J
Jason_1977
Guest
If ya look closer at my response, I think you’ll find I was agreeing with you. I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
- Status
J
Jason_1977
Guest
I may not be the first person to ask, but I have to know for myself:Hi all~
I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?
Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…
~Therese
Liberal in what WAY? Liberal HOW? Humanae Vitae aside, being catholic and liberal how? No blood for oil? banning guns? same sex marriage & being ok with it? When you ask if you can be catholic & liberal, CATHOLIC is pretty much defined & catholics know it’s pretty much black & white with very few if NO grey areas. The term Liberal can be used a few different ways & I’m curious what you mean by liberal? Liberal in what sense? I think once I understand where you’re coming from, I’ll better understand how to answer.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
OP: Depends on what you mean by liberal. If you mean Nancy Pelosi or Barb Boxer liberal, no, heck no. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. But if you mean liberal in a way that incorporates Catholic doctrine, for example being pro-life, yet pro-union, well, sure, you can be such a liberal in good conscience.
Myself, I take some positions that could be described as liberal (heck, on some issues, I make Kucinich look conservative), but when it comes to abortion, contraception, marriage and the rest of the non-negotiables, I stand with the Church - which is what makes people think I’m more right-wing than I actually am.
Myself, I take some positions that could be described as liberal (heck, on some issues, I make Kucinich look conservative), but when it comes to abortion, contraception, marriage and the rest of the non-negotiables, I stand with the Church - which is what makes people think I’m more right-wing than I actually am.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
Well put. I think it’s sad that in the 21st century, anyone with a sense of virtue, morals, & old fashioned descency is called “right wing”. There’s a difference between being a neo-con & not being morally bankrupt. well said though. I’m right there w. ya.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The “non-liberal” liberals, or at least many of them- those who say they oppose gun-control, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc, are the ones who keep the Pelosi, Boxer, Kucinich type “bad liberals” in power.
This is what makes me say you can’t be a pro-life democrat. Even if you personally abhor abortion, the democratic party is fully in support of it, and by supporting the party you support abortion.
Now before I get jumped on as a GOP hack, I’ll the GOP is headed in that direction, quickly. It’s pretty close to enshrining “rape, incest, life of the mother” exceptions into its creed, and there are many in the party who are no better then Democrats on abortion.
I can easily see a time within my lifespan when a Catholic could not in good conscience be a member of either party. Hopefully, that will lead to an emergence of a new political party that truly did defend life.
C
Cinette
Guest
*It depends on one’s definition of liberal.Hi all~
I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?
Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…
~Therese
If you are living under a dictatorship/fascist regime and you are against the status quo this might make you liberal and it would be OK. I lived under fascism and was a revolutionary and at one time I even embraced Communism. I think it was George Bernhard Shaw who said the Liberals want things to change so that everything remains the same. Liberalism has got a bad name.
Now that I am back in the Catholic Church I learned more about my faith and I find it the most exciting and interesting thing in the world. One can achieve happiness by being a good Catholic. It does not mean that you have to be conservative. Conservatives can be reactionary and rigid while liberals can be permissive and “laissez faire” - both bad things. You should allow your faith to guide you.
Cinette
J
Jason_1977
Guest
You’re right. It’s precisely why I feel cornered into voting “R” across the board. I’m registered Independent because I REFUSE to belong to EITHER party, but when push comes to shove, I feel I am represented better by republicans than democrats. Personally I think the dem’s are downright scary.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Personally, I’m a moderate Republican (though when there is an actual pro-life Dem, I do seriously consider voting for them) - because I do want to go into public service, and, while I agree with some of the classic Democratic platform, I’d never win a Democratic primary in California without sacrificing the non-negotiables. OTOH, moderates get elected with the GOP here with some frequency. It is possible to be a pro-life Democrat, without enabling the Boxers of the world to do the objectionable - but at present it’s extremely hard to be an electable one beyond the local level, as you essentially have well-moneyed interests against you (think EMILY’s List and NARAL), and the ones that haven’t been sunk by primaries tend to be there because they have a political organization that Daley the Elder would love, which is hard to replicate these days.
And what’s wrong with supporting gun control from a Church standpoint? I mean, last I checked, that was something that belonged in the category of unions and immigration - open to disagreement.
And what’s wrong with supporting gun control from a Church standpoint? I mean, last I checked, that was something that belonged in the category of unions and immigration - open to disagreement.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No, no, no. Jesus is not a liberal. He is a radical.
It’s just that none of us quite measure up to him, getting so bogged down in evil conservative and liberal anti-Christian ways. We are the “brood of vipers” he rails against – the Saducees and Pharisees, the self-righteous man who bragged he wasn’t like that sinner, the rich man who didn’t give a crumb to the poor man, the rich man who had difficulty getting his camel thru the eye of the needle…except by today’s standards we middle classers have elephants, not camels (and the rich are really really lost). We are the travelers who pass by the injured man without helping, the soldiers who hammered nails into his feet and hands…except we know blankety-well what we do.
