Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[lil_flower_luv]

Not necessarily. Our current pope did write this:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269841 ~ Thread on voting for Obama

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=5326&date=2008-09-11 ~ Catholic Answers Live on voting for pro-abortion candidate

I highly recommend everyone to read and listen to these if you haven’t!

 

[Sina]

I am a left wing Catholic. I have often wondered how it is possible. Of course I am pro-life and I do not support abortion. No one political party can appeal to one person in all aspects.

I believe in progressive measures like publicly funded health care, sometimes affirmative action, proportional representation for elections, social welfare, - I support mostly government and publicly owned institutions rather than private corporations. I am anti-capitalism.

I believe that abortion is a result of the large gap between the rich and the poor. Many women who are having abortions are lower income with no support.

I grapple with same sex marriage… to be honest, I am not going to stand in front of someone and prevent them from making that choice, but I also will never wish for the goverment to force the churches to perform the ceremonies.

I could go on and on… this is a huge debate. I just wanted to give my two cents.

 

[Sina]

I also don’t think there will ever be a pro life president in the US. We have a very conservative Prime Minister in Canada, and he doesn’t dare touch abortion, yet people who consider pro-life as their # 1 issue for voting, vote for his party because some of his members are pro-life. Not all.

 

[gearhead]

To try to change that hard-hearted culture is absolutely essential if we are going to end abortion - there will never be enough people to vote against it if that is how we see the world. Politicians come out of the population, and also must be elected - we can’t expect that they will represent a radically different POV that the rest of us at the political level.

In a respect I agree with your sentiment here, but I have a bit of a different take on it.

Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, abortion is a response to real social problems. If a woman thinks to herself, “if I have a baby now, I’ll lose my job and won’t be able to feed the child I already have”, you can address the underlying issue, and in the process take away her motive to abort her pregnancy, by making sure that she won’t lose her job, or that if she does, there will be a strong social safety net that will ensure she will still be able to feed, clothe and shelter herself and her children.

I was shocked to learn that in the US, very few working women have the right to paid maternity leave, and for those that do, the period of leave tends to be quite short. Yet I’ve never once heard anyone in the “pro-life” side suggest that a Canadian-style maternity leave system* might be a good strategy to reduce the number of abortions.

Now… I know that every woman is different, and that maternity leave benefits wouldn’t address every reason that women get abortions. It’s just one example out of many ways of approaching the problem.

I think there’s a strong sentiment in the anti-abortion movement that pregnancy is the woman’s “fault” and that she shouldn’t benefit from her “sin”. I think this hardness of heart often blinds the anti-abortion movement to acheivable strategies that would have real impact at either reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, or turning many of those unwanted pregnancies into wanted ones, and in the process, significantly reduce the number of abortions without fighting a pitched battle on the issue of abortion’s legality.

*In Canada, women can get pregnancy leave and parental leave totaling 52 weeks off, paid at 2/3 normal salary by the federal government and topped-up to full salary by many employer benefit plans, plus the legal right to return to the job you left at the end of those 52 weeks. Men or couples who adopt can take the parental leave, but not the pregnancy leave.

 

[rtconstant]

In a respect I agree with your sentiment here, but I have a bit of a different take on it.

Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, abortion is a response to real social problems. If a woman thinks to herself, “if I have a baby now, I’ll lose my job and won’t be able to feed the child I already have”, you can address the underlying issue, and in the process take away her motive to abort her pregnancy, by making sure that she won’t lose her job, or that if she does, there will be a strong social safety net that will ensure she will still be able to feed, clothe and shelter herself and her children.

I was shocked to learn that in the US, very few working women have the right to paid maternity leave, and for those that do, the period of leave tends to be quite short. Yet I’ve never once heard anyone in the “pro-life” side suggest that a Canadian-style maternity leave system* might be a good strategy to reduce the number of abortions.

Now… I know that every woman is different, and that maternity leave benefits wouldn’t address every reason that women get abortions. It’s just one example out of many ways of approaching the problem.

I think there’s a strong sentiment in the anti-abortion movement that pregnancy is the woman’s “fault” and that she shouldn’t benefit from her “sin”. I think this hardness of heart often blinds the anti-abortion movement to acheivable strategies that would have real impact at either reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, or turning many of those unwanted pregnancies into wanted ones, and in the process, significantly reduce the number of abortions without fighting a pitched battle on the issue of abortion’s legality.

