Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Faithdancer]

That makes about as much sense as saying ‘I can support the Nazi party and personally not like mass genocide, and it makes it ok.’

I don’t think a rational discussion can devolve upon equating either the Democratic or the Republican party with the Nazi party, or the Communist party, or any other political party responsible for the creation and maintenance of a totalitarian regime. .

 

[Faithdancer]

No more of a contradiction than being pro-death penalty and pro-life.

Regardless, there’s no litmus test to be conservative or liberal. You can be liberal *and *pro-life. Furthermore, if you’re going to vote, you’re unlikely to find a candidate in either party who represents catholic ideals perfectly, so whether you vote for someone who supports gay marriage, or someone who supports neoliberal economic policies, you’re going to be voting against your Church to some extent.

I agree those are both contradictions, Jocko. The major difference between the two contradictory sets is that in pro- death penalty + anti abortion, the people being killed are nearly always guilty of murder, and the lives being spared are innocent.

 

[Faithdancer]

Jesus said that the way to salvation was to give up all worldly possessions, and to follow him, and that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it would be for a rich man to enter Heaven. In this light, the political party that is least charitable toward the poor and promulgates legislation favoring the wealthy might be considered less Christian.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I agree those are both contradictions, Jocko. The major difference between the two contradictory sets is that in pro- death penalty + anti abortion, the people being killed are nearly always guilty of murder, and the lives being spared are innocent.

I agree. But, neither contradictory position is consistent with Catholicism, is it? The Catholic should be pro-life and anti-death penalty (at least in modern western states where the death penalty simply isn’t necessary).

Jesus said that the way to salvation was to give up all worldly possessions, and to follow him, and that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it would be for a rich man to enter Heaven. In this light, the political party that is least charitable toward the poor and promulgates legislation favoring the wealthy might be considered less Christian.

Good point. Nice way of putting it. Still leaves the Catholic in a bind, though, doesn’t it? It just won’t be easy to find a candidate that fits the bill perfectly, and either party may present the better option. It may be a liberal, or it may be a conservative.

 

[Faithdancer]

I agree. But, neither contradictory position is consistent with Catholicism, is it? The Catholic should be pro-life and anti-death penalty (at least in modern western states where the death penalty simply isn’t necessary).

. Yes, that is the correct position, anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. It is a regular part of the prayer in the liturgy of our parish church.

Good point. Nice way of putting it. Still leaves the Catholic in a bind, though, doesn’t it? It just won’t be easy to find a candidate that fits the bill perfectly, and either party may present the better option. It may be a liberal, or it may be a conservative.

True, both parties contain profiteers, and both contain pro-choice members.

Jesus isn’t recorded in the Gospels as saying anything directly on the subject of abortion, is he? I’m not saying he was pro-choice, not by any means, and John states in his Gospel that there are many things Jesus did (and said, presumably) that were not recorded. However Jesus is on record for his teaching that wealth and materialism are barriers to salvation. His greatest scorn and condemnation were directed toward the conservative establishment, the scribes and Pharisees, as well as those who engaged in profiteering. However, he readily forgave Mary Magdalene her sins. If she were indeed a long time prostitute, and was fertile, then it’s likely that she became pregnant at some point, and likely had or attempted an abortion since for career prostitutes, carrying a child to term would interfere with their earning power. And abortion has been around forever, just not in it’s current clinical state of efficiency.

I guess I’m just posing the question, which would Jesus have found more reprehensible: permitting individual choice on abortion, which might be said to be more characteristic of the Democratic party, or permitting the neglect of the poor, which can cause suffering and death, and might be said to be more characteristic of the Republican party?

 

[Faithdancer]

In the general sense, its better to say ‘Neither extreme capitalism where we devolve into a plutocracy but neither extreme socialism where our society degrades due to state welfarism and entitlement without due cause.’

