Liberal Catholic Conspiracy Theory

[MC Just]

Liberals are blind.

[crusader1234]

you mean heterodox... didnt we agree to change that?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jul 6 2004, 11:25 PM']Question in regards to blessings...i was under the impression taht anyone could bless anyone.   If not thats fine i was just curious what the rubrics were for giving an individual a blessing.[/quote]
Clearly, you can bless yourself (by signing yourself with the cross), and parents can bless their children. Bestowing a blessing normally indicates some kind of authority over the person being blessed, by the one doing the blessing. Nevertheless, the lay faithful cannot impart a sacerdotal blessings, as canon law indicates:

[quote name='Code of Canon Law']Canon 1169 §1 Consecrations and dedications can be validly carried out by those who are invested with the episcopal character, and by priests who are permitted to do so by law or by legitimate grant.

§2 Any priest can impart blessings, except for those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or to Bishops.

§3 A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly permitted to him by law.[/quote]

Edited July 7, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Todd, just as a follow-up question: What of monks and other religious. I know that their position is significantly different in the Latin Rite than in the Eastern Rites (your bishops are only chosen from among the monks - who are not married - and not from the "parish" priests, who are permitted to marry, right?) Anyways, I was wondering if you knew whether or not monks and other religious in both lungs of the church, can give out blessings. Any thoughts?

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 7 2004, 07:03 AM'] Todd, just as a follow-up question: What of monks and other religious. I know that their position is significantly different in the Latin Rite than in the Eastern Rites (your bishops are only chosen from among the monks - who are not married - and not from the "parish" priests, who are permitted to marry, right?) Anyways, I was wondering if you knew whether or not monks and other religious in both lungs of the church, can give out blessings. Any thoughts?

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff [/quote]
A non-ordained religious, like a lay person, cannot impart a sacerdotal blessing. It is a custom of the Church that a non-ordained religious can bless another person, but this blessing must not be confused with a sacerdotal blessing, which can only be given by a man in Holy Orders.

As it concerns married clergy; in the Eastern Churches, since the Council of Trullo (AD 692), married men who have been ordained to the priesthood have been allowed to continue in their marriage, without taking a vow of perfect continence. But neither the Eastern Churches nor Western Church has ever permitted a man, once he has been ordained, to get married. In other words, both East and West require an unmarried man who receives sacred orders to be perpetually celibate from the moment of his ordination on.

Edited July 7, 2004 by Apotheoun

[ironmonk]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 7 2004, 02:12 AM'] you mean heterodox... didnt we agree to change that? [/quote]
Nope.

Liberals - hetrodox.... two groups that I feel the same way about and consider both liberal. When I say liberal... I do mean political... and hetrodox. My above post where others were saying that I meant hetrodox, I was meaning political... Not hetrodox. There's no place in the Church for liberal theology... or liberal politics.

If one's only stance is economics that "makes" them liberal, then they're more conservative than liberal.

For the people who like liberal theology:
How Liberalism Fails the Church by Cardinal Francis George
[url="http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven/template_article.phtml?article_id=42&channel_id=16"]http://www.catholic.net/the_road_to_heaven...2&channel_id=16[/url]

As far as politics - almost everything the liberal side stands for goes against Catholic teaching.

Their economic plans even do - in the fact that it promotes people to not work.
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]
[quote]Efforts to provide for the basic financial needs of poor families and children must enhance their lives and protect their dignity. The measure of welfare reform [b]should be reducing poverty and [u]dependency[/u][/b], not cutting resources and programs. We seek approaches that both promote greater responsibility and offer concrete steps to help families leave poverty behind. Welfare reform has focused on providing work and training, mostly in low-wage jobs. Other forms of support are necessary, including tax credits, health care, child care, and safe, affordable housing. Because we believe that families need help with the costs of raising children, we support increasing child tax credits and making them fully refundable. These credits allow families of modest means with children to keep more of what they earn and help lift low-income families out of poverty.[/quote]

That looks like the republican plans to me. The democrat liberal plans promote dependency.



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Guest JeffCR07]

Ironmonk, I am, like you, both a very strictly orthodox individual, as well as being politically conservative, however, I would argue fervently against your proposition that to be politically liberal is to be a heterodox catholic.

