Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[dedo]

I don’t see any moral high ground with either the conservatives or liberals.

Liberals defend abortion and want to drive religion out of public schools.

Conservatives like to start wars and may destroy much of the planet with global warming and harming the environment.

 

[jdau]

I don’t see any moral high ground with either the conservatives or liberals.

Liberals defend abortion and want to drive religion out of public schools.

Conservatives like to start wars and may destroy much of the planet with global warming and harming the environment.

You should complete the Liberal -Democrat stance – not just abortion, but euthanasia, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and yes, God out of our schools but more so --out of our Lives!
Conservatives don’t like war-- POLITICIANS want (follow th money) and start wars.
Read the other scientific side of “climate change” — not global warming (thanks Al Gore?)

 

[TheRealJuliane]

maybe it is not fair for many to think of “most liberals” as Democrats. Isn’t the question can you be Catholic and support and vote for a party which promotes and votes abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, same sex marriage? Please don’t say that because the Dems promote social justice, eliminate death penalty and other social issues that this compensates for the first mentioned issues. This is comparing apples to oranges.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A few questions:

-Do people who dog on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh actually view/listen to said programs? I get this strong feeling that the answer is no. I don’t watch or listen either so I can’t say anything about them. But I’ve heard things that people say and it’s typically repeated grandiose insults that never actually detail these programs.

-Is it legitimate to be in favor of unrestricted, unregulated capitalism if you believe that is the best way to help people become successful and lift the poor out of poverty? I understand the immediate gratification that comes with giving people money, and how easy it is to pat yourself on the back for being a good person and checking a box on the ballot that results in millions being taxed against their will and the government giving poor people free stuff, BUT what if you sincerely think that the voter isn’t actually helping those people by telling the government to do any of that stuff, and that the poor would better helped in a system in which the only act of charity is performed at the will of good citizens? And that an unregulated system more fully allows people to be charitable on their own accords and opens up more opportunity for the poor to get things called jobs rather than useless currency, and that would have a more lasting effect on the poor person’s social status…

Is that acceptable? Because when you get down to it, liberal and conservative Christians both want to do what’s best for the poor, they just have different views on how to best accomplish that.** Why is it that in order to be pro-poor, you have to be pro-welfare and pro-government programs?**

I’ll answer that, for others’ benefit because I suspect you know the answer. Over time, we have allowed the federal government to assume way too much power and way too many responsibilities that should remain with 1) our families (taking care of our old people and handicapped; 2) our neighborhoods (helping out neighbors, elderly with no family, etc.); 3) our church communities (this could be #2 really)(Jesus told Christians to care for widows and orphans, not a government) and 4) our local communities such as municipalities, IF no other social group could handle it. We have, over time, given ALL of that responsibility to the federal government and now all eyes turn to Washington like a dependent child turns to a generous Daddy (who is spending other peoples’ money).

The reason we should not allow this remove of responsibility any longer is that the entire relationship becomes terribly distorted. When you or I help a neighbor, that neighbor knows us, and wants to remain on equal footing, not dependent. So the favor is repaid, in whatever way is possible. I loan you $20 in an emergency, you either pay me back in cash or you mow my lawn twice. Now get the federal government involved. How do I, the person who needs help, pay that back in any way? You can say, “You get a job as soon as possible and your taxes go to help others in need,” but that is not as clear to the individual as the first relationship.

Over time, our American self-reliance and reliance on God for sustenance are being gravely harmed. Now, when a natural disaster is even anticipated, immediately the Governor of a state is applying for federal help!!! People used to accept that bad things just happen sometimes and we helped one another through it. Now we wait for the FEMA check and complain that the President doesn’t care enough! As if that is the President’s domain!

I believe that the only way to get this trend reversed is to shrink the size of the federal government, and you’ll never find that goal in the Democrat party platform. They like government dependency and turning over responsibility to larger agencies run by people who are seen as smarter than the average person. I wonder what the Founders would think of this?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

How can you possibly mistake “liberal” for “Democrat?”

Conservatives are all about individual liberty, or personal freedom. Is God all about individual liberty? No, if you don’t do his will, he will punish you.

Conservatism says “we will protect you from ideology,” and Catholicism is an ideology.

This post is so confused I can hardly unravel it, but I’ll give it a go.

