Liberal vs. conservative

[NekoNecro]

How so?

To their eyes he would have been, even if it some of it seems extremely conservative today.

Many of Jesus’ ideas about caring for the sick, tending to the needy, giving to the poor and so on were pretty radical for the time and era. Liberalism isn’t always radical, but they often goes hand in hand.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

To their eyes he would have been, even if it some of it seems extremely conservative today.

Many of Jesus’ ideas about caring for the sick, tending to the needy, giving to the poor and so on were pretty radical for the time and era. Liberalism isn’t always radical, but they often goes hand in hand.

I am not understanding. What ideas of Jesus were liberal and what positions of the high priests were conservative. To me it just sounds like rhetoric saying

Liberal, Good.
Conservative, Baaaad.

It just gets old.

Sigh.

Wouldn’t Jesus’ teaching on marriage and adultery be seen as more “conservative” than the liberal high priests of the time?

To me, it is just a silly idea that cannot be proved. And the only goal is to demean an entire ideology. Might as well just say conservatives are Nazis.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I concur that we shouldn’t be labeling people or popes as liberal or conservative, since those terms could mean many different things.

But that doesn’t address the very real fact that there are big differences between parishes and priests. Where I live you can find all kinds of different parishes from ones that are very somber with confessions before every mass and Latin parts of mass and strict priests… to ones where mass music is joyful and uplifting with very few confessions and priests who put relationships before strict rules.

 

[Joe_5859]

The terms are not used consistently.

Some use “liberal” to mean “all that which is opposed to that which I hold dear”. Others use it to mean “those who actually care about people rather than just ideas.”

Similarly, some define “conservative” to mean “all that which is conformed to right doctrine.” Others use the word for “cranky people who are more concerned with rules than people.”

I think it is a mistake to view everything through the lens of “liberal vs. conservative.” Some even try to read those terms anachronistically into Scripture painting Jesus to be one but not the other. It reduces everything to an “us vs. them” dualism, which is not represntative of reality.

The terms can be useful in certain situations, but they can also cause much confusion. For example, some think of a “liberal” as being a person who holds an opinion on the wrong-side of every controversial issue. But I’ve known self-described liberals who believe in the Real Presence and don’t care about women priests.

That’s where sterotypes get us into trouble. We use them as mental shortcuts. As soon as a person says something that tips us off as to which side of the aisle they are on, we fill in all the rest of the blanks and assume we know everything they are going to say before they even say it. Then we close our ears and no longer listen to what they are actually saying.

 

[NekoNecro]

I am not understanding. What ideas of Jesus were liberal and what positions of the high priests were conservative.

Well, in all truth it’s hard to give a concise overview, since a lot of what the priests stood for or Jesus may have said we don’t actually know.

But for what we do…Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the messiah as fortold by the Jewish prophets. To deny this was to align oneself with the “old order”, the status quo. To resist change is the hallmark of what makes a conservative, they conserve, they resist change.

Liberal, Good.
Conservative, Baaaad.

It just gets old.

Well, I never said that. I’m sure there are liberal policies we could both agree despite myself being fairly left wing are bad. The free availability of abortion for instance, that’s a liberal value but not one I jump on the bandwagon supporting.

Secular political alignment is not like Catholicism, it is a pick and mix buffet where you choose what you believe in. It doesn’t make the value any more or less left or right wing though.

Sigh.

Wouldn’t Jesus’ teaching on marriage and adultery be seen as more “conservative” than the liberal high priests of the time?

The exact opposite, It would have been seen as widely radical and perhaps even empowering the respect shown to women in the Jewish world where Polygamy was commonplace.

It is conservative now to us because it has been with us so long and our society has moved forward a great deal, to a state unrecogniseable from that time. But then, Jesus was possibly one of if not the single most extreme radical of the ancient world.

To me, it is just a silly idea that cannot be proved. And the only goal is to demean an entire ideology. Might as well just say conservatives are Nazis.

Nazi’s were right wing but originally defined themselves as left wing. Many of their values such as ethnic purity and racial cleansing can indeed be said to be conservative values because they seek to preserve and exalt a previous golden race or time, real or imagined.

Sure, it seems horrific to us outside that sphere and in our time but back then in that climate it really wasn’t that out there. We can see today how crazy it was but many Germans clearly didn’t feel that way at the time, Hitler was quite the charismatic persuasive man after all.

None of the terms such as conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist or any others are offensive, they merely describe a basic outline if the rough ideology a person who identifies might subscribe to or which camp is most likely to support it. A socialist might be an atheist, but there’s nothing that says they have to be as the Christian socialism movement shows. Likewise, it’s possible to be conservative but pro gay, there is no unified creed that every liberal has to adhere to.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, in all truth it’s hard to give a concise overview, since a lot of what the priests stood for or Jesus may have said we don’t actually know.

But for what we do…Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the messiah as fortold by the Jewish prophets. To deny this was to align oneself with the “old order”, the status quo. To resist change is the hallmark of what makes a conservative, they conserve, they resist change.

