Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[TheRealJuliane]

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

Congratulations! I applaud you in your pursuit of knowledge.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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 Democrat 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

:yup::clapping::clapping: I can always expect that you will respond well in threads such as these.

Couldn’t have stated it better myself.

 

[Carlan]

Congratulations! I applaud you in your pursuit of knowledge.

Thanks, the opportunity is open to all Peace, Carlan

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

Brother Dan, it is indeed sad and distressing how far away from Christianity many Europeans have drifted. I’m not sure that this is related to any particular political system, though. We must remember that Europe has been through centuries of religious warfare, and has seen the rise and fall of monarchies and communist states. We have a different history altogether, and our nation was actually founded on Christian principles. Perhaps the history of religion in America cannot be directly compared to the history of religion in Europe, for many reasons. It is my hope that European nations with populations that are increasingly agnostic, even atheist, are simply going through a socio-cultural “phase,” as it’s hard to tell what the future will bring.

Of course, the threat of an invasion by extraterrestrials hell-bent on conquest might bring many people quickly back to God, but I would hope that such a drastic motivation will prove to be unnecessary. I think rather that increasing disillusionment with materialism may lead to the realization for many that a simpler, more spiritual lifestyle is ultimately more rewarding. The social and entertainment media could help in this regard, since they have such a pervasive influence over young minds. Perhaps this is where more energy and effort can be focused in evangelization.

 

[AHapka]

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.

This actually brings up a good point. Many of the best Bishops and other leaders in secular society have been people who wanted nothing to do with the position.

A person who has no interest in being a Bishop for reasons of power and just wishes to serve God in their own little way is actually suited for being a Bishop if the Lord calls him there. Because they will rule with the right reasons and objectives in mind.

Unfortunately, that is not the way a democracy works. Also, TV has worsened politics in my view. I can honestly say that I don’t think we would elect another president in a wheelchair today. And that’s too bad, because such a person might be the best for the job.

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

OH REALLY? Ever watch Fox News? Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bauchman…? Let our reading audience be the judge of what the values of right wing conservatism vehemently support.

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.

This is more psychobable. Right wing conservatism is opposed to Church teaching in practice and even in teachings. They claim to be pro life yet they have done nothing to stop abortion, or euthenasia. In fact they directly support euthenasia by allowing corporate health care to have complete control over the health of 90% of America for decades. A system which actually allowed people to die by stonewalling life saving procedures so they didn’t have to pay. A system that compares insuring the lives of people with insuring possessions, A system that allowed people to die by denying them health care. A philosephy that denies health care is a natural right which is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. Everything I have said is taught by the Church. I have given good citations from papal encyclicals, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. I have documented everything I have supported. But what is your response? Rhetroric! Let us hear what Pope Paul VI has called what we consider right wing conservatism today

*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.Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)”(***26)

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development.

The wisdom of the Church has called modern Right wing conservatism UNBRIDLED LIBERALISM AND TYRRANY. But it exploits abortion as a smokescreen to where their priorities really are. There are a lot of things conservative GOP lawmakers could do to seriously curtail abortion. Ironically one of them would be taking complete government control over health care making it socialized medicine. The Hyde Ammendment would prevent 99% of abortions from being performed federally without having to overturn Roe V Wade. Turning over Roe V Wade would only leave it up to the states to make their ownn law. But socializing medicine would nearly make it illegal federally.

GOP state legislation could make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage and teenage sex a crime. They could mandate that medical professionals would be oblaged by law to report any unwed teenager who is pregnant to the authorities and that person could be incarcerated for braking the law. Incarceration would protect the unborn child until he/she is born. They could take a more mild approach by launching a massive campaign for life by using the Ad Council, but that would cost them something. They could strengthen social service programs to gaurantee health care, housing, food stamps and WIC along with job training and child care to any pregnant unwed mother who lacks the resources to care for her child. But that would cost them something. With few exceptions, much of the rights pro life stance is phoney. However, the right has done much to cut taxes for corporate America and the wealthy. They manage to get this done because this is their real agenda. Protecting human life and human dignity takes more then rhetoric, it takes action and public money.

