Profile of a Theological Liberal
source : Unam Sanctam Catholicam Profile of a Theological Liberal One areas where traditional minded Catholics and other Catholics get caught up is in the question of what it means to be a "liberal."…More
source : Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Profile of a Theological Liberal
One areas where traditional minded Catholics and other Catholics get caught up is in the question of what it means to be a "liberal." During the conclave of 2013, some Weigelian "evangelical" Catholics were rejoicing at the mention of conservative Cardinal Timothy Dolan as a papabile; traditionalists, on the other hand, were worried that such a liberal prelate as Dolan was being seriously considered. Cardinal Schönborn is extolled as an example of a solidly orthodox prelate by some, whilst others find frightful compromises with liberalism in the Cardinal's behavior. Hans urs Von Balthasar is praised by John Paul II and Benedict XVI as an exemplar of Catholic scholarship; others, such as myself, see him as one of the foremost liberals of the modern Church. Similar discussions have occurred regarding Fr. Barron.
Clearly, different people have different definitions of what it means to be a "liberal" Catholic.
This confusion …More
Profile of a Theological Liberal
One areas where traditional minded Catholics and other Catholics get caught up is in the question of what it means to be a "liberal." During the conclave of 2013, some Weigelian "evangelical" Catholics were rejoicing at the mention of conservative Cardinal Timothy Dolan as a papabile; traditionalists, on the other hand, were worried that such a liberal prelate as Dolan was being seriously considered. Cardinal Schönborn is extolled as an example of a solidly orthodox prelate by some, whilst others find frightful compromises with liberalism in the Cardinal's behavior. Hans urs Von Balthasar is praised by John Paul II and Benedict XVI as an exemplar of Catholic scholarship; others, such as myself, see him as one of the foremost liberals of the modern Church. Similar discussions have occurred regarding Fr. Barron.
Clearly, different people have different definitions of what it means to be a "liberal" Catholic.
This confusion …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This is a brilliant overview of what "liberalism" means for pre-Vat II Popes. Alas, it suffers from a sort of historicism, i.e., it interprets "liberal" as understood, say in the 19th Century, and simply carries it over to today. This limits the value of the excellent analysis. Why? A vast majority of current "traditionalists" simply will not recognize the full plethora of features explained.
Let …More
This is a brilliant overview of what "liberalism" means for pre-Vat II Popes. Alas, it suffers from a sort of historicism, i.e., it interprets "liberal" as understood, say in the 19th Century, and simply carries it over to today. This limits the value of the excellent analysis. Why? A vast majority of current "traditionalists" simply will not recognize the full plethora of features explained.
Let us take abortion. "Abortion" is an act carried out by women, doctors, etc. and allowed legally by the state. But, what IS abortion? Any answer here will require a thinking person to go beyound the specific act and enter into a anthropological conceptual world, relative to which abortion itself receives is moral status and its moral importance. Certainly teenage masterbation is not on the same level as teenager abortion. The differential seriousness has to do with the conceptual evaluation of sexuality per se, relative to which the two types of acts receive their evaluation.
When the current Pope seems to denigrate the "obsession" with abortion, this seems to imply that the seriousness of abortion is, well, not so serious, say, compared with economic poverty. Why? What does this imply about the Pope's view of the world? The Pope seems to have no trouble with Marxists because he, as he blabs, knows some that are nice people. Would the Pope have said the same about "nice" Nazis? I think not. If "not", what does this say about the Pope's scale of "seriousness" re Marxism, that "-ism" that Marxists hold to? I am hinting here at a possible usage of the term "liberal" re the current pope, a usage that would be valid.
In a comment, however, (too) long it may be, I cannot begin to reconstitute the situation such that the marvelous analysis above begins to reveal its weaknesses. Current political policies of (American, not exactly German) "liberals" entail a more general framework relative to which their policies recieve importance ("seriousness"). When Cardinal Dolan says some things about pro-life he is expressing himself within a traditional Catholic framework. When, however, Cardinal Dolan in an interview simply avoids the issue, he has shown a certain "liberal" evaluation of (or stance of seriousness towards) homosexuality, abortion, etc. What I am saying here is that concrete policies of a liberal nature imply a more abstract level of evaluation -- and this level is, in the case of Cardinal Dolan, "liberal" and does, indeed, tempt me to view Cardinal Dolan theologically as a "liberal" prelate.
