Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Cojuanco]

OP: Depends on what you take “liberal” to mean. Theologically? Politically, and if so, in what ways? Politically, of course, there have been those who could be considered politically liberal - yet they were pro-life and pro-traditional marriage to their deathbeds, and were in complete assent to Catholic teachings. Theological liberals, though, well, the tares, the wheat, you’ve heard the parallel before.

And Julianne, social justice is not Communism, though they use the words we do as fancy window dressing. And Communism is social justice in the same way as homosexual unions are marriages - not at all, really.

 

[sedonaman]

…And Julianne, social justice is not Communism, though they use the words we do as fancy window dressing. And Communism is social justice in the same way as homosexual unions are marriages - not at all, really.

Did the Bolsheviks revolt just so they could establish gulags? Of course not; they did it for social justice. If it’s not communism as you say it is not, then define social justice.

 

[Cojuanco]

Did the Bolsheviks revolt just so they could establish gulags? Of course not; they did it for social justice. If it’s not communism as you say it is not, then define social justice.

The Bolsheviks revolted to establish a state ruled by only the workers (in theory, anyway), which is not social justice, as it refuses to acknowledge the rights of those who own property and their dignity. Hence the problem with Marxism. Sure, they can say that they’re for social justice, in the same way Hitler could say he was for freedom - does that mean Nazism is freedom?

Social justice is the creation of a society that is based on the principles of social equality, the brotherhood of man, human rights and dignity. This, in my own humble opinion, is best realized in a mixed economy within a democratic framework, as in the United States.

 

[LHM]

OP: Depends on what you take “liberal” to mean. Theologically? Politically, and if so, in what ways? Politically, of course, there have been those who could be considered politically liberal - yet they were pro-life and pro-traditional marriage to their deathbeds, and were in complete assent to Catholic teachings. Theological liberals, though, well, the tares, the wheat, you’ve heard the parallel before.

And Julianne, social justice is not Communism, though they use the words we do as fancy window dressing. And Communism is social justice in the same way as homosexual unions are marriages - not at all, really.

---

I was wondering if anyone had any examples of someone who was politically liberal and
in complete assent to Catholic teachings.

 

[themeginthemoon]

:nope: These are DEMOCRAT PARTY issues, not Catholic issues. Social Justice is COMMUNISM. You are confused.

Social Justice is not Communism. When we speak of social justice, we refer to issues such as racism, generational poverty, people being discriminated against by government institutions. I speak from experience, as I work for a non profit that helps minority farmers who were blatantly discriminated against by the USDA. I also help out, in my personal time, my family Tribe. My many greats grandfather founded the tribe, and they are suffering due to long held issues of discrimination. I hunt for grants and foundations that can help them out, since most American Indians around here are interested in farming and agriculture, yet are not given federal tribal status because they don’t yet own any land (they are too poor to buy land at the moment).

Point in case - the way you have perceived social justice seems to be relative to communism, but you insult many for no good reason when you state social justice is the same as communism. Don’t demean those of us who are fighting the good fight, and volunteer our time and resources to help those in need in the name of social justice.

I don’t know if I am conservative or liberal, I just believe what I believe and I do give ultimate Authority to the Church and the Pope. My ideas are merely considered ‘liberal’ by crazy, far right people. I am all about social justice, better health care, equal access to resources, educating youth about why abortion is wrong, and environmental conservation. These things apparently make me ‘liberal’. I have a giant, bleeding heart, which apparently also makes me a liberal. I, however, think that my passion for humanitarian issues is a motivating factor in all of my personal efforts.

Just my 2 cents, no offense Julianne, I just had to disagree with your statement in a really big way. I mean this all with the ultimate kindness and charity.

 

[sedonaman]

Social Justice is not Communism. … My many greats grandfather founded the tribe, and they are suffering due to long held issues of discrimination. I hunt for grants and foundations that can help them out, since most American Indians around here are interested in farming and agriculture, yet are not given federal tribal status because they don’t yet own any land (they are too poor to buy land at the moment).

It’s interesting that you use the subsidizing of American Indians as an example of social justice not being communism when the management of reservations is communistic, i.e., the land is owned by the tribe, not individual members.

There was a program on recently that illustrated this exact case by showing satellite images of two tribal lands, one in which the land was owned by the tribe, and the other owned privately by individual members. Guess which one was slum and which one was successful farm land. If you look at poor nations around the world, they all have one thing in common: individuals are not able to own property unless they are connected politically.

The program went on to state that Indians have been “helped” by the government more than any other group in America, i.e., the per capita subsidies are greater.

 

[Observer3]

There’s no reason to throw away the whole thing just because one disagrees with some rules invented by men. One can follow Jesus and discard the extra stuff the church adds. Plus, you really should visit the churches in diverse cities, such as Los Angeles and New York before you make a claim that all Catholic churches are conservative.

