What do you consider a liberal Catholic to be?

[otjm]

Encyclical Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors:

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

1. 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.

Throwing out a quote from 140 years ago, without any more (and any more includes a whole lot of thought, both in philosophy and theology, since then) is a useless exercise in gamesmanship and is bereft of any educational value.

 

[jmj603]

Throwing out a quote from 140 years ago, without any more (and any more includes a whole lot of thought, both in philosophy and theology, since then) is a useless exercise in gamesmanship and is bereft of any educational value.

It proves that anyone who says “liberalism was never condemned by name” hasn’t done any sort of homework and is thus an unreliable commentator.

 

[Edmundus1581]

It proves that anyone who says “liberalism was never condemned by name” hasn’t done any sort of homework and is thus an unreliable commentator.

I give thanks, again and again, for the (secular) education I received in the early 1970’s. I didn’t make nearly as much of it as I should have (mea culpa), but at least I learnt the difference between quotation and paraphrase.

 

[Restituo]

Your non-answer to my question is really an answer.

You previously posted:

And I asked:

You have now given us, without citation, your personal list of the vices attached to liberalism.

So, the “vices attached to liberalism” are those attached by you, not by the Church.

If your point is that those who attempt the ordination of women are excommunicated, then you are quite correct. If your point is that “liberals” are excommunicated, then you are dead wrong.

Please refer to my previous post “Benedict XVI Commends Liberalism”, to see that “liberalism” admits of an alternative definition.

Just to say, for the zillionth time, “Liberalism” is not a philosophy, heresy or movement recognized by the Church. On the other hand, it is a label used by many for things they don’t like - things which are quite often within the valid interpretation of the Magisterium, and Catholic thought. Hence the word is best avoided (except perhaps in genuine scholarly discussion, as by Benedict above)

And it’s not just me that has said this, over-and-over in this thread. I acknowledge the OP, and all the others who have been making the same point.

We actually agree and I apologize for my miscommunication. For someone to say that they are a “liberal” isn’t in itself an excommunication. However, most “liberals”, at least in our society today, approve of what I listed above (abortion, etc.). Once they act on one of those things, mortal sin is committed.

-Restituo

 

[Ockham]

Your problem with “liberal” and “conservative” is the same problem with “traditional” and “progressive”, or “modern”.

You still need to define what you mean by the terms.

I offered my definition of modern/liberal Catholic. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Ockham]

The political term “Liberal” has changed over the past hundred years or so. What’s now refered to as “Classical Liberalism” is defined by small limited government, free markets, and the rights of the individual. People like Adam Smith, Hayek and Milton Friedman are associated with this philosophy yet in today’s terms they would be Conservatives. In Victorian England a Conservative was a monarchist who defended an ‘ol’ boys club’ entitlement. Today the political term “Liberal” is basically used to describe a Socialism which is condemned by the Church.

 

[Edmundus1581]

We actually agree and I apologize for my miscommunication. For someone to say that they are a “liberal” isn’t in itself an excommunication. However, most “liberals”, at least in our society today, approve of what I listed above (abortion, etc.). Once they act on one of those things, mortal sin is committed.

You are a very wise young man!

Have you thought about a vocation?

 

[jmj603]

I give thanks, again and again, for the (secular) education I received in the early 1970’s. I didn’t make nearly as much of it as I should have (mea culpa), but at least I learnt the difference between quotation and paraphrase.

Again, whatever it takes to make you feel superior.

 

[otjm]

It proves that anyone who says “liberalism was never condemned by name” hasn’t done any sort of homework and is thus an unreliable commentator.

If it is quoted for that restricted purpose, then yes; however, to simply drag the quote out without any explanation as to why it is being given can be deceptive.

There are far too many quotes dragged out for various topics and used as a cudgel. as noted above, Benedict 16 has made a very interesting and challenging comment about Liberalism.

The question is, what is the original quote speaking about; what is Benedict 16 speaking about, and what intervened in the time in between?

One doesn’t want to get into a “he said it, I believe it, that ends it” position. Too often people seek simple answers to complex questions; such answers are usually not adequate, and often nowhere near accurate.

The OP asked what a “liberal” was. Trotting out this answer doesn’t assist anyone in answering the OP’s question; she was seeking a definition of the term “liberal” as it is usually used in these forae. Without showing what “liberalism” is as defined in the mid 1860’s, and how that definition may or may not have anything to do with the OP’s question, we are left with an implication that anyone defined as a “liberal” is a heretic. That is more than a bit of a stretch.

