Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[starshiptrooper]

The Popes denunciation of socialism was stricktly a marxist socialism or a revolutionary socialism which is a totalitarian regime that impedes freedom of religion. The Popes do not condemn the socialism we find in Western Europe, Norwaigh, Sweden, Canada, and Japan.

You are incorrect.

…We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (paragraph 117. Quadragesimo Anno)

If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (paragraph 120. Quadragesimo Anno)

I am really interested in your explanation for these quotes
davidlmb:

A lot of the spending we have is neccassary and if eliminated would be condemned by the USCCB. That would include social spending and cutting out social security for the average wage earner and those who are vulnerable to poverty.

Most of this spending is unconstitutional.

In order to pay back a debt you need to raise revenue for that debt. if I owe thousands of dollars in credit cards cutting spending on food, rent, and utilites is not going to pay off those bills. I’m going to have to go out and get a second job to help pay off those bills. However, Republicans do not go out and get a second job to pay off those debts, instead they take an unpaid vacation and borrow the money. This is the real problem. It cost money to run a government, you don’t cut spending in education, or the police department. you don’t cut out or reduce social security payments for average or low income retirees. Neither do you ignore 50 milion people who have no access to health care simply because we think we cannot afford it. These things require inflationary adjustments which are just increases in spending. You cover increases in spending by raising revenue. That is what is meant by rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar

Key words, ‘what belongs to Caesar’, welfare, social security, and national healthcare do not belong to Caesar. The US Government is given no authority by the Constitution to do these things.

When you pay back a debt, you cut your unnecessary expenses, things you should have never spent a cent on in the first place. In your case, that might be cigarettes. In the case of the US Government, that would be unconstitutional spending.

 

[Carlan]

Thank you,I agree with you, I’m no intellectual, however, my common sense works for me.Peace, Carlan

 

[davidmlamb]

David,

We’ve disagreed quite a bit on these forums, but this:

So to answer the title of this thread, YES you can be both liberal and catholic with limitations. You can also be both conservative and Catholic with limitations. Those limitations are crossing boundaries between good and evil./

 

[Carlan]

1. Even better than teaching our sons to be responsible for the results of their casual sex…teach our sons not to have sex outside of marriage- casual or otherwise.
   Pax and God Bless!

Yes,It is our resposibility as parents to teach our children respect for their bodies and the bodies of others.
And if you can’t keep the pants zipped ,face the consequenses, do the responsible and marry the girl!
Peace, Carlan

 

[davidmlamb]

PART I

I am really interested in your explanation for these quotes.

I am so glad you asked because I would be happy to comment. First, when we consider any papal encyclical or even apostolic writings that have been canonized we must consider the time they were written, the conditions of those times and the audience it is addressing. QUADRAGESIMO ANNO was written by Pope Pius XI in 1931 the zenith of Marxism. Secondly, Pope Pius XI uses key words in your citation such as…Christians cannot be “true socialist” and remain Catholic.

He also admits that within the tenants of socialism are things which are good. The logical conclusion is when the good is separated from the evil we no longer have “true socialism” but what remains is what is good cannot be accurately called socialism.

Thirdly, you only gave short citations to a very long encyclical which starts off addressing workers rights including the right to form unions and collectively bargain. Socialism in 1931 embraced the tenants of collectivism, which violates the rights to private property. Modern “socialism” is an economic system which is fueled by a free market and has freedom of religion. It is not collectivism but more of a welfare state.

You implied that the economic system in the European Union, Norway, Sweden, and Japan are condemned by the Church and to support that you used a 1931 encyclical. Yet can you provide any encyclical written by Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI, the USCCB or the Magesterium to support this? You cannot! You cannot because what is considered liberal, conservatism, and socialism today did not mean the same thing in 1931. In fact, they. did not even mean the same thing in 1967; here is what Pope Paul VI wrote in his encyclical Populorum Progressio which built on the former Social Encyclicals written by Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John XXIII

*No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23)

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)*

In other words, Pope Paul VI as well as Pope Pius XI are condemning what is today considered right wing conservatism as “unbridled liberalism” and “Tyranny.”