*In Canada, women can get pregnancy leave and parental leave totaling 52 weeks off, paid at 2/3 normal salary by the federal government and topped-up to full salary by many employer benefit plans, plus the legal right to return to the job you left at the end of those 52 weeks. Men or couples who adopt can take the parental leave, but not the pregnancy leave.

You bring up good points that should definitely be considered in the struggle to end abortion.

 

[Bluegoat]

In a respect I agree with your sentiment here, but I have a bit of a different take on it.

Despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, abortion is a response to real social problems. If a woman thinks to herself, “if I have a baby now, I’ll lose my job and won’t be able to feed the child I already have”, you can address the underlying issue, and in the process take away her motive to abort her pregnancy, by making sure that she won’t lose her job, or that if she does, there will be a strong social safety net that will ensure she will still be able to feed, clothe and shelter herself and her children.

I was shocked to learn that in the US, very few working women have the right to paid maternity leave, and for those that do, the period of leave tends to be quite short. Yet I’ve never once heard anyone in the “pro-life” side suggest that a Canadian-style maternity leave system* might be a good strategy to reduce the number of abortions.

Now… I know that every woman is different, and that maternity leave benefits wouldn’t address every reason that women get abortions. It’s just one example out of many ways of approaching the problem.

I think there’s a strong sentiment in the anti-abortion movement that pregnancy is the woman’s “fault” and that she shouldn’t benefit from her “sin”. I think this hardness of heart often blinds the anti-abortion movement to acheivable strategies that would have real impact at either reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, or turning many of those unwanted pregnancies into wanted ones, and in the process, significantly reduce the number of abortions without fighting a pitched battle on the issue of abortion’s legality.

*In Canada, women can get pregnancy leave and parental leave totaling 52 weeks off, paid at 2/3 normal salary by the federal government and topped-up to full salary by many employer benefit plans, plus the legal right to return to the job you left at the end of those 52 weeks. Men or couples who adopt can take the parental leave, but not the pregnancy leave.

Well, I am continually shocked when American women I know have 3 weeks of vacation that they take to have their babies and then go back to work. I believe there is a new program, that applies to some people, that give 6 weeks leave. Woo-hoo.

And I think social support does make people less desperate about how they will get by, which can only be helpful to someone who is unsure how to manage.

But, I’m not sure that we actually have a lower abortion rate here in Canada - and I think there may be more public support for the pro-choice position than there is in the US. But then our political spectrum is really quite different, so it could be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint causes for the differences.

 

[gearhead]

You bring up good points that should definitely be considered in the struggle to end abortion.

But could you imagine any of the “pro-life”, right-wing candidates ever suggesting a program like that? Obama’s already getting called “communist” for suggesting universal health care. Imagine what the uproar would be like if a candidate or president suggested that the government should pay women to stay home for a year with their new babies, and that their employers should be forced to keep their job open for them to return to when that year is up.

IMO, there are many strategies that have the potential to drastically reduce the number of abortions, but virtually all of them come from the left side of the political spectrum. In contrast, the right only has one: prohibit abortion. But here’s the big problem with that: whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not, the law of the land right now is that the constitution protects the right of a woman to have an abortion.

The only way to make abortion illegal is through a constitutional amendment. This means that you need two-thirds the house, two-thirds the senate and three-quarters of the state legislatures to support it. I can’t find statistics for the senate right now, but the Republicans haven’t had a two-thirds majority in the House since the 1920s. The right-wing anti-abortion option could realistically take centuries to acheive, if it ever happens.

If you want to actually reduce the number of abortions, you have to look to the left.

Well, I am continually shocked when American women I know have 3 weeks of vacation that they take to have their babies and then go back to work. I believe there is a new program, that applies to some people, that give 6 weeks leave. Woo-hoo.

And I think social support does make people less desperate about how they will get by, which can only be helpful to someone who is unsure how to manage.

But, I’m not sure that we actually have a lower abortion rate here in Canada - and I think there may be more public support for the pro-choice position than there is in the US. But then our political spectrum is really quite different, so it could be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint causes for the differences.