When an issue such as lies behind the topic of the definition of “Liberalism” comes up, we are looking at a topic that could easily take several days worth of lecture in a college or post-college class, and include several hundred pages of reading behind it. Without a grasp of that level of material, it is questionable what worth there is in a conversation such as this with such a quote. Neither the word “liberal” as currently used (there have been several definitions, including at least one that implies a liberal is one who follows currently accepted Church practices) nor the term “liberalism” as used in the comment from the 1800s are defined in a way that the two can be compared; and then there is the use of the word by Benedict 16 in a very positive fashion in reference to the Church.

Note: I am not suggesting there is no value in looking into the topic; but material that could require several lecture classes and some serious reading deserves something better than a simple quote. Given the quote and the second quote, from Benedict 16, there is obviously a whole lot of ground between the two and the quote from the 1800’s loses value as indicating much of anything without adequate definition. Something was condemned; but we are left not knowing what or why. And the second quote obviously indicates that one cannot simply use a broad brush of condemnation and walk away; whatever “liberalism” is, and whether the original quote and the second are discussing the same subject is not clear at all; if they are, then the original quote carries far less weight than would appear on the surface.

The issue could obviously make for an interesting discussion, reaching far deeper than simply quoting a sentence or two.

 

[otjm]

Aren’t we really talking about “modern” or “progressive” versus “traditional”. You can’t be a Catholic and support abortion - they are mutally exclusive. In matters of doctrine or dogma, if the Pope is speaks infallibly then to disagree puts you outside the Church no matter what your baptismal certificate may say.

When I first responded to you, I stopped at this point; while I may agree with you that we may be talking about “modern” or “progressive” versus “traditional”, it is not necessarily so. My prior post, to which you responded, was simply meant to say that while that may be true - or may not - what we need are definitions. I did not proceed to the rest of the post.

A modern or progessive Catholic is, in my humble opinion, someone who uses the documents of the Second Vatican Council to justify changes in the liturgy and traditional devotions.

This is not an entirely clear definition. Do you mean, one who follows the documents (using documents generally means that one is following them) or do you mean those who “use” the documents as a jumping off point to reinvent the Church in their own image and likeness (what is usually referred to as the “spirit” of Vatican 2, and is a misuse of the term “use” - better "abuse’)?

Since the documents themselves called for changes in the Liturgy, I would agree that this is “progressive” or “modern”; it also happens to be within the authority of the Church to do so (and that is not to say that what was done was well done - I agree with Benedict 16 on the matter).

Therefore, “progressive” or “modern” could obviously be interpreted to mean that one follows the Church.

On the other hand, if by your definition, the term “use” really means “abuse” and go where the bishops of the Church had no intention of going, then we are left with a very different definition of the term “liberal”.

Once you leave the flock it doesn’t matter how lost you are.

I agree whole heartedly, and it is very well stated.

So, rather than your comment about

Thanks for stopping by.

• what is the matter, didn’t you get your morning coffee?, I am suggesting that your definition is less than clear.

Note: I can accept either definition. Some people in using the term “liberal” are not necessarily referring to those we often call “cafeteria Catholics” - the ones who seem to think it perfectly acceptable, for example, to vote for a politician who votes to support abortion because he/she votes to give money to the poor. Rather, they are speaking of Catholics who follow the Magisterium, but prefer that the Church change some practices (such as CITH, altar girls, EMHC’s).

But from what you said, it is not clear which definition you are really making.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Again, whatever it takes to make you feel superior.

I was not trying to feel superior - I was trying to respond to your statement that I have not done any sort of homework, and am an ureliable commentator, by calling you for misquoting me, and to respond to your (now third) ad-hominem, but without ramping up the ad-hominems.

In the process of calling you for misquoting me, I happened to genuinely notice that many people I debate with these days seem to have not been taught the importance of quoting sources, and those with whom they disagree, accurately, which is more a reflection on modern education, than the individual. Which led me to happily remember getting those lessons in high school, from fine teachers, who I gave much too little respect to at the time, and in an education system which seems to have vanished (or gone missing for a while).

And, btw, if you look back through the thread you will see that I have carefully avoided saying that “liberalism was never condemned by name”, while asserting that liberalism is not condemned by name, now. I say that from 10 years of using www.vatican.va, and an even longer familiarity with debates of this sort (having personally taken both sides of the debate). I am not an authority on canon law, or philosophy, and don’t pretent to be, but I am able to say that some positions are not formally excommunicated - which is exactly where we started.

There is a difference between the amount of homework required to discuss something in scholarly way, and the amount of homework required to respond to a declaration " excommunicated".

 

[jmj603]

The issue could obviously make for an interesting discussion, reaching far deeper than simply quoting a sentence or two.

It could, but self-identified “liberal Catholics” are almost unanimously those who subscribe to some or all of the condemned propositions of Quanta Cura or Pascendi, and who are well described by Fr. Sarda’s book.

So I question why some would rather keep expanding the thread onto infinite penumbras of academic inquiry, when a simple answer suffices. Why so complicated?