First of all, conservatives are not all about individual liberty. That is the Libertarian party platform. I can understand how people have become confused, since Libertarians have been calling themselves conservatives thanks mostly to Ron Paul, but there is a large difference in the belief systems, and I think you mean the kind of individual liberty that Libertarians promote. That means, I can do drugs if I don’t harm you while I do them. That means, I can have an abortion because it’s not your body that’s involved. That’s the Libertarian approach. After all, the party was formed in order to promote the legalization of marijuana.

Conservatism does not “say” “We will protect you from ideology.” I have no idea where you got that impression. That is a large distortion.

The conservative “movement” if you want to call it that is based on the Founder’s vision for this nation’s government. That means, we refer to the original Founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, to determine what the role of the federal government should be. If you read the Constitution, and compare the bloated, intrusive system that we have now, with what the Founders originally drafted, it can be horrifying to say the least.

Now, someone will say, “But that was the old days, and the Founders knew nothing of modern life.” Perhaps not, but the Founders were better educated than we are now (home schooled!), and they knew more about the truth of human nature, as well as the possible abuses of power that come with giving control of other people’s lives to a relatively few men in lofty positions. Read the Federalist papers and you will be amazed at the insight they had. Well, wisdom is really what they possessed, having been through much in their lives, and relying upon God for their strength and foundation.

So they limited our government in very specific ways, so that we, the people, could always be in control of our own destiny. They knew that any rights we possess were given to us by GOD, not the government, therefore those rights could not be usurped by the government either. See the Bill of Rights for more about that.

Back to conservatism…It’s really very simple. Shrink the size of federal government, give more freedom and control back to the people (but not in that “I do what I want unless I hurt you” Libertarian way), and lower taxes and federal regulation. Capitalism works well hand in hand with conservatism because usually, conservatives have their faith to guide them in what is right and what is wrong, and believe that the free market (we don’t have one currently) can take care of abuses if allowed to. In specific, if a company’s CEO is abusing his employees or customers, those employees and customers will go elsewhere. Of course this is speaking very simplistically, there are other factors, but you see where I am headed with this. We are a government of the UNITED STATES and that also means that the states and the people have all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government through the Constitution.

I believe a lot of the confusion about conservatism has come about because of the Libertarian intrusion. That is a completely separate ideology but there is a very slender overlap that Libertarians are currently exploiting in order to gain more political power.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

First of all, conservatives are not all about individual liberty. That is the Libertarian party platform. I can understand how people have become confused, since Libertarians have been calling themselves conservatives thanks mostly to Ron Paul, but there is a large difference in the belief systems, and I think you mean the kind of individual liberty that Libertarians promote. That means, I can do drugs if I don’t harm you while I do them. That means, I can have an abortion because it’s not your body that’s involved. That’s the Libertarian approach. After all, the party was formed in order to promote the legalization of marijuana.

You are also mistaking Republicans for conservatism.

Conservatism does not “say” “We will protect you from ideology.” I have no idea where you got that impression. That is a large distortion.

I was all but quoting the well known conservative thinker George Will.

 

[FaithBuild18]

This post is so confused I can hardly unravel it, but I’ll give it a go.

First of all, conservatives are not all about individual liberty. That is the Libertarian party platform. I can understand how people have become confused, since Libertarians have been calling themselves conservatives thanks mostly to Ron Paul, but there is a large difference in the belief systems, and I think you mean the kind of individual liberty that Libertarians promote. That means, I can do drugs if I don’t harm you while I do them. That means, I can have an abortion because it’s not your body that’s involved. That’s the Libertarian approach. After all, the party was formed in order to promote the legalization of marijuana.

I somewhat consider myself a libertarian in principle. I don’t view individual liberty as the freedom to do whatever makes you feel good. I view it as the freedom to do what you ought to do. I think that’s the only time good can ever exist is if it is chosen freely. Genesis says of the forbidden fruit “You are free not to eat it.” That’s how I view individual liberty. You are NOT free to do evil. You ARE free to NOT do evil. There is a difference. Man was only able to do good when God gave him freedom. Government removes that freedom. Welfare isn’t good, but charity is. The difference between the two is free will.

