Can I be a liberal and a Catholic?

[Brendan]

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

Do you feel that He was incapable of setting up such a system?

In the story of the Rich Young man, could He not have ordered the Apostles to confiscate the man’s wealth, since the rich, young man chose not to give it to the poor?

Why do you think that Christ did not send the Apostles to take the man’s wealth?

 

[GEddie]

Do you feel that He was incapable of setting up such a system?

In the story of the Rich Young man, could He not have ordered the Apostles to confiscate the man’s wealth, since the rich, young man chose not to give it to the poor?

Why do you think that Christ did not send the Apostles to take the man’s wealth?

Because they had no right to do so. That would have been thievery, and the punishment of thievery was the cross.

Our LORD’s message would have been sadly weakened, at best, if His amigos were killed as He was, but as common thieves.

Also, He probably hoped that the RYM would come to repentance and, though He would be gone, give his life to the Church. That would not happen ever if the Apostles robbed him, most likely using physical violence to do so.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Robert_Sock]

Do you feel that He was incapable of setting up such a system?

We simply do not know, but my sense is that there was food in abundance and God wanted to share it.

In the story of the Rich Young man, could He not have ordered the Apostles to confiscate the man’s wealth, since the rich, young man chose not to give it to the poor?

We do not know how the rich young man changed afterward. It could be that God wanted him to learn the hard way by giving into his lust for pleasure.

Why do you think that Christ did not send the Apostles to take the man’s wealth?

Same here. Christ’s mission in this world was to save souls, first and foremost, but He also emphasized that we should feed the poor. Again, there was probably food in abundance, enough to feed everyone if properly distributed.

 

[Brendan]

We do not know how the rich young man changed afterward. It could be that God wanted him to learn the hard way by giving into his lust for pleasure.

Very good, Christ allowed the Rich young man to keep his wealth, and to learn from it.

So why should we not do the same.

Same here. Christ’s mission in this world was to save souls, first and foremost, but He also emphasized that we should feed the poor. Again, there was probably food in abundance, enough to feed everyone if properly distributed.

Correct, and we have the example of Christ Himself. He did not send agents after the rich to take their money from them, but simply called to them and asked them to share their wealth

Which is exactly what St. John Chrysostom stated.

 

[Brendan]

Because they had no right to do so. That would have been thievery, and the punishment of thievery was the cross.

ICXC NIKA

One thing I will say, is that if Christ told them to do so, it would not have been thievery, as everything has God as it’s owner.

That is why the Israelites were not invaders when they entered into the Promised Land, but the current inhabitants were the ones stealing their land.

So Christ would have been well within His authority to tell them to take the rich young man’s wealth, and to give it to the poor. Yet Christ did not. He let the rich young man keep the money that was in his possession.

And that is a lesson that we can learn from Christ. To call, not compel.

He does not attempt to make us perform acts of Charity, but gives us the opportunity to do so out of love of Him

And that is why St. John Chrysostom spoke such truth, St John understood the message of the Gospel, the message that we are called to live, in emulation of Christ.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Very good, Christ allowed the Rich young man to keep his wealth, and to learn from it.

So why should we not do the same.

Correct, and we have the example of Christ Himself. He did not send agents after the rich to take their money from them, but simply called to them and asked them to share their wealth

Which is exactly what St. John Chrysostom stated.

There are enough resources in the world where everybody can be fed, housed and educated without taxation, but it’s greed and other forms of evil that prevent it. It’s up to government and large corporations to see to it that these resources get distributed fairly, without profits from the poor who simply have no money. When this happens, everyone will gain from a greatly enhanced worldwide workforce, and corporations could recoup on their charity.The the poor will still be poor, but those who are righteous will reap bountifully from the free gifts of the Holy Spirit which are far more rewarding than materialism.

 

[Midwest88]

You most certainly can!

Even though I’m a Classic Liberal, I personally think liberals bring a lot of good points to the table that a lot of my conservative friends tend to miss or not even focus on.

Like what?

I’m an ex-liberal, so I’m interested in what your liberal friends bring to the table that conservatives “tend to miss.”

 

[po18guy]

Martin Sheen is a faithful, but liberal Catholic. Yes, it is possible, but very difficult, as the political extremes tend to produce ideologues.

Yet, liberal Catholics must avoid the idolatry of the social gospel. Since the 1960s, it has become so profound, so entrenched that it had to be addressed in print: blog.adw.org/2015/05/beware-the-strangest-idol-of-all-a-reflection-on-how-even-works-of-charity-cannot-eclipse-obedience-to-christ/

Not excusing the opposing extreme here.

