To All Liberal Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flavius_Aetius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m pro-life and all, but this is where I (and all Catholics) should be “liberal”.

“We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty,” the bishops wrote. “At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity.”

usccb.org/news/2011/11-169.cfm
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Exactly. that’s why there are public schools - free education for those who can’t afford it, and even for those who can afford private education. And it’s not as though public schools are that bad (although they aren’t great, let me tell you).
Click to expand...
Read Dewey’s "School and Society,"and you will know why the public schools exist. The monopoly I am talking about is not only a financial monopoly but an ideological monopoly as well. The government can easily be persuaded that all schools ought to have the same curriculum and that private schools should not be allowed to have their own. For instance, no religious school should be allowed to teach that homosexuality is immoral, or to refuse to hire a homosexual person.
 
MillTownCath said:
I’m pro-life and all, but this is where I (and all Catholics) should be “liberal”.

“We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to make ends meet and escape poverty,” the bishops wrote. “At a time of record foreclosures, increasing poverty and high unemployment it is not justifiable to weaken the national safety net or to make disproportionate cuts to programs that can help low and moderate income families avert crisis and live in dignity.”

usccb.org/news/2011/11-169.cfm
Click to expand...
A Catholic can not support a pro-abortion canidate no matter much social spending he advocates.
 
St_Francis said:
I beg to differ. Germany was a Catholic country, or the lands now considered Germany were all Catholic until Martin Luther came along.

And what makes you think that schools of the quality of current private schools would be available to the poor if the government got out of the education business?
Click to expand...
Bismarck’s Reich was two-thirds Lutheran and Reformed. The Chancellor made a huge effort to suppress the Catholics in the Reich, it was called the Kultur Kampf. It gave rise to the Center Party, based in Bavaria and the Rheinland, a confessional Party.

Obviously the government schools are not doing a great job, and by taxing everyone they rob many people of ordinary means of the ability to choose schools in which religion is taught. Until the 1960s, individual schools districts had a good relationship with the churches that were dominant in their district, but they have become largely secular in their worldview, and in some cases, hostile to Christianity.
 
estesbob said:
A Catholic can not support a pro-abortion canidate no matter much social spending he advocates.
Click to expand...
Who are the bishops to decide what is “disproportionate?” All this is to ignore that so much of the “stimulus” went to protect the jobs of government workers.
 
RobbyS said:
Bismarck’s Reich was two-thirds Lutheran and Reformed. The Chancellor made a huge effort to suppress the Catholics in the Reich, it was called the Kultur Kampf. It gave rise to the Center Party, based in Bavaria and the Rheinland, a confessional Party.

Obviously the government schools are not doing a great job, and by taxing everyone they rob many people of ordinary means of the ability to choose schools in which religion is taught. Until the 1960s, individual schools districts had a good relationship with the churches that were dominant in their district, but they have become largely secular in their worldview, and in some cases, hostile to Christianity.
Click to expand...
I agree that having higher levels of government involved in education has been an abyssmal failure. I just was pointing out the lapse in logic.

I am grateful to have been in a position to be able to homeschool my children and not have to send them to schools. Probably saved a lot of contention in my life.
 
RobbyS said:
Obviously the government schools are not doing a great job, and by taxing everyone they rob many people of ordinary means of the ability to choose schools in which religion is taught. Until the 1960s, individual schools districts had a good relationship with the churches that were dominant in their district, but they have become largely secular in their worldview, and in some cases, hostile to Christianity.
Click to expand...
That kind of seems to fit in with politics too. Wasn’t the DNC pretty much a Catholic party until then? Then it favored secularism I think. 🤷
 
Swiss_Guy said:
That kind of seems to fit in with politics too. Wasn’t the DNC pretty much a Catholic party until then? Then it favored secularism I think. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, Catholics were part of the New Deal coalition, along with Southern Democrats and Communists (I mean the CPUSA) but not, interestingly, the Socialists. Catholics were able to keep Jimmy Byrnes, a divorced ex-Catholic, off the ticket in 1944. Otherwise Jimmy would have been president instead of Truman. The labor unions were headed by serious Catholics until the '70s. Then in 1968, all that began to change. The anti-communists were progressively displanted by “Progressives”.By 1972 they were in control of the national party.
 
RobbyS said:
Liberal Catholicism is better described as modernism, although a variety that puts more stress on politics than the old theological modernism. Perhaps social gospeler is a better descriptor.
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned, the proper definition of liberal is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, you lie in calling yourself a liberal.
 
AHapka said:
As far as I am concerned, the proper definition of liberal is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, you lie in calling yourself a liberal.
Click to expand...
Oh, and is your real name Humpty Dumpty?
 
proper definition of liberal is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, you lie in calling yourself a liberal.
Click to expand...
There are many forms of liberals. I am liberal. But I’m also conservative. I’m also moderate. 😃
 
St_Francis said:
The proper definition according to whom?
Click to expand...
It’s what I’ve always believed in my mind. I have friends who believe the same way, as well.

I guess the definition of the word is held differently by different people.

May I please ask how you define it?
 
AHapka said:
As far as I am concerned, the proper definition of liberal is a person who supports abortion and gay marriage. If you do not support those, you lie in calling yourself a liberal.
Click to expand...
He rejects the traditional Christian sexual morality.
 
AHapka said:
It’s what I’ve always believed in my mind. I have friends who believe the same way, as well.

I guess the definition of the word is held differently by different people.

May I please ask how you define it?
Click to expand...
Quite a lot of time was spent on this thread working out a definitiin. For my part, I see that there are (current US secular) liberals, and there liberal Cathiolics, and there are Catholics who are also liberal who are in agreement on certain aspects of (current US secular) liberalism.

To me, liberal Catholics are those who want to change Church teachings to be more in accord with their own liberal ideas–women’s ordination, homosexual “marriage,” and the like.

Then then are Catholics who do not want to change the Church, which I see as a bit of a spectrum from a Catholic who looks at economic policies from the same point of view as a liberal but is socially conservative, to a Catholic who would not change the Church but who stands with the liberals on many social issues in addition to the economic in the secular realm.

Liberalism itself is a term with a lot of meanings because it has changed over the years. Classical liberalism stems from Enlightenment thought, which was very anti-Catholic. However, there are certain aspects of that thought which align with (and were possibly influenced by) Catholic thinking of that time.

Variois philosophies flowed out of the Enlightenment so there ended up two main threads of thought, one more like what we in the US consider conservatism, the other more like socialism/communism. The thinking of the left in our country has also gone through transformation to slowly gather up various side-issues such as civil rights which has expanded to include all manner of people, multiculturalism, etc. But at the core is a utopian vision of an environment structured to create an imaginary society in which each person will be perfected according to the liberal idea of perfection.
 
With changes that you listed, it wouldn’t be a christian church, would it? 🙂
Women are not called to preach, homosexuality is an abonmination to the Lord,
and there is no such thing as marriage between two men. God did not
ordain this.

God bless,
bluelake
 
Swiss_Guy said:
That kind of seems to fit in with politics too. Wasn’t the DNC pretty much a Catholic party until then? Then it favored secularism I think. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m happy to know that as a former elca member, you have decided to leave. Catholic Church,
they do not ordain ladies or approve of practicing homosexuals receiving the Eucharist.

God bless,
bluelake
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top