Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[GraceSofia]

. There are such laudably motivated people on CAF, who have shared their reading lists and private study results; they are to be commended for their initiative, but it is not the norm,

I would be interested in these lists. Could you please point me to some threads or posts, if it is not too time-consuming?

 

[sedonaman]

…However, the phenomenon of “making sure one’s steps do not get ahead [of the Church]” is not necessarily a mindset of rigidity as a motivator (although it can be); rather, rigidity is sometimes the fruit of some poorly catechized Catholics, who “wait” for contemporary clergy (or Rome) to speak before they either think or act. Both the guides and the guideposts have already been laid out for them; these are merely updated (applied) with contemporary pronouncements as modern issues arise. If you have the system of decision-making well integrated within your faith life, you are able to walk in union without having to walk in rhythmic lock-step.

Also (again because of poor catechesis), lots of modern Catholics do not understand which teachings are core & unchangeable, and which documents or oral statements are in fact guides, or in some cases even opinion or suggestion. And very often those Catholics have hidden political or emotional agendas, which they may not even be aware, or are not being honest with themselves about. for example, some view the moral teachings on Life issues (named above) as selectively applicable, depending on their peer group, but consider broad social policy statements (guides) as ‘absolute.’

I.m.o., the greatest crisis in the Church today is not clergy sexual abuse, not cafeteria Catholicism or dissent, not even large numbers of disaffected and nonpracticing Catholics. It is the residual bad catechesis which has existed for over 30 years and has not been sufficiently addressed, let alone reversed. People who are badly taught make bad decisions. The parallel of this is in the secular electorate; people who have not been taught to think critically, to discern fact from opinion (etc.), make shallow or emotional voting choices. That’s just across the board, universally.

I do not see this education crisis being redressed in the near future; that’s my greatest concern. Those of us with much better catechesis often benefitted from outstanding Catholic schools which, early on, provided a more thorough instruction in how to make decisions. I’m of the opinion that the framework is not well taught in token CCD classes, and certainly not in the 'rush" RCIA programs. A minimum of 2 years, preferably 4 cumulatively, from ages 14 to 21, in an intellectually sophisticated Catholic environment, is essential for most people unless one is exceptionally independent & motivated to learn these principles (and how to apply them) on one’s own. There are such laudably motivated people on CAF, who have shared their reading lists and private study results; they are to be commended for their initiative, but it is not the norm,

I would agree with this assessment.

 

[CathModerate]

Couldnt have stated it better. Reason and logic are excellant and how I feel.

 

[Marybeloved]

I have to ask: I’m considering converting to Catholicism. I happen to also be very liberal. What is it about Catholicism that would be a problem for me because of my liberalism?

I understand the abortion, birth control, and gay marriage issues. But, aside from these issues, what is it that makes being a liberal Catholic problematic?

The catholic faith is the teachings of the catholic church, plain and simple. It’s not based on private interpretation of the bible, even the bible itself, individual judgment on matters of morality, political or social ideology or any other authority. We believe Jesus, being God, gave his teaching authority to those whom he chose as shepherds of his followers and the Holy Spirit speaks in their voice. Therefore, an understanding of catholic faith that replaces the teaching authority with one’s own personal authority, opinions, political ideologies or any other “authority” is nothing but a denial of the catholic faith. So, with respect to those who say otherwise, there’s no such nonsense as being Catholic without reverting to the authority of the Church to teach (and be bound in conscience to those teachings) in matters of faith and morals.

You can be as “liberal” as you want and be authentically catholic as long as you understand that when it comes to faith and morals, there’s no freedom to contradict the church without incurring mortal sin (that’s what binding in conscience means).

