Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[starshiptrooper]

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.

On the other hand, communications save lives and enable me to stay in contact with friends and family members who live in other states.

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.

This issue can be solved at least in part by those modern communications you mentioned.

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.

We have an entire universe to occupy. Also, I fail to see how a high standard of living and a competitive mentality are in conflict with doing the right thing.

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

If you were in charge a nation that was fighting a war, would you prefer to have the capacity to produce large quantities of sophisticated weapons, or would you prefer to have less powerful weapons produced in small quantities?

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.

I disagree with this because war is in conflict with the profit motive which is the key characteristic capitalism.

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

Those who use these products will have a large advantage over those who refuse to use them.

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.

Capitalism rewards both hard work and integrity.

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!

I wasn’t referring to military domination, I was thinking of economic domination. Since capitalism produces more wealth than any other system, anything a capitalist nation produces will almost certainly be less expensive than the distributist nation’s products. This in turn will allow capitalists to beat the distributists in the battle over consumers.

 

[psychicharvard]

Yes, you can. Just as there are Conservative Catholics, there are also Progressive Catholics, and Moderate Catholics, and there are Catholics who are pro-choice. Nothing the Vatican has ever said prescribes to exclude pro-choice members. Furthermore, the Catechism of Catholic Church, while it does oppose the acts of homosexuality, it does acknowledge same-sex attractions and encourages those who have them be treated with compassion and without discrimination. Also, just last year Pope Benedict approved the distribution of condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV, but not as contraception.

It seems to me the Catholic Church walks a very fine line of not upsetting it’s Conservative base but acknowledging the compassion and necessary acts needed for living in the modern era. In retrospect, 40 years ago, no one would have dare dreamed that the Catholic Church would take this approach to homosexuality and condoms. But now it’s just status quo.

So yes, you can be liberal and Catholic. It is the liberal Catholic who nudges the Church into the modern era and everyday realities of it’s people. Remember, when people used to get divorced they would have to sit out Communion in humiliation. Now they are at least given a Blessing. And who do you think helped that along? The staunch Conservative who basicly said divorce is a sin and that is that. Or the liberal who said that divorced people should be shown some acceptance and compassion.

So yes, there are Catholic liberals, there are many of us.

 

[psychicharvard]

Who was believing the Heritage Foundation website? Do you have any idea who these people are? They are Right Wing Conservative. And did you critically think about the information? The poor have 2 cars? Did it say if both are running? Or is one on blocks waiting to be fixed for the past 6 months? Are the cars in good condition? How old are the cars? Do you really believe poor people are driving 2010 toyotas? Or are they driving two 1990 Mazdas, with one that has no hub caps? Which is it? Or did they not say? Oh they didn’t! Could it be there are trying to get over on so that you turn against he poor? I mean you call yourself a Catholic and then you go an believe everything a Right Wing agency says without even having the compassion to analyze the data in a reasonable manner. Shame on you.

And as for air-conditioning, uh, alot of buildings now have been updated to have air conditioners. Would you like poor people to ask the owners of the building to take them out? And did the Heritage Foundation say if the poor turned on the air conditioners? Did it say the poor had the air conditioner on 76 degrees all day? No, because it gave no information as to if the air conditioner was in use. Did it say if the air conditioner was functioning or if it was broken? And as for the microwave statement. Did you know most apartments come with microwaves now? Did the study as the poor if they purchased the microwave or if it came with the living space? Oh, that’s right it didn’t say did it.

If your going to call yourself a Catholic at least have the compassion to study the data and not just believe the first hateful thing about poor people that someone else is trying to get you to believe

 

[onearmsteve]

Did I see someone say they are progressives & proudly voted for the most pro abortionist president ever & would do it again?! Progressives, historically, are evil in their politics. How can one say they’re a good Catholic & vote for basically a communist? May want to try my man Ron Paul out (100% against abortion, pro marriage for man & woman only, pro peace, etc)
The thing is with liberals. When you say ‘left’ you are aligning yourself up with socialists, marxists, communist. They love the state & want the state to control all assets of life. Basically want to substitute the state for God.
True conservativism is pro liberty but that encompasses morality as well. Not the neo-conservatism that you see today that is basically progressive-lite. True conservatives are little ‘r’ republicans that want gov’t closest to the heart, pro peace (b/c you cannot have prosperity if always in perpetual war), pro liberty (promoted w/ virues & morals), etc.

