The Church, the US, and Thou

[Norseman82]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1349733' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:20 PM']whatschamacallit excommunication (the kind where you do it to yourself)[/quote]

I believe [i]latae sententiae[/i] is the term you are looking for.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1357041' date='Aug 11 2007, 10:25 PM']couple things...

I'm not a conservative hater. I'm more conservative than liberal. Ask anyone who knows me. Don't really feel like I need to defend myself on that count to anyone online. call it bad debating, I don't care.

The bulk of your argument is based on dictionary definitions (definitely not the highest ecclesiastical authority) which specifically use the word political, a fact you chose to ignore.

every definition (except the last one, which i will come to) uses the word political. You promptly twist the definition to include the Church. For the definition of liberalism you choose a single definition which doesn't help you at all. At least I can't see it helping you. It does say 'the autonomy of the individual', but again, it specifies 'political philosophy'. It isn't necessarily talking about morality. It never says liberalism demans belief in no higher moral authority, you said that yourself.

The fifth definition of liberal which you include doesn't really help your argument either. It does use the word 'orthodoxy' but I'm assuming this isn't a Catholic dictionary? Because non-Catholics don't mean teh same thing when they say 'orthodox'. They usually mean conforms to social norms....social norms are sometimes moral issues but not always. Everyone has heard of things such as 'unorthodox teaching styles'. These teaching styles are not heretical (necessarily). In fact they can be quite good. So as a Catholic when I use the word orthodox I mean something completely different than an American protestant would mean. Basically what I mean is that orthodox and unorthodox in secular and religious setting mean very different things.

You read every single one of these definitions to mean what you wanted them to mean. They aren't talking about religion, not in a single one.[/quote]
Oh really? The first Merriam-Webster (sorry, I had forgotten to name the source of my definitions) definition of "liberal" specifically concerned a "[b]movement in modern Protestantism[/b]."
What is called "liberal Catholicism" is basically the application of this unorthodox Protestant theology by self-described "Catholics" (who are in reality Catholic-in-name-only).
Thus your claim that these terms cannot be used to describe religion is proved false.

I bolded the political definitions because they seemed most relevent to what you were talking about. I agree dictionary definitions are probably not the best and most complete when defining liberalism and conservatism, but my point was to use an "unbiased" commonly-agreed-upon source, rather than a biased (liberal or conservative) political source to get a broad sense of the accepted definitions. As you see, the defintitions are not limited to the political, and nowhere does it say they only concern economic/political policy. (In fact, the only strictly economic definition was one for economic liberalism, i.e. free-market capitalism - which is in fact usually in America identified with "conservatism")

It is you who made the adament claim that "liberal" and "conservative" cannot be used regarding moral or religious matters, so the burden of proof is on you. So far, you have given none.

In fact, I quoted Russell Kirk, widely regarded as one of the most important intellectual founders of the modern conservative movement as saying that the most important principles of conservatism are spiritual, religious, and moral in nature.

As coming from one who helped define American conservatism as a movement, I believe Kirk's words carry a bit more weight concerning what conservatism does and doesn't concern than your own.
(And btw, Kirk was a devout Roman Catholic.)


[quote]It doesn't matter what would shock him. It doesn't matter what he thinks about that...abortion and homosexuality are not political issues, they are moral truths. Moral truths are moral truths. They are quite seperate from economic theories. And again, even you cannot refrain from using the word "religious" when saying conservative. It is because conservative alone means political...it does not mean religious.[/quote]
Your claim. Back it up.
Again, show me where it says conservative and liberal can only mean economic theories. (Hint: you can't.)

And abortion and homosexuality may involve moral issues, yet someone would have to be living under a rock to claim they are not also political issues in modern politics.
The claim that politics and morality and cannot intersect is false and nonsensical (though sometimes claimed by liberals).
When liberals lobby for continued enforcement of abortion-on-demand, and for "gay-rights" and other immoral political agendas, they have made the promotion of immorality and the culture of death part of their politics. This is a simple fact, like it or not.
In fact, the promotion of the culture of death is commonly known as "social liberalism."