 

[themeginthemoon]

It’s interesting that you use the subsidizing of American Indians as an example of social justice not being communism when the management of reservations is communistic, i.e., the land is owned by the tribe, not individual members.

There was a program on recently that illustrated this exact case by showing satellite images of two tribal lands, one in which the land was owned by the tribe, and the other owned privately by individual members. Guess which one was slum and which one was successful farm land. If you look at poor nations around the world, they all have one thing in common: individuals are not able to own property unless they are connected politically.

The program went on to state that Indians have been “helped” by the government more than any other group in America, i.e., the per capita subsidies are greater.

The thing you discuss, is a nightmare and a glaring example of social injustice. There are cultural influences that go very deep, and are very complex. Reservations are slummy, not because of an inherent issue with Native Americans, but issues with the way they are treated off the reservation, and the way the subsidizing has happened historically.

People use examples like yours to claim that an ethnic group of people are inherently lazy or bad. It is not the case, there are many sociocultural factors involved.

Yes, money has been thrown at problems; money is not the answer, education and responsible use of funds are the answer. People have abused federal monies, siphoned them off for personal use, and or just given money out like candy. You have to teach people how to properly use the money they are given. I am a bigger fan of in kind donation systems than just giving money for this reason. Why do you think federal grants are so difficult to receive and maintain? The reporting systems for the funds are insane, because they are trying to stop the cycle of federal funds being flushed down the tubes.

You example doesn’t really make any sort of point, and I believe my fellow members would take issue with your statements. They have not been given anything, South Carolina doesn’t treat its Native People very well at all. This is not the midwest, it is the deep South.

 

[themeginthemoon]

It’s interesting that you use the subsidizing of American Indians as an example of social justice not being communism when the management of reservations is communistic, i.e., the land is owned by the tribe, not individual members.
.

You don’t understand the ethos or beliefs of Native Americans… individual members do not care to ‘own’ sums of land, and most Native Americans that I know do not believe in individual ownership of land, which is viewed as a gift, not a commodity to be traded. That is why the land is owned by the ‘tribe’. Another example of how American Government and Native belief systems will never be able to coexist in an efficient manner, the American way is largely “MINE MINE MINE” versus “OURS”

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no reason to throw away the whole thing just because one disagrees with some rules invented by men. One can follow Jesus and discard the extra stuff the church adds.

How does one differentiate between what Jesus said and what the Church “adds”, for wasn’t it the Church that told you what Jesus said? You would not know that Jesus said to “love your enemies” if the Catholic Church had not proclaimed it through keeping it in the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

---

I was wondering if anyone had any examples of someone who was politically liberal and
in complete assent to Catholic teachings.

I think 2 examples would be Pope JPII and Pope Benedict.

They are both socially liberal and completely orthodox in their promulgation of Catholic teaching.

 

[sedonaman]

The thing you discuss, is a nightmare and a glaring example of social injustice. There are cultural influences that go very deep, and are very complex. Reservations are slummy, not because of an inherent issue with Native Americans, but issues with the way they are treated off the reservation, and the way the subsidizing has happened historically.

People use examples like yours to claim that an ethnic group of people are inherently lazy or bad. It is not the case, there are many sociocultural factors involved.

Yes, money has been thrown at problems; money is not the answer, education and responsible use of funds are the answer. People have abused federal monies, siphoned them off for personal use, and or just given money out like candy. You have to teach people how to properly use the money they are given. I am a bigger fan of in kind donation systems than just giving money for this reason. Why do you think federal grants are so difficult to receive and maintain? The reporting systems for the funds are insane, because they are trying to stop the cycle of federal funds being flushed down the tubes.

You example doesn’t really make any sort of point, and I believe my fellow members would take issue with your statements. They have not been given anything, South Carolina doesn’t treat its Native People very well at all. This is not the midwest, it is the deep South.

Nothing in this reply explains why two tribes with adjacent lands have vastly different success stories.

 

[sedonaman]

You don’t understand the ethos or beliefs of Native Americans… individual members do not care to ‘own’ sums of land, and most Native Americans that I know do not believe in individual ownership of land, which is viewed as a gift, not a commodity to be traded. That is why the land is owned by the ‘tribe’.

Then they are condemned to a poor existence.

Another example of how American Government and Native belief systems will never be able to coexist in an efficient manner, the American way is largely “MINE MINE MINE” versus “OURS”

From RERUM NOVARUM
On Capital and Labor
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII MAY 15, 1891 :

1. To remedy these wrongs [property concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few], the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
2. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

It is also undeniable that anything held by private hands is cared for and maintained far better than that held by the community.

