Liberal and Conservative

[MC Just]

Conservative: Catholics are naturally Conservative obviously, according to the Definition...

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a


Liberal: Catholics cannot be liberal obviously, according to the definition.

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : "not bound by authoritarianism", orthodoxy, or traditional forms

I'm trying to understand why some people on this phorum are justifying and defending liberalism.

Catholics are Traditional, and bound by Authoritarianism, and Orthodoxy.

some say we are neither "conservative or liberal" but if you look at the definitions its obvious that we are conservative.

Edited August 17, 2005 by MC Just

[Didacus]

Woiuld happen to have a definition of "Theology of Liberation"?

Would anyone?

[MC Just]

[url="http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/09/daily-09-03-2001.shtml"]http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/09/da...9-03-2001.shtml[/url]

[Era Might]

"Conservative" and "Liberal" have no inherent meaning in the context of the Catholic faith.

Catholics CONSERVE the deposit of faith. In that sense, they are "conservatives".

Catholics also PROGRESS the deposit of faith from age to age. It is not stagnant. It must develop. In this sense, Catholics are "liberal", "open-minded".

Neither term means anything. A Catholic is either orthodox or heterodox.

Orthodox encompasses the complete adherence to the Catholic faith, without stifling its development.

Heterodoxy encompasses a disobedience to the Catholic faith, either as it is or going beyond legitimate development.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" have meaning in the context of politics, because politics is the economy of human affairs. Unlike Catholicism, it can legitimately contradict itself. Two converse theories can be equally valid.

A "conservative" may want to preserve a monarchy, while a "liberal" may want to advance democracy. Neither of the two are wrong. They simply have conflicting practical ideas. Those ideas do not rest on a revelation, as does Catholic doctrine.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

Liberation Theology, a fusion of Christian and Marxist ideals, emerged from among some of Spanish America's prominent Catholic theoreticians.

[Aloysius]

Liberation Theology- condemned communist movement in Latin America.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html"]Critique of Liberation Theology by the CDF[/url]

[MC Just]

Liberalism "is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is, 'I will not serve.'"

"Liberalism is the dogmatic affirmation of the absolute independence of the individual and of the social reason. Catholicity is the dogma of the absolute subjection of the individual and of the social order to the revealed law of God. One doctrine is the exact antithesis of the other. They are opposites in direct conflict."

"Protestantism is now a dead dog; Liberalism a living lion going about seeking whom be may devour. Its dreadful doctrine is permeating society to the core; it has become the modern political creed and threatens us with a second revolution, to turn the world over once again to paganism. "

I'm sorry but I cannot stand even the word liberal and neither do i believe the Catholic are any part in that word.

[Era Might]

That's good 18th century polemic, but we don't live in the 18th century.

[Didacus]

Does Liberation Theology tie in closely with the 'cultue of death'?

And thanks for that brief artcile, that helped me put things into context a bit better.

(the concept of liberation theology had onced been explained to me as the 'liberation of the individual' from 'oppressive' and 'outdated' church teachings such as contraceptive and abortion - which to accept these ideologies are to 'free' yourself to having sex without consequence.)

[MC Just]

Liberalism is a sin..

CHAPTER 21 Personal Polemics and Liberalism

"It is all well enough to make war on abstract doctrines" some may say, "but in combating error, be it ever so evident, is it so proper to make an attack upon the persons of those who uphold it?" We reply that very often it is, and not only proper, but at times even indispensable and meritorious before God and men.

The accusation of indulging in personalities is not spared to Catholic apologists, and when Liberals and those tainted with Liberalism have hurled it at our heads, they imagine that we are overwhelmed by the charge. But they deceive themselves. We are not so easily thrust into the background. We have reason-and substantial reason-on our side. In order to combat and dis-credit false ideas, we must inspire contempt and horror in the hearts of the multitude for those who seek to seduce and debauch them. A disease is inseparable from the persons of the diseased.

