Based on peoples reactions to what I was posting I did some research on him and found that out. When you say he is dissident what does that mean, what is his position in the catholic church, is he condemned as heretical?
)
Dissident in the sense that he has been associated with Notre Dame, and promotes views contrary to the faith. One can say disobedient. Usually they are rogue priests , have openly dissented , but they are not necessarily heretical or condemned formally. Also it is not the same as those who formally separate from their obedience to the Pope.
More specifically in America, the dissident priests are more loyal to a political ideology and the trappings of the world, than they are to orthodoxy.
He would classify as one of those, heterodox priests as he has been shown to get into it with other priests.
renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/051009
Just so there is no misunderstanding I would wager that when the official position of the Church and his come into conflict, I am more likely to agree with him. lets not get too friendly (joking)
You said earlier in the thread you found the Church more liberal than what the forum purports of Catholicism, according to the book you read of his.
Well I’ll just say , what you said does not really say much about what you think the Church is or ought to be because , “liberal and conservative” are devoid of meaning in the Western world when applying to Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy of the Church, but also when it comes to political matters in the Western world as it currently stands – especially in this sham system, that exists in America.
When you delve deeper on the “official position” of the Church don’t be surprised if you don’t side with him and do side with the Church. You will realize that the Church is neither conservative nor liberal, so basically it makes itself an enemy of those who adhere staunchly to a political-philosophical banner of those ever shifting paradigms constructed by men of darkened intellects. That’s why both parties or whatever new political ideology or recycled philosophy will never truly satisfied with what the Church does in this world through the ages.
i.e. as of today its declarations against the way rightests conduct their wars, banking, the dignity of the immigrant and the conditions we are to treat the poor, the dignity of the sexes, motherhood, private property, the unborn persons, to the Leftists.
That Pope Francis makes people on the right angry when he preaches against Capitalism is a current example of that. That JPII and Benedict condemned the Iraq War are also other examples.
That you said Fr. Richard McBrien’s book states that Catholicism is more “liberal” than this forum would have us believe earlier, i’m assuming you have a distaste for the perception of “conservativism” promoted pertaining to current affairs.
But just because Fr Richard is mistaken in his liberal disposition, does not mean necessarily that some views held by Catholics who are not liberal, are also necessarily always accurate or adhere to an orthodox understanding given a certain individual subject.
There is the heresy of Americanism that Pope Leo warned bishops in America about in the 19th century, that some priests and lay faithful that are seemingly in “good standing” fall into at times, when it comes to American policy and its constitution. There has been a temptation to equate American policy and try to merge it with that of church teaching , and it ends up being a mess in stifling Church teaching (in respect to capitalism, Rerum Nevarum etc.)
For instance, some Catholics who considered good Catholics in America, tried to downplay the Pope’s stance on Iraq because they favored the view of a party rather than* really* listening to the warnings both JPII and Benedict had stated. Even if it had nothing to do with doctrine, It could have made a difference if the Catholics in America heard his pleas which were stifled and muted by the press.