In the Service of Christ and His Church,

David

**END OF PART I **

 

[davidmlamb]

PART II

Most of this spending is unconstitutional.Key words, ‘what belongs to Caesar’, welfare, social security, and national healthcare do not belong to Caesar. The US Government is given no authority by the Constitution to do these things. .

Okay so now you jump from divine revelation of the Church on morals and faith to the US Constitution. The first point I will make is that the US Constitution must rest on the pillars of justice and righteousness. These things are defined by the Church. Secondly, your interpretation of the US Constitution is by far the minority view of constitutional scholars, judges and lawmakers. Because something is not explicitly covered in the Constitution does not mean it is unconstitutional. The US Constitution is a living document. If we use your application of the US Constitution as a matter of morality then abortion would be perfectly fine. But let us hear what the very document you cited for your argument, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, has to say about the role of government:

*With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that “through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State.”[19]

Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. “For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight.”[20]

1. It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property. Moreover, Leo XIII wisely taught “that God has left the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and institutions of peoples.” *

Hence this brings us back to the proper understanding of Romans 13:1-6.

So in summary it becomes clear that the social doctrines of the Church support my case and that modern right wing conservatism which is anti union, anti social welfare, anti government, and pro individualism is nothing more than unbridled liberalism and tyranny repackaged as freedom, conservatism and being good. It has been substituted by some for the Catholic faith when in fact, it is a doctrine of demons, a different gospel then the one the Church teaches and should be condemned because it is a cancer in the body of Christ. I pray every day that God will purge this cancer from our society.

In the Service of Christ and His Church, Peace,Be with All of You.

David

 

[Faithdancer]

“Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24.

Authors, Various; United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (2011-06-06). New American Bible Revised Edition. (Kindle Locations 131062-131065). Fairbrother. Kindle Edition.

 

[davidmlamb]

“Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24.

Authors, Various; United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (2011-06-06). New American Bible Revised Edition. (Kindle Locations 131062-131065). Fairbrother. Kindle Edition.

AMEN FAITHDANCER! For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Let us hear the the words of the left wing looney Saint Paul:

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 1 Timothy 6:3-10

Peace,
David

 

[Faithdancer]

And Amen back to you, Brother Lamb. I reckon we could fill up a number of pages of this forum with chapter and verse declaiming the wickedness of materialism and a life lived in the accumulation of weath and property.

I’ve made up my mind to follow St. Francis. I’m in serious discernment and dialogue with the brothers of San Damiano TOR about following the path to full vows. Granted, this may not seem like it’s for everyone but then again, they take married men too! Once your family is provided for, what more do y’all need?

 

[starshiptrooper]

…He also admits that within the tenants of socialism are things which are good. The logical conclusion is when the good is separated from the evil we no longer have “true socialism” but what remains is what is good cannot be accurately called socialism.

The Pope states quite clearly in paragraph 117 of Quadragesimo Anno that socialism and Christianity are incompatible. I should have posted the entire paragraph in the first place.

But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (Quadragesimo Anno, paragraph 117)

As you can see, the Pope clearly states that socialism and Christianity are opposed to one another.

davidmlamb:

Thirdly, you only gave short citations to a very long encyclical which starts off addressing workers rights including the right to form unions and collectively bargain. Socialism in 1931 embraced the tenants of collectivism, which violates the rights to private property. Modern “socialism” is an economic system which is fueled by a free market and has freedom of religion. It is not collectivism but more of a welfare state.

Okay, it seems we define socialism differently. I am using the usual defintion, government ownership of the means of production and distribution, while you define socialism as the welfare state. Pope Pius XI was using my definition when he condemned socialism.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23)

Notice, the document only says that authorities must seek solutions, it does not specify the solutions that must be implemented.

26. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)

In other words, Pope Paul VI as well as Pope Pius XI are condemning what is today considered right wing conservatism as “unbridled liberalism” and “Tyranny.”

The problem is belief in private ownership as an absolute right. Competition, and self interest are not intrinsically evil. Rather, it is the combination of these three ideas that are problematic.

 

[Dan_Daly]

And Amen back to you, Brother Lamb. I reckon we could fill up a number of pages of this forum with chapter and verse declaiming the wickedness of materialism and a life lived in the accumulation of weath and property.

