Is Liberalism A Sin?

[luvthelight]

is a person who is 100% through and through liberal sinning? most likely, because then they support abortion, homosexuality, teaching children about sex (but how to protect themselves of course), are all about free society and feeling good, ect. but i do agree with some of their views. for example, protecting our environemnt (no im not a zero population growth person) i mean in terms of regulation pollution and the rain forests, ect. and reaching out to the poor, i think most of us Catholic (and christians in general) hold this view. so i kinda see what the author is saying, but not every liberal view is sinful

 

[Benedictus]

The term “liberal” can mean so many different things in different contexts that it is almost meaningless. By one definition, anyone who supports democracy is a liberal. Frequently on this forum, anyone who opposes the invasion of Iraq is branded a liberal.

The author was using a particular definition of “Liberalism”. The liberalism he is condemning probably doesn’t mean much to us.

Labels such as “liberal” or “conservative” have so many different meanings to different people that I think it’s best to avoid them. But YMMV.

 

[Darrel]

There is a time to be liberal. It can be good or evil depending on the situation much like a knife.

-D

 

[Mystophilus]

Jimmy B:

IS LIBERALISM A SIN?

Guilty as charged, your honour.


In the eyes of most churches, whether Catholicism or Protestant, Muslim or Buddhist, yes. Liberalism is based upon the believer’s free choice, and, consequently, the believer’s rejection of the ecclesiastical hierarchy’s position as sole authority. Hierarchies naturally hate it because it undermines their power.

In the eyes of God, well, I’m not God, and so I cannot really say. However, I would suggest that the God of the Bible texts is an extremely anti-legalistic person, and one who would not condemn liberalism merely for being a refusal to follow the rules. When liberalism involves bending or breaking the rules in order to help someone, it is self-evidently good, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath despite the Law’s declarations that doing any work on the Sabbath was a capital crime. When it involves bending or breaking the rules merely in order to please someone, it has no such sanction. The trick lies in knowing which one you are doing.

 

[Philip_P]

Genesis315:

That’s not what the book is about at all. People need to understand what Liberalism is as it was defined in the mid to late 1800s. Another word is rationalism, that puts each individuals reason above God.

So…you think it would carry quite the same punch if the folks who tend to quote this book went around saying “rationalism is a sin?”

As long as we’re resurrecting 18th and 18th century terminology, maybe we can debate why democracy, or Americanism, or Italian Unity are sins? And what’s up with this “Germany” thing anyway, what’s wrong with Prussia and the Holy Roman Empire?

 

[mschoir01]

A very wise Benedictine I know says that there are no conservative or liberal Christians, only Christians. To paint one or the other as evil is self righteous and judgemental. To cleave to one or the other without examination of the issues is to be irresponsible.

I vote no.

 

[anJayRN]

I think using too much bold type is annoying.

 

[felra]

Hi Jimmy,
I’m tired of this thread, and I know I won’t convince you. But, I will say that many otherwise basically good people mistakenly

support abortion and homosexuality because their world view is different that ours.
So long as you do not mistakenly confuse and transpose holiness with being a “basically good” person.

They A) don’t think a fetus in the early stage of development has consciousness or enough awareness to be considered in the same way as a born person
B)They think any form of sexual activity between consenting adults is okay

To my friend, this is an intellectually arrived at opinion.

This is a HUGE mistakenly arrived at opinion and one that the devil applauds (and quite certain had something to do with in forming her “opinion”).

I don’t think she’s had an abortion, and she is more chaste than many people. She lives a life dedicated to service of others. Yes, she’s a great person, although as you point out, flawed like the rest of us of course.

Jesus told His disciples that many “good” people are on the road to destruction. Has your friend intellectually arrived at this reality?

I promise, though, I won’t introduce you to her. She wouldn’t like debating with you, she’s not into that. She’s very sensitive, and would probably be overwhelmed by your personality.

I hope that you are praying for this obviously lost soul and looking for every opportunity to plants the seeds of faith that your friend does not remain a lost or defiant sheep and end up in hell. The fact is, you may be the one person God can most use to bring this friend of yours to Christ. If my comments sound rude or too harsh, then good.

 

[felra]

Island Oak:

Seems to me that Jewish carpenter we’re all so crazy about was pretty liberal–liberal with His love, compassion, in forgiveness, healing, mercy, giving second chances and turning the other cheek. He showed this radical form of liberalism to society’s outcasts—the poor, widowed, crippled, elderly, children, infirm, diseased, ignorant, tax cheats, prostitutes, hypocrites. He exposed those who elevated legalism, title, pride and status above loving their neighbors as themselves. So if that’s liberalism–sign me up–I’d wear the badge with honor.

