What do you consider a liberal Catholic to be?

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I’m confused here on the traditional forumn. It seems like there are differences in what people consider a liberal Catholic to be. So…what do you personally consider to be a liberal Catholic?

He asked asked what we personally considered to be a liberal Catholic. Not to mention, even Priest can be liberal, conservative, etc. I think that Priests would also give their opinions.

 

[Layman]

A good example…

The BVMs, then and now:

View attachment 9104 *** Quote from their website, 2010:*** "BVMs cherish a variety of spiritualities impacted by the Gospels, option with the poor, emphasis on women’s concerns, Celtic spirituality, labyrinths, ecofeminism, feminism, Hesed, Eucharist in multiple expressions, politics, justice activities, multicultural influences, creation, Universe."

I think a good way to check the orthodoxy of any relgious order is to go to their website and count the number of things that are actually Catholic about it. Works for other things, like hymns, too.

i.e. could it just as easily be Protestant, secular, pagan or even Satanic?

 

[Layman]

To answer the O.P.: A liberal Catholic is someone who thinks:

• That Catholic doctrine can change with the times.
• That almost no one goes to Hell.
• That the sacraments should conform to their desires primarily, instead of appeasing God.
• That the iconoclasm that has occurred post-1940 is a much-needed revolution in a staid Church and that the New Springtime that was promised is just around the corner, while their children extinguish their line by contracepting and not having vocations in their liberal dioceses and to their liberal orders.
• That if only Mass/our religion could be more fun and ‘relevant’, more Young People would get involved.
• That because Jesus is loving and merciful, they can take it easy in their morals and behaviour.

 

[MarianD]

Anyone who takes a view contrary to or a view that “expands” the dogmas and doctrines of the Church.

So, for example, someone who knowingly either says “The bread doesn’t become into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ” (denying doctrine) or “The bread is a symbol of Christ” (“expanding” doctrine). In both cases, it’s heresy only if the person knows they are believing something contrary to Church teaching. In other cases, it’s simple ignorance that must be removed through catechesis.

Arguing against a Church rule that isn’t dogma (eg. clerical celibacy) isn’t being liberal or traditional in my opinion. I’d classify that as “Reformist” vs. “Conservative” Catholic, and this isn’t an example of heresy vs. truth, but rather change in rules vs. keeping the rules the same. Liberal vs. Traditional, however, is a case of heresy vs. truth and it must be corrected.

 

[Aramis]

I’m confused here on the traditional forumn. It seems like there are differences in what people consider a liberal Catholic to be. So…what do you personally consider to be a liberal Catholic?

A catholic who supports any of the following:

1. Abortion
2. Zero Population Growth laws
3. women as priests or bishops
4. “gay marriage”
5. plural marriage (polyandry and/or polygamy)
6. illicit liturgical adaptations
7. Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
8. protestantization of the Church
9. disobeying the pope in matters of church discipline.

 

[John21652]

Well I hope you actually want to know and are not just here to start something, seems like a recurring thing on this part of the forum to have people just come and try to bait us.

I hate using the word liberal/conservative. Br. JR gave a good explanation on both on this topic, but I can’t remember where he posted it, maybe he will see this and chime in.

But for sake of your question, a liberal Catholic is one who lives the philosophy of Relativism. Also those who feel the Church needs to change her Dogmatic, Moral, & Traditional teachings in order to compromise with the world. For too long now lukewarm catholics have had the louder voice in the Church, just look at our “catholic” politicians.
Also those who despise the “traditional” crowd, and I am not talking about the SSPX here but your ordinary Catholic who wishes to have the TLM at his/her home parish instead of having to drive an hour away. When they even bring up the idea of having the TLM they are quickly chewed out and spit out. Finally, those who feel they can do whatever they want with the Mass, that includes the clergy, “Eucharist ministers”, and the choir.

