Are my political views compatible with Catholicism?

[Contrabass101]

Since my political views are something that I am about as vocal about as my faith, I thought I might take a closer look on the relation between the two. While I personally can not see any conflict, and even believe that I might be able to give a rather good theological defence for my political views, getting an extra pair of eyes to look at it may be a great help.

I have no interest in discussing the economical side of the issue, much less any questions having to do with taxes or distribution of wealth. Since I don’t live in America, discussions of federal government vs state government is quite irrelevant too.

My view might broadly be classified as Libertarian: “No action that does not directly harm another human being or infringe on his rights, should be prohibited or punished by the state.”

That will include a great number of vices which may be morally quite grave, and may put one’s soul in danger. I would advocate the toleration of those vices, while strongly opposing them - which I guess is exactly what toleration means. It is not a question of moral subjectivism, it is a question of where the limits of my authority in political matters (as a citizen in a democratic country) are drawn.

That would include: drugs, pornography, contraception, IVF, homosexuality, prostitution and any other victimless crime.

These things are clearly prohibited by Natural Law, and by the Church, but in my understanding of the Civil Law, these are not political issues at all.

However, when bishops, priests etc speak on political issues, they seem to me to oppose these things politically. Is that true, and if so, why?

• CB

 

[csuliman]

I think that you can be a libertarian and a Catholic. Just because you think something is immoral does not mean you believe that the government should prohibit it.

Here are two sources from our Catholic Fathers of the Church

Summa Theologica: Part II of book II, question 10, article 11

I answer that, Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. Thus from the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good–that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.

Divine Providence and The Problem of Evil - St. Augustine
What can be mentioned more sordid, more bereft of decency, or more full of turpitude than prostitutes, procurers, and the other pests of that sort? Remove prostitutes from human affairs, and you will unsettle everything because of lusts; place them in the position of matrons, and you will dishonor these latter by disgrace and ignominy. This class of people is, therefore, by its own mode of life most unchaste in its morals; by the law of order, it is most vile in social condition.

 

[Newbie2]

Since my political views are something that I am about as vocal about as my faith, I thought I might take a closer look on the relation between the two. While I personally can not see any conflict, and even believe that I might be able to give a rather good theological defence for my political views, getting an extra pair of eyes to look at it may be a great help.

I have no interest in discussing the economical side of the issue, much less any questions having to do with taxes or distribution of wealth. Since I don’t live in America, discussions of federal government vs state government is quite irrelevant too.

My view might broadly be classified as Libertarian: “No action that does not directly harm another human being or infringe on his rights, should be prohibited or punished by the state.”

That will include a great number of vices which may be morally quite grave, and may put one’s soul in danger. I would advocate the toleration of those vices, while strongly opposing them - which I guess is exactly what toleration means. It is not a question of moral subjectivism, it is a question of where the limits of my authority in political matters (as a citizen in a democratic country) are drawn.

That would include: drugs, pornography, contraception, IVF, homosexuality, prostitution and any other victimless crime.
These things are clearly prohibited by Natural Law, and by the Church, but in my understanding of the Civil Law, these are not political issues at all.

However, when bishops, priests etc speak on political issues, they seem to me to oppose these things politically. Is that true, and if so, why?

• CB

Ah, but these are not all “victimless crimes”; they don’t happen in a vacuum.

Many drug abusers steal to afford their habit. Many cannot keep a job and are a drain on the resources (i.e. tax dollars) of the rest of society.

Many women are forced into and kept in pornography and pornography.

Contraception and IVF, depending on the circumstance can result in the death of a viable embryo (the victim).

Homosexuality (consensual) is not usually a crime in the civil sense.

So the question is do bishops oppose such things politically and why. I would answer, yes, such things are opposed in a political sense, the reason being is that Christians have a moral obligation to look out for the welfare of others in our midst, regardless of whether these others are fellow Christians or not.

In modern society, if we want to effect societal change in a peaceful manner, it has to be done in the most part by changing hearts and minds, and that comes through the Church and through the government through political means.

