Liberal Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4givemeasinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is not descriptive to others then you are right, it does not fulfill its purpose. What should we call them?
If the problem is that someone is speaking or acting against Church teaching, the problem would seem to be their disobedience. Disobedient Catholic…or does that sound arrogant?

I dunno… but I do think that the term needs to be objectively descriptive of the problem.
 
The term “liberal” is a political/economic term, not a religious one.

One is Catholic or non-Catholic. One follows Church doctrine or doesn’t.
 
The term “liberal” is a political/economic term, not a religious one.

One is Catholic or non-Catholic. One follows Church doctrine or doesn’t.
And as a rule, political liberals don’t follow church doctrine, so it works.
 
If it is not descriptive to others then you are right, it does not fulfill its purpose. What should we call them?
Catholics.

or maybe…

Brothers and sisters in Christ.

or maybe…

Those for whom Christ died.
 
And even in that case, many times it’s not exactly good either, because in America, liberalism has began to mean a watered down version of socialisim, which is something that the church does not allow.
Where did you ever get the idea that the Church does not allow socialism? I haven;t noticed it kicking any Scandinavian countries to the curb.

In fact, the Church prohibits atheistic socialism, such as Communism as previously practiced in Russia and USSR. I don’t think it prohibits democratic socialism, and in fact, seems to be in favor of some forms of that economic system in its social teaching.
 
The term “liberal” is a political/economic term, not a religious one.

One is Catholic or non-Catholic. One follows Church doctrine or doesn’t.
Yes, but some Catholics do not follow Church teaching, and it is they we are discussing.

As it is frequently pointed out here, calling a dissenting Catholic a non-Catholic is inaccurate.
 
Where did you ever get the idea that the Church does not allow socialism? I haven;t noticed it kicking any Scandinavian countries to the curb.

In fact, the Church prohibits atheistic socialism, such as Communism as previously practiced in Russia and USSR. I don’t think it prohibits democratic socialism, and in fact, seems to be in favor of some forms of that economic system in its social teaching.
Democrratic socialism is different from socialism, which has indeed been condemned by the Church, starting in Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. It is not simply the atheism of socialism which the Church condemns but the injustice of not allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor.
 
And as a rule, political liberals don’t follow church doctrine, so it works.
Though you are Catholic "through and through 🤷) you are incorrect here.

There are hundreds of thousands of European Catholics, Canadian Catholics, Asian Catholics, who could be called politically “liberal” in terms of the role of Government and fiscal policy, who are orthodox Catholics.

There are parts of the world were there are nearly no politically Conservative people- at least in the American sense- including most of Italy.

So no, it doesn’t “work”.
 
Catholics.

or maybe…

Brothers and sisters in Christ.

or maybe…

Those for whom Christ died.
For the purposes of arifying that not evrything goes within the Church, for clarifying that some acts and/or beloefs are incompatible with being a good Catholic, some sort of appelation is neexed other than “those Catholics who deny Church teaching in the areas of life and of sexual morality, even going so far as to promote immoral and inhumane laws and sometimes going as far as attacking their own Church, all the while claiming to be Catholics in good standing”–which one has to admit is a bit of a mouthful.

Hence terms like cafeteria Catholic or liberal Catholic, or disobedient or dissenting Catholic. Just because one has been baptized does not mean that one cannot be a bad Catholic who leads others in the wrong direction, which can lead to eternal bad consequences.
 
Or it can be as simple as someone wearing flip flops and shorts to church.🙂
Oh, do I like that comment!👍

And, oh, is it tempting to put in my 1.5 cents. Darn, I gave in.

“Liberal Catholic”: Emphasizes human rights, interprets the beginning of life a little less strictly than “orthodoxy”, is “less exclusive” toward other faiths, is more likely to hope for change back to allowing married priesthood and future inclusion of women in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and generally hopes for changes in the Church that would lead to more “egalitarian” ways. And, as described by another poster, more likely to integrate the findings of modern science into theology and orthodoxy.

