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

[lowell_mass]

Here’s how I define the terms:

Liberal: one who sees value in the potential of every human being
Conservative: one who sees value in society’s institutions and in our right to keep them (aka private property)

As a Catholic, I am more liberal than many of my Democrat friends because I believe that every human being (even the pre-born) were created by God, loved by God, and meant for heaven. I am also more Conservative than many of my Republican friends because I believe that our most valuable cultural possessions are about 1800 years older than America.

Here is a good article:
Liberal and Conservative: Two terms that have no place in Catholic theology by
DEACON DOUGLAS MCMANAMAN
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0939.htm

 

[markomalley]

Do you mean politically liberal or theologically liberal?

I think, primarily, he’s talking about theological liberalism, rather than political.

However, keep in mind that the lines blur. You should consider the quotes out of Leo XIII’s Libertas Praestantissimum I mentioned up in post #12.

A libertine attitude is undoubtedly condemned. But attitudes that vary from the Church’s teachings on social issues (rather than strictly moral ones) could also be classed as theologically “liberal”, as well.

For example, the Church, in no uncertain terms, condemns the political/economic philosophy of socialism. For example, Bl. John XXIII stated (in Mater et Magistra):

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism.

On the other hand, wealthy people who subscribe to a philosophy of liberal Capitalism without understanding or regarding their personal (as opposed to government) social responsibilities for the proper use of their profit, are also condemned. One simply must look at the Scriptures (from the OT on), the writings of the Fathers (particularly Basil and John Chrysostom), and the writings of the modern popes (up to and including Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate)

Either extreme could be viewed as theologically liberal under the terms described by Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum.

Of course, there are plenty of other examples, but hopefully the above illustrates my point.

 

[He_Man]

Here’s how I define the terms:

Liberal: one who sees value in the potential of every human being
Conservative: one who sees value in society’s institutions and in our right to keep them (aka private property)

As a Catholic, I am more liberal than many of my Democrat friends because I believe that every human being (even the pre-born) were created by God, loved by God, and meant for heaven. I am also more Conservative than many of my Republican friends because I believe that our most valuable cultural possessions are about 1800 years older than America.

Here is a good article:
Liberal and Conservative: Two terms that have no place in Catholic theology by
DEACON DOUGLAS MCMANAMAN
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0939.htm

That’s nice and all, but don’t overcomplicate this.

For the purposes of message board discussion on this topic about being a “liberal Catholic”, it essentially boils down to

if you support:

• homosexual marriage or civil unions
• abortion in any cases
• female “ordinations”
• cloning
• embryonic stem cell research
• the use of contraceptives as BC

then your beliefs are incompatible with Church teaching, and, the typical American label for you would be a liberal.

However, the name is irrelevant in regards to the bliefs. Call yourself a conservative, a liberal, a bull-moose, or a federalist - you can’t be “that” and be Catholic - they are incompatible, that’s Kreeft’s point. It’s like saying water is dry. By its very definition, it’s not possible.

Discussion’s like this are better handled position by position (“Can a Catholic endorse gay marriage?”) rather than labels (and I say this as a farrrrrrr right conservative in the American sense).

 

[tomarin]

The danger here it seems to me is that having rightfully denounced the evils of liberalism, the conservative audience becomes complacent about the tensions and incompatibilities between Catholic Christianity and modern conservatism, especially of the Adam Smith-influenced variety. Unless of course Professor Kreeft intends to address that as Part II of his lecture.

 

[rlg94086]

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 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.

You two are polar opposites. We need a beer summit! I’ll moderate.

 

[CMatt25]

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?

Depends on if those persons described in the OP were for instance Baptized Catholics. Then the question is not whether such a person is a Catholic. There’s a thread which was recently going on in the Apologetics forum suggesting they are according to Church teaching. It’s more a question of how practicing, faithful, or to the degree they are in the communion.

 

[livnlern]

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.

This sums up what it means to be Catholic: following the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church. I don’t understand why some of our politicians call themselves Catholic but don’t follow the Church’s lead on abortion and other issues. Maybe it looks good on their resumes.

 

[Rascalking]

You two are polar opposites. We need a beer summit! I’ll moderate.

Anytime!

 

[ringil]

Anytime!

Let’s do it. I enjoy a frosty beverage.

 

[PPeterson]

Back to the article:

Kreeft said these Catholic advisers “told the Kennedys how they could get away with murder.” Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening, suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic Church than pedophile priests.

“These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God,” Kreeft said. “Sorry, that’s just the way it is. In fact, I’d say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn’t a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that’s straight from the devil.”

Is Kreeft always this dense? Call me crazy, but I’m guessing there’s a way to make a clear case against pro abortion theology without conveying the impression that one is a pedophile apologist.

 

[CMatt25]

This sums up what it means to be Catholic: following the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church. I don’t understand why some of our politicians call themselves Catholic but don’t follow the Church’s lead on abortion and other issues. Maybe it looks good on their resumes.

Or maybe because they hold to other Catholic faith beliefs or because the Church calls them Catholics.