Sadly in the USA and in Europe we havent been able to find a balance between the two. sigh

It is a dilemma, isn’t it? And sad, as you rightly say, they we have trouble finding a balance. I had always thought that having one party in control of one branch of government, particularly the executive or legislative branch, while the other party controls the other branch, executive or legislative, would prevent extremism, force reasonable compromise and promote balanced moderate government. Unfortunately it currently seems to only create partisan politics on both sides, discord, and intransigence, leading to stalemates and zero progress for the majority of the American people.,

 

[starshiptrooper]

Do we really need those things? Are the means, intentions, and consequences all moral? Are most of these social benefits really outright benefits, or do they come at an extraordinary cost that we’ve yet to pay (by destroying social relationships and creating a scenario for catastrophe through worldwide famine, for example)?

Better communications, effective medicines, and a high standard of living aren’t necessary, but do you know anyone stupid enough to reject these benefits of capitalism? I don’t.

I don’t know about socialism, but I disagree concerning capitalism. …so people are more willing to pump pollution into the air and water, despite the fact that it’s killing us, because their only interest is in making profit.

You are right, some people are willing to pollute because it is profitable. Who makes it profitable? The consumer. If enough people demanded products made in an environmentally safe way, private enterprise would respond. Destruction of the environment is caused by apathy, not by capitalism.

What’s the most perfect economic system? Is there such a thing?

I believe capitalism is the best system available based on its track record.

Should we organize life around the promise of war? Do a capitalist or socialist systems perhaps increase the probability of war? In a capitalist system where economic growth is necessary and resources are limited, is it not guaranteed that the military will be necessary in order to secure resources from other states? Might, say, distributism, make preparation for war less common and less necessary?

In reply to your first question, “If you seek peace, prepare for war.” Also, remember that capitalism relies on the profit motive, and it is far easier to make a profit if: you aren’t taxed to help support a war, you don’t have to worry about your business getting destroyed, the state isn’t dominating the economy, and the occupation of your country by the enemy isn’t an issue. As for your last question, it seems that distributism would only make preparation for war less common and necessary if and only if the whole world or most of it operated under a distributist system. Otherwise, the peaceful distributists would be threatened by any agressive and expansionist capitalist/socialist nations nearby.

For example? And do we need those products, particularly at the cost of social life generally? Is it impossible to create them within a distributive economy? I think of medicine as being an important example here, but can we not sort this out?

Heavy weapons, advanced technology, robotics, great rewards for creativity, and efficient production are just some of the benefits of capitalism. Those who try to do without these benefits will be dominated by those who embrace capitalism.

 

[starshiptrooper]

. Yes, that is the correct position, anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment. It is a regular part of the prayer in the liturgy of our parish church.

Incorrect, the Church allows the faithful to make their own decision on the morality of capital punishment.

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.(Cardinal Ratzinger)

Faithdancer:

I guess I’m just posing the question, which would Jesus have found more reprehensible: permitting individual choice on abortion, which might be said to be more characteristic of the Democratic party, or permitting the neglect of the poor, which can cause suffering and death, and might be said to be more characteristic of the Republican party?

A more honest way to phrase the question is, 'Which would Jesus have found more reprehensible, keeping murder legal, or preventing the government from usurping the role of private charities and the individual’s generosity?"

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Republicans don’t care about the poor? I vote Republican consistently, and I give to charitable causes, I do volunteer work for my state’s pro-life group, and I do volunteer work at a nursing home. My friends who vote Republican all have similar stories to tell. From what I’ve observed, it seems that conservatives prefer to make their own charitable contributions, and liberals prefer to have the government do it for them.

 

[Faithdancer]

Incorrect, the Church allows the faithful to make their own decision on the morality of capital punishment.A more honest way to phrase the question is, 'Which would Jesus have found more reprehensible, keeping murder legal, or preventing the government from usurping the role of private charities and the individual’s generosity?"