I believe that “radical” is a less ambiguous and more accurate term to describe Jesus in his day, those today who follow Him wholeheartidly, and for the purposes of this thread discussion:

radical, adj, defn; a) Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. b) Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.

n. One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.

liberal, adj, defn; a)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

n. a) A person with liberal ideas or opinions. B) Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.

JMJ

Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin

1.By Counsel
2.By Command
3.By Consent
4.By Concealment
5.By Defense of Evil Done
6.By Partaking
7.By Provocation
8.By Praise
9.By Silence

Accessory to another’s sin

We all have a responsibility for the sins of others. When we cooperate in them, we are an accessory to these sins, and this is possible in nine ways: By Counsel, By Command, By Consent, By Concealment, By Defense of Evil Done, By Partaking, By Provocation, By Praise, and By Silence.

As practicing Catholics and Christians, we are not merely compelled to avoid sinning. We are compelled to avoid the occasion of sin, to avoid the temptation of sin and try to live by the example that Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, gave us.

It is not enough to avoid evil but we must also avoid the appearance of evil as well. It is not enough to merely avoid wrong-doing but to speak-out against any wrong- doing. We are all called to defend our faith and God’s laws.

If someone is aware of an evil committed, there are nine ways that we can end up being guilty by our participation, or omission, regarding another’s sin. Unfortunately, “Silence” in face of evil, is common, when we choose to be silent we allow sin to occur and in by doing so, we too sin.

Quote:

Quote:
*“Lord forgive me for what I have done and what I have failed to do” *

I believe the “Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin” may be relevant to this discussion.** **
. Your thoughts?

 

[Topher]

Libero:

Liberalism a sin? Thats a bit stupid. Conservatives are not necesserially correct, the view that they hold won the debate two millenia ago. There is nothing to say that conservatism would win the debate today.

If liberalism is a sin then clearly a number of high ranking clergy members are also guilty.

Liberalism does not necesserially mean that one disagrees entirely with church teaching.

But to disagree at all with a church teaching is a mortal sin.

 

[Topher]

HelpingHands:

I’ve never heard of this theory. I voted no. Really, I think this is probably quite insulting to liberals. I know some very fine, upstanding people who hold liberal views. I don’t like this concept at all!

Sorry but it doesn’t matter who is being insulted. Truth is truth and liberalism is contrary to the Catholic faith because it espouses heterodox teachings. To believe heresy is by definition a sin. Examples of liberal theology that are heterodox and therefore sinful:
The Pope is not infallible concerning faith and morals
Contraception is not a sin
Homosexuality is not a sin
The scriptures are nothing more than “faith stories”
Christ did not know that he was God
masturbation is OK
Clonning human beings is OK
A Catholic need not be married in the Church
Other religions are ordinary means of salvation.
All of these statments are liberal theological statements and heretical; to profess them, is, therefore, sinful because they are lies and an attack on the revealed truth of almighty God.

 

[Topher]

Some times people point out that they know alot of nice people who are liberals. Well that is great because, at times, being nice can be virtuous. But being nice is simply not enough, nor is being a “good person”. If that was all that was needed, then Christ would not have died on the cross.If niceness or being good were enough we could all just be good and nice and earn our place in heaven. But guess what. No one is good enough or nice enough to do that. We need the grace of God to get into heaven and we need to be made Holy by that grace to be aloud into heaven. Did you get that? We need to be Holy, not necessarily nice. In fact sometimes being Holy means not being nice, as was the case when Jesus wipped the money changers in the temple or called the pharisees a brood of vipers. A friend once told me that nice people sometimes do go to hell. That being said, I can be a really nice or “good” person but if I assent to liberalism, I am assenting to lies and therefore, I am not being Holy. Not being Holy means that I am not participating with God’s grace. Guess what, no grace no heaven. That simple.

 

[Petertherock]

As was stated previously…liberals believe that homosexuals are normal people and homos should be able to marry like anyone else, lets not also forget that liberals are supporters of abortion and are against almost every other doctrine of the Church.

 

[fix]

Topher:

Some times people point out that they know alot of nice people who are liberals. Well that is great because, at times, being nice can be virtuous. But being nice is simply not enough, nor is being a “good person”. If that was all that was needed, then Christ would not have died on the cross.If niceness or being good were enough we could all just be good and nice and earn our place in heaven. But guess what. No one is good enough or nice enough to do that. We need the grace of God to get into heaven and we need to be made Holy by that grace to be aloud into heaven. Did you get that? We need to be Holy, not necessarily nice. In fact sometimes being Holy means not being nice, as was the case when Jesus wipped the money changers in the temple or called the pharisees a brood of vipers. A friend once told me that nice people sometimes do go to hell. That being said, I can be a really nice or “good” person but if I assent to liberalism, I am assenting to lies and therefore, I am not being Holy. Not being Holy means that I am not participating with God’s grace. Guess what, no grace no heaven. That simple.

