Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Faithdancer]

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

I appreciate what you are saying, estesbob. And I agree that abortion is more than a political issue- it is a moral issue at least for Christians. The statistics show that there are proponents of publicly funded abortion in both major parties. So, if you are suggesting that one votes according to one’s Catholicism, I agree. I think that if one does so vote, one cannot vote “party-line.”

Just for the record, I support a federally funded safety net for the needy. I oppose the death penalty. I oppose public funding for abortion- I think that abortion is currently being used by women as an after-the-fact method of birth control and again I think that education is key to reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

 

[Faithdancer]

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

Until they are changed, I will follow the guidelines in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. I did place a reference to those guidelines in a post at 2:12 AM today. I believe they are doctrinal, since they are in the USCCA.

 

[estesbob]

Until they are changed, I will follow the guidelines in the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. I did place a reference to those guidelines in a post at 2:12 AM today. I believe they are doctrinal, since they are in the USCCA.

And it allows for the Death penalty

 

[Faithdancer]

I just wanted to add- I know it’s a bit off topic and I apologize for that- but as an educator I have become a huge supporter of the use of infant simulators in our schools. I know they aren’t inexpensive, but every kid I’ve talked to who has experienced using one, even for a weekend, has expressed a revelatory understanding of the seriousness of pregnancy. I believe these devices really get kids thinking about the consequences. Unfortunately, classes using infant simulators are often electives- I think this education should be mandatory for boys as well as girls, and it should be part of the curriculum in 8th or 9th grade, not 11th or 12th grade; perhaps it should even be multi-year. Couple this with in-depth education about the physical, psychological, and social consequences of sexual activity including abortion. Do we really need to teach every kid 3 or 4 years of high school math, or would the social good be better served with more comprehensive health education, including a stronger component of education about sexuality, and pregnancy? We will never be allowed to teach Humanae Vitae in the public schools obviously, but more can be done, even within a secular curriculum.

 

[estesbob]

I appreciate what you are saying, estesbob. And I agree that abortion is more than a political issue- it is a moral issue at least for Christians. The statistics show that there are proponents of publicly funded abortion in both major parties. So, if you are suggesting that one votes according to one’s Catholicism, I agree. I think that if one does so vote, one cannot vote “party-line.”

Just for the record, I support a federally funded safety net for the needy. I oppose the death penalty. I oppose public funding for abortion- I think that abortion is currently being used by women as an after-the-fact method of birth control and again I think that education is key to reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

No no one is suggesting a party line vote. Merely stating Catholic teaching -you can’t vote for a pro-abortion canidate no matter how right you may believe they are on other issues all rights flow from the right life. Without the right to life all other rights are meaningless

 

[Faithdancer]

And it allows for the Death penalty

The USCCB morally opposes the death penalty. Blessed John Paul II vigorously opposed the death penalty. Pope Benedict XVI is equivocal on the subject.

 

[estesbob]

The USCCB morally opposes the death penalty. Blessed John Paul II vigorously opposed the death penalty. Pope Benedict XVI is equivocal on the subject.

I oppose capital punishment in ALL circumstances. Our Church does not It is important we not mustard Church teaching as it hurts our credibility when enunciating other teachings of the Church

 

[Faithdancer]

I oppose capital punishment in ALL circumstances. Our Church does not It is important we not mustard Church teaching as it hurts our credibility when enunciating other teachings of the Church

Well, I agree with you again, estesbob. Please believe me when I say I appreciate the learning opportunity that dialoguing with you and others here provides. I wouldn’t presume to say I’m a “good Catholic” yet, having returned to the church from being a cradle Catholic, then a Protestant, then a non-church goer for many years (but never really an agnostic, I don’t think). But I am trying to be a “better” Catholic, and sometimes this means accepting what our Church fathers say, on faith, even where I have had mixed feelings in the past for example, abortion in cases of incest or rape. I have even been resolving this qualm in my own mind, on the basis that regardless of the particulars of conception, the child in the womb is innocent, and it’s life should not be extinguished because it’s creation occurred as the result of an act of evil.

So, great respect to you estesbob, and love in Christ! Being here on the Forums is an honor, and I hope to continue to learn, to share, and to reconcile, where differences occur. I hope that others continue to forgive me when I err, or give offense.

 

[ConstantinePX]

That is ridiculous. We cannot compromise on our faith. We cannot pick the worst of two evils.

9/10, if you vote for a regular, in party line Democrat, they WILL support abortion choice and same sex union.

9/10 if you vote for a regular, in party line Republican… well I cant think of any GOP party headline agendas that are adversely against Church doctrine at the moment. I guess, just for the sake of it, you would be voting for a heretic since most GOP are Protestant Christians?