Forget Rush, Hannity (a catholic in name only), & Beck (who the mormon church thinks they are the saviors of the land. seriously). Try out a true Catholic in Mike Church www.mikechurch.com who has other Catholics conservatives on like Tom Woods & Brad Birtzer. He was on today speaking of how great he liked the old Latin mass today.

 

[Saralinda]

Most definitely! I am a proud PRO LIFE democrat and I am sure that I am not the only one. But basically, I vote for an individual, not a politcal party. Sometimes I will vote for the more conservative side on an individual issue, but caring for the elderly, the children, and the unfortunate are liberal causes I support.

 

[estesbob]

Most definitely! I am a proud PRO LIFE democrat and I am sure that I am not the only one. But basically, I vote for an individual, not a politcal party. Sometimes I will vote for the more conservative side on an individual issue, but caring for the elderly, the children, and the unfortunate are liberal causes I support.

So basically you vote for pro-abortion candidates, correct?

 

[psychicharvard]

For example, “liberals” think of themselves as “caring for the poor”. Yet, they do not hesitate to burden the poor with social programs that reduce the recipients to a sort of slavish dependency. Never have I heard a “liberal” declare (as have the Popes) that the very first obligation of the State is to provide decently for those who cannot help themselves. Look at SSI benefits for example; the federal program for the disabled poor. It’s miserable, yet no “liberals” ever talk about improving it.

On the other hand, many “conservatives” somehow think such people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that their failure to do it somehow means they’re just lazy. No doubt many recipients of welfare benefits are just exactly that. But many simply cannot do for themselves, and we should feel that the State does, indeed, have a serious obligation to aid them.

I greatly recommend to you that you study the Social Encyclicals. You can google them all. They don’t have precise programs outlined, but they contain principles by which you might judge this measure or that program. In my mind, they are helpful in attaining clarity of thought.

Okay, that whole “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” saying was coined by Rockerfeller, the same man who made his fortune by swindling everyone he could in the railroad business. He coined that phrase to promote good publicity about him and so people would quit inquiring about his business dealings. And what about this about liberals not improving SSI, they can’t unless the government approves he money. And what burdening the poor with slavish dependency? Seriously, I hope one day your starving and and living on a $5 a day budget and when you ask for help someone says, “Nope, I don’t want to burden you with slavish dependency!”

 

[estesbob]

Okay, that whole “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” saying was coined by Rockerfeller, the same man who made his fortune by swindling everyone he could in the railroad business. He coined that phrase to promote good publicity about him and so people would quit inquiring about his business dealings. And what about this about liberals not improving SSI, they can’t unless the government approves he money. And what burdening the poor with slavish dependency? Seriously, I hope one day your starving and and living on a $5 a day budget and when you ask for help someone says, “Nope, I don’t want to burden you with slavish dependency!”

What makes you think we haven’t?

 

[davidmlamb]

We spend far more money on our schools than we did 40 years ago.

We also spend far more on food and housing then we did 40 years ago so your point is moot. The question is are we funding our schools enough and are we specifying where that funding is to be spent in order to solve the problem? First, we must identify the defficeincies and problems. Then we need to come up with the solutions to fix those problems. Then we need to calculate the costs of those solutions. And finally we need to fund those costs and implement the changes.

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 do.

Other countries in the industrialized world do not need to privatize their schools and they are producing some pretty well educated and smart kids. We didn’t need to privatize our schools 30 and 40 years ago yet our public schools produced NASA Scientist and Engineers that beat the Soviets to the moon. If public education worked for the United States then, than it can work now. If public schools are producing some pretty smart kids in Europe, Asia, and Canada then so can public schools in the United States produce smart educated kids the way they use to do.

Peace,
David

 

[Saralinda]

Caring for the more unfortunate members of society does not mean favoring abortion, same sex marriage, or what passes for sex education. It does mean exactly what is says. It means having a safety net for the mother abandoned by her violent partner trying to care for her children, a safety net for the elderly couple who through no fault of their own have no one to look out for them when they are sick and have to decide between heat and medicine. The reality of living in these United States is that sometimes bad things happen to good people and there is no one to help them. The Catholic Church can help a little, but the reality is our country is based on rugged individualism which is not very open to being charitable. Someone must step up and who better than the entire population of the US through our taxes. “Providing for the common good” is something our country was founded on. Why not force the country to live up to it?

