Orthodox or liberal?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tom of Assisi:

Just curious.

How many out there are

orthodox: assent to the Church’s moral and doctrinal teachings, don’t use contraceptives, attend Mass weekly, don’t support women, gay, or married priests, agree with Catholic Answers voter’s guide, pray and go to confession regularly…

liberal: think the Church should have married or women priests, don’t always assent to the moral teachings of Church: maybe birth control/sterilization are really o.k., will vote for candidates that are pro-abortion, pro-euthenasia, pro-stem-cell research, or pro homosexual rights.
thanks

Seems to me that this description might not be entirely fair to either group - and, it’s very easy to misdescribe a group one does not belong to.​

Besides, people just don’t fit in the boxes we put them in - it’s quite possible to overlap with both groups. In any case, what fits as a description of the Church in the USA, might not fit outside the USA, where problems are different.

Another drawback is that people vote for candidates for different reasons: the CC teaches a lot of social doctrine about fair employment and housing - what is the point of a candidate’s being “pro-life”, if the candidate does not care about other social justice issues ? There’s not much point in agreeing with one segnment of social doctrine, if the rest are ignored.

Also, it’s possible to be liberal in politics, and not in “Church things”. The pope is “liberal” in some respects, deeply “conservative” in others. ##

 

[PilgrimJWT]

NOT a good question, so I did not vote in that poll. The definition of liberal is extremely wide. A better (though not necessarily enlightening) way of putting it would be to oppose orthodox with unorthodox, or liberal with conservative–but even here there there are a lot of problems.

 

[burnside]

It seems to me that Liberals see themselves as people who THINK for themselves and the Orthodox types are into blind acceptance.
At school i struggled with Mathematics and only managed to pass the subject eventually by taking a Further Education course.My employer granted me day release,so i finally succeeded at 37 years old.My problem at school was that i could not ACCEPT that the square on the hypotenuse equalled
the sum of the squares on the other two sides or any of the other theorems.
My mother was the only one who was any good at the subject in our house and tried and failed to get me to ACCEPT these theorems.By the time i passed she was dead.I hope i am still ACCEPTING Church Teachings when i die,even if it does mean getting called an unthinking twit.I have heard a Physics teacher,when another student questioned something he had said,reply by saying, “better people than me worked this out,who am i to question it”?The teacher spoke in jocular fashion,but the message was there again.Unless you see yourself as a real brainbox you are going to have to do a certain amount of ACCEPTING.So,with my knowledge of philosophy and theology
being rather limited,i defer to the experts in those subjects.
Before retirement,i worked for a couple of Government Depts.I
wasn’t that successful,partly because i wasn’t too obedient.It was amazing how people,much more confident than me,could be so obedient.There was an easy answer to that.The possibility of
promotion and more money brings about compliance in a jiffy.

 

[Nate]

darcee:

No offense… but “Duh”. That doesn’t necessitate being a Republican though.

No! It just means you can’t be a Democrat, and you can’t vote Republican without holding your nose, or pleading invincible ignorance.

We need a new party!

 

[misericordie]

S_Corda:

right!

This poll might as well have asked something like
“Which one are you A. Overweight or B. Right-handed”

Orthodox = conservative? NO!
Not orthodox = liberal ? NO!

I liked it when I heard Raymond Arroyo say something about being “not so much conservative or liberal, but Catholic.”

One common definition of conservative is “tending to oppose change.”
Liberals, then, are people who want change or “favor proposals for reform.” (quoted material is from my dictionary)

In the year 2004, this would make pro-abortion people conservative, and pro-life people liberal.

     Orthodox= CATHOLIC
      Liberal, which means here to be a cafeteria catholic, and label everything Traditional in The Catholic Church as "old Fashioned"(I am 32 and very Catholic/Traditional, I am far from a little old man)and to basically not follow Church teaching, and hence, really NOT catholic=liberal=NOT catholic

 

[bobcurious]

Southernrich:

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.

 

[bobcurious]

bobcurious:
Southernrich,

I just love the way you think and phrase it. Thank you
bobcurious

 

[Monicathree]

Orthodox all the way

 

[loyola_rambler]

I find the poll completely insulting. The answer is…I’m neither. I’m not an unreasoning person who blindly accepts absurd behavior in my leaders (such as the behavior of Cardinal Law in the Boston sex scandals), nor am I a “liberal” socially, politically or religiously.

I’m neither “orthodox” nor “heterodox”. So I guess what you’re really missing is the label that would apply to a good many faithful Catholics: Moderate.