I’m not sure about Ron Paul, but his son Rand Paul is staunchly pro-life to my knowledge. Libertarians believe government only exists for the purposes defined in the Constitution, mainly being providing defense for the citizen. Rand Paul, a physician, knows all too well that abortion is murder of a citizen, and protection of that citizen is the one thing government is required by our constitution to do. But of course not every libertarian feels that way. That’s why I don’t identify with the Libertarian party. I vote Republican. My problem with the Republican party is they talk a big game but do absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government.

 

[Paxvobis]

Can you be Catholic “in good standing” and economically liberal? Yes. The Church supports social programs to help the poor and the elderly, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Can you be Catholic “in good standing” and socially liberal? No. The Church’s teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexual sex are infallible and cannot be disbelieved by any Catholic under pain of grave sin.

 

[vikingwarlord77]

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

no you can not be both catholic/christian and be libral. I was driven from the church becuse I’m a left wing marxist in favor of birth control, abortion, free thinking and asking hard questions so I was hated and unwelcome and therefore left.

 

[white_sheep]

The values of liberals have been long taught by the Church. It’s just that they’ve always been taught as evil.

 

[FaithBuild18]

The values of liberals have been long taught by the Church. It’s just that they’ve always been taught as evil.

At least regarding contemporary liberalism. The Church was very supportive of liberalism a few generations ago though.

 

[white_sheep]

At least regarding contemporary liberalism. The Church was very supportive of liberalism a few generations ago though.

Good point. Definitions change. The two really aren’t the same thing.

 

[Brendan]

Its funny you should mention a physics teachers salary…

Not really, I was actually speaking from personal experience, as this happened to my cousin

To answer your question, to my knoweldge in a public high school under the Teachers Union Contract science and mathematics teachers are paid a premium salary and therefore receive a higher salary then lets say an English or a History teacher

.
That varies by contract.

Fortunately, my cousin lives in a right to work state, where teachers are free to join a union if they so desire, or not join the union, but leverag the union contract (and pay a service fee to the union), or they can negotiate their own contract; but that decision cannot be forced on any of their co-workers.

She was able to negotiate her own contract that properly recognized her skills.

I believe this is just so as long as the other teachers are paid a living wage. Nevertheless, to support the common good I believe all teachers in a public school system should belong to the teachers union so as long as the union provides for their members a contract with just benefits and wages so they can support their families. Again I will cite the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

But if a person’s employable skills are not being properly compensated under the union contract, is that really a common good?

*2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay **both the needs ***and the contributions of each person must be taken into account.

This is why I have yet to see a union contract that provides truely just compensation. Union wages are not paid based on the needs of the worker. A worker with children at home is, under Catholic social justice, entited to more than a single person, even if they perform the same job.

Granted, that is seldom true in the non union sector, but I’ll tell where union contract fail to meet the standard set by the CCC, and non union employment excells. When layoffs happen.

I’m an engineer in the automotive space ( M.S. here as well), if you see my location, it is in Detroit. Over the last few years, there has been a lot of downsizing. I sat in on quite a number of meetings where we had to decide on who to let go. One of the main factors we took into account was the person’s personal situation. Folks with children at home, or if they were the single breadwinner were given preference over folks who were empty nesters or dual incomes.

And I’m sure that the people above me making those same decisions with about me took my kids and stay at home wife into account.

Tell me what union contract allows the management to rate such factors over things like seniority? I don’t know of any personally.

Sorry, if you want to pull out the CCC, private contracts are much, much closer to Catholic social justice than any union contract.

 

[crazzeto]

no you can not be both catholic/christian and be libral. I was driven from the church becuse I’m a left wing marxist in favor of birth control, abortion, free thinking and asking hard questions so I was hated and unwelcome and therefore left.

Hvave you ever read St. Justin Martyer? He also spent a lot of time looking for a philosophy, and eventually found one. You might find him interesting.

 

[lynnvinc]

to love to learn —I am afraid to answer this because I do not want to insult your intelkligence and my choice of words and thoughts would possibly hurt. really think you need to “learn more”. you talk of climate change, death penalty, support for abortionists – and you compare this to the political party which promotes abortions, euthansia, embryonic stemcell research, human cloning, homosexuality, same sex marriage, eliminating God from our lives? How can these beliefs and practises equate with the faith of a practising Catholic?

