The Church, the US, and Thou

[aalpha1989]

Ok, I'm gonna back up a little bit. My argument hinges on the idea that being liberal does not necessarily mean you are pro gay marriage, abortion, et cetera. Let's look at examples from history. The American revolutionaries were liberal for their time, rebelling against an established king and creating a new form of government. This was a good liberal. However, in the French revolution the liberals began attacking the Church and murdering innocent people. This was a bad liberal. Look at the flip side also. The British and the Tories were more conservative in the American revolution, while in the French revolution the royalists were more conservative. My argument is that liberal and conservative are amoral terms. The apostles were certainly considered 'liberal' by the Sanhedran. The terms liberal and conservative change and are relative to their specific time frame. Cardinal Ratzinger was also one of the more 'liberal' bishops of the second Vatican Council, but is certainly not considered 'liberal' today. His views have not changed...it is the world that has changed. Your idea of liberalism is Hilary Clinton. She is certainly liberal. She does not, however, represent the way liberals must be.

This is why Catholic orthodoxy and the word 'conservative' are not synonyms. They do not mean the same thing. I'll give an example. Minimum wage. Conservatives generally do not want to raise minimum wage while liberals do. Personally I have not yet decided on what I believe (I'm only 17, still trying to figure everything out...this could also explain my poor debating abilities). I can see both sides and don't think a Catholic must be against a higher minimum wage.

Anyway I just mean that things like gay marriage and abortion are not essential beliefs of a liberal. Not even in American politics.

Also you tell me to back up my claims...honestly I don't know how. And anyway I still haven't seen that quote from any popes. It was not in the Syllabus of Errors (or give me an exact quote and explain it...because I saw it nowhere there). Also do not just tell me to back up my claims. I do recognize your seniority (since you insisted on reminding me of it), and do want to hear what you have to say. I'm not so stuck in my opinion that I can't be persuaded...I just need real evidence that what you say is true. The only source you've used so far is Merriam Webster...I'm not impressed.

I've just always read that popes do not like to be called conservative or liberal (John Paul II specifically) because it is not an accurate statement. You can fall off of both sides of the boat, not just the left side. The correct way is right down the middle. Popes are orthodox (the Catholic kind). They aren't necessarily conservative. The Second Vatican council was liberal (using the definition of liberal that I believe is the correct one). It changed the form of the Mass, revamped the Church. It went against the former flow of things, brought new ideas of reaching people. It changed the way things were done. This does not mean it was heterodox.

Anyway the only form of the word liberal that you can see is the form that is Clintonish. That is not the only liberal. It's like saying all conservatives are like Joseph McCarthy.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1358744' date='Aug 14 2007, 01:19 PM']Ok, I'm gonna back up a little bit. My argument hinges on the idea that being liberal does not necessarily mean you are pro gay marriage, abortion, et cetera. Let's look at examples from history. The American revolutionaries were liberal for their time, rebelling against an established king and creating a new form of government. This was a good liberal. However, in the French revolution the liberals began attacking the Church and murdering innocent people. This was a bad liberal. Look at the flip side also. The British and the Tories were more conservative in the American revolution, while in the French revolution the royalists were more conservative. My argument is that liberal and conservative are amoral terms. The apostles were certainly considered 'liberal' by the Sanhedran. The terms liberal and conservative change and are relative to their specific time frame. Cardinal Ratzinger was also one of the more 'liberal' bishops of the second Vatican Council, but is certainly not considered 'liberal' today. His views have not changed...it is the world that has changed. Your idea of liberalism is Hilary Clinton. She is certainly liberal. She does not, however, represent the way liberals must be.[/quote]
You do have a point in that the precise meaning of these terms varies from time to time, and place to place (and according to who you're talking to.)
(However, I seriously doubt the Sanhedrin ever called the Apostles "liberal," as the term did not exist back then, and the whole philosophy and concept of liberalism did not even develop until the 17th century!)
However, liberalism as it currently stands in 21st century America is definitely at odds with Catholic orthodoxy.
And historically, liberalism has always tended to oppose religious orthodoxy and moral authority.

[quote]This is why Catholic orthodoxy and the word 'conservative' are not synonyms. They do not mean the same thing. I'll give an example. Minimum wage. Conservatives generally do not want to raise minimum wage while liberals do. Personally I have not yet decided on what I believe (I'm only 17, still trying to figure everything out...this could also explain my poor debating abilities). I can see both sides and don't think a Catholic must be against a higher minimum wage.[/quote]
You insist on narrowly defining "liberal" and "conservative" to only refer to economic positions.
As I have shown, this was never the only, nor even the primary, meaning of these terms.
(And in most places in the world, the person against a minumum wage would not be known as a "conservative," but an economic liberal - but I digress.)

I have quoted Russell Kirk as saying that the primary concerns of the conservative are ethical, spiritual, and religious in nature, or as he elsewhere put it, for preserving "the Permanent Things," (religion, family, morality, etc.) but obviously you are unimpressed, preferring to make up your own definitions to suit your argument.

[quote]Anyway I just mean that things like gay marriage and abortion are not essential beliefs of a liberal. Not even in American politics.[/quote]
Go to any gathering of self-described liberals, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a pro-lifer, or someone opposed to "gay rights."
Sadly, these things have become very ingrained in contemporary liberalism, and are at its core.
This is part of liberalism's long-standing philosophy of individual "rights" divorced from any framework of traditional morality.

What [b]are[/b] the essential beliefs of a liberal?
You seem to simply want to define things on your own terms.

[quote]Also you tell me to back up my claims...honestly I don't know how. And anyway I still haven't seen that quote from any popes. It was not in the Syllabus of Errors (or give me an exact quote and explain it...because I saw it nowhere there). Also do not just tell me to back up my claims. I do recognize your seniority (since you insisted on reminding me of it), and do want to hear what you have to say. I'm not so stuck in my opinion that I can't be persuaded...I just need real evidence that what you say is true. The only source you've used so far is Merriam Webster...I'm not impressed.

I've just always read that popes do not like to be called conservative or liberal (John Paul II specifically) because it is not an accurate statement. You can fall off of both sides of the boat, not just the left side. The correct way is right down the middle. Popes are orthodox (the Catholic kind). They aren't necessarily conservative. The Second Vatican council was liberal (using the definition of liberal that I believe is the correct one). It changed the form of the Mass, revamped the Church. It went against the former flow of things, brought new ideas of reaching people. It changed the way things were done. This does not mean it was heterodox.[/quote]
Ok, here it is: [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]The Syllabus of Errors (Pope Pius IX)[/url]

[quote]IV. [b]SOCIALISM[/b], COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, [b]CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES[/b]

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.[/quote]

[quote]X. [b]ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM [/b]
. . .

80. [b]The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization[/b].- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.[/quote]

I'd recommend reading the Syllabus all the way through, as many of the condemned errors remain staples of liberal thought. (Though the exact meaning of "liberalism" has changed since the 19th century, many root principles remain the same, and modern liberalism is in fact much worse.)

Again, you've provided [b]nothing[/b] to back up your claim that liberal and conservative can [b]only[/b] apply to economic theories.
I'm not impressed.

[quote]Anyway the only form of the word liberal that you can see is the form that is Clintonish. That is not the only liberal. It's like saying all conservatives are like Joseph McCarthy.[/quote]
Senator McCarthy was a great American, and a great Catholic, his name unjustly smeared by liberals. The Communist threat was real, with documents since revealing many spies working in the U.S. government. Though liberals deny it, history has vindicated him.

Little good has come out of modern liberalism, and it is not something a Catholic should support.