Jcecil3 has a "fun" post on 20 questions for liberal leaners to prove that ignorance and lack of Catechesis has nothingto do with the liberal tendencies. I took the quiz and answered "yes" to just about everything. I have to admit that I suspect liberal bias in making the liberals look "good."
Anyway, the whole exercise got me thinking about, where the lines are drawn and what distinguishes liberal from conservative Catholic? I came up with 20 questions and of course, there are more questions one could ask. But here are my questions.
1. Do you believe that the Eucharist is the source and summit of all Christian worship?
2.Do you believe that the symbolism of the Eucharist is just as important as the “Real Presence”?
3. Do you believe that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is necessary for grace and forgiveness of sins?
4. We need to return to married priests and Bishops, true or false?
5. Do you believe, in the history of Catholicism, that the Pope has never erred in matter of doctrine?
6. Do you believe that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter?
7. Do you believe that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built his Church?
8. Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary for grace?
9. Do you believe that women are ontologically incapable of ordination?
10. Do you believe that homosexual activity is a sin?
11. Do you believe that it is acceptable for gay non-Catholic clergy to remain an active committed relationship?
12. Do you believe that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?
13. Do you believe that Mary is Co-Redemptrix?
14. Do you believe that Mary is “Ever-Virgin”?
15. If trapped on a desert island: Book of James or Story of a Soul?
16. Which is more important in YOUR spiritual life, Scripture or Tradition?
17. True or False: the Holy Spirit would not bestow the fullest measure of grace apart from the sacraments of the Church.
18. Have you seen Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ?
19. Mel Gibson’s TPOC was a _____ thing: (a) wonderful (b) good (c) not sure
20. The Catholic Church wll become obsolete someday, true or false.
Update: My Answers with Interpretation Key a la McLaughlin
1. Not really
2. Yes (X<>No=>liberal) [this means if answer is not "no" it implies "liberal"]
3. No
4. Yes (X<>No=>liberal)
5. No
6. Not really (X<>No=>liberal)
7. No (X<>Yes=>liberal)
8. No (X<>No=>liberal)
9. No
10. I'm not sure how to answer this. I don't agree with it, but I will not presume to condemn. I don't have to deal with it personally and since there is no personal risk for me, I cannot stand and righteously pontificate . . . (X=No=>liberal)
11. No (X=Yes=>liberal)
12. Yes
13. Yes (Don't hate me! I am not betraying the liberal cause, I swear!)
14. Yes, whatever that means.
15. James
16. Scripture (liberal indicator)
17. False (liberal indicator)
18. No (liberal indicator)
19. "okay thing": violence unbecoming, but anytime Jesus gets mass publicity of this quasi-positive sort, I'd take over the Mary Magdelene conspiracies.
20. True, sort of . . (liberal indicator)
posted by Ono at 3:37 PM
10 Comments:
But...but...these are HARD questions!!
1. yes
2. not AS important, but important
3. no, only for mortal sin, and I'm not convinced that most people ever commit mortal sin. on the other hand, an elderly Lutheran psychiatrist friend of mine once told me I was a fool not to take advantage of confession more often -- catholics are so well adjusted, she said.
4. it would be a good thing
5. no
6. yes
7. I believe Christ said it, I wonder sometimes what He meant by it.
8. I believe they confer grace, I do not believe they are the only means
9. no
10. I really don't know what to believe on this one. I'm just thankful that it's not an issue in my life right now.
11. I don't know. That line about "judge not" keeps coming to mind.
12. I think it was unnecessary, but I can agree that my church believes it -- it doesn't affect me and thus doesn't call for my immediate personal belief.
13. I'm not a huge Marian. I suppose she could be.
14. Nope. Not that God couldn't make her so if He chose, but it seems unlikely.
15. *shrugs* Not very familiar with either of them. Give me the Bible. Or Lord of the Rings. Or the collected works of Patrick O'Brian.
16. Scripture
17. oooo, tough one. I'd have to say that the Holy Spirit, being God, can do whatever She pleases.
18. No
19. (d)none of the above - it was a violent thing, and a breach of the guidelines for passion plays; I suspect it was also a too intimate look inside Gibson's conscience. Besides, is St. Mel even a catholic? I thought Traditional Catholics were schismatic? I demand a recount!!
