Liberal Catholics Vs. Conservatives

[osmond]

Just looking for thoughts on this subject.

Is it me or is there a vast difference between this two types of Catholics on the Matter of the Magisterium.

An example would be. My parish has a very nice Woman in charge of CCD (she goes bonkers when I use the term CCD…she insists I use the term Faith Fomation director)…anyway this woman along with many others who I would consider extremely liberal in their Catholicity never seem to mention the Magisterium when debate comes up.

What does “liberal” mean in this context? Do you actually mean “liberal” or do you mean “dissident?” Or do you really mean “does not agree with me” or “does not agree with what I prefer?”

There are a great many in the Church who welcome honest to goodness reform. While that is inherently “liberal” it most certainly does not mean dissenting from the teachings of the Church or the instructions of the magisterium. Quite the contrary.

Some Catholics also try to equate liberalism with dissent and heterodoxy and traditionalism with orthodoxy and that is not accurate. I think misuse of language and even overly-casual use of the language confuses some and turns-off a great many more.

 

[osmond]

I’d say it’s nearly impossible to be both a liberal (according to the modern definition) and a Catholic, for the simple reason that liberals reject so many of the Church’s teachings. Being very active and having some form of authority in a parish that’s deviating from the Church’s traditional teachings, hardly makes one a Catholic.

What modern definition is that?

 

[redrosetea]

There is only one kind of catholic, those that are loyal to the pope and magesterium

 

[osmond]

I wouldn’t say “Conservative” or “liberal” (even though orthodox would be considered politically and theologically conservative).

I would say orthodox Catholics and heretical Catholics.

Not so. Small “o” orthodoxy would not be necessarily be considered politically and theologically conservative. That misunderstanding has a great many people confused here.

Small “o” orthodoxy would imply an adherence to what the Church actually teaches.

 

[osmond]

I wouldn’t say “Conservative” or “liberal” (even though orthodox would be considered politically and theologically conservative).

I would say orthodox Catholics and heretical Catholics.

orthodox and non-orthodox or heterodox Catholics

 

[pnewton]

Hello IrishDude45,

You mentioned “DISSENTERS” At point does a dissenter become disobedient to the Church and the Pope?

This is actually an easy distinction to make. Dissent bcomes dispbedience when acted upon. For example, a priest may believe the laity should be allowed to give a homily and push for permission. This is dissent. If the priest allows a layman to give the homily, it is disobedience. The Catholic teaching on conscience allows for consciencious dissent, at least for a season. Even heresy involves the addition of obstinence, and that is in the area of faith and morals.

I think dissent is particularly understanable in areas of discipline and prudential judgement. The is why I try not to judge “liberal” Catholics too harshly, that is, the ones I know personally. We are all on a journey and do not arrive at all points at the same time.

If we really want to be more accurate, we must admit that labels to not apply to people, as much as their ideas. A Catholic may be orthodox in all areas but one, yet have liberal ideas in that one area.

 

[osmond]

Ok Ok

I will use the term Orthodox and Dissenting…

OK anyone else think the Dissenting types distance themselves from ROme?

No.

Use the terms “orthodox” and “heterodox” or “non-orthodox.”

 

[osmond]

This is actually an easy distinction to make. Dissent bcomes dispbedience when acted upon. For example, a priest may believe the laity should be allowed to give a homily and push for permission. This is dissent. If the priest allows a layman to give the homily, it is disobedience. The Catholic teaching on conscience allows for consciencious dissent, at least for a season. Even heresy involves the addition of obstinence, and that is in the area of faith and morals.

I think dissent is particularly understanable in areas of discipline and prudential judgement. The is why I try not to judge “liberal” Catholics too harshly, that is, the ones I know personally. We are all on a journey and do not arrive at all points at the same time.

If we really want to be more accurate, we must admit that labels to not apply to people, as much as their ideas. A Catholic may be orthodox in all areas but one, yet have liberal ideas in that one area.

That was very well said. Some of my closest friends would describe themselves as “traditional Catholics” yet when compared to what the Church actually teaches and directs a far more accurate term wold be “heterodox fundamentalist Catholics.”

 

[osmond]

There is only one kind of catholic, those that are loyal to the pope and magesterium

Good for you.

 

[MarcellusW]

What does “liberal” mean in this context? Do you actually mean “liberal” or do you mean “dissident?” Or do you really mean “does not agree with me” or “does not agree with what I prefer?”

There are a great many in the Church who welcome honest to goodness reform. While that is inherently “liberal” it most certainly does not mean dissenting from the teachings of the Church or the instructions of the magisterium. Quite the contrary.

