Conservative VS Liberal

[Fidei Defensor]

Haaha look what i did. Just keep in mind that the point was about Catholics that there are no liberals or conservitives in terms of catholics in teaching and stuff. I didnt say anything about being liberal or conservitive in other things. and yes, in pure sense, the church is conservative, but when inside the church, you cant be either - your just plain catholic

[crusader1234]

[quote name='curtins' date='Jan 25 2005, 08:58 PM'] so im sinning cause imma republican?????

that wack [/quote]
You aren't sinning because you're Republican, per se, but you would be sinning if you were a Republican to the point where you're going down a 'right wing' road rather than a Catholic one.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 25 2005, 10:58 PM'] You aren't sinning because you're Republican, per se, but you would be sinning if you were a Republican to the point where you're going down a 'right wing' road rather than a Catholic one. [/quote]
Which is a very very very narrow line looking at his sig and rembering some of his past posts.

[crusader1234]

:ph34r:

[Niccolò]

There is a tendency to compare members of the clergy to politicians, and thus the particular stances of priests and bishops on certain issues are labeled "conservative" or "liberal" by the standards of the current political situation. For example, a priest advocating for homosexual "marriage" would be termed by the media as "liberal," when in fact he is voicing an heretical view. Many times what seems to be "liberal" versus "conservative" is really an issue of being heretical versus orthodox.

That being said, there are those within the Church who can legitimately be termed "conservative" or "liberal" and are still very orthodox. For example, a conservative Catholic may want a more generous application of the Indult mass, while a liberal Catholic may prefer the Novus Ordo.

Some issues such as the war in Iraq, capital punishment, or minimum wage can be legitimately debated by orthodox Catholics, and it that case it is correct to refer to Catholics as politically "liberal" or "conservative."

[Guest Aluigi]

liberalism is a sin. but symantics have the terms liberalism and conservativism so jumbled that the terms can no longer really be applied. Catholics should be on a whole different level, not conservative, not moderate, not liberal. that spectrum is quite below us. but on the higher spectrum, we are conservative. make sense? we're not modern conservative or modern liberal or modern moderate, we're ancient conservative.

[crusader1234]

[quote]lib·er·al    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

[snip]
[b]Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. [/b]
[snip][/quote]


Anyways, I was thinking - how come Conservatives are usually the least inclined to conservation? Weird.

[Guest Aluigi]

that's not the political one and you know it

liberal implies a mistaken notion of what liberty or freedom really is and seeks to escape and/or destroy traditional institutions who hold to high moral values. liberal connotates a progressive view of history and usually a sense of chronological snobbery that because we've progressed we are better than all the past. liberal is basically attempting to be liberated from the past, liberated from the Church, liberated from social constraints, liberated from private property, liberated from traditional values, liberated ultimately from what really separates humanity from the beasts (though they never see that ultimate end to what liberalism is).

Catholics should not lend themselves to conservative corporatism. They should not lend themselves to liberal government socialization or liberal morality.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 25 2005, 08:18 PM'] The terms "left" and "right" having a poltical usage did not happen until the French Rev [/quote]
It was a joke. Learn to laugh a little

[journeyman]

FWIW

[url="http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/brooks.html"]Religious Faith and Charitable Giving[/url]
Arthur C. Brooks. Policy Review, no. 21 (October/November 2003).
This essay by an associate professor of public administration at Syracuse University highlights the significant difference between the charitable giving by religious and nonreligious people. Brooks’ research shows that the average religious person is 23 percent more likely to give financially and 26 percent more likely to volunteer their time than a demographically identical nonreligious person. While he suggests there may be many reasons why religious people are more likely to give or volunteer to both religious and nonreligious causes, the author’s particular concern is to show how the combination of political and religious views affects charitable giving. Brooks’ research shows that political conservatives are more likely to give than political liberals. Brooks says that this connection between political orientation and giving is not inherent, but it too highlights the connection that political conservatives tend to be more religious and political liberals tend to be more secular. One example of this connection is the fact that religious people tend to believe in and contribute to faith-based programs, and thus give less political and financial support to big government programs. Brooks’ final analysis is that religious people do receive the more consistent teaching on giving than nonreligious people, and if nonreligious people do want to increase their giving, they must find similar motivation to make giving a habit.
[url="http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=224"]http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=28&page=224[/url]


For a more ecumenical view comparing giving between groups,

[url="http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/Library%20Papers/Event%20papers/GiftsMoney/Hall.pdf"]Religion, Philanthropy, Service, and Civic Engagement in Twentieth Century America[/url]
Peter Dobkin Hall
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University

[Iacobus]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 27 2005, 08:46 PM'] It was a joke. Learn to laugh a little [/quote]
LOL! I didn't take it as a joke for two reasons,

A. Everyone in my town is "End of the World Prodestants." For them, everything is face value, you have to think like that at times just to understand their nonsense.

B. I made that post after writing a few pages of a paper that most "humorous" line is,

"There is no difference between the geratric seropositive population and the younger HIV seropositive cohort in use of protease inhibitors."

Yeh, I was on a different plane. It was in orbit of Mars.