P
Pieman333272
Guest
I heard these words used to describe different forms of Christian Theology but never found out what they mean. And which might the average (non-Creationist) Roman Catholic fall under?
- Status
C
CalCatholic
Guest
You forgot another term; moderate. These would be Catholics (or other Christians) who are not overly conservative and not overly liberal. I don’t know of any studies done to categorize Catholics, but it would be very hard to do with 1.1 billions Catholics spread out all over the planet from hundreds of different countries and cultures.
L
lutherlic
Guest
People argue against these terms as being political. I think they shouldn’t be used as proxies for political parties in Catholic discussions.
I think however, that most people use them to describe non-political Catholic orthodoxy. My definition of liberal / progressive is one whose faith is flexible and changing to accommodate personal beliefs and embrace popular secular viewpoints. People who fall in this category often embrace or are sympathetic to things like gay “marriage”, women priests, abortion, remarriage, etc. Conservatives to me are those who are simply faithful, would not describe themselves as “Catholic but…”, and who do not protest or lobby against Church teaching - even at the one-on-one level (because they genuinely accept Church teaching).
Put another way, “conservatives” are “simply Catholic”.
I think however, that most people use them to describe non-political Catholic orthodoxy. My definition of liberal / progressive is one whose faith is flexible and changing to accommodate personal beliefs and embrace popular secular viewpoints. People who fall in this category often embrace or are sympathetic to things like gay “marriage”, women priests, abortion, remarriage, etc. Conservatives to me are those who are simply faithful, would not describe themselves as “Catholic but…”, and who do not protest or lobby against Church teaching - even at the one-on-one level (because they genuinely accept Church teaching).
Put another way, “conservatives” are “simply Catholic”.
R
rskempf
Guest
Right,
They are not political but tend to associate with particular political leanings.
Progressive and liberal are generally the same. It represents a protest against authentic church teaching. In other words, an attempt to justify a “waiver” on one or more topics.
This took off after Vatican II and accelerated with the issue of the great encyclical Humana Vitae. Rebellion grew at that time but the church stood firm - even now.
Today, we live in the aftermath of this “atomic explosion” on the church scene. Groups have coalesced into liberal/progressive and conservative/loyal.
Here is a test for your parish. If during this Respect Life month, your parish is amplifying social justice issues and nominally presenting the abortion issue, you know you are in a liberal parish.
You can stay there, fine. Just do what you can to help this parish get back on track. You might want to limit contributions too, and give more to the causes that will help you in the spiritual battle we are in, causes that are true to authentic church teaching.
They are not political but tend to associate with particular political leanings.
Progressive and liberal are generally the same. It represents a protest against authentic church teaching. In other words, an attempt to justify a “waiver” on one or more topics.
This took off after Vatican II and accelerated with the issue of the great encyclical Humana Vitae. Rebellion grew at that time but the church stood firm - even now.
Today, we live in the aftermath of this “atomic explosion” on the church scene. Groups have coalesced into liberal/progressive and conservative/loyal.
Here is a test for your parish. If during this Respect Life month, your parish is amplifying social justice issues and nominally presenting the abortion issue, you know you are in a liberal parish.
You can stay there, fine. Just do what you can to help this parish get back on track. You might want to limit contributions too, and give more to the causes that will help you in the spiritual battle we are in, causes that are true to authentic church teaching.
C
challam2010
Guest
There are also the groups who are “loyal” to Church teaching in how they worship within neighborhood parishes, live their lives according to the diocesan “norms,” and who believe the essentials of traditional Catholic theology – but who also completely embraced the reforms of Vatican II. These groups have been disillusioned and disappointed in the reactionary conservatism of the past 20+ years that has not fulfilled the promise of Vatican II – indeed, has overturned its intent and goals and continues to do so. These groups seek to continue the reform begun at the Council, which means seeking change in the Church on many issues.
I believe these groups (called collectively “liberals” and “dissidents” on CAF) vary in one major way from the traditional, conservative Catholics who hearken back to the pre-Vatican II culture as the golden days of American Catholicism, and I think you can see the difference almost immediately in reading various threads on this Forum.