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Republicans don’t care about the poor? I vote Republican consistently, and I give to charitable causes, I do volunteer work for my state’s pro-life group, and I do volunteer work at a nursing home. My friends who vote Republican all have similar stories to tell. From what I’ve observed, it seems that conservatives prefer to make their own charitable contributions, and liberals prefer to have the government do it for them.

First, pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-murder. Pro choice means letting individuals decide for themselves. No one is forced to have an abortion under pro-choice legislation. If someone chooses abortion, they have to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Hysterically labeling these individuals 'murderers" does nothing to address the underlying issues for why abortion, as drastic as it is, seems like a viable option to them in the first place. Does your state’s pro-life group focus on educating poor African-American and Hispanic women- who constitute the largest populations of young women seeking abortions- about chastity and teen pregnancy, or do you just target the result, i.e. abortion clinics? I hope it’s the former because if these girls aren’t getting pregnant in the first place, abortion becomes a non-issue and abortion clinics will go out of business due to lack of patients!

I’m an educator, and I preach chastity whenever I have the opportunity. I practice what I preach, both in chastity and in poverty. I would love to have your help in educating teens about the consequences of pregnancy. You can volunteer to speak at low income schools, such as some of the schools where I work. These kids need to be far better informed because at 14, 15, even 16, they just don’t get it. You would be amazed what their views of conception are. Let me say it mathematically: 0 teen pregnancies means 0 teen abortions.* Prevention is the key, not name-calling and blaming.* Of course, providing more health education means increasing spending on our schools. What are your views on that?

And as far as Republicans giving to charity, I’m sure some do, as do Democrats. Perhaps you think that is sufficient. Jesus did preach that individuals, and not the state, should take care of the poor, Unfortunately, while that may have worked in a simpler, agrarian society, do you really think it works in an industrial society, with unemployment hovering near 10 per cent? God bless you for making a difference in your own sphere of work and volunteerism. I wish I could be optimistic that examples like yours will turn into a large scale movement, with mass involvement. I think the problem at this point is much too big for that however. Perhaps the billions we spend on other things…but that gets even more partisan, doesn’t it?

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes Pope Benedict XVI did state that it was “permissible” to “have recourse to” capital punishment, and a “diversity of opinion” was allowable to Catholics on the issue. He also made this statement:

In a July 10, 2009 statement welcoming Mexico’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Pope Benedict congratulated the Mexican government for having formally repealed the nation’s death penalty laws in 2005.
“It cannot be overemphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness,” the pope said. He called upon governments to enact laws and public policies that “take into account the high value that a human being has at every moment of existence,” and added: “In this context, I joyfully welcome the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings."
Retrieved August 7th, 2011 from [cacp.org/vaticandocuments.html](http://www.cacp.org /vaticandocuments.html)

Hard to tell, from these somewhat contradictory public statements on the death penalty, where Pope Benedict XVI ultimately stands on the issue. However, with Blessed John Paul II, there was no doubt: he was adamantly opposed to the death penalty, anytime, anywhere. So, this begs the question, do we discard Blessed John Paul’s statements, since he is no longer Pope? Does the fact that he included statements against the death penalty in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae give these statements more doctrinal authority than spoken words of Pope Benedict XVI?

Further, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006) on pages 394-395 states that the death penalty is only to be imposed in cases where there is no other way to protect society, and that such cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent” (p. 395). This is the official Catechism for Americans, until a newer edition is published; it is published under the authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and is recognized by the Holy See.

And if my Bishop asks his flock to pray for abolition of capital punishment, are we supposed to remain silent at that point in the prayer if we prefer executions? I pray the whole prayer, which includes ending abortion and ending capital punishment. It seems to me that this is what our Bishop wants, and I am supposed to obey my Bishop and want the same things he wants, as a faithful Catholic.