 

[jimmaguire]

Augustine wrote the treatise to explain Christianity’s relationship with competing religions and philosophies, and to the Roman government with which it was increasingly intertwined. It was written soon after Rome was sacked by the Niraj in 410. This event left Romans in a deep state of shock, and many saw it as punishment for abandoning traditional Roman religion for Catholic Christianity. It was in this atmosphere that Augustine set out to console Christians, writing that, even if the earthly rule of the Empire was imperiled, it was the City of God that would ultimately triumph — Augustine’s eyes were fixed on Heaven, a theme of many Christian works of Late Antiquity.

Despite Christianity’s designation as the official religion of the Empire, Augustine declared its message to be spiritual rather than political. Christianity, he argued, should be concerned with the mystical, heavenly city, the New Jerusalem — rather than with earthly politics.

The book presents human history as being a conflict between what Augustine calls the City of Man and the City of God (a conflict that is destined to end in victory of the latter). The City of God is marked by people who forgot earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of Christian faith. The City of Man, on the other hand, consists of people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world.

I know that Wikipedia can be suspect at times but I believe this quote is a good analysis of what Augustine was writing about concerning earthly politics verses the Kingdom of Heaven. Taken from - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_(book

1 Timothy 1:3
3 Now I asked you to remain at Ephesus, while I went into Macedonia, so that you would speak strongly against certain ones who have been teaching a different way,4 against those who have been paying attention to fables and endless genealogies. These things present questions as if they were greater than the edification that is of God, which is in faith.5 Now the goal of instruction is charity from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith. 6 Certain persons, wandering away from these things, have been turned aside to empty babbling,7 desiring to be teachers of the law, but understanding neither the things that they themselves are saying, nor what they are affirming about these things.

1 Timothy 6:2-6
2 …Teach and exhort these things.3 If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not consent to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is in accord with piety,4 then he is arrogant, knowing nothing, yet languishing amid the questions and quarrels of words. From these arise envy, contention, blasphemy, evil suspicions:5 the conflicts of men who have been corrupted in mind and deprived of truth, who consider [financial] profit to be [from] piety.6 But piety with sufficiency is great gain.

2 Timothy 2:14-16
14 Insist on these things, testifying before the Lord. Do not be contentious about words, for this is useful for nothing but the subversion of listeners.15 Be solicitous in the task of presenting yourself before God as a proven and unashamed worker who has handled the Word of Truth correctly.16 But avoid profane or empty talk. For these things advance one greatly in impiety.

Titus 3:9
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, as well as arguments against the law. For these are useless and empty.

James 3:13-18
13 Who is wise and well-taught among you? Let him show, by means of good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom.14 But if you hold a bitter zeal, and if there is contention in your hearts, then do not boast and do not be liars against the truth.15 For this is not wisdom, descending from above, but rather it is earthly, beastly, and diabolical.16 For wherever envy and contention is, there too is inconstancy and every depraved work.17 But within the wisdom that is from above, certainly, chastity is first, and next peacefulness, meekness, openness, consenting to what is good, a plenitude of mercy and good fruits, not judging, without falseness.18 And so the fruit of justice is sown in peace by those who make peace.

James 4:1-4
1 Where do wars and contentions among you come from? Is it not from this: from your own desires, which battle within your members?2 You desire, and you do not have. You envy and you kill, and you are unable to obtain. You argue and you fight, and you do not have, because you do not ask.3 You ask and you do not receive, because you ask badly, so that you may use it toward your own desires.4 You adulterers! Do you not know that the friendship of this world is hostile to God? Therefore, whoever has chosen to be a friend of this world has been made into an enemy of God.

 

[zz912]

Yes, you can. Just as there are Conservative Catholics, there are also Progressive Catholics, and Moderate Catholics, and there are Catholics who are pro-choice. Nothing the Vatican has ever said prescribes to exclude pro-choice members.

Also, just last year Pope Benedict approved the distribution of condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV, but not as contraception.

Remember, when people used to get divorced they would have to sit out Communion in humiliation. Now they are at least given a Blessing. And who do you think helped that along? The staunch Conservative who basicly said divorce is a sin and that is that. Or the liberal who said that divorced people should be shown some acceptance and compassion.

