Liberal and Conservative

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:23 PM']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.
[right][snapback]687840[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The theology hasn't changed, just the application. I think that MC Just's point still stands.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:26 PM']The theology hasn't changed, just the application.  I think that MC Just's point still stands. 
[right][snapback]687846[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I wouldn't say it has "changed", but rather, it has "developed".

The Second Vatican Council, for example, did so explicitly:

[quote]Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

--Dignitatis Humanae 1[/quote]

This is why it's absurd to try and comprehend the Church's social theology by citing 19th and 18th century Popes. Social circumstances have changed, and theology has developed.

A parallel can be seen in the papal emphasis of Vatican I, which has been fulfilled in the Collegial emphasis of Vatican II.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

I wouldn't consider those liberal ideas though.

I am opposed to the excessive use of the death penalty, and really how often it is used now, but I do not think that makes me any less of an ultra-conservative when it comes to politics.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:29 PM']A parallel can be seen in the papal emphasis of Vatican I, which has been fulfilled in the Collegial emphasis of Vatican II.
[right][snapback]687848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually this may be just a result of the fact that Vatican I was not finished, and Vatican II was supposed to finish it (war issues).

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:36 PM']I wouldn't consider those liberal ideas though.

I am opposed to the excessive use of the death penalty, and really how often it is used now, but I do not think that makes me any less of an ultra-conservative when it comes to politics. 
[right][snapback]687849[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is the problem though. The term "liberal", in the context of the sources MC Just keeps citing, refers to the abuses that accompanied the advent of popular government after the French Revolution.

With much reflection, the Church has since come to terms with the new civil order in the world, and has encouraged it in conformity with her own moral faith, to overcome those abuses. This new civil order is still "liberal". Like pagan philosophy, it has simply been purified.

The fact that Catholics railed against "liberalism" in their day is not surprising. Catholics railed against St. Francis and the mendicants back then too. Change is scary. Eventually, the Church tests all things and holds fast to what is true.

Today, politically, a "liberal" tends to refer to a person who rejects traditional morality. But "liberalism" encompasses many things, from financial philosophy to foreign policy to gun control. On these things, there is room for legitimate disagreement among Catholics.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[Didacus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:12 PM']That doesnt mean the truths written in those times or before are invalid.
[right][snapback]687830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Justly said MC, and that is more how it was brougt to my attention, rather than a political movement to communism.

Thanks for posting - you have my attention (for what its worth anyways).

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:38 PM']Actually this may be just a result of the fact that Vatican I was not finished, and Vatican II was supposed to finish it (war issues).
[right][snapback]687851[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yah, I know. But I tend to think of that as a privelege of divine providence. There was a lot to learn in the 100 years in between.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 01:40 PM'][snip]

Today, politically, a "liberal" tends to refer to a person who rejects traditional morality. But "liberalism" encompasses many things, from financial philosophy to foreign policy to gun control. On these things, there is room for legitimate disagreement among Catholics.
[right][snapback]687853[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You do have a point era Might (by the way, love your screen name). But in the context of today's understanding of the Theology of Liberalism, which I am still pondering myself in several ways, I cannot disagree with MC_just. At least not fully.

i would warn against attacking the person rather than the idealogies presented, aka, ad-hominen. i find this difficult to justify even with MC's eloquent post. Charity must always be of order.

However, charity must not be confused with I call 'false-sympathy', which would take pity on a woman who submits herself to abortion, making her 'feel better' out of pity fand removing responsibility of her actions rather than remind her of the truth and proper path to reconcile with the truth and church teachings.

[MC Just]

ok what about this? (sorry for posting full chapters but this is quite informative...

CHAPTER 10 Liberalism of all Shades Condemned by the Church

Liberalism of every degree and all forms has been formally condemned--so much so that outside of the motives of its intrinsic malice, it stands under the formal ban of the Church, which is sufficient for all faithful Catholics. It would be impossible for an error so widespread and so radical to escape condemnation.

Upon its appearance in France at the time of the Revolution [1789-1799], the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man--which contains in germ all the follies of Liberalism--was condemned by Pius VI (1775-1799). Later, the baneful doctrine infected all the countries of Europe. In Spain it first took the name of Liberalism, under which it has since been known everywhere.

Upon the occasion of the appearance of the first errors of De Lamennais, Gregory XVI (1831- 1846), in his encyclical Mirarl Vos, explicitly condemned Liberalism as it was then understood, taught, and practiced by the constitutional governments of Europe. Later on, when the full tide of the deplorable deluge had submerged all Europe, carrying all before it, God raised up to His Church Pius IX (1846-1878), who has justly passed into history as the "Scourge of Liberalism."

