Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[lil_flower_luv]

I’m not sure if you are a convert to the catholic faith or not, but reading this tells me it’s not political ignorance at play here in your question.

Nope, born and raised Roman Catholic. And I am very ignorant when it comes to politics…in fact, I have recently decided not to bother anymore. However, voting pro-life is important to me, and I realize that when I must speak up for the good of my Church in a political discussion, I will.

Catholics in general, are typically democrats over history in the US.

Do you have stats for that?

I would rather ask, why so many catholic politicians were (may he rest in peace) and are pro abortion.

That’s simple; because they were not/are not true Catholics.

God Bless!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

let me help you out with that here are the 30 “conservatives” voting to prevent :

*Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims. * (1)

The issue at hand was Americans being raped on the job outside the US.

*In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.* thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Now to be fair this group claims to be “conservative” but is actually republican. (they do not have a clue what the word conservative means). So if you need to label the people who try to stop rape, and punish rapist “liberal” and you are against “liberals” will it says a lot about you.

(1) senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308#top

 

[docgm]

to begin with, the overwhelming majority of Catholics in Europe don’t even go to Mass on a weekly basis; the statistics, depending on the country, are between 15% and 5%. Why would I care a fig about what they say? If they can’t get their own morality straight by going to Mass regularly, why am I going to have them lecture me on other moral matters?First, please site the source of your statistics. I have seen all sorts of numbers bandied about as to who killed how many; they are primarily estimates from people who were not there.

where do get your statistics.for that ? I am from Ireland and I assure you that a greater percentage than that go to mass on a regular basis .In fact we are the most Catholic country ( by percent of population) in the world THe overwhelming majority of catholics including weekly mass attendees and priests believed the war in Iraq was wrong and condemned it. In fact never spoke to anyone who supported it as was not a just warDoes that make us all immoral? by your standards you have higher moral standards than priestI assure you we strongly believe in Catholicism and have fought years of oppression so please dont lecture us…Maybe you have the moraility problem and cherrypick what fits your agenda

google " Lancet studies of Iraq war casuaities " and you will see my estimate is conservative

 

[itinerant1]

docgm;5831795:

First, please site the source of your statistics. I have seen all sorts of numbers bandied about as to who killed how many; they are primarily estimates from people who were not there.

Try researching the original study published in Lancet. The researchers methodology was quite professional and scientific, and their results merited publication in Lancet, no journal to sneeze at. And if there is anything significantly true that can said about the 160,000 deaths figure, it’s that it is a rather conservative estimate.

 

[itinerant1]

Absolutely you can It depends what liberal means In USA anything that isnt following the Republican party is considred liberal

To all you Catholics who vote Republican (and I am sure many of those supported the WAR inIRAQ)

How is it defending Catholic Teaching to support the war In Iraq ??? The pope said it was wrong The POPE .And many Catholics who vote Republican consider it " just" .I dont know based on what teaching.

please explain how the overwhelming majority of Europoean catholics consider the war in Iraq wrong but many so called catholics in this country think the opposite?.How is inadvertent killing -over innocent160000 Iraqis by Lancet study pro life???it isnt just about abortion to be pro life

So many Catholics in the U.S. considered the war in Iraq “just” because of political ideology and the lies of White House propaganda constantly repeated by the major media. The Bush Administration paid public relations firms a lot of money to assist with the propaganda effort. The goal of the propaganda was to “manufacture consent”. Americans don’t really think for themselves; their opinions are decided for them.

The fact that so many so-called conservatives supported an aggressive and morally unjust war reveals that party politics and power are more important to them than are genuine conservative ideas and values.

What Democrat leaning Catholics are oblivious to is that the majority of Democrats in Congress supported the Iraq War with their votes, despite what some may have told their constituents to the contrary.

Supporting an unjust war is contrary to pro-life values. Thou shalt not kill is violated by both unjust war and abortion. Murder is murder.

