Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[lil_flower_luv]

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

 

[Tedster]

Well, what beliefs of theirs makes them “left wing”? If it is not Abortion, is it euthanasia, the death penalty, pro-homosexuality, or something else?

The “Liberal” agenda appears to encompass ALL of these (among many others contrary to the Faith). So if one believes in only a few select items, they view themselves as “leaning left”. But, in my opinion and in seeing the effects on several close to me, the road quickly leads to affirming all of the liberal agenda.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Well, what beliefs of theirs makes them “left wing”? If it is not Abortion, is it euthanasia, the death penalty, pro-homosexuality, or something else?

The “Liberal” agenda appears to encompass ALL of these (among many others contrary to the Faith). So if one believes in only a few select items, they view themselves as “leaning left”. But, in my opinion and in seeing the effects on several close to me, the road quickly leads to affirming all of the liberal agenda.

Hi Tedster, I do not think my family agrees with all of the “liberal agenda”, but I guess I can say they lean left having to do with the war. Liberals are anti-war, are they not?
Thank you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is, in my opinion, one of the tragedies of our time that we all seem to think we need to be either “liberal” or “conservative”. When we do that, we tend to uncritically rake in beliefs and positions of which we might more properly be dubious.

Some decades ago, most anyone would have thought me a “liberal”. Now, most would think me “conservative”. While I don’t quite think of myself in that way, I have to admit that an extremely statist kind of thinking has overtaken the “left” side of the spectrum. On the other hand, I sometimes see “conservatives” uncritically endorsing “the free market” or “capitalism” in a way that seems to lead them to a kind of perfunctory social coldness that they would not feel toward a needy human being eyeball-to-eyeball.

For myself, I have returned to the Social Encyclicals to aid me in my political thinking. They are very nuanced, but lead one to think some things are quite wrong with uncritical adherence to the political “poles” as we now have them in this country.

For example, “liberals” think of themselves as “caring for the poor”. Yet, they do not hesitate to burden the poor with social programs that reduce the recipients to a sort of slavish dependency. Never have I heard a “liberal” declare (as have the Popes) that the very first obligation of the State is to provide decently for those who cannot help themselves. Look at SSI benefits for example; the federal program for the disabled poor. It’s miserable, yet no “liberals” ever talk about improving it.

On the other hand, many “conservatives” somehow think such people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that their failure to do it somehow means they’re just lazy. No doubt many recipients of welfare benefits are just exactly that. But many simply cannot do for themselves, and we should feel that the State does, indeed, have a serious obligation to aid them.

I greatly recommend to you that you study the Social Encyclicals. You can google them all. They don’t have precise programs outlined, but they contain principles by which you might judge this measure or that program. In my mind, they are helpful in attaining clarity of thought.

 

[Tedster]

Hi Tedster, I do not think my family agrees with all of the “liberal agenda”, but I guess I can say they lean left having to do with the war. Liberals are anti-war, are they not?
Thank you.

I’m not so sure that would be confined to a liberal. I know some staunch conservatives who oppose certain wars. So to me, that is kind of a value that crosses over political lines and is not a defining point of liberal.

 

[juniorapologist]

Hi Tedster, I do not think my family agrees with all of the “liberal agenda”, but I guess I can say they lean left having to do with the war. Liberals are anti-war, are they not?
Thank you.

Lil_flower_luv, I might just throw something out there. To be a faithful Catholic does not in turn make you “pro war”. The idea of being pro-life must permeate our way of thinking in all areas. The conditions for a just war need to be considered very carefully. Here is what the Catechism has to say about it. Hope this helps.

Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It is, in my opinion, one of the tragedies of our time that we all seem to think we need to be either “liberal” or “conservative”. When we do that, we tend to uncritically rake in beliefs and positions of which we might more properly be dubious.

Some decades ago, most anyone would have thought me a “liberal”. Now, most would think me “conservative”. While I don’t quite think of myself in that way, I have to admit that an extremely statist kind of thinking has overtaken the “left” side of the spectrum. On the other hand, I sometimes see “conservatives” uncritically endorsing “the free market” or “capitalism” in a way that seems to lead them to a kind of perfunctory social coldness that they would not feel toward a needy human being eyeball-to-eyeball.

For myself, I have returned to the Social Encyclicals to aid me in my political thinking. They are very nuanced, but lead one to think some things are quite wrong with uncritical adherence to the political “poles” as we now have them in this country.

For example, “liberals” think of themselves as “caring for the poor”. Yet, they do not hesitate to burden the poor with social programs that reduce the recipients to a sort of slavish dependency. Never have I heard a “liberal” declare (as have the Popes) that the very first obligation of the State is to provide decently for those who cannot help themselves. Look at SSI benefits for example; the federal program for the disabled poor. It’s miserable, yet no “liberals” ever talk about improving it.

On the other hand, many “conservatives” somehow think such people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that their failure to do it somehow means they’re just lazy. No doubt many recipients of welfare benefits are just exactly that. But many simply cannot do for themselves, and we should feel that the State does, indeed, have a serious obligation to aid them.

