are there any non-conservative non-fundamental christians or people on the forum?

-- jerry (doofykorn@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004

Answers

i am definitely NOT conservative, and moreso moderate.

one thing ive learned from this forum-- one can be liberal and therefore "pick and choose", or one can understand that God's laws do not change, difficult as they might be to live by.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.

certain laws fit only in the frame of that particular time and society

read chapters 13-31

do you keep also all those laws?

and all the laws of deutronomium and numeri?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 20, 2004.

do you keep also all those laws? and all the laws of deutronomium and numeri?

sdqa,

Do you define 'keep' with contextual inclusion of the New Testament?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 20, 2004.

Bleeding-heart liberal right here. :)

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.

I don't understand what you mean by " non-conservative non- fundamental christians ". I thought fundamentalists were protestants who interpret the bible literally? Certainly there are conservatives who are not fundamentalists, especially in a Catholic forum.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

Funny you should ask Jerry, because until I came to this forum I though I was pretty conservative. But here I get called a “liberal” which I understand most here see as a terrible insult. I am getting pretty close to giving up on it, because I’m sick of being swamped by most of the regulars here, who seem to think “good Catholic/Christian” = “one who takes an extreme right- wing/conservative line on all matters, secular and religious”.

Yes Erika, although the word was originally applied to certain protestants, there are Catholic fundamentalists, and we have some here. Catholic fundamentalists aggressively push an extreme restrictive and literal personal interpretation of both certain Bible passages and certain Church documents (usually centuries old) which they select for their apparent conformity with their own ultra- conservative agenda.

I totally endorse and embrace all of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. But Catholic fundamentalists, while they claim that all they are doing is sticking firmly to Catholic doctrine, add an awful lot of things of their own choice, which they claim all true Catholics must do or believe. They even sometimes ignore Catholic doctrines which don’t fit their agenda.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.

1: mOST CONTRIBUTORS ARE CONSERVITIVE. Not all though. AB and steve just demonstrated.

2: Depends on what you mean by "Conservitive". By British standards im conservitive, by the US standads Im unintellegable. ( After all, Im pro free medical care and pro animal righs and environem, which makes me a liberal, yet anti-socialism and anti-gay "rights' which makes me a conservitive...)

3: The term Fundamentalist in the last 20 or so years has coem to be an inslt and ney narrow midned gorupw ithin a group is called this. Howrver, a fundamentalist, by definition, only acts in the fundamentals of the faith.

They beelkiv ein Sola Scruptura as there sole guide and teahc only the basics, or ofundatiosn, of the faith.

hey are called fundamentalsist because they stick tot he fundamentals.

One cannot be Cahtolic and fundamentalist inth accepted theological definition, sicne Cahtolcis use Tradition, the Magestrum, and are muhc mor ocmele than the "Just to basics" attetudeof a fundamentalist.

However, we do have a coupod of ufndamentalisst form tme to time visit the forum.

im not cahtolic, but I doubt anyone thinks me a Fundamentalist...

4: thohg the sterytyp is tha a Conservitive Christain is a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist is a Cnservitive, this sin nessisarily so. One cna have Liberal social veiws and be a fudnamentalist christain. Likewise, one can be a liberal in terms of theology, and stil hodl conservitive veiws and be classesd pliticlaly as a cnservitive.

Its nto always clear cut.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.

They even sometimes ignore Catholic doctrines which don’t fit their agenda.

This from the guy who, in defense of a certain position pooh poohed canon law stating: canon law is NOT divinely inspired, nor is it dogma, despite the contradictory opinion of a couple of fellows.

"Canon law has a divine origin, insofar as Jesus founded the Church not only as a spiritual community, but also as a juridically structured society." -- Archbishop Julian Herran the president of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts

"The canonical norms, are inspired by a reality that transcends them." --Pope John Paul II
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 20, 2004.

“Im pro free medical care and pro animal righs and environem, which makes me a liberal, yet anti-socialism and anti-gay "rights'” (Zarove) Now I really wonder WHAT I am, as I’m pro free medical care, anti-animal rights, neutral on environment, neutral on socialism, and anti “gay rights” (and anti-war, anti-abortion, anti- capital punishment, anti-contraception, pro-internationalism and pro- [authentic] feminism, to name a few more hot issues).