Some Catholics also try to equate liberalism with dissent and heterodoxy and traditionalism with orthodoxy and that is not accurate. I think misuse of language and even overly-casual use of the language confuses some and turns-off a great many more.

Although what you are saying is true in a broad historical context when looking at a timeline measured in thousands of years, for the present conversation, what you are saying is a distraction from the OP. No one is talking about something that happened 500, 300, or 200 years ago. When people are defining liberal, they are using the term in today’s context, which in a general sense does equate with heterodoxy and dissent, not reform.

In converting, the convert MUST say “I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, professes and holds to be true.”

These things specifically are the teachings of the Magisterium and its authority. If you disagree and disbelieve those teachings and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, you are in fact heterodox, dissenting, and heretical.

Liberalism or progressivism in today’s context equates with artificial contraception, artificial reproduction, abortion, euthanasia, socialism, sexual permissiveness.

ALL these things are against the teachings of the Church. The infallible teachings. The Magesterial teachings.

When you say “Or do you really mean “does not agree with me” or “does not agree with what I prefer?””

We disagree with liberalism not because of our own subjective understanding of the Truth, we are in fact proclaiming the objective Truth that the Church has required us to believe (and perhaps change our own previous positions on.)

If you wish to redefine what liberalism is, please do so (and open another thread), but please do not challenge others’ own correct understandings of what the term is already defined as by its own adherents.

 

[John_Higgins]

“I’m a Catholic, he’s a Catholic, she’s a Catholic, wouldn’t you like to be a Catholic too…be a Catholic”

To paraphrase the revered Dr. Pepper

Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe there should be women priests? Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe that the discipline of clerical celibacy should be removed?

Why should someone who believes differently from you be called names? Catholic in Name Only? Right. What that really means most of the time is “Catholic who doesn’t agree with me”.

This is a big Church; there’s plenty of room for everyone.

John

 

[MarcellusW]

“I’m a Catholic, he’s a Catholic, she’s a Catholic, wouldn’t you like to be a Catholic too…be a Catholic”

To paraphrase the revered Dr. Pepper

Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe there should be women priests? Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe that the discipline of clerical celibacy should be removed?

Why should someone who believes differently from you be called names? Catholic in Name Only? Right. What that really means most of the time is “Catholic who doesn’t agree with me”.

This is a big Church; there’s plenty of room for everyone.

John

Why ask us to not love out neighbor as ourselves? This is essentially what you are asking. If someone rejects an infallible teaching of the Church, we are supposed to help them keep their soul out of jeopardy. There are plenty of things Catholics are allowed to have independent beliefs about, but there are also things they cannot. We are supposed to help one another ‘regularize our position with Rome.’

And far from labeling people in a mean spirited manner by an outside group, it is liberals who have defined liberalism as such and in many cases are quite happy to be called that word. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you wish people would stop using the word as a pejorative, in which case you would have my support.

 

[rinnie]

Just looking for thoughts on this subject.

Is it me or is there a vast difference between this two types of Catholics on the Matter of the Magisterium.

An example would be. My parish has a very nice Woman in charge of CCD (she goes bonkers when I use the term CCD…she insists I use the term Faith Fomation director)…anyway this woman along with many others who I would consider extremely liberal in their Catholicity never seem to mention the Magisterium when debate comes up.

In fact this paritcular woman (who is 42 years old) Had no idea who the pope before John Paul I was. Often in converstations with her I mention various teachings of our beloved Pope she gets a blank stare on her face as if I was from a different religion than her.

I distinctly remember one time during a catechist training session I spoke up about a Concern regarding Eucharistic Reverence and what JP II mentioned in his encylical. SHe looked at me and said, “thats Nice but we are doing things the New way, the Vatican does things the Old way”

This woman has gone through our diocesan training in Ministry Formation and Catechist training. She had no idea what an encylcal was when I mentioned Ecclesia de Eucharista.

Is it me or do Liberals seem to be distanced from ROme?

Its been awhile since my kids been in ccd. But thats what I always called it. Then later it was RCIA.

 

[osmond]

Although what you are saying is true in a broad historical context when looking at a timeline measured in thousands of years, for the present conversation, what you are saying is a distraction from the OP. No one is talking about something that happened 500, 300, or 200 years ago. When people are defining liberal, they are using the term in today’s context, which in a general sense does equate with heterodoxy and dissent, not reform.

In converting, the convert MUST say “I believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, professes and holds to be true.”

These things specifically are the teachings of the Magisterium and its authority. If you disagree and disbelieve those teachings and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, you are in fact heterodox, dissenting, and heretical.

