LIBERTAS (What Pope Leo XIII wrote about Liberals)

[ironmonk]

[quote][url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13LIBER.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13LIBER.HTM[/url]
14. If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. [b]But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, "I will not serve"; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.[/b]

15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

16. Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.

17. There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason. In this they are plainly inconsistent. For if—as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny—the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God's rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt. And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error. Let, then, that continue to remain in a holy and inviolable union which neither can nor should be separated; and in all things—for this is the dictate of right reason itself—let God be dutifully and obediently served.[/quote]



I think that some on this board that think that they are liberal are not really liberal.

"Liberal" as a noun in the political and religious sense is a bad word with a bad meaning. The media strains to make the word liberal sound good, but it's not.

Our actions and beliefs are what determine what label we should have.

The liberals in power lie about conservative plans. The biggest outcry I have witnessed from people who think that they are liberal economically is that conservatives do not want to help the poor, which is a total misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on what conservatives plans do. We want to help the poor, we want to educate them and help them get a job where they can support themselves and do not have to rely on us. People who can support themselves are free. People who depend on an [u][b]endless [/b][/u] (please note this key term) handout are slaves to those who are handing out. The liberals in power know this and that is why they do not try to reduce dependancy. Catholic teachings requires a welfare program that reduces dependancy.

The second biggest point I hear is the "death penalty". I would guess at least half of conservatives think the death penalty is overused.

If those are the two points that make one think they are liberal... yet they are God loving, life loving, family loving, anti-drug, anti-pron, etc... then they are conservative.

The liberals in power are against God and godless, anti-life, anti-family, pro-dependancy, pro-drugs, pro-porn, etc.... This is why I see liberals as foolish and that they do not know how to think and why it boggles my mind at times when faithful Catholics want to be counted with them.

Please don't misunderstand... I know very well that there are conservatives in power that lie and are just as bad as the liberals... but the majority of the conservatives in power are honest God loving people...

I go strictly by the Church teachings for political choices I make.... as defined here:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia....

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm[/url]

[quote][b]III. CONDEMNATION OF LIBERALISM BY THE CHURCH[/b]

By proclaiming man's absolute autonomy in the intellectual, moral and social order, Liberalism denies, at least practically, God and supernatural religion. If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemnations of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most solemn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution "De Fide" of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally political form of false Liberal Catholicism had been condemned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", of 15 August, 1832 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see Ségur, "Hommage aux Catholiques Libéraux", Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . citées dans le Syllabus", Paris, 1865) and the encyclicals of Leo XIII of 20 January, 1888, "On Human Liberty"; of 21 April, 1878, "On the Evils of Modern Society"; of 28 December, 1878, "On the Sects of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists"; of 4 August, 1879, "On Christian Philosophy"; of 10 February, 1880, "On Matrimony"; of 29 July, 1881, "On the Origin of Civil Power"; of 20 April, 1884, "On Freemasonry"; of 1 November, 1885, "On the Christian State"; of 25 December, 1888, "On the Christian Life"; of 10 January, 1890, "On the Chief Duties of a Christian Citizen"; of 15 May, 1891, "On the Social Question"; of 20 January, 1894, "On the Importance of Unity in Faith and Union with the Church for the Preservation of the Moral Foundations of the State"; of 19 March, 1902, "On the Persecution of the Church all over the World". Full information about the relation of the Church towards Liberalism in the different countries may be gathered from the transactions and decisions of the various provincial councils. These can be found in the "Collectio Lacensis" under the headings of the index: Fides, Ecclesia, Educatio, Francomuratores.[/quote]

[Snarf]

From dictionary.com

liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

This was the understanding that prevailed of Liberalism until around the 1960s in America, and it prevails elsewhere. Do a little real research and I might be impressed.

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 11 2006, 05:17 AM']From dictionary.com

liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard

This was the understanding that prevailed of Liberalism until around the 1960s in America, and it prevails elsewhere.  Do a little real research and I might be impressed.
[right][snapback]883747[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Present something other than an ad hominem attack and I might be impressed.