Well, I never said that. I’m sure there are liberal policies we could both agree despite myself being fairly left wing are bad. The free availability of abortion for instance, that’s a liberal value but not one I jump on the bandwagon supporting.

Secular political alignment is not like Catholicism, it is a pick and mix buffet where you choose what you believe in. It doesn’t make the value any more or less left or right wing though.

Sigh.

The exact opposite, It would have been seen as widely radical and perhaps even empowering the respect shown to women in the Jewish world where Polygamy was commonplace.

It is conservative now to us because it has been with us so long and our society has moved forward a great deal, to a state unrecogniseable from that time. But then, Jesus was possibly one of if not the single most extreme radical of the ancient world.

Nazi’s were right wing but originally defined themselves as left wing. Many of their values such as ethnic purity and racial cleansing can indeed be said to be conservative values because they seek to preserve and exalt a previous golden race or time, real or imagined.

Sure, it seems horrific to us outside that sphere and in our time but back then in that climate it really wasn’t that out there. We can see today how crazy it was but many Germans clearly didn’t feel that way at the time, Hitler was quite the charismatic persuasive man after all.

None of the terms such as conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist or any others are offensive, they merely describe a basic outline if the rough ideology a person who identifies might subscribe to or which camp is most likely to support it. A socialist might be an atheist, but there’s nothing that says they have to be as the Christian socialism movement shows. Likewise, it’s possible to be conservative but pro gay, there is no unified creed that every liberal has to adhere to.

So, to you liberal means “progressive” and different than the status quo?
And conservative means status quo?

This this the problem with using these labels.

 

[NekoNecro]

So, to you liberal means “progressive” and different than the status quo?
And conservative means status quo?

This this the problem with using these labels.

It’s an incredibly rough definition but most of the time…Yes.

The Catholic church does change “fluff” occasionally (Vestaments, language of the mass ect) albit very, very slowly (another indicator of conservatism) but it is its steadfast insistence that it cannot change that cements it’s place in the right wing camp.

It doesn’t matter if the change is good or bad, it is either ignored or rejected on principle as not being part of the eternal truth. I don’t want to go off on a tangent on this but purely as an example it is pretty much beyond any doubt now in evolutionary science that Adam and Eve were not a literal couple; but the Catholic Church rejects this near-universally accepted fact on principle. That’s being conservative.

Conservative is a very, very good word to describe the Catholic Church as an institution, it isn’t so useful within the Church to describe any variations in practices and opinions within it because of course those people are not entitled to hold their own and shouldn’t as far as official teaching goes.

But for the organization, it’s perfect. Neither derogatory or inaccurate, it’s a fair categorization for what it stands for.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The terms are not used consistently.

That’s where sterotypes get us into trouble. We use them as mental shortcuts. As soon as a person says something that tips us off as to which side of the aisle they are on, we fill in all the rest of the blanks and assume we know everything they are going to say before they even say it. Then we close our ears and no longer listen to what they are actually saying.

This is an excellent summary of the confusion these terms bring to any discussion.

Yet “liberal” and “conservative” persist in being used and are sometimes useful as short cuts so long as they don’t get blown out of proportion to their usefulness.

 

[Rin]

The terms are not used consistently.

Some use “liberal” to mean “all that which is opposed to that which I hold dear”. Others use it to mean “those who actually care about people rather than just ideas.”

Similarly, some define “conservative” to mean “all that which is conformed to right doctrine.” Others use the word for “cranky people who are more concerned with rules than people.”

I think it is a mistake to view everything through the lens of “liberal vs. conservative.” Some even try to read those terms anachronistically into Scripture painting Jesus to be one but not the other. It reduces everything to an “us vs. them” dualism, which is not represntative of reality.

The terms can be useful in certain situations, but they can also cause much confusion. For example, some think of a “liberal” as being a person who holds an opinion on the wrong-side of every controversial issue. But I’ve known self-described liberals who believe in the Real Presence and don’t care about women priests.

That’s where sterotypes get us into trouble. We use them as mental shortcuts. As soon as a person says something that tips us off as to which side of the aisle they are on, we fill in all the rest of the blanks and assume we know everything they are going to say before they even say it. Then we close our ears and no longer listen to what they are actually saying.

Excellent post. The problem with the labels is exactly what you say; people see what someone says on one issue, label it as either liberal or conservative, and think they know everything about the person. Liberals do this (say something they don’t like and you’re a nasty conservative), and conservatives do it (say something they don’t like and you’re a bleeding-heart liberal out to destroy society).

Just months ago, I defined myself as conservative, since I understand the word more like “prudence” than “status quo”. And I see prudence, introducing change [that which can be changed, not speaking about dogma] after thorough consideration, as opposed to “change for the sake of change”. On the other hand, for some conservatives, the motto seems to be “avoid change at all cost” - something with which I couldn’t disagree more.