So yes, there are Catholic liberals, there are many of us.

You are very factually challenged. First, you can’t be pro-“choice” and be a faithful Catholic. Period. Abortion is evil and MUST be opposed. You tacitly approve (at best) supporting evil and oppose the Church if you are pro-“choice”.

Second, the Pope did NOT approve condoms. He only said that a prostitute who used a condom to protect someone MIGHT be seeing the first inklings of God’s presence in their lives and might be slowly turning to God. He did NOT approve condoms. Please do not continue to spread this huge error.

What blessing for divorced people during Mass? Are you talking about the blessing at the end for everyone who is at Mass and has been around since the first century? Or are you talking about the illicit blessings that are given out during Communion in opposition to Church instruction?

I do believe you are correct that there are many liberal Catholics, sadly. We could use Catholics who were more faithful to the Church, and more who abided by the Church teaching on subsidiarity.

 

[Carlan]

Originally Posted by Jason_1977

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.

Oh really,In 1967 before Roe/Wade,as Governor of California he decided to sign a law giving a woman greater rights to choose to abort her child, a person who signs a law making it easier for women to abort their children can be called “pro-choice.” In fact, I think that’s what most people would call it, don’t you?
Reagan signed the law in the face of solid oposition.
And also after becoming the President of the United States of America he appointed Sandra O’Conner to the Supreme Court. Need I say more?
Peace, Carlan

 

[zz912]

We also spend far more on food and housing then we did 40 years ago so your point is moot. The question is are we funding our schools enough and are we specifying where that funding is to be spent in order to solve the problem? First, we must identify the defficeincies and problems. Then we need to come up with the solutions to fix those problems. Then we need to calculate the costs of those solutions. And finally we need to fund those costs and implement the changes.

Other countries in the industrialized world do not need to privatize their schools and they are producing some pretty well educated and smart kids.

actually, we spend far less for food now compared to 40 years ago. You have to compare staple products and factor in inflation. Feeding our families costs far less of our income than it did 40 years ago.

Spending on education, even when factoring in inflation, has SOARED. We spend 3x the cost of private school in our govt schools.

If you want to take the example of Europe, then maybe we should take their example and let schools compete for students and money. In Europe the money follows the student. Also, we need to kick out the habitually bad students. Are you in favor of these as well?

 

[zz912]

Oh really,In 1967 before Roe/Wade,as Governor of California he decided to sign a law giving a woman greater rights to choose to abort her child, a person who signs a law making it easier for women to abort their children can be called “pro-choice.” In fact, I think that’s what most people would call it, don’t you?
Reagan signed the law in the face of solid oposition.
And also after becoming the President of the United States of America he appointed Sandra O’Conner to the Supreme Court. Need I say more?
Peace, Carlan

Reagan admitted his mistake on signing that law and regretted it afterwards. He was staunchly pro-life after.

O’Connor was a mistake, plain and simple.

 

[psychicharvard]

“Did I see someone say they are progressives & proudly voted for the most pro abortionist president ever & would do it again?! , When you say ‘left’ you are aligning yourself up with socialists, marxists, communist. They love the state & want the state to control all assets of life. Basically want to substitute the state for God.
True conservativism is pro liberty but that encompasses morality as well. Not the neo-conservatism that you see today that is basically progressive-lite. True conservatives are little ‘r’ republicans that want gov’t closest to the heart, pro peace (b/c you cannot have prosperity if always in perpetual war), pro liberty (promoted w/ virues & morals), etc.”

Answer this, is there anywhere that the Vatican has EVER said that Pro-Life people can’t be Catholic? Is there? NO. So if the Vatican hasn’t made a decision on this then it is not for you to decide or deem who can be Catholic and who can’t. When you become Pope you can’t put that decision the Catholic people.

Next, do you even know what Communism is? Have you ever looked up the definition? NO. Because if you did you would know that Communism is an economic system where everyone shares the products of their labor equally. That’s it! If you knew anything about world history you would know that the countries of China and Russia were repressive governments who ALSO used the economic model of Communism. If they had chosen capitalism they would have still been as controlling and repressive. Communism has nothing to do with substituting God with the government. Read history!