 

[royal_archer]

Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone…

You can’t force someone to choose good…

The only potential conflicts I see with Christianity and Libertarianism are:

1. Immoral environment as it relates to children and those suceptible to temptation. Should society ban the public display of immoral acts or place limmits on them to prevent the exposure to those who find them immoral. For instance public nudity or selling drugs where children may be able to get a hold of them.
2. personal choice. Some take the libertarian views to the counterproductive extreme by trying to force private citizens to have the same level of tollerance that the government should have. While the government should not force discrimination against immoral acts, it should also not prevent private citizens from discriminating against immoral acts or those that engage in them. If I want to have a store and ban customers with red cars from my parking lot because I associate red as the color of Satan, then I should have every right to do that or any other rule I am inclined to regardless of how silly it may seem to others.

With the exception of the right to life, it seems most of the “political” activity of the church seems more angled against laws that promote immoral behavior as opposed to laws that permit immoral behavior.

 

[Alethiaphile]

In my opinion, libertarianism is incompatible with Catholicicism/Orthodoxy. The soveriegn authority, whatever form it takes, serves an essential function as an icon of God, and the human law serves an essential educative function, and should mirror the divine law as closely as possible.

 

[tafan]

Since my political views are something that I am about as vocal about as my faith, I thought I might take a closer look on the relation between the two. While I personally can not see any conflict, and even believe that I might be able to give a rather good theological defence for my political views, getting an extra pair of eyes to look at it may be a great help.

I have no interest in discussing the economical side of the issue, much less any questions having to do with taxes or distribution of wealth. Since I don’t live in America, discussions of federal government vs state government is quite irrelevant too.

My view might broadly be classified as Libertarian: “No action that does not directly harm another human being or infringe on his rights, should be prohibited or punished by the state.”

That will include a great number of vices which may be morally quite grave, and may put one’s soul in danger. I would advocate the toleration of those vices, while strongly opposing them - which I guess is exactly what toleration means. It is not a question of moral subjectivism, it is a question of where the limits of my authority in political matters (as a citizen in a democratic country) are drawn.

That would include: drugs, pornography, contraception, IVF, homosexuality, prostitution and any other victimless crime.

These things are clearly prohibited by Natural Law, and by the Church, but in my understanding of the Civil Law, these are not political issues at all.

However, when bishops, priests etc speak on political issues, they seem to me to oppose these things politically. Is that true, and if so, why?

• CB

In general, you are correct. Thomas Aquinas himself made the case that all vices should not be made illegal or all virture enforced. . The concept of “directly harm another individual” is problematic. There are lots of actions, whose indirect consequence are quite harmful and some of these should be legislated. Other actions are directly/indirectly harmful to society in general. So you qualifications of a direct consequence and an individual object seem rather absurd to me.
Some of your examples are quite problematic, IMO. Prostitution is degrading to women and harmful to women and society in general. Drugs? Hard to see how legalizing all drugs would not be harmful to society. I always find it interesting that many of the same people who support the legalization of narcotics often support anti-smoking laws. At any rate, prostitution and drugs are not victimless crimes.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

In my opinion, libertarianism is incompatible with Catholicicism/Orthodoxy. The soveriegn authority, whatever form it takes, serves an essential function as an icon of God, and the human law serves an essential educative function, and should mirror the divine law as closely as possible.

Huh?

 

[royal_archer]

In general, you are correct. Thomas Aquinas himself made the case that all vices should not be made illegal or all virture enforced. . The concept of “directly harm another individual” is problematic. There are lots of actions, whose indirect consequence are quite harmful and some of these should be legislated. Other actions are directly/indirectly harmful to society in general. So you qualifications of a direct consequence and an individual object seem rather absurd to me.
Some of your examples are quite problematic, IMO. Prostitution is degrading to women and harmful to women and society in general. Drugs? Hard to see how legalizing all drugs would not be harmful to society. I always find it interesting that many of the same people who support the legalization of narcotics often support anti-smoking laws. At any rate, prostitution and drugs are not victimless crimes.

But here in the states, try going to a medical supply company and buying a tank of oxygen with out a governement licensed doctor’s permission. . .

 

[Orleans_Attny]

In my opinion, libertarianism is incompatible with Catholicicism/Orthodoxy. The soveriegn authority, whatever form it takes, serves an essential function as an icon of God, and the human law serves an essential educative function, and should mirror the divine law as closely as possible.

“Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Pax,
OA

 

[Contrabass101]

In general, you are correct. Thomas Aquinas himself made the case that all vices should not be made illegal or all virture enforced. . The concept of “directly harm another individual” is problematic. There are lots of actions, whose indirect consequence are quite harmful and some of these should be legislated. Other actions are directly/indirectly harmful to society in general. So you qualifications of a direct consequence and an individual object seem rather absurd to me.
Some of your examples are quite problematic, IMO. Prostitution is degrading to women and harmful to women and society in general.

Absolutely.

And so is ultimately any sexual act that is primarily motivated by lust. It is not degrading because money is brought into it, but because it treats sex as less than the great mystery of love and life, that it is. As does pornography, and contraception.

However, prostitution is exactly the example that Thomas Aquinas believes should be tolerated.

Prostitution is victimless in the sense, that both participants agree to it. The exception is of course in the case when the prostitute is forced into prostitution (basically: a slave). Of course such cases should be minimized, which would include regulation - which becomes a lot easier when prostitution is legal…

Drugs? Hard to see how legalizing all drugs would not be harmful to society. I always find it interesting that many of the same people who support the legalization of narcotics often support anti-smoking laws. At any rate, prostitution and drugs are not victimless crimes.

Obviously drugs are very destructive to the person, and in a sense that may cause indirect damage to society through lost taxes etc. However, the state does not have a right to someone’s labour. If a person doesn’t want to work (and pay taxes), he shouldn’t have to. His reasons are not relevant.

The problem with making civil laws about life style is, that it is hard to draw the line without it being more or less random. Heroin? Pot? Tobacco? Alcohol? McDonald’s?

Sure, all of these things can make someone unable to work.

If people commit crimes because they need money for the drugs, they should be punished for the crimes. Just as they should if they commit crimes to afford alcohol, a new car, bling-bling or a college degree.

If people drive while stoned, they should be punished for putting other people’s lives in jeopardy, just as they would if they had been under the influence of any other substance (medicine, alcohol…)

• CB

 

[Contrabass101]

Let he who is with out sin throw the first stone…

You can’t force someone to choose good…

The only potential conflicts I see with Christianity and Libertarianism are:

1. Immoral environment as it relates to children and those suceptible to temptation. Should society ban the public display of immoral acts or place limmits on them to prevent the exposure to those who find them immoral. For instance public nudity or selling drugs where children may be able to get a hold of them.

Good point.

There’s an important distinction between legal and unregulated. Selling drugs to children should obviously be illegal, and things displayed in “public” areas should probably be censored in some degree as well.

1. personal choice. Some take the libertarian views to the counterproductive extreme by trying to force private citizens to have the same level of tollerance that the government should have. While the government should not force discrimination against immoral acts, it should also not prevent private citizens from discriminating against immoral acts or those that engage in them. If I want to have a store and ban customers with red cars from my parking lot because I associate red as the color of Satan, then I should have every right to do that or any other rule I am inclined to regardless of how silly it may seem to others.

With the exception of the right to life, it seems most of the “political” activity of the church seems more angled against laws that promote immoral behavior as opposed to laws that permit immoral behavior.

I agree completely.

• CB

 

[Contrabass101]

Ah, but these are not all “victimless crimes”; they don’t happen in a vacuum.

A victimless crime is a crime where the involved parties agree to the act and the natural consequences thereof. Taking drugs, getting drunk or climbing a mountain, you accept the risk to your health that follows. No lives other than your own is at risk - you fall down the mountain and die, and only you die. That some people may be sad (your family) or lose income (your boss) because of your death is what I would call indirect damage, and while it may be an important factor in personal ethics, it should (as I see it) have no influence on the civil laws.

Many drug abusers steal to afford their habit.

Then they should be dealt with as thieves.

Many cannot keep a job and are a drain on the resources (i.e. tax dollars) of the rest of society.

Yet a drain much smaller than the futile “war on drugs”.

Many women are forced into and kept in pornography and pornography.

I suppose one of those should have read “prostitution”.

When that is the case, we have a case of coercion or perhaps even slavery, and it should be dealt with as that.

Contraception and IVF, depending on the circumstance can result in the death of a viable embryo (the victim).

