to consider whether or not St. Paul would recognize the Church were he to come back today.

 

[lainlainlain]

I find it quite sad as well. I remember those days when as you say many Catholics were more left wing. No doubt for American Catholics, Roe has had a lot to do with it. But I also sometimes think that perhaps as folks have achieved a higher status on the economic ladder, some even with the help of government programs, whether it be aid to further their education, or so forth, that they reach a place financially where they then object to things such as paying taxes to further the advancement of programs to help others. I have seen immigrant grandparents, working class, whose children were also more left wing. But whose children’s children became less so. This might be changing somewhat though among some of the younger generation who can seem to be more open on social issues such as gay unions and rights. Something which is generally considered to be on the liberal side of the spectrum. Or at least I know I have heard it said the young tend to be more open on that issue. I’m not sure if this includes young Catholics though.

But anyway I do find as one party has campaigned on an anti choice and anti tax platform, many have flocked to that party over the yrs. And while I understand the politics of the vast majority on this private internet forum are not liberal but rather quite conservative, if it is representative of the politics of the Catholic Church today, just speaking for myself personally, it is not something that compels me to seek greater communion. I long for a return to the time you describe when Catholics were more left wing on the issues you brought forth. However I see the opposite occuring.

But peace and God blessings to all of us across the political spectrum.

Sorry to draw back to where I left off, but we have to remember that we are Catholics and through we love and serve God through loving and serving our fellow human, not God and our fellow human. I still remain staunchly pro-life on the issue, but nevertheless, I didn’t simply acquiesce to this, I went into philosophical contemplation as to what is the most logical answer for the beginning of human personhood. Same goes with my assent to the Church’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, etc. I rationed them out.

harlen:

But there is a sense in which the conservatives sit safely in their trenches, while the battle for deeper understanding and doctrinal development is fought by souls who risk themselves. Authority is important because we all can delude ourselves, but it does not, by its very nature, innovate & adapt.

This was exactly my concern. We don’t want to be ‘ignorant’ Catholics but 'educated Catholics. The unfortunate side of this is many who explore are let down by the way doctrine, fallible and infallible, is taught and become “liberal”. However, while it can be safe to say that a lot of pro-lifers merely acquiesced to what the Church told them about human personhood, this does not make the teaching less infallible. It is backed by natural law and philosophy. My issue was not that there was any problem in the Doctrine itself, I still uphold it. The issue is that one day some atheist will walk up to you (as if they haven’t with a lot of us already) and contest your faith. Will you stand a chance at defending something you just acquiesced to? Or will you be able to give a strong account based on your Faith firmed by a strong and rational understanding of Church teaching and WHY we believe?

harlen:

Finally,
It is possible to err by emphasis.
The very fact that when we talk of “sin”, “living in sin”, immoral lives" we mean “sex” shows a huge distortion of emphasis has ocurred.
It is such a distortion of the gospel (by weighting) that “an error of teaching” if not quite a teaching error.
Christ was much more concerned with justice for the poor than the church appears to be in its priorities
Whilst I applaud pro-life campaigners, I am (as a British Catholic) beyond dismay that any Catholic could oppose universal healthcare and call themselves “Catholic”. Why is support for care of the sick not pro-life issue? Why is it not a litmus test of orthodoxy?

While care of the sick is still something which the Church dedicates its time to, it, just like any institution promoting the common good, gives more weight to the issue of the day. Humanae Vitae was released in the 60’s. And we only need to go into modern history to know what the big social issue was at that time - sex. Same thing with the emphasis on charity and alms giving to the poor that shaped the Church in the early 20th century - the issue of communism/socialism vs. capitalism, rich vs. poor, etc. that characterised the immediate post-Industrial Revolution era. So the Church never really changes its fundamental stance on these issues, it simply (to my understanding) re-publishes its stance to fit within the context of the time, giving more attention to the aspects of its teaching that address the social issues that were/are present.