 

[silicasandra]

Or maybe because they hold to other Catholic faith beliefs or because the Church calls them Catholics.

Agreed. Keep in mind that the Sacraments of Initiation leave a permanent mark on a person’s soul. A person could be said to be Catholic even if he or she later denied the faith, if he or she was baptized (or also confirmed). I wouldn’t out of respect for that person, but would also pray for them to return.

I struggled with many of these beliefs for a long time, myself. But I never would have considered myself a “cafeteria Catholic” or non-Catholic because I held them. I wrestled with these ideas daily. I read all I could on the subjects and had to work to overcome some really deep-seated prejudices I had. I prayed very, very hard. The devil works to twist even the most well-intentioned person. I would say that many people who are pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage,” etc. are not actively seeking the demise of society. They think that these positions are GOOD things, because they are according to the logic of secular society. Many Catholics are growing up increasingly secular and not knowing the faith. Even though they believe in Jesus, they don’t know much about his teaching. Should they seek more? Probably. But remember that their logic tells them they don’t even need to do that, that they are just “fine as they are.”

I would say that this even goes for our politicians. My husband works in government and what we see on TV and in sound bytes does not at all accurately reflect what goes on (he gets yelled at constantly for things that didn’t even happen or things that were out of his control, etc.). I think it’s fine to hold our Catholic politicians to a higher standard, but we need to do so lovingly - and not assume automatically that they have the worst of intentions. They aren’t going to change their minds because we tell them (and ourselves) that they are bad, or evil, or stupid, etc. All that will do is harden their hearts and lead them further away from the truth. (That doesn’t mean we need to vote for a particular individual, but it amazes me sometimes to see how politics turns even the most kind and gentle, loving person into someone I would never, ever, ever want to run into on the street at a political rally.)

 

[He_Man]

Or maybe because they hold to other Catholic faith beliefs or because the Church calls them Catholics.

As to your first point, you can call yourself a woman because you decide to wear a dress on Tuesdays - that doesn’t make it so. You’re still a dude.

Your second one is more apt. However, the questions always comes back to for any individual “why do you want to embrace an identity you do not fully agree with?” Something keeps people tied to their religious identity even when they don’t believe in that religious identity. For people like Nancy Pelosi, I suspect it is politically motivated, since she she morally bereft anyway. For others, I think it is fear, or a desire to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Frankly, I find it embarrassingly full of cowardice. If you don’t believe something, man up and admit it, and stand alone on your own two feet. Granted, you’ll be wrong, ala Martin Luther, but at least you’ll earn some respect. Clinging to your religious identity because you don’t have the backbone to do otherwise is pathetic, and makes you no better a Catholic than Luther in the end anyway. I have more respect for someone who leaves the Church over theological disagreements than some crazy old relic of a 1960s nun who thinks she can ordain female “Priests.” Both are wrong, but the latter is just pathetic.

 

[andrewstx]

I think, primarily, he’s talking about theological liberalism, rather than political.

However, keep in mind that the lines blur. You should consider the quotes out of Leo XIII’s Libertas Praestantissimum I mentioned up in post #12.

A libertine attitude is undoubtedly condemned. But attitudes that vary from the Church’s teachings on social issues (rather than strictly moral ones) could also be classed as theologically “liberal”, as well.

For example, the Church, in no uncertain terms, condemns the political/economic philosophy of socialism. For example, Bl. John XXIII stated (in Mater et Magistra):

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism.

On the other hand, wealthy people who subscribe to a philosophy of liberal Capitalism without understanding or regarding their personal (as opposed to government) social responsibilities for the proper use of their profit, are also condemned. One simply must look at the Scriptures (from the OT on), the writings of the Fathers (particularly Basil and John Chrysostom), and the writings of the modern popes (up to and including Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate)

Either extreme could be viewed as theologically liberal under the terms described by Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum.

Of course, there are plenty of other examples, but hopefully the above illustrates my point.

Well in that case I am theologically conservative but politically liberal, for instance I am consistently Prolife, I hate executions as much as abortion.

I think everyone matters and not just the well to do.

I am poor personally and I think everyone has the right to healthcare, and food. Even if the rich have to forgo one of their yachts.

I am poor becuase I had a bad stroke 7 years ago, which means I cannot work, or walk unassited, or drive, or even dress and groom myself without a lot of help.

So really sorry if I offended anyone, the stroke messed with my thinking also.

 

[livnlern]

Or maybe because they hold to other Catholic faith beliefs or because the Church calls them Catholics.

We all have the responsibility to try to live up to what we’ve been given. Catholics most of all, since we have the fullness of the faith. A person in public office who openly wears the label of Catholic has even more to live up to than the average person. They are supposed to be leaders. And as such, are looked at by the rest of the population. If they’re creating a scandal by openly supporting abortion and homosexuality and other anti-Catholic actions, are you saying that these people are still fully Catholic? Then what’s your criteria for being a Catholic?

