Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Jerry-Jet]

Catholics can not be socialists, can not be in favor of homosexual marriage, cannot be in favor of abortion.

They can be liberal in other areas.

The problem with our country and its two party system is you have to buy the whole loaf.

The Republican party and the Democratic party BOTH support evil things on either the left or the right of the political spectrum.

We need a Catholic right of center party, a Catholic center party, and a Catholic left of center party.

We also do not need ABSOLUTE separation of church and state! For the most part they should be separate but they do not have to be absolutely separate with a wall between them.

God is for prayer in the public schools–in fact God is for prayer EVERYWHERE!

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

Are we Americans also proud of gaining our land through genocide and robbery? I figure that evil is in our national subconscious, and we’ve been at hard work ever since trying to justify ourselves. So you get the tea-partyers, etc. who don’t give a fig about other people’s lives.

 

[love2learn]

Catholics can not be socialists, can not be in favor of homosexual marriage, cannot be in favor of abortion.

They can be liberal in other areas.

The problem with our country and its two party system is you have to buy the whole loaf.

The Republican party and the Democratic party BOTH support evil things on either the left or the right of the political spectrum. We need a Catholic right of center party, a Catholic center party, and a Catholic left of center party.

We also do not need ABSOLUTE separation of church and state! For the most part they should be separate but they do not have to be absolutely separate with a wall between them.

God is for prayer in the public schools–in fact God is for prayer EVERYWHERE!

It’s nice that you are trying to be even-handed in your criticism of political parties, but could you look at the Republican party platform of beliefs gop.com/2008Platform/ and point out to this forum which items are the evil ones.

I am always ready to call or write to my congressmen to let them know what I think. If there is intrinsic evil–not just difference of approach but actual evil–in the party’s agenda I am prepared to let my voice be heard, even if my voice alone won’t change anything. I challenge Catholic Democrats to do the same.

 

[love2learn]

Are we Americans also proud of gaining our land through genocide and robbery? I figure that evil is in our national subconscious, and we’ve been at hard work ever since trying to justify ourselves. So you get the tea-partyers, etc. who don’t give a fig about other people’s lives.

I consider myself an adherent to the Tea Party, which is a grassroots movement of ordinary citizens who desire our government to shrink back to the limits our Founding Fathers placed on it in the Constitution. theteaparty.net/inner.asp?z=48
The only reason why you would object to such a group is that you repudiate the nation’s founding documents and core principles expressed therein. Even so, you are free to have your opinion. The problem is that you have the option to leave this country and become a citizen of whatever country you think had a founding you don’t have to be ashamed of and where people are treated better, but I cannot live under the U.S. Constitution anywhere else but here.

I’d like to propose a book for you to read called Money God and Greed by Jay Richards. amazon.com/Money-Greed-God-Capitalism-Solution/dp/0061900575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311522718&sr=8-1 Read this to learn why free market capitalism has empirically been shown to be the best system for distributing God’s gifts while protecting the God-given freedom and dignity of the individual.

 

[AHapka]

So you get the tea-partyers, etc. who don’t give a fig about other people’s lives.

Not one myself, but where do you get this idea?

 

[CMatt25]

no, Jesus didn’t take political sides… He certainly wouldn’t support much of the en-voug progressive ideology (abortion, homosexual marriage)… I really do hate it when people say “Jesus was a liberal”.

Wow how did I miss this thread? Well anyway I haven’t gone back thru the many pages. But I believe He certainly wouldn’t support much of the conservative ideology of cutting programs for the poor, the sick. Not raising taxes on the richest millionaires in budget crisis. Their tax cuts haven’t helped all that much with the job market anyway. The poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick were a major focus of His Gospel. And while certainly individuals and faith based groups give, I don’t believe Jesus would turn away any help He could get if government offers a role too. Peace.

 

[Jason_1977]

Are we Americans also proud of gaining our land through genocide and robbery? I figure that evil is in our national subconscious, and we’ve been at hard work ever since trying to justify ourselves. So you get the tea-partyers, etc. who don’t give a fig about other people’s lives.

