I'd like to see an essay explaining why applying the label "modernism" to much of today's progressive Catholic dissent is inaccurate.

While It may be heresy, and while modernism still exists, their beliefs have little in common with what Pius X condemned. 1/

It's like folks latched on to the "synthesis of all heresies" quote and suddenly everyone they disagree with on religion is a modernist.

Catholics who disagree with the Church on some moral doctrines or on who can receive holy orders often have very strong supernatural faith. 2/

Historically, "modernism" has been defined as reducing religion to a subjective choice, and rejecting or redefining dogmas, like saying that the Resurrection or Virgin Birth are nice stories but not literally true, or rejecting a true afterlife. 3/

Fr. Hardon's definition said that modernists believe

"There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history." 4/

Sure, I have known real modernists. I was taught modernism in HS religion class. But most of my progressive Catholic friends, even if they reject or struggle with a teaching, really do have a strong supernatural faith in Christ. Lumping them in modernists is simply wrong. 5/5

PS - I probably should have said "strong belief in the supernatural" rather than "strong supernatural faith" (darn theological precision).

Also, I don't profess to be an authority on this, which is why wrote at the top that I'd like to see an essay about it. So don't quote me!