Are Traditional Catholics (TLM) politically conservative?

[TrueLight]

Yes, you’re right, it is not just the traditional Catholics, but all Christians who sometimes have trouble reconciling voting for a candidate who is not stellar.

But we have to be careful that by abstaining from the vote, that we do not give away the position to the candidate who speaks for evil and death.

i just want to point out that there is a difference between abstaining from one election and abstaining as a matter of course.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Yes, you’re right, it is not just the traditional Catholics, but all Christians who sometimes have trouble reconciling voting for a candidate who is not stellar.

But we have to be careful that by abstaining from the vote, that we do not give away the position to the candidate who speaks for evil and death.

True

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic but I have never gone to a traditional Latin Mass. I would like to go to one sometime but I have not yet gone to one.

That said, I am definitely politically conservative. I am 100% pro-life which means from conception to natural death. I am against the death penalty, against abortion, against embryonic stem cell research, and against unjust war. I am also against “gay marriage” and other “gay rights”. I used to be a registered Democrat but I would never vote Democrat anymore. I can’t stand how liberal the Democrat party has become. That said, I will vote Republican this year. I don’t agree with everything about the Republican party but I agree more with the Republican party than I do the Democrat party. I won’t vote Independent because I feel that doing so would be wasting my vote.

I am the same. I consider myself to be traditional but have not yet gone to a Latin mass either and still consider myself politically conservative. There was a time when the issues between Republicans and Democrats were different and would probably lead to different conclusions but the issues that are on the table now and how the liberal the Democrat party has become keeps me from voting that way. I know you must look at the person and what they stand for and agree Republicans have many problems also but as the Catholic church teaches there is a point when you have to choose between the two and vote in line with the Church or at least as close as that political candidates ideas are.

 

[andrewstx]

I truly don’t think anyone was being disrespectful by using abbreviations that are in popular use. I grew up Democrat, and we all called ourselves Democrats, and I checked out several party websites, and the term Democrat was used as often, in fact more often, than Democratic.

My personal opinion about this is that we have what we have–two parties. We can choose to stay out of politics and vote for no one, and IMO, this simply gives evil more power. I realize that no candidates are 100% “right”, especially for Traditional Catholics who are looking for a very specific agenda, at least according to this thread. But the Catholic Church makes it clear that when no candidate is 100% Catholic, we must try to choose the lesser of two evils. We cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but we can certainly vote for a pro-life candidate who is more likely to support any legislation that reduces abortion in the U.S. and around the world. Pro-life organizations like Right To Life publish voting records–please check these out and you will see in black and white whether or not the candidate you are examining has matched their vote to their promises.

I also want to say a few words to those who believe that the Republicans have done nothing to stop abortion in this country, and I realize that this is OT in my own thread, but I hope that it will be allowed because of the importance of the pro-life issues! I am frankly surprised and saddened to read that many Traditionalist Catholics disdain to vote and feel that the political parties don’t matter. I hope that’s just a few Traditionalist Catholics–the ones I know personally DO vote and DO get involved in politics, and are incredibly intelligent about what’s going on politically.

Please, please, check out National Right To Life. This political lobby organization publishes voting records of the candidates. Many MANY little laws are enacted every week by Congress at the federal level, and also at the state and local levels. Yes, none of these are the “Big One,” the Ultimate Law that will make all abortion illegal in the U.S. That isn’t likely to happen, especially in this current climate of conflict between politicians in the U.S., and with the Culture of Death more rapidly becoming the norm among the people.

But everyday and every week, little laws come up for debate and are voted on, and these little laws have an impact on how easy it is to obtain an abortion in YOUR neighborhood, or in other countries being aided by the United States. Many times these “little laws” do not get publicized at all. Often they are about mundane things like zoning laws, protest laws, inspection laws (which is what closed the abortion clinic in OUR city down forever!), etc.

It is so important that these laws get passed! Every baby’s and every parent’s life is important!

Generally speaking, the Republicans vote PRO-LIFE on these “little laws.” There are exceptions, and we have to be very careful to recognize that there ARE pro-life Democrats who consistently vote pro-life; this is true especially in the state of Louisiana, where Catholicism is practiced almost universally. But for the most part, the Democrats have a very sorry record on the “little laws,” and vote almost exclusively pro-abortion.

