Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Sonny1954]

Where did you get this utter claptrap? Republicans champion all those issues as well, we just don’t champion making the govt in charge of it. Republicans are much more generous and charitable than Democrats.

Using the incompetence of govt to try to fulfill your Christian duties is failing to be Christian.

Thank heaven you didn’t get personal, that would have been unchristian.

It’s not “claptrap” to promote policies to aid the poor. It is possible that an individual who happens to be Republican might be as generous to the poor and despised as another who happens to be Democratic, but you as groups (there are always individual exceptions) Democrats promote social policies aimed at helping the poor and the persecuted more often than Republicans. If one doesn’t see that, then their own fanaticism has blinded them.

 

[Jason_1977]

Oops,sorry to burst your bubble clever boy, since we are talking Catholic and liberal… you know, abortion and all other mentioned subjects , I thought I would just toss a little conservative history your way, after all, you did mentioned the former Rep President. Not too many of us are perfect,and concerning our political leaders you can,most certainly, expect to find the bad and the ugly. Want to learn more of the ugly stuff? it’s history.
Peace, Carlan

Yeah I get the history, but it takes a lot more than you to burst my bubble, LMAO But hey, conservatives weren’t exactly attacking police stations in the ‘60s either, so rather than go off topic, heaven forbid you stay on topic, I’ll REPEAT history by asking the liberal to “FOCUS” and just stay on target? Way to duck an issue though, THAT is mighty familiar…LMAO! SO…back to the original issue…if you’re done side-showin’…

 

[lynnvinc]

No, but one can not knowingly disregard the non-negotiables, this would be abortion, the right deffinition of Marriage in particular, and perhaps some other issues.

I think killing people is also a non-negotiable, as well as harming people and taking away their property or damaging it.

I think killing fetuses through our daily contributions to pollution is wrong, tho not as wrong as going in for a surgical/medical abortion… but just as effective in killing babies before they’re born or causing physical and mental birth defects (and done so with denial and lack of true concern or care about human life).

We truly live in a culture of death in which the conservatives and liberals both deny they are killing and harming people and God’s creation, which He pronounced good. But the conservatives on the whole, it seems to me (I may be wrong), are more in a state of denial, while the liberals are trying to solve the abortion problem in a more merciful and humane way (the carrot, rather than the stick) by supporting programs that would help pregnant women, who feel hopeless about bearing their children. And the liberals seem to be a bit more ecologically aware, conscientious, and active in reducing their harm. Though on the whole both conservatives and liberals are pretty much lacking in this awareness, concern, and action.

The conservatives seem to think if they simply vote for someone who would pretend to halt abortion, then not really do anything meaningful to reduce abortion (such as increase social programs), but instead (their real agenda) sanction by default & in hidden ways the annihiliation of most life on earth through the 10 or so very serious global environmental problems facing us today (which those elected conservatives simply ignore, encouraging others to continue the harm), the conservative voters think they are doing good and living righteously.

To paraphrase St. John of the Cross – who said it doesn’t matter whether the bird is tied with a heavy chain (of attachments) or a thin thread, it will not be able to fly, and the soul will not be able to achieve union with God – it doesn’t matter if a person kills only one person or 20,000 people or joins with 20,000 others to kill one person (and does not repent and truly strive to correct oneself) the destination is still hell.

Not all conservatives – not the meek and humble of heart who are more focused on their own sins than on those of others and on the welfare of others, not their own – but those conservatives who show willful blindness to their sins – such as killing people through environmental harm and social neglect – and to top that off they deny all this…well, they may be sort of like that presumptuous Pharisee who stepped in front of the wretched tax-collector, and said, “Thank you, God, for I am not like the sinners.”

 

[Jason_1977]

No, but one can not knowingly disregard the non-negotiables, this would be abortion, the right deffinition of Marriage in particular, and perhaps some other issues.

Holy Mother Church is all for social justice, and in that light one migth find more sympathy for democrats. But it is the violation of the non-negotiable that, more often than not, breaks the deal. I have seen some genuinely pro-life Democrats, and ones who support proper marriage. The problem is, hardly any of them will ever make it to high elected office, let alone run for the presidency.

