Pope BenedictXV1 a LIBERAL

[StJeanneDArc]

maklavan:

my definition would be the exact opposite of yours! The greater the control and centralisation, the more righ-t wing the organisation.Leftist would be inclining towards socialism, Marxism and anarchy.

Wow, that’s some definition. Is there any historical example of a socialist or marxist system that didn’t have a great deal of governmental control and centralization?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

David_Paul:

Not really.

After the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (August 23, 1939)
was signed, liberals in the C.I.O. and other unions struck at defense plants to prevent munitions shipments going to Great Britian as it fought the Nazis.

What is the C.I.O ? And what has this to do with liberalism ?​

In the early 1930s, writers from The Nation, The New Reublic and the New York Times defended Stalin.

What has this to do with liberalism ?​

The Nazi euthanasia and eugenics problems were inspired by the work of Margaret Sanger–an icon to liberals today.

And the Nazis also borrowed an idea or two from the CC - does this make the CC utterly evil ? If not, why does it make liberalism evil ? Social conservatism has hardly been an unalloyed blessing either - all regimes and **all **ideas can be corrupted or misapplied. That is no reason to single out liberalism as uniquely evil.​

And nowhere is there a definition of liberalism, or an explanation of what is so reprehensible about it. ##

Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Arthur Koestler have both said there was no moral and little pratical difference between communism and fascism.

So did Richard Wurmbrand - who suffered under both sorts of regime. But what has that to do with liberalism ?​

Nazi civil courts decided guilt and the degree of punishment based on race, class and gender. Employment too was determined by attributes unrelated to experience. The Soviets used class as a determining criteria in criminal law and employment.

Liberals endorsed Affirmative Action, quotas and other schemes which discriminate by race, gender, ethnic orgin etc.

Is affirmative action wrong in itself ? It may not be prudent to apply it when there is no need - that is not to say that it is never justified.​

What has Soviet legal practice to do with liberalism ? Nothing at all.

Isn’t lynching blacks also a form of racial discrimination ? Or does anything go, provided one holds an approved type of political opinion ? Thuggery and murder are thuggery and murder - however unimpeachable one’s anti-liberal credentials may be. An “anti-liberal” tyranny is not a jot less tyrannical than a “liberal” tyranny - and no less repulsive. ##

Herman Otto Kahn, the American banker (a Democrat) financed Mussolini. His wife worked with Margaret Sanger and was a member of the Eugenics Society of America.

In 1996, Milan was given a new Beatus in a past​

archbishop, Cardinal Schuster O.S.B. - he was a friend of Mussolini.

cephas-library.com/catholic/catholic_vatican_in_world_politics_chpt_9.html

holysepulchre.net/USA/DevotionsandOath/bl_ildefonso_schuster.htm

Why should people be blackened in all respects, just because they support someone one does not like ? I don’t much care for neoconservative USA Catholics - that doesn’t give me the right to regard them as having absolutely nothing worth saying. Sometimes they talk very good sense - just like liberals (even those who aren’t Catholic ). Or to ignore all that a man says because he is admired by the “wrong” people. ##

 

[Redeemerslove]

Convert68:

Fr. Sirico is just creating confusion by using terms differently from common usage. Politically, what we call liberals today are really socialists - they believe in a vigorously “interventionist” (I would say intrusive) state with a heavy emphasis on “rights” as defined by elitist courts and a minimum of power by the voters. What we now call conservatives are really the liberals of the past - they believe in a minimal state and are populist when it comes to the collective decisions that have to be made. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI are complex and hard to define. They both favour conservative (but traditionally liberal) positions in politics and economics. But in church matters they are seen as conservatives in that they believe in maintaining what the church has always believed. Nevertheless, both were movers and shakers during Vatican II and seen as prime evildoers by arch-traditionalists like the Lebrebvrists.

Very close to my thoughts. I think both JP2 and Benedict the XVI are moderates with conservative leanings. The emphasize compassion (liberal) and orthodoxy (conservatism). They embrace the orthodox aspects of both these ideologies. And people who can’t understand moderatism are confused.

No big surprise because political ideologists have drawn false dichotomies. Conservatism and orthodox liberalism can be synthezised into a whole ideology the embraces both humanism and orthodoxy. We call the Christian humanism, it the truest sense, and moderatism.

 

[David_Paul]

Oleg Atbashian, who once created propaganda for the Communist party in the Ukraine, thought western liberal elites had a “delusional affection” for what he had fled. Until 9/11.

