When did liberal become such a dirty word?

[Constantine the Sinner]

Gay marriage and abortion are two fundamental planks of political liberalism. It's really that simple. If it weren't for that, political liberalism would not be seen as dirty from a religious perspective.

As for theological liberalism, that's seen as dirty by many because it is often about rewriting dogma.

 

[Martinius]

I wonder how "liberal" people would see Christ - you know, hanging out with other politicians who may not be from your political party, letting alleged harlots and thieves eat with Him, healing undesirables, and so on.

Probably the same way they viewed Mother Teresa. She did all of these things too, and there were people who reviled her for it. Today those people would gladly crucify Christ all over again, while thinking they were doing the right thing.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Probably the same way they viewed Mother Teresa. She did all of these things too, and there were people who reviled her for it. Today those people would gladly crucify Christ all over again, while thinking they were doing the right thing.

*sigh*

I almost hate to mention this, especially in the context of the aforementioned post, but there I felt legitimate concerns raised about Mother Theresa not accepting free donations of pain killers that could have been given to the terminally ill people her order was taking care of. The story is that she refused them because she wanted her patients to "offer up" their suffering and unite it to Christ's suffering on the cross, which sounds all well and good, except most of her patients were Hindus and just wanted some pain relief, not to be forced to suffer and offer it up to the Christian God. Mainstream Catholicism doesn't even say that Catholics should or must refuse pain killers when they are validly prescribed for pain.

The whole thing with offering up suffering is that it's done voluntarily as a religious practice, not that it's a mandatory thing that you *have* to do, especially when you're not even the right religion for the practice to have any personal meaning to you.

Now, I will grant, her patients chose to be where they were. It was their only alternative to dying in the streets, where there wasn't any pain killers either. And it is an incredible story that Mother Theresa gave up a first world life to start an order of nuns spending their days caring for sick people who had no one else to care for them in one of the most crowded cities in the world in a far away country.

Mother Theresa undoubtedly lived a better life than I did, and then most people ever will, in terms of the holiness and self-sacrifice it embodied. I certainly don't "revile" her as the previous poster said some people do. However, I do think there are legitimate concerns about her turning down free pain killers that would have relieved the suffering of her patients, especially given why she reportedly refused them.

I see elements in her of both the remarkable good religion does in the world, but also lesser elements of the dark coercive side of some iterations of religious faith. Mostly the good side. But, I guess the lesson is, nobody is perfect (Other than perhaps Jesus and the Virgin Mary).

She probably was a Saint. I have far fewer problems with her canonization than with the canonization of Jose Maria Escriva (the Opus Dei founder), but I do kind of wonder if hagiographies sometimes do a disservice in presenting people as more perfect than they were, and prevent us from learning lessons from both the less laudable and the more laudable aspects of the lives of Saints, rather than just the laudable aspects.

 

[Fish and Bread]

.

 

[Tallguy88]

*sigh*

I almost hate to mention this, especially in the context of the aforementioned post, but there I felt legitimate concerns raised about Mother Theresa not accepting free donations of pain killers that could have been given to the terminally ill people her order was taking care of. The story is that she refused them because she wanted her patients to "offer up" their suffering and unite it to Christ's suffering on the cross, which sounds all well and good, except most of her patients were Hindus and just wanted some pain relief, not to be forced to suffer and offer it up to the Christian God. Mainstream Catholicism doesn't even say that Catholics should or must refuse pain killers when they are validly prescribed for pain.

The whole thing with offering up suffering is that it's done voluntarily as a religious practice, not that it's a mandatory thing that you *have* to do, especially when you're not even the right religion for the practice to have any personal meaning to you.

Now, I will grant, her patients chose to be where they were. It was their only alternative to dying in the streets, where there wasn't any pain killers either. And it is an incredible story that Mother Theresa gave up a first world life to start an order of nuns spending their days caring for sick people who had no one else to care for them in one of the most crowded cities in the world in a far away country.

Mother Theresa undoubtedly lived a better life than I did, and then most people ever will, in terms of the holiness and self-sacrifice it embodied. I certainly don't "revile" her as the previous poster said some people do. However, I do think there are legitimate concerns about her turning down free pain killers that would have relieved the suffering of her patients, especially given why she reportedly refused them.

I see elements in her of both the remarkable good religion does in the world, but also lesser elements of the dark coercive side of some iterations of religious faith. Mostly the good side. But, I guess the lesson is, nobody is perfect (Other than perhaps Jesus and the Virgin Mary).

She probably was a Saint. I have far fewer problems with her canonization than with the canonization of Jose Maria Escriva (the Opus Dei founder), but I do kind of wonder if hagiographies sometimes do a disservice in presenting people as more perfect than they were, and prevent us from learning lessons from both the less laudable and the more laudable aspects of the lives of Saints, rather than just the laudable aspects.

But was she or anyone in her order a licensed doctor or pharmacist that could legally give out those painkillers? The kind of people who hate Mother Teresa would just as soon call her a drug trafficker if she did accept and give out prescription pain killers without all the proper licenses.