Liberal error, under all its forms, shapes, and shades, has been unmasked by this Pope. That his words might carry, as it were, more authority on this question, Providence has willed that these reiterated condemnations of Liberalism should fall from the lips of a Pontiff who, at the beginning of his pontificate, was hailed by Liberalists as their own. But he left no refuge to which their error might have resort. The numerous briefs and allocutions of Plus IX have clearly shown to Christian peoples what this baneful heresy is, and The Syllabus of Errors (1864) has put on the final seal of c



ondemnation. Let us see the principal contents of some of the Pontifical documents. Amongst all that we might place before our readers, we will cite only a few.

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.

[Nicole8223]

Wow very interesting. I have always used the line "there is no such thing as liberal or conservative in the church...just orthodox or not."

MC Just, you raise many good points, and thinking about it, it seems that being a true Catholic would require one to be a conservative.

[MC Just]

let me say, i dont exactly enjoy debating with fellow Catholics either....It bothers me bigtime.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Nicole8223' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:24 PM']Wow very interesting.  I have always used the line "there is no such thing as liberal or conservative in the church...just orthodox or not."

MC Just, you raise many good points, and thinking about it, it seems that being a true Catholic would require one to be a conservative.
[right][snapback]687892[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I brought all this up because of reading the deifinitions. When I decided to read what the words actuallly meant i was like "whoa wait up a second"...

[Didacus]

nice post Mc, nad you are correct, very informative.

However, what, pray express, are the errors of liberalism? Your posts offer many passionate and eloquent views, but do not directly explore (to any deepened extent) the actual errors contained in the theology of liberism.

[Didacus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:28 PM']I brought all this up because of reading the deifinitions.  When I decided to read what the words actuallly meant i was like "whoa wait up a second"...
[right][snapback]687897[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
"whoa wait up a second"...

LOL, believe me I know precisely the feeling....

[MC Just]

Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith; it is heresy radical and universal, because WITHIN IT ARE COMPREHENDED ALL HERESIES. In the practical order it is a radical and universal infraction of the divine law, since it sanctions and authorizes all infractions of that law.

Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because heresy is the formal and obstinate denial of all Christian dogmas in general. It repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion, whether that opinion be doctrinal or the negation of doctrine. Consequently, it denies every doctrine in particular. If we were to examine in detail all the doctrines or dogmas which, within the range of Liberalism, have been denied, we would find every Christian dogma in one way or another rejected--from the dogma of the Incarnation to that of Infallibility.

Nonetheless Liberalism is in itself dogmatic; and it is in the declaration of its own fundamental dogma, the absolute independence of the individual and the social reason, that it denies all Christian dogmas in general. Catholic dogma is the authoritative declaration of revealed truth--or a truth consequent upon Revelation--by its infallibly constituted exponent [the Pope]. This logically implies the obedient acceptance of the dogma on the part of the individual and of society. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge this rational obedience and denies the authority. It asserts the sovereignty of the individual and social reason and enthrones Rationalism in the seat of authority. It knows no dogma except the dogma of self-assertion. Hence it is heresy, fundamental and radical, the rebellion of the human intellect against God.

It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. Moreover, it denies the necessity of divine Revelation and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short, it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith and thus really shuts out Revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it therefore debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent [the Catholic Church, especially the Pope] is to it intolerable. It 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." Such is the general negation uttered by Liberalism. From this radical denial of revealed truth in general naturally follows the denial of particular dogmas, in whole or in part (as circumstances present them in opposition to its rationalistic judgment). Thus, for instance, it denies the validity of faith by Baptism, when it admits or supposes the equality of any or all religious cults; it denies the sanctity of marriage when it sanctions so-called civil marriages; it denies the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, when it refuses to accept as laws his official commands and teachings and subjects them to the scrutiny of its own intellect--not to assure itself of their authenticity, as is legitimate, but to sit in defiant judgment upon their contents.

When we come to the practical order, Liberalism is radical immorality. Morality requires a standard and a guide for rational action; it postulates a hierarchy of ends, and therefore of order, within whose series there is a subordination of means to the attainment of an ultimate purpose. It therefore requires a principle or fundamental rule of all action, by which the subject of moral acts, the rational creature, determines his course and guides himself to the attainment of his end. In the moral order, the Eternal Reason alone can be that principle or fundamental rule of action, and this Eternal Reason is God. In the moral order, the created reason, with power to determine its course, must guide itself by the light of the Uncreated Reason, Who is the beginning and end of all things. The law, therefore, imposed by the Eternal Reason upon the creature must be the principle or rule of morality. Hence, obedience and submission in the moral order is an absolute requisite of morality. But Liberalism has proclaimed the absurd principle of the absolute sovereignty of human reason; it denies any reason beyond itself and asserts its independence in the order of knowledge, and hence in the order of action or morality. Here we have morality without law, without order, freedom to do what one pleases, or what comes to the same thing, morality which is not morality, for morality implies the idea not only of direction, but also essentially demands that of restraint and limitation under the control of law. Liberalism in the order of action is license, recognizing no principle or rule beyond itself.

We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas it is absolute error; in the order of facts it is absolute disorder. It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator.