Can I be a liberal and a Catholic?

[b_ulmen]

This is an excellent example of why “common sense” isn’t a great guide on “social justice” issues. Common sense tells us that a higher minimum wage means better standards of living for employees. But science (in this case, economics) tells us that a higher minimum wage means less employers willing to pay such a wage, greater exporting of jobs to people willing to work for less (I live in one such country! ), and higher unemployment. Sometimes the obvious solution isn’t the right one.

The fact of the matter is that liberal and socialist governments have been fighting a “war on poverty” for decades, and they’re not doing too well anywhere. We need to ask ourselves why that is.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

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.

I won’t touch the first part…but I believe you are wrong to speak that way because our military fights against encroaches on our freedom that over time can affect the freedom to vote. Whether that was necessary in the war in Afghanistan…I think possibly. Iraq. Probably not in my opinion.

As to the second part…you miss a gigantic point.

There are more than just the two presidential candidates. There are local and state elections, judges and more. In reality those ones no one cares about are the most important. We should all educate ourselves on them and vote.

If you don’t like the two main candidates…then there are some good third party candidates. If those don’t suffice, then write your own name in…vote.

 

[b_ulmen]

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

Sweden – 1.40%

United States – 0.17%

Poland – 0.10%

This may on the surface seem to contradict the statement the US provides more. But what the numbers dont tell us is the actual $ amount. Are we to assume that Sweden’s GDP is equivalent to the US?

 

[b_ulmen]

.but I believe you are wrong

Wouldn’t be the first time.

.
As to the second part…you miss a gigantic point.

There are more than just the two presidential candidates. There are local and state elections, judges and more.

The implied and stated election in question was the federal election, not the local or states. there are ZERO candidates for federal office that I can in good conscience vote for. The are several locally that will get my vote. So I go to hell over not voting for federal offices, but I escape the confessional by voting in local elections?

 

[GEddie]

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.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, any more than is abortion. It has been admitted by a USSC ruling.

Really, marriage is a state issue. States issue marriage licenses; not the USGov. It should have remained a state issue.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Robert_Sock]

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!!

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.]

Was Ezekiel reading into it too?

 

[GEddie]

Wouldn’t be the first time.

The implied and stated election in question was the federal election, not the local or states. there are ZERO candidates for federal office that I can in good conscience vote for. The are several locally that will get my vote. So I go to hell over not voting for federal offices, but I escape the confessional by voting in local elections?

In my state, there is only one ballot. It has federal, state, and county/local columns.

Once that ballot is cast, one has fulfilled the right to vote, even if one or more blanks are skipped. Nothing prevents skipping them if one’s conscience so requires.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bookcat]

Q: Can I be a liberal and a Catholic?

A: In those things which are contrary to the Catholic Faith - no. Absolutely not.

 

[HelenRose]

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).

There are so many issues to consider that I realize I don’t fit into either camp either.

As I see it, the problem with labels, is people often clump a package of ideas into one bag.

I try to avoid seeing people in either camp as “the enemy” . All of us are doing our best to wade through a morass of conflicting ideas and theories. It is almost impossible to explain what one believes without someone labeling you a hypocrite. Which is both sides the of the liberal and conservative camps - the ultimate sin. We all hold conflicting views.

I work awfully hard (sometimes successfully and sometimes a complete failure) to separate the concept of liberal or conservative when I am talking with person. I try to not label people. I try to see each idea they hold as separate from other ideas that may seem to be in conflict.

 

[Horton]

I never said the unborn were less human or second class citizens. You are putting words in my mouth. I just think ALL life matters whether they are born or unborn. Someone who commits genocide against the living is the same as someone who commits genocide against the unborn. So why should I vote for someone who is anti abortion but commits genocide against those who are living? The quotes in the previous post argue that you should always vote for someone who is anti abortion. So it is okay to support someone who is anti abortion but supports genocide among the living? The unborn should have rights but should not have more rights than those that are living. That is unfair. Or what about a politician who supports war even if it kills hundreds of innocent people but is “pro life”? Are we no longer “pro life” when people are living human beings out of the womb?

Bolding mine - Is there a candidate who is pro-life but then plans to carry out genocide against a portion of our population? Or is this another battle cry of the liberals stating conservatives may be pro-life but only as it pertains to babies. They’re not really pro-life but anti-abortion.

My suggestions to you is to get out your catechism out and study the issues there.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Wouldn’t be the first time.

The implied and stated election in question was the federal election, not the local or states. there are ZERO candidates for federal office that I can in good conscience vote for. The are several locally that will get my vote. So I go to hell over not voting for federal offices, but I escape the confessional by voting in local elections?

No, I think you are missing the overarching point. The point is as Catholics we believe the best thing for the world is the Catholic Faith. It is our evangelization to conform the world to Christ and the Church.

Therefore we should be engaged in the civic processes of our society. Through these processes the world can be made more holy and less destructive.

That is why we have a duty to vote and to be involved in civic change.

It sounds like you are doing that. The comments from myself and I believe the other posters were geared toward complete civic disengagement. That is a form of apathy that is not ok.

Abstaining from certain votes for good reason is certainly still engaging the political processes and can be used to further the conversion of the world toward Christ. I have abstained many times due to lack of knowledge, and I see no reason why abstaining, due to candidates not moving the world more toward what Christ intends it to be, is a problem.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Was Ezekiel reading into it too?