During the last Presidential election, National Right To Life published a very interesting article about the pro-life advances that had occurred under eight years of President Bush. It was quite impressive. Obviously abortion is still the law of the land. But under President Bush, many many roadblocks were put up to make it a lot harder for a woman to seek an abortion (e.g., parental notification laws, ultrasound laws, etc.). Those who say that he did nothing to stop abortion are, pardon my frankness, IGNORANT. But that ignorance can be corrected by some research and study. I challenge those who make the claim that Republicans do nothing to please do that research and study, and stop being ignorant.

Under President Obama’s watch, abortion is easier to obtain, not only for Americans, but for women in the countries aided by the U.S. He and the First Lady have created a climate of abortion tolerance among the citizens, and this is making it harder for pro-life politicians at the federal, state, and local levels to gain popular support for their pro-life votes. Often, these politicians vote pro-life anyway, and pay the price when they lose their elections due to media criticism that resonates among a pro-abortion populace.

Please, please don’t scoff at these “little laws” and claim that they don’t matter. Yes, they DO! They often make a big impact locally. At any rate, the Lord Jesus does not scoff at little acts of charity, but actually said that anyone who gives a cup of water in His Name will receive a reward. We can’t just sit back and do nothing and wait for the glorious day when someday, abortion will no longer be legal in the U.S. Instead, we need to be busy in the little things, and that means voting for candidates that WILL vote pro-life on most if not all of these pieces of legislation.

I think it depends a lot on one’s personal POV. Survive soley on SS Dissabllity since I had a bad stroke 8 years ago. And I can’t and won’t vote for things like the Ryan plan. If he had his way, abolishing dissabllity, and medicaid would be a death knell for me. I can’t work and cannot even drive.Since I don’t drive I had to buy on my limited income a state issued ID card.

I voted in the Repub primary since it is the real election here in Texas and I voted to keep the radical tea-partiers out. That will probably have the same effect here as voting Democrat.

Really I think “sink or swim, your on your own” is no a very Christian policy, and money rules in both parties.

If you are poor, why bother voting?

 

[JaMc]

I think it depends a lot on one’s personal POV. Survive soley on SS Dissabllity since I had a bad stroke 8 years ago. And I can’t and won’t vote for things like the Ryan plan. If he had his way, abolishing dissabllity, and medicaid would be a death knell for me. I can’t work and cannot even drive.Since I don’t drive I had to buy on my limited income a state issued ID card.

I voted in the Repub primary since it is the real election here in Texas and I voted to keep the radical tea-partiers out. That will probably have the same effect here as voting Democrat.

Really I think “sink or swim, your on your own” is no a very Christian policy, and money rules in both parties.

If you are poor, why bother voting?

The way I look at it is, economic policy can, and often does, change. And quite often. However, once you lose social values, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to get them back. After 40 years of fighting, we still have abortion, and now we are getting same sex marriage, which, if our current president gets to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court, could easily be declare a constitutional right at the Federal level (like abortion), which would take another 40+ years of struggle to try and reverse. Whereas Congress could change its fiscal position in a matter of months. Furthermore, when (not if) we get in the same shape as southern Europe, and have to impose severe austerity in order to get an international bailout, the Ryan Plan will look like the New Deal and Great Society on steroids by comparison.

Also, perhaps if we weren’t paying for contraceptives, overseas abortions, and lavish, debauchery-filled, trips for government bureaucrats, we’d have more money to give to programs like disability and medicaid.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

The way I look at it is, economic policy can, and often does, change. And quite often. However, once you lose social values, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to get them back. After 40 years of fighting, we still have abortion, and now we are getting same sex marriage, which, if our current president gets to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court, could easily be declare a constitutional right at the Federal level (like abortion), which would take another 40+ years of struggle to try and reverse. Whereas Congress could change its fiscal position in a matter of months. Furthermore, when (not if) we get in the same shape as southern Europe, and have to impose severe austerity in order to get an international bailout, the Ryan Plan will look like the New Deal and Great Society on steroids by comparison.

Also, perhaps if we weren’t paying for contraceptives, overseas abortions, and lavish, debauchery-filled, trips for government bureaucrats, we’d have more money to give to programs like disability and medicaid.