The right definition of marriage has been the same for divorce. LOL, the sanctity of marriage is shot. Personally I don’t care of they get civil unions. Keep the marriage ceremonies out of the church & I’m happy, WE as a church can do no wrong. I figure, if they’re longing to be included in the marriage/ divorce/ alimony game, why deny them? Personally I don’t care. Now I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s gross, but if scripture says it’s an abomination, then read a few passages further & you see where it says to stone your disobedient children to death. SO, who’s picking and choosing??? HHMMMM??? I say let em have it, just keep it at town hall where that stuff belongs IF at all.
I mean I’m not gay, yeah, it kinda grosses me out, but who am I to tell another what to do in their household? Who are YOU to tell another what to do in their household? If they wanna, they’re gonna. There’s nothing we can do about it so I recommend we just focus our energy elsewhere. Keep the ceremonies out of the church, That is actually a huge one because we can still hold our ground and our beliefs without sounding like the Westboro Baptist church defining marriage & what-not. Everyone defining what marriage is in the church is reminding me of a muslim extremist telling us what an infidel is. We’re pushing a belief, asserting a value on people who may not even give a darn about what Christianity thinks. I say fine. Leave em to it.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

The right definition of marriage has been the same for divorce. LOL, the sanctity of marriage is shot. Personally I don’t care of they get civil unions. Keep the marriage ceremonies out of the church & I’m happy, WE as a church can do no wrong. I figure, if they’re longing to be included in the marriage/ divorce/ alimony game, why deny them? Personally I don’t care. Now I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s gross, but if scripture says it’s an abomination, then read a few passages further & you see where it says to stone your disobedient children to death. SO, who’s picking and choosing??? HHMMMM??? I say let em have it, just keep it at town hall where that stuff belongs IF at all.
I mean I’m not gay, yeah, it kinda grosses me out, but who am I to tell another what to do in their household? Who are YOU to tell another what to do in their household? If they wanna, they’re gonna. There’s nothing we can do about it so I recommend we just focus our energy elsewhere. Keep the ceremonies out of the church, That is actually a huge one because we can still hold our ground and our beliefs without sounding like the Westboro Baptist church defining marriage & what-not.

BUT…why do we need to encourage our governments to put a moral stamp of approval on yet another immorality? Add it to the pile and list of all the other immoralities and offenses to God and humanity that we’re committing? Can’t we tell the government we don’t want them to put a stamp of approval on this? What’s wrong with doing that?

Homosexuals can have wedding ceremonies all the live-long day. They just aren’t recognized as a marriage by most states because “gay-marriage” is an oxymoron.

“Marriage” between anything else but a man and a woman can’t be a marriage because it can’t be consumated. It’s like saying that I can get married to a cat or a dog or a tree or a car. I can’t consumate a marriage with an animal or other object just like I can’t do so with another man (I am a man btw). I can only do that with a woman because the two of us have the organs to do so. Two men or two women don’t have the necessary plumbing.

This is and should be our societies’ standard. Forcing a different standard and false idea on the majority of people who don’t believe in it or see it that way is wrong and immoral. Our government works for us, it is by us and for us, not the other way around. If we allow this to go through…it is partially on our heads as well.

 

[lynnvinc]

The right definition of marriage has been the same for divorce. LOL, the sanctity of marriage is shot. Personally I don’t care of they get civil unions. Keep the marriage ceremonies out of the church & I’m happy, WE as a church can do no wrong. I figure, if they’re longing to be included in the marriage/ divorce/ alimony game, why deny them? Personally I don’t care. Now I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s gross, but if scripture says it’s an abomination, then read a few passages further & you see where it says to stone your disobedient children to death. SO, who’s picking and choosing??? HHMMMM??? I say let em have it, just keep it at town hall where that stuff belongs IF at all.
I mean I’m not gay, yeah, it kinda grosses me out, but who am I to tell another what to do in their household? Who are YOU to tell another what to do in their household? If they wanna, they’re gonna. There’s nothing we can do about it so I recommend we just focus our energy elsewhere. Keep the ceremonies out of the church, That is actually a huge one because we can still hold our ground and our beliefs without sounding like the Westboro Baptist church defining marriage & what-not. Everyone defining what marriage is in the church is reminding me of a muslim extremist telling us what an infidel is. We’re pushing a belief, asserting a value on people who may not even give a darn about what Christianity thinks. I say fine. Leave em to it.