Remember, the people who went to her hospice were no worse off than if they hadn't gone. You can blame the Hindu caste system for why they were dying in the streets to begin with. Most of the people who wound up in her hospice were "untouchables".

 

[Martinius]

I almost hate to mention this, especially in the context of the aforementioned post, but there I felt legitimate concerns raised about Mother Theresa not accepting free donations of pain killers that could have been given to the terminally ill people her order was taking care of. The story is that she refused them because she wanted her patients to "offer up" their suffering and unite it to Christ's suffering on the cross...

I have read various books about Mother Teresa, including some older bios that include one by a non-Christian Indian, but had not heard of that story. If she really did this for religious reasons, then she may have been wrong. And no person, including saintly ones, are "right" all the time. It is the overall ministry that she and her order engaged in that is important here, and there is no doubt she aided the suffering and dying.

Let's also look at context here. As has been said, she and her nuns were not trained medical practitioners, and treating wounds and comforting the dying is different than administering prescription meds. Plus, think of what might happen in a house of nuns if the neighborhood bad guys think those nuns have a stash of pain meds and possibly other drugs that they can sell on the streets. The story may be just that, a story, but if true it might have been a wise decision on her part.

 

[Martinius]

This brings up an interesting question. Was Mother Teresa liberal or conservative? In her religious life and practices, she was quite traditional and orthodox. But what she did was liberal, and when she started was particularly shocking to many, as she crossed cultural boundaries to care for the least among us. It is interesting that both traditional and progressive Catholics can embrace her. Maybe that is what being a saint means.

 

[tadoflamb]

bump

 

[Robinus]

As has been indicated on two other threads the Jesuit magazine "America Magazine" has forbidden the labelling of bishops , priests etc as "Liberal" , "Conservative" etc by any contributors to the magazine .

 

[Shiloh Raven]

As has been indicated on two other threads the Jesuit magazine "America Magazine" has forbidden the labelling of bishops , priests etc as "Liberal" , "Conservative" etc by any contributors to the magazine .

I can understand that and that is okay for them, but in the American political realm, the lines are clearly drawn in the sand or at least that is what I see. The Catholic forums on CF are split for a reason. I think one of the real reasons is because of the difference in politics and the gap is very wide and vast.

 

[Robinus]

I can understand that and that is okay for them, but in the American political realm, the lines are clearly drawn in the sand or at least that is what I see. The Catholic forums on CF are split for a reason. I think one of the real reasons is because of the difference in politics and the gap is very wide and vast.

God forbid that the language of Catholic theology should be moulded by the language of American politics .

And God , the heavens and all the angels and saints forbid that Catholic theology should be moulded by American politics .

 

[Albion]

As I recall, the key figures who gave definition to both 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' as political concepts--Adam Smith and Edmund Burke--were British.

We Americans don't even have a political party with the word Liberal or Conservative in its name. You have one of each.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

God forbid that the language of Catholic theology should be moulded by the language of American politics .

And God , the heavens and all the angels and saints forbid that Catholic theology should be moulded by American politics .

In my opinion, being someone on the outside looking in, that is the reality I see. But Catholicism is not the only part of Christianity that has been affected. I noticed the Missions, Evangelism & Witnessing forum is not nearly as active as the political and the theological debate forums are.

 

[tadoflamb]

I can understand that and that is okay for them, but in the American political realm, the lines are clearly drawn in the sand or at least that is what I see. The Catholic forums on CF are split for a reason. I think one of the real reasons is because of the difference in politics and the gap is very wide and vast.

St. Vincent de Paul forbid his priests from talking about politics because he knew how divisive they are. The founders of the St. Vincent de Paul society would gather once a week for fellowship and to discuss anything....except politics. As a Vincentian, I do my best to stay apolitical but, as a Vincentian and a faithful Catholic, I know that their are two footsteps to charity, the first being addressing immediate tangible needs of those who suffer from injustice, and the second addressing the social, economic and political systems that create the injustice. Unfortunately, us Catholics are obliged to enter into the political foray, and that is what I suspect is the source of the divisions that we are experiencing on CF.

When I was an active Vincentian, I was screamed down several times by my fellow members who's arguments had nothing to do with the Gospel, Catholic social doctrine, the Rule of St. Vincent de Paul or the preaching of our own pastor (who went to a Vincentian seminary) but had everything to do with conservative, right wing politics.

It's interesting hearing the observations of an engaged outsider about their perceived divisions of the Catholic forums on this board. Personally, I find these boards have unfortunately become dominated by conservative, right-wing politics and as such, have sought to distance myself from them. I tried a little experiment this Lent and put the most obnoxious voices of right-wing politics on ignore. Although it's against my nature to have such a large amount of Christians on ignore, CF has begun to take on a Christian character.

So, you're perception is correct. Politics have infiltrated the Church, and not to our benefit.