I think you’ll be hard pressed to find any civilization or nation on God’s green earth that DOESN’T have a drop of blood on its hands. Everyone has some black eye in their own history, somewhere, some way, some how. This being said, it’s unfortunate, but it’s a truth. I wonder what this has to do with a grass roots movement to re-gain control of a government spiraling out of control? I admit and willingly concede both sides of the aisle are heavy in their population of shall we say idjits (lol), but I wouldn’t mix Colonel Custer & manifest destiny with trying to balance the budget. It makes people like ME laugh a bit when I see statements like that. But if you’re that ashamed, feel free to leave As for myself, I acknowledge the black eyes, but I don’t feel obligated or responsible. See the difference? Moving forward is what is important. Learn from the past. Honor those who have been the casualties of clashes between civilizations by taking the best of both worlds & learning from it & passing it on to future generations. Also, I would consider, along with our black eyes in history, all the GOOD that we have done as a nation. All the lives we have SAVED as a nation. The jews in WWII, the fall of nazi germany, imperial japan, the soviet union, humanitarian aid. If people are able to be redeemed, then I submit that we as a nation are redeemable, if not redeemed already.

I don’t work hard to justify myself or the actions that took place in history. All we can do is learn from history and do our darnedest not to repeat it. I care deeply for the lives of others. I care deeply for future generations. It is WHY I support a grass roots movement. Back to th basics. Back to the constitution. Back to not spending ourselves into endentured servitude with the People’s Republic of China. Both parties in office in the past 8 years are to blame, & yes, Bush is a moron, so don’t think because I support the tea party I’m Gung-Ho for Bush. No. If you want to be stuck in time & apologize for the past, be my guest, but as for me, I was not alive to commit those offenses, & those whom those offenses were committed against are not alive. SO, I don’t feel obligated to apologize for anything. That sort of thinking is why the people in the middle-east are killing each other. They’re stuck on 1000 in the past as opposed to turning a page forward.

Anyhow, I think you’ll find we gained a good portion of land through a purchase made by THomas Jefferson to the tune of $3 per acre in the Louisiana Territory, a land purchase from Russia which is Alaska, Texas, when it won its independence & couldn’t hang on as a sovereign nation, The East won its right to exist by chasing the English out & struggling among indians. SOme nations were peaceful & some werent. In the end, who is to say that part of God’s plan isn’t Survival of the fittest / technologically advanced? Neither of us can say. All we can do is look back & say, “yeah, that’s a shame. I’m glad we learned from that & haven’t repeated it.”

 

[Jason_1977]

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.

I would humbly submit that being a conservative or liberal THEN isn’t the same as being a conservative or liberal NOW. Being an American was different then. Chrisitian issues were different then. My question is, what are both sides of the spectrum doing TODAY? The Lincoln bit is both sides arguing semantics. My question is what is either side doing TODAY? What is TODAY’S goal for both sides of the aisle? What are the legal & moral issues pressing the country TODAY? What stand is a liberal or conservative taking TODAY?

Glenn Beck is a riot & I love reading his books. I also take some of it w. a grain of salt, whereas I do get some entertainment value from it & I think he kinda plays on that as well, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t sell any books.

You’re right though. Lincoln was a republican THEN & by our standards TODAY, he could be considered liberal. That’s GREAT and all, but what does it mean to be either one TODAY?!? (I already know the answer, it’s a rhetorical question, but people lose sight of that. Liberals stand up & say, Lincoln was really a liberal & he did X,Y,Z.) That’s GREAT. What are liberals doing TODAY? Same w. conservatives?

Stereotypes aside, (because both sides have them & people that fit the profile to boot…so we can both acknowledge both sides have their extreme) what is TODAY"S aim of a conservative & liberal & how are both sides working to take the strengths from both view points & implenting them? The answer is it’s not really happening. There is a great divide in our country. There has been since its founding. Farmers vs industry. It’s an age old battle because the balance is a constant struggle. I’ll leave the moral issues aside for now, but that’s essentially it. I’l leave you with this parting thought: “If you’re not a liberal at age 20, then you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at age 40, you have no head.” ~Winston Churchill I think age 30 is some period to find a meshing of the 2? It can be done, the trick is staying in your 30s for more than 10 yrs, LOL!

