Can I be a liberal and a Catholic?

[GEddie]

Look at Luke 16, starting with vs 19. Tell me if ignoring the needs of Lazarus was an unjust thing to do.

But if RM had paid a tax, while still ignoring him, would that have been meritorious?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Every time a country gets into a war, it runs up debt that will appear generationally. Better to make peace, and run up debt doing good, than to take the conservative route of war after war after war.

While I agree that Robin Hood holding the tax man’s gun is not what our LORD had in mind, I would rather see our resources used to uphold life for our citizens, than to invade and conquer other countries (whose citizens will NOT thank us, whatever Kool Aid we are served).

We need a leadership that will make peace with our international neighbors. But that leadership won’t be headed by HRC or Trump.

ICXC NIKA

I agree-- our debt is driven by a lot of different things. The biggest driver is entitlements. Nobody wants to be in a country where we allow people to starve. But saying let’s have the government pay for it ignores that given our profligacy over the past few decades we’ve been on accelerating increase in debt- regardless of which party is in charge. We keep putting things on the credit card which we don’t have to pay off.

I would love a candidate/political leadership that would address that. I’ve contributed to social security for decades at or near the max, I served in the military for over 20 years and have a pension, I have done well enough to put some money away in a 401K.

At some point, promises are going to have to be broken in order to start digging out from under the debt. I’m willing to take less, if it means that others less fortunate through life circumstances or poor planning get a basic level of income. I think this is where I agree with Robert Spock in that our generation has to start taking responsibility for addressing things that we can. I’m not big on my having SSN/retirement cuts that end up just being ‘thrown away’ on poorly thought out foreign interventions or as an excuse to keep piling on more debt. But I disagree in taking on more debt to be paid by future generations vice cutting back ourselves on government services.

 

[Richard_White]

This thread is going in circles. I already cited Ezekiel, but everybody shrugs it off. The problem needs to be effectively dealt with if we wish to do the work of God.

Again, if you read the entire passage from Ezekiel, it is clear that you are completely misinterpreting what God was revealing at that moment. See my last post on the matter for some clarification. In addition, even if God destroyed Sodom merely for their inhospitality and lack of care for the poor, it is nowhere written that it was the government of Sodom that was in the wrong. It was the regular people who failed to listen to the Lord and care for their brothers and sisters. Not to mention what Jon S already wrote in an earlier post that government welfare did not exist then…it was not even thought then. Remember that it did not start until the New Deal in the 1930s.

Thus, your reasoning for intense government-sanctioned welfare and distribution of resources, my friend, has no basis in Scripture, was argued against by the Doctor of the Church Saint John Chrystostom, and reeks of the socialism which we all know does not work and has no place in American society. No one should ever be compelled by their government to give away their hard-earned money to others.

As I said before, the only thing that makes it a good, charitable action is the notion that we do it freely out of love for God and for our neighbor. Now, does everyone do this? Unfortunately, no, and for this reason, we have some people making billions of dollars and throwing away tons of food while other people make barely anything and are starving to death. So, does something need to be done? Of course! But the only way this can happen in a good, responsible manner, is for everyone to convert their hearts to Christ and then open their hearts to helping the poor, vulnerable, and needy around us…starting first in the United States, and then moving out into the world at large.

But, please friends let us remember the original intention of this thread - to ask whether or not we, as Catholics, can in good conscience also be liberals. I am a conservative, and although I do not agree with liberals on really any of their policies, I also recognize that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a liberal in terms of economics. It is only on social issues that we cannot be liberal, because the liberal perspectives on all of the social issues of our day go completely against Catholic teaching and the natural order that God has ordained. As such, it can be very dangerous for Catholics to be liberal-leaning, even though are desire to help the poor and needy can be very attractive. Obviously, Pope Francis himself has said that he would prefer more of a social market economy.

Anyway, we could talk for hours on these topics. If we want to continue our conversation about our moral responsibility to help the poor and needy and whether it is a personal or governmental directive, we should stop hijacking this thread and move it to a new one of our own.

May God bless you all!

 

[OU812]

I loathe both Republicans and Democrats, and it makes my skin crawl when fellow Catholics try in earnest to portray their favored party as somehow being more superior and righteous.

 

[andrewstx]

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.