Is being moderate really “pablum” as some have accused. No. It means that you don’t accept extreme behavior on any spectrum. Do I believe that abortion is appropriate under any circumstance? Yes…just one…when neither the mother or baby would otherwise survive. Otherwise, abortion is murder and not acceptable. Do I support the death penalty under any circumstance? No, in fact my position is more “conservative” than the position of the Vatican. Do I have to watch married Episcopal men become validly ordained Catholic priests without questioning why the hypocrisy ever developed? No, the fact that there is an acknowledged "experiment in Canada, Australia and the US shows that the Vatican has not made a final stand on the issue and I am free to support the concept of a married, non-celibate Catholic clergy. Is that “orthodox”? I doubt it. But it is a valid position and the Vatican is showing its openness to the change.

So why does this poll show such inane bias towards only one position and dismiss the realities of Catholicism? There’s nothing wrong with being in the middle…just ask Jesus…he died in the middle.

 

[Mandi]

loyola rambler:

So why does this poll show such inane bias towards only one position and dismiss the realities of Catholicism? There’s nothing wrong with being in the middle…just ask Jesus…he died in the middle.

Jesus also said “I can take hot and I can take cold but lukewarm I spit you out of my mouth”

And I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who coined the very true phrase. “Stand in the middle of the road and you’ll get run over”

 

[martino]

loyola rambler:

I find the poll completely insulting. The answer is…I’m neither. I’m not an unreasoning person who blindly accepts absurd behavior in my leaders (such as the behavior of Cardinal Law in the Boston sex scandals

Has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here! Has anyone actually tried to defend Cardinal Law’s absured behavior? Whether or not we trust Cardinal Law we must trust the Magisterium of the Church and those that do are orthodox, those that dont are something else!

 

[thejib]

Im an orthodox liberal… what should I choose?

 

[ricatholic]

I would toss this out, Jesus was definitely liberal. He opposed the status quo, had a preference for the poor,was all for personal liberty and the corresponding personal responsibility and wasn’t big on titles or exaltation. He set expectations as opposed to boundaries and was inclusive in the way He shared His graces. He thought the authorities were hypocritical and didn’t live as they preached.

Peace

 

[fix]

amarischuk:

As Mandi said:
I maintain that one can be a Catholic and not accept every Magisterial pronouncement regarding faith and morals. Let’s look at the Galileo example where certainly the Magisterium concidered his Copernican heliocentric theory a threat to faith and morals:

law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

I would maintain that monogenism is presently an official church teaching (some would say infallible) as evidenced by the Catechism (385-390) and numerous Papal documents. Infact, some theologians would go so far as to argue that transformism is contrary to the official teachings of the Church. rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html

Let’s look at the beautiful case of John Henry Cardinal Newman (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913): newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm

Or look at Giles of Rome who was forced to renounce Aquinas’ system by the Magisterium.

Or the censuring of Louis Marie Olivier Duchesne and placing of his works on the index.

Or the censuring of Yves Congar.

Or the vindication of Johann Adam Mohler’s ecclesiology in Vatican II.

There are thousands, if not millions of examples where good Catholics desented from Church positions at the time and the Church changed and accomidated them, not the other way around.

Which leaves me with the impression that (according to your definition) “true Catholics” only use their heads to rest their hats on…a sad day, when Catholicism is reduced to American fundamentalism.

What a ridiculous liberal, dissenting spin. None of your examples relate to the deposit of faith. None of the examples, or your attempt to nuance them, prove that anyone may be a Catholic in good standing and heterodox. We all must give religious assent of the heart and mind to ALL the Church teaches. We must obey doctrines and disciplines.

Reminds me of the first individual who said…“I will not serve”.

 

[naprous]

Hmm. I realize that I’m going to go down (or perhaps up?) in flames here, but I definitely consider myself a liberal Catholic, in pretty much every sense of the word as it has been used. Some posters on this thread have declared that such a thing cannot exist. Ah well. So for them, I am not a Catholic at all.

Well, I’m just glad that God is not as limited in his imagination as they are!

Naprous (who once got thrown out of a bar for arguing about the Magisterium)

 

[carol_marie]

Perhaps I shouldn’t have answered since I’m not Catholic although I hope to be soon. I am orthodox/conservative and that’s WHY I want to be Catholic. I love & agree 100% with every single social issue of your beautiful faith. I guess I don’t get it how someone could be liberal & Catholic? Anyhow, all I’d like to add is if you find yourself in constant disagreement with the Catholic church (women priests, abortion, etc.) then might I suggest you check out the thousands of Protestant demoninations. We pretty much make it all up as we go along and if we find we disagree with our Pastor we simply hop on over to a different church/demonination up the road. Women priests? Got em! Abortion? No problem! In fact some churches actually contribute to Planned Parenthood! Sadly it’s all out there…and the true is you decide. How’s that for liberal?