But when people speak of liberal Catholics they’re usually referring to Catholics in rebellion against the church in matters of faith and morals- A really curious position to take. If the Church has no such authority, why bother with anything catholic at all? Besides, how can you trust anything that comes from the church? Why trust the books that she wrote, collected, verified, transmitted as being what they claim? Why trust the mass, Eucharist, sacraments or any belief and practice of catholic faith at all? How do you even know that Jesus existed or anything about him as taught by the church is true? The church that tells us, in her tradition and books, afterall, has not the authority she claims. If I were truly convinced that the catholic church has not the authority that she claims for herself, I would leave the church immediately- There would be no basis for staying at all. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

I think liberal “Catholicism” stems from a) a lack of understanding of the catholic faith (poor or zero catecheses) for many of the lay liberal catholics who have little to no real information on the church’s teaching or b) radical pride and self deception on the part of those who know the truth or can access it but just won’t be accountable to a higher authority (Adam’s sin). Our whole faith begins with a recognition of this pride as being the beginning of evil- Satan was a beautiful seraph who chose to be separate from God (hell) because he wanted to be his own God, and when he fell, tempted Adam to similarly rebel against God (wanting to know/basically chose good and evil for himself rather than depend on God’s leadership) It’s the whole point of catholic asceticism and mysticism, as exemplified in our saints, the destruct of this tendency to self, this “self-will” and be gradually (eventually wholly) transformed to christ’s image, perfectly conformed to God’s will. Obedience (read: humility, submission to superiors, mortifying one’s own will) is therefore a biggie in the catholic faith.

Hope this helps

 

[sedonaman]

…I think liberal “Catholicism” stems from a) a lack of understanding of the catholic faith (poor or zero catecheses) for many of the lay liberal catholics who have little to no real information on the church’s teaching or b) radical pride and self deception on the part of those who know the truth or can access it but just won’t be accountable to a higher authority (Adam’s sin)…

or c) want their personal error validated.

 

[AJC]

To annoy me and probably to prove that Catholics have no problems voting for pro-abortion politicians.

 

[cmhmd]

But when people speak of liberal Catholics they’re usually referring to Catholics in rebellion against the church in matters of faith and morals- A really curious position to take.

There are basically two areas of Catholic faith and teaching that impact upon our public life: Sexual matters (abortion, homosexuality, divorce ) and social justice matters(pro-union, universal health care, living wages, the evils of excess wealth, political oppression, disenfranchisement, etc.).

The Catholic Church is unwaveringly conservative in matters sexual and unwaveringly liberal-progressive in social justice matters.

I am liberal in both, and would like the church to come around to my side, conservatives simply ignore the other side - aided and abetted by the clergy in most places! (When was the last time you heard a social justice sermon in Church or heard the song “Whatsoever you do to the Least of My Brothers?”)

As a final note, we used to be very progressive on end of life issues as well, but the conservatives in the Church have messed that up, too. (Though John Paul refused life sustaining treatment for himself in the end.)

 

[Marybeloved]

There are basically two areas of Catholic faith and teaching that impact upon our public life: Sexual matters (abortion, homosexuality, divorce ) and social justice matters(pro-union, universal health care, living wages, the evils of excess wealth, political oppression, disenfranchisement, etc.).

The Catholic Church is unwaveringly conservative in matters sexual and unwaveringly liberal-progressive in social justice matters.

I am liberal in both, and would like the church to come around to my side, conservatives simply ignore the other side - aided and abetted by the clergy in most places! (When was the last time you heard a social justice sermon in Church or heard the song “Whatsoever you do to the Least of My Brothers?”)

As a final note, we used to be very progressive on end of life issues as well, but the conservatives in the Church have messed that up, too. (Though John Paul refused life sustaining treatment for himself in the end.)

If you’re liberal in both- meaning you oppose the Church’s teachings on morality, then you’re in rebellion against your own faith- You’ve forgotten the whole point of our faith. Social justice is absolutely crucial, our lord taught it to us, we are full citizens of this world after all. He also taught us about a different kind of justice that does affect this world but whose consequences span to another realm beyond this world, a world in which we are also citizens. The consequences there of “moral injustice” here are far worse than the consequences of social injustice in this world- And I do know what social injustice is. I live in a poor African nation with a thousand problems and part of my job involves working with refugees pouring in from warring neighbors.