That is exactly how I feel right now. If things do not change before 2o16 I Iikely will abastain for the first time.

 

[MarkInOregon]

But if RM had paid a tax, while still ignoring him, would that have been meritorious?

Could not the same question be asked regarding donating to a charity and ignoring him?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[GEddie]

Could not the same question be asked regarding donating to a charity and ignoring him?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

It can be, however, a level of caring is implied in charitable giving. There is no merit in “charity” given with a gun to the face.

ICXC NIKA

 

[b_ulmen]

I loathe both Republicans and Democrats, and it makes my skin crawl when fellow Catholics try in earnest to portray their favored party as somehow being more superior and righteous.

 

[MarkInOregon]

to mention what Jon S already wrote in an earlier post that government welfare did not exist then…it was not even thought then. Remember that it did not start until the New Deal in the 1930s.

I don’t think this is accurate. I don’t know if there are earlier examples but I think if you check the history of the Roman Empire you will find they had a grain dole under emperor Augustus I, and that it was expanded under Emperor Trajan. I think I’d call that government welfare. I think you’ll find it in China 1000 years ago, and in other western nations prior to the 1930’s (the English parliament enacted laws in the late 1590’s though they were administered by local parishes). I also believe you’ll find it in the Muslim/Islamic world over 1000 years ago.

Thus, your reasoning for intense government-sanctioned welfare and distribution of resources, my friend, has no basis in Scripture, was argued against by the Doctor of the Church Saint John Chrystostom, and reeks of the socialism which we all know does not work and has no place in American society. No one should ever be compelled by their government to give away their hard-earned money to others.

How do you define the term socialism? I’ve always understood it to be: a way of organizing society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies i.e. any of the various economic and political theories that advocate for collective/government control/ownership of the production/distribution of goods and services. I don’t think collecting taxes amounts to or reeks of socialism. You may be right that socialism has no place in American society and I would agree that as long as we are fallen human beings it probably will not work on a large scale–it is a system prone to abuse as is capitalism, but holding things in common appears to have worked for the small group of apostles and earliest believers in Jerusalem cf Acts 2:42-47.

As I said before, the only thing that makes it a good, charitable action is the notion that we do it freely out of love for God and for our neighbor. Now, does everyone do this? Unfortunately, no, and for this reason, we have some people making billions of dollars and throwing away tons of food while other people make barely anything and are starving to death. So, does something need to be done? Of course! But the only way this can happen in a good, responsible manner, is for everyone to convert their hearts to Christ and then open their hearts to helping the poor, vulnerable, and needy around us…starting first in the United States, and then moving out into the world at large.

While I agree with the sentiment–what do you propose in the meantime? All hearts will not be converted tomorrow. This will be a slow process.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

It’s up to the government, OUR government to stick to the enumerated powers the Constitution grants it. It grants it no such power of charitable giving, of taking money earned by it’s citizens to re-distribute. That’s Socialism, Communism, or whatever, but it is definitely not the system of government the Founding Fathers gave us.

That Constitution gives Congress the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

I’d say people could debate all day on what constitutes or is encompassed in the general welfare of the United Sates.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Richard_White]

I don’t think this is accurate. I don’t know if there are earlier examples but I think if you check the history of the Roman Empire you will find they had a grain dole under emperor Augustus I, and that it was expanded under Emperor Trajan. I think I’d call that government welfare. I think you’ll find it in China 1000 years ago, and in other western nations prior to the 1930’s (the English parliament enacted laws in the late 1590’s though they were administered by local parishes). I also believe you’ll find it in the Muslim/Islamic world over 1000 years ago.

Point well taken. I figured that someone might find some earlier examples of government welfare, and that is fine. Welfare is definitely an important government policy to a certain degree, as with Social Security, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and I do not dispute that. I just wanted to point out that God never said anywhere that He wanted Sodom and Gomorrah to establish welfare, and since they didn’t, destroy them.

How do you define the term socialism? I’ve always understood it to be: a way of organizing society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies i.e. any of the various economic and political theories that advocate for collective/government control/ownership of the production/distribution of goods and services. I don’t think collecting taxes amounts to or reeks of socialism. You may be right that socialism has no place in American society and I would agree that as long as we are fallen human beings it probably will not work on a large scale–it is a system prone to abuse as is capitalism, but holding things in common appears to have worked for the small group of apostles and earliest believers in Jerusalem cf Acts 2:42-47.

