...and now for something completely different...

[Era Might]

*The quote tags aren't working for some reason, so I had to bold all quotes.


[b]I was referring to conservative Catholics who use our religion (ie, their warped interpretation of our religion) to justify voting for the wrong party[/b]

The "wrong" party? That assumes that there is an objective "right" party.

[b]I understand your point that Catholics should be involved in the political system but not the point that they should blind themselves to the total picture so that only a single political issue is advanced.[/b]

Of course they shouldn't.

What you are referring to here, I'm not sure. Abortion outweighs all other questions today. This has nothing to do with politics. It is a matter of justice when millions of children are slaughtered each year.

Does that end our obligations to the poor? Of course not. But it does affect our evaluation of political candidates. Those who are most militantly pro-abortion tend to be self-identified "liberal democrats", and so, Catholics tend to vote for a candidate who will do more to advance the cause of life, who tend to be self-identified "conservative Republicans".

[b]I accept that you refer to yourself as neither conservative nor liberal but this is not the truth of the majority of American and European Catholics and certainly not true of the majority of the people who post on this forum (as evidenced by their postings.)[/b]

And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. They have invested themselves, as laymen, in the political lot of their country.

[b]I find that when conservative Catholic so identify, they wish to assert their preferences over those of others (ie, liberals or those who "aren't quite conservative enough.")[/b]

Of course they do. If they aren't meaning to distinguish themselves from another group of people, they wouldn't call themselves anything.

[b]If I wanted to paint liberals in such a headily perfumed light as you did the conservatives, I would then say that liberals wish to share "liberally" in Christi's compassion and love for all especially His lowliest children, the poor. As you see, words and self-promoting sentiments are very malleable.[/b]

Here's the difference:

When an ordinary Catholic says he is "conservative", generally, he just means he wants to think with the Church and keep her faith.

When an ordinary Catholic says he is "liberal", generally, he means he wants to change the Church according to a modern American ideology (read: abortion, contraception, women Priests).

The problem is not that they identify themselves with Democrats or Republicans, but that their self-identification as a "liberal Catholic" or a "conservative Catholic", in popular speak, means very different things.

[b]I find many conservatives hide behind words to avoid using the word "conservative." I've met many who use the word "orthodox" to self-identify (without understanding the full implication of that word.) [/b]

Well, I disagree. Ordinary Catholics who identify as "conservative" generally just mean that they want to be faithful to the Church. They also tend to associate with political conservatives in America, because political liberals in America are rabidly belligerent to Catholicism.

I avoid using the word "conservative" because it is a political concept.

I don't care if people consider me "conservative" or "liberal", in a political sense.

One can be a political "conservative" or a political "liberal" and still be an orthodox Catholic. This is not a question of politics, but of religion.

[b]I find that liberals don't have the same compunctions. If they are liberal, they won't hide their identify including the author of the article I initially posted.[/b]

That's because, for the most part, people who identify themselves as "liberal" do not intend to be orthodox. They do not intend to obey the Church's teaching. People who identify as "conservative", for the most part, do.

Besides, Rocco did not describe himself as a liberal. He described someone else as a liberal, namely, the Archbishop of San Francisco. It's one thing to identify yourself (I don't think Rocco would consider himself a "liberal", although I could be wrong). But it can be misleading to apply that schema to others, which is why I objected in the first place. Ratzinger was a victim of this all the time. He was boxed into American political schema, when he transcended it all.

[b]Crickey! Do you believe there are Conservative/Republican conspiracies also?[/b]

No.

[b]First, liberal Catholics are not "belligerent" to the Church.[/b]

I said the political liberals in this nations are, for the most part, belligerent to Catholicism, and to religion in general. Catholics who associate themselves with this liberal scene generally share their contempt for the authentic teaching of the Church.

I do not grant the phrase "liberal Catholic" the same legitimacy as "conservative Catholic" because, as I said before, one generally denotes a desire to do away with the teaching of the Church, while the other just wants to keep it.