I should have mentioned that many of the liberals are also bad on many issues, only that in terms of loss of human life, I have come to the conclusion that current-day conservative politicians are worse than current-day liberal politicians, based on my knowledge and extensive study of the life-threatening issues. Both, of course, are very bad on some issues, somewhat good on others.

I think that one should not follow the conservative or liberal political platforms blindly, but rather follow Jesus and the teachings of the Church, which means following some conservative policies (against abortion, etc) and some liberal policies (health care for all, and other aids, esp to help pregnant women, women with children, and children), and go well beyond both parties to follow the Church’s teaching on the environment (which go well beyond either the conservative or liberal platforms). Both JPII and BXVI have repeatedly admonished us to mitigate environmental problems, including global warming – which both parties are very bad on, esp the conservatives.

 

[lynnvinc]

At least regarding contemporary liberalism. The Church was very supportive of liberalism a few generations ago though.

I was thinking the same thing about conservatives – they used to be okay, even good – like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nixon (and I think Eisenhower, too). It’s just that they took a very wrong turn with Reagan and after and in my books have become very bad. They talk about abortion…I think just to get the social conservative vote…but their whole agenda is pretty much anti-life.

I’ve been thinking about this conservative/liberal issue, and it occurred to me that both come out of Enlightenment thinking, which is the foundation of our Western culture, esp American culture, but is anti-church and behind-the-times as far as scientific and social science knowledge goes. The strong emphasis on individualism, freedom, and one’s rights have been taken to extreme by both conservatives and liberals (on different issues). We are social beings, enmeshed in society, and God is the supreme being, not man. In the ancient times there was not talk of rights apart from duties & responsibilities. The 10 Commandments are about duties, not rights. When one is so focused on rights (to have an abortion, or not to pay higher taxes, or not to help the down-trodden, the right to be free of regulations that would prevent us polluting the earth and killing people, the right to be free free free), then the rights of others (esp the weak, the poor, the unborn) get trampled on and are non-salient in the rugged individualist’s mind. We don’t perceive the harms we do to others; we scoff at people & scientists who are telling us we are harming others…we even send them death threats (as is happening to climate scientists in Australia now).

A culture closer to Jesus and Church teaching would be one that followed more a duty-based code of ethics than a rights-based code of ethics. One in which we are aware of our interconnectedness with each other, and our duties and responsibilites to others – our own personal rights we would not think much of, but mainly our duties to others. Duty has become a dirty word in our culture – something unpleasant we have to do & get it over with ASAP. In ancient cultures it was something good and righteous and positive.

I’m not saying Enlightenment thinking was totally bad or wrong – there were issues of oppressive extremes by the monarch governments and perhaps Church then – and it is good to have a Bill of Rights, and freedoms. It’s just that both conservatives and liberals have taken these “corrections” on earlier extremes, and have themselves gone to the extreme opposite, tho in different ways.

Notice how the popes’ writing are always tempered and moderate, not strident or shrill (like me). Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[crazzeto]

I was thinking the same thing about conservatives – they used to be okay, even good – like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nixon (and I think Eisenhower, too). It’s just that they took a very wrong turn with Reagan and after and in my books have become very bad. They talk about abortion…I think just to get the social conservative vote…but their whole agenda is pretty much anti-life.

Lincoln was a conservitive? You know, you can’t just see the R in front of a politician’s name and assume they’re the conservitive, and that the person with the D in front of theirs is the liberal progressive (this is a Glenn Beckism).

No… Rather Linclon was a liberal progressive for his era, through and through. The conservitives were the southern democrats who opposed freeing the slaves, then opposed any form of African American empowerment etc.

It wouldn’t be until Teddy’s relitive, Franklin that the parties would flip flop and the guy with the R would forever after be the conservitive.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lincoln was a conservitive? You know, you can’t just see the R in front of a politician’s name and assume they’re the conservitive, and that the person with the D in front of theirs is the liberal progressive (this is a Glenn Beckism).

No… Rather Linclon was a liberal progressive for his era, through and through. The conservitives were the southern democrats who opposed freeing the slaves, then opposed any form of African American empowerment etc.

It wouldn’t be until Teddy’s relitive, Franklin that the parties would flip flop and the guy with the R would forever after be the conservitive.

