From Dr. Blosser: Why liberal Catholics think authority is "repressive."

Postmodernism is the liberal worldview at its most honest. Everything boils down to power, and the more for the reasonable, the better.

To often, Fools of a liberal persuasion bend over backwards to far to be "with it" to the reasonable. Thus, they become foolable. It's a sad marsh of median mediocrity. The reasonable will not respect any part of their religious sensibility unless it forwards the Agenda. Fools will laugh too hard and loud to pay them any serious mind. Thus, the foolable often end up pouting. This is true especially for those Catholics with a tendency to enjoy cafeterias, as Dr. Blosser addresses here.

He delivers the opening salvo:

The short answer is that they think "authority" means power, whereas it does not. In the current postmodern milieu, these stepchildren of the masters of suspicion (Marx, Freud, Nietzsche)--particularly Nietzsche--think of authority as something reducible to power. The academy may speak of canonical writers and essential core requirements for cultural literacy within the liberal arts tradition, but these liberals know in their heart-of-hearts that beneath it all, knowledge is reducible to power. Likewise, the Church may speak of canonical scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and magisterial authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in their heart-of-hearts, these liberals know that religion, along with everything else, is ultimately reducible to power.

After citing evidence from the usual reasonable suspects, he gets down to the business of showing them why they're alone and naked in the wilderness:

What is "authority," according to liberal dissenters? Nothing but the raw exercise of arbitrary power. In other words, they don't really believe the Church has anything like divine authority at all. This is why this idea (heavenly authority) is translated into that (power), which is something earthly, human, and mundane. But what is the Church's authority, really? To quote Peter Kreeft, it is nothing more than "author's rights." The author of a book has rights to it. The Author of the Church has rights to it. Likewise, those to whom He has delegated authority in the Church have the Author's rights to declare what is and what is not in accord with the Author's intended teachings and purposes. That is what lies behind Apostolic Succession. That is the meaning of the Church's authority. It is that authority (author's rights), which provides the sticking point that sticks in the liberal craw; because what it means is that The Faith can't simply be twisted, like a wax nose, in any arbitrary direction that prevailing whim would desire.

The funny thing is that some of the reasonable cited--such as the writers--would be the first to complain if editors were to twist their writings to convey an end totally unintended by them. Somehow, though, God's rights to the free gift of Faith that he has given us just aren't the same thing. The problem is they don't take God seriously. Therefore, when they look at the Roman Catholic Church, they see a historical institution run by celebate men that denies people their basic "rights". They fail to see the Body of Christ, or if they do (as in the foolable), they do not take seriously what that implies.

If they only knew what they were missing.