Then . . . “liberalism no longer seemed laughable. It was dangerous suicidal madness that had to be confronted. I took up political activism . more . .”

Atbashian’s current project:

peoplescube.com

 

[Dj_Roy_Albert]

norbert:

I hope not! I HATE liberals!

Pray for them, because the evil one has a hold of their hearts & minds.

FACT: One can only be LIBERATED by the Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The more a person(s) claim(s) to be “liberal” in any sense of the word is evidence that Satan has them in his grasps & is choking all hope from their lives & they can not see it.

 

[bones_IV]

As Catholics we are NOT bound to accept that every utterance of a Pope or Council are infallible.

Oh really? Since when are we not bound to accept every council? Salvation is not aimed at those who are ignorant of Christ and his church. There is beauty in the muslim faith but it doesn’t have the fullness of the truth. There are two kinds of councils Reform councils like the council of Trent, and ecumenical councils like Vatican II.

 

[John_19_59]

Oh really? Since when are we not bound to accept every council?

If you could point me to the binding Catholic doctrine that states Muslims worship the same God as us then I will submit.

But you won’t find it.

VII did not define new doctrines (its impossible), the Church is not allowed to define new doctrines, only to hand on what was taught by the Apostles.

Nowhere before 1965 will you find a Church teaching that even comes close to that VII statement. In fact you will find teachings that state the opposite.

So what is that statement in Vatican II about Muslims. It can not possibly be a binding statement.

Vatican II was about Church orientation and pastoral judgement - both of which are not covered by infallibilty.

I will NOT accept that Muslims worship our God.

Ask any Muslim for a start.

 

[John_19_59]

There is beauty in the muslim faith but it doesn’t have the fullness of the truth.

Nonsense!

The Muslim faith explicitly denies Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It denies His divinity, death and resurrection.

That is an extremely ugly thing.

You are right - it does not have the fullness of truth, but it certainly has the fullness of falsehood.

We should be praying and working for their conversion not pandering to them in some wishy-washy pan-all-religions-are-in-some-way-worthy love-fest.

The Church has previously taught that it is wrong to believe that Muslims can experience God. (Pius X).

VII turned that on its head.

 

[katherine2]

norbert:

I hope not! I HATE liberals!

hate is a sin

 

[Richardols]

John_19_59:

The Muslim faith explicitly denies Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It denies His divinity, death and resurrection.

So does Judaism. BTW, Islam does not deny our Lord. It considers Him one of the Prophets and has a great respect for the Blessed Virgin.

The Church has previously taught that it is wrong to believe that Muslims can experience God. (Pius X).

VII turned that on its head.

Pius X was wrong, Vatican II was right. Read what John Paul II has written about non-Christians and what the Catechism says.

 

[katherine2]

Pope Benedict XVI a liberal?

Read on …

(Taken in part from Catholic News Service)

Here is a partial list of the principal public documents and decisions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005 when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of the office.

– March 12, 1983: Notification reaffirming the excommunication of traditionalist Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, formerly of Hue, Vietnam, and his accomplices for the illicit ordination of priests and bishops.

a needed action in the minds of many Catholic liberals.

– Nov. 26, 1983: “Declaration on Masonic Associations,” saying those who knowingly embrace the principles or attend the rituals are involved in serious sin and may not receive Communion.

given the Masonic Association’s role in right wing politics, again a needed action in the minds of many Catholic liberals.

– Aug. 6, 1984: "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation,’" criticized theologians who borrow “uncritically” from Marxist ideology, reducing salvation to the liberation of the poor from worldly oppressors.

rightfully affirming the liberal stance of preferential option for the poor, a via media between Marxism on the one hand and certain reactionary elements within the Latin American church who fully identified with the rich and elite on the other hand.

– March 22, 1986: “Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation,” a second document on liberation theology, insisting it have as its goal the liberation of people from sin, not simply from sinful social structures.

Again, taking the liberal middle ground between the Marxists and the conservatives, affirming both/and rather than either/or.

**-- Sept. 15, 1986: Notification on the book “The Church With a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry” by Dominican Father Edward Schillebeeckx, saying the book was “in disagreement with the teaching of the church,” particularly regarding ordination and the possibility of lay people presiding at the Eucharist. **

Affirming the postion of most liberal lay Catholics who have no interest in presiding at Mass.

– Oct. 1, 1986: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” The letter called for … clarity that homosexual activity is immoral.

In essense adding two words to a lenghty document. Ratzinger affirmed much more than he edited.

