This 2010 Gallup Poll suggests Republicans are more likely to support the death penalty: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.
Leaves you very few people you can vote for, expecially on a National Level.Of course, though, you can be Catholic and Liberal, can’t you. The caveats are that you can’t support gay marriage (at least not amongst Catholics), and you can’t support abortion. That leaves *a lot *of room for the bleeding-heart liberal in Catholicism! Where am I wrong on this? Seriously, I’m curious, because I’m intrigued by the social teachings.
Very few people, indeed. Is there anyone?Leaves you very few people you can vote for, expecially on a National Level.
BTW-the Church neither endorses nor opposes either Party’s approach to solving the social problems that face our Country
Gay marriage and abortion are also a part of the social teaching, it just happens that these are the parts of the social teaching where there is now the most conflict. Both also are very much involved in a greater battle for the soul of the west so to speak. That is, those who support both, in many cases would also support seeing the end of Holy Mother Church (and eventually the faith)… Those who oppose both, would happily see the conversion of the world.Very few people, indeed. Is there anyone?
The general principles behind the liberal democratic economic ideology strike me as much more in line with the Church’s teachings (that I’ve read). In practice, though, Republicans and Democrats are merely different shades of neoliberalism, which is not at all consistent with Catholicism.
I do wish Catholics would speak as much about the social teachings as they do about gay marriage and abortion, though.
Perhaps in many, but by no means most. No one has tried to impose abortion and gay marriage on anyone. So long as there can be no middle road on abortion, the extremes will be the only voices heard. So long as one side insists that a 15 year old girl who got pregnant after her father raped her has to carry the child, the other side will insist that women should be able to have an abortion through the end of the third trimester. It’s politicized, and there’s not reasonable voice being heard anymore.Gay marriage and abortion are also a part of the social teaching, it just happens that these are the parts of the social teaching where there is now the most conflict. Both also are very much involved in a greater battle for the soul of the west so to speak. That is, those who support both, in many cases would also support seeing the end of Holy Mother Church (and eventually the faith)…
By insisting that the law codify religion, they’re trying to force that conversion, I think. By insisting that civil marriage be a reflection of religious marriage, they’re imposing a religious perspective on everyone.Those who oppose both, would happily see the conversion of the world.
Like I said, I think the Catholics need to be less quiet. They need to be a voice on this. More people will listen if they would. With the dominance of neoliberalism, I think we’re well past the point where we should hear a lot more from the Church on these issues.With regards to the other social teachings (to which you refer), there has been no stop there. There’s no disagreement, so we quitetly work with both sides to continue aiding those who need it. But you don’t hear about it, because at least to date no one opposes it. I could see a future where we don’t so much as care about the poor (waste of resources, they won’t help them selves, if they cared they’d get an education et. al), if that future were to come you would hear a lot more from the Church on these issues.
I wish what you write were true, but already in the UK there is a push to write laws to force Gay marriages in churches. This is not something a faithful Christian can stand by and watch. Even legalization is highly problematic, for many reasons.Perhaps in many, but by no means most. No one has tried to impose abortion and gay marriage on anyone. So long as there can be no middle road on abortion, the extremes will be the only voices heard. So long as one side insists that a 15 year old girl who got pregnant after her father raped her has to carry the child, the other side will insist that women should be able to have an abortion through the end of the third trimester. It’s politicized, and there’s not reasonable voice being heard anymore.
Or, informed by faith and our moral code with our contiences formed we vote. This is what democracy is all about. It’s easy to say “your just trying to force…”… Much hard to just accept that this is the fundamental principal of democracy, to shape society to meet the needs of the people. Christian voters understand marriage as part of Gods plan, thus correctly we vote to maintain that dignaty. There is no foul in that.By insisting that the law codify religion, they’re trying to force that conversion, I think. By insisting that civil marriage be a reflection of religious marriage, they’re imposing a religious perspective on everyone.
Perhaps the Church does need to speak up, though it would seem to me that popular culture prefers to reject out of hand anything the Church has to say. The issues you are concerned with are very important indeed, but at the same time we know we always will have the poor with us. So while we aid them, perhaps it is best to also focuse on matters of faith along with mammon.Like I said, I think the Catholics need to be less quiet. They need to be a voice on this. More people will listen if they would. With the dominance of neoliberalism, I think we’re well past the point where we should hear a lot more from the Church on these issues.
