a thought on "liberal" catholics...

[Michael D.]

[quote name='ReinnieR' date='Jul 31 2005, 08:16 PM']
IMO "liberals" have abused their freedom way too much

[/quote]

I like how nobody seemed to mention definition 5.

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

It seems like being liberal is some kind of plague around here....
If everybody thought the exact same thing we couldnt grow as a society (or church) through productive debate and conversation.

I guess my question is, whats wrong with being a liberal? either politically or religiously....

and please answer me this... how do you abuse freedom?

[jmjtina]

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : [b]not bound[/b] by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

to be a Catholic is to be bound to the authority of the Catholic Church and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

freedom can be abused by not doing what is right.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 6 2005, 01:58 AM']and please answer me this... how do you abuse freedom? [right][snapback]674824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Freedom is abused by not accepting and taking into consideration the Responsibilities that temper your Rights in Freedom. Anarchy is unbridled Freedom...

The Catholic Church allows many freedoms, but also tempers them with responsibilities. Orthodoxy is exercising and exploring these freedoms while limiting our actions to fulfill our responsilities as well, such as acknowledging the limits the Authority of the Church places on our actions.
Traditional, Conservative, Liberal, etc., are all stereotypical labels that assume an imbalance between exercising our Freedoms within the limits of our Responsibilities. Trads don't exercise any Freedoms and Libs don't consider the limits required by any Responsibilities.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Aug 6 2005, 02:20 AM']5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : [b]not bound[/b] by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

to be a Catholic is to be bound to the authority of the Catholic Church and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

freedom can be abused by not doing what is right.
[right][snapback]674829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
thank you

and freedom is what i fight for day in and day out

[infinitelord1]

i dont think liberalism and catholicism go hand in hand

[Socrates]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 6 2005, 01:58 AM']I like how nobody seemed to mention definition 5.

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

It seems like being liberal is some kind of plague around here....
If everybody thought the exact same thing we couldnt grow as a society (or church) through productive debate and conversation.

I guess my question is, whats wrong with being a liberal? either politically or religiously....

and please answer me this... how do you abuse freedom?
[right][snapback]674824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Accepting the authority of the Church's magisterium and orthodoxy in beliefs is part of being a member of the Catholic Church. If being a Catholic means being "free" to do or beleive whatever one so chooses,, what is the point of even having a Church?

And the truth is that most political and religious liberals are hardly "liberal" in that sense of the word. They tend to be all about "freedom" with regards to abortion and every manner of sexual immorality, but when it comes to allowing politically incorrect speech, displays of religion in public, prayer or morality in schools, private property rights, or the right to own and bear arms, most liberals are anything but.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 31 2005, 07:16 PM']The problem with the labels "liberal" and "conservative" is that they impose political terms on the Catholic faith.

GK Chesterton, for example, was an unabashed "liberal". This had nothing at all to do with his Catholic faith. It had everything to do with his political views.

<snip>

John Cardinal Henry Newman, writing in the context of conversion, has some beautiful thoughts on what it means to be Catholic:
[right][snapback]666587[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Which of Newman's writings was this from? It seems like Caradinal Newman has written books in areas where I'm just getting started in my understanding . . . this looks like another example . . .

[MC Just]

All I need to know is that past Popes have condemned liberalism in all its shades and forms. Politically and Religiously.

[MC Just]

On the 18th of June, 1871, responding to a deputation of French Catholics, Pius IX spoke thus:

'Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary."

In a brief, 6th of March, 1873, addressed to the Circle of St. Ambrose of Milan, the Sovereign Pontiff thus expresses himself:

"People are not wanting who pretend to form an alliance between light and darkness and to associate justice with iniquity in favor of those doctrines called Liberal Catholicism, which, based on the most pernicious principles, show themselves favorable to the intrusion of secular power upon the domain of spirituals; they lead their partisans to esteem, or at least to tolerate, iniquitous laws, as if it were not written that no one can serve two masters. Those who thus conduct themselves are more dangerous and more baneful than declared enemies, not only because, without being warned of it, perhaps even without being conscious of it, they second the projects of wicked men, but also because, keeping within certain limits, they show themselves with some appearance of probity and sound doctrine. They thus deceive the indiscreet friends of conciliation and seduce honest people, who would otherwise have strenuously combatted a declared error."

In the Brief of the 8th of May of the same year, speaking to the Confederation of the Catholic Circle of Belgium, the same Holy Father said:

"What we praise above all in your religious enterprise is the absolute aversion which, as we are informed, you show towards the principles of Liberal Catholicism and your intrepid determination to root them out as soon as possible. In truth you will extirpate the fatal root of discord and you will efficaciously contribute to unite and strengthen the minds of all in so combatting this insidious error, much more dangerous than an open enemy because it hides itself under the specious veil of zeal and of charity, and is so endeavoring to protect the people in general from its contaminating influence. Surely you, who adhere with such complete submission to all decisions of this Apostolic Seat and who know its frequent reprobations of Liberal principles, have no need of these warnings."

In the Brief to the La Croix, a Belgium journal, on the 24th of May, 1874, the Pope expresses himself thus:

"We cannot do less than to praise the design expressed in this letter, which we know your journal will satisfactorily fulfill, the design to publish, to spread, to comment on and inculcate in all minds all that the Holy See teaches against the perverse or at least false doctrines professed in so many quarters, and particularly against Liberal Catholicism, bitterly striving to conciliate light with darkness and truth with error."