Likewise, when pro-lifers push for overturning Roe v. Wade, etc. (Pro-lifers are considered "social conservatives.")

Politics does often concern moral issues, and it is foolish of you to say that they cannot, and that liberal and conservative can [i]only[/i] apply to strictly economic matters.

[quote]and I definitely didn't equate conservatism to the republican party...Which is why I'm not a republican...[/quote]
It was you who made the following accusation:[quote]people like you spread the false belief that Catholics can only be conservative, that Catholics can only be republicans (essentially). That is a terrible lie to spread around.[/quote]

Sorry, but I just don't tend to take kindly to accusations of spreading lies.

[quote]Of course I think that moral issues should be a part of a politicians policy decisions. Unfortunately gay marriage and abortion have become very much a part of the political stage. They shouldn't be equated with a person's political beliefs, however. They are more part of their religion. We should vote for people whose moral beliefs coincide most closely to ours, but perhaps one day there will be a time when we have a real political choice instead of a religious one.[/quote]
An absurd statement.
Why should [b]political[/b] positions concerning abortion or "gay marriage" [b]not[/b] be equated with a person's political beliefs???
As soon as someone lobbies for political action one way or the other regarding these issues, his positions by definition become political (i.e. working to overturn [i]Roe[/i], or demanding state recognition of "gay marriage").
As for these positions being "religious," and not "political," how often have we heard "Catholic" liberal politicians say things like, "I'm personally against abortion, but believe we must legally uphold a woman's right to choose, blah, blah, blah"?

You're trying to force a false dichotomy between morality and politics which does not in fact exist.

[Justified Saint]

It might be worth adding that according to most conservatives, man is inherently a political animal (in the Aristotelian sense) and thus just about anything and everything has a political consequence on some level. Attempting to divorce moral and religious codes from political discourse misunderstands human nature on the conservative account. In contrast, liberals tend to emphasize a progressive liberation from politics altogether (after moral and religious codes).

That said, the suggestion that only Catholics can be true conservatives seems to me a confusion of terms. For one, I have found intellectual conservatism usually to be pretty ecumenical. Conservative principles certainly ride on some religious truths, but it is not innately exclusive to the particulars of Catholicism. And this goes back, I think, to the primacy of politics in conservative thought. After all, conservatism is usually articulated in the context of political thought: the just ordering of government, constitutionalism, free society etc.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1358055' date='Aug 13 2007, 09:43 AM']It might be worth adding that according to most conservatives, man is inherently a political animal (in the Aristotelian sense) and thus just about anything and everything has a political consequence on some level. Attempting to divorce moral and religious codes from political discourse misunderstands human nature on the conservative account. In contrast, liberals tend to emphasize a progressive liberation from politics altogether (after moral and religious codes).

That said, the suggestion that only Catholics can be true conservatives seems to me a confusion of terms. For one, I have found intellectual conservatism usually to be pretty ecumenical. Conservative principles certainly ride on some religious truths, but it is not innately exclusive to the particulars of Catholicism. And this goes back, I think, to the primacy of politics in conservative thought. After all, conservatism is usually articulated in the context of political thought: the just ordering of government, constitutionalism, free society etc.[/quote]
I don't recall anyone claiming that only Catholics can be conservatives. The discussion here was about whether [i]Catholics[/i] can (or must) be conservative, [i]not[/i] whether or not non-Catholics can be true conservatives.

I'd tend to disagree that conservatives by nature tend to be more "political" than liberals, though we might have a broader ("Aristotelian") defintition of "political."

It tends to be the extreme Left that wants to read Marxist-style power politics into absolutely everything, and use everything as a means of spreading political propaganda. (See leftist "post-modern" ideas about literature, art, and history.)

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1356964' date='Aug 11 2007, 10:02 PM']I suggest you read the works of Kirk and other conservative thinkers, rather than simply getting all your "knowledge" on political philosophy from network tv.
There can be nothing more truly conservative than being an orthodox Catholic.[/quote]

Kirk...yay.