This is why I abhor the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a religious context at all. Because it wholly inadequate. But, they are part of common speak, and a necessary evil to an extent.

[b]Even your last statement identifies you as a conservative.[/b]

Ok. LOL

[b]You equate liberality with "anti-Catholicism" and by extension of your line of logic, as you are a "Catholic" you are therefore conservative.[/b]

No, I equated the liberal scene in America with anti-Catholicism.

There is a legitimate liberal political tradition in America that I have spoken of at length here on the phorum, that Catholics would be right to restore. Unfortunately, that tradition, the tradition marked by the civil rights movement, for example, has been hijacked by the liberal scene today, which is zealously secular. It worships at the altar of abortion, and rejects anything outside of it.

[b]I've always been referring to liberals IN the Church….I'm not referring to the maniacs.[/b]

I maintain that, by and large, a Catholic who identifies themselves as "liberal" does so in unison with the liberal scene in America today.

As I said, Catholics could fight for a legitimate "liberal tradition". But by and large, they do not. They are not trying to bring about a liberalism shaped in authentic Catholic ideals; they are trying to bring about a Catholicism shaped in liberal (read, modern liberal) ideals.

[b]And by the way, only 50% of Catholics voted Republican in the last generally US election. To get at the (non religious) truth, one does not simply express one's "feelings" at the expense of truth. One has to rely only on logic and data. And, I'll point out, this is only a recent development in US political history as Catholics have always traditionally been Democratic as the Democratic Party was the only one committed to social reform and helping the poor and laboring classes.[/b]

Funny you point that out. I have pointed it myself, on this phorum no less.

By way of disclosure, I am a registered independent. I voted for George W. Bush because the alternative was frightening.

[b]How about the Ku Klux Klan? Idaho Isolationists? Protestant Millennialists? Snake-handlers? Abortion Clinic Bombers? Gay-bashers? These are all ultra-conservative groups but I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that you had anything in common with them.[/b]

Of course not. Because when an ordinary Catholic says he is "conservative", he generally doesn't mean "I support George Bush's tax policies". He means he wants to be faithful to the Church. Now, he may in fact support George Bush's tax policies, but that's not what he means when he says he is "conservative".

When an ordinary Catholics says he is "liberal", he doesn't necessarily mean he supports John Kerry's tax policies. He means he disagrees with the teaching of the Church in some way or another, and wants to change it.

Now can a self-identified "conservative Catholic" disagree with a teaching of the Church? Of course. This is a particular problem with the Church's social doctrine.

But that is not by and large what they mean when they say they are conservative. You may disagree with the language, but it is what it is. A self-identified "liberal" Catholic, for the most part, means he wants to change the teaching of the Church.

If that is not what he means, and he just means he supports John Kerry's tax policy, great. But that is generally not the case.

[b]I wish you would extend the same logical and charitable courtesy to the other end of the political and (Catholic) theological spectrum.[/b]

This is not about a "theological spectrum". This is about the meaning of terms in common Catholic parlance.

[b]…and yet you believe in liberal conspiracies?[/b]

I do?

[b]That's completely untrue. Thomas Merton reminded us that some of the worst demons are among our hierarchy and in our monasteries. It's easy for those untrained in history to "forget" Cardinal Richelieu, Pope Alexander VI or the "conservative Catholics" who reported Sts Teresa d'Avila and John of the Cross to the Inquisition. The later were particularly proud of themselves to "stand up and be faithful to the Church" as you wrote.[/b]

This comment is too loaded. I wouldn't know where to begin.

[b]Let's not accuse anyone of either sanctity or sanity until we've had a chance to explore their motives.[/b]

I've been on this board for quite a while now, and I generally have a grip on people's motives.

[b]Dorothy Day was liberal AND orthodox. One doesn't have to be conservative to be orthodox.[/b]

Good for her. She was a rare bird indeed. I wish we had many more like her.