 

[AHapka]

Not raising taxes on the richest millionaires in budget crisis.

Not one myself, but the richest millionaires already pay about 50% of the taxes in the nation.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all. I hardly think that’s hard on the poor.

Me and my wife had income of $72,000 last year and not only did we pay no taxes, but we got more in credits so that our refund was GREATER than what we paid in. Even though I made money, I’d fully support a system where you couldn’t get back more then you paid in.

The idea that our tax code is soo easy on the rich is ridiculous.

 

[Jason_1977]

Not one myself, but the richest millionaires already pay about 50% of the taxes in the nation.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all. I hardly think that’s hard on the poor.

Me and my wife had income of $72,000 last year and not only did we pay no taxes, but we got more in credits so that our refund was GREATER than what we paid in. Even though I made money, I’d fully support a system where you couldn’t get back more then you paid in.

The idea that our tax code is soo easy on the rich is ridiculous.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!! I always explain it in this way: Pretend you & 9 friends go out to dinner. 5 of you pick up the tab & out of those 5, some pay a higher amount than others. The other 5 make out like bandits. The wealthy do NOT get a REFUND!. SO, when I hear Tax Hike, I hear, “less money in my pay check, MORE money in my tax refund.” BUT: there are MORE of us & WE stimulate the economy MORESO than the few who dont get a tax refund & THAT is the trade. They keep us afloat, we keep them afloat. It’s very simbiotic from an economic standpoint, but there it is.

A wealthy man can buy a corporation & that ripple could make a mark in the stock echange, but say a company has a great success & booms. Say it crashes? Which has greater effect? Millions of Americans filling their gas tanks, buying homes, buysin groceries, a car, etc. OR, a company going under? THe answer is, they have about the same effect. If a company goes under, the market gets all funny & the media hypes it beyond repair & Americans hoard money & it has an effect THAT way. OR, the company goes under & life goes on. Ya can’t really tell, but when Americans aren’t out there going out to dinner or seeing a movie, driving to the beach & staying in a hotel, then THAT has a GREAT effect. ANyhow, that’s it, sorry if I sounded confusing. lol

OH, I kinda chuckled at the “richest millionares” bit. (suggests there’s millionaires in poverty, lol! just thought it was funny)

 

[CMatt25]

Not one myself, but the richest millionaires already pay about 50% of the taxes in the nation.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay no taxes at all. I hardly think that’s hard on the poor.

Me and my wife had income of $72,000 last year and not only did we pay no taxes, but we got more in credits so that our refund was GREATER than what we paid in. Even though I made money, I’d fully support a system where you couldn’t get back more then you paid in.

The idea that our tax code is soo easy on the rich is ridiculous.

What you might have missed was my underlying point that what’s harder on the poor is when they and the middle class are asked to make greater sacrifices than they do even now, balancing the budget solely on their backs through program cuts. While those who can afford to pay even more are not asked to share in this greater sacrifice. You can call it ridiculous. I’ve found most Catholics here do. Or they play the class warfare envy card. While I would submit if anyone is playing class warfare today, it is the wealthier class. But in any case what I call it, is not ridiculous nor envy. But instead a desire to see a more just and fair society, one with a greater decency towards those less fortunate, in which to live. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

OH, I kinda chuckled at the “richest millionares” bit. (suggests there’s millionaires in poverty, lol! just thought it was funny)

Glad you had a laugh. I meant as opposed to those only making a quarter million dollars or a half million dollars or a million dollars a year. Since conservatives in Congresss don’t seem willing to consider tax rate increases on any of those levels. So I went higher. But they don’t seem willing to do that either. All in the name of jobs of course, though of course the cuts they received have not brought the jobs we were promised. I’m beginning to think part of the problem might just be that greed is becoming more prevalent than ever.

In any case, to answer the question posed, I believe yes it is possible. Though I understand many on this forum might not agree. But the Church actually defines and claims someone as Catholic and teaches that to be Catholic is based on Baptism, Confirmation. Not political views. God bless and peace.