I sort of share your views to some extent, but more because civil marriage is a serious sin, both for hetero- & homosexuals. However, Catholics would face a losing battle trying to ban civil marriages altogether from society. But it is sort of interesting that Catholics seem to care more about the souls of gays (in trying to ban civil marriaged only for them), than of heterosexuals…

The other issues are more practical and a matter of compassion. Many gay couples seek civil unions or marriages so their partner and partner’s children can be included on their health policies. (There are other issues re inheritance and hospital visitation, as well.) Now if we had universal helth care, then gay civil marriage would not be an issue, and compassionate people would not be put in a position of feeling the tug on their heart to support gay civil marriage. And maybe even the judges who are now ushering in gay civil marriages would not feel that pressure to do so, since their logic is equality under the law…including equal access of a gay partner (to health care, etc) to that of a heterosexual partner.

But who’s opposing universal health care? The very same conservatives that oppose gay civil unions and marriages. It seems they want to crush people between a rock and a hard place.

Bring on the European-style universal health care and other social progams and benefits, and I’ll then vote and speak out against gay civil marriage. And I’ll be more vociforous in my opposition to abortion, as well.

As for now I’m not for gay civil marriage, but I don’t feel a lot of impetus to actively speak and work against it…thereby having their partners and children die from lack of medical coverage…

I remember going to a women’s political event some 15 years ago, with lots if tables for Republican and Democratic candidate information…but it was Republican territory, so there was only one table for Democrats. I stopped by and the woman leaned over to me and whispered, “The difference between us and them is that we Democrats have a heart.”

Oh, bleeding Sacred Heart of Jesus, show me the way of righteousness, goodness, mercy and compassion. It is so easy for conservatives to know what (they think) is right, but we liberals with liberally bleeding hearts really struggle…

 

[davidmlamb]

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, we have had government doctors in this country for decades such as VA doctors and doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid patients as well as military doctors. The only doctors who work or contract with the government that are ordered to go live in certain places are military doctors. But military doctors have it better then civilian doctors because they do not have to pay malpractice insurance and they usually get to choose their duty stations not to mention their sweet retirement package.

With respect to Doctors having their pay “dictated.” 95% of all doctors work for hospitals and have their pay “dictated” to them. The working class all have their pay “dictated” to them. I’m an engineer, if I decide tomorrow I am going to tell the company I work for that they have to give me a 10,000 dollar raise they’re going to laugh me out of the room or tell me to go somewhere else and find that salary. Hey Jason, tomorrow go tell your boss that he can no longer dictate your pay and that he has to give you a 5000 dollar raise and see how that works out for you.

Jason, why do you resort to this kind of rhetoric? Do you realize that the Catholic Church teaches that lying, deception, and slander are serious sins? Do you receive holy communion without confessing this sin? I council you to examine your conscience and maybe spend some time in prayer and bible study. A daily rosary can really help purge this vice from you.

Peace,
David

 

[AHapka]

Did the the Pope EVER say that you can’t be Pro-Choice and Catholic? NO. You did, but you are not the Pope. Therefore, you can’t make that call. PERIOD.

Pro-choice = pro-abortion, which is wrong according to Catholic theology. There are those who say abortion should be legal, while we try to reduce it by convincing people not to have them.

If we will follow that logic, then I say drunk driving should be legal, while we try to reduce it by convincing people not to do it.

 

[shidztomes]

Hi all~

I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?

Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…

~Therese

You can be liberal even if you are catholic. But it actually depends on what aspect you should be liberal for about?

maqui berry review

 

[sw85]

You are obviously uninformed, "In the book, Benedict said condoms were not “a real or moral solution” to the AIDS epidemic, adding, “that can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” But he also said that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

If the Pope said a male prostitute can use a condom as an inkling of responsibility. Excuse, me he just said it’s okay for a male hooker to use a condom reduce the risk of AIDS.