And I could help you in the project, because Christ quite clearly teaches what you are saying- wordly wealth IS an obstacle to salvation, and the American obession with accumulating STUFF is dragging lots of souls to hell no doubt.

That being said, I think it’s fair to say that socialistic societies based on the redistrubution of said “stuff” and wealth are often just as materialistic as a capitalist society, or EVEN MORE SO.

David is quite fond of praising the government run social safety nets in Europe. It’s a fair questio to ask if all the higher taxes and increased welfare programs have helped souls get to heaven. When we see that Mass attendance has plummeted to very low levels across Europe and religion in general is seen as a quaint historical artifact by many, the answer is certainly not a resounding yes.

So while we do agree materialism is a major problem in general, and particularly in American culture, I don’t think it’s at all clear that GOVERNMENT can provide the solution, at least not until the government of,by,and for the people is of,by, and for a people of FAITH.

Laws are important. The political process is important. Government has an important role to play in our lives. But I think we can agree that more important than changing laws, we need to change hearts.

Pax.

 

[Carlan]

And I could help you in the project, because Christ quite clearly teaches what you are saying- wordly wealth IS an obstacle to salvation, and the American obession with accumulating STUFF is dragging lots of souls to hell no doubt.

That being said, I think it’s fair to say that socialistic societies based on the redistrubution of said “stuff” and wealth are often just as materialistic as a capitalist society, or EVEN MORE SO.

David is quite fond of praising the government run social safety nets in Europe. It’s a fair questio to ask if all the higher taxes and increased welfare programs have helped souls get to heaven. When we see that Mass attendance has plummeted to very low levels across Europe and religion in general is seen as a quaint historical artifact by many, the answer is certainly not a resounding yes.

So while we do agree materialism is a major problem in general, and particularly in American culture, I don’t think it’s at all clear that GOVERNMENT can provide the solution, at least not until the government of,by,and for the people is of,by, and for a people of FAITH.

Laws are important. The political process is important. Government has an important role to play in our lives. But I think we can agree that more important than changing laws, we need to change hearts.

Pax.

For sure , Dan, gotta get hearts changed, therein lies the great problem , we pray. And posters like you and David we need more of at Catholic Answers! Peace, Carlan

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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

I would say liberalism is the new Communism.

 

[Carlan]

I would say liberalism is the new Communism.

With all the resourses we have these days, it is not at all hard to actually educate ourselves and I have discovered you are never too old to learn. Peace, Carlan

 

[sw85]

And Amen back to you, Brother Lamb. I reckon we could fill up a number of pages of this forum with chapter and verse declaiming the wickedness of materialism and a life lived in the accumulation of weath and property.

I’ve made up my mind to follow St. Francis. I’m in serious discernment and dialogue with the brothers of San Damiano TOR about following the path to full vows. Granted, this may not seem like it’s for everyone but then again, they take married men too! Once your family is provided for, what more do y’all need?

While I can agree with you both about the wickedness of materialism, the one thing I have been saying all along is that socialism is itself a materialist philosophy. For Heaven’s sake it actually positively denies the existence of God!

Thus it is impossible to reconcile it with Catholicism. You can of course accept certain socialist planks (e.g., government spending here or there); but those planks are not explicitly socialist, socialism does not cease to be socialism without them, and believing in them is not sufficient to qualify one as a socialist.

 

[davidmlamb]

…He also admits that within the tenants of socialism are things which are good. The logical conclusion is when the good is separated from the evil we no longer have “true socialism” but what remains is what is good cannot be accurately called socialism.–David

The Pope states quite clearly in paragraph 117 of Quadragesimo Anno that socialism and Christianity are incompatible. I should have posted the entire paragraph in the first place.

…As you can see, the Pope clearly states that socialism and Christianity are opposed to one another…

Yes but Pope Pius XI is talking about “TRUE SOCIALISM” which cannot be confused with what is called “socialism” today. That is the crux of my argument. It becomes a game of semantics for the right wing branch of society but it is not based in truth but opon rhetoric and propaganda in order to advance the best interests of corporations and the wealthy with no regard to the common good.