Under such circumstances, it would not be a victimless crime.

So the question is do bishops oppose such things politically and why. I would answer, yes, such things are opposed in a political sense, the reason being is that Christians have a moral obligation to look out for the welfare of others in our midst, regardless of whether these others are fellow Christians or not.

But “looking out for” by prohibiting acts and substances that harm only the individual himself, is to treat him as a child, which is degrading.

If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was among us today, would you have the civil authorities put a fence around it?

God didn’t, so it seems to me, that he wants us to have some degree of freedom.

In modern society, if we want to effect societal change in a peaceful manner, it has to be done in the most part by changing hearts and minds, and that comes through the Church and through the government through political means.
Is that really the purpose of the government? To actively try and change the hearts and minds of people?

In my vision of the state, it is there to guarantee the freedom of each citizen. It is obviously coming from a rather modern, democratic view of the state, which is the best criticism against it, that I can think of.

What is the Church’s view on government? Is it really “by the grace of God” in a literal sense, or more in a pragmatical sense (seeing as even the Roman Empire under Nero is to be obeyed because it is still better to have a corrupted government than total anarchy)?

• CB

 

[Newbie2]

A victimless crime is a crime where the involved parties agree to the act and the natural consequences thereof. Taking drugs, getting drunk or climbing a mountain, you accept the risk to your health that follows. No lives other than your own is at risk - you fall down the mountain and die, and only you die. That some people may be sad (your family) or lose income (your boss) because of your death is what I would call indirect damage, and while it may be an important factor in personal ethics, it should (as I see it) have no influence on the civil laws.

Then they should be dealt with as thieves.

Yet a drain much smaller than the futile “war on drugs”.

I suppose one of those should have read “prostitution”.

When that is the case, we have a case of coercion or perhaps even slavery, and it should be dealt with as that.

Under such circumstances, it would not be a victimless crime.

But “looking out for” by prohibiting acts and substances that harm only the individual himself, is to treat him as a child, which is degrading.

If the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was among us today, would you have the civil authorities put a fence around it?

God didn’t, so it seems to me, that he wants us to have some degree of freedom.

In modern society, if we want to effect societal change in a peaceful manner, it has to be done in the most part by changing hearts and minds, and that comes through the Church and through the government through political means.
Is that really the purpose of the government? To actively try and change the hearts and minds of people?

In my vision of the state, it is there to guarantee the freedom of each citizen. It is obviously coming from a rather modern, democratic view of the state, which is the best criticism against it, that I can think of.

What is the Church’s view on government? Is it really “by the grace of God” in a literal sense, or more in a pragmatical sense (seeing as even the Roman Empire under Nero is to be obeyed because it is still better to have a corrupted government than total anarchy)?

• CB

You seem to miss my point; these crimes are interrelated and are, although not directly, indirectly affecting victims.

 

[Langdell]

To the OP: It depends on whether you act on your disagreements. I think you can still be a good Catholic while *silently *disagreeing with your bishop on matters that are not dogmas. But you shouldn’t publicly promote your position or try to persuade others to adopt your position. And you should try to understand the bishop’s position.

.

.

 

[royal_archer]

…The problem with making civil laws about life style is, that it is hard to draw the line without it being more or less random. Heroin? Pot? Tobacco? Alcohol? McDonald’s?

Sure, all of these things can make someone unable to work.
…

Same with welfare. (at least unwilling-to-work)

 

[oldsinnner]

Did you mean to say: Are my political views compatible with the teachings of Christ ?

The Catholic church has historically been off the mark or flat out on the wrong side in ‘politics’ enough to warrant some serious questions. The church is made up of human beings. Human beings are flawed. When the Church and Christians venture into politics, or the doctrine of ‘social justice’ it is very dangerous waters indeed. Acquinas states in his Summa, and I am paraphrasing here, that mans laws ( politics ) are in place to insure social order, where gods laws are a higher order, who’s purpose is to save your soul. Much harm and mayhem has been committed in this world, in gods name. And it will continue to be.