 

[Vicomte13]

In my opinion, being someone on the outside looking in, that is the reality I see. But Catholicism is not the only part of Christianity that has been affected. I noticed the Missions, Evangelism & Witnessing forum is not nearly as active as the political and the theological debate forums are.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his commentary on American democracy, observed "Americans stink of politics".

It's inevitable, I suppose, where there is a lot of upward social mobility, where power can be obtained by being elected, and where political affiliation can make a difference between getting a license to do something or not at the local level, especially back in frontier days.

American politics have tended towards the angry and violent, with a Civil War, hundreds of riots, and wild hatred routinely on display, it's an aspect of the culture that flows from democracy.

 

[Vicomte13]

So, you're perception is correct. Politics have infiltrated the Church, and not to our benefit.

It can be boiled down to one terrible word: abortion.
Abortion is an Iron Curtain that runs down the middle of our society, and as a subject by its very nature it does not lend itself to compromise.

Gay marriage is an irritant, but it's nothing like abortion. In America, abortion splits on Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative lines, and with it, churches and The Church also.

 

[Fantine]

I found this first person accounting of a former Missionary of Charity very interesting.
About the Book - Mary Johnson

There were some negative things about her 20 year experience, certainly; most of it wasn't directed at Mother Teresa but at various other nuns and superiors jockeying for power and position.

And despite the vocations, a very high percentage of postulants leave--at least in westernized countries.

I go by the Gospels--Jesus enjoyed life. There are Missionaries of Charity in our diocese and I have seen them at different diocesan events. They stay and pray and then they're gone. God forbid they have a cookie and a glass of punch...most people are very interested and curious about their ministry, but they reject their opportunity to evangelize--and fundraise--to avoid attending receptions.

I asked one priest how to donate to them, and he said that you have to donate to the diocese with a note on the check because they don't collect money themselves.

Honestly, with all the requests for our money, are we going to hunt around trying to figure out how to give to the MC's when other worthy causes are begging?

Much of what this sister endured seemed needlessly extreme. The author once got chided because she filled her bucket too high for her sponge bath. No showers for the MC's--sponge baths in cold water.

She suffered for years with endometriosis (at least that's what it sounded like) without any care until her health was in serious crisis.

They used cilices under their habits to mortify themelves (like the Opus Dei people). With such a minimalist lifestyle and grueling work schedule, do they need to whip themselves, too?

I think a hallmark of liberalism should be kindness to others--starting with those closest to you. These nuns were just awful to one another.

 

[Robinus]

It can be boiled down to one terrible word: abortion.
Abortion is an Iron Curtain that runs down the middle of our society, and as a subject by its very nature it does not lend itself to compromise.

Gay marriage is an irritant, but it's nothing like abortion. In America, abortion splits on Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative lines, and with it, churches and The Church also.

Here the Conservative Government supports the abortion laws .

It was a Conservative Government which legalised same sex marriage .

 

[Shiloh Raven]

For the sake of harmony in this forum, I will not comment on the issue of abortion. However, staying within the confines of the rules on discussing homosexuality from a political, legal, historical, and civil rights point of view, I do support the civil rights and equality for LGBT people, which includes equality in marriage. I think the opposition to LGBT rights and equality is inconsistent with the popular ideal of America being founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all. LGBT people who were born in America are American citizens and they should have the same rights and equality as every other American citizen has, and that includes marriage equality. I think it is a disgrace for America that LGBT American citizens still have to fight for equality and civil rights in this day and age. I think their ongoing struggle just blows another hole through the entire facade of American Exceptionalism. Based upon that concept, America is a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty, but its own LGBT citizens still struggle to maintain equality and their civil rights as American citizens. Many times, they have to fight against discrimination based on who they are. America should have evolved from all that by now.

 

[tadoflamb]

It can be boiled down to one terrible word: abortion.
Abortion is an Iron Curtain that runs down the middle of our society, and as a subject by its very nature it does not lend itself to compromise.

I think the Iron Curtain running down the middle of our society is the Culture of Death of which abortion is it's most despicable component. The Catholic teaching of the respect for the dignity of life goes well beyond the womb and yet is neglected by the political right which is one reason why I question their veracity of being pro-life. Recently we had a poster in here advocating the death penalty for women who get abortions. While this is an extreme example, other instances of the inconsistency of those who claim to be pro-life aren't that difficult to find. Like all teachings of the Church, the teaching regarding the dignity of life is a seamless garment, something the political spectrum fails to accomplish. When it comes to building a culture of life, I do it as a Catholic and not as a liberal or a conservative.

Gay marriage is an irritant, but it's nothing like abortion. In America, abortion splits on Left/Right, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative lines, and with it, churches and The Church also.

I agree, gay marriage is an irritant. But, so are my parents collective 7 marriages. If I'm going to obsess over gay marriage, than I'm also going to obsess over divorced heterosexuals who have played their considerable role in defiling the sacredness of marriage. You can't complain about one without considering the other.