The cholera threatening a country comes in the persons of the infected. If we wish to exclude it, we must exclude them. Now ideas do not in any case go about in the abstract; they neither spread nor propagate of themselves. Left to themselves-if it be possible to imagine them apart from those who conceive them-they would never produce all the evil from which society suffers. It is only in the concrete that they are effective, when they are the personal product of those who conceive them. They are like the arrows and the balls which would hurt no one if they were not shot from the bow or the gun. It is the archer and the gunner to whom we should give our first attention; save for them, the fire would not be murderous. Any other method of warfare might be Liberal, if you please, but it would not be common sense.

The authors and propagators of heretical doctrines are soldiers with poisoned weapons in their bands. Their arms are the book, the journal, the lecture, their personal z'nfluence. Is it sufficient to dodge their blows? Not at all; the first thing necessary is to demolish the combatant himself. When he is hors de combat ["out of the fight"], he can do no more mischief.

It is therefore perfectly proper not only to discredit any book, journal or discourse of the enemy, but it is also proper, in certain cases, even to discredit his person; for in warfare, beyond question, the principal element is the person engaged, as the gunner is the principal factor in an artillery fight and not the cannon, the powder, and the bomb. It is thus lawful, in certain cases, to expose the infamy of a Liberal opponent, to bring his habits into contempt and to drag his name in the mire. Yes, this is permissible, permissible in prose, in verse, in caricature, in a serious vein or in badinage, by every means and method within reach. The only restriction is not to employ a lie in the service of justice. This never. Under no pretext may we sully the truth, even to the dotting of an "i'" As a French writer says: "Truth is the only charity allowed in history," and, we may add, in the defense of religion and society.

The Fathers of the Church support this thesis. The very titles of their works clearly show that, in their contests with heresy, their first blows were at the heresiarchs. The works of St. Augustine almost always bear the name of the author of the heresy against which they are written: Contra Fortunatum Manichoeum, Adversus Adamanctum, Contra Felicem, Contra Secundinum, Quis fuerit Petiamus, De gestis Pelagii, Quis fuerit julianus, etc. Thus, the greater part of the polemics of this great Father and Doctor of the Church was per-sonal, aggressive, biographical, as well as doctrinal-a hand-to-hand struggle with heretics, as well as with heresy. What we here say of St. Augustine we can say of the other Fathers.

Whence do the Liberals derive their power to impose upon us the new obligation of fighting error only in the abstract and of lavishing smiles and flattery upon them? We, the Ultramontanes, will fight our battles according to Christian tradition and defend the Faith as it has always been defended in the Church of God. When it strikes, let the sword of the Catholic polemist wound, and when it wounds, wound mortally. This is the only real and efficacious means of waging war.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:07 PM']That's good 18th century polemic, but we don't live in the 18th century.
[right][snapback]687824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That doesnt mean the truths written in those times or before are invalid.

[qfnol31]

Liberation theology perverts the Gospel to push an agenda. It isn't necessarily full of bad intentions, but goes around the wrong way. Most of the time it deals with women.

[Era Might]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:12 PM']That doesnt mean the truths written in those times or before are invalid.
[right][snapback]687830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not necessarily, no. But neither does it mean they're true.

Things change. The 18th century was a vastly different political situation affecting the Church.

More importantly, the Church's social theology develops. After the French Revolution, the Church still acted as though she were still living in Christendom. She wasn't. The Church has since come to terms with that fact, and sought to harmonize the liberal order of the world (ie, democratic) with a Christian vision. This task can be seen, in its early forms, in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII.

"Liberalism is a Sin" is nice historical book, but it is not Magisterial. To properly understand the historical character of particular statements of the Church, and to understand how exactly the Church's thought has evolved, we must look to those who serve today in the Apostle's place. As the Holy Father has noted before, we must not live in the past or in the future. We must live in the here and now.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:07 PM']That's good 18th century polemic, but we don't live in the 18th century.
[right][snapback]687824[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually I think the book he is reading is late nineteenth century.

[Era Might]

Thanks for the correction.