I greatly recommend to you that you study the Social Encyclicals. You can google them all. They don’t have precise programs outlined, but they contain principles by which you might judge this measure or that program. In my mind, they are helpful in attaining clarity of thought.

Thank you for sharing, Ridgrunner! I understand where you are coming from and I will definitely check out the Social Encyclicals.

Personally, the only reason my family has a political view is to defend the beliefs of the Church and vote accordingly.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Thank you for enlightening me Tedster and Juniorapologist.
I want peace just as much as the next gal…

 

[adowcday]

It’s pretty hard keeping track of what qualifies as “liberal” and “conservative.” In the 1960s and 1970s, liberals were opposed to the Vietnam War, discrimination against racial minorities and women, and in favor of environmental protection and social welfare, for example. Many, if not most Catholics thought of themselves as liberal in those days, I think, because of the Church’s supportive stance on peace and social justice issues.

Since then, pro-life issues have become the dominant political issue for Catholics. Since the Republican Party has taken pro-life positions, many more Catholics vote Republican. As the Republican Party becomes more and more conservative, many political moderates are now considered “liberal” by Republicans. If you get your news and political commentary from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck, for example, those who once were considered moderates are now viewed as commie, fascist, socialist, Nazi, America-hating liberals. I think Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are complete nut jobs, but that’s just me.

For those Catholics who are pro-life and also concerned about social justice and the environment, for example, they are stuck between parties. The best spokesman for such Catholics was probably the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago who spoke of the Catholic position on abortion and social justice isses as a “seamless web.” Some bishops have argued that no Catholic should vote for a candidate who is not pro-life (i.e., anti-abortion), which would make Catholics a single-issue voting bloc that would likely vote for Republican candidates. Other bishops view this as only one of many important issues that Catholic voters should consider.

I am politically progressive but pro-life. I proudly voted for Obama and I’d do it again in a heartbeat. A lot of very conservative, very Republican Catholics post on the Catholic Answer Forums, so I take a lot of flak. I comfort myself with the thought that these forums aren’t the whole Church. Deo gratia!

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I am politically progressive but pro-life. I proudly voted for Obama and I’d do it again in a heartbeat.

“Pro-life” and “Obama” cannot be in the same sentence. Surely you must be joking!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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?

yes particularly if you read the bible

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?

Well it seems you answered that below

Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…

~Therese

“Pro-life” and “Obama” cannot be in the same sentence. Surely you must be joking!

well. you answered your earlier question

Lets try this please define “liberal”?
Then please define “conservative”?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

yes particularly if you read the bible

How so? I’m sure if you’ve read this thread from beginning to end, you would have found that my questions were answered by the good people who stepped up to answer them. The answer is: No, you cannot be fully liberal and Catholic due to what liberals believe.

Lets try this please define “liberal”?
Then please define “conservative”?

I’ve just told myself it doesn’t matter as long as you follow and defend the teachings of the Church.

Thank you!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How so? I’m sure if you’ve read this thread from beginning to end, you would have found that my questions were answered by the good people who stepped up to answer them. The answer is: No, you cannot be fully liberal and Catholic due to what liberals believe.

I’ve just told myself it doesn’t matter as long as you follow and defend the teachings of the Church.

Thank you!

The thread cites no teachings in the Church about what is or is not conservative, or Liberal for that matter, so from where to you get such an answer? Do you speak from some personal authority about knowledge of what is or is not conservative, or Liberal ? It would seem you have walked thin ice concerning the catechism?

… 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…No, you cannot be fully liberal and Catholic due to what liberals believe…

So now you have no

…political ignorance…

??

 

[lil_flower_luv]

The thread cites no teachings in the Church about what is or is not conservative, or Liberal for that matter, so from where to you get such an answer? Do you speak from some personal authority about knowledge of what is or is not conservative, or Liberal ? It would seem you have walked thin ice concerning the catechism?

I realize the Church has no political standing. But it tells us what we should believe and live our life set on those beliefs. I’m pro-life, and always will be. Does that make me liberal or conservative?

Thin ice concerning the catechism? I’m not sure if you and I are reading the same one.

So now you have no

??

I’m not fully sure. I’m still on the confused side, I’ll admit.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Of course you can, and I will gladly proclaim that I am. What a Catholic cannot be is a social or religious liberal. Social liberals tend to be for things like abortion and gay marriage, while religious liberals reject basic tenants of our faith. Political liberalism is something different entirely, and while the social liberals seem to have the biggest voice today, it was not always so. It is a tradition and style of government. I identify more with Roosevelt and Jefferson than with social liberals.

 

[Wowbagger]

The best spokesman for such Catholics was probably the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago who spoke of the Catholic position on abortion and social justice isses as a “seamless web.”

