Is Liberalism A Sin?

[JSmitty2005]

buffalo:

When the Pope or Church speaks they use the language of the Church. To find the meaning look back at how the Church has used the term in the past.

An excercise for all - How has the Church used the phrase “full and active participation” in the past? The answer will surprise you.

I don’t know how the Church has used this phrase in the past. Care to enlighten me?

As for how liberalism has been viewed by the Church in the past, Pope Pius IX didn’t speak very highly of liberalism in his Syllabus of Errors:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

[wcknight]

Political liberalism is no sin, but liberalism with regards to moral principals is almost an oxymoron.

Moral principles should not and can not be interpretted “liberally” and still retain the same meaning.

 

[JSmitty2005]

wcknight:

Political liberalism is no sin, but liberalism with regards to moral principals is almost an oxymoron.

Moral principles should not and can not be interpretted “liberally” and still retain the same meaning.

Isn’t that what political liberalism does? Please define your understanding of “political liberalism.”

 

[steveandersen]

JSmitty2005:

…Please define your understanding of “political liberalism.”

The notion that the individual has worth regardless of birth or circumstances and should be free from obsessive interference from The State

what do you think liberalism is?

 

[JSmitty2005]

steveandersen:

The notion that the individual has worth regardless of birth or circumstances and should be free from obsessive interference from The State

what do you think liberalism is?

That’s strange, I was always taught that conservatives want smaller governments and liberals want big ones. Hence, political liberalism at its extreme is socialism and communism, both condemned by the Magisterium. Also, are the unborn considered individuals?

 

[steveandersen]

JSmitty2005:

That’s strange, I was always taught that conservatives want smaller governments and liberals want big ones.

that may be the current, twisted, talk radio definition

but history and current events clearly belie that

JSmitty2005:

Hence, political liberalism at its extreme is socialism and communism, both condemned by the Magisterium.

I’m sure that if you took an extreme definition of conservatism as something that supported the Devine right of kings, serfdom, and command economies you could come up with something equally objectionable

JSmitty2005:

Also, are the unborn considered individuals?

not really touched on by Smith, Locke, Kant, Hume, et al AFAIK

but clearly they are

 

[wcknight]

My understanding of political liberalism does not extend to the extreme of socialism or communism. I think both of those are wrong. I’m talking about the social justice and assistance that a govenrment should supply to its people.

BY this I mean the right to a decent education, protection of their rights under the law, and protection from predatory actions by businesses, organizations or individuals.

 

[JGheen]

Totally depends what you mean by “Liberalism"!

 

[Kristina_P]

## Your post rather goes to show there is no one answer to the question, because the word does not have single meaning which is unchanged in all circumstances. Which means that “yes” cannot always be the appropriate answer. Thanks ##

I am highly entertained that even after posts like this one, people continue to argue from different definitions of liberalism with no attempt to find out what the other person’s definition actually is.

 

[LatinCat]

steveandersen:

It frightens and demoralizes me to think see such a large number of respondents who think that liberalism by itself is a sin.

what sort of world is this?

It is even more disheartening when such, supposedly very Christian, activities as helping the poor are considered the evil by-product of a “liberal” government.

I found this article fairly interersting
link

How is forcing the citizens make a living for themselves and for a person who refuses to work, paying ones fare share. Sorry, but the socialist utopia idea is a lie from the pit of hell. We need justice and hard work. Not a hand out!

Stealing comes in many forms. Both an overreaching government delving deep into your pocket and a citizen who wants to enjoy the benefits of a society without ponying up his fair share are examples.

But since “the State” in theory represents the will of the majority why would it be wrong for the majority to want to be charitable? Wouldn’t that be expected in a “Christian” nation. Don’t you think it is a good policy to at least attempt to do to the least of these? Don’t you think a government should try to lead by example?

Since poverty is linked to a variety of social/civil ills wouldn’t it be simple basic good governance to deal with it?
Since poverty tend to clump geographically as do natural disasters, wouldn’t an “everyman for himself” approach to charity result in an abundance of giving in one place and scarcity in another?