I agree concerning the forcing of churches to do anything of the sort. Things in the UK are different–perhaps the C of E, so far as it is state-sanctioned, should be open to the state’s governance. I don’t know, and I don’t want to presume to have an opinion worth listening to concerning the UK. In the US, the state has zero say in what churches do (notwithstanding actual crimes, like rape, as in the case of a recent FLDS bishop). In other words, in the US, no church will ever have to provide for gay marriage in any way.I wish what you write were true, but already in the UK there is a push to write laws to force Gay marriages in churches. This is not something a faithful Christian can stand by and watch. Even legalization is highly problematic, for many reasons.
I think you may be right. But, this case has to be made before you can move on to banning abortion. The painful irony in the US is that the anti-abortion movement will result in an increase in the number of abortions! In a world made up of devout Catholics, an abstinance only policy with no abortion would be viable. We don’t live in that world. Abstinance only leads to more abortions. Banning abortions would lead to a flood of social ills. It’s a real problem. It needs a real solution. No one on either side of the political aisle in the US is offering up real solutions.Edit
With regard to abortion, the issue is when you realize what it is your doing… That is, killing a human being each and every time
This is a legitimate analogy, once you make the case that, for example, preventing the embedding of a fertilized egg is killing a human being. The sad part is that this is unquestionably true with late-term abortions, yet those abortions will remain legal in the US so long as the only options available are the extremes.you begin to see now compramise because a very distasteful thing. Allow me to make a very dramatic anallogy (which I feel is not too far off). What if… Instead of opposing militarly Hitlers final solution, we merely compramised with on the basis that, well they have their POV and we have ours. Would that really have been enough?
Yes. Through the vote. In the US, gay marriage is here to stay. Popular support is only increasing. Abortion isn’t going anywhere–the only question is how many abortions there will be. So long as one side wants abortions completely eliminated (not even in cases of rape and incest), abortion will be more rather than less common.Or, informed by faith and our moral code with our contiences formed we vote. This is what democracy is all about. It’s easy to say “your just trying to force…”… Much hard to just accept that this is the fundamental principal of democracy, to shape society to meet the needs of the people. Christian voters understand marriage as part of Gods plan, thus correctly we vote to maintain that dignaty. There is no foul in that.
The Church can do both. I’d just like to see more concerning issues like the consequences of global economic policies. Catholicism, I’m coming to realize, really does offer a beacon to the world, but I believe that beacon is obscured by the practices of Catholics themselves. Mind you, I’m speaking from an American perspective. I know the Church has done much elsewhere in the world, but in a country that must be 20 percent Catholic (I think the US is), I expect more out of the Church.Perhaps the Church does need to speak up, though it would seem to me that popular culture prefers to reject out of hand anything the Church has to say. The issues you are concerned with are very important indeed, but at the same time we know we always will have the poor with us. So while we aid them, perhaps it is best to also focuse on matters of faith along with mammon.
I’ve seen that data–I had even used it in a prior post to support my arugment! Fifty-eight percent–a majority–of Democrats support capital punishment. More significantly, those Democrats who seek to be elected to the highest office in the nation do not regard their support of the death penalty to be a liability with their voting base. Indeed, as this thread shows, it is studiously ignored.This 2010 Gallup Poll suggests Republicans are more likely to support the death penalty:
gallup.com/poll/144284/support-death-penalty-cases-murder.aspx
This earlier data suggests Republicans and Conservatives are more likely to support the death penalty:
deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty
I agree that both sides of the spectrum support the death penalty. But, you asked where this idea came from that anti-death penalty was liberal–unless I misread your argument. This poll shows that being conservative/republican is related to a significantly higher probability of supporting the death penalty. I think that’s where the idea comes from. Liberals are more likely to oppose the death penalty, and polling data supports that notion.I’ve seen that data–I had even used it in a prior post to support my arugment! Fifty-eight percent–a majority–of Democrats support capital punishment. More significantly, those Democrats who seek to be elected to the highest office in the nation do not regard their support of the death penalty to be a liability with their voting base. Indeed, as this thread shows, it is studiously ignored.
Execution Of Criminals
-Catechism of the Council of TrentAnother 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.