Meh either way. I only vote under extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise I refuse to compromise my loyalty and faith to the Church and God. Other Catholics dont feel that way and will freely vote for either or.

 

[crazzeto]

That is ridiculous. We cannot compromise on our faith. We cannot pick the worst of two evils.

9/10, if you vote for a regular, in party line Democrat, they WILL support abortion choice and same sex union.

9/10 if you vote for a regular, in party line Republican… well I cant think of any GOP party headline agendas that are adversely against Church doctrine at the moment. I guess, just for the sake of it, you would be voting for a heretic since most GOP are Protestant Christians?

Meh either way. I only vote under extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise I refuse to compromise my loyalty and faith to the Church and God. Other Catholics dont feel that way and will freely vote for either or.

though I wouldn’t forgo looking at the candidates and considering them well individually… It was republicans that brought gay marriage to NY.

 

[ConstantinePX]

Im sure there were Nazi’s who were good people. But their affiliation precedes them. Thats why I dont bother to judge individually when it comes to politics. You run for a party, then you are advocating some if not all of their policies.

 

[Faithdancer]

Im sure there were Nazi’s who were good people. But their affiliation precedes them. Thats why I dont bother to judge individually when it comes to politics. You run for a party, then you are advocating some if not all of their policies.

Well, I can see your point, especially for those Nazi party members who may have been members out of fear, but didn’t really believe in National Socialism. Some Germans, of course, were conscripted into the Hitler youth, against their will and choice.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

I never called anybody a murderer. I never said that anyone would be forced to get an abortion. I simply pointed out that pro-choice simply means that murder is made legal.

I] 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?We spend far more money on our schools than we did 40 years ago. I don’t see the results. We need more competition when it comes to schools, throwing more money at the public schools will not solve the problem.

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 do. An idustrialized society can produce far more wealth than an agrarian economy. Thus, with more excess wealth, people are able to give more to charity. Thank you, and may God bless you.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

A single passage in single encyclical is not necessarily binding. Also, the Church has no authority to make a statement about whether or not the death penalty is still needed to protect society. Finally, I pointed out not too long ago that paragraph #2267 of the CCC is nonbinding. The first sentence is wrong, the second statement is debatable, and the third statement is an opinion on something that does not involve faith or morals.

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?

Your Bishop may be opposed to the death penalty but the Catholic Church is not.

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.

St. Thomas Aquinas defines mercy as a feeling of pity for a person in an unfortunate situation. This feeling moves us to help the unfortunate person if possible. With this in mind, would it be more merciful to give a man on the death row a chance to confess his sins before his execution, or would keeping him alive on his victim’s family’s tax dollars be the better way?

St. Thomas Aquinas also points out that a man sentenced to death has an additional incentive to repent, the fact that he will meet God on a definite date. If the fear of Hell will not move someone to repent, what will?

 

[Faithdancer]

We spend far more money on our schools than we did 40 years ago. I don’t see the results. We need more competition when it comes to schools, throwing more money at the public schools will not solve the problem

I don’t advocate throwing money blindly at schools, but I do know first hand that most teachers are highly dedicated, very hardworking professionals who are currently taking the brunt of funding cuts in California in terms of layoffs, forced furloughs, etc. As far as more competition, if you are referring to Catholic schools, I’m with you 100%! Charter schools, however, at least in Southern California, are a very mixed bag. Too often they are a cash cow for someone who wants to pay themselves a fat administrator income by starting a charter school. I know of one that started it’s own school district, complete with an unaccredited “university” that is granting “PhD’s” to the administrators and some of the faculty. I do work sometimes for one charter that I think is doing pretty good work, but the public school districts I work for are really focused on the kids, they are really trying to maintain a high standard of education on slashed budgets. That being said, I would love to work in a Catholic school.

 

[AHapka]

I know there are many here who do not like the Republican party because of it’s support of capitalism. Under the theory that the profit driven motive behind capitalism leads to people being left in poverty, except for the top dogs.

I’ll admit, I don’t like some things about capitalism, but I think it’s better then all other systems available on the Earth.

Let’s look at what it means to be poor in America:

In 2005 the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. The household had two color televisions. The kitchen included a refrigerator, stove, oven, and microwave. The typical poor American has more living space then the average European.

Source: heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

I am not saying that there isn’t real poverty in America, I’m saying that most poor in America today live better then most people have throughout history. Therefore, I think (despite it’s faults) capitalism is really the best way to go.

