Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[MillTownCath]

Not just that, ZZ, - good points; but, where in Catholic Doctrine does it say we MUST be against all war, against the death penalty?

The Church is against the death penalty just as much as she is against abortion.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

The Catholic Church only allows the death penalty only if there is no other way of keeping him/her from hurting society. I.E. if there are no jails. Being Pro-Life doesn’t just end at birth.

And the just-war doctrine allows for war as a very very last resort method.

*The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.

At one and the same time:the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.*

 

[MillTownCath]

There would be if we broke up the monopoly that govt schools have on taxpayer money for education. Private and parochial schools would blossom. And education would start to improve in this country. But we have an entrenched cabal in Big Education who through their greed refuse to allow others freedom.

Either way the government will have to pay for educating the masses, and educating the masses is will always be extremely difficult. Instead of destroying our current system, which used to be the best in the world, why not improve it?

 

[zz912]

Be that as it may, as I pointed out before, because the right to obtain an abortion is the law of the land, the medical community is going to procure them whether the health care is administered privately or publicly. However, it is administered on a much larger scale privately then publicly. Whether one pays for abortions with insurance premiums or taxes it makes no diference. So there is simply no justification for overturning Obamacare.

promote another system that does the exact same thing except on a much larger scale. That Dan is morally repugnant.

David

Nonsense. Obamacare violates the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity as well as paying for abortions. It also will promote euthanasia. And your whole premise fails on the fact that a person can purchase a policy without abortion coverage. This is impossible under Obamacare.

 

[zz912]

Either way the government will have to pay for educating the masses, and educating the masses is will always be extremely difficult. Instead of destroying our current system, which used to be the best in the world, why not improve it?

I would be improving it by breaking up a monopoly and introducing competition for students and money. And it would greatly improve education because Catholic schools would flourish again, and they are vastly superior to govt schools.

 

[zz912]

The Church is against the death penalty just as much as she is against abortion.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

could you point me to Church teaching that gives exceptions for when direct abortion is acceptable?

 

[MillTownCath]

could you point me to Church teaching that gives exceptions for when direct abortion is acceptable?

The one exception that I know is when a pregnant woman must undergo a medical procedure to save her life and as a regrettable but unavoidable circumstance the unborn baby dies. But as you probably already know, this isn’t direct.

By my point stands. Abortion and the death penalty are both wrong. There is not a major US political party that is strongly and traditionally opposed to both.

 

[davidmlamb]

Nonsense. Obamacare violates the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity as well as paying for abortions. It also will promote euthanasia. And your whole premise fails on the fact that a person can purchase a policy without abortion coverage. This is impossible under Obamacare.

Why because you say so? I have given citations from the teachings of the Church and the bible to back up everything I have said. You have done none of this. You’ve just made arbatrary claims that are unsubstantiated. Prove that Obamacare is a violation of Church teaching that would default to our former corporate control health care! If you cannot prove this with relevent citations from scripture , the Catechism, or canon law you simply have not proven a thing but have engaged in intellectual dishonesty. If Obamacare is going to increase abortions and euthenasia the burden of proof that it does so falls on you. I have already proven it does just the opposite by forcing private health care from dropping there abortion coverage as a benefit. Lying and deception is a sin. The bible teaches us that all liars will share their place in the Lake of fire along with the devil. When you engage in lying in deception you bow your knee to Satan in adoration.

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

Nothing in there saying the government is responsible for social services. Society does not equal the government.

Yes Dan, by “society” the text is talking about a just government. CCC 2288 is built on the foundation of CCC 1897-1912:

1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

II. THE COMMON GOOD

1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."29

1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around."30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

Comprende?

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

There would be if we broke up the monopoly that govt schools have on taxpayer money for education. Private and parochial schools would blossom. And education would start to improve in this country. But we have an entrenched cabal in Big Education who through their greed refuse to allow others freedom.

Your argument is nonsense! Private a Porochial schools do not need the abolishment of public schools to blossom. In fact it may force these schools to admit problematic children that could lead to the destruction of private education. Monopolies are only bad when they are in the free market private sector. This is because it does not allow business to expand and compete in a free market. Public schools are not in compitition but in cooperation in order to support the common good. That being access to a free education for everyone supported by the public.

Those families who are economically advantages can send their children to private schools but abolishing private schools through a voucher system is very problematic as the first thing it does is make private schools public. My daughter is in Parochial School because in part, I don’t want her exposed to drugs and alcohol, and sexual permiscuity. Vouchers will simply end that safe haven. Secondly, Vouchers DO NOT neccassarily cover the entire tuition of the private school you choose and neither does it keep up with the rising cost of tuition. This means the family were mom and dad work at Walmart will have to take out a loan to pay for their childrens education and a voucher will only serve as a coupon. So a Voucher system becomes far more taxing to the public.