True.

 

[whipp711]

I consider myself a traditionalist and conservative. Regarding what belongs to Ceasar, I’m a strict constitutionalist regarding an absolute separation of church and state. That gets me into trouble with folks on both sides of the church and state coin.

As I believe the HHS mandate is an extreme intrusion into church matters, I also cring when any church states bluntly who to vote for in an election. I’m still going to vote for candidates that don’t violate the 5 non-negotiables of my faith.

Society has the right to define what is law or not. Hopefully, a good Catholic or Christian politician will vote to move the government in the right direction. Regarding if all Catholics are conservative…we know that’s not the case. Biden and Pelosi represent the worst in liberal…and I don’t even want to call them Catholics. TLM’s are probably fiscal conservatives, life style conservatives, life practices conservative, and a mixed bag concerning war and the death penalty. That’s just my own humble perspective.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic but I have never gone to a traditional Latin Mass. I would like to go to one sometime but I have not yet gone to one.

That said, I am definitely politically conservative. I am 100% pro-life which means from conception to natural death. I am against the death penalty, against abortion, against embryonic stem cell research, and against unjust war. I am also against “gay marriage” and other “gay rights”. I used to be a registered Democrat but I would never vote Democrat anymore. I can’t stand how liberal the Democrat party has become. That said, I will vote Republican this year. I don’t agree with everything about the Republican party but I agree more with the Republican party than I do the Democrat party. I won’t vote Independent because I feel that doing so would be wasting my vote.

Sounds like me in the future.

I agree.

---

I consider myself socially conservative and leaning economically conservative. On most economic issues I seem to be moderate or liberal, but a big part of being economically liberal seems to include deficit spending which is NOT okay in my opinion. As a result I’ll probably be a Republican when I can vote. Christian Democrat (like in Germany or Catholic Switzerland) is probably more like me, but that doesn’t exist here.

 

[Andre1000]

I am a Traditional Catholics (TLM) and I am not conservative. I do not care what non-Catholics do, like gay “marriage” or other nonsense (ok exept hurding, killing, forc to unfaith…), as long as this does not interfere whit my faith. I want that all people become Catholic. In a state where all are good Catholics the politics will be good as well. Also in economy politics, I am more socialist.

 

[wasserfall]

I am a Traditional Catholics (TLM) and I am not conservative. I do not care what non-Catholics do, like gay “marriage” or other nonsense (ok exept hurding, killing, forc to unfaith…), as long as this does not interfere whit my faith.

This is short-sighted Andre. It will interfere with your faith.

You can already clearly see that when the Catholic truth is openly preached in Germany, the political class reacts with threats of suppression. Consider the attitude of German politicians (such as Volker Beck) to the SSPX.

As Catholics, we must desire the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, which means among other things, that abominations against God and nature, such as homosexual “marriage” must be banned.

I want that all people become Catholic. In a state where all are good Catholics the politics will be good as well.

True. But that does not mean that we should helplessly wait for that to happen. We can, and should, influence society now.

Also in economy politics, I am more socialist.

Assuming you don’t mean SED-style socialism, but rather an economic system that values social solidarity, then there isn’t anything wrong with that.

 

[andrewstx]

The way I look at it is, economic policy can, and often does, change. And quite often. However, once you lose social values, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, to get them back. After 40 years of fighting, we still have abortion, and now we are getting same sex marriage, which, if our current president gets to appoint additional justices to the Supreme Court, could easily be declare a constitutional right at the Federal level (like abortion), which would take another 40+ years of struggle to try and reverse. Whereas Congress could change its fiscal position in a matter of months. Furthermore, when (not if) we get in the same shape as southern Europe, and have to impose severe austerity in order to get an international bailout, the Ryan Plan will look like the New Deal and Great Society on steroids by comparison.

Also, perhaps if we weren’t paying for contraceptives, overseas abortions, and lavish, debauchery-filled, trips for government bureaucrats, we’d have more money to give to programs like disability and medicaid.

I’m sorry but the only economic shift I see is the movement even further to the right. Which is bad news for people ilke me who through no fault of their own are poor.