In the Service of Christ and the Church,
David

 

[psychicharvard]

]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)/QUOTE

THAT WAS WRITTEN IN 1931 IN REFERENCE TO TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM. HE WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE TYPE OF SOCIALISM AS THEY HAVE IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE BECAUSe THOSE COUNTRIES DIDN’T ADOPT SOCIALISM UNTIL AFTER World War II. DON’T YOU DARE GO GLEN BECK FOX NEWS ON THE CATHOLIC FORUM BY TAKING THINGS OUT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THAT’S MANIPULATIVE AND UNDERHANDED. Shame on you!

 

[davidmlamb]

]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)

 

[starshiptrooper]

THAT WAS WRITTEN IN 1931 IN REFERENCE TO TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM. HE WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE TYPE OF SOCIALISM AS THEY HAVE IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE BECAUSe THOSE COUNTRIES DIDN’T ADOPT SOCIALISM UNTIL AFTER World War II.

The Pope condemned both communism and socialism in the same encyclical.

DON’T YOU DARE GO GLEN BECK FOX NEWS ON THE CATHOLIC FORUM BY TAKING THINGS OUT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THAT’S MANIPULATIVE AND UNDERHANDED. Shame on you!

I’m sorry you feel this way, however, I am only sticking to the facts.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes but Pope Pius XI is talking about “TRUE SOCIALISM” which cannot be confused with what is called “socialism” today. …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.

The more I think about it, the more your definition of socialism and socialism as condemned by Pope Pius XI resemble each other.

End in each case is the same, government redistribution of the wealth. The means are also similar, government control over the economy either by taxation and regulation or state ownership.

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.”*

The first statement is policy, the second statement is a very vague principle. There is no contradiction between the two.

 

[Faithdancer]

This actually brings up a good point. Many of the best Bishops and other leaders in secular society have been people who wanted nothing to do with the position.

A person who has no interest in being a Bishop for reasons of power and just wishes to serve God in their own little way is actually suited for being a Bishop if the Lord calls him there. Because they will rule with the right reasons and objectives in mind.

Unfortunately, that is not the way a democracy works. Also, TV has worsened politics in my view. I can honestly say that I don’t think we would elect another president in a wheelchair today. And that’s too bad, because such a person might be the best for the job.

And isn’t our beloved Pope Benedict XVI, the next Doctor of the Church, just such a reluctant Bishop? I mean, he is on record as saying that he had hoped to retire a few years back…but the white smoke intervened!

Imagine if we could somehow elect our public leaders in this way, so that only those who did not seek the office or display presidential ambition, for example, would be chosen. As far as I can find out the last “dark horse” compromise presidential nominee chosen by his party was Warren G. Harding, who won the election but had a scandalous presidency (Teapot Dome). Abraham Lincoln and the first dark horse, James K. Polk, however, turned out to be pretty good presidents, in historical perspective- ranked #1 and #10 in the 2000 Wall Street Journal poll. Maybe we should pick them all that way.

 

[Dan_Daly]

There is no evidence that in Europe, Norway, Sweden. Japan, and Canada that modern socialism fosters greed.

I disagree. The clearest evidence of greed across western Europe is the plummeting birth rate. There is no surer indicator of greed then a dedication of one’s life to themselves. The plummeting Mass attendance (and church attendance of other denominations) is another good indicator of a humanistic, self centered culture.

As far as abortion and changing hearts and minds- I WOULD and do say that changing hearts and minds is more important on that issue then changing the law as well.

Changing the law is important. Abortion should be illegal. However, many pro-lifers seem to operate under the assumption that if abortion is legal, all would be well in the world, and the fight to protect the unborn will be over. No. Illegal abortion will not end abortion anymore than illegal theft has ended stealing or illegal murder has ended homicides. So while the law is an important element in protecting people, it is not the only one. People still do things that are illegal. That is why changing hearts and minds is the key. If abortion was illegal and some people wanted them, you would still have abortions. If abortion was legal and nobody wanted one, you wouldn’t. We should work towards a society where it is both illegal and nobody wants one.

