J
JennyM
Guest
Well, it does for 34 of us (to date).
You haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.
I myself am politically liberal in that I oppose unilateral military action by the United States, I do not believe in isolationism, I oppose the use of the death penalty in all cases, I favor free markets, I believe in labor unions, and I believe that the government has a rightful place in assuring the good of the general public, but it should not erode our Constitutional rights as the Patriot Acts could do…
I am, however, absolutely a Papal loyalist, totally orthodox in my religious beliefs.
So, Mandi love, one can be both Liberal and Catholic.
Why is this so hard for you to understand :banghead: Politics aside - in loose terms a liberal is someone who thinks for themselves. A Catholic follows the Church - picking and choosing is not an option. So… you either think for yourself or you follow the Church. You don’t do both! This is what makes it an oxymoron!You haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.
So, Mandi love, one can be both Liberal and Catholic.
Mandi said:- in loose terms
Good idea. If you can’t articulate what you mean, best drop it.And I for one am done with this stupid conversation!
Not so. I’m orthodox religiously and liberal politically. One could just as well be a political conservative and follow the St. Pius X Society - heterodox religiously.Ones personal politics and faith go HAND IN HAND
A strawman argument. No one suggested that you could be a Catholic and promote extreme liberal political policies.to think you can be a Catholic in good standing and promote extreme liberal viewpoints such as abortion, homosexual rights, etc… at the same time is wrong
A liberal and a Catholic would be right. Your term is prone to the misunderstanding Mandi had.OK Southernrich, if I am following you correctly you would not then call yourself a “liberal Catholic” would you?
Actually orthodox is a Greek word that means authority.Why don’t you just say, “Orthodox means loving God, liberal means urinating on the Host”? Your prejudice is showing.
But the introduction of married priests into the LATIN rite would be contrary to a tradition that goes back at least a thousand years. It would be like eliminating Latin from the liturgy, and thos eof us who has seen what happened with that reform are leery of any more such changes.Maybe you haven’t heard, but there ARE some Catholic married priests in the Roman Rite, and it is permissible in the Eastern Rite.
Yes it is prone to misunderstanding which is why I was assuming you wouldnt use such a phrase.A liberal and a Catholic would be right. Your term is prone to the misunderstanding Mandi had.
Oh, dear …can’t we cut Tom of Assisi a break here? Not everyone is a scholar, to be sure. But as many people in my world speak English as a second language, I guess my policy has been:
*If you know what someone means, just respond. It is not necessary to correct every little detail. *
Because obedience doesn’t breed progress. If Aquinas had not ventured into the Aristotelean realm Catholicism would be very different today. If the Pope didn’t listen to St. Catherine of Siena the Papacy would still be in Avignon.Why don’t we all just forget all the other labels, and try to be FAITHFUL Catholics, the kind that obey the Magisterium in all things.