Pick you preferred type of killing: war or abortion. Let’s not forget that the Democratic party has been carrying on its own war against the unborn since long before the Gulf Wars. So which party is more corrupt should be a no brainer.

The Republican Party indeed became the War Party trying to rationalize unjust killing by aggressive wars just as the Democrats tries to rationalize killing pre-natal children.

Let’s no forget Bill Clinton’s aggressive war efforts, which include bombing Afghanistan, bombing the Sudan pharmaceutical factory (known as Monica’s War), approval of repeated harassing air strikes on southern Iraq throughout both of his terms, and his total support of the very worst aggressive act of all: the U.S. embargo on Iraq, which was designed to destroy civilian life. Pope John Paul II called this a “pitiless embargo”. An estimated 500,000 children under the age of five died because of the U.S. led embargo. When Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was asked about the half million dead children, she replied that it was worth it: Video clip

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are far too morally corrupt for me to even think about defending either one.

 

[itinerant1]

Sound political ideas and values include supporting the ideas and ideals of the Founders and U.S. Constitution. There is not much left in America of genuine constitutional government, but we still have a Supreme Court that makes a pretext of making decision based on the Constitution. Original Intent has been replaced by the unconstitutional idea of the constitution as a “living document” that can be interpreted in total disregard for original intent.

The judicial system has become increasingly corrupt especially since the beginning of the 20th century with the gradual replacement of natural law jurisprudence with legal positivism. The Founders and framers of the Constitution generally held to a philosophy of government that recognized the eternal natural moral law. Jefferson refers to the natural law in the Declaration as the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. On the other hand, legal positivism recognizes no law higher than man made law.

All man made laws, in so far as they are true laws, are consistent with the natural law. If a man made or positive law contradicts the natural moral law, it is not a true law, but a corruption of law. “Natural law is superior in dignity to custom and enactments. For whatever has been either received through usage or written down that is contrary to natural law, is to be considered void and invalid (Gratian: Decretum).”

Without a return to natural law philosophy of government America’s legal system will continue its slide to Gomorrah. Any political party or politician who does not recognize and support a return to natural law jurisprudence isn’t worth anyone’s time or support.

A genuine political conservative is one who conserves, or tries to conserve, what is best in America’s political tradition. And what is best and the foundation of all that is or was good in our political tradition is the recognition of natural law.

The political ideas and ideals of a true conservative are consistent with the ideas and ideals of classical liberalism.

 

[itinerant1]

diggerdomer;5832389:

otjm;5832370:

the Just War Theory is not a simple “put in your quarter, turn the handle and get your answer” type of machine. As I noted, I suggest that people actually read what Weigel wrote. They may not agree with his analysis, but it is one of the better, if not best expositions of Just War Theory I have seen - and I went to Viet Nam, while some of my classmates from the seminary went into alternative service, medical corp, jail or Canada. I am not exactly unaware of the therory, and most people are not trained enough either in philosphy (including logic) or moral theology to be able to deal with as complex an issue as this. Thus many simply fall back on a simplistic emotional response - whether that is for or against the war.

Weigel does not accept the traditional Catholic doctrine of “Just War”. He presented his revised theory, sometimes called America’s Just War Theory, to distinguish it from bona fide Catholic teaching. The Vatican has clearly rejected this new theory supported by Weigel, Novak, Hudson, Nehaus and their neo-con ilk.

The key to understanding the dissenters’ position is their neo-con politics, which involves the quest for full-spectrum, global dominance by the U.S. The front organization is called Project for New American Century

The key document from 2000 is called Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

This neo-conservative group, which has nothing to do with genuine conservative politics, advised the Bush Administration, and also some of the Administration’s members are active supporters and PNAC members, such as Wolfowitz. Here is a very revealing list of signatories from the 1997 PNAC Statement of Principles.
**
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz**

The Gulf Wars were neo-con wars for U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The same kind of lies spread about Iraq to manufacture public consent for war were spread about Iran.