20. Well, when Christ comes again, who knows what judgment He'll pass on the institutional church? Obsolescence may be the least of its worries. ;-)
Like Faith over in JCecil's comments, I question a lot, but I obey pretty much all.
Nice quiz.
:-)
Ono,
I think your first sentence should read "...has nothing to do with liveral tendencies." And of course I am trying to make liberals "look good" - or show we have more in common with our conservative brethren than they tend to suggest on their blogs.
Anyway,...,here are my answers to your questions:
1. Yes
2. Yes (Symbol is reality)
3. No (We can receive forgiveness without the sacrament of reconciliation, but that does not mean that the sacrament has no value).
4. True
5. Yes
6. Yes (but so was Antioch and others, and not quite in the literal sense that conservatives imagine - i.e. - I don't think Peter actually instructed Anacletus to take the reigns at Rome)
7. Yes, but....too complex a question to sum up easily.
8. No, but.....they are extremely valuable.
9. No
10. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not - just like straight sex.
11. Did you word this right? Non-catholics can do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt us.
12. Yes
13. Yes
14. Yes, but I'm open to being proved wrong and would not excommunicate anyone who disagrees with me
15. Book of James
16. Unfair question. They're the same thing. God reveals himself. He reveals herself through a variety of means. All means are of equal value. The question isn't Scripture or Tradition, but openess to God's revelation or not!
17. True (with further nuance)
18. Yes
19. (b) good
20. False
Peace!
(abby, frequent commenter at jcecil3 and elena's blogs but without a blogger blog of her own.)
1. yes.
2. mmm... symbolism is important, but not quite as important as the real thing.
3. yes.
4. letting married men become priests and bishops could very well be a good thing, but i don't think we should require them to be married; celibacy is a gift, it just isn't everyone's gift.
5. no. (there are times when what the pope says is infallible, but that's obviously not true all the time.)
6. yes.
7. yes.
8. yes, with regards to myself. no with regards to the faithful of other religions. (this is why i always score "neopagan" on those quizzes about what religion you should be - i make a firm delineation between what is right for me and what is right for everyone else. and i'm a whole lot harder on myself than on anyone else.)
9. no.
10. not necessarily, any more than heterosexual activity is.
11. sure, if it's all right for a member of that religion's clergy to remain in a committed heterosexual relationship.
12. yes.
13. i'll have to admit i'm not sure of the exact definition there. but i do think "redemptrix" is a cool word.
14. i do, but i don't think it's the most important thing about her. also, virgin can be taken to mean not just never having had sex with a man, but not needing a man to be powerful in her own right; mary's importance as the mother of God didn't require joseph except for the safety of being married.
15. story of a soul, because i've never read it.
16. tradition. (and i'll restrain myself from singing the song from fiddler on the roof. haha.)
17. i'm not going to say what God would or would not do. didn't augustine say "if you think you understand, it isn't God"?
18. yes. well, mostly. i spent a lot of it with my face buried in my friend's sweatshirt, and we turned up 15 minutes into the movie because we got lost.
19. a difficult thing to define. getting the gospel out into the mainstream is a good thing. i thought it did a reasonably good job of showing that it was mob mentality, not jewishness, that led to the crucifixion - it seemed to me to show sympathetic and non-sympathetic jews, romans, and random gilded members of herod's court in almost equal proportions. but the gore? not so necessary. there was more blood than i've ever seen, and i saw some horrible, horrible accidents when i worked as an EMT. and i didn't like how quickly glossed-over the resurrection was, either.
20. who knows? i hope not. i hope some current policies will become obsolete - and not just what people assume a progressive would want to become obsolete; i'd like to hear more latin! haha. but i'm in an apocalyptic mood at the moment, so i don't think much of anything is going to last long enough to become obsolete.
Stripped of context and nuance, like all who preceeded me I'm sure:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes, but I think a. progressives significantly underestimate the unintended consequences of such a change, and b. making priesthood available to women is a higher priority.
5. Probably.
6. In a certain sense that emerged into consciousness over time.
7. I believe that the charisma of leadership was routinized through Peter and those who the community recognized as succeeding him.
8. No.
9. No, and I believe it imperative that women be ordained *but* I struggle with progressive's inability to even understand how Jesus' masculinity is a stumbling block to women's ordination for people who live concrete and traditional lives governed by gender identity.