Read all about us in the Bible. If you read the Gospels and Acts straight thru, you’ll see what I mean about Jesus. Then read about Adam and Eve, and about Cain, and you’ll really get a good idea of who we are, and just how radical Jesus is. Totally rad.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Sorry, perhaps I got mixed up reading posts but I thought I was replying to one which started out questioning the context of my posting. So that is my typical response… Since I usually try pressing “quote” button in order to ensure proper context of my statements is always maintained.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
This is really great – I have been under the impression that the Tea Party was an astroturf org started and funded by the Koch brothers. So it does involve regular people. Great.
I am also very concerned that my tax dollars should not go for killing people, like funding abortions or subsidizing (& giving tax-breaks to) the oil, gas, and coal industries – since these are responsible for such harms as global warming, acid rain, and local pollution which kills people and fetuses. In other words, I feel really bad that I’m paying on April 15th for other people to go around polluting the place. Let them pay for their own pollution & harm to people. I’m not so much for a carbon fee & dividend (I’m against cap & trade), as I am against subsidizing the fossil fuel industries through our tax dollars.
Inspired by the tea-party philosophy, I thought perhaps there should be a “green tea party,” which would be against funding others to pollute and harm people.
Do you think you or others might be interested in that, or in taking those issues on board with the other tea party issues?
I know that both Republican and Democrat politicians are heavily funded by the fossil fuels industries (Obama did not become IL senator without S. IL coal and agribiz), so it would be a completely uphill battle. But I’m game, if others are.
M
music2
Guest
Or…perhaps…can one be Catholic and not be American?
In Australia,our politics has lots of probs too but its on a mich smaller scale and our politics or political discussions is nothing like on the scale of America and the way that Americans always talk politics or “left wing” this “right wing” that etc is totally foreign down here.
The way that Americans are so political really astounds me:shrug:
To be honest,i’m glad I don’t live in US cause i wouldn’t want to neither be “liberal” or “conservative”.“Conservatives” to me seem nasty in manner and “liberals” to me seem permissive of everything in manner.
In Australia,our politics has lots of probs too but its on a mich smaller scale and our politics or political discussions is nothing like on the scale of America and the way that Americans always talk politics or “left wing” this “right wing” that etc is totally foreign down here.
The way that Americans are so political really astounds me:shrug:
To be honest,i’m glad I don’t live in US cause i wouldn’t want to neither be “liberal” or “conservative”.“Conservatives” to me seem nasty in manner and “liberals” to me seem permissive of everything in manner.
M
ManOnFire
Guest
That’s because many conservatives can See how it’s vital for our spiritual and emotional health for us to be able to sacrifice for the next generation, whereas too many liberals define happiness as personal pleasure, entertainment of the Self, and happy wishes for others that have no realistic chance of coming true in a society with an increases in drug use, soft porn in the media, and independent individualism aka selfishness.
They are confusing happiness and satisfaction with the glee of perpetual childhood. The glee of perpetual childhood can only last for one generation, as their kids are sure to be LOST by the lack of maturity and responsibility of the parents. The state will be called in to assist the parents who are still lost in perpetual childhood. More kids will grow up dysfunctional to the point that they too will deny marriage and maturity. This is not progress. It’s regress. It starts with a desire for the basest instincts of entertainment of the Self. It’s their delusional fantasy that we can somehow want to perpetually entertain ourselves then believe that we will be somehow magically strong to sacrifice for the next generation. We have TOO much entertainment of Self, yet people act like they can never get enough, like it’s a drug. That’s why so many are lost. Too many are begging for more of the very things that are reducing people. Personal pleasure is intentionally emphasized by the culture. Romanticism, true love, and the beauty of innocence are intentionally de-emphasized by the culture. Herein lies the problem. But people are addicted to the entertainment of the Self, so the best of intentions will Fail until the addicts wake up, stop wishing and hoping for change, and make the sacrifices needed to bring back the beauty of innocence. But the progressives are against true love and the beauty of innocence because this will lead to happy marriages, kids, and population growth. They prefer more porn, drugs, selfishness, high energy prices; all of which make marriage and kids less appealling. Less appealling = depopulation to “save” the planet.
S
sw85
Guest
Realistically? No.Hi all~
I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?
Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…
~Therese
Liberalism, properly understood, is destructive to nearly everything the Church stands for, which is why (unsurprisingly) the Church is the least influential in left-wing nations. It is an ideology dedicated to the obliteration of everything that could restrain the individual’s liberty.
I would argue modern “conservatism” is incompatible with Catholicism, as well, mainly given its emphasis on military belligerence and the fetishization of greed. But then I would also argue that modern “conservatism” is what it is because it has been infected by a virulent strain of earlier liberalism.
