Akalyte Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:55 PM'] oh boy. here we go. this is definitely debate table stuff. [right][snapback]852048[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yep especially when "catholics" start justifying it. I guess Pope Pius XI was wrong and never spoke infallibly. Edited January 10, 2006 by Akalyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Jan 10 2006, 02:54 PM']Simply, those against Bush who promote a culture of Death? [right][snapback]851893[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You can't define liberal that way. Keep in mind, I'm about as conservative as they come, whether you're talking about economic theory, social theory, morality, or political philosophy, but you can't just define liberals into the bad guys. I would say someone is liberal if they think that government is a fundamentally, intrinsically good thing, or if they agree with Keynesian economic theory. Given that, yes, you can be a bleeding heart liberal and still be a good, orthodox catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 06:03 PM']You can't define liberal that way. Keep in mind, I'm about as conservative as they come, whether you're talking about economic theory, social theory, morality, or political philosophy, but you can't just define liberals into the bad guys. I would say someone is liberal if they think that government is a fundamentally, intrinsically good thing, or if they agree with Keynesian economic theory. Given that, yes, you can be a bleeding heart liberal and still be a good, orthodox catholic. [right][snapback]852059[/snapback][/right] [/quote] what would be the opposite of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 see you in the debate table! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 05:06 PM']what would be the opposite of that? [right][snapback]852061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 05:06 PM']what would be the opposite of that? [right][snapback]852061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] lol, Socrates hit it right on the head. The opposite of that is a conservative. A conservative (like me) is someone who thinks that fundamentally and intrinsically government tends towards corruption and the abuse of rights and human dignity, and hence, government should be kept as small as possible. On the economic side, we tend more toward Austrian Economics or the Chicago School (or at least towards a more laisse-faire Neo-Classical approach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azriel Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Good call Red! I've been called a liberal for years. I am a Democrat for Life. But basically, I'm Catholic. Period. The only 'ism for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) [I transferred this from my Liberal thread in Open Mic, so as to keep it lighthearted] Liberalism, like any political system of thought, is subject to decay and reform. Catholic liberals must exercise their lay vocation and reform the intrinsically liberal "experiment" that is America with authentic Christian principles. Personally, I respect all voices within the parameters of an authentic Catholic faith. I don't understand the impulse to divide Catholics in terms of politics. There is a legitimate diversity in the application of Catholic social doctrine. Let's respect that. [quote]There is no doubt that the American experiment is constituted in the liberal tradition ... If we are hesitant to declare in public that Jesus Christ is Lord, the fault is in ourselves. We cannot plead the excuse that liberalism made us do it. John Rawls or Richard Rorty or the Supreme Court, claiming to speak in the name of liberalism, may have intimidated us, but the fault is with our timidity. ... By 1967 I was writing about the "two liberalisms"—one, like that earlier civil rights movement, inclusive of the vulnerable and driven by a transcendent order of justice, the other exclusive and recognizing no law higher than individual willfulness. My argument was that, by embracing the cause of abortion, liberals were abandoning the first liberalism that has sustained all that is hopeful in the American experiment. ... For American Christians, and for Catholics in particular, there is nothing that has been done wrong that could not have been done differently. Amidst the depredations and ravages of an American experiment that once exalted the human spirit, and may do so again, [Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter] Centesimus Annus invites us to reappropriate and rebuild the liberal tradition. --Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, "The Liberalism of John Paul II", First Things [url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9705/articles/neuhaus.html"]http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9705...es/neuhaus.html[/url][/quote] Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Can someone assent their will to the Church and be considered a liberal? You bet your sweet patootie!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 10 2006, 07:44 PM']Can someone assent their will to the Church and be considered a liberal? You bet your sweet patootie!!! [right][snapback]852184[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Oh, come on, what would you know about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) [quote]"nothing prevents a virtuous man from being liberal" --Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 117, Article 1[/quote] Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 10 2006, 06:45 PM']lol, Socrates hit it right on the head. The opposite of that is a conservative. A conservative (like me) is someone who thinks that fundamentally and intrinsically government tends towards corruption and the abuse of rights and human dignity, and hence, government should be kept as small as possible. On the economic side, we tend more toward Austrian Economics or the Chicago School (or at least towards a more laisse-faire Neo-Classical approach). [right][snapback]852096[/snapback][/right] [/quote] im not stupid. i knew conservative but i wanted to hear your explanation of conservative. sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata126 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 05:06 PM']what would be the opposite of that? [right][snapback]852061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, I don't know that much about Keynesian economic policy, but I'd guess that the opposite of thinking that government is an intrinsically good thing is thinking that it restricts human freedom but is necessary for the peaceful cooperation of people who bond together for common defense (and perhaps economic benefits). Locke, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tata126 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 10 2006, 04:57 PM']yep especially when "catholics" start justifying it. I guess Pope Pius XI was wrong and never spoke infallibly. [right][snapback]852052[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Papal Infallibility has been used in two instances. Let's list 'em: Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Other than that, official teachings of the Church have to be backed up by tradition and defined after not-insignificant processes of which I don't know much. Loth as I am to discredit the statement of a Pope, if it's not ex cathedra and in communion with the bishops, it's not infallible, even if a Pope says it. Should be considered very seriously, yes, but you're not bound to believe it unless it's an official teaching of the Church. By the way, I am a staunch conservative. Edited January 11, 2006 by Tata126 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 [quote]"nothing prevents a virtuous man from being liberal" --Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 117, Article 1[/quote] Many modern "liberals" are not such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now