 

[filter2700]

Actually, Jesus was very liberal. I’m a “liberal” person with Christian views.

 

[John_Pascendi]

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.

Yes to defend the beliefs of the Church and vote accordingly…how true and so needed today what with evil on the throne and truth on the scaffolding! More and more we Catholic christians are beng marginalized into being labeled an anti.peoples revolution.(get that terminology as in chna) soon only an offical church will be recognized.here in New York we have no real leadership at all in the RCC…political leaders claiming to be "catholic’ small c…can push for any horrible anti-Catholic position and get away with it. Sure our B ishops make pretty speeches but after the deed is done…NOT ONE poll has ever been excommunicated by the Bishop…thus we are lampooned and insulted by our own leaders.They allow murder (abortion) now adoption of innocent little boys by ‘married’ homosexuals and so it goes. dark time indeed in our once courageous church…now just a group of no backboned phonies who like to eat alot…oops…sorry…

 

[crazzeto]

Wow how did I miss this thread? Well anyway I haven’t gone back thru the many pages. But I believe He certainly wouldn’t support much of the conservative ideology of cutting programs for the poor, the sick. Not raising taxes on the richest millionaires in budget crisis. Their tax cuts haven’t helped all that much with the job market anyway. The poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick were a major focus of His Gospel. And while certainly individuals and faith based groups give, I don’t believe Jesus would turn away any help He could get if government offers a role too. Peace.

But yet, they have a better track record on life (a non-negotiable) typically speaking… And even with recent failings, still a better track record on defending marriage, and “traditional” values. The social issues are important yes, that’s why at one point if you were Catholic you were a Democrat, at least before all this abortion stuff, and modification of marriage showed up. Catholics left because the Democrats embrassed these issues, and Catholics were left in something of a exodus state, many find a home in the republican party.

I would submit this, there is another way with regard to the social issues you brought up. We can step up, volenteer and give more as we should. The Church already gives much, and we can work to give more. This can be the solution to socialized charity.

With regard to abortion, and marraige. There is no solution, these are non-negotiables .We can’t compramise.

 

[crazzeto]

If you wish to fully understand my answer, please read it in context.

I would humbly submit that being a conservative or liberal THEN isn’t the same as being a conservative or liberal NOW. Being an American was different then. Chrisitian issues were different then. My question is, what are both sides of the spectrum doing TODAY? The Lincoln bit is both sides arguing semantics. My question is what is either side doing TODAY? What is TODAY’S goal for both sides of the aisle? What are the legal & moral issues pressing the country TODAY? What stand is a liberal or conservative taking TODAY?

Glenn Beck is a riot & I love reading his books. I also take some of it w. a grain of salt, whereas I do get some entertainment value from it & I think he kinda plays on that as well, if he didn’t, he wouldn’t sell any books.

You’re right though. Lincoln was a republican THEN & by our standards TODAY, he could be considered liberal. That’s GREAT and all, but what does it mean to be either one TODAY?!? (I already know the answer, it’s a rhetorical question, but people lose sight of that. Liberals stand up & say, Lincoln was really a liberal & he did X,Y,Z.) That’s GREAT. What are liberals doing TODAY? Same w. conservatives?

Stereotypes aside, (because both sides have them & people that fit the profile to boot…so we can both acknowledge both sides have their extreme) what is TODAY"S aim of a conservative & liberal & how are both sides working to take the strengths from both view points & implenting them? The answer is it’s not really happening. There is a great divide in our country. There has been since its founding. Farmers vs industry. It’s an age old battle because the balance is a constant struggle. I’ll leave the moral issues aside for now, but that’s essentially it. I’l leave you with this parting thought: “If you’re not a liberal at age 20, then you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at age 40, you have no head.” ~Winston Churchill I think age 30 is some period to find a meshing of the 2? It can be done, the trick is staying in your 30s for more than 10 yrs, LOL!

