Is Catholic morality liberal and progressive?

[Fezov]

Is Catholic morality liberal and progressive?

 

[1ke]

What do you mean by liberal and progressive? Please define your terms and what exactly you are asking.

 

[Fezov]

What do you mean by liberal and progressive? Please define your terms and what exactly you are asking.

I ask because I read the appeal of New age religions and Buddhism is because their morality is liberal and progressive.

I think it can mean like 21st century ethics or modern western values but I am not sure what exactly what it means but read that one of the appeals of Buddhism is the the perception is morals liberal and progressive.

 

[1ke]

I ask because I read the appeal of New age religions and Buddhism is because their morality is liberal and progressive.

I think it can mean like 21st century ethics or modern western values but I am not sure what exactly what it means but read that one of the appeals of Buddhism is the the perception is morals liberal and progressive.

By that definition, no. The ethical/moral framework of 21st century, western culture is based on moral relativism.

Catholic morality is timeless, and absolute, because it comes from God.

 

[Fezov]

By that definition, no. The ethical/moral framework of 21st century, western culture is based on moral relativism.

Catholic morality is timeless, and absolute, because it comes from God.

Moral relativism? I thought most people would agree murder is wrong and rape, even if they are not Catholic.

 

[1ke]

Moral relativism? I thought most people would agree murder is wrong and rape, even if they are not Catholic.

There are still a few things pretty much accepted universally as wrong. The list has grown quite short and even those things we think there is agreement on can be deceptive.

There are now those who advocate that the weak, old, frail, or mentally/physically handicapped, etc, should be euthanized (a nice way to say murdered) and let’s not forget that 4,000 children are murdered every day in their mother’s wombs in the US alone.

The rationale for euthanizing people and killing babies are based in moral relativism.

 

[Fezov]

There are still a few things pretty much accepted universally as wrong. The list has grown quite short and even those things we think there is agreement on can be deceptive.

There are now those who advocate that the weak, old, frail, or mentally/physically handicapped, etc, should be euthanized (a nice way to say murdered) and let’s not forget that 4,000 children are murdered every day in their mother’s wombs in the US alone.

The rationale for euthanizing people and killing babies are based in moral relativism.

But that is because they believe that the babies are not human.

 

[1ke]

But that is because they believe that the babies are not human.

Which is based in moral relativism.

 

[Major_Minor]

“Moral relativism” would mean that it depends on the individual so under this ridiculous theory even commonly agreed wrongs like murder and rape -could still be- “OK”.

And as for “New Age” being somehow consistently “morally relative” that is false as a blanket generalization as there is a HUGE number of different groups filed under that description who are basically very conservative (For example Yogananda’'s “Self Realization Fellowship” which would be a variation of basic Hinduism has very strict set of morals and ethics (Obviously based on Hindu morals and ethics.) Buddhism, too is, in it’s authentic sense very moral and conservative.

However, there are a lot of “New Age” groups where you -can- find moral relativism highly active, for example the basic creed of Wicca is “If it harms no one do what you will”… the problem arises when you try to get many of them to define the word “harm” it can get pretty wobbly and many of them if you really get down to brass tacks ultimately do get to a moral relativity… also many so called New Age groups come from no historical tradition and are basically recent inventions from specific individuals and there you can also find “Moral Relativism”

And also a lot of people calling them selves “New Age” who really just have an interest in vaguely occult ideas like UFO’s or Crystals or astral projection but have no basis of thought in moral teachings.

And last but not least many people call themselves “New Age” or “Buddhist” (or, let’s be honest, “Catholic” or “Christian”) who really aren’t in any fundamental way …who you will find believe in moral relativism…

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to pin down to one group, but it IS a widely held belief you can find in many places in these times.

In my experience I’ve noticed that people who hold to this idea strongly most often use it to rationalize their own bad behavior.

 

[Fezov]

" Buddhism, too is, in it’s authentic sense very moral and conservative. "

The Buddhist meditation group I go to say there is no should or should not in Buddhism, they say the Buddha said we would be wise to follow the five precepts but the Buddha never said we should, thats what they say.

Is Catholic faith conservative then? I thought conservatives value individualism and thift.

 

[Major_Minor]

" Buddhism, too is, in it’s authentic sense very moral and conservative. "

The Buddhist meditation group I go to say there is no should or should not in Buddhism, they say the Buddha said we would be wise to follow the five precepts but the Buddha never said we should, thats what they say.

Is Catholic faith conservative then? I thought conservatives value individualism and thift.

What version of Buddhism does your group practice? Hinayana? Mahayana? Tibetan?
My suspicion is that it would be none of the above. Who is your teacher and what tradition is it?

 

[1ke]

Is Catholic faith conservative then? I thought conservatives value individualism and thift.

I don’t believe Catholic moral teaching can be adequately described with terms like “conservative” or “liberal” or “progressive,” etc.

These terms are loaded with connotations which vary from individual to individual.

And, they perhaps are appropriate to a political system or theory, but the Catholic Church is not a political group.

I believe you will find that various aspects of Catholic Church teaching fit under each of these categories and others besides.

 

[Fezov]

What version of Buddhism does your group practice? Hinayana? Mahayana? Tibetan?
My suspicion is that it would be none of the above. Who is your teacher and what tradition is it?

There are no teachers and the group is run by all members. Many of them claim Buddhism is not a religion and one man in the group said Tibetanism buddhism is mixed in with the shamanistic religion of Tebit and that is why it seems like a religion.

They do not belong to any tradition of Buddhism and many are not Buddhist. Many in the group say there is no should or should not in Buddhism. I have even been told off because I used the word “should” ; they seemed abit angry I used that word.

I think the group is closer to Theravada than Mahayana but they are fond of Stephen Batcholer. I think he is the hero of many in the group.