To overcome some of the current misinformation about Iran you can read this analysis
Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True

 

[gearhead]

let me help you out with that here are the 30 “conservatives” voting to prevent :

*Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims. * (1)

The issue at hand was Americans being raped on the job outside the US.

*In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen*. thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

Hmm. I consider myself a liberal, but even I think that’s a bad law.

I don’t think it’s proper (or likely even effective) to name specific corporations or individuals in legislation. I’m sure that any decent corporate lawyer could come up with a way to take Halliburton and turn it into something that’s Halliburton in all but name for all practical purposes, but no longer the subject of this law.

And getting rid of arbitration clauses can harm the employee as well. Usually, arbitration clauses are put in place to avoid both parties the expense of a trial. If it’s phrased properly, an arbitration clause can help the employee as well in the event that they sue their employer. It means that they don’t have to have quite as deep pockets to get legal redress.

Also, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think the current state of the law is what’s implied. The law already says that a contract for an illegal purpose is void. If Halliburton is trying to use their arbitrartion clauses to cover up crimes (i.e. to be accessories to the crime after the fact), then I’m fairly certain that renders the whole contract null and void without any changes to the law.

 

[crazzeto]

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

You can be catholic and liberal every bit as much as you can be catholic and conservitive in this country. Our teachings don’t fit neatly in either camp.

Just for the record there are in fact Democratic Catholic congressment in full good standing with the Church because they do support church moral teachings like Pro-life, like Michigan’s Bart Stupak.

 

[NY_Female]

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 issues 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!

I enjoyed reading your response and can identify with you. I for one take abortion out of the equation when choosing a candidate, and I judge the candidates on other social justice issues. Why? I believe both parties use abortion as a wedge issue, and neither want is resolved. I don’t see us ever having a federal law for as in Italy or against as in Poland any time soon. I also don’t see us ever overturning Roe v. Wade, no matter how many Catholics sit on the bench. But that’s my opinion.

 

[NY_Female]

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 issues 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!

I enjoyed reading your response and can identify with you. I for one take abortion out of the equation when choosing a candidate, and I judge the candidates on other social justice issues. Why? I believe both parties use abortion as a wedge issue, and neither want is resolved. I don’t see us ever having a federal law for as in Italy or against as in Poland any time soon. I also don’t see us ever overturning Roe v. Wade, no matter how many Catholics sit on the bench. But that’s my opinion.

 

[gearhead]

I believe both parties use abortion as a wedge issue, and neither want is resolved.

I think that’s true. I’m sure that the leaders of the “religious right” realize that as long as they shout against abortion, a large segment of the voting public will effectively give them a blank cheque to do whatever they want. That political advantage would go away if abortion were made illegal.

 

[Tessin]

I’m not sure if can be both Catholic and consistently “liberal,” but neither do I think you can be Catholic and consistently “conservative.” One of the things I like about the Church is that it does not mold itself to the positions of one part or the other as many “non-denominational” churches seem to do these days, thinking that because they are pro-life as republicans tend to be they also must adopt a pro-war stance, for instance. When it comes to upholding the teachings of the Church, it seems both parties fall short in different areas. While this makes voting a challenge for the conscience, it reassures me of the Church’s integrity and authority. I would be suspicious if the teachings of the Church were consistent with one party’s positions. If you’re Catholic, be Catholic, not liberal or conservative!

 

[love2learn]

On September 28, “adocay” wrote:
"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. "

My response to that is the following:
Everyone who calls himself a pro-life Democrat must take a firm stand as voting block and say to the the party leadership, “I am pro-life first and a Democrat second. You have to earn my vote. I am not allowing you to take my vote for granted unless you eliminate abortion rights from the party platform.” Think of how that would transform politics in this country! So many people could not possibly be ignored if they had the courage of their conviction to speak with one voice. Then both Democrats and Republicans could have a meaningful discussion about how best to address the social justice issues and serve the common good.