 

[Midwest88]

To the OP:

I can’t be a conservative when a Catholic Republican makes fun of my heritage. A certain Catholic Republican politician (I won’t mention names) made fun of my heritage and said Spanish is a ghetto language and who thinks child labor (we are talking about 9 nine year olds not adults) is a great way to solve poverty in this country. Another Catholic Republican is “pro life” and considers himself to be Catholic yet wants to cut $40 million in food stamps. Keep in mind however that a lot of people who benefit from food stamps are not able bodied adults rather they are children.

Look, name the politicians.

John Kerry is a Democrat as with Nancy Pelosi. I think they’re hypocritical and a fine example of culture Catholics - wearing the cross when they want to or when they feel like it. I’m not a (D) not because they’re hypocritical about their faith. Any politician from either party does not determine if I’m a (D) or an (R). It goes much deeper than that.

I feel some Republicans are not in touch with the poor or with minorities. I feel like I just have to vote Democratic to promote social justice.

Some? All? Many? Majority?

What do you mean by social justice? Expansion of welfare state? Apologies for racism? Safe spaces? Automatic citizenship for illegal aliens?

Yes I know Republicans are “pro life” and Democrats are “pro choice” but can we really call Republicans “pro life”? Is sending people to war “pro life”? Is not caring about the environment “pro life”? Is not making sure those who are without food or shelter have what they need “pro life”? “Pro life” to me is more than just being anti abortion.

You’re using talking points.

War happens. It should the last resort, but it happens. You can debate whether or not the Iraq War was constitutional and whether or not it was a justified war. FDR was a (D) and he sent young men to fight in WWII.

Not all Republicans support banning federal funding for abortions, but more do than Democrats.

As for the environment, again, what do you exactly mean? Not supporting the narrative that global warming will kills us all? Fracking dangerous? Are you seriously bringing pro-life into the environment?

If we cancel out the expansion of the welfare state, what has the Democrats done to help the poor in terms of food and shelter? I’d even argue that the expansion of the welfare state hurts the poor.

What is the point of being anti abortion if you are not providing for those who are in need? We know that many of these people who decide to get abortions don’t feel they can become good parents or don’t want to be parents at all. So if we want to prevent abortion why do these people not want to provide services for these children?

You serious drank the “Republicans have done nothing for the maligned” kool-aid. I gotta tell ya, MSM aka NYT, WashPo, Vox, HuffPo is quite the drug.

Again, what do you exactly mean by “who are in need”? I’m not sure what you want from the Republicans, but your list is just exhausting to read. Do you want Republicans to set up psychological clinics for those that get abortions and support groups that help those who might get an abortion?

We Catholics are supposed to be against abortion but we are also supposed to be for the poor and the vulnerable and yeah fetuses are the most vulnerable but we should help the poor and vulnerable here already.

Not all Republicans are Catholic. Not all Republicans believe in God. Not all Republicans have the same way to go about helping the needy.

How can we help the most vulnerable of the population who are unborn if we can’t help those who already born. It is like me saying I want to go to Ghana and help the poor if I don’t even want to help my own family here in my house.

What?

I am sorry if I offend any good Republicans here though.

Well, you just proved that you want a lot of things done to please your mind, so yea.

 

[Midwest88]

Your last paragraph is so offensive, that’s why minorities will never vote as a whole for a republican.

I hope you or your family or your future generations never go to the government for help, bc when they do, oh boy.

Last paragraph:

“Look, if you liberals want to help out particular people or causes, why don’t you all get together and pool your own monies? That is the way you should do it, not force others to “contribute” by the power of the government gun. But no, you want to let the government take care of everything and that goes against everything this nation is supposed to actually be. We are now 20 trillion in debt mainly because of liberalism - and that says it all.”

I don’t see how this is offensive. The OP is simply saying that looking to the government for “everything,” whether it be healthcare, food and shelter. The OP never said to eliminate the social safety net which gives out numerous benefits. He just has a difference on how to fund it.

 

[Midwest88]

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.
.

The 14th Amendment says nothing about gay marriage. It was simply interpreted the “equal protection” clause to same-sex pairings. It’s agnostic about same-sex unions.

By your reasoning, the 14th Amendment supports group marriages and any other types of marriage that the mind can come with. As long as the public supports it and the justices are convinced, wallah, “it’s in the Constitution.”

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.

Gay marriage isn’t in the Constitution. You’re being delusional. Stop being delusional.

