Oh, so your answer is “it’s self-evident” and they mention Karl Rahner?
I’ve got news for you. That’s not evidence. That’s someone who has been caught out in having bitten off more than he can chew and when called out on it, splutters.
Find some real evidence,other than your “all Jesuits are liberals” assumption.
Here is the evidence on the heterodoxy of Karl Rahner, implicitly denying the doctrine of original sin:
“The dogma (of the immaculate conception) does not mean in any way that the birth of a being is accompanied by something contaminating, by a stain, and that in order to avoid it Mary must have had a privilege." [...]
Cardinal Siri goes on to show the fallacy of Rahner’s teaching: “... if man at his birth” says the Cardinal, “ is not accompanied by a stain, of what stain does the Bull of Pius IX speak? How can one claim, as Rahner does, that there was not any stain to avoid and that Mary did not need a privilege?”
In short, this is nothing more than Rahner’s implicit denial of original sin. It also undermines the infallibility of Papal pronouncements, since Rahner’s words clearly contradict Pius IXs solemn definition.
Here is the evidence on the heterodoxy of Karl Rahner, implicitly denying the doctrine of original sin:
“The dogma (of the immaculate conception) does not mean in any way that the birth of a being is accompanied by something contaminating, by a stain, and that in order to avoid it Mary must have had a privilege." [...]
Cardinal Siri goes on to show the fallacy of Rahner’s teaching: “... if man at his birth” says the Cardinal, “ is not accompanied by a stain, of what stain does the Bull of Pius IX speak? How can one claim, as Rahner does, that there was not any stain to avoid and that Mary did not need a privilege?”
In short, this is nothing more than Rahner’s implicit denial of original sin. It also undermines the infallibility of Papal pronouncements, since Rahner’s words clearly contradict Pius IXs solemn definition.