Relativism is the enemy of Catholicism. And the enemy of much more besides. The Church’s moral foundations are rooted in the Natural Law and moral relativism is the antithesis of the Natural Law. It subverts it and subverts much of what we consider ‘normal’ in human relations. Catholics who are ‘liberal’ usually subvert what the catholic Church teaches and preaches as other posters here are pointing out. However, once moral relativism breaches their catholicism, they are only half catholic in my opinion.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, in my opinion, a liberal “Catholic” is a person who typically accepts, endorses, or supports one or more of the following:

1. 
   *]Abortion
   *]Death Penalty
   *]Human Cloning
   *]Embryonic Stem Cell Research
   *]Gay “Marriage”
   *]Gay Adoption
   *]Etc…

 

[ProVobis]

Generally I dislike using liberal or conservative in any matter as I feel that they’re not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I would define “liberal Catholicism” to mean using modern and perhaps humanitarian reasons to discard what has been immediately handed down through the centuries of the Church. To add justification, one can even use the reason that the “early Church” did it this way or the Eastern Church does it, but those reasons seem to belie their real motives. Anything, of course, in attempt to go outside the Churches doctrines would disqualify someone from being a Catholic altogether; that wouldn’t even be a matter for being a “liberal Catholic.” Protestants can be conservative.

 

[jmj603]

An oxymoron.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It certainly can be confusing! We have both ends of the spectrum as far as liturgy, and both ends of the spectrum as far as obedience to the Church. Since the Novus Ordo and the Latin Mass are two paths to the same sacrifice, this should not be considered the difference between liberal and conservative. Some try to make it so, but they are simply wrong, IMO. Traditional vs. modern in forms of liturgy is a difference in personal preference, and does not determine or affect on the piety or obedience of the practitioners. Both forms have solidly obedient members, and both forms have the “slackers”. In fact, the labels liberal and conservative are more political than religious. In Catholicism, we can have only obedient or disobedient Catholics. Many will dispute this, but either you believe and submit to all that the Church teaches, or you do not. If you disagree with Church teaching, you will have to take it up with Raymond Cardinal Burke.

My view of liberal Catholics is those who tend to pick and choose their doctrines. As well, they tend to gravitate toward the social justice end of the spectrum, oftentimes following liberal-progressive and/or partisan democratic political doctrines as to how such justice is obtained. They tend to vote political party more than Church teaching, justifying their votes by engaging in mental gymnastics to arrive at their usually pro-choice choices.

In becoming Catholic, and then diving more deeply into my faith, I have changed my thinking on numerous moral and political issues. In my experience, liberal Catholics seem to have more difficulty in doing that, or in simply embracing diversity in prudential judgment as to how we implement Church doctrine.

I cant help but have a problem with this so called a matter of preference. since when the Mass became a matter of preference? who are we to make the Mass as just some kind of preference? was not the Mass given to us by the Jews? or it was just to be our own creation based on our own imagination? was the Mass a creation of God or the creation of man?

 

[AndrewF1995]

In my opinion, I think that a liberal catholic is a catholic who doesn’t want to really do anything that would be considered traditional. Like an example would be someone who would hate Gregorian Chant, or any sort of traditional style music in church, and would support music in church that used drums, guitars, other sorts of instruments. I think that a liberal catholic would be someone who believes that lay people need to be involved in the church because it is there RIGHT, and that they have a right to distribute communion, to receive communion in the hand and other things like that.

Basically they want to make church really open, fun and they try to make it relate to teenagers like me, but it really just gets a little creepy.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

In my opinion, I think that a liberal catholic is a catholic who doesn’t want to really do anything that would be considered traditional. Like an example would be someone who would hate Gregorian Chant, or any sort of traditional style music in church, and would support music in church that used drums, guitars, other sorts of instruments. I think that a liberal catholic would be someone who believes that lay people need to be involved in the church because it is there RIGHT, and that they have a right to distribute communion, to receive communion in the hand and other things like that.

Basically they want to make church really open, fun and they try to make it relate to teenagers like me, but it really just gets a little creepy.

So your liberal if you take communion in the hand, think EMHC are ok to be used (not abused), and are fine with guitar music? Aren’t these all allowed by Rome? So…then you are liberal but what if you still follow Church teaching on abortion, ABC, women priests, celebecy, etc? This is where I get confused…

 

[ProVobis]

So your liberal if you take communion in the hand, think EMHC are ok to be used (not abused), and are fine with guitar music?

Annabelle, most here including myself are only expressing opinions and their own definitions. I find defining liberal difficult myself and I’ll leave it up to you to define yourself if you so wish. Or if you don’t, then that’s up to you too. No need to stir up trouble over what the English definition of liberal is on a trad forum.

But if you want to discuss progressivism, then that’s another matter.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Annabelle, most here including myself are only expressing opinions and their own definitions. I find defining liberal difficult myself and I’ll leave it up to you to define yourself if you so wish. Or if you don’t, then that’s up to you too. No need to stir up trouble over what the English definition of liberal is on a trad forum.