 

[Observer3]

How does one differentiate between what Jesus said and what the Church “adds”, for wasn’t it the Church that told you what Jesus said? You would not know that Jesus said to “love your enemies” if the Catholic Church had not proclaimed it through keeping it in the Scriptures.

That my friend, is something you’ll have to figure out on your own, using the heart and mind God gave you. People have been asking this question for hundreds of years. Chances are, you’ll conclude that many of these experts, aren’t any more qualified than your own mind and feelings on things.

The older one gets, usually one becomes more compassionate and bases their life in love rather than fear. Cold rules that claim to answer everything for everyone don’t seem very loving and compassionate. But you must decide for yourself.

 

[LHM]

I think 2 examples would be Pope JPII and Pope Benedict.

They are both socially liberal and completely orthodox in their promulgation of Catholic teaching.

Thats an interesting point. I’m sure they would hold what would be considered politically liberal views on death penalty, illegal immigration, etc. I guess I was equating liberal = dissent in
“Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?”

 

[St_Francis]

:nope: These are DEMOCRAT PARTY issues, not Catholic issues. Social Justice is COMMUNISM. You are confused.

Social justice is a term invented by Father Luigi Taparelli, editor of the Civita Catolica in the mid-1800s. He used principles set out by St Thomas Aquinas to set out principles in reaction to the abuses of the Industrial Revolution. Pope Leo XIII used a lot of these ideas in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.

It is indeed unfortunate that the term has been taken over by those politically on the Far left, progressives and socialists and the like. But their idea of social justice does not line up with Catholic social justice, as, for example, when liberals promote “reproductive health”–handing out artificial birth control to all and abortion when that fails–as “social justice.”

I try to remember to differentiate between true, Catholic, social justice and the false assumption of social justice promoted by leftists.

You don’t understand the ethos or beliefs of Native Americans… individual members do not care to ‘own’ sums of land, and most Native Americans that I know do not believe in individual ownership of land, which is viewed as a gift, not a commodity to be traded. That is why the land is owned by the ‘tribe’. Another example of how American Government and Native belief systems will never be able to coexist in an efficient manner, the American way is largely “MINE MINE MINE” versus “OURS”

Could the tribe use some of the systems used by Catholics in the Middle Ages to set up a workable system?

 

[PRmerger]

That my friend, is something you’ll have to figure out on your own, using the heart and mind God gave you. People have been asking this question for hundreds of years. Chances are, you’ll conclude that many of these experts, aren’t any more qualified than your own mind and feelings on things.

The older one gets, usually one becomes more compassionate and bases their life in love rather than fear. Cold rules that claim to answer everything for everyone don’t seem very loving and compassionate. But you must decide for yourself.

This seems to be a euphemism for “creating a god in one’s own image” rather than conforming one’s beliefs to that which God has revealed.

You would not know that God is “loving and compassionate” and that we are called to same were it not for the Catholic Church discerning this truth and proclaiming it for 2000 years.

 

[Observer3]

This seems to be a euphemism for “creating a god in one’s own image” rather than conforming one’s beliefs to that which God has revealed.

You would not know that God is “loving and compassionate” and that we are called to same were it not for the Catholic Church discerning this truth and proclaiming it for 2000 years.

Nope. I got my compassionate and loving God from my own perspective on life.

Everyone has their perspective, even those priests who claim to know so much. It’s all perception.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. I got my compassionate and loving God from my own perspective on life.

Again, the demonstrates quite nicely the paradigm of creating a god in one’s own image, rather than conforming one’s belief to Truth.

It’s like the Emperor who had no clothes. ** He** believes that he looks fab-u-lous, so that’s all that matters. It’s all about* his* perspective, eh?

 

[St_Francis]

Nope. I got my compassionate and loving God from my own perspective on life.

Everyone has their perspective, even those priests who claim to know so much. It’s all perception.

I was baptized but not raised Catholic. So when I found that I really needed God in my life,'I became a generic Christian.

It did seem like a lot of different Protestant churches had different ideas about God. It was confusing. This is one of the many things I like about the Catholic Church–it teaches the truth. Rather than being based on the Bible, the Bible is based on the Church which compiled it and determined the canon, the Church which has had the same ideas for 2000 years about God and Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t have to make up my own version of God, like a girl with a crush on a boy she barely knows. I get to find out what God is truly like.

It’s not a question of perception for us, it is a situation of teaching truth as Christ commanded us to. Yes,'God is all-loving, but we err if we forget that He is all just as well. Like a teacher who wants all her students to get straight A’s but who sees that some make no effort and cut classes and so on, God sees that for some of us He is not very important.

You have made up a god. The True God is waiting for you to notice Him.