Not exact matches
Modern liberalism assumes and requires a society
with a certain moral foundation, but it does not always reinforce that foundation, and increasingly it undermines it.
The evidence in support of Johannine authorship is overwhelming... it was only called into question in the 20th century
with modern theological
liberalism.
The Syllabus of Errors, issued in 1864 under the auspices of Pope Pius IX, famously ends by condemning the proposition that «The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms
with progress,
liberalism, and
modern civilization.»
By the end of the 19th century the scholars of Protestant
liberalism had fully accepted the humanistic origins of the Bible, come to terms
with the scientific notion of biological evolution, and were completely confident that the essential core of Christian doctrine could be salvaged intact and re-expressed in terms relevant to the
modern age.
It provided an ideological framework within which the many religious communities of India as well as the plurality of linguistic caste and ethnic cultures (in the formation of which one or other religions had played a dominant role) could participate together
with the adherents of secular ideologies like
Liberalism and Socialism (which emerged in India in the framework of the impact of
modern humanism of the West mediated through western power and English education).
To them, both theological
liberalism (in all its varieties) and theological conservatism (
with as many varieties) were and still are obsessed
with «the
modern mind.»
To the post-conservative evangelicals,
liberalism and conservatism are both unfruitfully obsessed
with «the
modern mind.»
In the Calvinist tradition this was first coupled
with the attempt to create a form of theocratic society in Geneva, and then broadened out into the reformist temper of
modern Christian
liberalism with its effort to bring a wider democratic justice into all social relationships.
Since the heart of
liberalism was its endorsement of the best in
modern culture, scientifically based free inquiry, together
with its technological benefits, would automatically advance Christian civilization.
As Saint John Paul often declared, Christians today are called on to be «signs of contradiction» (rather than signs of the kind of unvarying conformity
with «progress,
liberalism and
modern civilisation» which you will find in the pages of The Tablet and of Cornwell's books).
The famous (for liberals the notorious) article 80 of the Syllabus — which condemns as an error the proposition that «the Roman Pontiff may and ought to reconcile himself to, and to agree
with, progress,
liberalism and
modern civilisation» — seems reasonable enough.
Among them were pantheism and the positions that human reason is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood and good and evil; that Christian faith contradicts reason; that Christ is a myth; that philosophy must be treated without reference to supernatural revelation; that every man is free to embrace the religion which, guided by the light of reason, he believes to be true; that Protestantism is another form of the Christian religion in which it is possible to be as pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church; that the civil power can determine the limits within which the Catholic Church may exercise authority; that Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have erred in defining matters of faith and morals; that the Church does not have direct or indirect temporal power or the right to invoke force; that in a conflict between Church and State the civil law should prevail; that the civil power has the right to appoint and depose bishops; that the entire direction of public schools in which the youth of Christian states are educated must be by the civil power; that the Church should be separated from the State and the State from the Church; that moral laws do not need divine sanction; that it is permissible to rebel against legitimate princes; that a civil contract may among Christians constitute true marriage; that the Catholic religion should no longer be the religion of the State to the exclusion of all other forms of worship; and «that the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree
with progress,
liberalism and
modern civilization.»
A third line of reasoning would have us believe that East Asian intellectuals did not understand Western
liberalism and democracy when first confronted
with it in the early
modern period.
Because most people
with any sort of knowledge of the recent academic debates / fights in and around
modern liberalism would know that Sandel is usually classed as communitarian critic of
liberalism.
A secondary meaning for the term liberal conservatism that has developed in Europe is a combination of more
modern conservative (less traditionalist) views
with those of social
liberalism.