Can liberals be good Catholics?

[Robert_Sock]

Given that they are free to support the pro-life movement, why not? Such liberal thinking is not harmful in any way to the Church. Liberals are called to ‘journey’ in their faith every bit as much as conservatives. I am personally a liberal who supports the pro-life movement and I feel I can contribute to the Church with 100% of my spirituality.

Conservatives may condemn Obama, but not liberalism, per se.

 

[Della]

The problem is in labeling oneself with political labels, I think. I lean consevative, but I’m all for immigration laws that are fair, I don’t believe anyone’s faith ought to be pushed on students in public schools, I believe it’s good we have some social programs so people aren’t left to starve or go without medical care, etc.

What I object to is the idea that the government alone should provide these services and/or negate faith-based efforts to help people by putting biased, politically-motived restrictions on them.

When a people makes government the source of their every need, then government can rightly take away any freedom it wishes. I do not believe that the “nanny state” is good for any country. It takes away initiative and insentive, and makes slaves of the people.

Catholicism does not exalt one form of government over another, since the faith is not concerned with ruling peoples. However, we cannot support agendas that directly violate Catholic teaching. Therefore, I cannot support any political party that egregiously does so, such as the Democratic party in the USA.

 

[Brendan]

Yes they can,

But they would not only need to hold that abortion a fundamental violation of human rights, but so is same sex marriage. And that since a child has a fundamental right to a mother and a father, same sex adoption is also to be prohibited. As is the use of contraception.

I find very few liberals that hold the Catholic position on those intrinsic moral positions.

 

[Robert_Sock]

However, we cannot support agendas that directly violate Catholic teaching. Therefore, I cannot support any political party that egregiously does so, such as the Democratic party in the USA.

But conservative mostly supports the death penalty which is looked down upon in the Church’s teachings. Immigration is another social issue in which liberals are more in tune with then conservatives. So, it looks like we ought not vote for anyone, which is what I do. On election day, I pray to Almighty God that the ‘best’ candidate will win.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes they can,

But they would not only need to hold that abortion a fundamental violation of human rights, but so is same sex marriage. And that since a child has a fundamental right to a mother and a father, same sex adoption is also to be prohibited. As is the use of contraception.

I find very few liberals that hold the Catholic position on those intrinsic moral positions.

I’m liberal and I uphold all these things.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m liberal and I uphold all these things.

Given that, in what way, specifically, are you “liberal?”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Given that, in what way, specifically, are you “liberal?”

I support liberal issues, like gun control, except those liberal issues that go against the Church’s teachings.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I support liberal issues, like Obama’s Health Care, except those liberal issues that go against the Churche’s teachings.

Are you aware that aspects of the ACA directly oppose Church teachings?

 

[estesbob]

But conservative mostly supports the death penalty which is looked down upon in the Church’s teachings. Immigration is another social issue in which liberals are more in tune with then conservatives. So, it looks like we ought not vote for anyone, which is what I do. On election day, I pray to Almighty God that the ‘best’ candidate will win.

There is no moral equivalence between valid political differences on how to approach the issues you mentioned above and supporting the intrinsic evils of abortion and homosexual marriage. The Church neither endorses or oppose either sides proposed solutions to immigration, poverty etc. The Church does now and always has allowed for the death penalty and it specifically stated that A Catholic can in good conscience support it. On the other hand we need to keep in mind direct comments from the magisterium such as this:

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”.*

Cardinal burke

. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
*
Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.*

Archbishop Charels Chaput

 

[Della]

But conservative mostly supports the death penalty which is looked down upon in the Church’s teachings. Immigration is another social issue in which liberals are more in tune with then conservatives. So, it looks like we ought not vote for anyone, which is what I do. On election day, I pray to Almighty God that the ‘best’ candidate will win.