You want the Church to forget about her mission to the whole human person. You want her to pretend that the other world doesn’t exist, that immorality does not have grave consequences for the soul and indeed the entire human person. You want her to focus solely on this world at the expense of the other eternal one and to teach her children to engage in this same spiritual suicide?

I’d advise you to truly, truly look at what the Catholic Church is- What she teaches, from her perspective, not what your liberal mentors represent to you. Look at her own understanding, ask yourself what it really means to be Catholic. Our faith means denying ourselves in order to follow Christ. Not to come to him with conditions about what we want and what we think he (and by extension, his church) should conform to our expectations. Expectations that have been formed by the world- That entity that our faith calls the enemy of the church, together with the devil and the flesh. We come because we believe she has the truth in the first place. I pray so much for you from the depths of my soul, that you would discover the beauty, the splendor, the hope that is the Catholic faith. Sure you’d be bruised in the process (afterall going against the world is the cross that comes with following Christ), but this is modern day martyrdom, but what you gain would gain in return!. You have such a glorious treasure within your grasp. Please don’t allow human pride, selfishness and the world to deprive you of it.

JP II did what most saints have done down the centuries- It’s called mortification.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Sometimes, unfortunately, seed falls upon rocky ground … and it withers.

Or in the sticker bushes … and it gets choked out.

Maybe someone can find the parable of the sower.

 

[joshrp]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice.

But my question is, what about the average layman? The man or woman who attends Mass weekly, yet his opinion on many things is not in accord with the Church. Why do these folks remain in the Church? You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

They just want God, but they don’t understand that they have to accept the Church’s teachings to actually know Him.

 

[PRmerger]

You want the Church to forget about her mission to the whole human person. You want her to pretend that the other world doesn’t exist, that immorality does not have grave consequences for the soul and indeed the entire human person. You want her to focus solely on this world at the expense of the other eternal one and to teach her children to engage in this same spiritual suicide?

Indeed. And I propose that if someone is advocating that the Church change to conform to your views, rather than you changing your views to conform to the Church, then you are creating a god in your own image.

In fact, if there is not a single thing that “your” Church teaches that you have a problem with, but still obey, then you are creating a god in your own image.

For does it not make sense that God would call us to **change our views? Is there nothing that liberals (or conservatives for that matter) have obeyed because God declared it to be so?

 

[sedonaman]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice. …

Perhaps they are fantasists:

The Nature Of Fantasy Ideology

It is a common human weakness to wish to make more of our contribution to the world than the world is prepared to acknowledge, and it is our fantasy world that allows us to fill this gap. But normally, for most of us at least, this fantasy world stays relatively hidden. Indeed, a common criterion of our mental health is the extent to which we are able to keep our fantasies firmly under our watchful control.

Yet clearly there are individuals for whom this control is, at best, intermittent, resulting in behavior that ranges from the merely obnoxious to the clinically psychotic. The man who insists on being taken more seriously than his advantages warrant falls into the former category; the maniac who murders an utter stranger because God – or his neighbor’s dog – commanded him to do so belongs to the latter.

What is common in such interactions is that the fantasist inevitably treats other people merely as props – there is no interest in, or even awareness of, others as having wills or minds of their own. The man who bores us with stories designed to impress us with his importance, or his intellect, or his bank account, cares nothing for us as individuals – for he has already cast us in the role that he wishes us to play: We are there to be impressed by him. Indeed, it is an error even to suggest that he is trying to impress us, for this would assume that he is willing to learn enough about us to discover how best we might be impressed. But nothing of the kind occurs. And why should it? After all, the fantasist has already projected onto us the role that we are to play in his fantasy; no matter what we may be thinking of his recital, it never crosses his mind that we may be utterly failing to play the part expected of us – indeed, it is sometimes astonishing to see how much exertion is required of us in order to bring our profound lack of interest to the fantasist’s attention.