Doesn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church trump this? Isn’t the point that, yes, execution of murderers is allowable, but not preferred. And, since in the modern west, at least, one needn’t execute someone to “cut off their works of iniquity,” because they can realistically be put in prison for the rest of their lives, where they’ll maintain the opportunity for reconciliation until they die a natural death?This is also Church teaching on the death penalty:
-Catechism of the Council of Trent
If read carefully, you will see that it does not directly contradict anything in the CCC. How “rare” is rare? The CCC doesn’t say. It also doesn’t outline how exactly society has changed so that the death penalty is more rarely needed. If you look at the total population of people convicted of crimes, compared to the number executed- even in someplace like Texas, the number executed IS very small. Most people convicted of a crime don’t ever go to prison- instead receiving fines and/or probation.
I’m a conservative and do not support the death penalty. When we get abortion taken care of I will be able to pay more attention to this issue, but abortion trumps the death penalty. The Catholic Church has said that the state has a right to execute people who are a threat to the state. After being captured, I don’t believe this applies anymore in America. We have a prison system capable of holding these prisoners for life with very little threat of them ever escaping. In my opinion spending life in prison is a worse fate then execution for many of these prisoners anyways.Doesn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church trump this? Isn’t the point that, yes, execution of murderers is allowable, but not preferred. And, since in the modern west, at least, one needn’t execute someone to “cut off their works of iniquity,” because they can realistically be put in prison for the rest of their lives, where they’ll maintain the opportunity for reconciliation until they die a natural death?
As working in Law enforcement I like to add that while prisons do keep them secured, it is a large drain on economic resources, and for this I support A) Laxer punishments for non violent crimes and B) Stricter punishments for violent/armed crimes.I’m a conservative and do not support the death penalty. When we get abortion taken care of I will be able to pay more attention to this issue, but abortion trumps the death penalty. The Catholic Church has said that the state has a right to execute people who are a threat to the state. After being captured, I don’t believe this applies anymore in America. We have a prison system capable of holding these prisoners for life with very little threat of them ever escaping. In my opinion spending life in prison is a worse fate then execution for many of these prisoners anyways.
“Society has changed” means our jails have changed and it is easily within our means to hold captives for life with no chance of escape.
Economic drain is noted but that was not one of the reasons the Church gave as a viable reason for having the death penalty. Our economy is in shambles right now, but prison funding is not the place to cut haha.As working in Law enforcement I like to add that while prisons do keep them secured, it is a large drain on economic resources, and for this I support A) Laxer punishments for non violent crimes and B) Stricter punishments for violent/armed crimes.
I guess Im Old Testament, but I do believe that when a person crosses a line of just killing 1 person out of anger or accidental manslaughter into a serial murderer or rapist, no authority on Earth now has the power to properly judge such a case, it is up to God to judge, and through this, stripping the offender of mortal life so he may stand before the eternal judge in spirit to account for his gruesome deeds.
“Authority does not bear the sword in vain.” Romans 13:1-5
Do you think there’s any hope for success in this? I don’t think abortion will ever be eliminated. It certainly won’t be eliminated in a culture that promotes abstinence and puts obstacles in the way of artificial birth control.I’m a conservative and do not support the death penalty. When we get abortion taken care of I will be able to pay more attention to this issue, but abortion trumps the death penalty. .
It doesn’t represent *everything *that is against the Church. But, by the same logic, I don’t think you could be both Catholic and conservative. That is, if by conservative, we mean the Conservative Agenda in America. This is because the conservative agenda wholeheartedly accepts and promotes an individualistic ultra-free-market, neoliberal capitalistic economic approach that is utterly at odds with the Church’s teachings. Furthermore, the American Right suppresses religious freedom to an extent beyond the left. The left wants to keep religion and the state separate. The right wants to incorporate Christianity into the state apparatus, promote Christianity in particular, and prohibit the free exercise of non-christian religions.Liberal as in the proper sense of the Liberal Agenda in American: No, you cannot be. They represent everything that is against the church, a few being:
-Abortion
-Same Sex union
-Suppression of Religious freedom
Liberal in the general sense of being lax on politics in the center-left? Of course, I know plenty of Catholics who are center-left. When you cross a certain threshold into the far left liberalism agenda, however, you have gone to far.
Where would you say that falls economically? Particularly with regard to the supposed capitalism-socialism continuum?Catholicism in regards to political application would probably be more Theological conservative populism. Conservative in the general definition. Not the Conservative platform.