Posted on 11/29/2011 4:33:50 AM PST by jacknhoo
To certain Catholics, Peter Kreeft is a rock star.
That was evident Nov. 18, when nearly 500 people filled an auditorium at the Bishop O'Connor Center in Madison to hear him talk.
Kreeft, a Catholic author and Boston College philosophy professor, had been asked by the Catholic Diocese of Madison to speak on whether "a Catholic can be a liberal." Kreeft called it "a very challenging question" and said he'd never spoken on it before.
Kreeft is a strong defender of the Catholic Church against what some people call "modernists" or, more derisively, "cafeteria Catholics," people who pick and choose which church teachings to follow.
There is no middle ground to Kreeft. It would be silly and redundant to him, for instance, to call someone a "pro-life Catholic." You cannot be anything but against abortion to be a Catholic, Kreeft said.
"To be a Catholic is to take the whole deal," he told the crowd.
Kreeft said several definitions of a liberal can and should fit Catholics, including "someone who is generous and unselfish" and "someone who highly values liberty and freedom."
On abortion, Kreeft contended Catholics are the "true liberals," because a liberal wants to extend liberty to the oppressed, and "the unborn are the most oppressed," he said.
Yet, in the political realm, the term liberal has been hijacked by abortion rights activists, Kreeft said. "A Catholic cannot be today what is called a liberal about abortion. That's obvious. That's a ‘duh.'"
Kreeft mentioned other issues, such as homosexual marriage and euthanasia, that he said Catholics cannot take politically liberal positions on, yet he focused most on abortion. Coming in for the most criticism were elected officials who call themselves Catholic yet support abortion rights.
During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences.
Kreeft said these Catholic advisers "told the Kennedys how they could get away with murder." Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening, suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic Church than pedophile priests.
"These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God," Kreeft said. "Sorry, that's just the way it is. In fact, I'd say these were even worse than the child molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because they did it deliberately, it wasn't a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that's straight from the devil."
A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.
Every single Catholic I’ve ever met or known was a liberal, just saying...”
Hi! I’m momtothree. I’m Catholic and don’t have a liberal bone in my body. Good to meet you. If you would like, I could introduce you to some other FReeper Catholics who aren’t liberal as well.
Where do you live? Massachusetts?
yeah I have to agree that the vast majority of the ones I met and was around were Democrats too. However, I think that is so in cities, in rural areas, the opposite.
The fruit of Vatican II.
In fairness, practicing Catholics (weekly mass attenders) was the oyer way around. But even 40% of practicing Catholics voting for an anti-Christ is deeply disturbing.
I'd like to know the voting percentages of those attending weekly Tridentine rite mass.
Love is a condition of the mind and heart. It can't be measured objectively in any manner.
As with love, “worship” is also a condition of the mind, heart, and spirit. There are many examples, both historical and contemporary, of government using force to make people go through the physical motions of religious practice, but physical movement is not worship.
How do you propose that “love” or “worship” be measured? Would you suggest that the citizen's heart and mind be cut out so that the government could search the tissue mass for “love” and “worship”?
( Just wondering.)
Now I have treated your comment with respect. Hopefully, you are not a bitter atheist or agnostic. Hopefully you are not a poster who is merely here to kick the anthill hoping to see the ants run around like crazy. Atheists and agnostics who are comfortable in their state of belief don't do that.
good point, I don’t agree with the stance on illegal immigration, it is not Biblical either. you are supposed to obey the laws, as long as they are Biblical.
I personally think the US already practiced universal healthcare, because in reality, no one was denied. It irks me when people who can afford insurance just don’t. I also believe in universal healthcare IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT WITHOUT TAXES AND IN A WAY THAT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE. There has to be a way. Obamacare ain’t it.
Unions make sense obviously in the mining industry, and I would say in the over the road trucking industry because the employers/owners are focused on the bottom line and skimp on taking care of the employees. But as far as anywhere else, no. Formerly, in textiles, employing children, having fibers being inhaled, yes, you needed unions. As far as electricians, plumbers, construction, never heard of abusive employers there, don’t need unions.
USCCB does not decide theology. They are just a bunch of (mostly) liberals and Commie Grannies trying to make the US church something different from Rome.
Now that Dolan is leading, watch them change for the better.
Kreeft speaks and writes boldly, and this needs to be said loudly and often. Kudos to him for speaking the Truth.
Yes, I am also a Catholic conservative, ‘a bit to the right of Attila the Hun.’ Plenty of us out here.
The lack of public discipline as concerns the abortion issue is a scandal that dwarfs the homosexualist priest scandal.