To an outside observer, the fantasist is clearly attempting to compensate by means of his fantasy for the shortcomings of his own present reality – and thus it is tempting to think of the fantasist as a kind of Don Quixote impotently tilting at windmills. But this is an illusion. Make no mistake about it: The fantasist often exercises great and terrible power precisely by virtue of his fantasy. The father who demands his son grow up and become a professional football player will clearly exercise much more control over his son’s life than a father who is content to permit his child to pursue his own goals in life.

This power of the fantasist is entirely traceable to the fact that, for him, the other is always an object and never a subject. A subject, after all, has a will of his own, his own desires and his own agenda; he might rather play the flute instead of football. And anyone who is aware of this fact is automatically put at a disadvantage in comparison with the fantasist – the disadvantage of knowing that other people have minds of their own and are not merely props to be pushed around.

“Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology”
By Lee Harris
policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html
or
hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3459646.html

 

[Roy5]

From my conversations with liberal Catholics, here are five of the reasons they remain in the Church:

 1. **Family.** Their family circle has a long-time connection with the Church and they hesitate to risk alienating loved ones who remain committed.

 2. **Tradition**. They are accustomed to the Church, and while they want changes they are more comfortable staying within the church than leaving it.

 3. **Hope for change**. They hold on to the idea that sooner or later certain reforms (marriage of priests, women priests, etc.) will be made.They know that if liberals leave the Church the chances of such changes are diminished.

 4. **Picking and choosing**. They simply pick what they believe and discard the rest. For example, they may reject transubstantiation, so they interpret communion in their own way - usually as a symbol of Christ's sacrifice or perhaps as a symbol of human suffering generally. They see Vatican II as permitting more freedom of thought within the Catholic Church.

 5. **They love the Church** - her beauty, certain contempory priests and historic figures (Mother Theresa, Fr. Damien), and many of her traditions. So, they remain in it even though they question and/or reject many of the basic doctrines and/or practices, They have a keen appreciation for the good work the Church does in medical care, education, aid to the needy and in other fields,

 

[Rock_Happy]

Of course, Jesus would not have been welcome in the Republican party, and would have been considered very liberal in his social views.

I think the more legitimate question is, why do conservatives think they are no a higher moral ground than liberals who in my opinion are more in line with early Christian principles.

The wording of the question posed by the OP is condescending.

 

[sedonaman]

Of course, Jesus would not have been welcome in the Republican party, and would have been considered very liberal in his social views.

I think the more legitimate question is, why do conservatives think they are no a higher moral ground than liberals who in my opinion are more in line with early Christian principles.

The wording of the question posed by the OP is condescending.

Jesus did not support the things one has to in order to be a Democrat. We have had this debate before, so let me re-post:
Things You Have to Support to Be a Democrat Today
(In alphabetical order)

Abortion
Abolition of private property
Abolition of tradition
Adultery
Affirmative Action
Aid and comfort for America’s enemies
“Alternative lifestyles”
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti conservative speech
Anti school-choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Appeasement of America’s enemies
Assisted suicide
Bondage and sado-masochism workshops in universities
Citizenship for known terrorists
Coddling of Criminals
Death taxes
Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)
Defiance of legitimate authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
Gun Control
“Hate” crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Individual human will (will to power) being the ultimate good
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Multi-culturalism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pornography
Pornography in public schools
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Revisionism
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex “marriage”
Sodomy (again, except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Speech codes
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
“Victimless” crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons

“It is the Democrats’ obsession with death and communism that is the prime mover of such dementia.” It cannot be said any better.

 

[Contarini]

I would agree that it is desperately difficult to rationalize a vote for an abortionist candidate when your church has reasonably explained why you shouldn’t.