No…just you… How do you get that Sodom was condemned for not having a welfare system administered by the state from this passage???

It simply said that among Sodom’s many sins was that the people there did not care for the needy.

Of course not caring for the needy is a sin…but that does not mean Ezekiel is saying the answer is for the people to just be the same old sinners, but pay a tax to the government to skirt their responsibility to their neighbor.

 

[Richard_White]

No, I think you are missing the overarching point. The point is as Catholics we believe the best thing for the world is the Catholic Faith. It is our evangelization to conform the world to Christ and the Church.

Therefore we should be engaged in the civic processes of our society. Through these processes the world can be made more holy and less destructive.

That is why we have a duty to vote and to be involved in civic change.

It sounds like you are doing that. The comments from myself and I believe the other posters were geared toward complete civic disengagement. That is a form of apathy that is not ok.

Abstaining from certain votes for good reason is certainly still engaging the political processes and can be used to further the conversion of the world toward Christ. I have abstained many times due to lack of knowledge, and I see no reason why abstaining, due to candidates not moving the world more toward what Christ intends it to be, is a problem.

 

[Richard_White]

Was Ezekiel reading into it too?

It would be better for you to quote that verse with the one that directly follows:

“Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

As can be seen here, God tells Jerusalem through the Prophet Ezekiel that the sin of Sodom originated with gluttony and lack of assistance to the poor, which then led them over to lust and the abominations of rampant homosexuality in practice, which caused Him to destroy the city.

May God bless you all!

 

[b_ulmen]

No, I think you are missing the overarching point. The point is as Catholics we believe the best thing for the world is the Catholic Faith. It is our evangelization to conform the world to Christ and the Church.

On the contrary, I understand it fully, I just disagree with being told “you must do this” when my properly informed conscious says otherwise.

That is why we have a duty to vote and to be involved in civic change.

Engaging in the civic process does not necessarily mean voting. Attending town halls, various municipality meetings, writing to Congressmen (do we do this anymore??) are all means to the same end. Abstaining from voting ought not be a sinful event.

The comments from myself and I believe the other posters were geared toward complete civic disengagement. That is a form of apathy that is not ok.

I agree. apathy unfortunately is the flavor of the day.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Engaging in the civic process does not necessarily mean voting. Attending town halls, various municipality meetings, writing to Congressmen (do we do this anymore??) are all means to the same end. Abstaining from voting ought not be a sinful event.

I would say that if you are writing congressmen, attending town halls, and meetings, but not voting, then something is not right in your civic engagement.

Attending meetings may allow an opinion to be expressed but at the end of the day it is a vote that decides…either a vote by an elected official, or the vote of you for that elected official.

Writing congressmen, is also important. very important, but if you are unwilling to vote for the congressmen that you think will best respond to your letters…then that is a problem.

 

[Brendan]

But Sodom was a nation that ignored the poor.

that was not the only sin of Sodom. The Sodomites wanted to rape visitors. That is not Charity either…

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.

When people refuse to help, convert them; or more specifically, ask the Holy Spirit to do so.

I am reminded of Mother Theresa of Calcutta. One of her sisters was in the process of forming a new community. She expressed concern about how that was to be financed. Mother Theresa told the sister “Do not worry about money, God has plenty of that”

Would you claim that Mother Theresa was telling the sister to go and take money from those who were not inclined to give it.

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.

See my first statement

St.John Chrysostom never said that this type of taxation would have been immoral.

He quite clearly stated that it would do moral harm to the nation. The Rich would feel resentful, and the poor would express no gratitude. Both of those are hardening of hearts, and neither are the practice of Virtue.

 

[b_ulmen]

I would say that if you are writing congressmen, attending town halls, and meetings, but not voting, then something is not right in your civic engagement.

and here we get to my problem with the discussion - I’m wrong for doing what I believe to be right.

Attending meetings may allow an opinion to be expressed but at the end of the day it is a vote that decides…either a vote by an elected official, or the vote of you for that elected official.

Writing congressmen, is also important. very important, but if you are unwilling to vote for the congressmen that you think will best respond to your letters…then that is a problem.

Again, willingness to vote is not at all involved here, it’s the lack of choice - a vote for a ‘lesser’ evil is still a vote for evil, and that I will not do.

regardless, one can align their political affiliation any way they wish. the proper thing is to ensure there is no conflict between the moral foundation and the political leanings - but it’s not mine to say you’re doing it wrong.

 

[Adonia]

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.

Yes, income taxes are in the Constitution via the amendment process, marriage (gay or otherwise) is still not listed as a power of the Federal government. Gay marriage was shoved down our throats (like abortion was) by judicial fiat and a new ruling could end that tomorrow.

 

[Robert_Sock]

No…just you… How do you get that Sodom was condemned for not having a welfare system administered by the state from this passage???

It simply said that among Sodom’s many sins was that the people there did not care for the needy.

Of course not caring for the needy is a sin…but that does not mean Ezekiel is saying the answer is for the people to just be the same old sinners, but pay a tax to the government to skirt their responsibility to their neighbor.

Who said anything about a welfare or tax system? Perhaps they could have fed the poor from their excess, just like we could feed much of the hungry through our excess of food instead of letting it rot.

A tax system to feed the hungry may have also been something God would have wanted, but we simple do not know.