In sum, there is a way short of execution to protect society from individuals who have committed capital crimes. Lock them up, in isolation, for the rest of their lives! At least this allows the possibility for them to still achieve remorse, contrition, and salvation, and that is one of the Catholic goals for abolishing the death penalty. This moves to a realm beyond retribution and vengeance, to one of true Christian mercy, forgiveness, and a belief that even the worst sinner can be saved, and that every human soul is worth saving.

 

[estesbob]

I agree those are both contradictions, Jocko. The major difference between the two contradictory sets is that in pro- death penalty + anti abortion, the people being killed are nearly always guilty of murder, and the lives being spared are innocent.

Actually, for Catholics the difference is the Church unequivocally opposes abortion but has always allowed for capital punishment. . There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between supporting abortion and supporting capital punishment.

 

[estesbob]

.I guess I’m just posing the question, which would Jesus have found more reprehensible: permitting individual choice on abortion, which might be said to be more characteristic of the Democratic party, or permitting the neglect of the poor, which can cause suffering and death, and might be said to be more characteristic of the Republican party?

. You are offering a false choice in that neither party recommends neglecting the poor. It appears you are trying to draw moral equivalence between supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and valid political differences on how to best care for the poor and needy.

We must also make sure we don’t fall in the trap of believing that we can fulfill our obligation to care for the poor and needy merely by voting for somebody who promises to do it for us.

. And finally, it is totally irrelevant whether Jesus specifically mentioned a sin or not. To begin with as Catholics we are not a Sola Scriptura Church and depend upon the unerring teachings of the Church every bit as much as we depend upon Scripture. The Church has unequivocably condemned abortion since the very beginning of the Church. In addition, all Scripture is the inspired word of God and we should not be attaching more relevance to something Jesus did or did not say than any other revealed truths in Scripture

 

[Jocko_VT]

Better communications, effective medicines, and a high standard of living aren’t necessary, but do you know anyone stupid enough to reject these benefits of capitalism? I don’t.

Take communications–our capacity to communicate has drawn our attention away from the locale, away from our immediate neighbors, and directed our attention to a global market place where we can procure good. The production of those goods has consequences that we’re not aware of though! It’s not all benefit. With the benefits come problems. We’ve done a terrible job of weighing the costs against the benefits because we’ve worshipped progress and economic growth as ends in themselves and ignored the tremendous costs to the environment and society.

You are right, some people are willing to pollute because it is profitable. Who makes it profitable? The consumer. If enough people demanded products made in an environmentally safe way, private enterprise would respond. Destruction of the environment is caused by apathy, not by capitalism.

Certainly, there’s tremendous apathy. The problem is ignorance, though, I think. And Capitalism, because it must continuously grow, necessarily takes on such size as to alienate everyone–now we simply can not know what the consequences are of our production and consumption behaviors because those consequences are so far removed from us. We have trouble recognizing that every gallon of gas we burn adds to the risk of destructive climate change. We have trouble recognizing that when we buy a pair of Nikes we’re perpetuating a system of virtual slave labor that in turn helps destroy subsistence agricultural communities which in turn puts local economies and the world in peril. Yes, we can know it on an intellectual level, but something about the large-scale interrupts our capacity to be compassionate and empathetic.

I believe capitalism is the best system available based on its track record.

I think there’s no reason to doubt that it’s the best way to produce growth in the short term. I think in the long term it will devour itself because growth can not be sustained indefinitely. Also, I think in the short and long term, it will destroy our social lives because it promotes a type of mentality and a scale of life that are not conducive to moral decision making.

In reply to your first question, “If you seek peace, prepare for war.”

Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean you need mega-economies to prepare for war.

Also, remember that capitalism relies on the profit motive,

Oh, I haven’t forgot that!! I think that’s the problem.

As for your last question, it seems that distributism would only make preparation for war less common and necessary if and only if the whole world or most of it operated under a distributist system. Otherwise, the peaceful distributists would be threatened by any agressive and expansionist capitalist/socialist nations nearby.