That is such a grossly reductive reading of his words.

All that the Pope was saying was that doing evil for the sake of doing good – that is, the act of valuing some good as an end in itself, even if evil is done to achieve it – may represent a first step toward a fuller and more human understanding of the human sexual faculty, one which would ultimately obviate the supposed need for contraception altogether. It is a “first step” precisely because it is insufficient in its own right.

 

[sw85]

You can be liberal even if you are catholic. But it actually depends on what aspect you should be liberal for about?

Oddly enough, the spamming troll has asked a valid question – what it means to be liberal.

Most people in this thread seem to think it boils down to supporting government spending. But that’s completely irrelevant to liberalism. It’s almost incidental to it. One can rip that plank out of the liberal platform without rendering that platform illiberal; one can graft it onto most other ideologies’ platforms without endowing them with liberalism.

As I tried to say earlier (when no one listened to me then) the modern “left/right” divide goes a lot deeper than most people think – precisely because the modern “right” is really just an earlier form of leftism. What leftism actually is, properly understood in the context of its history, is a general disposition toward rebellion against legitimate authority (whether temporal, religious, community, etc.) and toward the exultation of individual impulses. *That *is what makes liberalism liberal – it is that which cannot be taken away from it without making it illiberal and that which, when adopted by others, causes them to become liberal. The modern leftist obsession with welfare politics exists precisely because it is a means to destroy legitimate authority – that of the market, which, ironically, earlier liberals had supported as a means of destroying the legitimate authority of the state. They will abandon welfare statism when it becomes anathema to the achievement of whatever totem they decide to worship a century hence.

Can *that *be reconciled with the Church?

 

[davidmlamb]

Yeah I get the history, but it takes a lot more than you to burst my bubble, LMAO But hey, conservatives weren’t exactly attacking police stations in the '60s either, :

No but they sure do attack the White House and the Presidency today with more vigulance then any Hippie ever did. Conservastism is the new liberalism.

Peace,
David

 

[zz912]

Thank heaven you didn’t get personal, that would have been unchristian.

It’s not “claptrap” to promote policies to aid the poor. It is possible that an individual who happens to be Republican might be as generous to the poor and despised as another who happens to be Democratic, but you as groups (there are always individual exceptions) Democrats promote social policies aimed at helping the poor and the persecuted more often than Republicans. If one doesn’t see that, then their own fanaticism has blinded them.

You really have no room to accuse anyone of being unchristian. You held out that Republicans are opposed to helping the poor, which is patently false and and an unchristian thing to accuse someone of. Republicans believe, rightly so, that govt programs do very little to help people and actually end up harming them in the long run, plus much of what is spent never reaches those in need. Additionally, relying on the govt to do your work for you is an abdication of your responsibility.

 

[crazzeto]

The problem I, and all Christians (should) have with what you posted is this:

You seek to legitimize the sin of homosexuality, by normalizing it and bringing pretending to bring it into the context of “normal” marital relations. At the same time, you seek to further damange the institution of marriage, already gravely weakend (as you point out) by contraception, artifical steralization and things to which this leads, belief that perosnal sexual gratification is the source and summit of your marriage, belief that if you are board with your partner that your free to just find a new one (even if it’s just “on the side”) which then of course leads to those divorce rates you were discussing.

By pretending homosexuals can get married, you solidify the idea that children are neither here nor there in the context of marriage, but rather are now objects which we can choose to persue or avoid. The ultimate expression of this, is a British lottery where the grand prize is, a baby (to legitimize this, technically the prize is $25,000 in fertility treatments).

This is why homosexual marriage is a non-negotiable. I understand your view point, I once held it my self not long ago. But after reading what the Bishops have to say on the matter (actually, the Bishops of the Philippines were quite helpful), as well as having an oppertunity to view a small slice of the gay culture incidently, I have been throughly convinced of Holy Mother Church’s position on this matter.