…Thirdly, you only gave short citations to a very long encyclical which starts off addressing workers rights including the right to form unions and collectively bargain. Socialism in 1931 embraced the tenants of collectivism, which violates the rights to private property. Modern “socialism” is an economic system which is fueled by a free market and has freedom of religion. It is not collectivism but more of a welfare state. --David

Okay, it seems we define socialism differently. I am using the usual defintion, government ownership of the means of production and distribution, while you define socialism as the welfare state. Pope Pius XI was using my definition when he condemned socialism…

Which is the entire point of my argument. In the United States raising taxes and regulating the market to support the common good has been labeled “socialism.” President Obama has been slanderously called “a Marxist.” Anyone who opposes the right wing branch of America is bullied and labeled a socialist and a Marxist while many of these same people gladly collect their Social Security and Medicare, while impeding the rest of society from needed social services, quality public education, and Universal Health Care. It is disingenuous, selfish, and evil individualism.

…*No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23) --Populorum Progressio *

Notice, the document only says that authorities must seek solutions it does not specify the solutions that must be implemented…

Yes but I want you to notice that what the document is saying is in direct contradiction to what right wing conservatism say’s:

• “Government is not the solution, government is the problem—Ronald Reagan (Father of modern conservatism). *

But the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which speaks the wisdom of God and is the pillar and foundation of truth say’s:

• “Government s being instituted by God to enact laws and oversight which support the common good IS THE SOLUTION.”*

This proves my point about right wing conservatism being a different gospel then what the Church teaches and according to Saint Paul it should be eternally condemned (Galatians 1:6-9)

However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26) --Pope Paul VI

In other words, Pope Paul VI as well as Pope Pius XI are condemning what is today considered right wing conservatism as “unbridled liberalism” and “Tyranny.”
–David Lamb

The problem is belief in private ownership as an absolute right. Competition, and self interest are not intrinsically evil. Rather, it is the combination of these three ideas that are problematic.

And I have not said that competition, and self interest by themselves are evil. My implication is that they have become evil precisely because all the combinations to morph it into an intrinsic evil are in place and have spread like gangrene throughout western society and especially the American culture and the Church in America. And the carrier of this disease is right wing conservatism, the new tyranny of the world. My intention is to make every Catholic aware of this truth so that it may be expelled, exercised, and vomited out of the Church and out of our society so as to restore peace and solidarity and allow the common good to flourish in our country once again.

In Service of Christ and His Church,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

…That being said, I think it’s fair to say that socialistic societies based on the redistrubution of said “stuff” and wealth are often just as materialistic as a capitalist society, or EVEN MORE SO. .

I dissagree Dan, there is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that in Europe, Norway, Sweden. Japan, and Canada that modern socialism fosters greed. What it does is assure that basic human needs are met and accomplishes this by a just taxation systerm. You can’t say that taxing the rich is greed. Jesus said render to Casar what belongs to Caesar and as I have pointed out the Church say’s God has instituted governments to make laws and levy taxes to support the common good. That’s not greed its godliness, righteousness and justice.

…David is quite fond of praising the government run social safety nets in Europe. It’s a fair questio to ask if all the higher taxes and increased welfare programs have helped souls get to heaven. When we see that Mass attendance has plummeted to very low levels across Europe and religion in general is seen as a quaint historical artifact by many, the answer is certainly not a resounding yes. .

You’re being disengenuous here Dan, Social Safety Nets are not meant to repair or benefit the soul of the receivers, however it does heal and benefit the souls who assure these safety nets are in place. Social safety nets are meant for the physical well being of humanity. It is a matter of being pro life and supporting human dignity. It is irrelevent whether or not anyone who receives universal health care, public education, or social assistance attend Church or are even Christian. What does matter however is that as Christians we assure a just society that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned… We will be judged as a society by these things

…So while we do agree materialism is a major problem in general, and particularly in American culture, I don’t think it’s at all clear that GOVERNMENT can provide the solution, at least not until the government of,by,and for the people is of,by, and for a people of FAITH.