As was stated before the best thing to do is improve our public schools by investing more public money in them AND establishing an effective diciplinary system that puts the teachers in charge. That public money must be used to build more schools and hire more teachers to shrink the size of the classroom. Then we must set up public tutoring centers for math, science and a writing center for english to be opened before, during, and after school into the evening and Saturdays. This is what other countries do and they have produced superior public schools.

The problem is that right wing conservatism is rooted in individualism and will not allow for such an investment because it doesn’t benefit them. They have no concept of the common good, and neither do they have any concept of temperance and loving their neighbor as they love themselves so as to seek out the good of others. They see taxes as forcing them to pay for the good of others. A true Catholic would not feel this way but would seek the common good of all. Public institutions are the very best way to assure that basic human needs like education, security, and health care are met.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

A Catholic parent has to pay taxes supporting all the govt schools, and then pay out of pocket to send ther own child to Catholic school.

Yeah so what’s wrong with that? I’m a Catholic parent, I pay taxes for public school and I put all four of my kids through parachiol school. I never complained and do you know why? Because I am Catholic and I seek the good of others and not just my self interest. I am thankful to God for the opportunity I have to not only serve my family but serve the community.

Peace,
David

 

[starshiptrooper]

By my point stands. Abortion and the death penalty are both wrong. There is not a major US political party that is strongly and traditionally opposed to both.

The Catholic Church was never opposed to the death penalty.

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”

Even today, the Church does not officially oppose the death penalty.

If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Even if the death penalty was immoral, abortion would still be the more important issue for 2 reasons.

1. The number of innocent babies murdered in the US is far greater than the number of guilty criminals executed.
2. Capital punishment is given to those who have merited it through their own actions. Babies are aborted for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[AHapka]

By my point stands. Abortion and the death penalty are both wrong. There is not a major US political party that is strongly and traditionally opposed to both.

If the death penalty was wrong in and of itself the Church wouldn’t allow it in any case. One may not commit evil so that good may come of it.

There is no party opposed to both because both are very different things. One is the killing of someone innocent who is no danger to society, and the other is of killing someone guilty who is a danger to society. It’s amazing that someone could be in favor of the first but not the second.

 

[crazzeto]

The church discourages to the greatest extent possible the death penalty, but stops well short of declaring it unjust or incompatible with God’s plan. The fact of the matter is (and I say this as a death penalty detractor) it is neither inhernently. And, in the majority of the world, it serves as the only effective means to keep dangerous criminals seperated from society.

In a rich society like ours, it is not only possible to cheaper in fact to keep a murderer locked up for life with out possibility of perol. That, however, is not the case in a country like Peru, or Etheopia for instance.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The church discourages to the greatest extent possible the death penalty, but stops well short of declaring it unjust or incompatible with God’s plan.

The Church leaves us free to make our own decision on the application of the death penalty.

The fact of the matter is (and I say this as a death penalty detractor) it is neither inhernently. And, in the majority of the world, it serves as the only effective means to keep dangerous criminals seperated from society.

This does not justify capital punishment, the only justification for capital punishment is the fact that justice requires it for certain crimes.

In a rich society like ours, it is not only possible to cheaper in fact to keep a murderer locked up for life with out possibility of perol. That, however, is not the case in a country like Peru, or Etheopia for instance.

I disagree with this, and even if it was true, it would be irrelevant. Money should never stand in the way of principle.

 

[crazzeto]

The Church leaves us free to make our own decision on the application of the death penalty. This does not justify capital punishment, the only justification for capital punishment is the fact that justice requires it for certain crimes.I disagree with this, and even if it was true, it would be irrelevant. Money should never stand in the way of principle.

You can disagree, but the opinion put forward by the Church matches exactly what I posted. The exhortation is to not execite criminals who commit captial crimes when there is no need to do so. This was put forward by Pope John Paul II, remains to be true, and is the reason why the Church in America generally opposes capital punishment.

You are correct though, in your posting, that the crime must first merit the punishment.

from the CCC
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2267

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

While it’s all well and good to say money shouldn’t be a factor, the fact of the matter is such practical concerns do exist. In the USA, we oppose the death penalty because we can afford non-leathal means to protect society.

 

[love2learn]

The real question is, can you be Catholic and not somewhat liberal. If you’re pro-war and pro-death penalty, you’re directly against the Church’s teaching.

If you’re against taking care of the earth, anti-poor and anti-labor, you’re going against things that the Church has a long history of defending.