I have to disagree that simply because the Church has said that the death penalty is generally not needed in our times that we must never use it–because that is not what the Church teaches. We decide, through our laws, what is and what isn’t punishable by death. I’m not saying it should be widely used, either, nor do I support it wholesale, nor do most conservatives. There should be very strict guidelines for the death penalty if is it deemed necessary in a particular case.

I understand both sides of the immigration issue and find myself in sympathy with some of the liberal positions. I am not for letting anyone into the country simply because they managed to get here illegally, though. If workers are needed, and they are willing to work, of course we should let them come in. But it should be on a case by case basis. We need some common sense in deciding these things.

The Church has guidelines for voting so no Catholic has to be in the dark about it. Every election year our dioceses put out such guidelines. We Catholics need well formed consciences and good prudential judgment when voting for any candidate.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I am not sure that I really fit either label or party anymore. On some things I tend to be on the liberal side and on others the conservative, just for some examples:

-I am against abortion.
-I am against same sex marriage and adoption.
-I am in favor of tax reform, preferably to a flat tax system.
-I am in favor of reasonable gun control.
-I am in favor of fair and equitable immigration reform.
-I am in favor of government assistance to the poor, but not to the extent some want.
-I am in favor of a strong national defense.
-I am in favor of laws that prohibit unjust discrimination.
-I am against the death penalty in the US.

There are many other issues of course, but this gives some insight into where I stand.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A voter can be what is called in political circles “socially conservative,” while being liberal in non-social issues.

Socially conservative is a catch-all phrase which includes issues like marriage legislation, which is a moral issue on which Catholics have been told is a settled issue: Catholics are not to advocate for compromise to the definition of marriage, which directly opposes Church teaching.

Abortion is another “social issue” in political lingo.

Some Democrats, for example, are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Other Democrats are socially liberal and fiscally liberal.

At the moment I can’t think of a Democrat holding public office who is socially conservative, but someone can correct me if such a creature is not extinct yet.

 

[Robert_Sock]

A voter can be what is called in political circles “socially conservative,” while being liberal in non-social issues.

Socially conservative is a catch-all phrase which includes issues like marriage legislation, which is a moral issue on which Catholics have been told is a settled issue: Catholics are not to advocate for compromise to the definition of marriage, which directly opposes Church teaching.

Abortion is another “social issue” in political lingo.

Some Democrats, for example, are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Other Democrats are socially liberal and fiscally liberal.

At the moment I can’t think of a Democrat holding public office who is socially conservative, but someone can correct me if such a creature is not extinct yet.

I think I would need to go through issues by issue to determine what I endorse. But still, I do not vote because both parties are in disagreement with my political preferences on at least some social issues. Immigration, gun control and the abolition of the death penalty, to name a few.

 

[sw85]

I’ve written about this some in the past. If by “liberal” you mean what people ordinarily mean when they talk about “liberalism,” then no, you cannot be both a good Catholic and a good liberal. You can be a good one only to the extent you are a bad other.

At the heart of liberalism is the cult of the self-creating, self-defining, self-actualizing, utterly autonomous superman, liberated from all bonds of history, tradition, morality, law, etc. If you believe in this, then you are a liberal. You are also a bad Catholic. If you reject this as a Satanic delusion, then you are a bad liberal and (probably, though not necessarily) a good Catholic.

But conservative mostly supports the death penalty which is looked down upon in the Church’s teachings. Immigration is another social issue in which liberals are more in tune with then conservatives. So, it looks like we ought not vote for anyone, which is what I do. On election day, I pray to Almighty God that the ‘best’ candidate will win.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that gets people confused about these things.

The Church’s teachings acknowledge that there is some prudential leeway in deciding what sort of positions on certain issues to embrace. In some cases it may be permissible to choose a superficially leftist position. But since liberalism denies that these positions are prudential, even when you adopt them, you cannot adopt them for liberal reasons.