The Church dissagrees with you Dan. Governments were instituted precisely for this reason. I have already provided several citations for this from papal social encyclicals and the CCC. You might want to go back and read them and then I would be interested to hear your response.

…Laws are important. The political process is important. Government has an important role to play in our lives. But I think we can agree that more important than changing laws, we need to change hearts.

Pax.

What if I were to make this argument about abortion; *“we don’t need laws to protect the fetus we just need to change hearts.” *How would you respond to that? The converted heart works toward civil justice to promote the common good. Then as this is done we as Catholic believers being moved by grace to love our neighbor as we love ourselves by virtue of our actions will cause more hearts to be converted because they will see the light of Jesus in us and that we have not lost our salt. Then they will have a reason to believe and be converted, They will see our good works and glorify God in heaven. This is called bearing fruit that will last

In the Service of Christ and His Church.

David Lamb

 

[davidmlamb]

While I can agree with you both about the wickedness of materialism, the one thing I have been saying all along is that socialism is itself a materialist philosophy. For Heaven’s sake it actually positively denies the existence of God!

Thus it is impossible to reconcile it with Catholicism. You can of course accept certain socialist planks (e.g., government spending here or there); but those planks are not explicitly socialist, socialism does not cease to be socialism without them, and believing in them is not sufficient to qualify one as a socialist.

I can agree with this, however the problem is socialism has been redifined to mean anyone who dissagrees with right wing conservatism.* "Obama and the Democrats are Marxist, Socialist, Communist…Terrorist…, blah blah blah.*The whole thing is pathetically dishonest and out of controlled rhetoric. I’m a Democrat, I voted for President Obama (and will vote for him again), yet it is clear I am a devout Catholic, Pro Life, and well educated in Christian theology. Neither am I a Communist, and by your definition of a Socialist I am not that either. Yet I have lost count of the amount of times I have been called an abortionist, a communist, a Marxist, a Socialist, and even an atheist. And why? Because I’m a Democrat!

David

 

[estesbob]

I can agree with this, however the problem is socialism has been redifined to mean anyone who dissagrees with right wing conservatism.* "Obama and the Democrats are Marxist, Socialist, Communist…Terrorist…, blah blah blah.*The whole thing is pathetically dishonest and out of controlled rhetoric. I’m a Democrat, I voted for President Obama (and will vote for him again), yet it is clear I am a devout Catholic, Pro Life, and well educated in Christian theology. Neither am I a Communist, and by your definition of a Socialist I am not that either. Yet I have lost count of the amount of times I have been called an abortionist, a communist, a Marxist, a Socialist, and even an atheist. And why? Because I’m a Democrat!

David

To accept your rationale we have to not only accept your personal definition of socialism but also your gross caricature of conservatism that bears little relationship to any conservatism I have run across in the US. It all appears to be the standard Democrst Catholic attempt to rationalize their support of a party that is so firmly wedded to the culture of death a rationalization that always seem to start with painting your political opponents as evil incarnate while hoping people overlook the fact you have sworn allegiance to a political philosophy that stands in direct opposition to the core moral teachings of our Church

 

[Faithdancer]

While I can agree with you both about the wickedness of materialism, the one thing I have been saying all along is that socialism is itself a materialist philosophy. For Heaven’s sake it actually positively denies the existence of God!

Thus it is impossible to reconcile it with Catholicism. You can of course accept certain socialist planks (e.g., government spending here or there); but those planks are not explicitly socialist, socialism does not cease to be socialism without them, and believing in them is not sufficient to qualify one as a socialist.

I would never support a Marxist state, nor would I ever support a laissez-fare economic system. Marxist leaders can be just as materialist and corrupt as Capitalist leaders, there is no doubt about that. However, Socialism and Capitalism are not the only two possibilities are they? Neither are Democratic and Republican the only two possible political parties. Perhaps what is needed is a party that truly represents all of the values of the Catholic Church, and is led by those who embody those values. I can’t be convinced that either the Democratic or Republican party is it. Therefore, I’m an independent. I can’t vote in the primaries, so what?

If Saint Francis were alive today, I would vote for him regardless of his party affiliation. Of course, this is absurd, because Saint Francis would have nothing to do with political office, let alone party politics.