The conservatives rely on strict legalistic interpretation of all theology – rules, rules, rules, and penalties for breaking the rules, whether the sins/infractions occur on a personal level or within Church liturgy, or simply vary from longstanding Tradition-traditions. This represents the counter-reformation Church that existed in its fullness up to the 1960’s (the Church in which I was raised.)
The liberals/progressive/dissenters see far less value in Church law and Tradition and choose to follow instead the two laws of love that Jesus gave us, love God, love our neighbor with authentic, radical, self-giving LOVE that demands everything we have to give… the love that truly sees Jesus in the persons in front of us and seeks to serve Him in them, thus putting love above the law.
Seeking further change in the Church, in the light of the Spirit, appears to some as complete and futile disobedience to Rome, while to others it is the only valid response to Jesus’ voice.
The CAF community appears to be much more heavily weighted on the side of the conservatives, but as someone pointed out, the “regular Catholic” is more likely to be a moderate. There are relatively few “liberals” represented here, who can be seen wearing their/our Kevlar vests.
I believe these groups (called collectively “liberals” and “dissidents” on CAF) vary in one major way from the traditional, conservative Catholics who hearken back to the pre-Vatican II culture as the golden days of American Catholicism, and I think you can see the difference almost immediately in reading various threads on this Forum.
The conservatives rely on strict legalistic interpretation of all theology – rules, rules, rules, and penalties for breaking the rules, whether the sins/infractions occur on a personal level or within Church liturgy, or simply vary from longstanding Tradition-traditions. This represents the counter-reformation Church that existed in its fullness up to the 1960’s (the Church in which I was raised.)
The liberals/progressive/dissenters see far less value in Church law and Tradition and choose to follow instead the two laws of love that Jesus gave us, love God, love our neighbor with authentic, radical, self-giving LOVE that demands everything we have to give… the love that truly sees Jesus in the persons in front of us and seeks to serve Him in them, thus putting love above the law.
Seeking further change in the Church, in the light of the Spirit, appears to some as complete and futile disobedience to Rome, while to others it is the only valid response to Jesus’ voice.
The CAF community appears to be much more heavily weighted on the side of the conservatives, but as someone pointed out, the “regular Catholic” is more likely to be a moderate. There are relatively few “liberals” represented here, who can be seen wearing their/our Kevlar vests.
J
Julian0404
Guest
Liberals = anything goes. Same sex marriage, abortion, female priestess, legalizing recreational drugs, free sex, porn, Billion Dollar Stimulus packages without oversight or spending mandates, the constitution is a “living” document and subject to change. It is whatever sounds good (no logic required), whatever feels good (no sin if no one is harmed) whatever the liberal decides is good is good. Liberals were the social architects of Sodom and Gomorra.
Progressive = A new name and label for Liberals, as “Liberal” has taken on a very negative impact given the above definition they are attempting to hide by claiming to be “progressive” vs “liberal”, however they still have the same anything goes, Sodom & Gomorra attitude. We don’t know what is in the bill, just vote for it and read it later.
Conservative = morality must be the guide for government and social issues. It is a limited government, limited spending with lazer focus on outcomes, hard work earns your lifestyle and rewards, sweat equity is the opportunity for all, pay as you go, don’t borrow if you can avoid it, don’t borrow recklessly if you have to, respect for all religions, respect the constitution as it is NOT a living document, but it is the legal heart for our nation and not an “etch-a-sketch” that you can shake up and rewrite.
Moderate = a middle of the road between the above. Supporting some Liberal/Progressive issues and supporting some Conservative issues.
Progressive = A new name and label for Liberals, as “Liberal” has taken on a very negative impact given the above definition they are attempting to hide by claiming to be “progressive” vs “liberal”, however they still have the same anything goes, Sodom & Gomorra attitude. We don’t know what is in the bill, just vote for it and read it later.
Conservative = morality must be the guide for government and social issues. It is a limited government, limited spending with lazer focus on outcomes, hard work earns your lifestyle and rewards, sweat equity is the opportunity for all, pay as you go, don’t borrow if you can avoid it, don’t borrow recklessly if you have to, respect for all religions, respect the constitution as it is NOT a living document, but it is the legal heart for our nation and not an “etch-a-sketch” that you can shake up and rewrite.
Moderate = a middle of the road between the above. Supporting some Liberal/Progressive issues and supporting some Conservative issues.