You are obviously uneducated, and don’t bother to educate yourself on world history or you would not being saying such nonsense. But then again you don’t even analyze data against the poor, you accept their blanket statements as fact just as child watches a toy commercial and believes rainbows will really flow out of their Barbie Dreamhouse.

 

[jimmaguire]

I guess somewhere God said THUS SAITH THE LORD THOU SHALT BE OF ONE PARTY AND NOT OF ANOTHER. Just a lot of argumentation for the sake of argument. If anyone told me that I would be going to hell or judged wrong by God for belonging to a political party I would assume that person was not a Catholic but a Pundit pretending to be a Catholic. Being Catholic is about doing good deeds what ever party you belong to. This is only another way to split the Church.

 

[Jason_1977]

Oh really,In 1967 before Roe/Wade,as Governor of California he decided to sign a law giving a woman greater rights to choose to abort her child, a person who signs a law making it easier for women to abort their children can be called “pro-choice.” In fact, I think that’s what most people would call it, don’t you?
Reagan signed the law in the face of solid oposition.
And also after becoming the President of the United States of America he appointed Sandra O’Conner to the Supreme Court. Need I say more?
Peace, Carlan

What in the blue blazes does ANY of this have to do with healthcare, a socialist nationalized healthcare, and the prospect that eventually, the government could and most likely WOULD geographically distribute doctors possibly telling them where they can and cannot live? And even dictate their pay? Keep your eye on the ball there, scooter…LOL!!!

 

[Jason_1977]

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.

were you perhaps eating a brownie loaded with pot when you typed this? Liberal in terms of what? Do you think Jesus would want as much regulation as possible for all aspects of our lives or do you think he’d want us to live free and enjoy life?

Also, what in the blue blazes does God not legalizing pot have ANYTHING to do with the dangers of legalization due to MORE intoxicated / under the influence people on the road or in public making MY day to day more annoying & more dangerous?

I’m actually scared and am beginning to be choked up and weep for the future.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m a substitute teacher, and that is pretty much my full time occupation right now during the school year. I am amazed at the economic tribulations our public school teachers are going through right now. Many school districts lay off every teacher in the spring, and the teachers have to sweat it out and wait to see if they will be rehired. Teachers line up at Office Depot and Staples every August to buy supplies out of their own pocket so that their students won’t go without basics like pencils and ruled paper, which the school districts aren’t furnishing in sufficient quantity because their budgets have been slashed. Then, when school starts, teachers are faced with classrooms of 30, 40, 50 students or more. That doesn’t allow effective teaching, it just mandates crowd control. So now there are charter schools. There are some good ones, and charters do tend to have smaller class sizes, but many districts don’t provide sufficient oversight, they are so afraid to deny a charter because of politics, so charters spring up with corrupt “administrators” who see opening a charter school as an entrepreneurial opportunity for themselves and their extended families. I taught my own class for a year at one of these schools, and left in total disappointment at the blatant nepotism and administrative incompetence. I put in the long days, came in every other weekend, and I had high evaluation scores from my mentor teacher, but I just couldn’t work where I wasn’t valued and supported. If I had started an internship at a public school with a strong new teacher induction program, I’d still be there. Charter schools are not the magic pill that will miraculously fix our educational system. Some are good, some aren’t- just like public schools.

I think that a major contributing factor in our educational decline is lack of parental involvement, and lack of discipline, which has to start in the home. I see it every day- kids coming to school with their cell phones, endlessly texting, distracting themselves and other students. Why does your kid need a cell phone at school? We have your emergency contact info, and we have telephones in the classrooms and the front office. Kids swear right in front of teachers, talk back constantly- and we dare not discipline them. Why is this kind of behavior even imaginable to kids, if they are being raised right? So I’m just saying- let’s not put all the failure on the educational system. Teachers shouldn’t have to, and in fact cannot compensate for lazy, self-centered parents who are not involving themselves significantly in their child’s education on a daily basis!

UNICEF data shows that educationally we are dropping farther behind world leaders like Japan and South Korea. Coincidentally, their kids spend a significantly greater number of hours per year in school than our students do. Of course, a longer school year is going to mean increased educational costs, as far as I can figure. There might also be some different attitudes about respect for authority, personal accountability, things like that being taught in the home in those countries- but I won’t speculate about that.