You admit yourself that liberalism today means something different than it did 100 years ago. That being the case what is wrong with him discussing it in the context in which we all understand it today?

I know what a liberal is in today's context. So does he as does everybody else on this board with the exception of those who might want to convice people that they are not what they really are.

You had to go way to the bottom of the page on dictionary.com to find the version of liberalism that you posted. I'm curious why you didn't stop sooner and use this definition higher up on the page.

[quote]lib·er·al·ism 
n.
        2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

liber·al·ist n.
liber·al·istic (-lstk) adj.
[/quote]

[Jaime]

I agree with IM on most of what he's posted. However many of the "liberals" on the board have been deemed liberal by others. No one in the real world who knows me would ever dream of calling me a liberal. Yet I get called this regularly around these parts. (It makes me chuckle)

Are there some that come on PM who are truly liberal? Sure but they are few and far between. Many are called liberal pejoratively simply because others don't agree with their opinions. Its an easy way to avoid a thoughtful conversation.

[Aloysius]

for the most part from what I've seen, people who have gottin the "rep" of liberalism have gotten it moreso by defending the label "liberal" as a possible Catholic label... from what I've seen it has rarely been imposed upon anyone. I never imposed it on anyone... there were and are people who either identify as 'liberal' or argue that one can be Catholic and identiy as 'liberal' even if that is not their personal opinion.

at most I think perhaps some people's specific views on this or that subject may have been termed "liberal" views... but I really cannot see this victim claim that everyone has imposed the word liberal on the side that rises to the defence of modern liberalism... maybe I'm missing something?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 11 2006, 08:30 AM']for the most part from what I've seen, people who have gottin the "rep" of liberalism have gotten it moreso by defending the label "liberal" as a possible Catholic label... from what I've seen it has rarely been imposed upon anyone.  I never imposed it on anyone... there were and are people who either identify as 'liberal' or argue that one can be Catholic and identiy as 'liberal' even if that is not their personal opinion.

at most I think perhaps some people's specific views on this or that subject may have been termed "liberal" views... but I really cannot see this victim claim that everyone has imposed the word liberal on the side that rises to the defence of modern liberalism... maybe I'm missing something?
[right][snapback]883775[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Maybe what your missing is a long term memory. Because you're a perfect example.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 26 2006, 01:12 AM']yep.  everything hot stuff politically he doesn't REALLY agree with.  he's just saying it to provoke everyone.  it's his sick sense of humor.

can't you tell?  everything he says has been an hilarious caricature of the liberal agenda...

:
[right][snapback]866301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 09:08 AM']I agree with IM on most of what he's posted. However many of the "liberals" on the board have been deemed liberal by others.  No one in the real world who knows me would ever dream of calling me a liberal.  Yet I get called this regularly around these parts.  (It makes me chuckle)

Are there some that come on PM who are truly liberal?  Sure but they are few and far between.  Many are called liberal pejoratively simply because others don't agree with their opinions.  Its an easy way to avoid a thoughtful conversation.
[right][snapback]883770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is a prophetic statement. The reason being, I am one of the very few that know hot stuff outside of phatmass (And he knows me). Every time that he is called, labelled, deemed, etc.....a liberal, I literally fall on the floor laughing.

Are there any here who are truly liberal, yes.....is it the embodiment of evil? No. Is it opposed to Catholic thought? To a certain degree yes, but also to a certain degree no. This has been explained before by Thumper on other threads.

And I totally agree with the notion that when someone presents an idea that is forward thinking (but still within the realm of orthodoxy), s/he is automatically a "liberal."

Too many, way too many people on this board and other places within Catholicism are so afraid to think, that if someone does, it must be liberalism.

A perfect example is my view of the application of the death penalty. I am automatically labelled a "liberal" on this issue because my view is not "traditional." Actually, my view is incredibly traditional, however, the language used is not "traditional." If those who would argue against me would get past the way the language is used, then s/he would would understand that my view of the death penalty is very traditional.

Another great example is the prevailing view of the SSPX on this board. For those who oppose the SSPX they are automatically considered to be "liberal," by some. This is hardly the case.