Thank you. I make this point all the time. If we only had a natural end then being* nice* would be sufficient, but we have a supernatural end and we must be holy.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

Liberalism, in the terms this book uses, refers to a broad collection of intellectual and social trends in the 19th and late 18th centuries. Basically, it’s the end of the old order - feudalism, mercantilism, unified Catholic Christendom - so if you really wanted to push the term you could probably find “liberalizing” trends all the way back to Luther and the rise of the nation-state (think changes in religion, but also the transition from viewing the world as “Christendom” to nation-states like “England” and “France”).

The paragon of a “Liberal” state, in this sense, is of course the United States, with its rejection of monarchy and official religion and it’s embrace of capitalism. While I’ll conceed many of the changes between, oh, 1776 and 1850 or so are morally troubling, I’m not quite prepared to call all these collectively a sin.

Furthermore, it’s a safe bet that most who would claim that “Liberalism” is a sin are also fans of the free market, capitailst system. However, as Capitalism very much falls under the term “Liberalism,” this is an inherent contradiction.

Unless you subscribe to some pre-modern or anarchistic philosophy, you’re probably a “liberal.” Since we’re pretty much all “liberals,” the term’s pretty meaningless, at least so far as this book uses it. “Liberalism” and the contemporary distinction between liberals and conservatives are two completely different things

The word liberal is derived from the Latin liber, free, and up to the end of the eighteenth century signified only “worthy of a free man”, so that people spoke of “liberal arts”, “liberal occupations”. Later the term was applied also to those qualities of intellect and of character, which were considered an ornament becoming those who occupied a higher social position on account of their wealth and education. Thus liberal got the meaning of intellectually independent, broad-minded, magnanimous, frank, open, and genial. Again Liberalism may also mean a political system or tendency opposed to centralization and absolutism. In this sense Liberalism is not at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church. Since the end of the eighteenth century, however, the word has been applied more and more to certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life, which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order. Usually, the principles of 1789, that is of the French Revolution, are considered as the Magna Charta of this new form of Liberalism. The most fundamental principle asserts an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are, on the one hand, the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one’s individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; on the other hand, the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen, along all lines of human activity, and the concentration of all public authority in one “sovereignty of the people”. This sovereignty of the people in all branches of public life as legislation, administration, and jurisdiction, is to be exercised in the name and by order of all the citizens, in such a way, that all should have share in and a control over it. A fundamental principle of Liberalism is the proposition: “It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself”. This principle implies the denial of all true authority; for authority necessarily presupposes a power outside and above man to bind him morally.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm

 

[JOHN_6_41-71]

I’m sure most people who know me would be quick to label me as a “Conservative Catholic”. At one time I probably would have been okay with that, but not any more. People tend to automatically associate “conservative” with cold and unfeeling and “liberal” with having no morals or respect for decency.

It has been my experience that in order to bee a faithful Catholic I need to conservative and liberal.

I need to be conservative in my values and respect for life. I need to defend my faith from all the lies of the secular world. I need to be a strong defender of the truth and totally intolerant of abuses within the Church with regards to the liturgy, theology, moral teaching, ect…

On the other hand I need to be liberal with my love for Jesus. I need to try and see him in every person I meet and be charitable and forgiving. I need to be understanding of my own weaknesses and the weaknesses of others. However, there is a big difference between understanding and tolerance or relativism. I need to sincerely pray for those who are my enemies that they will someday find the fullness of truth which lies only in the “Bride of Christ” and her teaching.

I’ll get off the soapbox now. :twocents:

 

[Apathy]

Liberalism can also be a blessing.

Examples can be found in 1964 America and 1947 India.

 

[Topher]

Apathy:

Liberalism can also be a blessing.

Examples can be found in 1964 America and 1947 India.

I think that what we are talking about is modern liberalism as the problem. Oh, and by the way, it was conservatives, that is Repulicns who passed the civil rights acts and voting rights acts. It was liberal democrats that opposed these moves.

 

[goofyjim]

Yet sometimes it is the Liberals who are providing the programs for the poor. I am currently disabled and get Medicaid to pay for my medical expenses such as medicine. There are those in the state of PA who want to do away with certain coverages. I don’t think it’s an outright easy answer. I am morally conservative but fiscally liberal.