Granted. On the other hand, I think the most capitalistic and the most aggressive and expansionist state on earth are one and the same today. I think capitalism leads to aggression because it needs materials with which to sustain growth.

Heavy weapons, advanced technology, robotics,

I don’t think we need these, especially at the cost of a good social life.

great rewards for creativity, and efficient production are just some of the benefits of capitalism.

No rewards for morality, though. And, efficiency is produced by externalization, which is destroying social life and the environment. Efficiency and creativity as ends in themselves characterize capitalism, I’d agree, but are a bad idea.

Those who try to do without these benefits will be dominated by those who embrace capitalism.

Yes, capitalism seems to lead to the kinds of states that tend toward the domination of others. It’s part of why I don’t think it’s very christian!

 

[jdau]

The Catholic Church was never opposed to the death penalty.Even today, the Church does not officially oppose the death penalty.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.

 

[jdau]

Right on, Starship!! I was wondering when someone would answer the ridiculous statement of that uninformed person who equated, in Catholic morality, abortion and the death penalty.
The Catholic Church teaches that I can accept **or reject **belief in the death penalty .
The Catholic Church teaches that one MUST regard abortion as evil and totally unacceptable!
How can a “practising” Catholic(?) not understand that?
“With Essentials, there must be Unity, with non-essentials, there may be diversity, but in all, there must be Love.” Abortion is one of these essentials!
submitted with Love

 

[Faithdancer]

Actually, for Catholics the difference is the Church unequivocally opposes abortion but has always allowed for capital punishment

No one is arguing the Church’s opposition to abortion. Your statement that the Church “has always allowed for capital punishment” is unsupported.

 

[Faithdancer]

Right on, Starship!! I was wondering when someone would answer the ridiculous statement of that uninformed person who equated, in Catholic morality, abortion and the death penalty.
The Catholic Church teaches that I can accept **or reject **belief in the death penalty .
The Catholic Church teaches that one MUST regard abortion as evil and totally unacceptable!
How can a “practising” Catholic(?) not understand that?
“With Essentials, there must be Unity, with non-essentials, there may be diversity, but in all, there must be Love.” Abortion is one of these essentials!
submitted with Love

Did someone here say that abortion is good and acceptable?

 

[estesbob]

No one is arguing the Church’s opposition to abortion. Your statement that the Church “has always allowed for capital punishment” is unsupported.

Unsupported? The Ch7urch has ALWAYS allowed for Capital Punishment. There really is no dispute about this.

 

[estesbob]

Did someone here say that abortion is good and acceptable?

No-but many here have alleged that abortion is merely. another political issue to be taken into account when considering our votes and that a candidate’s stance on the death penalty, , national defense, the environment, , welfare, , etc. can mitigate his support of abortion. There is no support for this view in the teachings of the church

 

[Faithdancer]

. You are offering a false choice in that neither party recommends neglecting the poor. It appears you are trying to draw moral equivalence between supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and valid political differences on how to best care for the poor and needy.

Actually the point I was intending to make- although I agree I could have stated it better in the post you are referring to- addresses the original question that started this thread. So let me state it here: Yes, I believe one can be Catholic and be liberal, at least liberal in many ways. One can support federally funded social services for the needy, and oppose taxpayer funded abortion. One can oppose taxpayer funded abortion, yet believe that the foundation for preventing many abortions is education, particularly for young adolescents. In my opinion, such education must include health education and moral education. I work with these kids on a daily basis and I assure you, they are not getting sufficient education about the consequences of sexual activity out of wedlock. I don’t believe that effort toward this aspect of education is sufficient.

I never stated that anyone “recommends” neglecting the poor. However I believe that the poor are being neglected in our society. It is public record, available from US Census Bureau data among other sources, that the income disparity between the very rich and the very poor is at an all time high. It is also public record that poverty is rising in America. Private charity would be a wonderful solution, I agree. But is it being done in sufficient measure to reverse the poverty trend? And if private charity is not doing the job, then what is your solution?

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]