– June 29, 1988: Telegram warning traditionalist French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre he would be in schism if he ordained bishops without papal consent. The archbishop went ahead with the ordinations and died in schism.

A welcomed action to most liberals.

 

[space_ghost]

Sirach14:

I can hear all you conservatives screaming “God forbid, no way.” Well sit tight, because the auther of this article states that our new Pope will become a liberal “in a classical vaiety”, embracing “hope in faith and freedom.”
But doesent Pope Benedict XV1 know this already?

detnews.com/2005/editorial/0504/30/D08-166918.htm

…just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water…:bigyikes:

http://www.sharks.com/types-of-sharks/shark-pictures/great-white-shark-picture-014.jpg

 

[John_19_59]

So does Judaism. BTW, Islam does not deny our Lord. It considers Him one of the Prophets and has a great respect for the Blessed Virgin.

Shocking!

Simply shocking!

Islam explicitly declares that Jesus is NOT God. If thats not a denial I don’t know what is. And that is an insult to His Mother also - the Mother of God.

Pius X was wrong,

He was?

So you agree that Popes can be wrong then? Where does that leave John Paul II.

I think you’ll find that Pius X taught Catholic tradition and John Paul’s teaching is a novelty that is not to be found anywhere in Church teaching before 1965 and explicitly condemned as a modernist error by at least four pre-counciliar Popes.

Has the Church invented new doctrine!

Vatican II was right. Read what John Paul II has written about non-Christians and what the Catechism says.

John Paul and the CCC are wrong (Popes can be wrong remember), and in conflict with over 1000 years of Catholic tradition.

 

[Richardols]

John_19_59:

Islam explicitly declares that Jesus is NOT God. If thats not a denial I don’t know what is.

If so, then Judaism is just as guilty.

So you agree that Popes can be wrong then? Where does that leave John Paul II?

In the same boat as Pius X?.

I think you’ll find that Pius X taught Catholic tradition and John Paul’s teaching is a novelty that is not to be found anywhere in Church teaching before 1965 and explicitly condemned as a modernist error by at least four pre-counciliar Popes.

I’ll take John Paul II (and Benedict XVI) over those reactionaries any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

John Paul and the CCC are wrong (Popes can be wrong remember), and in conflict with over 1000 years of Catholic tradition.

Your opinion, fine. You may certainly go and write your own Catechism and publish rebuttals to John Paul’s encyclicals and go hang out with the schismatics and all the others who hate Vatican II while you’re at it.

I’ll just stick with the Church on this one.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

katherine2:

Pope Benedict XVI a liberal?

Read on …

(Taken in part from Catholic News Service)

Here is a partial list of the principal public documents and decisions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 to 2005 when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was prefect of the office.

– March 12, 1983: Notification reaffirming the excommunication of traditionalist Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, formerly of Hue, Vietnam, and his accomplices for the illicit ordination of priests and bishops.

a needed action in the minds of many Catholic liberals.

A needed action in the minds of true traditional Catholics who love the traditions of the Church, especially the Tridentine Mass, and remain faithful to the Holy See.

– Nov. 26, 1983: “Declaration on Masonic Associations,” saying those who knowingly embrace the principles or attend the rituals are involved in serious sin and may not receive Communion.

given the Masonic Association’s role in right wing politics, again a needed action in the minds of many Catholic liberals.

Harry Truman was a 32nd degree Mason. Are you saying President Truman was right wing?

**Freemasonry found a home in the Soviet Union. Are you saying Communism is right wing? **

It’s not a given that Masons only play a role in “right wing” politics. Masons are just as prevelent in left wing politics.

– Aug. 6, 1984: "Instruction on Certain Aspects

of the ‘Theology of Liberation,’" criticized theologians who borrow “uncritically” from Marxist ideology, reducing salvation to the liberation of the poor from worldly oppressors.

rightfully affirming the liberal stance of preferential option for the poor, a via media between Marxism on the one hand and certain reactionary elements within the Latin American church who fully identified with the rich and elite on the other hand.
Cardinal Ratzinger gave no such affirmation. His stance was not a “happy medium” between Marxism and the elites. He spoke of true freedom as a liberation from sin.

Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin. Its end and its goal is the freedom of the children of God, which is the gift of grace… The present Instruction has a much more limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought… This warning should in no way be interpreted as a disavowal of all those who want to respond generously and with an authentic evangelical spirit to the “preferential option for the poor…” It is, on the contrary, dictated by the certitude that the serious ideological deviations which it points out tends inevitably to betray the cause of the poor.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df84lt.htm
This doesn’t sound like someone who is compromising with Marxism.