Garment. Seamless garment. If you’re going to misrepresent the Cardinal’s teaching, at least do him the good service of not misquoting him.

lil_flower, I skipped most of the responses here because I have the attention span of a small house fly. However, the current social issues on which the Catholic postion is absolutely non-negotiable are, roughly:

-Abortion – and all other forms of deliberate killing of the innocent, including embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia – must be absolutely prevented by the civil authority.
-Marriage, if it is recognized by the state as a civil insitution, must reflect the natural law reality that true marriage is between one man and one woman. Moreover, the social good produced by man-woman unions (that is, children) must be promoted and protected by the civil authority. (Which gives a teensy, teensy bit of wiggle-room if you want to veer toward the libertarian position that the state should be completely disconnected from marriage.)
-Cloning of humans must be absolutely prevented.

For all practical purposes, everything else, from taxes to immigration to health care, is up for discussion. There are certain principles that Catholics must follow in discerning their responses to each of these problems, but, practically speaking, it is possible to come to liberal or conservative conclusions on those issues. Some of the general rules that tend to come up:

-The death penalty is to be prohibited except in cases where lesser punishments are not sufficient to protect society.
-The distribution of pornography is to be checked by the civil authority by any prudent means.
-War must at least meet the standards of just-war theory. (Catholics could hold it to an even higher standard, and could even be complete pacifists, but it has to at least make just war status.)

Note that each of these turn out to be issues that invoke the principle of prudential judgement. That means people can in good conscience disagree. Personally, I shake out a conservative on all of the above, but I know many good Catholics who shake out as liberal. We’re on the same page with the principles and the goals. Where we disagree is simply in means, and that means our discussion changes from one of moral principles to one of policy wonkishness – I say the best way to increase the income of the poor is to lower taxes across the board and eliminate the corporate income tax, citing the Congressional Budget Office’s 1983 - 87 analyses under Reagan, the Kennedy tax cuts, and economic activity reports from Eastern Europe, where corporate taxes are much lower or non-existent. My opponents, citing a few other CBO reports, the New Deal, and the failure of the Bush tax cuts to stimulate real income in lower income brackets after factoring out the effects of artificially low interest rates, disagree. I respond with counter-analysis of economic actors during the Great Depression, dispute that Fed interest rates had anything to do with real incomes during 2003 - 2008… and so it goes. It’s very, very wonkish, and far more productive than the debates over principle that have dominated America since the culture wars broke out around the time of Roe. So, yes, a Catholic can be a liberal on a ton of issues.

It just sucks to be a Catholic liberal if you are one, because you have no one to vote for: the vast majority of Democratic candidates are liberal but pro-abortion – which is completely unacceptable to a serious Catholic voter, who cannot negotiate or bend one inch on abortion, given the astounding and immediate and unimaginably enormous evil it inflicts on a daily basis, any more than a Catholic could bend or negotiate the Holocaust or slavery – while Republicans tend to be anti-abortion but conservative. Liberal Catholics have no political home right now.

I do hope we find a third-party that will give them that. I do think liberal Catholics are wrong on a ton of things – well, okay, almost everything – but I think the discussions between liberals and conservatives who are on the same page about the big non-negotiables are more productive than one-party rule. And anything is more productive than the violent division of fundamental moral viewpoints that currently sunders our nation.

Hunh. I ended up talking a lot longer than I meant to when I started this little post. Hope it’s interesting!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I realize the Church has no political standing. But it tells us what we should believe and live our life set on those beliefs. I’m pro-life, and always will be. Does that make me liberal or conservative?

well the establishment legalized abortion some ~36 years ago so are you for or against the established norm?

Thin ice concerning the catechism? I’m not sure if you and I are reading the same one.

right o, I use the catholic one
2477
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280*

I’m not fully sure. I’m still on the confused side, I’ll admit.

Hope that helps

 

[Argh]

Whoa whoa whoa…all of the American Founding Fathers" were Liberals. I’m a Liberal Catholic.

Oh wait…what do you mean my “liberal?” Do you mean Liberalism as defined by the freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness? Do you mean a tolerance of ideas? Do you mean Liberalism as expressed by Spencer, Hume, Locke, or Jefferson?

I apologize, I’m poking fun p) at people’s varying ideas of “Liberalism.” Much like Marxism or Socialism, everyone has an opinion about it, but very few have any idea about what it actually means, or, at least what it meant at different times or what it still means today in or outside of the United States. I’ve come to think the word “liberal” has come to have no real meaning whatsoever anymore, just like “conservative.”

On a side note, I cringe whenever people declare our ideas of democracy are based on John Locke’s philosophy. Why? Because John Locke declared tolerance for everyone except Catholics and atheists (I summarize greatly). Why? Because Catholics and atheists can’t swear oaths according to John Locke. Why? Because Catholics and atheists don’t believe in God, according to John Locke and since they don’t believe in God they cannot be made or be counted upon to uphold the law.

 

[Junebug999]

No.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

well the establishment legalized abortion some ~36 years ago so are you for or against the established norm?

Against.

2477
Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280*

Thank you. Yes, I think I have been judging all Liberals and have had an anti-liberal mindset due to some of their beliefs. That’s not fair and I’m sorry for that! But please understand, that if you are for abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, etc, you are disobeying the teachings of our Faith. Voting for Obama is supporting all he stands for (some of the things mentioned above, especially abortion), and therefore, is voting against our Church and all it stands for.

Hope that helps

Thank you.