I even posting from a borrowed computer, because I can’t afford my own. And another poster said dissabillity and medicaid will have to go, I just don’t understand all of this. Even before I became sick,my Christian values said everyone matters and not just the bottom line.

I still don’t believe sink or swim, your’e on your own is a Christian concept at all.

 

[Cat]

I’m sorry but the only economic shift I see is the movement even further to the right. Which is bad news for people ilke me who through no fault of their own are poor.

I even posting from a borrowed computer, because I can’t afford my own. And another poster said dissabillity and medicaid will have to go, I just don’t understand all of this. Even before I became sick,my Christian values said everyone matters and not just the bottom line.

I still don’t believe sink or swim, your’e on your own is a Christian concept at all.

So how do Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics feel about andrewstx’s post? How do they answer him?

Do they believe that the poor should be helped through the government, which is funded by taxes? (Politically liberal viewpoint)

Do they believe in subsidiarity, or more local help for the poor, often through private organizations (e.g., the Church) and individuals? (Politically conservative viewpoint)

I know how my Traditional Catholic friends would answer my question above. Are my friends typical Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics or are they unusual in their political leanings?

Thank you.

 

[pamnbam]

For the first time in my life, I am considering abstaining, which is hard for me because my black people died for the right to vote.

This is very true for me, too, as I find among friends, family, and strangers that I’m *expected *to be an Obama supporter because I’m Black, and that I’m a “sellout” if I voted Republican…

Since becoming a Catholic and understanding what and why the Church teaches what it does, I just can’t, and won’t, in good conscience vote against those values. The HHS mandate has particularly gotten me spun up. But I don’t find myself totally sold on the Republican side, either. My political party of choice is “Purplish.”

So I’m not sure if I’ll be voting at all this year, but we’ll see…

 

[Diana_Catherine]

So how do Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics feel about andrewstx’s post? How do they answer him?

Do they believe that the poor should be helped through the government, which is funded by taxes? (Politically liberal viewpoint)

Do they believe in subsidiarity, or more local help for the poor, often through private organizations (e.g., the Church) and individuals? (Politically conservative viewpoint)

I know how my Traditional Catholic friends would answer my question above. Are my friends typical Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics or are they unusual in their political leanings?

Thank you.

I don’t know if I am answering as a traditional or not. I don’t know what the position would be. I hope I am answering as a Catholic.

I believe it is important for us as Catholics to be involved with helping the poor. I think the Catholic church is great at doing this. Maybe politics is a catch 22 in that as they say they are helping the poor, they are taking away some of the ways the Church has always helped. In our area we have had several Catholic clinics that gave “free” to low cost health care to the poor, close due to the government mandate. This is going to be a huge healthcare problem in our area. We are already starting to see its effects. I do wish the republicans would do more to help the poor.

Maybe it is going to be time that we Catholic christians really step up and start being the good Samaritan not that we don’t already. I think Catholics have always done a good job helping. We may just need to step up a little more. I know our parish has started several more programs than we normally had.

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord: and he will repay him

Also, the Catholic church has stated what is to be our priority in voting, not that helping those poor shouldn’t be an issue, it definitely should but they have certainly put abortion and other pro-life issues on top.

 

[santoaugustine]

First and foremost, I am a Traditional Catholic–I almost exclusively go to The Traditional Latin Mass, secondly I am a conservative little (r) republican—and to be honest, I don’t have a high opinion of any of our current senators or congressmen—I am not happy with the presidential nominee for the Republicans–in this election, it is pretty much the lesser of two evils–We need a true conservative little-r republican to gain the presidency. Then we need to get rid of these career politicians on both sides of the isle, and demand that both houses produce some meaningful legislation.

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t know if I am answering as a traditional or not. I don’t know what the position would be. I hope I am answering as a Catholic.

I believe it is important for us as Catholics to be involved with helping the poor. I think the Catholic church is great at doing this. Maybe politics is a catch 22 in that as they say they are helping the poor, they are taking away some of the ways the Church has always helped. In our area we have had several Catholic clinics that gave “free” to low cost health care to the poor, close due to the government mandate. This is going to be a huge healthcare problem in our area. We are already starting to see its effects. I do wish the republicans would do more to help the poor.