 

[Fezov]

I don’t believe Catholic moral teaching can be adequately described with terms like “conservative” or “liberal” or “progressive,” etc.

These terms are loaded with connotations which vary from individual to individual.

And, they perhaps are appropriate to a political system or theory, but the Catholic Church is not a political group.

I believe you will find that various aspects of Catholic Church teaching fit under each of these categories and others besides.

Yes. Sometimes liberterians are classed as conservatives and many of them believe being selfish is a virtue.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Yes. Sometimes liberterians are classed as conservatives and many of them believe being selfish is a virtue.

No, socialists and communists want the government to do everything for them without earning it. It is a capital sin of Sloth (lazy).
They covet their neighbors goods, and want the goods without working for them.
They are selfish, always asking what the government can do for them.

People who want to work for their livlihood, want freedom from oppressive government. They usually are not lazy and not selfish.
They can give to Charity because the government has not taxed them to death in a non-socialistic society, and through their hard work have some money to help those who are unable to help themselves.

 

[johns58w]

By that definition, no. The ethical/moral framework of 21st century, western culture is based on moral relativism.

Catholic morality is timeless, and absolute, because it comes from God.

:thumbsup:Liberal and progressive are mainly secular issues. Catholicism is not a democracy. It is Jesus Christ. There are no opinions to Natrual Moral Law. Moral relativism especially today works to thwart God and His Natural Moral Law.

Man in basic is a religious being( Christianity, Judaism , Islam, Buddhism, Hindu and the list goes on). Man is not the end and all means.( communist governments have already proved their failures on this since 1917). Man knows there is a divine higher than he is.

Moral relativism comes from man’s free will and choice to reject Natural Moral Law created by God.

Catholic politicians who support same sex marriage and pro-choice are already violating Natural Moral Law.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

No, socialists and communists want the government to do everything for them without earning it. It is a capital sin of Sloth (lazy).
They covet their neighbors goods, and want the goods without working for them.
They are selfish, always asking what the government can do for them.

People who want to work for their livlihood, want freedom from oppressive government. They usually are not lazy and not selfish.
They can give to Charity because the government has not taxed them to death in a non-socialistic society, and through their hard work have some money to help those who are unable to help themselves.

How are you able to get wi-fi in your bunker? This is one very scary statement. Just saying.

 

[Major_Minor]

There are no teachers and the group is run by all members. Many of them claim Buddhism is not a religion and one man in the group said Tibetanism buddhism is mixed in with the shamanistic religion of Tebit and that is why it seems like a religion.

They do not belong to any tradition of Buddhism and many are not Buddhist. Many in the group say there is no should or should not in Buddhism. I have even been told off because I used the word “should” ; they seemed abit angry I used that word.

I think the group is closer to Theravada than Mahayana but they are fond of Stephen Batcholer. I think he is the hero of many in the group.

I see… then this really doesn’t represent that Buddhist tradition… My guess is that, especially as you say they are independent any tradition that this is one of many “salad bar” type groups who represent themselves as belonging to a certain tradition, but in reality they just “pick and choose” elements they like… and this is pretty common these days among many groups…(Including some self-proclaimed Catholic groups) The problem with this approach is that as religions develop there are certain checks and balances and there is a very real possibility that “The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater” when certain traditions are ignored.

Much of what you say that they’ve told you sounds more recent western thought than traditional Buddhism. But there is a certain semantic problem with discussing Buddhism in that most of the points are said in the negative… in other words the common belief is that Buddhism “doesn’t believe in a God” which is true in one way and yet they speak of a source that you return to… or the “Buddha Mind” being the “ground of being” which, really at the end of the day is not much different than what most religions mean when they say “God”… It’s just that Buddhism will mostly say what the Ground of being -is not- so in that negative approach it seems like they are saying there is no God… but then what is it that is eternal they ARE talking about? So, really it’s just semantics…

 

[mjs1987]

How are you able to get wi-fi in your bunker? This is one very scary statement. Just saying.

How is what he said scary? He was just defending libertarians from the all too frequent accusation, made by the OP, that libertarians are selfish because they support capitalism and are against government programs.

If the OP can attack libertarians as selfish than why is it scary to say the same to the other side?

 

[Fezov]

No, socialists and communists want the government to do everything for them without earning it. It is a capital sin of Sloth (lazy).
They covet their neighbors goods, and want the goods without working for them.
They are selfish, always asking what the government can do for them.

People who want to work for their livlihood, want freedom from oppressive government. They usually are not lazy and not selfish.
They can give to Charity because the government has not taxed them to death in a non-socialistic society, and through their hard work have some money to help those who are unable to help themselves.

When I said Liberterian I do not mean capitalism or even right wing govenment. The ones I met believe that govenment should only protect the property rights of people or that there should be no govenment and that people should pay privately for protection. They believe that Wallmart should sell drugs and abortion should be available without restriction and many other crazy ideas.

I never said that Liberterians are selfish or all of them are but some of them do believe that being selfish is a virtue such as Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand and her philosophy is quite popular with Liberterians.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

Some even argu that capitalism works well because of greed.

I never said socialists were not selfish , but I don’t know any of them that say being selfish is a virtue; many of them complain that capitalism rewards selfish behaviour and that capitalists are selfish.

Some who people vote socialist or support it because they do believe it is in their self-interest to do so. But not all people that support socialism are working class or poor, there are some middle class people and wealthy people that support socialism. Have you not heard of the expression champagne socialist or limousine liberal?

To believe that being selfish is a virtue and being selfish are not the same thing; a lot of people say selfishness is wrong are very selfish.

Some people may support less tax because they want to give more money to charity but I strongly suspect this is not the main motivation for lower tax.