Liberal Catholic?

[AlanFromWichita]

Should we start a question about how you define “conservative Catholic?”

One who believes in conservation of thought … as in, you can’t learn something new without forgetting something old?

Edit: I mean someone who is unwavering in their beliefs.

For myself, I jump back and forth cons/lib/other as the conversation unfolds. I’m an equal-opportunity annoyance.

It makes less difference to me what someone believes, as whether they are sincere, honest, but accepting that others have right to think what they want. If these ground rules are in place, we can have meaningful discussion.

Alan

 

[lynnvinc]

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’m okay with flipflops in church (but not shorts, at least not for older women with varicose veins). In fact in India many poor people come bare-footed and the rich ones wear sandals, which they take off before entering the church and walk in bare-footed – the only proper and polite thing to do.

I remember wearing sandals (leather, not rubber) to the parish office once here in America, and the priest made some funny comment about it. I never even look at people’s footwear – he must have been a shoe guy.

Wonder what he would have said about St. Francis or the Discalced Carmelites.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

That would be a dissenting Catholic, not a liberal Catholic.

A liberal Catholic still believes and follows the teachings of the Church just as a conservative does.

Jim

Depends what you mean by liberal and conservative.

In the classical sense the Church has favored conservatism and condemned liberalism. In the modern (American) sense both are criticized. Christian democracy is the antithesis of both liberal democracy and social democracy, both “liberal” ideas.

:twocents:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Funny that liberalism is a cardinal virtue against covetousness.

Don’t liberal politicians typically accuse conservatives of being selfish? Isn’t that their whole battle cry? kpeople:

I’m registered as a Republican btw.

Alan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Depends what you mean by liberal and conservative.

In the classical sense the Church has favored conservatism and condemned liberalism. In the modern (American) sense both are criticized. Christian democracy is the antithesis of both liberal democracy and social democracy, both “liberal” ideas.

:twocents:

The Church has condemned political liberalism in forms of governing, not liberally educated and philosophical Catholics.

Catholic universities have always embraced liberal education.

Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m starting to think this thread can go on forever. Seems like it already has.

Who thinks it will die of old age, v. scrolling down?

 

[superamazingman]

Funny that liberalism is a cardinal virtue against covetousness.

Don’t liberal politicians typically accuse conservatives of being selfish? Isn’t that their whole battle cry? kpeople:

That’s because american liberals have twisted the word liberal. Look at the father of classical liberalism. He’s what we’d know today as a libertarian.

 

[Ohana]

I dunno, I may have to do more research. One thing though, I went to a recent presentation on human trafficking and heard that Sweden for one, has almost eliminated this problem by the simple means of arresting, fining and/or incarcerating and publishing names of the users of the “service” and placing the “used” in rehab/recovery programs. Seems kind of enlightened to me. Even really Christian.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ib

·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
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.

d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Part a,b and c, most people would associate themselves with entirely or parts.

Part d, is where people divide themselves into political groups.

Jim

Jim

 

[Joe_5859]

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

Not to pick on you (), but I think your post illustrates well why this term still gets used as it does. When people self-describe as “liberal” for the reason that they don’t agree with everything the Church teaches, then many will continue to use the term that way.

Personally, I find the term to be not that helpful. You might say a given Catholic dissents from Catholic teaching. Perhaps they’re under-informed as to the teaching. You might even call them heterodox if it is clear they quite understand their departure from official Catholic teaching. But the word “liberal” has so many political connotations that it doesn’t transition well into the realm of theology.

I think it becomes problematic when we associate the term “liberal” with a whole laudry list of heretical ideas. Then if someone hints that they might qualify as “liberal” in one respect (“gasp They just used the term ‘seamless garment’ in a positive way!”) we then erroneously jump to the conclusion that they must depart from Church teaching on that entire laundry list of items. How many misunderstandings have resulted just here on CAF because of something like that?

I know people who self-describe as “liberal” but they still believe in the Real Presence, and still go to Mass every day. Some of their ideas might be theologically “squishy” but never downright heretical.