Reagan was right in that a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[Jason_1977]

I still love that this discussion is continuing. My honest, to-the-core answer to the question, Can you be a liberal and still be catholic, and my honest answer is YES, but not with a clear conscience! There is no way I could be a liberal. Pro choice, legalized pot, socialist agendas under the GUISE of a humanitarian gesture.

NEXT thing you know, under Obama care is the DOctors will be spread out evenly geographically & they they’ll be told where they can live & can’t live & the gov’t would begin to dictate their pay. Ronald reagan CALLED IT! In 1961! HE KNEW this was coming and KNEW HOW it would come to be.

THere is no way I can be a catholic and REMOVE freedom from others, be for putting MORE intoxicated or under the influence people on the roads (stoned people), aborting babies, RAISING TAXES that STIFLE prosperity, I can’t. Not with a clear conscience. You can have a heart of gold & have it bleed pure and true for humanity. But not at the EXPENSE of your fellow man. Not to the detriment of your brothers and sisters. If it’s a willingness on their part, so be it, but you know what I mean. Personal Responsibility has a lot to do with catholicism. Many forget this. WE are the ones who examine our conscience. WE are the ones that hold ourselves accountable for sin & oblige ourselves to confess them so we can partake in the eucharist. The SAME sense of personal responsibility applies when making descisions out in our country.

By all means SERVE your fellow man. Protect life. BUT, protect yourself as well. None of us do any good to the Lord, when we shoot ourselves in the foot =)

 

[davidmlamb]

I still love that this discussion is continuing. My honest, to-the-core answer to the question, Can you be a liberal and still be catholic, and my honest answer is YES, but not with a clear conscience! There is no way I could be a liberal. Pro choice, legalized pot, socialist agendas under the GUISE of a humanitarian gesture.

NEXT thing you know, under Obama care is the DOctors will be spread out evenly geographically & they they’ll be told where they can live & can’t live & the gov’t would begin to dictate their pay. Ronald reagan CALLED IT! In 1961! HE KNEW this was coming and KNEW HOW it would come to be.

THere is no way I can be a catholic and REMOVE freedom from others, be for putting MORE intoxicated or under the influence people on the roads (stoned people), aborting babies, RAISING TAXES that STIFLE prosperity, I can’t. Not with a clear conscience. You can have a heart of gold & have it bleed pure and true for humanity. But not at the EXPENSE of your fellow man. Not to the detriment of your brothers and sisters. If it’s a willingness on their part, so be it, but you know what I mean. Personal Responsibility has a lot to do with catholicism. Many forget this. WE are the ones who examine our conscience. WE are the ones that hold ourselves accountable for sin & oblige ourselves to confess them so we can partake in the eucharist. The SAME sense of personal responsibility applies when making descisions out in our country.

By all means SERVE your fellow man. Protect life. BUT, protect yourself as well. None of us do any good to the Lord, when we shoot ourselves in the foot =)

Jason, a lot of psychobable here. You need to read your Catechism in particular CCC 1897-1912; 2288, 2401-2436. Then maybe you might want to take a look at some of the Papal Encyclicals such as: Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII 1891; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI 1931; Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, 1967, Laborem Exercens by Pope John Paul II 1981, and CARITAS IN VERITATE by Pope Benedict XVI 2009.

Peace,
David

 

[Jason_1977]

Jason, a lot of psychobable here. You need to read your Catechism in particular CCC 1897-1912; 2288, 2401-2436. Then maybe you might want to take a look at some of the Papal Encyclicals such as: Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII 1891; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI 1931; Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, 1967, Laborem Exercens by Pope John Paul II 1981, and CARITAS IN VERITATE by Pope Benedict XVI 2009.

Peace,
David

I didn’t see any psycho babble, I think I made a point. The psycho babble was the library of congress references you threw at me instead of offering a counter statement. Spitting into the wind I guess I’d say. So try it again & make a point instead of invalidating my point without a point. I’d also like to point out a socialist agenda is bad once again. My question to you is, you know that Pope John Paul II is credited w. helping to bring down communism in Russia, right? SO, how can a LITTLE socialism be good when a Pope tried to help bring it down in Russia? I think i’ve made an extra point I didn’t think of until I saw YOUR “psychobabble”, LMAO! Anyhow, don’t tell me what to read or how I should think. You are not the thought police NOR are you my judge. come make a point or keep your bibliography & your judgements to yourself.

 

[Mojoala]

Of course you can. Jesus, in his day would have been labeled a Liberal Rebel. His ideas were so liberal, the Sadducees and Pharisees were beside themselves.

As for the Legalization of Pot? God did not make Pot illegal. Man did.