Liberals often scoff at Papal/Church authority, may or may not be pro-life, usually oppose Church teachings on homosexuality, desire women priesthood, don’t care much about Church tradition, often go along with much of the anti-Catholic pop mythology in our culture, tend to go along with many cultural norms and to supplant love with tolerance.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?
I know that there are some people who consider those people who prefer the NO (while still respecting those who prefer the TLM), take CITH, prefer English, think most of the music is fine and seems worshipful to be liberal…even if they most heartly think that frequent reconciliation is necessary, believe in the Real Presence, Mass should be followed to according to the GIRM, Sunday Mass obligation is serious, and that abortion/ABC is wrong.
Others may think more along the lines of those people who don’t see anything wrong with confession only once a year or even less then that, don’t believe in the Real Presence, and think of these things more as loose guidelines.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1] is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberalismThe revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Conservatism, fundamentalism, and military dictatorship remain powerful opponents of liberalism. Today, liberals are organized politically on all major continents. They have played a decisive role in the growth of republics, the spread of civil rights and civil liberties, the establishment of the modern welfare state, the institution of religious toleration and religious freedom, and the development of globalization. Political scientist Alan Wolfe wrote, “liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question”.[3]
I DID “ACTUALLY” QUOTE HIM. YOUR SARCASM AND INNUENDO IS DISINGENUOUS.Here is Fr. Sarda (let’s actually quote him now, shall we?)
“It is a current fallacy, laid down as a fundamental truth that one religion is as good as another, that everyone has the right to believe what be pleases, that differences in creed are after all but differences in forms of expression, that everyone may select his own creed or sect according to his taste”
OK. You do have a point there. There are some similarities between “liberalism” as defined by Fr Sarda in 1886 and as defined by Alex in 2010. Still, though there are similarities, it is certainly not the same definition. Please note that Fr Sarda again, at the start of the section you quoted above, says that he is talking about the doctrine of one religion being as good as another.And here is Alex: “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.”
Returning to the main point (of our diversion), of whether or not “liberalism” is an offence under Canon Law, you responded with Fr Sarda’s definition of liberalism, which would indeed be an offence under Canon Law. So we are only interested in Fr Sarda definition, and whether it is the definition accepted by the Church (and it is not). And my other point, that no-one here has used Fr Sarda’s definition, remains.By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that “One religion is as good as another.”
No, you didn’t. You quoted Thomas A. Nelson’s 1993 foreward to the book.I DID “ACTUALLY” QUOTE HIM. YOUR SARCASM AND INNUENDO IS DISINGENUOUS.
You are correct. Apologies. I was quoting from an on-line text which is a little difficult to navigate.No, you didn’t. You quoted Thomas A. Nelson’s 1993 foreward to the book.
Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:
- The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
- The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.
- Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.
Which is all very good as a list of heresies, but it is not much good as a definition of “liberalism” in 2010.
- Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.
True of most other labels as well.I repeat, the Church does not condemn “liberalism”, and, I would guess that that is not because “liberalism” as defined by Fr Sarda, and some others, is not worthy of condemnation, but because the term is too vague, and too abused.
Precisely. And I’ll bet most of them came about because of mistranslations and different interpretations and definitions of the same truths.Protestants run themselves from the bottom up, but that’s one of the reasons there are over thirty thousand denominations of them. Once you leave the flock it doesn’t matter how lost you are.
True. I’ve never heard of a protestant denomination which started with “We would like a less scriptural religion”, rather, they invariably come from “We follow scripture - and you are not scriptural”. Whereas, it’s really a difference in interpretation.Precisely. And I’ll bet most of them came about because of mistranslations and different interpretations and definitions of the same truths.
That is an amazing statement. Worthy of the original Ockham!Once you leave the flock it doesn’t matter how lost you are.
I think the the crux of the problem is that good intentions are easy. It’s easy to “want” to help the poor. It’s easy to vote to force others to provide the help. In other words, it’s easy to be a “yes” man, aka politician, when you are not the one who is forced to sacrifice. Talk is cheap. It’s almost cowardly to vote for “others” to make sacrifices when recipients of aid are free to continue to be unaccountable. Why shouldn’t we have drug testing?I have never been in a church that harbours more criticism at the variety of believers. If the church has division…unity has to start with each individual’s heart and not their ego…
The things that liberals hold as “rights”. Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, women’s ordination, etc. All of these things that are acted on have mortal sin attached to it.Attached by who? Not by the Church.
Your non-answer to my question is really an answer.The things that liberals hold as “rights”. Abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, women’s ordination, etc. All of these things that are acted on have mortal sin attached to it.
And I asked:[The] many vices attached to liberalism are [an offence under canon law]
You have now given us, without citation, your personal list of the vices attached to liberalism.Attached by who? Not by the Church.
Encyclical Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors:I repeat, the Church does not condemn “liberalism”, and, I would guess that that is not because “liberalism” as defined by Fr Sarda, and some others, is not worthy of condemnation, but because the term is too vague, and too abused.
My highlights indicate that Pope Pius IX is clearly restricting his scope to some derivatives of liberalism, as it was understood at that time. (What was “modern” in 1864 may be obsolete in 2010).Encyclical Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors:
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
- The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
Your problem with “liberal” and “conservative” is the same problem with “traditional” and “progressive”, or “modern”.Aren’t we really talking about “modern” or “progressive” versus “traditional”.