Why evolution doesnt matter.

[StAnastasia]

The whole point of Catholic liberalism is anti-religiosity, so no - not the same.

That’s quite false. The Catholic liberals I know and work with are deeply religious; if anything, more deeply so than Catholic conservatives who merely hanker for the old liturgical styles prior to Vatican II… But this is no doubt off topic, so better no discussed here.

 

[itinerant1]

Just a comment on liberalism and conservatism in religion:

Such originally political terms, when applied to religion, vary in import in regard to that aspect of religion in which they are being applied, or misapplied. When “conservative” and “liberal” are used in reference to non-dogmatic matters, such as is often the case when one prefers the traditional Mass over the Norvus Ordo, he may be referred to as conservative or ultra-conservative. The same labels can legitimately apply in regard to the advances in Biblical scholarship just as long as the exegetical methods are theological sound.

However, the real problem lies in the area of Catholic doctrine of faith and morals that is de fide. Catholic doctrine, de fide, is not conservative or liberal. It is just right belief or the truth. It admits of no liberal or conservative variation.

A theological liberalism generally refers to modernism or any such ideological position that rejects a few or all* de fide *teachings of the Church as either wrong or not certain. In this sense, i.e. theological liberalism is certainly heresy.

So, one must distinguish what level of religion they are applying the terms *liberal *and conservative. Is it to ceremonial practices, or some other external and changeable matter, or is it official teachings of the Church, or just what in particular? Making these matters clear at the outset avoids a lot of mis-communication and mis-understanding of what the other person is saying.

 

[StAnastasia]

A theological liberalism generally refers to modernism or any such ideological position that rejects a few or all* de fide *teachings of the Church as either wrong or not certain. In this sense, i.e. theological liberalism is certainly heresy.

“Modernism” as a smear is dead in the water. Most theologians with whom I teach and work would not fear modernism as an epithet. Indeed, most would regard themselves as postmodern.

 

[itinerant1]

“Modernism” as a smear is dead in the water. Most theologians with whom I teach and work would not fear modernism as an epithet. Indeed, most would regard themselves as postmodern.

Time to define terms. Postmodern in what sense? As in Jacques Derrida and deconstructionism? Bultmann’s exegetical methods? No he would not be postmodern. What are we talking about here?

There is, as it seems to me, something quite empty about considering oneself modern or postmodern. I’ll try to find a way to express it succinctly in my next post.

 

[itinerant1]

I found a couple of quotes that express certain of my valuations regarding modernism and postmodernism:

“To be merely modern is to condemn oneself to an absolute narrowness; just as to spend one’s last earthly money on the newest hat is to condemn oneself to the old-fashioned. The road of the ancient centuries is strewn with dead moderns.” --G.K. Chesterton

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. …To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them. --C.S. Lewis

 

[donsnow]

“Modernism” as a smear is dead in the water. Most theologians with whom I teach and work would not fear modernism as an epithet. Indeed, most would regard themselves as postmodern.

Hi, StAnastasia -

To my understanding, neither modernism nor postmodernism supports de fide doctrine.

Don

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi, StAnastasia - To my understanding, neither modernism nor postmodernism supports de fide doctrine. Don

How many postmoderns have you asked about this?

 

[itinerant1]

Hi, StAnastasia -

To my understanding, neither modernism nor postmodernism supports de fide doctrine.

Don

I would have to agree with you. I could not find any use of the terms “modernism” or “postmodernism” that would recommend itself to orthodox Roman Catholics.

Here is an excerpt from Pope Pius X on Modernism:

“The basis of theses new ideas…may be said to be this: in order that dissidents may be brought more readily to acknowledge Catholic truth the Church should show itself more sympathetic to the tolerant spirit of the present age, and, relaxing its former strictness, be more indulgent toward modern views and methods. Many think that this should be so not only with regard to disciplinary matters, but also with regard to doctrinal matters affecting the deposit of faith…

“Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for…their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion.” (Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis)

Regarding Postmodernism, we can say it is characterized by a relativism in which no belief system is held to be “objectively true.” Cardinal Ratzinger characterized postmodernism as the “dictatorship of relativism.” And Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II is an attack on postmodernism.

The radical deconstructionist movement (Jacques Derrida et al) is very close in nature to postmodernism. Peter Kreeft notes,

“And we have made the same turn in relation to truth. Postmodernism and deconstructionism are only the most extreme, last logical steps in the process. Nietzsche, the prophet of postmodernism, questioned the primal innocence that united all his predecessors, no matter how deeply they were divided from each other, when he asked what he called “the most dangerous question”: “Why truth? Why not rather untruth?” What Nietzsche questioned for the first time was what he called “the will to truth,” or what we might call the fundamental virtue of honesty, which had at least purportedly motivated all previous thinkers, no matter how deeply they disagreed about just what the truth was. When Jesus spoke of one “unforgivable sin,” it is likely that this is what He meant: deliberately refusing known truth, preferring darkness to light, unreality to reality, refusing the most fundamental virtue of all, honesty. For every other virtue presupposes this one. It is Heaven’s Lesson One; its absence is Hell’s Lesson One. The vice Christ denounced most vehemently was hypocrisy, which is dishonesty in its most harmful form.” (see Kreeft)

See also, Postmodernism: Catastrophe Or Opportunity — Or Both?

 

[edwest2]

That’s quite false. The Catholic liberals I know and work with are deeply religious; if anything, more deeply so than Catholic conservatives who merely hanker for the old liturgical styles prior to Vatican II… But this is no doubt off topic, so better no discussed here.

Here, what does ‘deeply religious’ mean? It does not appear possible to be anything other than Catholic. Engaging in dialogue is fine but we are all one body in Christ. Catholic conservatives are not any less Catholic. The ‘old liturgical styles’ are what I grew up with. No one became any more or less Catholic after Vatican II. I was there for the changeover.

A people that do not follow Church teaching or openly deny it, can go to Mass as often as they want or do whatever it takes to be called deeply religious. This does not make them better Catholics.

Peace,
Ed