I would define socialism about the same as you. And I realize where I may have been unclear: I didn’t mean that merely taxation was socialistic, because it most definitely is not. I was referring to what Robert Sock was speaking about - the government and large corporations taking the issue of fair distribution of wealth and resources among the people of a nation, which is socialism.

And yes, collective strategies definitely did work for the Apostles in the very early Church, and it sounds very nice, but, as you attest to, it really just doesn’t work in large, modern societies and, again, has no place in the United States.

While I agree with the sentiment–what do you propose in the meantime? All hearts will not be converted tomorrow. This will be a slow process.

This is the million-dollar question isn’t it? People refuse to convert to God in the Catholic Faith, charity does not occur, and people suffer. This will be happening until the end of time. All we can do is do our best to alleviate it.

The Peace of Christ to you as well!

 

[MarkInOregon]

It can be, however, a level of caring is implied in charitable giving. There is no merit in “charity” given with a gun to the face.

ICXC NIKA

Yes, but we elect our representatives–they are not born into their positions from which they foisted these various social welfare policies upon us–they wrote and voted on the legislation. We as citizens have the right to vote them out if we don’t like those policies/programs. So I am not sure the “gun in the face” analogy is 100% accurate and I think one could argue that enacting those social welfare policies showed a level of caring.
It really wasn’t like the recent judicial fiat that has imposed a number of things on us–that’s more like having a gun to your face–comply or else.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But if RM had paid a tax, while still ignoring him, would that have been meritorious?

I will answer your question if you first answer my question.

 

[realtiger]

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?

Alright but the Constitution also mentions we should provide for the general welfare

False dilemma. Horrid argument.

**Please explain how this is a false dilemma or horrid argument. **

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.

False dilemma #2. Keep it up.
**
I will give you real life examples of how something like this can happen. In New York City, a mentally disabled woman could not afford her prescription drugs, she then shoved people to the subway tracks. Maybe if the government had provided her the drugs she needed, where help from individuals was not present this would not have happened. Quite recently, NYC wanted to provide shelters for the homeless in the winter because they did not want their sickness if they got sick to affect non homeless.**

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.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Where in the Bible does it say that the burden is personal, and not government or large corporations? You’re read into Bible what you want to hear.

Matthew 28

Christ told them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the imprisoned. They were citizens ofRome paying taxes and also Jews paying into the temple.

Yet, that was not adequate because they personally ignored the poor and destitute.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Matthew 28

Christ told them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the imprisoned. They were citizens ofRome paying taxes and also Jews paying into the temple.

Yet, that was not adequate because they personally ignored the poor and destitute.

It was not adequate because that government was doing nothing to aid the poor. So the poor remained just as bad off. This does point to the personal nature of the burden when government is not adequate, but it does not exclude a governmental response.

 

[estesbob]

It was not adequate because that government was doing nothing to aid the poor. So the poor remained just as bad off. This does point to the personal nature of the burden when government is not adequate, but it does not exclude a governmental response.

The question is not whether their should be a Govt response. The question is whether we are required to support such Govt programs and whether supporting such programs is in itself an act of charirty. I believe the answer to both these questions is a resoundingNO

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The question is not whether their should be a Govt response. The question is whether we are required to support such Govt programs…

This does not make sense. How can there even be a government response if the people do not support their government? Saying that people need not support specific actions of their government is exactly the same as saying those very actions of government should not be. So you can’t can’t say the question is not this, but that, because both this and that are the same question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… and whether supporting such programs is in itself an act of charirty.

When did that become the question? Why is it so important in this discussion to classify such programs with the label “charity”? It seems there are many good things that should be done, despite their not being called “charity”.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Here is St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church

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

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.

Where does the Church stand on this? I doubt very much that it’s accepted by the Church. I especially suspect that the Church would condemn our throwing food out instead of feeding the hungry.

And where is the Church on the government and large corporations responsibility for educating and housing those in deep poverty? Does not the government have a right to tax its citizens and businesses? Even during the time of Christ the Romans collected taxes.