Interestingly, there are undoubtedly a goodly number of Catholics who use ABC, who also think of themselves as anything but “liberal” Catholics.
The pope proposed a truly counter-cultural view.It was rejected by Catholics who were beguiled by the prophets of modernity, including Marx, Darwin and Freud.
No it doesn’t. Really, I challenge anyone to read what I wrote, to find the slightest opening to question “how do you define liberal”:
It doesn’t matter if you define liberal as someone who likes Swiss cheese, or someone who is really nice to his neighbor, or someone who wants to open a gulag for Ukrainians. How you define liberal has no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of that sentence.
Actually, they were beguiled by Hugh Heffner. Marx, Darwin and Freud did not have that much influence on the average person in the pew. The issue started in 1930, and was in full bloom in the Church about the time the Pill hit the pharmacies - in the early 1960’s.
It appears you did not read the next sentence. I was not addressing you directly. You have a definition; others have different ones. Try reading it again.
Given that I was not referring to that sentence, you have made my point. It is difficult at best to carry on a conversation with someone if you are not sure how they are defining their terms. And so it does matter how you define “liberal”. As I noted, I don’t have a problem with how you define it (you seem to have missed that point); but my comment has to do with the fact that within this thread, “liberal” has had several definitions, some of which are not simply complimentary, but rather very different.
Perhaps the same person who twisted your knickers in a knot? Do you think you are the only person in this thread, or that all conversations here have only to do with you? It is a thread, there are multiple individuals stating differing ideas. I have only commented on the need for process, and where there have been some issues that needed clarifying.
Again, nothing in my comment (which you quoted right next to yours) defined, or proposed to define, the term liberal.
Your expectations for this forum are fascinating. May I suggest finding another one?
Hmm. Perhaps I misconstrued your definition of a liberal. If I did, I am sorry. On further research, I found your definition:
Pardon me for missing your definition.
Why would I do that? Your responses provide fascination enough.
Someone who calls for female priests is objecting to the nature of the sacrament of orders, which was given to us by Christ. Someone who calls for married priests is only asking for a change in canon law. So I don’t think you can put both on the same level.
The title of the thread says “liberal Catholic”, not “liberal”.
Yes, the sash is in the mail. Pretend you see the sash, and obey.
npatrol:Marx, Darwin and Freud did have a huge effect on the social elites, and it is they who control the institutions that set moral standards. As for the public at large, they called the 1890s, the “gay nineties” for a reason. Of course, the word “gay” meant something closer to “libertine” or, more commonly, " uninhibited." Oscar Wilde was socially crucified on the charge of being homosexual. The flapper era was a resurgence but the Depression and the War dampered the fire, but the affluence of the '50s, did give rise to Hugh Heffner and his ilk.
Yeah, I know. I learned to read in the first grade. " See Spot! See spot run! Run, spot! Run!"
:bowdown2:Yes, the sash is in the mail. Pretend you see the sash, and obey.
Amen. You’ve got it. I would add those people who call themselves Catholic who invoke their own ideals, not Catholic, who go around acting as if their ideals are the norm and everyone else is daft and against the Church.
The Visible Church has, since the 2nd century, never had but one licit and valid expression, but always several.
You would have very few Catholics left if you were to excommunicate all these. So whoever’s left may very well all be universal.