I agree. And I wasn’t trying to compare Canada to the US; my intent was more to hypothesize about what the difference would be between “USA now” and “USA now plus decent parental leave”.

Basically, my point is this: when we ask ourselves the question of why women get abortions, the answers frequently point to issues where the “pro-life” political right is on the “wrong” side.

 

[Sina]

*In Canada, women can get pregnancy leave and parental leave totaling 52 weeks off, paid at 2/3 normal salary by the federal government and topped-up to full salary by many employer benefit plans, plus the legal right to return to the job you left at the end of those 52 weeks. Men or couples who adopt can take the parental leave, but not the pregnancy leave.

Hmm not completely true. 52 weeks off yes. You can get manternity benefits from the unemployment office, but it is 55% of your salary, UP to around $22,000/year. So if your salary is $70,000, you get $22,000. If your salary is $24,000, you get 55% of that, $13,200. The only employer that I have heard of that tops you up for the whole year is the Federal Government. I work for the provincial government and we only get a top up for 6 weeks. This is the norm from what I know.

It is still way way way better than being on maternity leave in the US though, and I agree with the rest of your post

 

[gearhead]

Hmm not completely true. 52 weeks off yes. You can get manternity benefits from the unemployment office, but it is 55% of your salary, UP to around $22,000/year. So if your salary is $70,000, you get $22,000. If your salary is $24,000, you get 55% of that, $13,200.

Is it 55%? I thought it was 66%. My mistake.

The only employer that I have heard of that tops you up for the whole year is the Federal Government. I work for the provincial government and we only get a top up for 6 weeks. This is the norm from what I know.

Since I started working full-time, I’ve worked for four private companies; all of them but one has had a top-up to full salary. Most of them would also cover the two-week waiting period before the EI benefits kick in. Talking to friends, it seems that this is very common, at least among the people I know. Maybe we’ve just lucked out by working for places with good benefit packages.

It is still way way way better than being on maternity leave in the US though, and I agree with the rest of your post

Thanks.

 

[Bluegoat]

Since I started working full-time, I’ve worked for four private companies; all of them but one has had a top-up to full salary. Most of them would also cover the two-week waiting period before the EI benefits kick in. Talking to friends, it seems that this is very common, at least among the people I know. Maybe we’ve just lucked out by working for places with good benefit packages.

Thanks.

It really depends what sector you work in. As per usual, lower paying jobs are less likely to offer a top up, and people who work for small business almost never get one.

 

[gearhead]

It really depends what sector you work in. As per usual, lower paying jobs are less likely to offer a top up, and people who work for small business almost never get one.

Yeah, the one company that didn’t offer it was quite small - around ten employees.

But still - imagine how quickly the “pro-life” voters on the American religious right would turn away from a candidate who said he was in favour of months- or year-long government-funded parental leave and protecting the right of women to return to their jobs afterward. They’d drop him like a sackful of rocks, shouting “commie!” at him as he fell.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, the one company that didn’t offer it was quite small - around ten employees.

But still - imagine how quickly the “pro-life” voters on the American religious right would turn away from a candidate who said he was in favour of months- or year-long government-funded parental leave and protecting the right of women to return to their jobs afterward. They’d drop him like a sackful of rocks, shouting “commie!” at him as he fell.

I have often found the actions and professed family centred beliefs of such people at odds. I think the most charitable take is that they think a parent should stay home and not return to work. I also think that isn’t the real reason, at least at a systematic level.

It is economically advantageous for the state, they think, to have two-income families. Ones with a few kids, but not too many. And many on the right are very conscious of allowing the market to rule to a greater or lesser extent. The great arbitrator of social policy is money from that point of view, and socialist-leaning policies do not fit into that or into a small-government mindset.

But, many of those same mindsets are what create a society that is actually hostile to family and children. If money is the arbitrator, the market, then we will have small families with two working parents - they will have to have limits on their family size to prosper the way the state wants them to, and buy a lot of cars.

So I think a government driven so strongly by economics is almost always fall down on abortion, and promote small families and by extension ABC.

So, I think that is why Republican, pro-life governments and individuals have not managed to make inroads - they’re kind of at war within themselves.

 

[rtconstant]

But could you imagine any of the “pro-life”, right-wing candidates ever suggesting a program like that? Obama’s already getting called “communist” for suggesting universal health care. Imagine what the uproar would be like if a candidate or president suggested that the government should pay women to stay home for a year with their new babies, and that their employers should be forced to keep their job open for them to return to when that year is up.