But then, of course, there are the self-described “liberals” who do fit the sterotype. Which then leads people to continue to hold on to it.

The bottom line for me is that we need to spend more time discussing the issues (preferably one at a time) than we do allowing a single descriptor to do all the talking for us.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This thread has proved to me that being called liberal, or many other things, is really entirely an intellectual exercise with no actual value.

It really doesn’t matter to me what any person or group calls me. What matters is the Good News, which i take upon myself the yoke of St. Paul:

1 Cor 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

I think I’ll open it up for labels. I’ll be whatever adjective Catholic somebody needs to think of me as being.

If somebody’s ego needs to think of me as “liberal” or inferior to themselves in some way, who am I to stop them?

Alan

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s an intermediate idea:

Be conservative in personal affairs – no divorce, no fornication, no abortion, no extravagance/profligacy, etc.

Be liberal in inter-personal affairs – give to others in need, give people the benefit of the doubt, do a good turn daily, etc.

 

[Justicia_et_Pax]

Not to pick on you (), but I think your post illustrates well why this term still gets used as it does. When people self-describe as “liberal” for the reason that they don’t agree with everything the Church teaches, then many will continue to use the term that way.

Personally, I find the term to be not that helpful. You might say a given Catholic dissents from Catholic teaching. Perhaps they’re under-informed as to the teaching. You might even call them heterodox if it is clear they quite understand their departure from official Catholic teaching. But the word “liberal” has so many political connotations that it doesn’t transition well into the realm of theology.

I think it becomes problematic when we associate the term “liberal” with a whole laudry list of heretical ideas. Then if someone hints that they might qualify as “liberal” in one respect (“gasp They just used the term ‘seamless garment’ in a positive way!”) we then erroneously jump to the conclusion that they must depart from Church teaching on that entire laundry list of items. How many misunderstandings have resulted just here on CAF because of something like that?

I know people who self-describe as “liberal” but they still believe in the Real Presence, and still go to Mass every day. Some of their ideas might be theologically “squishy” but never downright heretical.

But then, of course, there are the self-described “liberals” who do fit the sterotype. Which then leads people to continue to hold on to it.

The bottom line for me is that we need to spend more time discussing the issues (preferably one at a time) than we do allowing a single descriptor to do all the talking for us.

Well in all honesty, I don’t recall ever actively needing to label myself with an adjective before “Catholic”, before I joined CAF. Maybe therein lies the problem with my self-definition…

I like your suggestion of using the word “dissenting” Catholic. That makes more sense to me, since I do not think being liberal in general is particularly a crime

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Caution: Rant Ahead

kpeople:

Every one of us sins, every one. And the one who presumes another’s sin is worse than his own, automatically has the bigger sin.

So if we’re all going to have some honest discussions, and treat each other as fellow sinners and therefore friends, broken and needing each other and Jesus to make it where we need to go, then bring on the labels. But if it’s to say, “well I’m an orthodox Catholic and you are dissenting so you are Part of the Problem,” then we are specifically at odds with Jesus’s clear teachings about the different parts of the body and we presume to know what God has in store for another person, as well as how far along their spiritual journey they should be.

So in other words, if it’s a descriptive system only, like what color fabric is in fashion this fall, then I have no problem with it. Inevitably it becomes a ranking system.

It’s like, if we use the labels to counsel one another and help us understand each other, v. using the same labels to identify boundaries that separate us. Many may think I’m just playing word games but I’m not. I’m just not good enough with the language to fully explain at this time.

Now, news flash: the Church is not fooled by any dissenters or heretics. She will keep the Good News, and Tradition, pure, regardless of entire countries wiping each other out. The fact that X% of Catholics believe condoms are OK, is of ZERO consequence to the Church. If somebody on the Internet tells me something is “Catholic teaching,” and it turns out it isn’t and I make bad decisions because of it, then I’m the stupid one. Never before in the history of the Church had her teachings literally been available “to all nations.” So there is no excuse to be wrong, and getting mad at an Internet poster by calling them names isn’t Christlike behavior.