Too often in society, the power of ‘the mob’ is stronger than people realize it is and it can numb us to the point that we are unable to sort out right/wrong much less speak out in fear of condemnation from ‘the mob’ that is ‘society’. In my humble opinion, to live a Christian life, one must ‘turn off’ the outside world and seek knowledge of god and the inner kingdom we share with him. That is, things like television and the other methods that ‘pop culture’ is delivered, should be turned off or at the very least, viewed with great skepticism, and seeking knowledge about god along with daily prayer, should be turned ‘on’. We should learn to realize fully, that we all fall short, very short, of what god wants us to be, and all we can do, is ask for his forgiveness, dust ourselves off, and keep trying.

‘Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.’

 

[Contrabass101]

To the OP: It depends on whether you act on your disagreements. I think you can still be a good Catholic while *silently *disagreeing with your bishop on matters that are not dogmas. But you shouldn’t publicly promote your position or try to persuade others to adopt your position. And you should try to understand the bishop’s position.

I don’t think my own bishop has ever been particularly outspoken on politics.

I just get the impression that bishops and priests in general are either on the side of conservatism or a semi-socialism.

However, if I am to take democracy seriously, I am the secular ruler together with all other citizens. Therefore, I can’t see how I could “silently” disagree with my bishop. Beyond the circus of parliamentarianism, at the core of the democratic state, I am to some degree responsible for any law that is passed or not passed. Democracy means that in principle we all sign the bill, we all arrest the criminal, and we all pull the trigger… That at least is the democratic dream, and it leaves no room for being silent.

However, I don’t want a total separation of religion and politics - I want the Church to be the conscience of the State (and the State is I in the current political system of my country), so I want to know what it actually says on this. Thomas Aquinas is one voice in the Church, that could be made to agree with me, but I don’t think that even he draws the line as radically as Libertarianism would have us do.

• CB

 

[oldsinnner]

‘Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and of faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians at Rome, and to all Christians, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law (see the note on Romans 10:4). At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others (Romans 12:1-2) or as a repudiation of God’s law and will.’

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/intro.htm

 

[Langdell]

I don’t think my own bishop has ever been particularly outspoken on politics.

I just get the impression that bishops and priests in general are either on the side of conservatism or a semi-socialism.

In that case, I think you need to read the relevant Church documents and prayerfully consider your political views in light of them. There are plenty of areas in which the Church leaves decisionmaking up to individual prudence.

However, if I am to take democracy seriously, I am the secular ruler together with all other citizens. Therefore, I can’t see how I could “silently” disagree with my bishop. Beyond the circus of parliamentarianism, at the core of the democratic state, I am to some degree responsible for any law that is passed or not passed. Democracy means that in principle we all sign the bill, we all arrest the criminal, and we all pull the trigger… That at least is the democratic dream, and it leaves no room for being silent.

Even if you live in a pure democracy, you can opt out. Your one vote will not change any outcome. (Has any issue in your country ever come down to one person’s vote?)

For example, say a referendum is being held in your country on a law that would require priests to break the seal of confession when called to testify in court. The bishop opposes this law and makes public his view that it is contrary to Church teaching. If you, on the other hand, think this law would be good, and you can’t bring yourself to adopt the bishop’s position, then you should not vote on it one way or the other. The law will either pass or not pass by tens of thousands of votes. Your not voting has no effect on the outcome.

.

 

[royal_archer]

Did you mean to say: Are my political views compatible with the teachings of Christ ?

The Catholic church has historically been off the mark or flat out on the wrong side in ‘politics’ enough to warrant some serious questions. The church is made up of human beings. Human beings are flawed. When the Church and Christians venture into politics, or the doctrine of ‘social justice’ it is very dangerous waters indeed. Acquinas states in his Summa, and I am paraphrasing here, that mans laws ( politics ) are in place to insure social order, where gods laws are a higher order, who’s purpose is to save your soul. Much harm and mayhem has been committed in this world, in gods name. And it will continue to be.

The Catholic church is different from other churches, it was the only Christian Church founded by God himself. It is the only Church that maintains a spiritual lineage back to the original 11 appostles who received the gift of the holy spirit. This gift has been passed on within the church through the laying on of hands for nearly 2000 years. Yes the members of the magesterium are human and tainted by human failings but the church as a whole rises above the failings of individual members. The catechism is right even though individuals may make public statements that are not right.