As for all of this "liberalism" talk, there is a huge misconception of what "liberalism" is. The lack of knowledge is astounding and the lack of understanding is even moreso. However, I will continue to laugh whenever I see the "liberal" moniker given to hot stuff, others and myself on this board.

[Akalyte]

"what is liberalism"?

Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principle of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of Revelation according to the dictates of private judgment, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgment. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual's reason or caprice upon the subject matter of Revelation. The individual or sect interprets as it pleases--rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity, on the same plea, rejects all Revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion; for it is clear that one who, under the plea of rational liberty, has the right to repudiate any part of Revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one who, on the same ground, repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another, on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea, no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism, helpless against the foe of its own making.

As a result, we find amongst the people of this country (excepting well formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed--or accept no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press. It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty. Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man's absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, RATIONALISM, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have SECULARIZATION, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.

Such is the source of liberalism in the order of ideas; such, in consequence of our Protestant and infidel surroundings, is the intellectual atmosphere which we are perpetually breathing into our souls. Nor do these principles remain simply in the speculative order, poised forever in the region of thought. Men are not mere contemplatives. Doctrines and beliefs inevitably precipitate themselves into action. The speculation of today becomes the deed of tomorrow, for men, by force of the law of their nature, are ever acting out what they think. Rationalism, therefore, takes concrete shape in the order of facts. It finds palpable expression and action in the press, in legislation, and in social life. The secular press reeks with it, proclaiming with almost unanimous vociferation, absolute division between public life and religion. It has become the shibboleth of journalism, and the editor who will not recognize it in his daily screed soon feels the dagger of popular disapproval. In secularized marriage and in our divorce laws, it cleaves the very roots of domestic society; in secularized education, the cardinal principle of our public school system, it propagates itself in the hearts of the future citizens and the future parents; in compulsory school laws, it forces in the entering wedge of socialism; in the speech and intercourse of social life, it is constantly asserting itself with growing reiteration; in secret societies, organized in a spirit destructive of religion and often for the express purpose of exterminating Catholicity, it menaces our institutions and places the country in the hands of conspirators, whose methods and designs, beyond the reach of the public eye, constitute a tyranny of darkness. In a thousand ways does the principle of Rationalism find its action and expression in social and civil life, and however diversified be its manifestation, there is in it always a unity and a system of opposition to Catholicity. Whether concerted or not, it ever acts in the same direction, and whatever special school within the genus of Liberalism professes it or puts it into action--be it in society, in domestic life, or in politics--the same essential characteristics will be found in all its protean shapes--opposition to the Church--and it will ever be found stigmatizing the most ardent defenders of the Faith as reactionaries, clericals, Ultramontanes [See Ch. 19], etc. Wherever found, whatever its uniform, Liberalism in its practical action is ever a systematic warfare upon the Church. Whether it intrigue, whether it legislate, whether it orate or assassinate, whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State or Humanity or Reason, or whatnot, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ.

[Akalyte]

i will never pledge allegiance to liberalism, i dont care what form it comes in. Besides it has been comdemned by the Church. I dont believe it can be jusitfied. Its an invasion of protestant thought.

[Nathan]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 10 2006, 10:44 PM']The liberals in power lie about conservative plans. The biggest outcry I have witnessed from people who think that they are liberal economically is that conservatives do not want to help the poor, which is a total misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on what conservatives plans do. We want to help the poor, we want to educate them and help them get a job where they can support themselves and do not have to rely on us. People who can support themselves are free. People who depend on an [u][b]endless [/b][/u] (please note this key term) handout are slaves to those who are handing out. The liberals in power know this and that is why they do not try to reduce dependancy. Catholic teachings requires a welfare program that reduces dependancy.

The second biggest point I hear is the "death penalty". I would guess at least half of conservatives think the death penalty is overused.

If those are the two points that make one think they are liberal... yet they are God loving, life loving, family loving, anti-drug, anti-pron, etc... then they are conservative.