Sadly you’re probably right, even thought that’s about as “pro-family” as you can get. I wonder if that would have been the case pre-80’s? I think that many Christians have had to convince themselves that corporate interests are integral to Christian and family values in order to feel OK about voting for certain candidates.

IMO, there are many strategies that have the potential to drastically reduce the number of abortions, but virtually all of them come from the left side of the political spectrum. In contrast, the right only has one: prohibit abortion. But here’s the big problem with that: whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not, the law of the land right now is that the constitution protects the right of a woman to have an abortion.

The only way to make abortion illegal is through a constitutional amendment. This means that you need two-thirds the house, two-thirds the senate and three-quarters of the state legislatures to support it. I can’t find statistics for the senate right now, but the Republicans haven’t had a two-thirds majority in the House since the 1920s. The right-wing anti-abortion option could realistically take centuries to acheive, if it ever happens.

If you want to actually reduce the number of abortions, you have to look to the left.

At the very least social programs are where you start. If people aren’t giving the information, if life isn’t seen to be of value, if selfishness isn’t discouraged, and if poor don’t feel some relief. It will never stop. Once those things are done, banning becomes a possibility. My fear is that by so whole-heartedly aligning with politicians who only pay lip service to the ideals of life for as long as Christians have, we may have already lost the fight. Now the movement is viewed as inconsistent at best, and hypocritical at worst.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sadly you’re probably right, even thought that’s about as “pro-family” as you can get. I wonder if that would have been the case pre-80’s? I think that many Christians have had to convince themselves that corporate interests are integral to Christian and family values in order to feel OK about voting for certain candidates.

There is another active thread at the moment discussing Catholics supporting public health care, among other things. And I think I will say here what I said there. Although a lot of American Catholics seem to equate Catholic values with American right-wing ideas - free market capitalism, small government, etc - it actually isn’t the case among Catholics in other places. Many support other types of policies and equally see them as fundamentally demanded by their Catholic religion, and the right-wing policies as being anti-Catholic in nature.

I’m not sure what that means in the picture of the Catholic Church in the USA.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

There is another active thread at the moment discussing Catholics supporting public health care, among other things. And I think I will say here what I said there. Although a lot of American Catholics seem to equate Catholic values with American right-wing ideas - free market capitalism, small government, etc - it actually isn’t the case among Catholics in other places. Many support other types of policies and equally see them as fundamentally demanded by their Catholic religion, and the right-wing policies as being anti-Catholic in nature.

I’m not sure what that means in the picture of the Catholic Church in the USA.

I don’t understand.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t understand.

In the US, many people seem to equate “Catholic values” generally with what might be called right-wing values. They include abortion, small government, very limited interference in individual lives, free-market or very low-levels of restriction on economic activity, private enterprise, etc.

Enough so that we can have a thread asking if it is possible for a Catholic to be a liberal!

But there are plenty of Catholics outside the USA. And if you looked at the rest of the Western countries (the developing world is perhaps focused more on fundementals) you will see that those things are not equated the same way with “Catholic values”.

In fact, some of them would be considered to be non or anti-Catholic values. The idea that a Catholic couldn’t be a liberal would leave them scratching their heads. Many might say, for example, that they support public health care, or are even socialists, because they are Catholic.

All of which leads me to think that maybe right-wing values are not so identical to Catholic values as some imagine. Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at what Catholics in other places think and do, and get some perspective.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

In the US, many people seem to equate “Catholic values” generally with what might be called right-wing values. They include abortion, small government, very limited interference in individual lives, free-market or very low-levels of restriction on economic activity, private enterprise, etc.

Enough so that we can have a thread asking if it is possible for a Catholic to be a liberal!

But there are plenty of Catholics outside the USA. And if you looked at the rest of the Western countries (the developing world is perhaps focused more on fundementals) you will see that those things are not equated the same way with “Catholic values”.

In fact, some of them would be considered to be non or anti-Catholic values. The idea that a Catholic couldn’t be a liberal would leave them scratching their heads. Many might say, for example, that they support public health care, or are even socialists, because they are Catholic.

