Liberal Catholics? Conservative Catholics?

[Michie]

Labels can be useful sometimes, even if they're not perfect.​

When I tell people I recently wrote a bookcritiquing liberal Catholicism, I sometimes get this reply: “I’m not a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic. I’m just a Catholic.”

Are these made-up labels to stoke controversy? Or do they track with a real division within the Church?

First, labels are just approximations of real divisions, so they will always be much broader than the nuanced opinions of people who might fall under them. But just as I can know who has a beard and who doesn’t even though I don’t know when stubble becomes a beard, I can know when some expressions of Catholicism tend to be more liberal and others tend to be conservative.

But what does that refer to?

Typically, it refers to the ongoing project of retaining the truths of the Faith handed on in the past while adapting them to new and ever-changing circumstances.

On the very, very far left, you would have people who say there is nothing essential to be handed on. They might even deny fundamental elements of the Creed. Indeed, theological liberalism reached its heyday in the early twentieth century, when, in reaction to the work of German higher form criticism, it tried to “modernize” the Christian faith by rejecting doctrines like the Virgin Birth.

Similar controversies in the nineteenth century arose in the Catholic world, with scholars questioning doctrines like papal infallibility (prompting that doctrine’s reaffirmation at Vatican I), the miracle accounts of the Bible, and even foundational teachings like the deity of Christ. One prominent French scholar referred to Jesus as un homme incomparable—an incomparable man, but a man nonetheless. Pope Pius X called this primacy of modern sentiments over divine revelation “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis 39).

Continued below.

Liberal Catholics? Conservative Catholics?

Some people say, 'I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm just a Catholic.' But there is usefulness to these labels, even if they're not perfect.

www.catholic.com

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Setting the stage for Vatican II


By the 1930s, mainstream theology based on neo-scholasticism and papal encyclicals was being rejected by some theologians as dry and uninspiring. Thus was born the movement called ressourcement, the return to the sources: basing theology directly on the Bible and the Church Fathers. Some theologians also began to discuss new topics, such as the historical dimension of theology, the theology of work, ecumenism, the theology of the laity and the theology of "earthly realities".[7]

These writings, whose new style came to be called la nouvelle théologie ('the new theology'), attracted Rome's attention, and in 1950 Pius XII published Humani generis, an encyclical "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine". Without citing specific individuals, he criticized those who advocated new schools of theology. It was generally understood that the encyclical was directly against the nouvelle théologie as well as developments in ecumenism and Bible studies. Some of these works were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, and some of the authors were forbidden to teach or to publish. Those who suffered most were the Henri de Lubac SJ and Yves Congar OP, who were unable to teach or publish until the death of Pius XII in 1958. By the early 1960s, other theologians under suspicion included Karl Rahner SJ and the young Hans Küng.

The theologians who had been silenced during the 1940s and 1950s, such as Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac, and some theologians who were under suspicion in Roman circles at the beginning of the 1960s, such as Karl Rahner and Hans Küng, were appointed periti because of their expertise. Their appointment served to vindicate their ideas and gave them a platform from which they could work to further their views.

Some notable theologians, such as Edward Schillebeeckx, remained private periti for the whole duration of the council.

Second Vatican Council - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

also

Nouvelle théologie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fide]

Labels can be useful sometimes, even if they're not perfect.​

When I tell people I recently wrote a bookcritiquing liberal Catholicism, I sometimes get this reply: “I’m not a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic. I’m just a Catholic.”

Are these made-up labels to stoke controversy? Or do they track with a real division within the Church?

First, labels are just approximations of real divisions, so they will always be much broader than the nuanced opinions of people who might fall under them. But just as I can know who has a beard and who doesn’t even though I don’t know when stubble becomes a beard, I can know when some expressions of Catholicism tend to be more liberal and others tend to be conservative.

But what does that refer to?

Typically, it refers to the ongoing project of retaining the truths of the Faith handed on in the past while adapting them to new and ever-changing circumstances.

On the very, very far left, you would have people who say ......