Maybe it is going to be time that we Catholic christians really step up and start being the good Samaritan not that we don’t already. I think Catholics have always done a good job helping. We may just need to step up a little more. I know our parish has started several more programs than we normally had.

Proverbs 19:17 He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord: and he will repay him

Also, the Catholic church has stated what is to be our priority in voting, not that helping those poor shouldn’t be an issue, it definitely should but they have certainly put abortion and other pro-life issues on top.

To me pro-life should not end at birth, it sould continue for the person’s whole natural life, which means no killing of elderly people.

I think pro-life should include medical care, and food, good food. Catholic charity just can’t afford my meds, just one of which costs $350 a month. I paid taxes for all my working days, and not to line pol’s pockets either no matter the party.

PVT charity just won’t get the job done. In the great deppresion that was all that existed and people starved.

I am very traditional, but there is no TLM anywhere in my diocese.

 

[Cat]

To me pro-life should not end at birth, it sould continue for the person’s whole natural life, which means no killing of elderly people.

I think pro-life should include medical care, and food, good food. Catholic charity just can’t afford my meds, just one of which costs $350 a month. I paid taxes for all my working days, and not to line pol’s pockets either no matter the party.

PVT charity just won’t get the job done. In the great deppresion that was all that existed and people starved.

I am very traditional, but there is no TLM anywhere in my diocese.

Part of the reason why private charity can’t get the job done is that many people can’t afford to give as much as they would like to give because the government takes so much of it away from us in the form of taxes.

Both my husband and I pay almost 50% of our income in various forms of taxes, mainly federal and state, although in our city, we have the 4th highest property taxes of any city in the U.S.

The bulk of these property taxes (around 60%) go to pay for a public school system that is abysmal–a 50% dropout, and every middle and high school on the State Watch List for poor performance (which of course means that there is no choice for the kids if they choose to opt out of their poor-performing middle or high school–so much for No Child Left Behind!).

By the time the various levels of government take their chunk of cash, those of us who are working in decent jobs have very little left. We have to pay for our own insurance (in our case, it’s through our workplaces) instead of relying on the government to take care of us for free. We have to pay for our homes and not rely on the government to provide us with a free home. We have to buy our own food and not count on food stamps or any charitable program. We have to pay for our own transportation, and for both of us, that means a car, and at this moment, gas is around $3.65/gal (a relief compared to $4.05/gal, the price a few months ago). We have to pay for our own utilities–no government aid there to keep us warm. We have to buy our own clothing–no handouts.

I’m sure that my husband and I appear fabulously wealthy to someone who isn’t working and has no money. Yes, we are fortunate that our jobs provide the above necessities for us and also enough money to be involved with figure skating. But we are not wealthy at all. We have what we need. And we try to be as generous as we can when it comes to charitable giving.

 

[Usige]

So how do Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics feel about andrewstx’s post? How do they answer him?

Do they believe that the poor should be helped through the government, which is funded by taxes? (Politically liberal viewpoint)

Do they believe in subsidiarity, or more local help for the poor, often through private organizations (e.g., the Church) and individuals? (Politically conservative viewpoint)

I know how my Traditional Catholic friends would answer my question above. Are my friends typical Traditional/Traditionalist Catholics or are they unusual in their political leanings?

Thank you.

In a perfect world I would agree that individual charity would be the preference, but that presupposes that all people are altruistic. In our secular and capitalistic system that just isn’t true. If I had the power to cut everyone’s taxes by 10% I would be suprised if charitable donations went up more than 1/10 of a percent.

Most people I know budget their money by saying what do I need and anything else may be given to to charity. For one friend their needs includes a new car every 3 years, a 5th wheel trailer, and four atvs. I often go to the ATV store with him when he gets his latest toy. As I was looking at a dirt bike, he asked me why I always looked and didn’t buy. I told him we couldn’t afford it. Since we both make a very good living he laughed, but when I told him that we give x,000 to charity he got this weird look on his face and said “no one gives that much money to charity unless they are millionaires.”

I think that their needs to be a safety net. Do I think the government is the best one to provide it; no, but in the absence of other alternatives it’s better than nothing. If one could say that even 25 cents on the dollar from tax cuts would go to feeding and clothing the poor I’d be all for it. Based on most secularist I know charity is something that comes low on the list of priorities. Even when they do contribute it’s a pittance of their income (something like 1/4% if that).