The right definition of marriage has been the same for divorce. LOL, the sanctity of marriage is shot. Personally I don’t care of they get civil unions. Keep the marriage ceremonies out of the church & I’m happy, WE as a church can do no wrong. I figure, if they’re longing to be included in the marriage/ divorce/ alimony game, why deny them? Personally I don’t care. Now I think it’s disgusting, I think it’s gross, but if scripture says it’s an abomination, then read a few passages further & you see where it says to stone your disobedient children to death. SO, who’s picking and choosing??? HHMMMM??? I say let em have it, just keep it at town hall where that stuff belongs IF at all.
I mean I’m not gay, yeah, it kinda grosses me out, but who am I to tell another what to do in their household? Who are YOU to tell another what to do in their household? If they wanna, they’re gonna. There’s nothing we can do about it so I recommend we just focus our energy elsewhere. Keep the ceremonies out of the church, That is actually a huge one because we can still hold our ground and our beliefs without sounding like the Westboro Baptist church defining marriage & what-not. Everyone defining what marriage is in the church is reminding me of a muslim extremist telling us what an infidel is. We’re pushing a belief, asserting a value on people who may not even give a darn about what Christianity thinks. I say fine. Leave em to it.

 

[estesbob]

Can you be Catholic and liberal? Of course you can… Can you be Catholic and vote liberal? Not very often.

 

[Carlan]

That is such a grossly reductive reading of his words.

All that the Pope was saying was that doing evil for the sake of doing good – that is, the act of valuing some good as an end in itself, even if evil is done to achieve it – may represent a first step toward a fuller and more human understanding of the human sexual faculty, one which would ultimately obviate the supposed need for contraception altogether. It is a “first step” precisely because it is insufficient in its own right.

You talk to blocked walls in this type of thread!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_1977
Yeah I get the history, but it takes a lot more than you to burst my bubble, LMAO But hey, conservatives weren’t exactly attacking police stations in the '60s either,

So the double standard works for you.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Jason_1977]

BUT…why do we need to encourage our governments to put a moral stamp of approval on yet another immorality? Add it to the pile and list of all the other immoralities and offenses to God and humanity that we’re committing? Can’t we tell the government we don’t want them to put a stamp of approval on this? What’s wrong with doing that?

Homosexuals can have wedding ceremonies all the live-long day. They just aren’t recognized as a marriage by most states because “gay-marriage” is an oxymoron.

“Marriage” between anything else but a man and a woman can’t be a marriage because it can’t be consumated. It’s like saying that I can get married to a cat or a dog or a tree or a car. I can’t consumate a marriage with an animal or other object just like I can’t do so with another man (I am a man btw). I can only do that with a woman because the two of us have the organs to do so. Two men or two women don’t have the necessary plumbing.

This is and should be our societies’ standard. Forcing a different standard and false idea on the majority of people who don’t believe in it or see it that way is wrong and immoral. Our government works for us, it is by us and for us, not the other way around. If we allow this to go through…it is partially on our heads as well.

I’ll keep it short & sweet. 1: Who says we need the government to put a stamp on ANYTHING besides a letter? The government only has 1 job. TO GOVERN.

2: The bulk of the country find it disgusting. Let’s behonest with ourselves. I think it’s disgusting. Who am I and who is anyone to push MY beliefs on anyone. Who are THEY to push THEIR beliefs on anyone.

3:Consumation, in the traditional sense is consumation, HOWEVER, today, it doesn’t matter because plumbing isn’t what is required for same sex couples to “consumate”, LOL! I hold to the same standard, I really do. We have that in common. I also feel if ya dont want them pushing their views on the country, then we shouldn’t push our views on them. I get ticked off when baptists give me tracts for cryin out loud…imagine someone telling me my private life is wrong. I’d be in jail for dishing out black eyes. It’s just the way it is. It’s intrusive. (so much for keeping it short.)