Your twist is not as clever as you think Brian. At no stage did I “pooh-pooh canon law”, nor even “pooh-pooh” the particular canon law provision we were discussing. On the contrary I showed that I took it most seriously but disagreed with those who had the idea that it is a mortal sin not to strictly and restrictively apply this provision in every particular case, and that there is no room at all for individual judgment as to morality.

I am absolutely certain that neither the Pope nor Abp Herran think that the CCL is “divinely inspired” (or inerrant)in the sense that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant. Yes it comes ultimately from God, as the Church was founded and is guided by God even in its non-spiritual functions. That does not mean that every application of its laws is inerrant. And canon law is most certainly not “Catholic doctrine” let alone dogma, LOL! As I said I totally endorse, accept and embrace all Catholic doctrine. Doctrine does not change. Canon law frequently does.

You have unfortunately provided an example of the sort of self- righteous selectivity I was referring to above.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.

Self righteous, lol! Your horse is quite often pretty high Steve.

And, sorry, but I'm not buying it. Mortal sin was not mentioned. on that thread, Paul unambiguously pointed out your error by referencing Canon Law. Your rebuttal was "that may be, but...," which sounds like the sort of selective interpretation you accuse "Catholic fundamentalists" of engaging in. Your point about selective interpretation is well taken (maybe I engage in it myself, I hope not, but maybe), but selective interpretation can cut both ways. It is not the sole property of "ultra-conservatives."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 20, 2004.

To me it appears we all agree with Steve; there is no canon law that stipulates we aren't free in conscience to deliberate clauses in the law. We can't all be canon lawyers, but neither is every layman entitled to preach canon law. My suggestion is simple: speak to your confessors. In fact, make sure you consult an orthodox (not necessarily ''fundy'', or conservative) priest or bishop. Don't interpret canon law under the illusion you are God's best spokesman.

Meanwhile, be true to your conscience, not somebody else's value system. And always pray for God's grace. Just trust in Our Lord Jesus Christ; He will grant you wisdom to see the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.

Thank you Eugene. Yes maybe I should have discussed it with a priest at the time before doing the reading. As I said I did discuss it with my parents who are very orthodox and aware of the whole situation. I know this is “second hand”, but my parents discussed it with their parish priest (who is quite “conservative”) and he had no objection. We all certainly prayed about it.

Brian I apologize that sometimes I do come across as self-righteous. I love my faith and I hate to see it misrepresented (that some belief or practice is NOT part of the Faith which clearly is; or even worse, that some belief or practice IS part of the Faith when it is not). Sometimes in my zeal to point out exactly what the Faith is, I let my arrogance and egotism get mixed in.

Yes I know selective interpretation is not the sole property of “ultra-conservatives”. But my point was that neither is it, as jas alleged, only the “liberals” who “pick and choose”. You may say that I ”selectively interpreted” a canon law. But even if I did, this is a far different thing from selectively interpreting Catholic doctrine.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.

I think a bit of distinction is required here. People can be politically liberal (or socialist) or conservative (or libertarian) while holding orthodox or heterodox theological beliefs.

I don't think Steve and I share the same political philosophy but we both believe the creed.

We beg to differ on lots of prudential and contingent matters such as tax code, unions, how many parts per billion is OK for the environment, etc. but agree that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, died on Calvary, and that at the end of the day it's more important to be his friend than praised by any power or political party.

We do know two things as far as the Catholic faith goes: one is that there is constant growth - constant improvements, quantitatively as in new Catholics and qualitiatively as in holiness... and that we are all duty bound to PRESERVE the faith handed on to us from the time of the apostles.

So there is both a progressive and a conservative element. The "What" that we believe is to be preserved. The "How" this is spread, (spiritualities, culture, etc) vary from time to time and place to place.

This nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the Church is essential. "Dynamic-endurance" is a term the Pope uses to describe it. Just as you are substantially the same person as you were when born but have changed in major ways...so too the Faith is the same but the body of Christ has grown and matured or changed or suffered over the centuries.

The trick is to know what to hold on to and what to let go of.

We don't accept change for the sake of change (something people who think they are "progressives" have a problem discerning). Nor do we hold fast to customs just because they're what we always did. (Something traditionalists have a problem understanding).