But if you want to discuss progressivism, then that’s another matter.

I just want to know when people are talking about liberal’s if I should be included or not. I don’t think so. If you are following the church…and what the church allows…whether or not traditionalists agree with it…the church still allows it. This to me is a big difference from a Catholic who follows relativism and disagrees with the Church on some very important church teachings such as abortion, Sunday obligation, the Real presence, etc. Would you not agree? I think those two types should not be lumped in the same category. It really should be traditionalists…and then everyone else is labeled liberal.

 

[betty_ann]

It certainly can be confusing! We have both ends of the spectrum as far as liturgy, and both ends of the spectrum as far as obedience to the Church. Since the Novus Ordo and the Latin Mass are two paths to the same sacrifice, this should not be considered the difference between liberal and conservative. Some try to make it so, but they are simply wrong, IMO. Traditional vs. modern in forms of liturgy is a difference in personal preference, and does not determine or affect on the piety or obedience of the practitioners. Both forms have solidly obedient members, and both forms have the “slackers”. In fact, the labels liberal and conservative are more political than religious. In Catholicism, we can have only obedient or disobedient Catholics. Many will dispute this, but either you believe and submit to all that the Church teaches, or you do not. If you disagree with Church teaching, you will have to take it up with Raymond Cardinal Burke.

My view of liberal Catholics is those who tend to pick and choose their doctrines. As well, they tend to gravitate toward the social justice end of the spectrum, oftentimes following liberal-progressive and/or partisan democratic political doctrines as to how such justice is obtained. They tend to vote political party more than Church teaching, justifying their votes by engaging in mental gymnastics to arrive at their usually pro-choice choices.

In becoming Catholic, and then diving more deeply into my faith, I have changed my thinking on numerous moral and political issues. In my experience, liberal Catholics seem to have more difficulty in doing that, or in simply embracing diversity in prudential judgment as to how we implement Church doctrine.

I agree – you accept and believe All the Church teachers or you do not.
I don’t see any “liberal” or “conservative” about it.

 

[ProVobis]

If you are following the church…and what the church allows…

Annabelle, if you use what the Church allows or tolerates as your litmus test, then okay. But remember, there is much more allowance and tolerance today (for example, fasting and abstinence) than there was back in the pre-Vatican II days, so maybe that’s not the best standard to use on yourself for any label. There are still spirituality issues if not grave sin issues.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Annabelle, if you use what the Church allows or tolerates as your litmus test, then okay. But remember, there is much more allowance and tolerance today (for example, fasting and abstinence) than there was back in the pre-Vatican II days, so maybe that’s not the best standard to use on yourself for any label. There are still spirituality issues if not grave sin issues.

Ok…I wasn’t alive preVatican II. What exactly do you mean grave sin issues? That the church allows? By whose standard?

 

[ProVobis]

Ok…I wasn’t alive preVatican II. What exactly do you mean grave sin issues? That the church allows? By whose standard?

I mean this. When Pope Paul VI removed the gravity of meat abstinence (meaning, it wasn’t a mortal sin anymore to eat meat on Fridays), he appealed to our higher levels of spiritualities to do this. Yes, technically he “allowed” us to eat meat on Fridays (other than Lent) but that doesn’t mean we become the greatest of saints if we eat meat on Fridays either. I suppose one could use the same argument for everything else that was “allowed” after that point too. But that’s my opinion.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

A liberal Catholic is a person who sees Catholicism very much like a cafeteria where everything that is on the mandatory menu can be refused if it isn’t to his or her personal taste.

Alex

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I mean this. When Pope Paul VI removed the gravity of meat abstinence (meaning, it wasn’t a mortal sin anymore to eat meat on Fridays), he appealed to our higher levels of spiritualities to do this. Yes, technically he “allowed” us to eat meat on Fridays (other than Lent) but that doesn’t mean we become the greatest of saints if we eat meat on Fridays either. I suppose one could use the same argument for everything else that was “allowed” after that point too. But that’s my opinion.

But wouldn’t a Catholic that follows their concience on this…either by giving up meat or doing some other form of pennance on Friday be a little different then a Catholic who doesn’t care that the Church requires mandatory Sunday attendance? That thinks we should be able to choose whether to go to Mass on Holy Days of Obligation? Or pushes for women to be priest?