Continued in next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from previous post…

katherine2:

**-- Sept. 15, 1986: Notification on the book “The Church With a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry” by Dominican Father Edward Schillebeeckx, saying the book was “in disagreement with the teaching of the church,” particularly regarding ordination and the possibility of lay people presiding at the Eucharist. **

Affirming the postion of most liberal lay Catholics who have no interest in presiding at Mass.

Most liberal lay Catholics want to erase the distinction between the priesthood of the faithful and the sacramental priesthood. Hence, the removal of the communion rail, which divides the sanctuary and the nave; abuse of extraordinary ministers of communion; and even the term presider, as if the priest does nothing more than lead a prayer service.

– Oct. 1, 1986: “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” The letter called for … clarity that homosexual activity is immoral.

In essense adding two words to a lenghty document. Ratzinger affirmed much more than he edited.

Cardinal Ratzinger not only condemns homosexual activity as immoral, but also states that pastoral care must be shown to people with homosexual tendencies and condemns crimes committed against homosexuals.

Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

---

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

---

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society.

---

What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross… Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way… The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person’s God-given dignity and worth. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

More in next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from previous post…

– June 29, 1988: Telegram warning traditionalist French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre he would be in schism if he ordained bishops without papal consent. The archbishop went ahead with the ordinations and died in schism.

A welcomed action to most liberals.

A welcomed action to those of us who love the Tridentine Mass and remain in union with Rome. One cannot love the traditions of the Church without holding on to Sacred Tradition.

---

You make assumptions about “conservatives” and paint with a broad brush. You fall back on all the “liberal” stereotypes about conservatives, all based on personal opinion. You also paint conservatives with a broad brush, something liberals are always chastising others they perceive of painting with a broad brush.

---

I think you’ll find from my comments we’re not all that far apart. I consider myself a very traditional Catholic, not a “trad,” and I agree with you on many points of Cardinal Ratzinger’s documents. This shows that people of good will always seek our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Redeemerslove]

katherine2:

hate is a sin

Yes, hate of a person is sin. Hate of a thought or ideology is permissable. provided it is not a good thought or ideology. Hate of sin itself is good.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Richardols:

So does Judaism. BTW, Islam does not deny our Lord. It considers Him one of the Prophets and has a great respect for the Blessed Virgin.

Islam denies the divinity of Christ. As a tenant this is evil. But individuals may adhere to it in invincible ignorance or as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

**1735 ***Imputability *and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Here are facts:

1. 
   *]In many Muslims countries you will be killed for converting to Catholicism from Islam. Sounds like duress to me.
   *]In many Muslims countries you will loose your livelyhood if you convert to Catholicism from Islam. Sounds like a social factor to me (economic control in sociology). Think about what pressure there is when you know you will loose your livelihood if you convert from Islam.
   *]In Muslims countries there is the periodic call to prayer over the loudspeakers. Sounds like this can cause periods of inadvertence.
   *]All the above implies fear if the Muslim is found out.
   *]I think being raised in Islam since infancy, in a Muslim country, where there are only Muslim schools, and Muslim laws against opposite sexs comingling, would constitute habit. The whole society habituates.
   *]Other psychological and social factors? Try reading this World Health Organization report on abuse in Muslim Countries: who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/global_campaign/en/chap4.pdf
   
   Talking about a boatload of impediments…
   

   Pius X was wrong, Vatican II was right. Read what John Paul II has written about non-Christians and what the Catechism says.

   Without knowing which document is being cited of Pius X, I can make no comment. Incomplete citations are no help.

 

[Redeemerslove]

John_19_59:

Shocking!

Simply shocking!

Islam explicitly declares that Jesus is NOT God. If thats not a denial I don’t know what is. And that is an insult to His Mother also - the Mother of God.

He was?

So you agree that Popes can be wrong then? Where does that leave John Paul II.

I think you’ll find that Pius X taught Catholic tradition and John Paul’s teaching is a novelty that is not to be found anywhere in Church teaching before 1965 and explicitly condemned as a modernist error by at least four pre-counciliar Popes.

Has the Church invented new doctrine!

John Paul and the CCC are wrong (Popes can be wrong remember), and in conflict with over 1000 years of Catholic tradition.

Here come the Sedes marching down the road… Sola Traditio… Sola Traditio…

Oops isn’t that a heresy?!!