Plus the constitution was written at a different time so we have to keep that in mind.

That’s a dangerous thought. Here’s an example: Those that want gun bans and that object to gun ownership say that the 2nd Amendment was written in a different time and is archaic.

The Constitution is the finest document ever written concerning how to govern a country. You think your interpretation is better?

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.

False dilemma. Horrid argument.

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.

How much tax? If you’re going to rely on government to tax and provide a safety net then you need to distribute the taxed money over various programs. The issue isn’t necessarily collecting the taxes, it’s putting a limit on taxes - if you believe in any - and deciding which programs gets what. You seem to think taxes are the saviors of the poor.

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.

False dilemma #2. Keep it up.

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.

If you want to talk about government involvement in the Civil Rights Era, that’s one thing. If you want to talk about the government and how it collects taxes and distributes that to the poor, that’s another.

 

[Latias]

If we cancel out the expansion of the welfare state, what has the Democrats done to help the poor in terms of food and shelter? I’d even argue that the expansion of the welfare state hurts the poor.

I no longer think in terms of expanding the welfare state, although a strong welfare mitigates poverty more than private charities. Welfare state policies are purely a practical matter.

The 14th Amendment says nothing about gay marriage. It was simply interpreted the “equal protection” clause to same-sex pairings. It’s agnostic about same-sex unions.

By your reasoning, the 14th Amendment supports group marriages and any other types of marriage that the mind can come with. As long as the public supports it and the justices are convinced, wallah, “it’s in the Constitution.”

Gay marriage isn’t in the Constitution. You’re being delusional. Stop being delusional.

That’s a dangerous thought. Here’s an example: Those that want gun bans and that object to gun ownership say that the 2nd Amendment was written in a different time and is archaic.

The Constitution is the finest document ever written concerning how to govern a country. You think your interpretation is better?

Let’s leave that to the courts. I would say this: the Constitution itself does not support conservative world view.

The Constitution is a constitution. It is a good document and delineates some principles, powers of the government, and the rights of the people. I am not familiar with other constitutions, but I would suppose they are similarly decent. It does not provide the underlying economic foundation and culture of the country.

What do you mean by social justice? Expansion of welfare state? Apologies for racism? Safe spaces? Automatic citizenship for illegal aliens?

Do you think it is acceptable to support a candidate who is anti-imperialist, that would try to weaken NATO and not provoke Russia further over someone who is vocally anti-abortion? Is it acceptable to be disillusioned with the pro-life movement and socially conservative politics and not hold them in high regard?

Well, you just proved that you want a lot of things done to please your mind, so yea.

Do you not agree that one could be a faithful Catholic and be largely sympathetic to liberal causes and policy? Do you think that one should have freedom of conscience to do suppose liberal causes and not let the pro-life movement become an idee fixe?

 

[Sarcelle]

Despite me being a “devout Catholic” even though I fall into sin like everybody else I strongly consider myself progressive/liberal.

I can’t be a conservative when a Catholic Republican makes fun of my heritage. A certain Catholic Republican politician (I won’t mention names) made fun of my heritage and said Spanish is a ghetto language and who thinks child labor (we are talking about 9 nine year olds not adults) is a great way to solve poverty in this country. Another Catholic Republican is “pro life” and considers himself to be Catholic yet wants to cut $40 million in food stamps. Keep in mind however that a lot of people who benefit from food stamps are not able bodied adults rather they are children.

I feel some Republicans are not in touch with the poor or with minorities. I feel like I just have to vote Democratic to promote social justice. Yes I know Republicans are “pro life” and Democrats are “pro choice” but can we really call Republicans “pro life”? Is sending people to war “pro life”? Is not caring about the environment “pro life”? Is not making sure those who are without food or shelter have what they need “pro life”? “Pro life” to me is more than just being anti abortion. What is the point of being anti abortion if you are not providing for those who are in need? We know that many of these people who decide to get abortions don’t feel they can become good parents or don’t want to be parents at all. So if we want to prevent abortion why do these people not want to provide services for these children?

We Catholics are supposed to be against abortion but we are also supposed to be for the poor and the vulnerable and yeah fetuses are the most vulnerable but we should help the poor and vulnerable here already. How can we help the most vulnerable of the population who are unborn if we can’t help those who already born. It is like me saying I want to go to Ghana and help the poor if I don’t even want to help my own family here in my house.

I am sorry if I offend any good Republicans here though.

You did not offend this Republican.

I am not white and I have been subject to a lot of racist comments from a lot of self-identified liberals and Democrats.