Actually no–the most authoritative Catholic statements I’ve seen say that Catholics should only vote for “pro-choice” candidates if there are “proportional” reasons. At least one American archbishop (+Myers of Newark) has made the case that it’s hard to see how there could be such reasons. But as far as I can tell, the possibility remains open and the judgment is up to individual Catholics.

If you have evidence to refute this understanding, please share it.

Now you are caricaturing. It might not be Catholic in origin, but consider

I’m not caricaturing–you are. In fact neither Obama nor any other major American politician wants to do away with private property altogether. It’s a red herring. What the “left” (really not much of a left by global standards, but it passes for one here) in America wants to do is use taxation and government aid programs to “share” the wealth. I cannot see where this is condemned by any official Catholic teaching–in fact, as a number of American Catholics such as George Weigel have noted with dismay, Pope Benedict’s Deus Caritas Est seems to endorse such an approach.

I agree that a genuinely collectivist political position, in which private property is simply abolished, is contrary to Catholic social teaching. But this is not a live issue in America–right-wing propaganda notwithstanding. Even in “socialist” Western Europe, private property has not been abolished.

And I don’t think it has been reversed.

Weigel worries that Pope Benedict is backing away from it.

I agree with this statement, but it hardly characterizes the dissident groups I listed.

It’s hard to argue any point about “liberal” Catholics, because it can mean a lot of things.

Since I’m a “liberal” by the standards of many folks on this forum, I tend to argue the point based on my own beliefs, which are practically fundamentalist by the standards of some liberal Catholics!

You are asking me to judge yesterday by today’s standards, and I can’t do that.

No, I’m not.

But it sounds like you are saying we must extrapolate from condemning heretic burning of 1520 to going along with what these dissidents want today on the outside chance that the Church will approve of their heresies 491 years from now. A tad bit of a stretch.

Of course–it would be absurd, which is why I am not saying any such thing. Nor can I see why it “sounds like” I am saying any such thing.

I am responding to your claim that liberal Catholics are somehow dishonest in staying in the Church. I’m not saying that you should go along with them–I’m saying that they are quite right to stay in the Church. If their “liberal” beliefs are for them a matter of conscience, then they are right to hold to those beliefs while being open to continued formation of conscience in light of the Tradition. If those beliefs are not a matter of conscience, and if they indeed contradict the apparent teaching of the Church, then I would hope (and I recognize that this doesn’t match the attitudes of many liberal Catholics) that they would recognize the high likelihood that they will turn out to be wrong.

You are mistaking my argument altogether.

In simple terms, if the Church is selling Chevvies and I want a Ford, I either buy a Chevvie or go down the street to the Ford dealer if owning a Ford is that important to me. If the church changes to selling Fords because of my agitation, there would be no choice, and the folks who want Chevvies are out of luck because of my selfishness. Capisce?

I get that you are applying a consumerist model to the Church. It seems to me that liberal Catholics are far more pious in their recognition that the Church is more than a supplier of objects for consumption–it is a holy community to which one remains faithful even if one dislikes the present policies of its leadership.

Edwin

 

[sedonaman]

… But as far as I can tell, the possibility remains open and the judgment is up to individual Catholics.

If you have evidence to refute this understanding, please share it.

Human Life
64. Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others” … Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong. – Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States.

As far as “proportional” reasons go, it’s kinda hard to find the gray areas of “never” and “always”, much less drive a Mack Truck through them. My understanding is this comes into play when one candidate is pro-abortion on demand and his opponent is for limited abortion. In that case a Catholic would be obligated to oppose the former, even though he would not be supporting the total abolition of it. If both are equally pro-abortion, then he would be free to consider other lesser issue positions of the candidates.

As a side note, it’s amazing to me that liberal Catholics will jump on the prohibition of torture and some of these others but rationalize when it comes to abortion.

I’m not caricaturing–you are. In fact neither Obama nor any other major American politician wants to do away with private property altogether. It’s a red herring.

Well, I have to admit you got me here. He wants my property to buy votes, but wants to keep his own.

