Liberal and Conservative

[MC Just]

When I read this Chapter, John F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry Came to mind.

[Era Might]

"Liberal Catholicism", as used in the context of the Papal allocutions cited, is not a reference to so-called "liberalism" as understood today (eg, Catholics who support abortion, contraception).

It was a specific error of the day which unduly mixed the Spiritual with the Temporal.

Just because the term "Liberal" is used doesn't mean "liberal" is relevant today. Past Popes have also condemned "Traditionalism". This was not, however, "Traditionalism" as the term is used today. It was, rather, a specific philosophical error.

[quote]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.[/quote]

The problem with this statement is that it is unnuanced. "Liberalism", understood in its historical context as explained above, makes sense here. "Liberalism", however, as it is understood more generally today, is by no means "condemned".

As I've said before, and I have yet to see addressed, democracy is OF ITS VERY NATURE a liberal form of government. And going back to Leo XIII and beyond, we see it encouraged. What was condemned was the specific corruptions of government and religion that accompanied the French Revolution.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

I've bumped heads with some Liberals. In their minds they alone are the infallible ones. God's word, his Church and the MAgesterium dont matter to them.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:41 PM']"Liberal Catholicism", as used in the context of the Papal allocutions cited, is not a reference to so-called "liberalism" as understood today (eg, Catholics who support abortion, contraception).

It was a specific error of the day which unduly mixed the Spiritual with the Temporal.

Just because the term "Liberal" is used doesn't mean "liberal" is relevant today. Past Popes have also condemned "Traditionalism". This was not, however, "Traditionalism" as the term is used today. It was, rather, a specific philosophical error.
The problem with this statement is that it is unnuanced. "Liberalism", understood in its historical context as explained above, makes sense in this context. "Liberalism", however, as it is understood more generally today, is by no means "condemned".

As I've said before, and I have yet to see addressed, democracy is OF ITS VERY NATURE a liberal form of government. And going back to Leo XIII and beyond, we see it encouraged. What was condemned was the specific corruptions of government and religion that accompanied the French Revolution.
[right][snapback]687915[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What about the Syllabus of Errors?

[Era Might]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:41 PM']I've bumped heads with some Liberals. In their minds they alone are the infallible ones. God's word, his Church and the MAgesterium dont matter to them.
[right][snapback]687916[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This affects political liberals as well as political conservatives.

There are quite a few politically conservative Catholics willing to sell the Church's social doctrine down a river if it crosses their State or their ideology.

[Era Might]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:42 PM']What about the Syllabus of Errors?
[right][snapback]687918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I cited this on another thread not too long ago:

[quote]"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus…the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."

--Pope Benedict XVI (Then Cardinal Ratzinger), Principles of Catholic Theology, pg. 381[/quote]

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:43 PM']This affects political liberals as well as political conservatives.

There are quite a few politically conservative Catholics willing to sell the Church's social doctrine down a river if it crosses their State or their ideology.
[right][snapback]687921[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I havent met any of them yet.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:45 PM']I cited this on another thread not too long ago:
[right][snapback]687924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The truths in the Syllabus were not deemed invalid though...

[Nicole8223]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:28 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]


Yeah....that's pretty much how I was feeling after reading it. Good stuff.

[Era Might]

[quote]The truths in the Syllabus were not deemed invalid though[/quote]

Not in the context in which they were written, no.

They have not been so much "discarded" as they have been "superceded".

It's like when you make a simple rough draft for a beat, and then rehaul it completely for the final version. You keep the essence of the original beat, but the two are still vastly different. The beat has developed. :

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:58 PM']Not in the context in which they were written, no.

They have not been so much "discarded" as they have been "superceded".

It's like when you make a simple rough draft for a beat, and then rehaul it completely for the final version. You keep the essence of the original beat, but the two are still vastly different. The beat has developed.  :
[right][snapback]687941[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I see...Because the Syllabus is pretty deep...This countries government was condemned as soon as it formed. lol

Edited August 17, 2005 by MC Just

[Didacus]

it is very interesting reading what you both have to say. May I ask a question to you both, as an aside since I do not wish to stop you in your discussion.

What do you think of this following statement?

"Liberalism endulges one's self into the immediate gratification, through self-justification, and renders personnal pleasure as a necessity to obtaining personnal happiness and thus this pleasure as a right. Furthermore, liberalism gives one's self to this personnal and immediate gratiffication in a way that denies one's duty towards future generations (of life in general), and even one's partner in life, and hence this ideology is the direct cause of today's 'culture of death'.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:11 PM']it is very interesting reading what you both have to say.  May I ask a question to you both, as an aside since I do not wish to stop you in your discussion.

What do you think of this following statement?

"Liberalism endulges one's self into the immediate gratification, through self-justification, and renders personnal pleasure as a necessity to obtaining personnal happiness and thus this pleasure as a right.  Furthermore, liberalism gives one's self to this personnal and immediate gratiffication in a way that denies one's duty towards future generations (of life in general), and even one's partner in life, and hence this ideology is the direct cause of today's 'culture of death'.
[right][snapback]687960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Its absolutely correct. I've witnessed people who believe that way...

[Didacus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:14 PM']Its absolutely correct. I've witnessed people who believe that way...
[right][snapback]687967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks, those are actually my own words as I understand it all. Sometimes comprehension is just a function of using terms in a certain way (especially for a little french guy like me ).

I believe I can support everything adequately in my statement, but getting the piont accross.... that's another story the is usally a function of your audience. you hate debating these things with other catholics - boooooyyyyy, do I ever agree. I debate this stuff with my older sister who atop of having the attitude of liberism, have the attitude of 'you're just our little brother and you'll understand when you fainlly grow up'... get me maaaaddddddd and boiling inside I tells ya... mad and boiling!

that's plenty of and none of








I repeat:

plenty of and none of

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Aug 17 2005, 04:11 PM']it is very interesting reading what you both have to say.  May I ask a question to you both, as an aside since I do not wish to stop you in your discussion.

What do you think of this following statement?

"Liberalism endulges one's self into the immediate gratification, through self-justification, and renders personnal pleasure as a necessity to obtaining personnal happiness and thus this pleasure as a right.  Furthermore, liberalism gives one's self to this personnal and immediate gratiffication in a way that denies one's duty towards future generations (of life in general), and even one's partner in life, and hence this ideology is the direct cause of today's 'culture of death'.
[right][snapback]687960[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There's not much I can say about it, without the context of the statement. Its undefined reference to "liberalism" makes it unintelligible.

If by "liberalism", the author means democracy, or liberal tax distribution, or liberal foreign policy, I must side with the Church and accept such forms of liberalism.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Era Might