 

[Sarcelle]

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?

Why do you say we don’t help the poor in other nations?

I have donated and worked for private charities that help people in other countries. A lot of Christian groups, Catholic and Protestant already do that. We do not need government to do it for us. We already do it using our own initiative, time, talent and money? What is wrong with that?

 

[Sarcelle]

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 myself will vote third party.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

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

Uhh, your post frustrates me.

We have not been ignoring the poor. You should get out more and talk to the people who have been trying their best to help others in poorer countries. They break their backs building schools, safe water treatment plants, providing free medical care. Yet they come home and here you are saying we do nothing. Nothing can be further from the truth. We just do not need government to do it for us. What is wrong with that?

 

[Brendan]

There are enough resources in the world where everybody can be fed, housed and educated without taxation, but it’s greed and other forms of evil that prevent it.

I agree

It’s up to government and large corporations to see to it that these resources get distributed fairly, without profits from the poor who simply have no money

.

That is not the example that Christ set. Rather, He calls on us to change hearts, not to send agents to take the money of the rich

When this happens, everyone will gain from a greatly enhanced worldwide workforce, and corporations could recoup on their charity.The the poor will still be poor, but those who are righteous will reap bountifully from the free gifts of the Holy Spirit which are far more rewarding than materialism.

Not when the action is from governments, as St John Chrysostom predicted, and we have seen, what actually happens is resentment and ingratitude. How does resentment and ingratitude save souls? How do the gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves via ingratitude?

If something is truly of God, there will be Joy in both the giver and the receiver. Since this is not true with the model that you suggest, it cannot be from God.

 

[estesbob]

Last paragraph:

“Look, if you liberals want to help out particular people or causes, why don’t you all get together and pool your own monies? That is the way you should do it, not force others to “contribute” by the power of the government gun. But no, you want to let the government take care of everything and that goes against everything this nation is supposed to actually be. We are now 20 trillion in debt mainly because of liberalism - and that says it all.”

I don’t see how this is offensive. The OP is simply saying that looking to the government for “everything,” whether it be healthcare, food and shelter. The OP never said to eliminate the social safety net which gives out numerous benefits. He just has a difference on how to fund it.

The answer to your question is that it is very easy to be charitable with other peoples money . Liberals need to understand that we cannot fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for us .

 

[Robert_Sock]

I agree

That is not the example that Christ set. Rather, He calls on us to change hearts, not to send agents to take the money of the rich

I’m not necessarily suggesting that we take money from the rich, but creating a system where surplus food and resources get to those in need. There should be sharp laws against wastes.

Not when the action is from governments, as St John Chrysostom predicted, and we have seen, what actually happens is resentment and ingratitude. How does resentment and ingratitude save souls? How do the gifts of the Spirit manifest themselves via ingratitude?

You’re guessing when you say there would be no gratitude!!! We do not have to build the housing, but provide the technology and resources, much of the resources that we are now taking from them and paying dirt cheap wages for their labor, be given back to them. Again, think of it as an investment where the worldwide workforce is greatly enhance. They can do the building themselves. We owe Third World countries much for their resources and cheap labor.

If something is truly of God, there will be Joy in both the giver and the receiver. Since this is not true with the model that you suggest, it cannot be from God.

How can you possibly say that there would be no gratitude? In economic terms, it would be an investment that gets replaced with a much greater workforce.

Where in the Bible does it say that well to do nations are not morally obligated to help the poorer nations? This is an assumption you made up on your own!

http://s20.postimg.org/rsoahlhul/Sharing_water.jpg

http://s20.postimg.org/cxzp3f89p/What_if_we_love_each_other.jpg

 

[YADA]

There are enough resources in the world where everybody can be fed, housed and educated without taxation, but it’s greed and other forms of evil that prevent it. It’s up to government and large corporations to see to it that these resources get distributed fairly, without profits from the poor who simply have no money. When this happens, everyone will gain from a greatly enhanced worldwide workforce, and corporations could recoup on their charity.The the poor will still be poor, but those who are righteous will reap bountifully from the free gifts of the Holy Spirit which are far more rewarding than materialism.

Greed and corruption in government, most especially in socialist, communist and dictatorships has kept people enslaved, in poverty and killed millions of innocents. It is purely wishful and delusional thinking that government is the solution. It is also not the Christian perspective where we are called to help those in need and call people to account …to teach people to reject sin and follow Christ. Giving the government control means accepting government morality … moral relativism and acceptance of immorality dictated by government. It places government in the role of God …