 

[Jason_1977]

Glad you had a laugh. I meant as opposed to those only making a quarter million dollars or a half million dollars or a million dollars a year. Since conservatives in Congresss don’t seem willing to consider tax rate increases on any of those levels. So I went higher. But they don’t seem willing to do that either. All in the name of jobs of course, though of course the cuts they received have not brought the jobs we were promised. I’m beginning to think part of the problem might just be that greed is becoming more prevalent than ever.

In any case, to answer the question posed, I believe yes it is possible. Though I understand many on this forum might not agree. But the Church actually defines and claims someone as Catholic and teaches that to be Catholic is based on Baptism, Confirmation. Not political views. God bless and peace.

I know if you make that much a year, you only see half of that after taxes. They pay a higher percentage. As far as the question, my thinking is, “define liberal”. Socially? Morally? Financially? Politically? Militarily?

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

As far as the question, my thinking is, “define liberal”. Socially? Morally? Financially? Politically? Militarily?

I agree, but I would add, in theology or in politics? There is obviously some overlap, but they are not synonymous. Much of liberal politics, even now, is clearly at least consistent with Church theology. However, some using the word liberal, are referring to people who oppose the Church- that is how they define the word. A liberal Catholic is one who rejects the authority of the Church. That is a very different notion of liberalism than a person who supports social justice, or whatever political definition you like.

The word liberal, undefined, seems to be a catch-catch all for all the evils of the world. The question, unspecified, is gibberish.

 

[Jason_1977]

If you wish to fully understand my answer, please read it in context.

I did read it. I understood the context that was presented. That is how I interpreted what you wrote. If ya had a different meaning, perhaps putting it differently would be a good idea? Instead of suggesting I’m not intelligent enough to understand what I read, perhaps a little, “I think ya misunderstood me, what I meant was…” & go from there

It’s only a suggestion.

 

[Jason_1977]

I agree, but I would add, in theology or in politics? There is obviously some overlap, but they are not synonymous. Much of liberal politics, even now, is clearly at least consistent with Church theology. However, some using the word liberal, are referring to people who oppose the Church- that is how they define the word. A liberal Catholic is one who rejects the authority of the Church. That is a very different notion of liberalism than a person who supports social justice, or whatever political definition you like.

The word liberal, undefined, seems to be a catch-catch all for all the evils of the world. The question, unspecified, is gibberish.

Eh, take your pick. Vegetarians are at odds with vegans and definitions are what divide them. I live my life every day, do the best I can being mindful to be as thankful as possible along the way & let those that would enjoy spliting hairs tend the political / social barbershop while the rest of us just kinda sit back & try to figure out what the end game is once the wheel has been re-invented, lol.

Liberal can be used in many ways, yes, that’s true. I use BBQ sauce liberally on my pork ribs. I use compost liberally on my veggie garden. I water it liberally so I get nice big squash & juicy tomatoes. OR This church is liberal. THis mayor is a liberal. MY take on that a person is unorthodox & goes against the grain. Now, politically, I am a conservative. I DO however, see the need for thinking outside the box & going against the grain. In the Church, I think I’m conservative. There’s kinda not much room for thinking outside the box unless you’re planning a fun way to throw a fish fry during lent.

When I said define liberal, I naturally didn’t include any & every possible way that word could be used because I’m not PC, I assume people know what I mean & I’m not a talking breathing dictionary, LOL! I also assume I’m dealing w. reasonably intelligent people that get that, LOL! Antics rhymes w. semantics.

As to the original question, “can you be both Catholic & Liberal?” I think the answer is yes. A catholic knows where the boundaries are. We know how to conduct ourselves. People can be fiscally liberal & still be a good catholic. They can also be anti-war & still be a good catholic. They can do all the bad things that humanae vitae say go against God’s plan & at worst, they’re a sinner. So, I guess I answer the question WITH a question which sounds kinda like your answer: I would ask: “How long have you been w. the RCC?” THEN I would try to figure out an understanding of THEIR understanding of how a catholic lives day to day. THEN I would define liberal. Liberal HOW? SO, there are many directions this topic has gone & still can go, but until THAT is answered, the question itself FOR THE ORIGINATOR wont be answered.

Good answer btw, made me think.