Actually, a while back, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX published a series of articles supporting his claim that Pope Francis is a "modernist" -- a strange theological creature who can fly through different theological atmosphere, i.e., here a word traditional, there a word anti-traditional. Is the Latin Mass a treasure of the Church or is it just a "fashion" (two non-reconciliable positions on the traditional Latin Mass taken by Pp Francis). But, watch out, I say to myself as a warning, even the term "modernist" achieved its meaning during the past, i.e., during the time of a pre-Vat II pope. Even Bp Fellay's analysis threatens to fall prey to historicism.
Finally, I wish to praise highly the article above. It has initiated in me a need to think and re-think the matter. What I have written above is but a first reaction. However, I do see in my words a certain dissent from the attempt to separate current liberal tendencies (e.g., in politics) and a "liberal" theological stance as defined by popes in a different era. In short, a certain semantic unclarity has appeared as the 19th and 21st Century usuage of the word "liberal" do not cover each other 100%.
Let us take abortion. "Abortion" is an act carried out by women, doctors, etc. and allowed legally by the state. But, what IS abortion? Any answer here will require a thinking person to go beyound the specific act and enter into a anthropological conceptual world, relative to which abortion itself receives is moral status and its moral importance. Certainly teenage masterbation is not on the same level as teenager abortion. The differential seriousness has to do with the conceptual evaluation of sexuality per se, relative to which the two types of acts receive their evaluation.
When the current Pope seems to denigrate the "obsession" with abortion, this seems to imply that the seriousness of abortion is, well, not so serious, say, compared with economic poverty. Why? What does this imply about the Pope's view of the world? The Pope seems to have no trouble with Marxists because he, as he blabs, knows some that are nice people. Would the Pope have said the same about "nice" Nazis? I think not. If "not", what does this say about the Pope's scale of "seriousness" re Marxism, that "-ism" that Marxists hold to? I am hinting here at a possible usage of the term "liberal" re the current pope, a usage that would be valid.
In a comment, however, (too) long it may be, I cannot begin to reconstitute the situation such that the marvelous analysis above begins to reveal its weaknesses. Current political policies of (American, not exactly German) "liberals" entail a more general framework relative to which their policies recieve importance ("seriousness"). When Cardinal Dolan says some things about pro-life he is expressing himself within a traditional Catholic framework. When, however, Cardinal Dolan in an interview simply avoids the issue, he has shown a certain "liberal" evaluation of (or stance of seriousness towards) homosexuality, abortion, etc. What I am saying here is that concrete policies of a liberal nature imply a more abstract level of evaluation -- and this level is, in the case of Cardinal Dolan, "liberal" and does, indeed, tempt me to view Cardinal Dolan theologically as a "liberal" prelate.
Actually, a while back, Bishop Fellay of the SSPX published a series of articles supporting his claim that Pope Francis is a "modernist" -- a strange theological creature who can fly through different theological atmosphere, i.e., here a word traditional, there a word anti-traditional. Is the Latin Mass a treasure of the Church or is it just a "fashion" (two non-reconciliable positions on the traditional Latin Mass taken by Pp Francis). But, watch out, I say to myself as a warning, even the term "modernist" achieved its meaning during the past, i.e., during the time of a pre-Vat II pope. Even Bp Fellay's analysis threatens to fall prey to historicism.
Finally, I wish to praise highly the article above. It has initiated in me a need to think and re-think the matter. What I have written above is but a first reaction. However, I do see in my words a certain dissent from the attempt to separate current liberal tendencies (e.g., in politics) and a "liberal" theological stance as defined by popes in a different era. In short, a certain semantic unclarity has appeared as the 19th and 21st Century usuage of the word "liberal" do not cover each other 100%.