 

[Cat]

In a perfect world I would agree that individual charity would be the preference, but that presupposes that all people are altruistic. In our secular and capitalistic system that just isn’t true. If I had the power to cut everyone’s taxes by 10% I would be suprised if charitable donations went up more than 1/10 of a percent.

Most people I know budget their money by saying what do I need and anything else may be given to to charity. For one friend their needs includes a new car every 3 years, a 5th wheel trailer, and four atvs. I often go to the ATV store with him when he gets his latest toy. As I was looking at a dirt bike, he asked me why I always looked and didn’t buy. I told him we couldn’t afford it. Since we both make a very good living he laughed, but when I told him that we give x,000 to charity he got this weird look on his face and said “no one gives that much money to charity unless they are millionaires.”

I think that their needs to be a safety net. Do I think the government is the best one to provide it; no, but in the absence of other alternatives it’s better than nothing. If one could say that even 25 cents on the dollar from tax cuts would go to feeding and clothing the poor I’d be all for it. Based on most secularist I know charity is something that comes low on the list of priorities. Even when they do contribute it’s a pittance of their income (something like 1/4% if that).

Here’s the problem-when the government is doing charity, a miniscule portion of each tax dollar actually makes it to the needy, while most of the dollar goes to pay for the bureaucracy involved. Someone has to create the forms used to file the taxes, someone has to receive the forms and the checks, someone has to take the phone calls about the forms, someone has to do the accounting of all the taxes received, someone has to review all the eligibility applications from needy people and organizations, someone has to investigate all the applications, someone has to actually write the check to the needy person or organization–etc. etc.–I haven’t even begun to list everyone involved! There also has to be a maintainance staff to keep the building where all this happens in good shape, and someone to landscape the little bit of land outside of the building–the list goes on and on!

So you can see why by the time the tax dollar actually gets to the needy people, they get about a half a cent.

OTOH, with private charities, good ones, that is, there is not nearly as much overhead. In fact, in many local organizations e.g., food pantries, there is a sizeable number of volunteers, which is good because these people are part of the community and get to put faces on the needy people, and see the results of the charity–a blessing to them and to the needy people.

So even if taxes were cut, and selfish people only gave a few more dollars to charities, the needy would STILL receive more than they get from the government.

Also, with local charities, there is accountability. If someone drives up to the food pantry week after week in a big ol’ shiny new SUV, and conversation reveals that this vehicle is bought and paid for, questions will be asked, and this person may be told that they should consider spending their income on a smaller used car so that they can afford to buy food. Just an example–it could be that the person in the SUV is still in great need–but at least the local people in charge of the charity would be able to get to know the family personally and make that determination. The “government” is often unable to delve into these situations and just continues to mail the checks.

Always keep in mind, too, that as long as the government is there to provide, the churches don’t NEED to be charitable. But if the government backs off, the churches would be forced to examine their budgets, and would probably (hopefully) cancel a lot of the “extras” that they spend their money on and give a lot more of their budget to help the needy. A lot of work in the churches that is currently contracted and paid for (e.g., landscaping the church campus) would probably, hopefully, be taken care of by volunteers. It would be different, but it would work out, hopefully. It would certainly separate the real churches of Jesus Christ from the social clubs (more an issue in Protestant churches than Catholic).

And here’s yet one more reason for unity among Christian churches–somehow they would need to coordinate their charitable work so that all the needs would be fairly met. This would be a lot easier to do if ONE church was in charge. In fact, maybe this is why the government had to take over charity to begin with–the split in the Church. Just my thought, and I don’t have any historical knowledge to be able to confirm this thought.

 

[Megan7]

In a perfect world I would agree that individual charity would be the preference, but that presupposes that all people are altruistic. In our secular and capitalistic system that just isn’t true. If I had the power to cut everyone’s taxes by 10% I would be suprised if charitable donations went up more than 1/10 of a percent.

Most people I know budget their money by saying what do I need and anything else may be given to to charity. For one friend their needs includes a new car every 3 years, a 5th wheel trailer, and four atvs. I often go to the ATV store with him when he gets his latest toy. As I was looking at a dirt bike, he asked me why I always looked and didn’t buy. I told him we couldn’t afford it. Since we both make a very good living he laughed, but when I told him that we give x,000 to charity he got this weird look on his face and said “no one gives that much money to charity unless they are millionaires.”