Continued below.

Liberal Catholics? Conservative Catholics?

Some people say, 'I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I'm just a Catholic.' But there is usefulness to these labels, even if they're not perfect.

www.catholic.com

When a theologian begins with a continuum - a spectrum - of opinions or judgments concerning something of faith and/or morals, I begin to sense trouble ahead. There is no continuum, or spectrum, of final states of being from eternity in beatitude to eternity in hell.

I sensed danger ahead at "... the ongoing project of retaining the truths of the Faith handed on in the past while adapting them to new and ever-changing circumstances." I have many times - reviewing something I wrote in the past, found some word or words that, reconsidering, I wanted to change and did, if I could. Precision is so important in theology! Imprudently chosen words can lead to misunderstandings, and wrong conclusions or even injurious decisions in readers seeking counsel or advice.

I would say no - not "adapting" - not the best word here. It is not "the truths of the faith" that are to be "adapted"! It is the people living in "new and ever-changing circumstances" who need to "adapt" themselves to "the truths of the faith." I believe that that was the intention of the faithful prelates gathered for Vat II: not to adapt the Truth to the times, but the times to the Truth. We needed to rephrase, maybe, to make intelligible to persons immersed in neo-pagan modernism, the precious and holy Truths entrusted to His Church.

Sadly, but I suppose inevitably, wolves in sheep's clothing being as clever and devious and manipulating as their father, liar from the beginning, saw and seized their opportunity In the Council. And wait! What's that coming around the corner? A "Synod" you say?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"Of course, we all, liberal or conservative, are “Catholic”—provided that we assent to the teachings of the Church."

Whether left or right, conservative or liberal, as Popes change and trends change, those under suspicion become those favored. The pendulum swings. We must educate ourselves on the teachings and that boundary between teachings and practical implementations. That is where we find most of the controversies.

 

[RileyG]

I think the reason why it's so controversial is because many people think of AMERICAN politics, which isn't compatible with Catholicism. Neither side REALLY represents us IMO.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think it goes back to the enlightenment and the struggle we had with faith and reason.
We even see that struggle still going on in this forum.
Conservative, literalist, anti-science versus Liberal, progressive thinking that seeks to reconcile faith with science.

Within the Catholic Church it was Modernism versus Neo -Thomism. And still is today although the magisterium is more welcoming of higher Biblical criticism. We need to do a better job of differentiating teaching that is unchangeable form tradition that is changeable.

 

[zippy2006]

Within the Catholic Church it was Modernism versus Neo -Thomism.

But not really, as your post from Wikipedia above helps demonstrate.

The problem is that we really are struggling with binary oversimplifications in this thread. Even Horn's article falls into that error, for example by comparing papal infallibility with the Virgin birth. Trent does not seem to understand Vatican I, and the conflict of Vatican I is more central and common than these other conflicts. It is the conflict over Roman centralism. That is what underlies the 18th century, coming to a head at Vatican I; the lead up to Vatican II and the drama of the preparatory work; the controversy of Humanae Vitae; the underlying tension in the last three papacies; and especially the new focus on synodality. It is an age-old dynamic taking a new and more urgent form in the modern era.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is the conflict over Roman centralism

But isn't that pretty much Roman Catholic conservativism, which includes central authority. But all other issues seem to fall in line on one side or the other.

 

[zippy2006]

But isn't that pretty much Roman Catholic conservativism, which includes central authority.

It becomes an issue of conservatism after it gets established historically, but even at Vatican I it wasn't the conservative position (pace Horn). And now we have Francis, who despite his talk is clearly a centralist, as even liberals like Faggioli recognize. Does that make Francis a conservative? In fact I would say he is a soft progressive who is also an ultramontanist, and I would maintain that the ultramontanism is the more fundamental Catholic trait, historically speaking. Nevertheless, theological progressivism is the more fundamental Christian trait, historically speaking.

Basically, Horn is correct that the labels are limited and yet helpful, but overemphasizing them artificially eclipses the equally significant dichotomy of central vs. distributed authority.