J
JoeT777
Guest
I don’t know that any real work has been done in the Roman Catholic Church to define ‘liberal’, or ‘conservative’ so I’ve collected definitions of my own. But, let me first start with CalCatholic’s comment. If liberal is on the left and conservative is on the right, then those of us in middle aren’t moderates, but orthodox. The better term is orthodoxy; i.e. in a harmony of conscience to the right rule of faith and the doctrine of the Church. I think you’ll find a definition of it in the CCC. And I disagree with Lutherlic, conservatives do not represent ‘Catholic’, instead they tend to a ‘historicy’ of faith. I’ll try to explain (maybe).
I’ve found that a liberalism is best defined in “Liberalims is a sin”
Conservative Catholics are sometimes characterized as “traditionalists’. They look to the restoration of liturgical and devotional forms as practiced prior to Vatican II. The only group that I can think of that fits in this category is the sedevacantist SSPX. There seems to be an on again off again schism with this group which frankly I haven’t fallowed – or cared.
Today’s political conservative is the antithesis of political liberal. The conservative relies on religious morals and ethics in policy making on the other hand the liberal relies on his subjective will preempting God’s will, you might say determining for himself what the answers are to the universal questions, (and it’s not 42). I find that the political conservative is most always of religious orthodoxy, primarily because Divine law and Natural law form a moral base for social life. Conversely, the liberal or progressive looks to positive law; in essence positive law makes its own rights, Divine or otherwise, thus the Christian liberal confines God’s will to the Church sanctuary – and depending which church, sometimes it’s the basement. The religious liberal sometimes justifies support for the liberalism on the adage, “the good of the many outweighs the good of the one;” suggesting that this is an axiom of faith implied in Scripture. The problem is that the philosophy doesn’t have Christian roots. In fact, when examined closely is found to be counter to our Christian faith. Hedonism held the philosophy of ‘good is what feels good.’ It was perfected in the School of Epicurus. It’s a philosophy where good and bad are measured by what feels good or what feels bad. The concept was renewed by (Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789). The philosophy is strictly based on sensual gratification. It seems John Stuart Mill picked up on this philosophy in the mid 1800’s. Mills was an espoused utilitarianism, a variant form of Hedonism.
John Stuart Mill writes, “…happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end… it necessarily follows that [happiness] must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole… Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong “John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863), chap. 4. Such views were founded formulated by Samuel Benthamin the late-1700’s; "the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” The essence of the suggestion is that if it feels good do it, or ‘good is what feels good.’ Today we see this express by the great and wondrous, big-eared, philosopher; the extraterrestrial Sparkanian theology that states, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.” The suggestion is nearly the same as the axiomatic Hedonistic value injected into Christian faith and morals. Hedonism is the philosophy of ‘good is what feels good.’ It was perfected in the School of Epicurus and is heretical.
In the same breath, there are those saints among us who are truly servants of their neighbor. They are frequently misled with liberalism’s stress of equality and common ownership of material goods. Forgotten is the movement precisely matches Marxism but with a ‘Christian flare’, ultimately leading to godlessness. As I recalled St. Thomas teaches that what the Christian seeks “is the greatest good is due not to the mere fact that it is pleasure, but to the fact that it is perfect repose in the perfect good.” Also Pope John Paul II taught that good was the word of God “experienced and proclaimed for the good of all.” So, we have good that seeks God, or God’s Truth = the verily good.
PS: Progressivism is the ‘old’ name for Liberalism, not the other way around.
JoeT
I’ve found that a liberalism is best defined in “Liberalims is a sin”
1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.
3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. (see Don Felix Sarday Salvany , “Liberalism Is a Sin”, 1899 - Google it)
I would categorize Protestants, ‘cafeteria Catholics’, and those that still hold a belief in Liberation Theology as liberal Catholics. Many Catholics are deluded into politically liberalism because they confuse their compassion and charity with the political social movements claiming a connection to the beatitudes Matthew (5:3-10). Most of these political movements turn out to be politically progressive, pro-death (abortion), socialists, communists, and Marxist.2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.
3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. (see Don Felix Sarday Salvany , “Liberalism Is a Sin”, 1899 - Google it)
Conservative Catholics are sometimes characterized as “traditionalists’. They look to the restoration of liturgical and devotional forms as practiced prior to Vatican II. The only group that I can think of that fits in this category is the sedevacantist SSPX. There seems to be an on again off again schism with this group which frankly I haven’t fallowed – or cared.