[b]Don't dismiss a portion of the church simply because you disagree with them. Err in loving our enemies rather than risk erring in judging them.[/b]

I will stand against theological error in whatever form it takes.

You seem to think people who identify themselves as "liberal Catholics" mean "we support so-and-so's education policies, and stand with the Church firmly on abortion, on contraception, on the true vocation of women, on the condemnation of the welfare state, etc."

If there are such people out there, as I said, great. But we disagree about a point of Catholic culture and common speak.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

It's humorous to me that I'm defending myself against charges of shilling for "conservative Catholics".

I'm the resident pill here at Phatmass who's always correcting people who reject any legitimate use of the term "liberal".

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 18 2006, 01:32 PM']*The quote tags aren't working for some reason, so I had to bold all quotes.
[right][snapback]891213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's because you can only quote so many times in one post before they stop working.

I'm not sure what the magic number is, though.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 18 2006, 01:42 PM']It's because you can only quote so many times in one post before they stop working.

I'm not sure what the magic number is, though.
[right][snapback]891223[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well that's a stupid rule.

I bet you a buncha liberals thought that one up.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 18 2006, 04:14 PM']Well that's a stupid rule. 

I bet you a buncha liberals thought that one up.
[right][snapback]891310[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Kismet]

Conservative Catholics support Bush's insane war DESPITE John Paul II's admonition against it. Liberal Catholics agreed with His Holiness.

It's a devious, self-obsessed and pernicious cognitive dissonance from which you suffer if you think that John Paul was a holy man and possibly a saint but that he was wrong in his arguments against the Gulf War. Let me explain something to you: if my pope and my president disagree, my pope wins. But, I can imagine that you and other conservatives would be confused by Bush's arguments. He insists that he's never made a mistake in his administration (in Catholicism, we're taught only God can claim perfection.) Another bit of confusion could arise from the fact that Bush claims to receive direct communiqués from God. When Mary was asked to become the Mother of my Lord, God only sent an angel to visit her with the message. Maybe you ought to change your religion…you've got a new messiah and you've already voted for him twice.

And by the way, after waging an immoral and useless war that the American people had to have been lied to in its inception, effect and cost, Bush has yet to stop a single abortion in the United States, Afghanistan nor in Iraq. If the Republications were the "Chosen Party" and Bush has God's "mandate" they'd put an end to abortion. You claimed that abortion was THE single issue of any importance. If so, why did you vote for Bush? There has been no reduction in the number of abortions since he got into office. He's not shut down a single abortion clinic. There is no end to the number of zygotes in fertility centers that are destroyed every day. What are the Republicans waiting for? They're the ruling party. During the previous administration they claimed that the Democrats were "stalling" them. WOW! Thank God Bush is against abortion!

Also…a fact that many benighted, conservative Catholics eagerly wish to ignore, Bush is the ONLY US president to have signed a law that allowed stem-cell research into legislation. I'm sure you're proud of yourself in a blind, warped and twisted way. But, I'm sure you're too embarrassed to explain yourself herein. The problem, however, is that you have to explain yourself to God when He questions you at the End of Days.

You are absolutely wrong in the way you lionize conservatives and condemn and alienate liberals but you're unwilling to admit your error. As you refuse to be reasonable in this discussion, you can win it if you'd like…I won't be playing your anti-intellectual games anymore.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Kismet

[Era Might]

I bolded your quotations again, FYI.


[b]Conservative Catholics support Bush's insane war DESPITE John Paul II's admonition against it. Liberal Catholics agreed with His Holiness.[/b]

I'm not sure why you brought up the war, but since you did:

[quote]Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. [b]For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion[/b]. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. [b]There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war[/b] and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, 2004[/quote]


[b]It's a devious, self-obsessed and pernicious cognitive dissonance from which you suffer if you think that John Paul was a holy man and possibly a saint but that he was wrong in his arguments against the Gulf War.[/b]

Again, I have no idea what has provoked you to think I support the war.