That said, what most people say when they mean “liberal” is just that they like government welfare programs, which can be reconciled to Catholicism. But that’s not really what liberalism is.
J
Jason_1977
Guest
LOL, it’s kewl. Just wanted to let ya know, there’s no smoke…no fire, LOL.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Yes, I think that’s the original meaning of liberal – dedicated to obliteration of everything that could restrain the individual’s liberty.
Some centuries back the thinkers of the day (Enlightenment philosophers in the 17th & 18th centuries) were very concerned about oppression by the autocratic governments and the Catholic Church. It is a philosophy that is basically anti-Church, tho some of the philosophers, such as Beccaria, were Catholic. It is the philosophy on which our country is founded, including the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It is the foundation of our capitalist system – based on Adam Smith’s philosophy and ideas of laissez-faire capitalism (which was opposed to the government and Church controlling the economy and suppressing middle class business to favor of the ancient order of nobility). And based on Jefferson’s (much into Enlightenment philosophy) “the government that governs least, governs best.” They wanted to get the kings, bishops, and popes off their backs with unnecessary, frivolous, and burdensome restrictions and taxes.
And the Church at the time was perhaps in the wrong to some extent in its oppressive actions against people.
However, in modern times the Church has done a turnaround and is now in favor of individual liberties and freedom of religions, etc.
A problem with this Enlightenment thinking, however, is that it is not based on modern science and social science and what we now know about people and society – and that we are all interconnected from the baby in the womb connected to the mother to the total society and whole world. Also in addressing the problems of the day – oppression by monarchs and the Church – it went to an extreme in one direction.
But even John Stuart Mill, who promoted freedom and rights to the hilt, recognized that we should only have freedom and rights to the extent that they do not harm others. However, since we live in a rights-based code of ethics (rather than a duty-based code of ethics, which is closer to Church teaching and the 10 Commandments), and since our (American) society is based on rugged individualism, we tend not to see other people and their rights, and the harms we do to them. It is a me, me, me culture, and let others be damned.
Our Church now takes a very balanced view, stressing both individual rights/freedoms and
duties and responsibilities and how we are interconnected, as in BXVI’s “Caritas et Veritate” (see vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html). If anyone reads that they will understand that BXVI and the Church are not espousing only the liberalism of the past (which would be considered the conservatism of the present), nor socialism/communism nor totalitarianism, but some middle road in which individuals enjoy their rights and freedoms AND take responsbility for the welfare of others AND reduce their harms to others. A middle road that is in my view more liberal than the so-called liberals of today’s America. But you form your own opinion.
Some American priests are perhaps ultraconservative and have led Catholics astray – impacted & perhaps not even realizing it by our American culture based on Enligtenment thinking and rugged individualism – which is why some people think the Church is so conservative, and not for liberals.
I think it’s important to go straight to the Holy Father and Church teachings to find out what the Church is really saying. It’s conservative on some points and liberal on others, and at least I think is more liberal (in the modern sense) than people here might think. Let’s take the blinders of our culture off and really see what the Church says and what is God’s will, what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.
S
sw85
Guest
I wanted to highlight this, because I think it’s very important. Most of what we call “conservatism” today is not really conservatism at all, it’s simply an earlier form of liberalism, which the main body of liberalism has abandoned. Most of what modern “conservatives” are hoping to “conserve” is actually just the accomplishments of liberals a few centuries ago, and those accomplishments are things that men like Thomas Aquinas would’ve been appalled by.
Personally, I identify conservatism with rejection of modernity, by which I mean the modern philosophical project (beginning with William of Ockham and John Duns Scotus and proceeding from there). I think true conservatism died as a coherent movement with the French Revolution (specifically the defeat of the French counterrevolutionaries) and nearly all of Western politics since then has been characterized by war between competing left-wing sects.
This explains, to a strong degree, why modern “conservatism” has proven utterly unable to resist the tide of modern liberalism. It can’t; modern liberalism is the logical conclusion of that which modern “conservatives” believe because they are ideological bedfellows. It also suggests, to me, why the Catholic Church never really caught on in America on its own: I associate Catholicism with anti-modern conservatism and Protestantism with pro-modern liberalism. America, being a fundamentally liberal nation, would naturally gravitate toward the latter. I think the only thing that really sustained the Church in America was mass immigration from heavily Catholic nations like Ireland, Italy, and Mexico.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Wow, I think it’s just the opposite – conservative Catholics are into selfish pursuits. Even in fighting against abortion they do it in a very simple way of demanding laws to make it illegal, which is sort of fun to point at other people’s sins, and absolutely no skin off their person noses, since they absolutely refuse to pay more taxes to actually help women debating abortion, and those moms and kids who need help. Liberal Catholics, on the other hand, are concerned with actually reducing abortion through social programs that help families, moms, and kids, and are willing to pay those extra taxes to do so. And there are a good number of pro-life liberal Catholics, who are want laws passed against abortion.