What the “left” (really not much of a left by global standards, but it passes for one here) in America wants to do is use taxation and government aid programs to “share” the wealth. I cannot see where this is condemned by any official Catholic teaching–in fact, as a number of American Catholics such as George Weigel have noted with dismay, Pope Benedict’s Deus Caritas Est seems to endorse such an approach.

Like we aren’t doing this already? I would wager that the War on Poverty has spent enough to transform all the poor into rich in this country if divided among them. There comes a point of diminishing returns in any human endeavor, and I think we past it long ago. The fact remains, when incomes are equalized, they will be equalized at a low level.

I agree that a genuinely collectivist political position, in which private property is simply abolished, is contrary to Catholic social teaching. But this is not a live issue in America–right-wing propaganda notwithstanding. …

It certainly is. When does a pile of sand become a pile? If I place a grain of sand on the floor, we can agree that it is not a pile. Two won’t be either. But I keep adding and adding until there is a pile. So when does taxation become confiscation? When the average worker pays over 10%? 40%? 80%? Give me a number. Plus, I don’t think the Church had in mind taxation for the sake of taxation when it came up with its positions. The death tax is really a claim that all wealth ultimately belongs to the state, and it lets you keep some of it.

Bearing in mind that it is a “universal” church, it must address the world which does have societies that do not help the poor. Does that mean when it criticizes those societies that the more wealthy nations must give everything away?
…

It’s hard to argue any point about “liberal” Catholics, because it can mean a lot of things.

Since I’m a “liberal” by the standards of many folks on this forum, I tend to argue the point based on my own beliefs, which are practically fundamentalist by the standards of some liberal Catholics!

Probably true.
…

… I am responding to your claim that liberal Catholics are somehow dishonest in staying in the Church. I’m not saying that you should go along with them–I’m saying that they are quite right to stay in the Church. If their “liberal” beliefs are for them a matter of conscience, then they are right to hold to those beliefs while being open to continued formation of conscience in light of the Tradition. …
You are mistaking my argument altogether.

And you are mistaking my argument altogether. Look. The guy next to me in the pew can practice whatever he thinks Catholicism is; but when he wants to change the Church into his image and force me to accept what he thinks is right and good is where I draw the line. And that’s what the dissident groups are trying to do. They don’t get together just for fun.

I get that you are applying a consumerist model to the Church. It seems to me that liberal Catholics are far more pious in their recognition that the Church is more than a supplier of objects for consumption–it is a holy community to which one remains faithful even if one dislikes the present policies of its leadership.
Edwin

Well, it’s the best analogy I can come up with, and I stick with it. And if “it is a holy community to which one remains faithful even if one dislikes the present policies of its leadership” then why don’t liberal Catholics just accept the Church as is?

 

[Rock_Happy]

You guys can argue on and on about which political party is the PARTY OF GOD. I say, none of them.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Jesus did not support the things one has to in order to be a Democrat. We have had this debate before, so let me re-post:
Things You Have to Support to Be a Democrat Today
(In alphabetical order)

Abortion
Abolition of private property
Abolition of tradition
Adultery
Affirmative Action
Aid and comfort for America’s enemies
“Alternative lifestyles”
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti conservative speech
Anti school-choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Appeasement of America’s enemies
Assisted suicide
Bondage and sado-masochism workshops in universities
Citizenship for known terrorists
Coddling of Criminals
Death taxes
Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)
Defiance of legitimate authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
Gun Control
“Hate” crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Individual human will (will to power) being the ultimate good
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Multi-culturalism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pornography
Pornography in public schools
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Revisionism
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex “marriage”
Sodomy (again, except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Speech codes
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
“Victimless” crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons

“It is the Democrats’ obsession with death and communism that is the prime mover of such dementia.” It cannot be said any better.

OK… God is a Republican just like Sarah Palin. I give. You are right.

 

[razredge]

What constitutes a liberal Catholic?
Is it just rejection of the Church’s teaching on moral matters?