1.) Though I believe that the trickle-down theory works, it has never been proven (nor could it be, any economist knows just how many variables exist in even the smallest economy).

2.) Despite the fact that our economic system (more heavily Capitalist than most others) has created, on average, 2% less unemployment than European Socialist-Capitalist systems, it is not "uncatholic" to support a program that you believe will further reduce unemployment.

3.) It is not "uncatholic" to support federal funding for things like public transportation, homeless shelters, low income housing, education, etc. (yes yes, we all acknowledge it [i]is[/i] uncatholic to support federal funding for abortion etc, but the one does not equal the other)

4.) On an ideological level, it is not "uncatholic" to believe that the government can be a tool for furthering the morality of a society. St. Thomas Aquinas believed this. St. Augustine did not. It is a matter of personal opinion.

I agree with you that there are many things that the [i]democratic party[/i] supports that are distinctly uncatholic. However, it is possible to be not only a catholic, but a good, orthodox catholic and still be a liberally minded person in a political sense of the word.

Even if my points and examples have not changed your opinion, it seems, after reading your post multiple times, that there is an underlying hostility behind the post. I am not saying this was intentional, it is just how it reads. I pray that I am wrong, but if there [i]is[/i] hostility, I would merely ask you to remember charity.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[ironmonk]

The things that I see as politically liberal are against the Church.

My list is on this thread.

Liberal means to change. Conservative means to stay the same.

As far as "change" is conserned - yes, one can be a good Catholic and want change. I want change.

BUT, as far as the liberal left in our country, the change they want (that is the majority - that is pushed on us by the media) goes against the Church.

Nothing more to be said on the subject. To go against the Church is evil.

Promoting dependancy on welfare programs is wrong.
Promoting gay marriage is wrong.
etc... (please see list)

It is charity - why I post the way it is. It is against charity to ignore what our brother does wrong. Charity (according to the Church) demands correction.

Round about is not working. Bluntness is needed.

Whoever votes for Kerry is a bad Catholic. A vote against Bush is a vote for Kerry.

Bush is a very Catholic president. He is not perfect. To attack him and call him a terrorist is foolish... and unCatholic. His morals are mostly Catholic morals.

The highest priority for Catholics is the value of the unborn... 45 million deaths... Bush is the only man in this election that has a chance at stopping abortion in the USA. Bush is the only man that will defend family and marriage. Bush is the only man that will defend God.

People need to get their priorities straight (according to the Church - not their own reasoning).

Thousands of innocent babbies are being killed daily. This is something to stand our ground on. This is something to fight for.

[b]Proverbs 31:8[/b]
Open thy mouth for the dumb, and for the causes of all the children that pass.
[b]9[/b] Open thy mouth, decree that which is just, and do justice to the needy and poor.

[b]Sirach 4:28 [/b]Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you.
[b]29 [/b]Be not surly in your speech, nor lazy and slack in your deeds.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Good Friday]

[quote name='ironmonk']Liberals - hetrodox.... two groups that I feel the same way about and consider both liberal. When I say liberal... I do mean political... and hetrodox. My above post where others were saying that I meant hetrodox, I was meaning political... Not hetrodox. There's no place in the Church for liberal theology... or liberal politics.[/quote]
First of all, no one here is talking about theological liberalism, so there's really no place in this thread for a discussion of that. You're right, of course, to say that there's no place in the Church for liberal theology. Theological liberalism has been condemned again and again by the Magisterium -- most fervently by Pope Pius IX, but also by the most recent Popes. The point is that thelogical liberalism and political liberalism are not the same thing, and some elements of political liberalism have not been condemned by the Church.

[quote name='ironmonk']If one's only stance is economics that "makes" them liberal, then they're more conservative than liberal.[/quote]
That's not actually true. Many Catholics will not identify as conservatives. Mind you, these are faithful Catholics who believe in the Church's teachings regarding life and other morality, but they don't want to be associated with neoconservatives like President Bush, who use severely negative politics to win elections and keep control in this country. They may vote for him, but they don't want to be associated with him because of his negativity. Believe it or not, Ironmonk, even though he may be the best possible candidate at the moment, not everyone thinks he's a living saint.