 

[jmj603]

In the process of calling you for misquoting me, I happened to genuinely notice that many people I debate with these days seem to have not been taught the importance of quoting sources

Did you need that word there?

 

[Edmundus1581]

…

…
The OP asked what a “liberal” was.
…
…
The issue could obviously make for an interesting discussion, reaching far deeper than simply quoting a sentence or two.

Thankyou for this long, and insightful post. This has been a difficult, and sometimes heated, topic, but I feel that it started off well, with the OP’s well phrased question, and then the initial responses, and that all of us have contributed to an increased understanding of the subject, as summarised by you here.

I think that anyone who has been an adult in the church for more than a few years would have foreseen some “heat” as soon as they saw the topic , and probably had reservations about joining in. It has actually turned out less acrimonious, and more constructive, than I expected.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Did you need that word there?

?

Answer: “no”. But is yours a light remark, or serious ad-hominem number four?

 

[otjm]

It could, but self-identified “liberal Catholics” are almost unanimously those who subscribe to some or all of the condemned propositions of Quanta Cura or Pascendi, and who are well described by Fr. Sarda’s book.

Which gets us back to the original question: how do you define the term “liberal”. Not all agree with the definition, and I don’t know of any surveys (meaning, one that would start with a clear definition of the term) which say that “liberal Catholics” subscribe to some or all of the condemned propositions.

I guess we could simply define “liberal Catholic” as one who subscribes to some or all of the propositions, and I would have no problem with that.

So I question why some would rather keep expanding the thread onto infinite penumbras of academic inquiry, when a simple answer suffices. Why so complicated?

Well, let me give you an answer.

My last two years of high school were Jesuit based, and a constant challenge to students was “define your terms!”. I was in school there before the end of Vatican 2, at a time where the Jesuits were the most rigorous of high school teachers.

I then received a B.A. in Philosophy, and subsequently a J.D. from law school.

I find it frustrating to no end the amount of sloppy thinking that I come across. I am not suggesting that everyone needs to be a scholar. However, people use terms somewhere between loosely and haphazardly, arguing points they clearly do not understand as well as they propose. Too many want simple answers to complex questions. Simple answers take the work out of critical thinking, give great comfort to the opinionated, and don’t serve well in any attempt to really get at truth.

Your definition is fine, and I have no bone to pick with it; someone can look up the references you give, and all be on the same page in the discussion. Whether or not I agree with Father Sarda, if we are going to discuss his propositions, at least we are operating from the same page.

However, quick quotes, or even quicker references to a quote or a synopsis of what someone else thought he said, tend to muddy things a bit. And the short of that is a simple quote does not necessarily suffice.

 

[Layman]

I suppose a simple definition of a liberal Catholic is someone who wants Catholicism on their terms. Freedom of religion on at least one item of faith which contradicts what the Church teaches.

 

[otjm]

Thankyou for this long, and insightful post. This has been a difficult, and sometimes heated, topic, but I feel that it started off well, with the OP’s well phrased question, and then the initial responses, and that all of us have contributed to an increased understanding of the subject, as summarised by you here.

I think that anyone who has been an adult in the church for more than a few years would have foreseen some “heat” as soon as they saw the topic , and probably had reservations about joining in. It has actually turned out less acrimonious, and more constructive, than I expected.

Well, it is an interesting topic, because there is not one clear definition of the term “liberal” (which is confirmed by simply reading the various posts).

The difficulty in any discussion is the lack of clear definition of terms. “Liberal” is one of those which gets bandied about with alacrity, often meaning “I don’t like what you like, and I consider myself conservative, therefore you are a liberal”.

In one sense the whole topic somewhat amuses me, because in my world of friends, I have some who think I am somewhat to the left of Trotsky, and others who consider me to the right of Attila the Hun and would not be slow to tell you so. Their definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” are measured by the distance and direction you have to their opinion on an issue. Thus, “liberal” and “conservative” are simply loosely defined terms, often meant as pejorative, and designed more to tell you where they stand than where you might be on a complete continuum.

 

[otjm]

I suppose a simple definition of a liberal Catholic is someone who wants Catholicism on their terms. Freedom of religion on at least one item of faith which contradicts what the Church teaches.

Well, just as a curiosity, would you consider sedevacantists to be liberal? I think I know what you are getting at, but I am not sure that your definition is not too simple. At least, I would not consider them liberal. More like ultra conservative.

 

[RobbyS]

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, said Newman, is the anti-dogmatic principle. Liberal Catholicism is therefore a movement with a latidudarian view of the Church, which says, well, I believe in the Real Presence but if the guy next too men does not, then that is simply the way HE conceives of God. The dogmas of the Church are simply dusty texts, the REAL work of the Church being the corporal acts of mercy etc.