“Conservative Catholic”: Emphasizes human rights, interprets stances against war, environmental protection, and the death penalty a little less strictly than “orthodoxy”, seeks to uphold “traditional” practices in worship (the non-wearing of flip-flops). Is generally more concerned about the stability of upholding theological traditions, and hopes to see the Church move increasingly more towards traditional teachings and methodologies.

So, I am a big supporter of the idea of women being able to celebrate the sacrament of Holy Orders and for women and married men being able to be priests, but I detest flip-flops in church, so where do I fit in?

In fact, does anyone really fit into the stereotypes?

And hey, this is all in fun. No stepping on toes intended at all. The whole stereotype thing is full of false premises, so its fairly meaningless. Feel free to tell me I’m full of baloney.🙂
 
I do not care for oxymorons and juxdipostions and all the rest of it as to put grammar and style onto a belief is a bit of a mix in itself isn’t it? Trying to box our faith rather than be free with our faith???
 
For the purposes of arifying that not evrything goes within the Church, for clarifying that some acts and/or beloefs are incompatible with being a good Catholic, some sort of appelation is neexed other than “those Catholics who deny Church teaching in the areas of life and of sexual morality, even going so far as to promote immoral and inhumane laws and sometimes going as far as attacking their own Church, all the while claiming to be Catholics in good standing”–which one has to admit is a bit of a mouthful.

Hence terms like cafeteria Catholic or liberal Catholic, or disobedient or dissenting Catholic. Just because one has been baptized does not mean that one cannot be a bad Catholic who leads others in the wrong direction, which can lead to eternal bad consequences.
Why do Catholics need to discuss the quality of the faith lives of other Catholics, to put them into categories? Why are we so fascinated with looking at other people’s religious behavior and giving it descriptive terms?

Oh that’s right; we’re all programmed by the media that we should categorize and focus on each others’ faults because that makes Good News stories.

Alan
 
Why do Catholics need to discuss the quality of the faith lives of other Catholics, to put them into categories? Why are we so fascinated with looking at other people’s religious behavior and giving it descriptive terms?

Oh that’s right; we’re all programmed by the media that we should categorize and focus on each others’ faults because that makes Good News stories.

Alan
First because we are to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. We can’t do that without communicating, and communicating in instructional or admonishing situations often requires words.

When I hear Catholics say *during Mass *that a woman whom they opine has too many children should have her tubes tied, I see a Catholic who has been poorly catechized and who has learned more from the likes of P&S than from the Church. When I hear a young person say that abortion is all right because look at P&S, I know they need instruction.

And when I write to someone about the situation, some phrase can be necessary.

And in a way it is better to have a phrase like this which people understand because then we don’t have to personalize it by bringing specific people in as illustrations of what we are talking about. If I could simply say “The advicacy of abortion by liberal Catholics confuses many of our young people as to the teachings of the Church,” then I don’t have to drag people like Edward Kennedy into the discussion.

I would not to have to clarify these issues for my children. I would have loved for them not to know about abortion and SSM until their teens, which is when I found out about them. But this is not the situation. I need to teach my children, and for that i need words.

I don’t care about these people’s faith lives. That is their business. But when they put forth the idea that a Catholic can support legal abortion, when they cite St Thomas Aquinas in support of that stance, when they attack the Church like Sebilius does, Catholocs need to be able to discuss the wrongness of what they are doing. I’m not saying liberal Catholocs are going to Hell, but i need to be able to say that they are confusing people, doing the wrong thing, etc.

And none of us would even know liberal Catholics were Catholic if they didn’t do things like saying that their Catholic Faith impells them to support a woman’s right to choose to hire someone to kill her unborn child, as Caroline Kennedy did recently.

We are not the ones dragging Catholcism into the discussion–they are.
 