Sorry, off topic. I'm enjoying this read immensely, I'm just not learned enough to join in. Sorry for interrupting!

But, I do have a question. Um, CAN Catholics be Liberal? aalpha is saying that we can, but I've grown up thinking that Liberals were usually not Catholics (because Liberals believe in Abortion, gay rights...) well, most Liberals at least. Anyway just something that's been bothering me...am I getting something wrong? Aren't Catholics usually Conservative??

Edited August 14, 2007 by Ora et Labora

[aalpha1989]

Ok, I'm gonna back up a little bit. My argument hinges on the idea that being liberal does not necessarily mean you are pro gay marriage, abortion, et cetera. Let's look at examples from history. The American revolutionaries were liberal for their time, rebelling against an established king and creating a new form of government. This was a good liberal. However, in the French revolution the liberals began attacking the Church and murdering innocent people. This was a bad liberal. Look at the flip side also. The British and the Tories were more conservative in the American revolution, while in the French revolution the royalists were more conservative. My argument is that liberal and conservative are amoral terms. The apostles were certainly considered 'liberal' by the Sanhedran. The terms liberal and conservative change and are relative to their specific time frame. Cardinal Ratzinger was also one of the more 'liberal' bishops of the second Vatican Council, but is certainly not considered 'liberal' today. His views have not changed...it is the world that has changed. Your idea of liberalism is Hilary Clinton. She is certainly liberal. She does not, however, represent the way liberals must be.

This is why Catholic orthodoxy and the word 'conservative' are not synonyms. They do not mean the same thing. I'll give an example. Minimum wage. Conservatives generally do not want to raise minimum wage while liberals do. Personally I have not yet decided on what I believe (I'm only 17, still trying to figure everything out...this could also explain my poor debating abilities). I can see both sides and don't think a Catholic must be against a higher minimum wage.

Anyway I just mean that things like gay marriage and abortion are not essential beliefs of a liberal. Not even in American politics.

Also you tell me to back up my claims...honestly I don't know how. And anyway I still haven't seen that quote from any popes. It was not in the Syllabus of Errors (or give me an exact quote and explain it...because I saw it nowhere there). Also do not just tell me to back up my claims. I do recognize your seniority (since you insisted on reminding me of it), and do want to hear what you have to say. I'm not so stuck in my opinion that I can't be persuaded...I just need real evidence that what you say is true. The only source you've used so far is Merriam Webster...I'm not impressed.

I've just always read that popes do not like to be called conservative or liberal (John Paul II specifically) because it is not an accurate statement. You can fall off of both sides of the boat, not just the left side. The correct way is right down the middle. Popes are orthodox (the Catholic kind). They aren't necessarily conservative. The Second Vatican council was liberal (using the definition of liberal that I believe is the correct one). It changed the form of the Mass, revamped the Church. It went against the former flow of things, brought new ideas of reaching people. It changed the way things were done. This does not mean it was heterodox.

Anyway the only form of the word liberal that you can see is the form that is Clintonish. That is not the only liberal. It's like saying all conservatives are like Joseph McCarthy.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1358744' date='Aug 14 2007, 01:19 PM']Ok, I'm gonna back up a little bit. My argument hinges on the idea that being liberal does not necessarily mean you are pro gay marriage, abortion, et cetera. Let's look at examples from history. The American revolutionaries were liberal for their time, rebelling against an established king and creating a new form of government. This was a good liberal. However, in the French revolution the liberals began attacking the Church and murdering innocent people. This was a bad liberal. Look at the flip side also. The British and the Tories were more conservative in the American revolution, while in the French revolution the royalists were more conservative. My argument is that liberal and conservative are amoral terms. The apostles were certainly considered 'liberal' by the Sanhedran. The terms liberal and conservative change and are relative to their specific time frame. Cardinal Ratzinger was also one of the more 'liberal' bishops of the second Vatican Council, but is certainly not considered 'liberal' today. His views have not changed...it is the world that has changed. Your idea of liberalism is Hilary Clinton. She is certainly liberal. She does not, however, represent the way liberals must be.[/quote]
You do have a point in that the precise meaning of these terms varies from time to time, and place to place (and according to who you're talking to.)
(However, I seriously doubt the Sanhedrin ever called the Apostles "liberal," as the term did not exist back then, and the whole philosophy and concept of liberalism did not even develop until the 17th century!)
However, liberalism as it currently stands in 21st century America is definitely at odds with Catholic orthodoxy.
And historically, liberalism has always tended to oppose religious orthodoxy and moral authority.