But most of all conservative Catholics don’t care a fig for the pollution they are personally causing that harms and kills people and God’s creation, and couldn’t care less about future generations; in fact they even deny to the hilt that they are doing such or that such problems exist. They seem to me to be a bunch of Cains denying they killed and are continuing to kill their brothers. While the liberal Catholics feel great remorse for the environmental harms they have caused, and are striving to reduce that harm, and are willing to sacrifice to do so.
Perhaps, however, we are just talking past each other and misunderstanding each other. But I’d like to see one conservative Catholic here admit that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem (as JPII & BXVI have said it is), and that he/she has been emitting greenhouse gases and contributing to that problem, and that he/she recognizes that his/her emissions should be reduced. If just one conservative Catholic here admits that, I’ll take back all my words.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
That said, what most people say when they mean “liberal” is just that they like government welfare programs, which can be reconciled to Catholicism. But that’s not really what liberalism is.
Some of my more Catholic brothers and sisters have accused me of being liberal because I am pro union, pro gun control, pro publicly paid health care/dental care and pro welfare/ social security disability for those who need it. At the same time I believe abortion and birth control are immoral. I do NOT believe in moral relitivism. Yet some associate this stuff as being evil and resort labeling me a liberal which is meant to be derogatory.
Personally I believe that right wing conservatism is far worse then liberalism and far more dangerous because it is violent and has adopted a spirit of cruelty and murder. This has become self evident in just the past two years with the violent attack against a San Diego Congress woman and most recently the violent attacks in Norway. Even before congresswoman Gabrial Gifford, there were two other liberal politicians, one a judge and I think the other a congressman who were assisinated in just the past 2 years by right wing extemist. Embracing a moral relativism is sin against your own soul but embracing murder and cruelty destroys many lives and ruins the souls of many.
I read one poster here who said that he/or she grew up in a Facist society and as a result embraced communism but then found their rightful place in the Holy Catholic faith. They concluded that we should be guided by our faith. BRAVO!
The problem here is that too many Christians have replaced good and evil with liberal and conservatism. The good supports the common good of humanity while evil is oriented towards individualism, self indulgence, and greed. And it does so often by appearing as an angel of light. Again we should be guided by our Catholic faith which is Holy and Apostolic guided unto all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Peace be with you all.
David
Some of my more Catholic brothers and sisters have accused me of being liberal because I am pro union, pro gun control, pro publicly paid health care/dental care and pro welfare/ social security disability for those who need it. At the same time I believe abortion and birth control are immoral. I do NOT believe in moral relitivism. Yet some associate this stuff as being evil and resort labeling me a liberal which is meant to be derogatory.
Personally I believe that right wing conservatism is far worse then liberalism and far more dangerous because it is violent and has adopted a spirit of cruelty and murder. This has become self evident in just the past two years with the violent attack against a San Diego Congress woman and most recently the violent attacks in Norway. Even before congresswoman Gabrial Gifford, there were two other liberal politicians, one a judge and I think the other a congressman who were assisinated in just the past 2 years by right wing extemist. Embracing a moral relativism is sin against your own soul but embracing murder and cruelty destroys many lives and ruins the souls of many.
I read one poster here who said that he/or she grew up in a Facist society and as a result embraced communism but then found their rightful place in the Holy Catholic faith. They concluded that we should be guided by our faith. BRAVO!
The problem here is that too many Christians have replaced good and evil with liberal and conservatism. The good supports the common good of humanity while evil is oriented towards individualism, self indulgence, and greed. And it does so often by appearing as an angel of light. Again we should be guided by our Catholic faith which is Holy and Apostolic guided unto all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Peace be with you all.
David
S
sw85
Guest
I don’t think there’s any evidence that Gifford’s attempted assassin was in any meaningful sense “right-wing,” even by the relatively denuded standards for the “right-wing” we have today. It was just assumed in the immediate aftermath that, because she was a Democrat, her attempted assassin must have been a conservative, and some nonsense was added about Sarah Palin at some point.
Incidentally, a judge was killed in the Giffords shooting, though he was a conservative and a Republican appointee.
To my knowledge there have been no successful assassination attempts of a federal official in the United States for several decades.
And of course there have been plenty of incidents of left-wing related violence both here and abroad. The Rodney King riots, the ongoing riots in Greece, and sporadic stories of union-related violence spring quickly to mind. I don’t think it’s fair to say these stories arise from some natural left-wing proclivity, nor is it fair to say that violence committed by conservatives (the Giffords shooting, again, doesn’t count here) is indicative of something essential to conservatism. Man is a fallen creature, and some more fallen than others; violence is simply the logical consequence of disregarding our true natures and embracing, instead, the animality of our material form.
- Status