Today’s political conservative is the antithesis of political liberal. The conservative relies on religious morals and ethics in policy making on the other hand the liberal relies on his subjective will preempting God’s will, you might say determining for himself what the answers are to the universal questions, (and it’s not 42). I find that the political conservative is most always of religious orthodoxy, primarily because Divine law and Natural law form a moral base for social life. Conversely, the liberal or progressive looks to positive law; in essence positive law makes its own rights, Divine or otherwise, thus the Christian liberal confines God’s will to the Church sanctuary – and depending which church, sometimes it’s the basement. The religious liberal sometimes justifies support for the liberalism on the adage, “the good of the many outweighs the good of the one;” suggesting that this is an axiom of faith implied in Scripture. The problem is that the philosophy doesn’t have Christian roots. In fact, when examined closely is found to be counter to our Christian faith. Hedonism held the philosophy of ‘good is what feels good.’ It was perfected in the School of Epicurus. It’s a philosophy where good and bad are measured by what feels good or what feels bad. The concept was renewed by (Bentham, Jeremy. The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789). The philosophy is strictly based on sensual gratification. It seems John Stuart Mill picked up on this philosophy in the mid 1800’s. Mills was an espoused utilitarianism, a variant form of Hedonism.
John Stuart Mill writes, “…happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end… it necessarily follows that [happiness] must be the criterion of morality, since a part is included in the whole… Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong “John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863), chap. 4. Such views were founded formulated by Samuel Benthamin the late-1700’s; "the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” The essence of the suggestion is that if it feels good do it, or ‘good is what feels good.’ Today we see this express by the great and wondrous, big-eared, philosopher; the extraterrestrial Sparkanian theology that states, “The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.” The suggestion is nearly the same as the axiomatic Hedonistic value injected into Christian faith and morals. Hedonism is the philosophy of ‘good is what feels good.’ It was perfected in the School of Epicurus and is heretical.
In the same breath, there are those saints among us who are truly servants of their neighbor. They are frequently misled with liberalism’s stress of equality and common ownership of material goods. Forgotten is the movement precisely matches Marxism but with a ‘Christian flare’, ultimately leading to godlessness. As I recalled St. Thomas teaches that what the Christian seeks “is the greatest good is due not to the mere fact that it is pleasure, but to the fact that it is perfect repose in the perfect good.” Also Pope John Paul II taught that good was the word of God “experienced and proclaimed for the good of all.” So, we have good that seeks God, or God’s Truth = the verily good.
PS: Progressivism is the ‘old’ name for Liberalism, not the other way around.
JoeT
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Thanks for the definitions everyone. I never heard the term “Moderate” used before but from its definition it seems to apply to me. Thanks again for the definitions. 
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Liberal, conservative, progressive, moderate, blah blah blah. All I know is I’m in good standing with the Church
M
MarcusAndreas
Guest
Perhaps a tad satirical:
Liberal Theology - “Well, I’m Catholic, but…”
Conservative Theology - “Hail the authority of the Magisterium! Magisterium! Magisterium! I agree with the Magisterium when the Magisterium agrees with me! P.S. Populorum Progressio is epic fail, we can’t risk the big companies serving anyone but themselves!”
Progressive Theology - “Let us make progress by turning backwards into stupidity!”
Orthodox Theology - “I agree with church teaching, even if I don’t necessarily love it at first glance, and I am not the Pope.”
This little rant up here was sort of spawned by general annoyance with people deciding they can just do whatever they want theologically.
Liberal Theology - “Well, I’m Catholic, but…”
Conservative Theology - “Hail the authority of the Magisterium! Magisterium! Magisterium! I agree with the Magisterium when the Magisterium agrees with me! P.S. Populorum Progressio is epic fail, we can’t risk the big companies serving anyone but themselves!”
Progressive Theology - “Let us make progress by turning backwards into stupidity!”
Orthodox Theology - “I agree with church teaching, even if I don’t necessarily love it at first glance, and I am not the Pope.”
This little rant up here was sort of spawned by general annoyance with people deciding they can just do whatever they want theologically.
- Status