Our sexual morality doesn't come from the rhetorical "Yeah well why not?" question preceeding every new fetish and vice as though it absolves the person from waiting to think through and learn why not do something which seems so enticing and "fun".

But Steve will still disagree with me on how best to apply this or that teaching... This doesn't ruffle my feathers in the least. Provided we both obey the Lord and his duly appointed representatives who preach based on his word not their own... we're OK.

If either of us ran off to do our own thing because it was our own thing... (and not because it was proven to be the right thing) then we'd be in trouble regardless of our politics or theology

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.

yaaaaaaaaay we have an liberal anti-bush here:)

...the only good thing so far i've seen here lol

are you also catholic?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 21, 2004.

"the only good thing so far i've seen here lol"

If you don't like it, you're always welcome to leave.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.

Zarove,

It seems we agree on a lot more things than we dissagree on.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.

After all, Im pro free medical care and pro animal righs and environem, which makes me a liberal...

Zarove, but could you define these stances. Maybe I'm a liberal too ;-). We already have free medical care for some. There is no such thing as free medical care for all. Pro animal rights? I believe animals should not be treated cruelly. I can understand people being against animal testing for non-medical stuff, puppy mills, and other extreme crowding situations. Other than that... Please don't ask me to be a vegetarian :-). I'd be a bag of bones. Pro environment. Yeah me too! But I also favor logging, mining, drilling for oil. Its not incompatible imo. Just curious what your take is.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 21, 2004.

“We already have free medical care for some. There is no such thing as free medical care for all.” Not in the US, but just about every country in Europe has it.

I’m against cruelty to animals, but “animal rights” in Western countries has gone way, way beyond stamping out cruelty. Americans spend more on pet food and accessories than the entire foreign aid budget. There are so-called professors of ethics who say a dog or cat has as much if not MORE right to life than a human fetus or newborn.

It always makes me laugh when people only want to buy products labelled “not tested on animals”. If something has this label, there are 4 possibilities:

1. It’s simply a lie, because there’s no way the health authorities would let something on the market unless it had been proven to be safe. And the only way to know this for sure is to test it on animals or humans.

2. They copied the formula exactly from another company’s product which HAS been tested on animals.

3. They used highly unethical testing on human “volunteers”, such as prisoners promised a little off their sentences or desperately poor people in 3rd world countries who were paid a pittance to risk injury or death.

4. It is actually true, they have somehow evaded the authorities and they are testing the product on YOU!

So I avoid at all costs anything labelled “not tested on animals”. At best it means the company is dishonest or commercially fraudulent. At worst they abuse human rights, or you are risking your own health.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.

“We already have free medical care for some. There is no such thing as free medical care for all.”

Not in the US, but just about every country in Europe has it.

No they don't. They're paying for it one way or another.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 22, 2004.

Germany has it, but the income tax ranges from 25% to 47%. Imagine working half of a year just for the government. Crazy.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.

are there any non-conservative non-fundamental christians or people on the forum?

mmmm , Yes , there are a lot of people on this forum :)

Now back serious:

Well , I'm not catholic or I don't follow any religion , than why I come to this place ?? __ Well , to get some knowlegde on all kind of things or sometimes , I give my vision or even give some advice !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 22, 2004.

wow, well, anti bush considers himself a liberal, yet takes a reasonably conservative stance on most issues that i've seen. particularly, i would label anti bush a moderate... same as steve, whom i might sometimes find too liberal, but isnt so on the broad scale. as far as animal rights goes, steve and i agree 100%. i'm against cruelty, but there is no justification in my mind at all to the fact that an animal has ANY right to life when compared to a human. as far as the environment goes, im a conservationalist, but only such that i think that the environment should be used in an efficient manner, not never touched.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 22, 2004.

“We already have free medical care for some. There is no such thing as free medical care for all.” Not in the US, but just about every country in Europe has it. "No they don't. They're paying for it one way or another. “

You’re talking about a different thing now Brian. We all know it’s not “free” in every sense. The Europeans pay through their taxes for their “free medical care for all” the same way we pay through our taxes for our “free medical care for some” as YOU yourself described it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 22, 2004.

Right. So when Zarove says he's "pro free medical care," what does he mean?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 22, 2004.