Basically, I’ve come to realize that depending on the subject, I may be seen as everything from blazingly liberal to rigidly conservative. In real life, people are sometimes very surprised when the subject changes and they didn’t anticipate that I don’t fit their preconceptions. Which tells me the labels aren’t much good. If anything, perhaps “moderate” is a better label for people like me, but then again I’m anything but moderate in my view against abortion, and probably other subjects too. In the States, people would probably see me as far left when it comes to welfare and economic policy, while in my own country, I’m seen as right-wing on the same issues. So basically, while I think we need labels (labelling things seems to be a basic trait of how our brains work), using one label to describe a person’s entire worldview just doesn’t work.

Even “Catholic” isn’t good enough, if we return to religion and not politics; first, it’s not like the Church binds us on every single issue we encounter, there is a huge amount of doctrinally legitimate disagreement within the Church - not only about things that aren’t dogma, but about interpretation of dogma. So the label “Catholic” only labels me in that I am in communion with the Pope, adhere to the dogma of the Church, and do my best to “think with Her” in interpretation of dogma as well as other matters. It would probably also tell many people something about my world view in general, but there are really thousands of world views in the Church, often culturally based. For example, I find American Catholics to often see things in an entirely different light than I (and most Catholics I know in real life) do.

So there are no single labels that can describe a person’s entire set of opinions and beliefs. It’s tempting to categorize (I do it, even though I wish I didn’t), but it’s really something we’d be better off without.

 

[Joe_5859]

Excellent post. The problem with the labels is exactly what you say; people see what someone says on one issue, label it as either liberal or conservative, and think they know everything about the person. Liberals do this (say something they don’t like and you’re a nasty conservative), and conservatives do it (say something they don’t like and you’re a bleeding-heart liberal out to destroy society).

Just months ago, I defined myself as conservative, since I understand the word more like “prudence” than “status quo”. And I see prudence, introducing change [that which can be changed, not speaking about dogma] after thorough consideration, as opposed to “change for the sake of change”. On the other hand, for some conservatives, the motto seems to be “avoid change at all cost” - something with which I couldn’t disagree more.

Basically, I’ve come to realize that depending on the subject, I may be seen as everything from blazingly liberal to rigidly conservative. In real life, people are sometimes very surprised when the subject changes and they didn’t anticipate that I don’t fit their preconceptions. Which tells me the labels aren’t much good. If anything, perhaps “moderate” is a better label for people like me, but then again I’m anything but moderate in my view against abortion, and probably other subjects too. In the States, people would probably see me as far left when it comes to welfare and economic policy, while in my own country, I’m seen as right-wing on the same issues. So basically, while I think we need labels (labelling things seems to be a basic trait of how our brains work), using one label to describe a person’s entire worldview just doesn’t work.

Even “Catholic” isn’t good enough, if we return to religion and not politics; first, it’s not like the Church binds us on every single issue we encounter, there is a huge amount of doctrinally legitimate disagreement within the Church - not only about things that aren’t dogma, but about interpretation of dogma. So the label “Catholic” only labels me in that I am in communion with the Pope, adhere to the dogma of the Church, and do my best to “think with Her” in interpretation of dogma as well as other matters. It would probably also tell many people something about my world view in general, but there are really thousands of world views in the Church, often culturally based. For example, I find American Catholics to often see things in an entirely different light than I (and most Catholics I know in real life) do.

So there are no single labels that can describe a person’s entire set of opinions and beliefs. It’s tempting to categorize (I do it, even though I wish I didn’t), but it’s really something we’d be better off without.

Yes, “Moderates” are that third category which basically means “wishy-washy person who flip-flops a lot and cannot make up their mind.”

It does seem like we have an instinctive drive to label and categorize. On some level, it’s difficult to imagine doing otherwise else our brains would become overloaded from processing so much information over and over again. If we cannot avoid such things altogether, perhaps the solution is simply to remain open to adjustments when we do use such labels.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, true. But Catholics will be liberal or conservative as the spirit moves them.

To give of one’s own fortune or labors to the poor is considered a generous liberalism.

To save the poor from poverty by teaching them a trade rather than begging for a living is conservative.

The problem is that you are using the same terms but have applied different meanings to them.

Big-L Liberal and Big-C Conservative are political ideologies and philosophies. In that regard, the Church says both are errors.

Now Little-l liberal and Little-c conservative are completely different. These are terms which describe someone’s ‘personality’. Being generous means you’re a liberal giver, nothing wrong with that. Wanting to conserve family traditions means you’re a conservative, again nothing wrong with that.

 

[CrossofChrist]

1. Pope John Paul commissioned a study in the United States to evaluate the orthodoxy of the bishops. The results were disturbing. Because of his actions, we now have many good, orthodox bishops who are true shepherds of the Church in communion with the Holy See. He did not “approve” liberal bishops but put a plan into action that eventually saw them replaced with good men.

Do you have a link or anything that says St. John Paul II commissioned a study?

 

[Timothysis]

Do you have a link or anything that says St. John Paul II commissioned a study?

No, I do not.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, I do not.

No evidence at all? If not, then 1/3 of your defense for St. JPII being conservative is useless.