By way of disclosure, I had no opinion on the war, for or against it. I do have strong opinions on a theoretical level, and have expressed them here on Phatmass, but I'm not much for application. If you would like to know my thoughts on war and peace, you can read them here:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=46569&view=findpost&p=866474"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...st&p=866474[/url]

Here are some thoughts I had on John Paul and his stance on the war in Iraq:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=45426&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...c=45426&hl=[/url]

[b]But, I can imagine that you and other conservatives would be confused by Bush's arguments.[/b]

I am not a "conservative". I do not identify myself with the "conservative" political movement or the Republican party.

[b]Maybe you ought to change your religion…you've got a new messiah and you've already voted for him twice.[/b]

Why the vehemence? You assume (falsely) that I somehow supported the war, that I blindly support George Bush, and now you suggest I am not fit to be Catholic?

You need to get a grip.

[b]If the Republications were the "Chosen Party" and Bush has God's "mandate" they'd put an end to abortion.[/b]

Yes, that's a big if. Thankfully, I never claimed either.

[b]You claimed that abortion was THE single issue of any importance.[/b]

No, I did not. There are plenty of issues "of any importance". What I said was abortion is the most important issue. Let's say 100,000 people died in the war. Millions of babies will be slaughtered this year. See the difference?

[b]If so, why did you vote for Bush?[/b]

Because he has a modicum of concern in the efforts of the pro-life movement. I could not in good conscience vote for someone so engrossed in the slaughter of the unborn that he would do anything to keep it in existence (namely, John Kerry).

If you felt the need to vote for John Kerry, that is between you and God. It's none of my business who you voted for.

[b]During the previous administration they claimed that the Democrats were "stalling" them. WOW! Thank God Bush is against abortion![/b]

You might want to start a new thread to discuss the political merits. Frankly, I am not interested, although there are others here who would be more than willing (and far more capable than I) to look intelligently at specifically political questions. I am a theological man myself.

[b]I'm sure you're proud of yourself in a blind, warped and twisted way.[/b]

Again, what would make you "sure" of such a thing?

[b]But, I'm sure you're too embarrassed to explain yourself herein. The problem, however, is that you have to explain yourself to God when He questions you at the End of Days.[/b]

Not at all. I'm actually embarrassed for you, first, for accusing me of things wholly out of touch with the reality of my thought, and second, for abandoning any civility we had in this discussion.

[b]You are absolutely wrong in the way you lionize conservatives and condemn and alienate liberals but you're unwilling to admit your error. As you refuse to be reasonable in this discussion, you can win it if you'd like…I won't be playing your anti-intellectual games anymore.[/b]

You apparantly have concluded that this discussion is about political conservativism. It is not. It is about people who identify themselves as a "Conservative Catholic" and as a "Liberal Catholic". As I said above, these titles generally don't have anything to do with politics, in themselves. They have to do with how someone understands themselves in relation to the Church.

You have apparantly associated me with some "conservative" boogeyman, and have decided to pigeon hole me into that role.

So be it.

I leave this thread with no ill will. If I have been uncharitable, I apologize.

We disagree.

There is nothing more to say.

God bless.

[Era Might]

Another relevant post of mine, for documentation purposes:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=46569&view=findpost&p=867386"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=867386[/url]

[Ash Wednesday]

Well said, Era.

Not all "conservative catholics" supported the war.

I went on a big diatribe as to why the Democratic party isn't the more "Catholic" party, and while the GOP isn't so great, the Democratic party is even worse -- but anyway I'm sure that we've all been through this before.

What I can say is that Catholics being 50% split down the middle policially doesn't really tell us anything. If 50% of Catholics were faithful to the magesterium on ALL teachings, then maybe we'd be getting somewhere, but as it is, that statistic is practically a dream scenario compared to the way it is now.

Edited February 20, 2006 by Ash Wednesday