[quote]This is why Catholic orthodoxy and the word 'conservative' are not synonyms. They do not mean the same thing. I'll give an example. Minimum wage. Conservatives generally do not want to raise minimum wage while liberals do. Personally I have not yet decided on what I believe (I'm only 17, still trying to figure everything out...this could also explain my poor debating abilities). I can see both sides and don't think a Catholic must be against a higher minimum wage.[/quote]
You insist on narrowly defining "liberal" and "conservative" to only refer to economic positions.
As I have shown, this was never the only, nor even the primary, meaning of these terms.
(And in most places in the world, the person against a minumum wage would not be known as a "conservative," but an economic liberal - but I digress.)

I have quoted Russell Kirk as saying that the primary concerns of the conservative are ethical, spiritual, and religious in nature, or as he elsewhere put it, for preserving "the Permanent Things," (religion, family, morality, etc.) but obviously you are unimpressed, preferring to make up your own definitions to suit your argument.

[quote]Anyway I just mean that things like gay marriage and abortion are not essential beliefs of a liberal. Not even in American politics.[/quote]
Go to any gathering of self-described liberals, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a pro-lifer, or someone opposed to "gay rights."
Sadly, these things have become very ingrained in contemporary liberalism, and are at its core.
This is part of liberalism's long-standing philosophy of individual "rights" divorced from any framework of traditional morality.

What [b]are[/b] the essential beliefs of a liberal?
You seem to simply want to define things on your own terms.

[quote]Also you tell me to back up my claims...honestly I don't know how. And anyway I still haven't seen that quote from any popes. It was not in the Syllabus of Errors (or give me an exact quote and explain it...because I saw it nowhere there). Also do not just tell me to back up my claims. I do recognize your seniority (since you insisted on reminding me of it), and do want to hear what you have to say. I'm not so stuck in my opinion that I can't be persuaded...I just need real evidence that what you say is true. The only source you've used so far is Merriam Webster...I'm not impressed.

I've just always read that popes do not like to be called conservative or liberal (John Paul II specifically) because it is not an accurate statement. You can fall off of both sides of the boat, not just the left side. The correct way is right down the middle. Popes are orthodox (the Catholic kind). They aren't necessarily conservative. The Second Vatican council was liberal (using the definition of liberal that I believe is the correct one). It changed the form of the Mass, revamped the Church. It went against the former flow of things, brought new ideas of reaching people. It changed the way things were done. This does not mean it was heterodox.[/quote]
Ok, here it is: [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]The Syllabus of Errors (Pope Pius IX)[/url]

[quote]IV. [b]SOCIALISM[/b], COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, [b]CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES[/b]

Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.[/quote]

[quote]X. [b]ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM [/b]
. . .

80. [b]The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization[/b].- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.[/quote]

I'd recommend reading the Syllabus all the way through, as many of the condemned errors remain staples of liberal thought. (Though the exact meaning of "liberalism" has changed since the 19th century, many root principles remain the same, and modern liberalism is in fact much worse.)

Again, you've provided [b]nothing[/b] to back up your claim that liberal and conservative can [b]only[/b] apply to economic theories.
I'm not impressed.

[quote]Anyway the only form of the word liberal that you can see is the form that is Clintonish. That is not the only liberal. It's like saying all conservatives are like Joseph McCarthy.[/quote]
Senator McCarthy was a great American, and a great Catholic, his name unjustly smeared by liberals. The Communist threat was real, with documents since revealing many spies working in the U.S. government. Though liberals deny it, history has vindicated him.

Little good has come out of modern liberalism, and it is not something a Catholic should support.