I consider myself a fiscal liberal. As far as morality and ethics go, I consider myself a Catholic -- with whatever amount of conservatism or liberalism that entails. I do not, in any way, identify as a conservative. I believe in the full authority of the Magisterium and vote accordingly, but I am a liberal in [i]all[/i] matters that the Magisterium has [i]not[/i] defined. For instance, the Magisterium has never taught that one cannot ever use capital punishment. Some Catholics, conservatives, believe it's fine to use in several different circumstances; other Catholics, liberals, believe that it should not be used anymore. There is nothing inherently wrong with either of these views, but they are distinctly different.

While there is not [i]much[/i] room for disagreement within the Catholic Church, precisely because the Church is unified and catholic, there is still [i]some[/i] room for disagreements. In all areas where there is room for disagreement, I can assure you that I will most likely disagree with conservatives, because I am not a conservative. But I am orthodox. That's why it's important to distinguish between heterodox and liberal, because not all liberals are heterodox, despite how you may or may not define liberalism. We're looking for Webster's definition, not Ironmonk's.

[quote name='ironmonk']As far as politics - almost everything the liberal side stands for goes against Catholic teaching.

Their economic plans even do - in the fact that it promotes people to not work.[/quote]
That's not true. While Democratic economic plans leave the door a bit more open for people not to work, there is nothing in the plans themselves that encourage people not to work. The problem in this country is that we are seeking either an extremist liberal or an extremist conservative approach to economics, whereas we should be seeking a more moderate approach. What we need is a combination of Democratic and Republican economic principles, so that people are not inclined to abuse the system and not work through Democratic plans, but so that people are not left poor while the rich thrive under Republican plans.

You can deny what I just said about the Republicans, but the people on this phorum who can't get work and who have found themselves poor during the Bush Administration know that what I'm saying is the truth. I know of several, myself included.

By the way, as I often find myself reminding you, [b]your[/b] interpretation of Catholic teaching is not the Magisterium.

[quote name='ironmonk']Nothing more to be said on the subject. To go against the Church is evil.[/quote]
I believe the phrase is, "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed" -- [b]not[/b] "Ironmonk has spoken, the matter is closed." To go against the Church certainly is evil, but to go against your opinion, in all instances, is not to go against the Church.

[quote name='ironmonk']Promoting dependancy on welfare programs is wrong.[/quote]
So is destroying welfare programs, so that those who find themselves legitimately out of work have no place to turn. So is eliminating social security and medicare so that the elderly are euthanized not through drugs, but through Republican-induced poverty.

None of this is on par with abortion or promoting homosexual marriage, I agree, but the point here is that the Republican Party, while closest to Catholic teaching, does not conform perfectly to the Magisterium and in many ways opposes it -- as much as you hate to admit it. The goal should be the reform of both parties to conform more perfectly to the Church's teaching, not rolling over to one party and acting as if Bush is the Holy Republican Emperor so that he can later destroy the middle class and drive you and I into abject poverty -- if he doesn't cause nuculer war first. (Yes, I know I spelled that wrong, anyone who has ever heard the man speak about WMDs can note the irony).

[quote name='ironmonk']It is charity - why I post the way it is. It is against charity to ignore what our brother does wrong. Charity (according to the Church) demands correction.[/quote]
Charity demands correction, but it doesn't demand beating your brother over the head with correction. Do you see the Holy Father addressing these issues in the way that you do? If His Holiness is a little too soft on these issues for you, perhaps I should ask if you see Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Arinze addressing these issues in the way you do. The answer, to all three, is no. Even Cardinal Ratzinger, who is perhaps the most conservative of all the members of the Curia, addresses these issues in a far different way than you do.

Perhaps you should take a hint from His Holiness and His Eminence. Correction does not mean beating your brother to death with words.

[quote name='ironmonk']Whoever votes for Kerry is a bad Catholic. A vote against Bush is a vote for Kerry.[/quote]
On this, however, we can agree. One cannot be a faithful Catholic and vote for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Ratzinger, the highest authority in the Church on matters of doctrine (besides the Pope of course), recently made this abundantly clear (as if it wasn't already). I will never vote for a pro-abortion politician, but I will not become a Republican either. It is required of me to vote for a Republican, it is not required of me to become one.