Yes, I was confusing Republican/Democrat with conservative/liberal.

Well, I think the Republicans and the conservatives have taken a wrong turn with Reagan and afterward. And the so-called American liberals (who would be considered reactionary conservatives by yesteryear’s and Europe’s standards) are almost as bad. They are all into bad things, tho in different ways.

It’s just that the conservatives have really gone of the radical right fringe edge in recent times with the tea party (funded by Koch Industries) and the desire to kill all taxes, medicare, social security, and environmental regulations that save lives. We sort of see what they are really up to now…and it’s not to reduce abortion, which could be done by instituting the various mom&child&family help programs they have in Europe – which even the Democrats and liberal in the U.S. are NOT promoting. As mentioned earlier, my relative in France has all those helps…not that she or her husband would have ever even thought about an abortion.

It’s sort of a “let everyone die” attitude that is gripping our nation, especially the conservatives, tea partiers and Republicans.

Tho I do believe there are some social conservatives (hood-winked by the conservative politicos) who really are anti-abortion…they just haven’t thought thru all the various ways we can reduce abortion, beyond merely passing laws, which may not do much good without those other (liberal) programs in place.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I was thinking the same thing about conservatives – they used to be okay, even good – like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nixon (and I think Eisenhower, too). It’s just that they took a very wrong turn with Reagan and after and in my books have become very bad. They talk about abortion…I think just to get the social conservative vote…but their whole agenda is pretty much anti-life.

I think you’ve got it backwards. Maybe that’s how you see things, but it’s pretty much the opposite of how the Church sees things. It was only after Carter, when Reagan got elected, that the Church ditched the Democratic party and liberal ideology in favor of a more conservative social platform. I’m curious, what did Reagan do that was a wrong turn for you?

I’ve been thinking about this conservative/liberal issue, and it occurred to me that both come out of Enlightenment thinking, which is the foundation of our Western culture, esp American culture, but is anti-church and behind-the-times as far as scientific and social science knowledge goes. The strong emphasis on individualism, freedom, and one’s rights have been taken to extreme by both conservatives and liberals (on different issues). We are social beings, enmeshed in society, and God is the supreme being, not man. In the ancient times there was not talk of rights apart from duties & responsibilities. The 10 Commandments are about duties, not rights. When one is so focused on rights (to have an abortion, or not to pay higher taxes, or not to help the down-trodden, the right to be free of regulations that would prevent us polluting the earth and killing people, the right to be free free free), then the rights of others (esp the weak, the poor, the unborn) get trampled on and are non-salient in the rugged individualist’s mind. We don’t perceive the harms we do to others; we scoff at people & scientists who are telling us we are harming others…we even send them death threats (as is happening to climate scientists in Australia now).

The Church and Christianity in general played a massive role in the Westernization of the globe. As Christians and as Americans, we have a lot to be proud of. It is typically the liberal atheists who downplay the role Christianity played in the creation of this nation and project an anti-religious motive onto the Enlightenment and founding of this country. The West was created by men of God and spread throughout the globe primarily in the name of God. You can read all about colonialism, and the religious motives and implications behind that. Why did Puritans hate government? Because God is the supreme ruler, not man. Which is exactly what you said. Maybe you just didn’t realize that this very idea is responsible for most of our original colonies.

The Enlightment era only gave rise to what they called liberalism. But not in the contemporary sense. The liberalism thought up during that era is essentially contemporary right-wing ideology. The only movement that can be attributed to contemporary liberalism is the sexual revolution/“counter culture” of the 60s and 70s, which explains why the Church dropped their Democratic support shortly thereafter when these new “liberals” hijacked the Democratic party.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Lincoln was a conservitive? You know, you can’t just see the R in front of a politician’s name and assume they’re the conservitive, and that the person with the D in front of theirs is the liberal progressive (this is a Glenn Beckism).

No… Rather Linclon was a liberal progressive for his era, through and through. The conservitives were the southern democrats who opposed freeing the slaves, then opposed any form of African American empowerment etc.

It wouldn’t be until Teddy’s relitive, Franklin that the parties would flip flop and the guy with the R would forever after be the conservitive.

Lincoln was about as radical of a fiscal conservative as they come. Freeing the slaves had little to do with social justice and everything to do with the economy.