 

[Jason_1977]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_1977
Yeah I get the history, but it takes a lot more than you to burst my bubble, LMAO But hey, conservatives weren’t exactly attacking police stations in the '60s either,

 

[Jason_1977]

I sort of share your views to some extent, but more because civil marriage is a serious sin, both for hetero- & homosexuals. However, Catholics would face a losing battle trying to ban civil marriages altogether from society. But it is sort of interesting that Catholics seem to care more about the souls of gays (in trying to ban civil marriaged only for them), than of heterosexuals…

The other issues are more practical and a matter of compassion. Many gay couples seek civil unions or marriages so their partner and partner’s children can be included on their health policies. (There are other issues re inheritance and hospital visitation, as well.) Now if we had universal helth care, then gay civil marriage would not be an issue, and compassionate people would not be put in a position of feeling the tug on their heart to support gay civil marriage. And maybe even the judges who are now ushering in gay civil marriages would not feel that pressure to do so, since their logic is equality under the law…including equal access of a gay partner (to health care, etc) to that of a heterosexual partner.

But who’s opposing universal health care? The very same conservatives that oppose gay civil unions and marriages. It seems they want to crush people between a rock and a hard place.

Bring on the European-style universal health care and other social progams and benefits, and I’ll then vote and speak out against gay civil marriage. And I’ll be more vociforous in my opposition to abortion, as well.

As for now I’m not for gay civil marriage, but I don’t feel a lot of impetus to actively speak and work against it…thereby having their partners and children die from lack of medical coverage…

I remember going to a women’s political event some 15 years ago, with lots if tables for Republican and Democratic candidate information…but it was Republican territory, so there was only one table for Democrats. I stopped by and the woman leaned over to me and whispered, “The difference between us and them is that we Democrats have a heart.”

Oh, bleeding Sacred Heart of Jesus, show me the way of righteousness, goodness, mercy and compassion. It is so easy for conservatives to know what (they think) is right, but we liberals with liberally bleeding hearts really struggle…

Ya need to factor in the least common denominator though. Sin according to catholicism, sin according to fundamentalism. 2 polar opposites sending the same message. Strikes me as funny. I also think if we selectively choose what items from the old testament to hold as standards, like hold to the abomination being a sin, but we’ll discard stoning disobedient children to death. I’ll tell ya, Paul freed us from the law. The law is in the old testament. Jesus didn’t say a word, he just said, love one another. That’s about as liberal as I get, man.
NOW, at the same time, I have a problem with gay couples becoming a nuclear family. I find that irresponsible. Winston Churchill said if a man of 20 yrs. isn’t a liberal, he has no heart, if a man is 40 and isn’t conservative, he has no HEAD. He also said, “a liberal is a man that has his feet planted firmly in the clouds.”

I’m a republican. I’m an environmental science major, My father retired from the EPA, I’m a 3 time war veteran, 9 years of service, 3 dogs, all 3 rescues, I recycle, I love nature, I hike, I love animals…SO, so much for the stigma of democrats being the only ones with a heart.

I oppose universal healthcare in this country VERY strongly. I will explain. It is a socialist program under the guise of a humanitarian aim. The democrats KNOW that “democrats are the heart people”. So what human being can say NO to EVERYONE having a doctor? This bill is a trojan horse! What is going to happen, is it’s going to create MORE spending, MORE government assertion, heck, doctors will be spread evenly geographically & be told where they can & can’t work, live etc. It would be a matter of time before the government dictated their pay. Doctors would become government employees. Doctors would lose freedom. WE would lose freedom. We wouldn’t be able to fly from Phoenix to NY because there’s a really good cancer doctor at Columbia University. You’d have a list of local names to choose from to maintain the illusion that you have a choice. Once socialism creeps in, it will spread & this is how it starts.
Also, You’ve GOT to love the idea that the democrats KNOW that their base is made up of idiots. THEY KNOW they’re idiots. Here’s the proof. Democrat: “Would you be willing to pay more taxes for a universal healthcare program?” SHEEP: Absolutely, that’s a great idea! ~Here’s the problem! THE BULK of the people who DONT pay taxes in this country are, guess what…DEMOCRATS!!! SO, they’re asking people that DONT pay taxes if they’d be willing to pay MORE taxes??? BUT, it’s a way to sneak in a talking point for them I guess