All of which leads me to think that maybe right-wing values are not so identical to Catholic values as some imagine. Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at what Catholics in other places think and do, and get some perspective.

Oh, now I see. But you can also look to the statistics that say a lot of countries outside of the US are losing many Christian values. We have been a secular wold for quite sometime. So it is easy to see that some may be confused as to why we cannot be liberal and Catholic…because they have lost what it is to be Catholic.

Just try to get an idea:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/Worldreligion.png

 

[hartge01]

Liberal or conservative isn’t really the issue. Dems and Repubs have both let us down to levels that are simply incredible and the lines between them are blurred. What I believe is important is life. Once life is compromised what is the significance of the other issues? When any group, and I have talked to pro-choice conservatives, justifies the termination of any life at any point, any other issues they may champion become irrelavent.

At all costs we are called to protect life, and as Catholics we believe that is from the moment of conception. I see a lot of talk about one issue voters, but I propose that once the “one issue” is reconcilled, we can truly start to work out the other issues. I know, there are lots of them.

“loving does not mean looking at each other, but looking together in the same direction”
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa
Good Friday 2008

 

[GeauxLSU]

An interesting thread (though I couldn’t read it all).
As many have said, yes the answer technically is ‘it depends on your definition of liberal’ BUT… I hardly find it a stretch to say the generally accepted definition of a political liberal in the United States is in direct conflict in many core issues, with the Catholic Church. The fact ANY professed Christian can support an abortion is mind boggling on one level yet completely expected in today’s continuing declining culture of moral relativism. I likewise doubt Christ would want or expect the government to force His teachings on the populace but that’s perhaps an entirely separate (though related) discussion. Meaning, while a Catholic social position might be considered a ‘liberal ideal’ (charity in general for example), that is separate from desiring an elected government to force that act upon the citizenry. Related, keep in mind perception is not reality. Charity is a prime example. Most people assume ‘liberals’ are more charitable but it is statistically proven that is simply not the case. So… again, you have to be careful with an actual definition and a perception.
People sadly can and will justify ANYTHING to make themselves more comfortable in what they ‘feel’ is correct. I don’t believe there was any guarantee (and quite the contrary) from our Lord that living the faith would be easy.
Can you name more prominent Catholic politicians that are generally described as liberal or conservative? Lots of politicians ‘say’ they are Catholic. Politicians ‘say’ lots of things.

There is zero question in my mind we are obligated to unapologetically vote according to the only truth that matters. This life is a blink of an eye. In the last election, I personally had to write in a candidate for president. The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.

For reference (so some can discount it ) I consider myself politically ultra conservative.

 

[otjm]

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!

Well, as a matter of social discourse, it probably does matter how one defines those terms. I was taught quite a few things in the two years I had the privilege of being in a Jesuit high school; but one of the things that stuck the deepest was the (almost constant) admonishment “Define your terms!”

What gets us into hot water fastest in these discussions is our failure at the very beginning to define what we mean by “liberal” and by “conservative”. Those definitions can change by subject matter, and all too often the one defining means “anyone who doesn’t think like I do”, and to that is added the implication that one is either a liberal or a conservaitve, and there is no other definiton. That flies in the face of reality. In any measure of liberal and conservative there is a spectrum, and statistically, the majority are on neither end, but in the middle. If one is on either end, then defining those towards the other end as the opposite fails to account for the majority in the middle who are neither end.

Too often morals is taken to mean the 10 Commandments, and too often specifially those having to do with sexual activity. What gets lost is that morality is not simply a series of "Thou shalt not"s. The Church sees morality as much richer than that; a reading of the social encyclicals starting with (if I can recall - I am lousy historian) Pope Pius 10th (Rerum Novarum?) indicates that we have positive moral duties also. And getting into that is too often consdiered a “liberal” issue, as it gets crossed over into politics, meaning the level, if any, the government has in the social gospel. The inability to separate out our moral duty from civic duty and/or responsibiity makes discussion difficult at best.

So, asking if one can be Catholic and “liberal” means that one needs to define what “liberal” means. We can start with the presumption that being Catholic means following the Magisterium, but again, there is that “failure to define” in conversation at the beginning; if one party holds that one can be Catholic and not follow the Magisterium, the discussion is going to go in a different direction than if one must follow it to be so defined.