There is no “anti-death penalty” platform for the Democratic party.The past several Democratic presidential candidates–Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards–are on the record as being pro-death penalty or pro-death penalty under certain circumstances. In Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill he expanded the types of federal crimes punishable by the death penalty.

There was just recently an execution of a man in Delaware–under a DEMOCRAT governor.
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDErsbSp-E4bI-G5klKy-Xq7cq4A?docId=1b016da033d446bd861eec413561bd74

Could liberals on this thread please do a little homework (i.e. 5 minutes on Google search) before you close your mind on an issue? You obviously create your own reality that has no basis in truth. You believe that opinions are truth and truths are merely someone’s opinion. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6) Someone seeking truth could not be in the dark about something so easy to look up as politician’s opinions about capital punishment. And as sure as I know the back of my hand I also know that you will continue to say that liberals are anti-death penalty even though you have had evidence to the contrary brought before your eyes.

 

[love2learn]

The one exception that I know is when a pregnant woman must undergo a medical procedure to save her life and as a regrettable but unavoidable circumstance the unborn baby dies. But as you probably already know, this isn’t direct.

By my point stands. Abortion and the death penalty are both wrong. There is not a major US political party that is strongly and traditionally opposed to both.

I agree–so why were you saying that it is “liberal” to be anti-death penalty? This has not been shown to be true either in polling or in practice. It is a myth that should be put to rest.

 

[love2learn]

Since there have been a number of posters claiming–some explicity and some implicitly-- that conservatives are pro-war and liberals are anti-war, let’s let history be the judge:

US wars initiated or entered into by Democratic presidents
Mexican-American War Pres. Polk (D)
World War I Pres. Wilson (D)
World War II Pres. F. Roosevelt (D)
Korean War Pres. Truman (D) (also dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan)
Vietnam conflict Pres. Kennedy (D)
(note: the Democratic party is older than the Republican party. The other major political party at the time of the Mexican war was the Whig Party.)

US wars initiated by Republican presidents
American Civil War Pres. Abraham Lincoln (R) (first pres.of the Republican Party)
Gulf War Pres. G.H.W. Bush (R)
Iraq/Afghanistan War Pres. G.W. Bush (R)

War on Terror–ongoing under G.W.Bush and Obama administrations.

 

[estesbob]

The real question is, can you be Catholic and not somewhat liberal. If you’re pro-war and pro-death penalty, you’re directly against the Church’s teaching.

.

The Pope disagrees with you:

*While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Since there have been a number of posters claiming–some explicity and some implicitly-- that conservatives are pro-war and liberals are anti-war, let’s let history be the judge:

US wars initiated or entered into by Democratic presidents
Mexican-American War Pres. Polk (D)
World War I Pres. Wilson (D)
World War II Pres. F. Roosevelt (D)
Korean War Pres. Truman (D) (also dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan)
Vietnam conflict Pres. Kennedy (D)
(note: the Democratic party is older than the Republican party. The other major political party at the time of the Mexican war was the Whig Party.)

US wars initiated by Republican presidents
American Civil War Pres. Abraham Lincoln (R) (first pres.of the Republican Party)
Gulf War Pres. G.H.W. Bush (R)
Iraq/Afghanistan War Pres. G.W. Bush (R)

War on Terror–ongoing under G.W.Bush and Obama administrations.

This leaves a lot out. For example, the Democrats and Republicans of today are not the same as the Dems and Repubs of 1860–realignment is ongoing.

I’ll agree in principle on the Kennedy example, but Ike (R) had advisers in Vietnam, and that shouldn’t be ignored. I don’t know if Truman did, but wouldn’t be surprised.

The Civil War, WWI and WWII, and probably the Afghan War are all arguably good wars, I think. We could set those aside as wars that anyone (R or D) would have undertaken.

Mexican-American War? I hardly think that’s an indicator of what Democrats to day are.

This leaves Korea, Vietnam, and two gulf wars (in your list, which leaves out things like Panama, Granada, Central American activity, Libya, Spanish-American, etc.).

Why Korea? Fear of Communism, global stability
Why Vietnam? Fear of Communism, global stability
Why Gulf War? Oil, Middle Eastern stability
Why Iraq War? Oil, under false pretenses

As I see it, the list doesn’t prove much.

This should be an easy to prove empirical question. Are there no polls that look at position on war and political leaning? Has anyone looked at Gallup, for example?

I suspect liberals today tend to be more anti-war, but that both sides of the spectrum have a healthy aversion to war. At the same time, these things, like abortion in the US, are so politicized, that it’s difficult to make out someone’s actual position on war and their politically expedient behavior.