How does a “liberal” government mandated redistribution of income compare to the redistribution of wealth as practiced say by a conservative Ancient Regime?

 

[marcadam]

New Advent

The problem with this article and condemnation is that it is somewhat, er, dated. More specifically, it is referring to “classical” (19th century) liberalism, which has more in common with modern libertarianism than modern liberalism. It was also much more well-defined as a political philosophy, whereas the modern term is more or less simply used as a political label.

 

[GilbertKeith]

‘Liberalism’ is a sin insofar as it expresses the adolescent wickedness inherent in its wholesale rejection of legitimate authority. (i.e. violative of the 4th Commandment, and strikingly imitative of Lucifer himself) This is the common thread of sinful Liberalism throughout the modern age. It is never sinful to think any thought that is the product of right reason, however the attendant act of the will which habitually entertains thoughts outside of reason is sinful. This is what I call the ‘first lie’ axiom.

Look at nearly every Liberal program at issue in our politics and you can identify at its very root the willfull rejection of the dictates of reason and truth upon which empty platitudes are heaped - the ‘first lie’ as it were:

The ‘first lie’ of Abortion is that there is no human being to be protected; in light of this empty platitudes of ‘self determination’ and ‘health care’ can be heaped to rationalize and disguise the wickedness of the lie. You can all apply this axiom to ‘Homosexual Marriage’, open promiscuity, etc. quite easily.

The ‘first lie’ of ‘modernist’ Liberal theology is that Jesus was not God (at all) but a skilled raconteur, moral philosopher, orator and magician, and that his teaching is not binding upon a society which has surpassed such a man in knowledge and technology. “We know better now”, as J.S. Spong would say.

Faithful and sincere Catholics very often adopt the ‘conservative’ posture because there is developed within through a well-developed interior life a sense for the truth, like the ‘true north’ of a compass. We know that to turn away from truth, especially to be ‘nice’, ‘accepted’, ‘liked’, or to affirm someone else’s ‘life choice’ is seductive, habit-forming, and a very grave sin. We know that it is important to ‘conserve’ what is true, as the Church ‘conserves’ the true deposit of the faith - it is natural for us to see the world in these terms.

The best example in the context of the Church which I can elucidate pertains to our recent Papal elections. The wicked within the Church pined for a ‘liberal’ Pope who would uproot our tradition and moral teaching to imitate the depraved world against which we struggle. They openly flaunted their rejection of Papal authority and demanded a Pontiff who would accept their lies and lifestyle as truth, all the time expecting the ‘conservatives’ to be bound by that same authority they reject. They praised and cursed Pope John Paul II in the same breath, and said the most vile things about then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and reiterated their oppsoition to him even after his overwhelming election be the College of Cardinals. They found solace in his relative old age and clumsily disguised a death wish for the new Pope Benedict XVI. They even criticized the long-standing procedure of Papal Elections and made ridiculous demands of ‘democracy’ in vain hope that they could somehow elect a Heretic Supreme Pontiff.

Let there be no doubt, this is very evil and very sinful.

 

[goofyjim]

The conservative raised his eyes to heaven saying, “I thank you Lord that I am not like this liberal” while the liberal just struck his breast and repeated, “Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.”

 

[LatinCat]

goofyjim:

The conservative raised his eyes to heaven saying, “I thank you Lord that I am not like this liberal” while the liberal just struck his breast and repeated, “Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.”

Are you kidding me? The most self righteous people I know are liberals. They act as if conservatives are evil nenanderthals of conquest and domination and that liberals are the “Holy Enlightened bearers of the new Utopian Society”. The conservative says “Lord your ways are so far above mine and your thoughts beyond mine”. The liberals says “Lord we know better than you how to run this world and we need none of your aid and none of your justice”.