Unless, of course, the Church has a responsibility for what each member thinks (and sometimes I think she should but I get attacked when I suggest it) in which case the Church will need to institute a quality control system. And at that point we will have official terminology and official ways of categorizing, and we can then see how well the Church is getting her message out.

Other than that, if the person next to me in the pew uses condoms, or is gay, or whatever, if that affects me at all in my relationship with God, then I have a problem to the same degree that I perceive they do.

And no, I’m not “just excusing bad behavior.” Don’t eeeven go there.

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

I like your suggestion of using the word “dissenting” Catholic. That makes more sense to me, since I do not think being liberal in general is particularly a crime

Yes, I agree. Dissenting Catholic is more descriptive.

And in what you dissent, do you think that God actually agrees with all of your “policies”?

That is, even though the Church says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, do you believe that God actually agrees with where you (may) dissent and that divorce and re-marriage is really just another chance at love?

 

[Justicia_et_Pax]

Yes, I agree. Dissenting Catholic is more descriptive.

And in what you dissent, do you think that God actually agrees with all of your “policies”?

That is, even though the Church says that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, do you believe that God actually agrees with where you (may) dissent and that divorce and re-marriage is really just another chance at love?

I don’t think God likes divorce - of course not. But I don’t think you’re bound straight for Hell just because of divorcing and remarrying. I think even God would recognise that in some cases, where annulment is not possible for whatever reason, that staying together would do more harm than good. I’m talking things like domestic abuse and serious issues like that, not just “oh I’m bored of being married now and wanna shag someone else, let’s divorce!” I do think people divorce too easily…

Do I think God agrees with my position on everything? Not necessarily. I think He would understand where I’m coming from though and encourage me in subtle ways to see various different points of view and approach my confessor about such issues

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think God likes divorce - of course not. But I don’t think you’re bound straight for Hell just because of divorcing and remarrying. I think even God would recognise that in some cases, where annulment is not possible for whatever reason, that staying together would do more harm than good. I’m talking things like domestic abuse and serious issues like that, not just “oh I’m bored of being married now and wanna shag someone else, let’s divorce!” I do think people divorce too easily…

Divorce was only an example. I don’t know what teachings you dissent to. So I just chose one that seems to be a common one in which Dissenting Catholics say, “God really wouldn’t care if …”

Do I think God agrees with my position on everything?

Great.

So have you ever changed your position to conform to what God has declared? Just because God said it?

Or are you of the position that even if Jesus said something, you don’t necessarily need to conform until you come to an understanding of it.

 

[Justicia_et_Pax]

Divorce was only an example. I don’t know what teachings you dissent to. So I just chose one that seems to be a common one in which Dissenting Catholics say, “God really wouldn’t care if …”

Great.

So have you ever changed your position to conform to what God has declared? Just because God said it?

Or are you of the position that even if Jesus said something, you don’t necessarily need to conform until you come to an understanding of it.

I listed the major teachings I dissent with in my OP, which again are quite common ones amongst dissenters, afaik Things like “all abortions are 100% wrong and evil and sinful” and “homosexuality is disordered/an abomination”.

My positions on things are informed by many different things, Catholic doctrine being just one of those things. I’d say beliefs and practices that stem from my ethnic origin culture are more ingrained in me, through my parents. That said, Catholic culture in the UK seems to be very different to that in the US (judging from this site alone).

I’d say your last sentence probably more accurately describes me, than the paragraph before it

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say your last sentence probably more accurately describes me, than the paragraph before it

Seriously? You believe that Jesus is God, but if he said something to you you wouldn’t necessarily say, “I believe you are correct and I am wrong”?

Really?

 

[Justicia_et_Pax]

Seriously? You believe that Jesus is God, but if he said something to you you wouldn’t necessarily say, “I believe you are correct and I am wrong”?

Really?

I wouldn’t automatically say it, no. I would want an explanation and to see whether I fully understood and agreed with the explanation. I’m sure in the case of it definitely actually being God speaking directly to me, it probably would end up with me saying the above.

(Forgot to mention, not so hot on the whole Papal infallibility thing )