First, what’s a “neo-Catholic”? It refers to a “conservative” Catholic who:
- Embraces every conciliar novelty they can get their hands on (e.g., religious freedom as expressed in Dignitatis Humanae, the overblown emphasis on human dignity in Gaudium et Spes, and the endless calls for inter-religious dialogue found in Unitatis Redintegratio) regardless of how far afield of authentic Catholic doctrine they may be
- Defends most every post-conciliar act of papal irresponsibility no matter how outrageous (like the Assisi abominations, allowing altar girls, and lax liturgical practices)
- Seem to have not a clue that the Catholic Church is in the midst of a self-inflicted crisis of unprecedented magnitude
The term was coined by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods in a book more than a decade ago. Ferrara explains:
“Since [conservatives] have not in fact conserved anything . . . we believe that the term ‘conservative’ invites confusion among casual readers, for whom it carries a positive connotation, while attaching a venerable designation to people whose actions — or inaction, as the case may be — merit no such honor.”
With all of that said:
Now, if the above makes very little sense to you, it’s not your fault. You’ve been robbed of precious Catholic treasure, including the doctrine of the Church concerning the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the duty incumbent upon both individuals and States to pay him public homage.
If that describes you, you may find the following resources helpful:
A multi-part series of Catholic News Agency columns, “Was John Courtney Murray Right?”
Traditio Faith Formation Series: Quas Primas – On the Feast of Christ the King
You might be a neo-Catholic if you oppose “religious freedom” but support so-called “economic freedom” as espoused by the fanatical right wing Republicans.
Louie, might we have a post on this teaching from his Holiness Pope Leo XIII:
“Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.”
Ganganelli, just be careful about what you mean by ” specially cared for and protected by the government “. That is where we are today. We look to our government for way too much, so as a result they grow. This responsibility belongs to the Church, to family, to community. There has always been rich folks and always been poor folks. We are not trying to build a utopia on earth, we are trying to get to heaven (salvation of souls). It is more about Christ’s kingship than anything else. The Church was at the forefront of establishing hospitals and schools and charities, not the government. Our government is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
James David, I didn’t say it. Pope Leo XIII did.
I am aware of this given that you quoted him. But it seems that you agree with this. All I can suggest is that you consider the current situation in the USA. What Pope Leo XIII said sounds good, but when put into practice, especially by a secular government (which is what we are dealing with), it can easily become a nightmare. Less government, not more. We are currently in a nightmare where the state is now deciding what we should do with our own conscience. Would you want these people caring for you? This is our job. It is the job of the Church. But salvation of souls ALWAYS comes first.