On the 9th of June, 1873, Pius IX wrote to the president of the Council of the Catholic Association of Orleans, and without mentioning its name, depicts pietistic and moderated Liberalism in the following terms:

"Although you have not, strictly speaking, to combat impiety, are you not perhaps menaced on this side by as great dangers as those of the group of friends deceived by that ambiguous doctrine, which, while rejecting the last consequence of error, obstinately retains the germs, and which, not willing to embrace the truth in its fullness, and not daring to abandon it entirely, exhausts itself in interpreting the traditions and teachings of the Church by running them through the mold of its own private opinions."

In an address to the Bishop of Quimper, and speaking in reference to the general assembly of the Catholic Association of that diocese, the Pope said:

"Assuredly these associations are not wanting in the obedience due to the Church, neither on account of the writings nor the actions of those who pursue them with invectives and abuse; but they might be pushed into the slippery path of error by the force of those opinions called Liberal; opinions accepted by many Catholics who are otherwise honest and pious, and who, even by the very influence which gives them their piety, are easily captivated and induced to profess the most pernicious maxims. Inculcate, therefore, Venerable Brother, in the minds of this Catholic assembly that, when we have so often rebuked the sectaries of these Liberal opinions, we have not had in view the declared enemies of the Church, whom it would have been idle to denounce, but rather that those of whom we are speaking are such as secretly guard the virus of Liberal principles which they have imbibed with their mother's milk. They boldly inoculate this virus into the people's minds, as if it were not impregnated with a manifest malice, and as if it were as harmless to religion as they think. They thus propagate the seed of those troubles which have held the world in revolution so long. Let them avoid these ambuscades. Let them endeavor to direct their blows against this perfidious enemy, and certainly they will merit much from their religion and their country."

With these utterances from the mouth of the Vicar of Jesus Christ our friends as well as our enemies must see that the Pope has said in diverse briefs, and particularly in the last citation, in a general way all that can be said on this question, which we are studying in its details.

[journeyman]

especially when using politically charged words - definitions may be in order
[url="http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism"]http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism[/url]
[url="http://www.answers.com/conservatism"]http://www.answers.com/conservatism[/url]

partly because it doesn't go into specifics, I like the part of the definition of liberalism that says there are bounds beyond which governments cannot go without becoming tyrants . . . the definition doesn't mention where the line is

liberal did not start its etymological life as a noun

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='ReinnieR' date='Aug 6 2005, 02:07 AM']i need to cop this book
[right][snapback]674801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

the same thought came to my mind - heh

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 6 2005, 09:48 PM']On the 18th of June, 1871, responding to a deputation of French Catholics, Pius IX spoke thus...
[right][snapback]675480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just - dude! your entire post - what an awesome quote

[quote]...Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France.[/quote]

i read and re-read the whole thing... such powerful stuff, i almost fell over
i really need to read that book

[Leah]

Liberalism as defined by Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany should not be confused with post-World War II American-style welfare liberalism (which didn't exist yet). He is refering to "classical liberalism" which consists of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the ability to own private property, etc. It should be noted that classical liberalism and liberal democracy (i.e., separation of powers, universal sufferage, etc.) are not the same thing, though they are in the minds of Westerners. By this definition, both Democrats and Republicans would be considered liberals. True conservatism as it existed in Europe (i.e., the belief in monarchy, the aristocracy, and rigid classism) has never existed in the United States. After World War II, the meanings of liberalism and conservatism changed drastically, to what they current mean (though it differs from country to country). Given that the author of [i]Liberalism is a Sin[/i] was a conservative in the traditional, European sense, I think that modern readers should take it with a grain of salt as the liberalism being referred to is not the liberalism they are familar with.

[Anna]

[i]Ratzenfreude: (n.) Amusement at the expense of angry heterodox [/i] Oh boy, am I ever Ratzenfreude! :
[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 6 2005, 10:48 PM']On the 18th of June, 1871... Pius IX spoke thus:

... I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary."[/quote]
Um...yeah, that about sums up my opinion...

I think that in today's political arena, those who call themselves "liberals" are actually "socialists."

As Pope Pius XI is wrote, "No one can at the same time be a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." - Quad. Anno, 1931. The same Truth can be said today. (Satan doesn't come up with any new tricks, just re-presents the same old ones!)

The moral relativists claiming to be sincere Catholics do damage to the Faith, and to the Faithful - and misrepresent what the Church truly teaches. So many are ignorant of our Faith...
Damage is particularly effective when exemplified by those high-profile "Catholic" politicians and media personalities who defy, disobey, and misrepresent Church teachings to the general public...
Likewise, those who call themselves "moderate" were described by Our Lord as "lukewarm." And we know what He said about the lukewarm!

Edited August 7, 2005 by Anna

[Michael D.]

That is a good answer about freedom, i see your point and it can be abused.

Here is my new question... why is is wrong to have a diffrent view? That is what it seems like is being said. Why can't the church include people with diffrent points of view? Obviously there are certain dogma issues that define being a catholic... but apart from that... what is wrong with a certain amout of diversity in personal belief. So long as the core faith remains the same, why does it matter?

Religion aside, i would go so far as to say that there is a need for liberalism in government, just as there needs to be conservatism. There needs to be two sides of the coin and the arguement and without that there would be no safeguard to send us out of control into either of the extremes of government mentioned above. Diffrence of opinion is a keystone of our system of government.