For instance, the Church has always and everywhere taught the moral liceity of the death penalty as a matter of principle. It currently states that the circumstances of the present age make it imprudent to execute people. That is a prudential, non-doctrinal, non-moral position with which people can in good faith disagree. You might accept that position. But there’s a massive gulf between “the death penalty is a bad idea right now” and “the death penalty is gravely evil,” the latter being a liberal position and flatly contrary to Church teachings.

Likewise with immigration. We do not get disregard the Church’s teachings of old re: the duties of immigrants toward their host nations, the rule of law, the common good, the rights of workers, etc., and so declare together with liberals that open borders are a matter of moral urgency. The best you can say is that it’s a good idea to have open borders (and I don’t know why you’d even think that given the state of the economy).

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I’ve written about this some in the past. If by “liberal” you mean what people ordinarily mean when they talk about “liberalism,” then no, you cannot be both a good Catholic and a good liberal. You can be a good one only to the extent you are a bad other.

At the heart of liberalism is the cult of the self-creating, self-defining, self-actualizing, utterly autonomous superman, liberated from all bonds of history, tradition, morality, law, etc. If you believe in this, then you are a liberal. You are also a bad Catholic. If you reject this as a Satanic delusion, then you are a bad liberal and (probably, though not necessarily) a good Catholic.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that gets people confused about these things.

The Church’s teachings acknowledge that there is some prudential leeway in deciding what sort of positions on certain issues to embrace. In some cases it may be permissible to choose a superficially leftist position. But since liberalism denies that these positions are prudential, even when you adopt them, you cannot adopt them for liberal reasons.

For instance, the Church has always and everywhere taught the moral liceity of the death penalty as a matter of principle. It currently states that the circumstances of the present age make it imprudent to execute people. That is a prudential, non-doctrinal, non-moral position with which people can in good faith disagree. You might accept that position. But there’s a massive gulf between “the death penalty is a bad idea right now” and “the death penalty is gravely evil,” the latter being a liberal position and flatly contrary to Church teachings.

Likewise with immigration. We do not get disregard the Church’s teachings of old re: the duties of immigrants toward their host nations, the rule of law, the common good, the rights of workers, etc., and so declare together with liberals that open borders are a matter of moral urgency. The best you can say is that it’s a good idea to have open borders (and I don’t know why you’d even think that given the state of the economy).

Speaking specifically about immigration, I think that the real answer has to be somewhere in the middle. I think that completely open borders are a bad idea and I think that completely closed borders are an equally bad idea.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Speaking specifically about immigration, I think that the real answer has to be somewhere in the middle. I think that completely open borders are a bad idea and I think that completely closed borders are an equally bad idea.

I concur here!

 

[sw85]

Speaking specifically about immigration, I think that the real answer has to be somewhere in the middle. I think that completely open borders are a bad idea and I think that completely closed borders are an equally bad idea.

OK, but that’s a prudential judgment about which people can in good faith disagree.

Liberalism disagrees with that assessment: it claims that open borders is a matter of moral imperative. It is therefore impossible to hold at least this liberal position for liberal reasons.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

OK, but that’s a prudential judgment about which people can in good faith disagree.

Liberalism disagrees with that assessment: it claims that open borders is a matter of moral imperative. It is therefore impossible to hold at least this liberal position for liberal reasons.

I do not consider myself a liberal, nor do I consider myself a conservative, as I have shown in my previous posts I find myself on both sides of the fence depending on the issue. I don’t think that liberalism or conservatism in and of themselves are a problem, I think the problem comes about when people elevate those political ideologies to the level of a religion, which seems to be the type of liberalism that you are describing.

 

[stephe1987]

Neither side is 100% in line with Church teaching. I’d rather not label myself and just focus on following Jesus and His Church. I refuse to register with a political party, as both sides are corrupt.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Neither side is 100% in line with Church teaching. I’d rather not label myself and just focus on following Jesus and His Church. I refuse to register with a political party, as both sides are corrupt.

Agree. There’s enormous amorality and hypocrisy on both sides.