10. I imagine that homosexuals are no more and no less in the wilderness on sexual ethics than heterosexuals.
11. In the last analysis, I believe that sexuality should be confined to committed relationships and that clergy should embody this principle. In traditions like the UCC which accept gay relationships, this is perfectly acceptable. In traditions that aren't there yet, I more conflicted and don't buy into lionizing clergy in long-standing subrosa relationships.
12. This formulation is remote from my worldview, but I have no objection to living within a tradition what holds to it.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Story of a Soul.....though I'd be cursing my luck that I hadn't packed Les Miserables.
16. Inextricable. Tradition is scripture interpreted in history.
17. False. The Holy Spirit isn't confined to the boundaries of Catholicism!
18. No...nor do I wish to.
19. (d) a terrible thing. The hurt it has inflicted on our Jewish sisters and brothers distresses me.
20. Ah, here's there the rub. What is constituitive of Catholicism? I suspect that John Paul II is a more insightful sociologist than most of his progressive critics. He understands that there is a huge chasm between: a. the "Catholic faith" in substantial continuity with its traditional self-understanding, and b. the "faith of Catholics," i.e., the evolving spiritual and religious leanings of those of us who grew up Catholic, passionately hold heterodox...even unitarian...views, and persist in claiming the Catholic brand label. We need an honest discussion of the boundary issues. Applying a litmus test is deeply offensive, but so too is blithley calling whatever cultural Catholics believe "Catholicism."
Stripped of context and nuance, like all who preceeded me I'm sure:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes, but I think a. progressives significantly underestimate the unintended consequences of such a change, and b. making priesthood available to women is a higher priority.
5. Probably.
6. In a certain sense that emerged into consciousness over time.
7. I believe that the charisma of leadership was routinized through Peter and those who the community recognized as succeeding him.
8. No.
9. No, and I believe it imperative that women be ordained *but* I struggle with progressive's inability to even understand how Jesus' masculinity is a stumbling block to women's ordination for people who live concrete and traditional lives governed by gender identity.
10. I imagine that homosexuals are no more and no less in the wilderness on sexual ethics than heterosexuals.
11. In the last analysis, I believe that sexuality should be confined to committed relationships and that clergy should embody this principle. In traditions like the UCC which accept gay relationships, this is perfectly acceptable. In traditions that aren't there yet, I more conflicted and don't buy into lionizing clergy in long-standing subrosa relationships.
12. This formulation is remote from my worldview, but I have no objection to living within a tradition what holds to it.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Story of a Soul.....though I'd be cursing my luck that I hadn't packed Les Miserables.
16. Inextricable. Tradition is scripture interpreted in history.
17. False. The Holy Spirit isn't confined to the boundaries of Catholicism!
18. No...nor do I wish to.
19. (d) a terrible thing. The hurt it has inflicted on our Jewish sisters and brothers distresses me.
20. Ah, here's there the rub. What is constituitive of Catholicism? I suspect that John Paul II is a more insightful sociologist than most of his progressive critics. He understands that there is a huge chasm between: a. the "Catholic faith" in substantial continuity with its traditional self-understanding, and b. the "faith of Catholics," i.e., the evolving spiritual and religious leanings of those of us who grew up Catholic, passionately hold heterodox...even unitarian...views, and persist in claiming the Catholic brand label. We need an honest discussion of the boundary issues. Applying a litmus test is deeply offensive, but so too is blithley calling whatever cultural Catholics believe "Catholicism."
Sorry for the double post above, and for not identifying myself. Peace, Mike McG...
1. Yes!!!
2. No
3. Yes
4. No, absolutely not!!!
5. Dunno.
6-8 Yes
9. No
10. Not sure
11. Don't understand the question.
12-14. Yes
15. Story of a soul, or rather Manuscripts autobiographiques de Sainte Thérèse de l'Enfant-Jésus (+ a rosary)
16. Can't say one is more important than the other.
17. Probably true.
18. No, but that's just because I never see any movies at all.
19. Don't know anything about it.
20. Totally false.
So am I liberal? Progressive?
Oh sorry, should I have introduced myself? Hi, I'm Anna, I like your blog which I found through jcecil.
Nice site!
[url=http://hvkigwhe.com/ntjj/uuzg.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://wwtqterl.com/lhgs/kssa.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
http://hvkigwhe.com/ntjj/uuzg.html | http://umcbryzc.com/xhgd/cntn.html
Post a Comment
<< Home