[quote name='ironmonk']Bush is a very Catholic president.[/quote]
Bush is a Methodist president. He may be more true to Catholic morality than Kerry is, but he is not Catholic. He is a Methodist. As I said in the other thread, there's no need to lie.

[conservativecatholic]

If you can't see that the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing severe liberal changes, you must be blind. There are numerous parishes nearby my town that do not have kneelers for the congregation and suitable tabernacles for the Body of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Many Catholic theologians have stated that Vatican III is necessary to stop and disect the liberal abuses of cleregy misinterpreting Vatican II. Vatican II was a great council, yet people do not understand where to draw the line between Sacred Tradition and change. May God Bless!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jul 7 2004, 11:13 PM'] If you can't see that the Roman Catholic Church is undergoing severe liberal changes, you must be blind. There are numerous parishes nearby my town that do not have kneelers for the congregation and suitable tabernacles for the Body of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Many Catholic theologians have stated that Vatican III is necessary to stop and disect the liberal abuses of cleregy misinterpreting Vatican II. Vatican II was a great council, yet people do not understand where to draw the line between Sacred Tradition and change. May God Bless! [/quote]
This is my school to a T in many cases.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote]Liberals are blind. [/quote]

Amen!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 8 2004, 12:51 AM'] That's not actually true. Many Catholics will not identify as conservatives. Mind you, these are faithful Catholics who believe in the Church's teachings regarding life and other morality, but they don't want to be associated with neoconservatives like President Bush, who use severely negative politics to win elections and keep control in this country. They may vote for him, but they don't want to be associated with him because of his negativity. Believe it or not, Ironmonk, even though he may be the best possible candidate at the moment, not everyone thinks he's a living saint.

I consider myself a fiscal liberal. As far as morality and ethics go, I consider myself a Catholic -- with whatever amount of conservatism or liberalism that entails. I do not, in any way, identify as a conservative. I believe in the full authority of the Magisterium and vote accordingly, but I am a liberal in [i]all[/i] matters that the Magisterium has [i]not[/i] defined. For instance, the Magisterium has never taught that one cannot ever use capital punishment. Some Catholics, conservatives, believe it's fine to use in several different circumstances; other Catholics, liberals, believe that it should not be used anymore. There is nothing inherently wrong with either of these views, but they are distinctly different.

While there is not [i]much[/i] room for disagreement within the Catholic Church, precisely because the Church is unified and catholic, there is still [i]some[/i] room for disagreements. In all areas where there is room for disagreement, I can assure you that I will most likely disagree with conservatives, because I am not a conservative. But I am orthodox. That's why it's important to distinguish between heterodox and liberal, because not all liberals are heterodox, despite how you may or may not define liberalism. We're looking for Webster's definition, not Ironmonk's.


I believe the phrase is, "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed" -- [b]not[/b] "Ironmonk has spoken, the matter is closed." To go against the Church certainly is evil, but to go against your opinion, in all instances, is not to go against the Church.


Charity demands correction, but it doesn't demand beating your brother over the head with correction. Do you see the Holy Father addressing these issues in the way that you do? If His Holiness is a little too soft on these issues for you, perhaps I should ask if you see Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Arinze addressing these issues in the way you do. The answer, to all three, is no. Even Cardinal Ratzinger, who is perhaps the most conservative of all the members of the Curia, addresses these issues in a far different way than you do.

Perhaps you should take a hint from His Holiness and His Eminence. Correction does not mean beating your brother to death with words.


Bush is a Methodist president. He may be more true to Catholic morality than Kerry is, but he is not Catholic. He is a Methodist. As I said in the other thread, there's no need to lie. [/quote]
Yes it is, yes it's true, yadda yadda yadda... start at thread one.

You are simply wrong.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Good Friday]

[quote name='ironmonk']Yes it is, yes it's true, yadda yadda yadda... start at thread one.

You are simply wrong.[/quote]
This is the Debate Table. Do you intend to debate, or pontificate? If it's pontificate, I think you have your own website for that, don't you?

[crusader1234]

Good point... but don't worry, Ironmonk never lies.