Best Political Ideology for Catholics?

[Michaelo]

Is socially conservative and fiscally liberal the best political ideology for Catholics?

 

[wasmit]

There is no “best” political ideology. They all have their pros and cons.

You should look into the current popular political ideologies and parties in your country and see how you personally feel about the issues/stances that they promote. This will tell you where you stand.

 

[JPUSC]

Is socially conservative and fiscally liberal the best political ideology for Catholics?

Yes. Pretty much a Pro-ALL Life, moderate position.

 

[apromisemade]

Statistics show that most people, regardless of faith, are politically moderate anyway. I don’t think it’s really necessary to pick sides, just decide what issues matter to you the most since no one given politician is going to completley agree with you.

 

[janman55]

How could fiscally liberal ever be a good Catholic position? Letting the government decide who gets what is Christian?

 

[JPUSC]

How could fiscally liberal ever be a good Catholic position? Letting the government decide who gets what is Christian?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I. AUTHORITY

1897 “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”

II. THE COMMON GOOD

1906 By common good is to be understood “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but** it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.**

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

Thus, the Church says that the government has the authority and responsibility to maintain the well-being of all individuals; to work for the common good. Government programs having to do with education and helping the poor, for example, are legitimate.

 

[mchale]

How could fiscally liberal ever be a good Catholic position? Letting the government decide who gets what is Christian?

Actually, to a certain extent, that is exactly how it works in most religious orders if the superiors of the order (or the house as the case may be) are considered the government of the members of the order.

If we were to build a society based on the early Christian Community described in the Acts of the Apostles, we would have a society where very little was held privately, most property was communal, and the whole would work to ensure that needs of each individual were met as well as possible.

Mind you, to a certain extent, this sounds like communism. There is a key difference however. Communism is a materialistic philosophy where material needs are the only needs that are really recognized and as a result, since material needs alone can never satisfy, it encourages corruption, hording and other behaviors that lead to social corruption. In contrast, in a truly Christian run society, material needs are balanced by spiritual and emotional needs.

Now mind you, I am not saying that this ideal can ever exist… at least not prior to the second coming when the leader of society will be Christ. But the notion of economic liberalism if inspired by true Christian Charity is not in and of itself any more incompatible with Christianity than economic conservatism that is inspired by true Christian Charity.

–
Bill

 

[Heath_Bar]

To me, I believe in being conservative BOTH morally and fiscally. Morally, obviously to stand up for Christian values, and fiscally conservative because the federal government needs to butt out and leave charity to individuals and local government. We are called to be good to our fellow man, and when the federal government is called on to do everything, nothing really gets done. I believe in the basic goodness of people, and I think private citizens can take care of our fellow man much more efficiently and effectively than the government.

 

[Tomster]

As a Catholic and member of the Mystical Body of Christ I take the position of solidarity over conservatism and liberalism.

 

[mchale]

To me, I believe in being conservative BOTH morally and fiscally. Morally, obviously to stand up for Christian values, and fiscally conservative because the federal government needs to butt out and leave charity to individuals and local government. We are called to be good to our fellow man, and when the federal government is called on to do everything, nothing really gets done. I believe in the basic goodness of people, and I think private citizens can take care of our fellow man much more efficiently and effectively than the government.

You know one of the conclusions I have drawn from studying history is that Political beliefs are often driven by more faith than religious beliefs because generally the pronouncements made about politics have little or no evidence to back them up.

In real terms, it is absolutely true, that the welfare state promised by liberals failed to ever come close to the promises of the Great Society. It is also equally true that historically the failure of private citizens to care for their fellow man was a large part of what lead to the demand for the government to get involved in the first place.

When it comes to the issue of caring for the poor and the sick, I am a political pragmatist… both sides have good ideas, but frankly both are driven far more by myths and ideology than they are on facts.

–
Bill

 

[MDK]

Liberalism is a sin. We must be conservative… but conservative to what? We must be conservative to the ways Christ asked. There are faults with both political parties in the US, but one of them is hard over to promoting anti-life agendas. We cannot participate in this, and so this disqualifies them from our support, as in joining them or providing material support for their evil agenda. It certainly doesn’t disqualify them, though, from our prayerful support that they will convert and support what Christ asked of us… corporal works of mercy.

 

[JPUSC]

I personally don’t think we can depend solely on charity for others to survive. The Catholic Church is pretty much the only reliable institution for alleviating suffering in the world besides the government, which has a centralized system and can keep track of the welfare of its citizens.

Actually, don’t most people give to charity because of the government which gives out tax incentives?!

Plus, not every religion encourages good works. Worship among Christians is pretty much split between the church-going type and the social justice type. I’ve noticed that the (Evangelical) Protestants I know tend to have a faith-based worship only and their primary means of expressing that faith is by attending services and converting people. I’ve noticed far more Catholics involved in faith and good works (which don’t involve getting something in return, such as conversions).

 

[mchale]

Liberalism is a sin. We must be conservative… but conservative to what? We must be conservative to the ways Christ asked. There are faults with both political parties in the US, but one of them is hard over to promoting anti-life agendas. We cannot participate in this, and so this disqualifies them from our support, as in joining them or providing material support for their evil agenda. It certainly doesn’t disqualify them, though, from our prayerful support that they will convert and support what Christ asked of us… corporal works of mercy.

I think we need to be careful in how we define liberalism. By 19th Century Standards, the Republican Party is, with its arguments for a weak central government, actually the more liberal party. By other standards, the Democratic Party is more liberal.

Certainly, I think most of us here, are happy to reject the pro-abortion agenda of the Democratic Party; that does not however automatically mean we should embrace the rather materialistic philosophy of the Republican Party either.

–
Bill

 

[MDK]

I think we need to be careful in how we define liberalism. By 19th Century Standards, the Republican Party is, with its arguments for a weak central government, actually the more liberal party. By other standards, the Democratic Party is more liberal.

Certainly, I think most of us here, are happy to reject the pro-abortion agenda of the Democratic Party; that does not however automatically mean we should embrace the rather materialistic philosophy of the Republican Party either.

–
Bill

Please go back and read it again, without reading into it something that was not written or meant.

 

[Corki]

How could fiscally liberal ever be a good Catholic position? Letting the government decide who gets what is Christian?

Thus, the Church says that the government has the authority and responsibility to maintain the well-being of all individuals; to work for the common good. Government programs having to do with education and helping the poor, for example, are legitimate.

Government programs that protect the poor and enable social good are legitimate.

Being fiscally liberal, while relative, seems to imply support for “big government” programs most of which violate the Church’s principal of subsidiarity.

How about socially conservative, fiscally moderate with regard to social programs, fiscally conservative with regard to regulation?

 

[mchale]

Please go back and read it again, without reading into it something that was not written or meant.

There is nothing in rereading your post that changes anything I wrote. Both parties are guilty of liberalism in one area or another.

Ultimately, we must reject the sinful agendas of both parties. Selecting the “lesser of two evils” is not an option. Both parties embrace decidedly materialistic agendas rooted in liberalism (despite lip service they might pay to religious groups). To suggest one is ok simply because it doesn’t support abortion does nothing to resolve the issue. Millions of Christians voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 because of the “pro-life” agenda of the Republican party. I will grant that the Republicans are good at talking the talk… but I was rather unimpressed by their real efforts or results.

So, here is my question, why don’t the millions of Christian Voters in this country actually stand up for real change. Stop suggesting its better to vote for the lesser evil and actually form a party that provides a real option? Or take our political capital and force the parties to change.

–
Bill

 

[MDK]

There is nothing in rereading your post that changes anything I wrote. Both parties are guilty of liberalism in one area or another.

Ultimately, we must reject the sinful agendas of both parties. Selecting the “lesser of two evils” is not an option. Both parties embrace decidedly materialistic agendas rooted in liberalism (despite lip service they might pay to religious groups). To suggest one is ok simply because it doesn’t support abortion does nothing to resolve the issue. Millions of Christians voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 because of the “pro-life” agenda of the Republican party. I will grant that the Republicans are good at talking the talk… but I was rather unimpressed by their real efforts or results.

So, here is my question, why don’t the millions of Christian Voters in this country actually stand up for real change. Stop suggesting its better to vote for the lesser evil and actually form a party that provides a real option? Or take our political capital and force the parties to change.

–
Bill

Please seek to understand what was meant, instead of what I wasn’t discussing. Since you didn’t find it, it was regarding your misplaced admonition against labeling liberalism. The discerning person would realize that my post had discussed liberalism associated with behavior, not a party. It just made mention of one Party’s particularly objectionable platform of supporting grave immorality. So in other words, I hope you understand now.