 

[CMatt25]

Agreed. Keep in mind that the Sacraments of Initiation leave a permanent mark on a person’s soul. A person could be said to be Catholic even if he or she later denied the faith, if he or she was baptized (or also confirmed). I wouldn’t out of respect for that person, but would also pray for them to return.

I struggled with many of these beliefs for a long time, myself. But I never would have considered myself a “cafeteria Catholic” or non-Catholic because I held them. I wrestled with these ideas daily. I read all I could on the subjects and had to work to overcome some really deep-seated prejudices I had. I prayed very, very hard. The devil works to twist even the most well-intentioned person. I would say that many people who are pro-abortion, pro-gay “marriage,” etc. are not actively seeking the demise of society. They think that these positions are GOOD things, because they are according to the logic of secular society. Many Catholics are growing up increasingly secular and not knowing the faith. Even though they believe in Jesus, they don’t know much about his teaching. Should they seek more? Probably. But remember that their logic tells them they don’t even need to do that, that they are just “fine as they are.”

I would say that this even goes for our politicians. My husband works in government and what we see on TV and in sound bytes does not at all accurately reflect what goes on (he gets yelled at constantly for things that didn’t even happen or things that were out of his control, etc.). I think it’s fine to hold our Catholic politicians to a higher standard, but we need to do so lovingly - and not assume automatically that they have the worst of intentions. They aren’t going to change their minds because we tell them (and ourselves) that they are bad, or evil, or stupid, etc. All that will do is harden their hearts and lead them further away from the truth. (That doesn’t mean we need to vote for a particular individual, but it amazes me sometimes to see how politics turns even the most kind and gentle, loving person into someone I would never, ever, ever want to run into on the street at a political rally.)

Very nice and loving post. God bless you and your family. Peace.

 

[John28]

Kreeft made the point that the term liberal had been hijacked by abortion rights activists. That is right on point. All Catholics are liberals in the classic sense - our human dignity is paramount; our rights are endowed by God and those rights imply a responsibility to act in a moral way.

Through their actions modern left wingers corrupted ‘liberal’ and turned it into a four letter word.

 

[CMatt25]

As to your first point, you can call yourself a woman because you decide to wear a dress on Tuesdays - that doesn’t make it so. You’re still a dude.

Your second one is more apt. However, the questions always comes back to for any individual “why do you want to embrace an identity you do not fully agree with?” Something keeps people tied to their religious identity even when they don’t believe in that religious identity. For people like Nancy Pelosi, I suspect it is politically motivated, since she she morally bereft anyway. For others, I think it is fear, or a desire to want to have their cake and eat it too.

If the born dude who wears a dress on Tues is still a dude, then the Baptized Catholic who does something not to the Catholic norm, is still a Catholic.

I agree fear probably plays some role. Catholics from a very young age have it told over and over to them that the Catholic faith is the one true faith. So later, though they might not be in full communion, they might fear what if the Catholic Church is the true one. So they rightfully maintain their Catholic identity since the Church teaches they are. And none of us know where their hearts will be by the moment they take their last breath. God bless.

 

[CMatt25]

We all have the responsibility to try to live up to what we’ve been given. Catholics most of all, since we have the fullness of the faith. A person in public office who openly wears the label of Catholic has even more to live up to than the average person. They are supposed to be leaders. And as such, are looked at by the rest of the population. If they’re creating a scandal by openly supporting abortion and homosexuality and other anti-Catholic actions, are you saying that these people are still fully Catholic? Then what’s your criteria for being a Catholic?

Now you’re introducing “fully” into the mix. I said nothing about “fully”.

My criteria for being a Catholic is the same as the Catholic Church’s. Baptism or rite of initiation.

This may help and also answer the question of the OP, and respond to Kreeft and those who agree with him. Even if all those liberal things, pro choice, gay marriage, stem cell research are mortal sins and a Catholic adheres to these liberal viewpoints, the Catholic answer is yes the Catholic remains a Catholic.

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-a-catholic-in-the-state-of-mortal-sin-still-a-member-of-the-catholic-church-or-doe

Now as SilicaSandra said, if the Catholic did not wish to be called such, then she would out of respect not call them so. But the reverse is if the Catholic does identify themselves as such, they are. If people want to say they are perhaps less than fully faithful or not fully practicing, that’s one thing. Though I think telling them over and over something like they are headed for fire, as SilicaSandra also alluded to, can probably have the opposite result you desire and harden their hearts and drive them further away. But to say they are not or can not be Catholic is simply false. I hope that helps. God bless and peace.

 

[He_Man]

If the born dude who wears a dress on Tues is still a dude, then the Baptized Catholic who does something not to the Catholic norm, is still a Catholic.

I agree fear probably plays some role. Catholics from a very young age have it told over and over to them that the Catholic faith is the one true faith. So later, though they might not be in full communion, they might fear what if the Catholic Church is the true one. So they rightfully maintain their Catholic identity since the Church teaches they are. And none of us know where their hearts will be by the moment they take their last breath. God bless.

The problem is the fear isn’t likely to save them. Doing anti-Catholic work on earth while trying to maintain your Catholic namesake out of fear isn’t likely to placate a just God.