Liberalism or progressivism in today’s context equates with artificial contraception, artificial reproduction, abortion, euthanasia, socialism, sexual permissiveness.

ALL these things are against the teachings of the Church. The infallible teachings. The Magesterial teachings.

When you say “Or do you really mean “does not agree with me” or “does not agree with what I prefer?””

We disagree with liberalism not because of our own subjective understanding of the Truth, we are in fact proclaiming the objective Truth that the Church has required us to believe (and perhaps change our own previous positions on.)

If you wish to redefine what liberalism is, please do so (and open another thread), but please do not challenge others’ own correct understandings of what the term is already defined as by its own adherents.

First Mr. Wallace, I love your name…

Sadly in many circles today, terms like liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, etc. etc. are misused. They certainly are here on these and many other forums.

You comments about those entering the Church are true. But again trying to equate “heterodox, dissenting, and heretical” to “liberal” is just not accurate.

You suggest: “Liberalism or progressivism in today’s context equates with artificial contraception, artificial reproduction, abortion, euthanasia, socialism, sexual permissiveness.” That might fit your personal definition but it remains highly debatable.

Even more important if your definition is indeed true, it does not accurately define Catholic who might for instance strongly support the OF Mass or social justice. The very sorts of qualities that some erroneously paint as being a “liberal.” It also need not necessarily apply to those who do support true descent within the Church.

I’m not trying to redefine anything. What I would like to see are words used correctly. Far too often I see people using the term “liberal” or “conservative” when they should be using terms like dissident, orthodox, heterodox, etc.

If someone came to me in real life with a concern about let’s say a “heterodox practice that dissents from what the Church instructs” I would be all ears and I would help if I could.

If that same person came to me with concerns about a “modernist practice coming from some liberals” I’d smile and shine them on. Their words speak volumes they have no intention of communicating…

 

[brigid12]

Whatever terms we use, those who do not know that Christ wants us to be obedient to the successor of Peter and to those in the Magisterium in union with him need our prayers, along with the Truth in Love. It is sad that all don’t have this knowledge (for more reasons than a human being can understand), however Christ loves all of us (praise be to Him).

 

[John_Higgins]

MarcellusW:

If someone rejects an infallible teaching of the Church…

And there are FAR fewer of those than most people think…actually two since the mid-1800s. (I’m sure I’ll get an argument on that, but that’s a different thread).

When someone says they are orthodox (small “o”) to me, it comes out sounding triumphalist–as in I’m orthodox and you’re not.

There are better ways of winning the so-called dissident than throwing names at him/her.

John

 

[CatsAndDogs]

There are better ways of winning the so-called dissident than throwing names at him/her.

Yeah, just throw truth.

:shamrock2:

 

[JackQ]

The first thing we should remember is charity above all else.

Secondly, if a catechist is doing or saying something that you believe is contrary to sound doctrine, then it is appropriate to to approach that person and make your views known.

Third, always remember that, unless you are a bishop, you are never the final authority on matters of faith and morals. So be humble.

 

[MarcellusW]

And there are FAR fewer of those than most people think…actually two since the mid-1800s. (I’m sure I’ll get an argument on that, but that’s a different thread).

When someone says they are orthodox (small “o”) to me, it comes out sounding triumphalist–as in I’m orthodox and you’re not.

There are better ways of winning the so-called dissident than throwing names at him/her.

John

For clarification: we are supposed to help one another understand Church teaching if one states things that disagree with Church teaching or would appear as if one were not in line with Church teaching, especially when that person is in a place of authority or leadership. (Note, I am not actually saying we can know what they really think). If that does not work, we have a code of Canon Law to follow, that we may go to our priest to ask for help, and further to our bishops.

Throwing names is not what I am advocating. I just think you should be able to use words as they are defined, irregardless of people sometimes using them as pejoratives, because if that is the case, eventually every word will not be allowed to be used.

 

[elts1956]

This is further complicated by the fact that some people we might categorize as “liberal” have a different understanding of “Rome” and Church authority than we do. In their mind, they are not in conflict with Church teaching at all.

Just because “they”, in their minds, do not think they are in conflict with Rome, doesn’t mean they aren’t. There are many folks who are out of sync with the teachings of the Church because they either haven’t learned them, or knowing of them choose to ignore them, because the truth doesn’t fit their schema of the world. The truth doesn’t change. Some who think they can interpret Church Doctrine to their benefit, or bend the truth to fit their interpretation of what the Church truly teaches, have done great harm to the Church throughout the world and to those who trust them to be accurate in their teachings.

This is because of the acceptance of relativism in our society and the refusal of its members to admit there are such theological laws as objective truth.