 

[goofyjim]

LatinCat:

Are you kidding me? The most self righteous people I know are liberals. They act as if conservatives are evil nenanderthals of conquest and domination and that liberals are the “Holy Enlightened bearers of the new Utopian Society”. The conservative says “Lord your ways are so far above mine and your thoughts beyond mine”. The liberals says “Lord we know better than you how to run this world and we need none of your aid and none of your justice”.

Many conservatives act the same way. They are not all so holy. I happen to consider myself conservative but I also have a disability and without many of the programs that the proud conservatives consider liberal I would be left in some psychiatric hospital or homeless.

 

[buffalo]

Our news program last night related the % of charitable giving by red state or blue states.

The states with the highest income (liberal states) gave the lowest % to charity. The ones with the lowest incomes gave the highest % to charity. HMMMMM! For all the carping I hear from the libs about helping the poor etc… they don’t put their money where their mouth is. I just hear the rich get richer. They are the rich. Is this what Jesus said about the Pharisees? Hypocrisy? And … the libs states also claim less religion.

 

[goofyjim]

Many things that we accept today would have been considered liberal many years ago. Take, for example, homosexuality. The Catechism mentions those who are afflicted. The Church supports the group Courage. What many don’t know is that Courage does not require its members to change their attractions, only to commit to chaste, celibate lives. Even this position can be considered liberal. This is why I insist that we cannot paint all liberals into the same category or conservatives. Many conservatives are in it for selfserving purposes also.

 

[steveandersen]

Our news program last night related the % of charitable giving by red state or blue states.

well the flip side of that coin would be to look at non-private giving between red and blue states. It might prove interesting to see what those numbers are. anyone have any figures?

and those red/blue comparisons are dangerous things to do
I seem to recall that the states with the lowest divorce rates and lowest birth rates out of marriage are those pesky Liberal ones…darn them and their strong family values

 

[Agricola]

Wasn’t this thread originally about a specific book entitled “Liberalism is a Sin”?

I read some of the book. The liberalism described in it seemed to correspond with many of the insidious ideals that pervade society today. People could argue on and on about whether their version of “liberalism” is okay or not, but we should keep inmind that what the thread is about is defined.

I look at the term “liberal” and want to think that it refers to liberty in the best sense of the word. Unfortunately, words are easily manipulated and often get used to promote ideologies that are directly counter the original meaning of the word (the term “gay” for example). A term that most people don’t even recognize is possibly closer to what people will accept as a dangerous liberalism. That term is libertinism.

I believe that one should avoid describing one’s position as liberal if they are Catholic, since there is undoubtedly confusion over the meaning of the word, and, though there may be many “liberals” who follow the teachings of the Church, this is not how liberals are perceived. If you describe yourself as liberal, people will assume that you do not hold that there are inviolable moral principles. Its just how things are. The term “social liberal” is a good example of how liberalism is viewed today. It does not carry a wholesome meaning.

When people ask me whether I’m liberal or conservative, I will tell them that I’m Catholic. That way, they won’t be confused.

If anyone wishes to comment on what I’ve said, please read the book by Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany. It has an imprimatur if your wondering, so nothing is contrary to Church teachings… in fact, the author was commended on his efforts to expose a real problem in society… one that still exists. Once you have read the book, then consider what I have said. I do not profess to be an authority on linguistics, nor on political or moral philosophy. I can recognize, however, the errors condemned in “Liberalism is a Sin” in todays society.

Peace, and God bless,

Agricola

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

Greetings! Do we understand you correctly?
Are you saying that all human nature is inherently, intrinsically and incorrigably EVIL? Incidentally, Jesus Crist, Mary and Joseph and all the saints were human beings…!
What does that make them?
And what god do you worship?

You have some other famous, interesting men for company:

  "Liberal democracy -- a dung-heap of lies!"  --Adolf Hitler

"Anyone who raises his hand against the State msut know he will face certain death!"    --Ibid.        :mad: 

 Perhaps you look up to Amon Goeth?

Have you been reading the Malleus Malificarum, too?