I think that their needs to be a safety net. Do I think the government is the best one to provide it; no, but in the absence of other alternatives it’s better than nothing. If one could say that even 25 cents on the dollar from tax cuts would go to feeding and clothing the poor I’d be all for it. Based on most secularist I know charity is something that comes low on the list of priorities. Even when they do contribute it’s a pittance of their income (something like 1/4% if that).

Thanks for your post!

 

[sw85]

I don’t actually know any traditional Catholics. Well, there are two friends-of-friends who I think might be, but I’m not sure. At any rate, I don’t know them well enough to know their politics. So I’ll limit my remarks to general observations about the political duties of all Catholics, regardless of their affiliations.

As someone in this thread said, there are things like the oppossition to unjust war and neoconservative politics, so, a more accurate term, would be Paleoconservatives or Classic Conservatives.

I certainly think “paleoconservatism” more fully captures the political duties of Catholics, but I don’t think that really gets at it.

First, we need to get the idea out of our heads that a man can be a good Catholic and a good liberal. He cannot. Liberalism is simply the spirit of the French Revolution, and we all know how the Revolution viewed and treated the Church.

Our political duties are obvious. We must obey and respect legitimate authority. We must oppose the wanton and needless destruction of human life, either in war or in abortion. We must see the promotion of the common good and the welfare of the polity as superordinate to individual desires (i.e., we must not endorse radical individualism). We must recognize absolute truth, objective moral goodness, and duty; we must exercise piety; we must exercise modesty; we must recognize that Catholicism has implications for the organization of our social life; etc. Whatever these things are, they are clearly not liberal.

But clearly, what we euphemistically call “conservatism” is not substantially better. In practice it is a muted form of liberalism – and philosophically it is, in fact, a muted form of liberalism (which is why we often call modern conservatism, with its ties to libertarianism, “classical liberalism”). The most principled “conservatives” still tend to be anti-Catholic in theory and practice, still tend to endorse secularism, are often in thrall to and ignorant of the evils of capitalism, in thrall to a bogus conception of “rights,” usually quite aggressive and militarist, feckless about serious matters like abortion and gay “marriage,” etc. So whatever modern “conservatism” is, it’s not much better.

My attitude is this. I believe the social order needs to represent the transcendental order. I mean “represent” literally – it needs to re-present it to us and to our senses in a way that is intelligible. The entire modern order does not do this. “Democracy” does not represent a natural order of being that is hierarchical, determine, authoritative, and unfree by nature, which is exactly what the order of being is. It does not represent adequately the nature of our duties as men. What it does do is inculcate in us the false belief that the social order is reducible to a mass of free-floating wills moving freely and randomly through space, who must agree to coordinate their movements so as to avoid collision – which stands to reason, given that this is precisely the nominalist view of the world in accordance with which the Founders launched their revolution.

If the order of being is monarchical, authoritative, and duty-based, then the social order ought likewise to be monarchical, authoritative, and duty-based. A properly-minded Catholic, then, ought to be a monarchist. This stands to reason: the Church was historically a friend of kings and the enemy of the Revolutions that overthrew them.

The other perversions common to the modern age, such as the innovative view of “natural rights,” likewise needs to be done away with. In fact, rights-talk and rights-thinking is in my view not very meaningful in Catholicism. This is a point our enemies make all the time, when we point out, for instance, that we have no right to do evil. I think it was Aristotle who pointed out that a man can do good only in one respect but can do evil in many. Clearly, then, it follows that man has no right to do a lot of things. Very often, he has the right to make only one choice. This doesn’t prove that the Church is against “freedom.” It proves that “freedom” is not an intelligible way of understanding the order of being which the Church defends. “Duty” is a better way of understanding. We have the duty to do good and to be good according to our station in life. Those rigidly hierarchical monarchical societies of the past to which we respond with inculcated abhorrence understood this and acted accordingly. Modern society doesn’t. The result is gay “marriage” and the wholesale slaughter of infants in the name of a “woman’s right to choose.”