 

[Antonio_B]

Tom,

"How many out there are

orthodox: assent to the Church’s moral and doctrinal teachings, don’t use contraceptives, attend Mass weekly, don’t support women, gay, or married priests, agree with Catholic Answers voter’s guide, pray and go to confession regularly…"

I think contraceptives are sinful and a violation of Humanae Vitae. I attend Mass every Sunday and weekdays if I can. I do not support women priests, married priests and would put up with a gay priest only if he respects his celibacy. The same applies to a heterosexual priest. I agree with the Catholic Answers voter’s guide and I do pray but go to confession only once a year.

“liberal: think the Church should have married or women priests, don’t always assent to the moral teachings of Church: maybe birth control/sterilization are really o.k., will vote for candidates that are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-stem-cell research, or pro homosexual rights.
thanks”

I would never vote for any candidate, Republican or Democrat who believes in abortion or holds that “personally” he doesn’t believe in abortion, BUT!

Antonio B.

 

[ricatholic]

fix:

What a ridiculous liberal, dissenting spin. None of your examples relate to the deposit of faith. None of the examples, or your attempt to nuance them, prove that anyone may be a Catholic in good standing and heterodox. We all must give religious assent of the heart and mind to ALL the Church teaches. We must obey doctrines and disciplines.

Reminds me of the first individual who said…“I will not serve”.

Of course the church will determine that a person is not in good standing if they are a heterodox, but that said people such as Galileo were not in good standing while they were under house arrest, were they?

The church has set up its rules in a Catch 22 manner. But the rules can change as evidenced by Galileo.Until Galileo was released, he was still considered wrong by the pope, but in the end it was clear that Galileo was not wrong, even while under arrest.Guilty until proved innocent.

Now we are well past the time where the church should claim credibility with authority, it is time that it become an example of Jesus’ faith in action, not just the deposit of that faith. But that would liberating, wouldn’t it, and we can’t have that.

Peace

 

[fix]

ricatholic:

Of course the church will determine that a person is not in good standing if they are a heterodox, but that said people such as Galileo were not in good standing while they were under house arrest, were they?

The church has set up its rules in a Catch 22 manner. But the rules can change as evidenced by Galileo.Until Galileo was released, he was still considered wrong by the pope, but in the end it was clear that Galileo was not wrong, even while under arrest.Guilty until proved innocent.

Now we are well past the time where the church should claim credibility with authority, it is time that it become an example of Jesus’ faith in action, not just the deposit of that faith. But that would liberating, wouldn’t it, and we can’t have that.

Peace

This very site has a tract on the Galileo controversy that refutes your assertions. The Pope and others accepted Galileo’s work. At the time in history, state and Church were very close. They wanted Galileo not to shake the faith of the public and cause problems would could lead to violence and other destabilizing forces.

While under house arrested he was treated very well. It is a common fiction to believe he was tortured , or otherwise misteated.

The “rules” never change. Disciplines may change, but bind under sin while in effect. Doctrines may develop, bur never contradeict the truth. We tend to confuse issues, often times, for our own purposes.

 

[loyola_rambler]

martino:

Has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here! Has anyone actually tried to defend Cardinal Law’s absured behavior? Whether or not we trust Cardinal Law we must trust the Magisterium of the Church and those that do are orthodox, those that dont are something else!

It has everything to do with this discussion. The main flaw in the entire discussion is that none of the terms is properly defined so no one approaches the question with the same base of knowledge and understanding. Further, it’s comparing unlike terms and asking people to choose one or the other. As noted in a recent post, one can validly be an orthodox liberal.

As for those who think that the quote from Jesus on being “lukewarm” is applicable, then take a look at the context of the quote. Is he saying you can only be a conservative and an unquestioning adherent of whatever someone in power declares? No…quite the opposite. He’s talking about our faith, not our politics.

Let’s face it, just in my lifetime this Church has gone from masses in Latin/women covering their heads/communion on the tongue only/no wine at mass…to a period of extreme liberalism (social and political) when so-called Kumbaya Catholics took the “spirit of Vatican II” as de fide (whether it was or not)…to an attempt by many to overthrow the pastoral efforts and attempts to fully understand the realities of Vatican II…in fact I’ve heard many declare that Vatican II is to be discarded even though it was a valid council.

So being in the middle on all of these extremes means I’ve kept my head and my perspective…it saved my faith and kept me from straying to places that Catholics should avoid…and my faith is stronger and more secure than a large majority of Catholics in my age group. Hmmm…being in the middle is a very happy place, especially in times of Catholic turmoil.

BTW, let’s not forget that Jesus died in the middle. I guess I’m in very good company.