Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RobbyS
You and I don’t mean the same thing by liberalism. I am talking about theological liberalism, and while John Ryan and even more radical people like Dorothy Day, were politically liberal, they were not theological liberals.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with theological viewpoints. It is a question of State interference in religious institutions. I have no desire to discuss your church's dogmas. I already know what your church teaches.

89 posted on 02/14/2012 2:21:16 PM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights

Of course it does. The Church’s political posture during the ‘30s put them on the side of Catholic Union leaders who were trying to prevent Communists from taking over the Unions. They were joined in this by more moderate radicals like Walter Reuther. The Unions generally supported the Democratic Party. The Anti-Communist forces were able to defeat the Communists. Indeed, Catholic social doctrines going back to the French Revolution was concerned about the state being hostile to the Church. In America, we had to fight Protestant anti-Catholicism. This allied the Church with the urban pols etc. who were part of the Democratric Coalition. Southerners were anti-Catholic, but the Republican Party was militantly anti-Catholic. The Blaine Amendment was an effort to deny state aid to Catholics that was routinely given to Protestants.

Here is where the theological liberalism comes in: in the ‘60s, many Catholics bought into the Sexual Revolution and there was also a major buy=in to the Great Society program. Johnson gave the Church the public aid that had been denied them. Liberal Catholics abandoned their concern for saving their souls and bought into a more “Jewish” notion of transforming society. At the extreme is the development of Liberation theology, which is an attempt to bridge Catholic and marxist views of the world. Lay Catholics rejected the position of the pope on birth control because their bishops and priests became quiet on the issue. Roe v. Wade forced their hand, because it was —like this new move by Obama— an overreach. So, contraceptives, OK; abortion no. The bishops were now between a rock and a hard place. Bernardin formulated a position that gave lip service to abortion while maintaining liberal ties to the Democratic Party. His kind was also forced into an alliance with the Moral Majority, but was not comfortable with Evangelicals. So at bottom is a question of moral theology:


91 posted on 02/14/2012 4:35:59 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson