Can I be a liberal and a Catholic?

[estesbob]

Can you provide your rationale why the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” does not apply to nations helping each other? Look at all the military aid we provide to other nations! How can this type of aid be morally correct but helping those in poverty living in Third World countries be immoral?

The US spends about 25 Billion a year in assistance for the worlds poor.

 

[Brendan]

Can you provide your rationale why the commandment “love your neighbor as yourself” does not apply to nations helping each other? Look at all the military aid we provide to other nations! How can this type of aid be morally correct but helping those in poverty living in Third World countries be immoral?

Here is St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm.

Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – and then they will joyfully share their wealth

.

Charity can never be compelled. To do so brings moral harm to society

 

[HelenRose]

Absolutely!

I am a Catholic and a liberal.

I have been a Catholic for 35 years. Until 2003 I identified as “Conservative” and then I opposed the Iraq War in an Catholic forum (not this one) and consequently was labelled and vilified as a “liberal”, even though my Catholic beliefs hadn’t changed and were clearly stated in my profile and other participation. So now I just identify as “liberal” when it comes to politics in Catholic circles because that’s the label I’ve been given.

The only label I care to give myself is Catholic.

I used to be a Democrat until that party went insane. I could never think of myself as a Republican. I oppose abortion. I welcome our Catholic neighbors from the South. I shudder at the idea of Trump being the President and become nauseous at the idea of Clinton being the President.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Here is St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church

.

Charity can never be compelled. To do so brings moral harm to society

I would like to know what Pope Francis says about this! It does not sound like something he would endorse, especially given the riches in America were gotten at the expense slave-like labor in Third World countries.

 

[Edmundus1581]

The only label I care to give myself is Catholic.

I used to be a Democrat until that party went insane. I could never think of myself as a Republican. I oppose abortion. I welcome our Catholic neighbors from the South. I shudder at the idea of Trump being the President and become nauseous at the idea of Clinton being the President.

Good point, and I agree, mostly.

However, some Catholics (mostly Conservatives) insist on applying such labels. Once this line of reasoning has been started they won’t be budged by the reminder that the only important label is Catholic. Hence, as I said, when it comes to politics in Catholic circles I identify as liberal - but only to the people who actually care about such labels, which is the Conservative (capital C) minority.

I certainly don’t start a conversation with “I am a liberal” and rarely mention it at all, because to most Catholics (in Australia anyway), it is irrelevant. However, it does come up occasionally, when the Catholics I am with start sneering at “liberals”.

Clear? Probably not…

 

[HelenRose]

Good point, and I agree, mostly.

However, some Catholics (mostly Conservatives) insist on applying such labels. Once this line of reasoning has been started they won’t be budged by the reminder that the only important label is Catholic. Hence, as I said, when it comes to politics in Catholic circles I identify as liberal - but only to the people who actually care about such labels, which is the Conservative (capital C) minority.

I certainly don’t start a conversation with “I am a liberal” and rarely mention it at all, because to most Catholics (in Australia anyway), it is irrelevant. However, it does come up occasionally, when the Catholics I am with start sneering at “liberals”.

Clear? Probably not…

How do you define being a liberal? Is it about abortion? Immigration? Economic systems? Socialist? Capitalist? Distributism?

 

[john_ennis]

A life is a life so I would not choose either candidate.

It’s a helpful scenario; it highlights a couple of things.
Of course, if the war candidate really is recklessly and needlessly endangering life to a degree you judge to be as bad as the “pro-choicer,” then your response seems reasonable.

The reason others still say vote against the pro-choicer, is because there is a great deal of judgment involved in deciding whether a war-hawk is really reckless, and is really needlessly endangering life. There’s such a thing as a just war.

Being for the pro-choicer, though, is a lot like being for a pro-slavery guy, to many of us. Wherever he stands on other things, you just can’t overlook being so wrong about something.

By the way, nearly every one of those candidates is actually pro-abortion rather than merely pro-choice. Almost to the very last person. I mean, they don’t merely want to protect the option, but any proposed measures that might *decrease *the numbers of abortions chosen, they oppose. Offer the mom an ultrasound? Nope. Inform her when the baby’s old enough to feel pain. No. Anything to help her make a more informed choice, without taking away her choice? They’re all against it.

 

[Edmundus1581]

How do you define being a liberal? Is it about abortion? Immigration? Economic systems? Socialist? Capitalist? Distributism?

As defined by Catholic Conservatives who care about these labels. They are the only people I’ve had any serious discourse with who make an issue of whether someone is a liberal. No-one else cares or notices.

As I mentioned in my first post, they declared me to be a liberal when I argued in 2003 that the Bush administration had made a false case for Saddam’s WMD’s. The argument then continued along the lines of “I am not a liberal!” (me), “Yes you are. It is mostly liberals who think that”, “That doesn’t make one a liberal” (me), “Yes you are”. OK, I’m a liberal then, according to your definition.

Having made the argument once, and conceding, I’ve never seen any reason to revisit the definition. Should I?

I continue to see this line of reasoning closer to home, in conservative Australian Catholic circles, where, for instance, action on global warming is seen as a liberal position. I move quite comfortably in these circles and give them my support - mostly, however if they start up on those nefarious “liberals” I identify as a "liberal’ myself.

BTW, I notice that you include “Abortion” at the top of your list of liberal beliefs. When I had this debate in 2003 my views on abortion and all moral issues were strictly Catholic, as stated in my profile on that site, and I was then as always active in support of these causes. That didn’t dissuade Conservative Catholics from labeling me a liberal (which came down to my opinion Saddam’s WMD’s).

 

[Little_Sheep]

Yes, of course you can. You can also be Catholic and conservative. Or Catholic and conservative about some things and liberal about other things.

Our deeply held religious beliefs often inform our political beliefs. And, like all the colors of the rainbow, we humans run the gamut between the two.

 

[Brendan]

I would like to know what Pope Francis says about this! It does not sound like something he would endorse, especially given the riches in America were gotten at the expense slave-like labor in Third World countries.

I have yet to find Pope Francis make any statement counter to the teachings of a Doctor of the Church.

By definition, a Doctor of the Church, among whom are St. Thomas Aquinas, St Theresa of Avila and the Little Flower, have been declared by the Pope to have provided unusually clear and profound teaching on the Life of the Church.

Given the well known humility of Pope Francis, if anything he most likelty desires to learn from them and to take their teachings to heart, not to presume to give them lectures on morality.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I have yet to find Pope Francis make any statement counter to the teachings of a Doctor of the Church.

By definition, a Doctor of the Church, among whom are St. Thomas Aquinas, St Theresa of Avila and the Little Flower, have been declared by the Pope to have provided unusually clear and profound teaching on the Life of the Church.

Given the well known humility of Pope Francis, if anything he most likelty desires to learn from them and to take their teachings to heart, not to presume to give them lectures on morality.

How can we, as a nation, possibly adhere to both the Old and New Testaments and ignore the starvation of innocent children? It’s clearly stated in the Bible that the destruction of Sodom was for their refusal to aid the poor and the needy.

Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Did St.John Chrysostom miss this? How do we reconcile this contradiction?

 

[Adonia]

Thanks to all who have responded. I am a public policy major so it is good for me to learn about politics but also about God.

Gay marriage is now constitutional so does that mean that priests should marry gays? You cannot say the government cant help the poor because it is not in the constitution and then say gays shouldn’t get married even though it is in the constitution. Plus the constitution was written at a different time so we have to keep that in mind. We could disagree to agree on how much the government could help us but I personally feel the government has at least some responsibilities for taking care of society. If one does not believe that the government should help society then perhaps that person should not be using public roads or call the fire department when there is a fire in their house. These services are funded by tax money. Perhaps we should not have public sewage systems either. Would you like to have the smell of feces in your neighborhood? I sure would not. In London in the 1800s, there was a “great stench” in the Thames River. Even the wealthy were affected by the foul smell so the government had to step in. You mention charities that you choose would be ideal but who would want to bear all the costs of providing a public good like a road while others benefit and do not bear costs. This is where the government steps in and taxes society. Also as industrialization and urbanization happened, we knew that the government needed to play a bigger role. Public housing may not be great but it is still better than having shanty towns sprouting up. Imagine if New York City had a bunch of shantytowns, you would think you are in a developing country. It is even worse when public health is involved. Let us say someone who is poor cannot receive adequate health care. Let us hope that the person does not have a contagious disease otherwise someone else who may not even be poor is affected. When one segment of the population suffers we all suffer. If it were not for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (by the federal government) minorities would might still face even worse discrimination and businesses would still be able to refuse service to minorities.

In short, when we do not provide for others all of society is affected. I believe help should come from the government as well as individuals Unfortunately help from individuals is not enough and so we need help from the government to achieve this goal.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution as heterosexual marriage is not in the Constitution, the Federal compact is silent on the issue, therefore it should have been left to the individual states to decide. All those other things you talk about like sewage and roads are local issues and once again are things for local communities to decide.

The only roads mentioned in the Federal Constitution are postal roads and military highways. As for health care, only communicable diseases were treated in public hospitals - that is what is meant by the constitutions “common good” and “general welfare” phrases. Government provided normal healthcare from birth to death is something that the constitution does not authorize. Now if each individual state wants to have such a program that is up to each individual state.

 

[realtiger]

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution as heterosexual marriage is not in the Constitution, the Federal compact is silent on the issue, therefore it should have been left to the individual states to decide. All those other things you talk about like sewage and roads are local issues and once again are things for local communities to decide.

The only roads mentioned in the Federal Constitution are postal roads and military highways. As for health care, only communicable diseases were treated in public hospitals - that is what is meant by the constitutions “common good” and “general welfare” phrases. Government provided normal healthcare from birth to death is something that the constitution does not authorize. Now if each individual state wants to have such a program that is up to each individual state.

Gay marriage is now in the Constitution in the fourteenth amendment. The previous poster says I don’t give a hoot about the constitution however I guess Catholics who oppose same sex marriage don’t give a hoot about the Constitution as well. To be a devout Catholic means to not care about at least certain parts of the Constitution.

I know that public sewage systems come from local governments but I believe the previous poster was just talking about taxes in general. Also the sixteenth amendment gives the Congress the power to levy taxes based on income. Taxation, although I understand is not always popular for valid reasons, is in the constitution.

 

[estesbob]

How can we, as a nation, possibly adhere to both the Old and New Testaments and ignore the starvation of innocent children? It’s clearly stated in the Bible that the destruction of Sodom was for their refusal to aid the poor and the needy.

We don’t. United States provides more aid to poor countries than any other country in the world .

As far as Sodom goes it is only in the last few decades these new interpretations have been advanced that dismiss homosexual behavior as the problem and coming up with all other sorts of new rationalizations as to why the cities were destroyed all of which just happen to support whatever social issue they are pushing

 

[Brendan]

How can we, as a nation, possibly adhere to both the Old and New Testaments and ignore the starvation of innocent children? It’s clearly stated in the Bible that the destruction of Sodom was for their refusal to aid the poor and the needy.

Perhaps you didn’t read St. John’s statement. He did not state that the poor are to be ignored, but rather, forced Charity is not the answer, that it does moral harm.

Did St.John Chrysostom miss this? How do we reconcile this contradiction?

Where does this quote contradict St. John? I do not see where it states that forced charity is a moral good. Where does it state that forced charity will change hearts?

What The Golden Tongued Doctor is claiming is that the answer, the true care for the poor, is to change hearts, and that true generosity will follow. I do not see how any Catholic can disagree with that statement.

The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – and then they will joyfully share their wealth

 

[Robert_Sock]

Perhaps you didn’t read St. John’s statement. He did not state that the poor are to be ignored, but rather, forced Charity is not the answer, that it does moral harm.

But Sodom was a nation that ignored the poor. Sounds to me like God expected Sodom to help the needy through whatever means necessary. When the people refuse to help, then taxation should be evoked. If Sodom, as a nation, was innocent, why did God pour His destructive wrath onto it? Sounds to me like the nation itself was guilty, and should have used taxes to feed the poor. St.John Chrysostom never said that this type of taxation would have been immoral.

 

[openmind77]

We don’t. United States provides more aid to poor countries than any other country in the world …

Foreign aid (non-military) as a percentage of GDP:

Sweden – 1.40%
Norway – 1.05%
Luxembourg – 0.93%
Denmark – 0.85%
Netherlands – 0.76%
United Kingdom – 0.71%
Finland – 0.56%
Switzerland – 0.52%
Germany – 0.52%
Belgium – 0.42%
France – 0.37%
Ireland – 0.36%
Austria – 0.32%
Canada – 0.28%
New Zealand – 0.27%
Australia – 0.27%
Iceland – 0.24%
Japan – 0.22%
Italy – 0.21%
United States – 0.17%
Portugal – 0.16%
Slovenia – 0.15%
Greece – 0.14%
South Korea – 0.14%
Spain – 0.13%
Czech Republic – 0.12%
Slovak Republic – 0.10%
Poland – 0.10%

 

[Jon_S_1]

Gay marriage is now in the Constitution in the fourteenth amendment. The previous poster says I don’t give a hoot about the constitution however I guess Catholics who oppose same sex marriage don’t give a hoot about the Constitution as well. To be a devout Catholic means to not care about at least certain parts of the Constitution.

I know that public sewage systems come from local governments but I believe the previous poster was just talking about taxes in general. Also the sixteenth amendment gives the Congress the power to levy taxes based on income. Taxation, although I understand is not always popular for valid reasons, is in the constitution.

So are you saying that calling black slaves “3/5ths of a man” was in the constitution at some point???

You are conflating Supreme Court opinions with the constitution they are completely different.

The Supreme Court INTERPRETTED the constitution to allow same sex marriage.

That does not mean it is in the constitution.

It can be ruled an invalid and erroneous opinion by a future Supreme Court just as the 3/5ths compromise was.

The Court errs. It errs often actually based on historical reversals of opinion.

In the US, these things are part of the common law tradition not the constitution.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But Sodom was a nation that ignored the poor. Sounds to me like God expected Sodom to help the needy through whatever means necessary. When the people refuse to help, then taxation should be evoked. If Sodom, as a nation, was innocent, why did God pour His destructive wrath onto it? Sounds to me like the nation itself was guilty, and should have used taxes to feed the poor. St.John Chrysostom never said that this type of taxation would have been immoral.

Wow! That’s really reading into it!!

Remember, God told Abraham he would spare the city if he could find just a couple righteous people.

If a couple righteous people were all that was necessary, how does that equate to a massive public tax and welfare system???

Let alone that it was something that did not exist in that time in the world.

Talk about historical revisionism!!

 

[b_ulmen]

Men and women are laying down their lives and coming home maimed and traumatized every day to ensure that you have the right to vote, and you have the audacity to come on this forum and speak so righteously that you’re too good to vote? How dare you…

Perhaps you should put the kool-aid down.

There is absolutely no link between military actions in Afghanistan & Iraq and my ability (legal right) to vote. No evidence exists that supports any claim that my Constitutional rights are in any way directly under attack by Afghani’s.

Is it possible you were referring to EMS/LEO? Again, whether EMS responds to the traffic accident or not does not impact my ability (legal right) to vote.

Not to mention the fact that the Church recognizes our moral and civil duty to vote and says in the Catechism 2240 that is “morally obligatory…to exercise the right to vote.”

May God grant you a change of heart.

If the future of my soul depends on me not casting a vote for a boorish blowhard or an unindicted criminal, then perhaps I just don’t deserve God’s mercy. I refuse to apologize for not supporting evil.