Freegards
Catholicism created many liberal values, but did so on religious, not philosophical grounds. This is a critically important distinction, because both compromises and absolutes are wildly different between the two.
From Catholicism’s point of view, it does such things because it is required or forbidden to by heaven, or it is general alignment with, or general conflict with, concepts promulgated in heaven.
This determines their absolutes, what is required and what is forbidden; but it also determines what actions or omissions are circumstantial and judgmental.
But from philosophical liberalism’s point of view, it is solely based on the desires of the individual, for their own gratifications, aversions, and prejudices. Though they often assign what they personally want to what all mankind wants.
Unfortunately, Catholics are just as prone as everyone else to mental illness, neurosis, fanaticism, cynicism, and the deadly sins as well. Which means that philosophical liberalism appeals to them far more than religious values, as they become self-centered, and embrace the “cafeteria Catholic” point of view.
So, to rephrase the question, “Could a liberal ever embrace Catholicism?”, which amounts to “Can a man ever be redeemed?” The answer to which is an obvious “yes, but not always.”
“Hopefully, you are not ...”
I post these questions rhetorically. I’m actually Catholic and conservative.
I threw those out there because I disagree stereotypical arguments, i.e., if you are in this group, you must think this way, etc..
Same goes for Catholicism and liberalism.
Even though I am against abortion, I can understand how a Catholic politician could vote to allow its legality.
I’ve heard it asked many times, “how can a Catholic support legalized abortion?”
Well, I can understand that. I pose the scenario of the First Commandment and Freedom of Religion as an analogy.
In the same sense, I think it is quite possible for someone to be liberal and Catholic.
To explain this, you’d need a liberal though, which I am not.
I can only imagine the argument that a particular individual’s belief on a given assortment of issues covers a range of values. I.e., if liberals stand for 10 “talking points” then two individuals identifying themselves as a liberal would likely have different results if tested as to, on a scale of 1 to 10, how strongly they agreed with the talking points.
I guess my bottom line is that the question of liberalism/catholicism, is a nonsensical one. The reality is that people have a variety of beliefs to varying degrees.
So maybe you could say my first post was “kicking the anthil”, but I put it to you that the question leading this thread is what is kicking the anthill.
Hope this makes sense. I was typing fast.
That’ why I love FR! It is very possible that this person never met a conservative Catholic before. I have the feeling that he/she will be on a first name basis by the end of the day. “Wow... they really DO exist. I thought that was just a fairy tale!” LOL!!!
My sister in law is a devout Catholic. I mean really devout. I asked her how she could vote for Obama when he was for late term abortions, the kind where the Dr takes a knife and severs the baby’s spinal cord.
She replied, even though she was against abortion, she was against war, and killing of people in other countries. For her, she wanted the war to end and that is why she voted for Obama.
That is their logic.
She did not get what she wanted. Likewise, Republican presidents do not really work to end abortion.
Protestants who voted for Obama will need to stand before God as well and account for their behavior.
The following is from a Catholic publication.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/churchgoing_catholics_chose_mccain_over_obama/
Washington D.C., Nov 7, 2008 / 03:14 am (CNA).- Exit polls are reporting that more weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain than for President-elect Barack Obama, slightly favoring McCain by 50 percent to 49 percent.
Those who attend Mass on a weekly basis comprised 46 percent of the overall Catholic vote, while 54 percent of Catholics surveyed said they attend less than weekly. Among infrequent Mass goers, Obama was favored 58 to 40 percent.
The fact that practicing Catholics supported McCain over Obama runs contrary to assertions made by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. and other commentators who used the category of Catholics who attend Mass less than weekly to suggest that the teaching of Catholic bishops was ignored by the faithful.
Exactly the reason I have been unable to “cross the Tiber” since leaving the Episcopal “church”. A church that endorses policies that will destroy my nation is not worthy of my devotion.
Well, I can’t speak for everyone who attends the TLM I attend, but of those I know personally (at least 100), NOT ONE is a liberal in any way. I wish I could say the same for all the N.O. Catholics I know. Still...even most N.O. Catholics of my acquaintance are quite conservative. Birds of a feather, I guess; I associate with those who think as I do.
That said, in November of 2008, my priest had this to say about Obama’s election: “Our country has suffered a catastrophe this week,” and then went on to give a homily that was truly astonishing in its intensity. I am only sorry I don’t have it on tape. It was both frightening and awe-inspiring.
Regards,
War can be morally justifiable. It's not a Catholic position to be "against war" in absolutely all circumstances. Whether a particular war is morally justifiable can be arguable, of course.
Abortion -- a direct, intended, mortal attack on an innocent child -- is never morally justifiable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.