First because we are to instruct the ignorant and admonish the sinner. We can’t do that without communicating, and communicating in instructional or admonishing situations often requires words.

When I hear Catholics say *during Mass *that a woman whom they opine has too many children should have her tubes tied, I see a Catholic who has been poorly catechized and who has learned more from the likes of P&S than from the Church. When I hear a young person say that abortion is all right because look at P&S, I know they need instruction.

And when I write to someone about the situation, some phrase can be necessary.

And in a way it is better to have a phrase like this which people understand because then we don’t have to personalize it by bringing specific people in as illustrations of what we are talking about. If I could simply say “The advicacy of abortion by liberal Catholics confuses many of our young people as to the teachings of the Church,” then I don’t have to drag people like Edward Kennedy into the discussion.

I would not to have to clarify these issues for my children. I would have loved for them not to know about abortion and SSM until their teens, which is when I found out about them. But this is not the situation. I need to teach my children, and for that i need words.

I don’t care about these people’s faith lives. That is their business. But when they put forth the idea that a Catholic can support legal abortion, when they cite St Thomas Aquinas in support of that stance, when they attack the Church like Sebilius does, Catholocs need to be able to discuss the wrongness of what they are doing. I’m not saying liberal Catholocs are going to Hell, but i need to be able to say that they are confusing people, doing the wrong thing, etc.

And none of us would even know liberal Catholics were Catholic if they didn’t do things like saying that their Catholic Faith impells them to support a woman’s right to choose to hire someone to kill her unborn child, as Caroline Kennedy did recently.

We are not the ones dragging Catholcism into the discussion–they are.
Thank you for your explanation. I think I understand your position better now. 👍

That said, I still want to know why so many Catholic lay people are trying to solve the problem of other, poorly Catechized, Catholics? Why don’t we go to the Church with our cries? Whenever I suggest that the Church do something about it, feathers get ruffled by the “traditional” or self-described “orthodox” Catholics, that the Church is perfect – and they scream at me for finding fault with her. 🤷

Alan
 
I call myself a liberal Catholic because I do not 100% agree with everything the Church has taught or currently teaches. I do not live my life solely according to what the CCR or the Pope dictates. I do not get myself in a tizz about whether a sin is mortal or venial and how many Hail Marys I need to be saying. I do not go to church most Sundays (I used to go more regularly than I do now, before I got so ill, but even before then I was not going every Sunday). I do not believe that homosexuality is “disordered” or an “abomination”, etc. I do believe abortion is understandable in some situations. Etc etc.

waits to be flamed down by Catholics anxious about the state of my soul :rolleyes:
 
waits to be flamed down by Catholics anxious about the state of my soul :rolleyes:
This morning my pastor and I exchanged a few “evil” thoughts about certain people and then he told me, right in front of my daughter and several other people (he loves an audience) “Alan, you and I are both going to hell.”

He said he has told people before, “if you go to hell, don’t worry; you’ll have a chaplain.”

Alan
 
this morning my pastor and i exchanged a few “evil” thoughts about certain people and then he told me, right in front of my daughter and several other people (he loves an audience) “alan, you and i are both going to hell.”

he said he has told people before, “if you go to hell, don’t worry; you’ll have a chaplain.”

alan
:D:D:D
 
Where did you ever get the idea that the Church does not allow socialism? I haven;t noticed it kicking any Scandinavian countries to the curb.

In fact, the Church prohibits atheistic socialism, such as Communism as previously practiced in Russia and USSR. I don’t think it prohibits democratic socialism, and in fact, seems to be in favor of some forms of that economic system in its social teaching.
The Church doesn’t approve of a welfare state, and I think Scandinavian countries could be what the Church is referring to when she mentions “welfare state”–very bureaucratic, crowding out smaller institutions, etc. I think Quadragesimo Anno 113-120 does a good job in showing how much of (moderate) socialism has the same goals as Christianity and can be very similar, but in essence socialism is incompatible with Catholicism. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top