The liberals in power are against God and godless, anti-life, anti-family, pro-dependancy, pro-drugs, pro-porn, etc.... This is why I see liberals as foolish and that they do not know how to think and why it boggles my mind at times when faithful Catholics want to be counted with them.[right][snapback]883670[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Here here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Era Might]

Libertas is not entirely relevant to a discussion of liberalism in a modern context, for two reasons.

First, it was a specific "spirit" of the French revolution that was condemned in the term "liberalism". Democracy is, in this historical context, "liberal". So, at least from the perspective of Pope Leo XIII, anyone who supports democracy (which is pretty much every Catholic in America and every Pope for some time now) is "liberal", inasmuch as they do not support a monarchial order. The post-Revolution Popes were reacting against a radical breach of the time. Just because they use the term "liberal" does not make it analogous in our own context, anymore than the Papal condemnations of "Traditionalism" (a philosophical error) are analogous today to the SSPX.

Second, the Church has developed beyond the framework that pre-modern Popes operated in. She has appropriated what John Paul would term the "positive fruits of the Enlightenment". Pope Benedict explains further:

[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.[/quote]

The reason why Leonine Enyclicals are largely irrelevant to modern liberalism is because they were written in a different world. Today it is not a question of Monarchy ("conservatism") vs. Democracy ("liberalism"). All democratic politics are liberal. "Conservative" and "liberal", in an American context, correspond to the particulars of our liberal democratic order.

And as Pope Benedict notes in "The Ratzinger Report", the opposite of "liberal" for the Church is not "conservative", but "Missionary".

Edited February 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

So is there a legitimate pejorative use of the word "liberal"? Perhaps, if by it is understood the unbridled extremism of Democracy. But with this same understanding in mind, any use of the word "conservative" still operates within a liberal framework, except that it balances an unbridled liberalism with certain principles of the old conservatism.

It would be correct to call anyone who supports democracy a "liberal", if we were using the language of the Papal magisterium immediately following the French Revolution. They may be a "conservative" liberal, but they are a liberal nonetheless.

Of course, it is superfluous, because liberalism today is not the liberalism of yesterday. It is liberalism within a liberal social order, insofar as that social order is juxtaposed with the old, monarchial, and hence, "conservative" social order.

Yes, that means even MC Just is a liberal, insofar as he supports a democracy.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote]i will never pledge allegiance to liberalism[/quote]

I hope you've never pledged allegiance to the flag, because it represents liberalism, political and economic (namely, democracy and capitalism).

The corresponding conservative ideals would be Monarchy and Marxist collectivism.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Era Might

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 11 2006, 09:08 AM']I agree with IM on most of what he's posted. However many of the "liberals" on the board have been deemed liberal by others.  No one in the real world who knows me would ever dream of calling me a liberal.  Yet I get called this regularly around these parts.  (It makes me chuckle)

Are there some that come on PM who are truly liberal?  Sure but they are few and far between.  Many are called liberal pejoratively simply because others don't agree with their opinions.  Its an easy way to avoid a thoughtful conversation.
[right][snapback]883770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you hot stuff.

I think Aloysius hit it on the head... I don't think I have actually called anyone liberal, but it seems some here that I had originally thought some here as liberal was because of some here defending the label.

I know these points are drawn from 100 years ago, but we must also remember that "liberalism" is always moving further leftward. This is where Ecc. 10:2 falls into place. I think liberalism today is far worse than it was 100 years ago. One example of why would be abortion, another would be same sex marriage.

I think the 7 points of Anti-ecclesiastical Liberalism ring true today: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm[/url]


snarf,
You directly go against the teachings of the magisterium. This shows one of two things... a) you do not know the faith and should be studying instead of debating, or b) simple foolishness.

Do a little research I might be impressed.
Here are a few places to start:
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apol...ics/ap0002.html[/url]
[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library.asp[/url]

As long as you go against Catholic teachings I can't take your reasoning seriously. If you want to start a thread on a point by point basis to discuss why you think the Church is wrong and you are right then I would be happy to dialog and either you will be able to show me how and why the Church is wrong or you will learn why the Church is right. This is how everyone wins. As long as we have different authorities guiding our prioroities it will be much harder to come to a common ground.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- shameless promotion of totally Catholic t-shirts & bumper stickers.