 

[itinerant1]

“The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights–for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture–is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

~Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici

 

[Texas_Roofer]

On September 28, “adocay” wrote:
"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. "

My response to that is the following:
Everyone who calls himself a pro-life Democrat must take a firm stand as voting block and say to the the party leadership, “I am pro-life first and a Democrat second. You have to earn my vote. I am not allowing you to take my vote for granted unless you eliminate abortion rights from the party platform.” Think of how that would transform politics in this country! So many people could not possibly be ignored if they had the courage of their conviction to speak with one voice. Then both Democrats and Republicans could have a meaningful discussion about how best to address the social justice issues and serve the common good.

And what about the part were we installed republicans in all major offices and they made no real attempt to change the current abortion issue?

 

[itinerant1]

vote “no”

 

[Bluegoat]

And what about the part were we installed republicans in all major offices and they made no real attempt to change the current abortion issue?

It seems to me there are a number of possibilities to explain this:

They aren’t really committed to that cause as primary, but instead are committed to something else which takes precedence or works against the abortion issue.

They are actually lying to get votes from a certain segment of the population.

The issue of abortion isn’t one that can be dealt with, at least to start, at the political level.

Although there may be a few who lie, I think one and three are more likely the real culprits.

 

[gearhead]

It occurs to me that most of the discussion here is from the American perspective: Republicans/“conservatives” are “pro-life”, Democrats/“liberals” are pro-choice. While it’s doable to look at things through that lens when it comes to American politics, I think it’s not necessarily representative of the rest of the world, or what conservatism or liberalism could be.

Take Canada: every major party across the political spectrum is on record saying that they will not change the law on abortion. Effectively, every political party that’s capable of winning seats in a Federal election is pro-choice.

There have been a number of posters here who have said that it’s somehow “un-Catholic” to vote for a liberal candidate… apparently in any circumstance. I wonder: does this still hold true in the Canadian political climate?

Or what about the opposite? Say you had a situation where every party was anti-abortion, but you had to choose between one that took the conservative position on social and economic issues, and one that took the liberal position. Would it still be “un-Catholic” to vote for a liberal candidate?

 

[Bluegoat]

It occurs to me that most of the discussion here is from the American perspective: Republicans/“conservatives” are “pro-life”, Democrats/“liberals” are pro-choice. While it’s doable to look at things through that lens when it comes to American politics, I think it’s not necessarily representative of the rest of the world, or what conservatism or liberalism could be.

Take Canada: every major party across the political spectrum is on record saying that they will not change the law on abortion. Effectively, every political party that’s capable of winning seats in a Federal election is pro-choice.

There have been a number of posters here who have said that it’s somehow “un-Catholic” to vote for a liberal candidate… apparently in any circumstance. I wonder: does this still hold true in the Canadian political climate?

Or what about the opposite? Say you had a situation where every party was anti-abortion, but you had to choose between one that took the conservative position on social and economic issues, and one that took the liberal position. Would it still be “un-Catholic” to vote for a liberal candidate?

That is exactly the problem with this thread - it simply deals with American Catholicism and American politics, as if those were somehow representative of the whole. Most non-American Catholics would find that even asking a question such as can a Catholic be a liberal was silly.

I find the Canadian political perspective on abortion in a way more honest. I’d also point out that the idea of “changing the law” on abortion in Canada is a bit misleading, because the last law there was was struck down and there has never been a replacement. It’s not so much that the parties are pro-choice in a positive kind of way, though in a different environment some might be. It’s more of a recognition that with a population that is clearly divided in a very polarized way, there is really no way forward at the moment.

This makes it very clear for pro-life advocates that their task lies with what are called “hearts and minds.” (This is also true I think in the US, but it sometimes gets lost in the political focus.) It also means that one finds both pro-life and pro-choice members in all of the parties to some extent.