Pax.

 

[Elizabeth502]

While the thread is not about abortion per se, obviously the subject has come up. If anyone wants to look at effective campaigns, it’s the anti-smoking campaign which should be examined. Notice that cigarettes are still legal; nothing has changed in that regard. They are legal to purchase, for the appropriate age, in all 50 States. Yet:

(1) it has become decreasingly attractive to smoke, individually & socially. In many locations, smoking is a turn-off to dating and definitely to marriage.
(2) Massive public service efforts were engineered to inform the public about the health ramifications of smoking – both first-hand and second-hand.
(3) Incentives not to smoke were created, by virtue of smokers receiving essentially minority status in terms of privileges (seating areas in restaurants, rooms in hotels, etc.)
(4) Disincentives to smoking were created, indirectly by virtue of increased tobacco pricing/taxing, & directly by virtue of exclusion of smoking in many public locations, many of which ban smoking entirely now, so that abstention has to be maintained for long periods of time when in public.

When communication becomes effective, legislation becomes unnecessary and may even work to cross-purposes, in that it calls attention to the illegality, which invites black market activity for those seeking to exploit, and invites litigation by those seeking to make political hay.

Abortion involves more complex issues & populations than smoking does, but nevertheless some psychological parallels can be made. I believe the best strategy is a combination of positive & negative (incentives & disincentives), with legislation involving time restrictions and gender selection being important (as starting points) and additionally involving unmarried minors as a straightforward starting point (even though minors are not the largest population to obtain abortions, but rather unmarried women 20-29 are).

Making abortion extremely expensive when used as Plan B, would be tremendously helpful. Ending anonymity for the male would also help.

Make it inconvenient, unattractive, costly, and socially unacceptable as a form of birth control, and you’re 80% of the way there. Correspondingly, increase the attractiveness of marriage itself – and a marriage not beset by immaturity & poverty – and in this country you would be 90% there.

The heterogeneity of our country does complicate matters. In some cultures, early pregnancy is seen (mythically, incorrectly) as a way out of poverty and way into status. Cultural assumptions have to be addressed for there to be a serious reduction in elective abortions. Countries which have done well in limiting or reducing abortions are countries which are much more homogeneous than we are.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course you can, and I will gladly proclaim that I am. What a Catholic cannot be is a social or religious liberal. Social liberals tend to be for things like abortion and gay marriage, while religious liberals reject basic tenants of our faith. Political liberalism is something different entirely, and while the social liberals seem to have the biggest voice today, it was not always so. It is a tradition and style of government. I identify more with Roosevelt and Jefferson than with social liberals.

This ^.

 

[PaulintheUSA]

Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, John Kerry for example claim to be “Catholics” and as long as they are not yet excommunicated, I take the Church’s word for their status as “Catholics-in-name-only.”

 

[Dan_Daly]

This ^.

Unless I missed it, nobody has responded to my charge that both President Roosevelts were quite clearly social liberals.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[AHapka]

They claim to be pro life yet they have done nothing to stop abortion, or euthenasia.

So you say making something illegal does nothing to stop it? Perhaps we should make it legal to have sex with children since your logic is that making it illegal does nothing to stop it. I fail to see your logic.

Personally, I think we should tax abortion as a way to reduce it before making it illegal. A $1,000 tax would help cut the deficit just a bit, and make it less accessible.

 

[AHapka]

GOP state legislation could make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage

It is already a crime in many states, in fact in my home state of Wisconsin it is a misdemeanor to commit adultery.

However, the courts will not enforce it in practice.

 

[Faithdancer]

I disagree. The clearest evidence of greed across western Europe is the plummeting birth rate. There is no surer indicator of greed then a dedication of one’s life to themselves. The plummeting Mass attendance (and church attendance of other denominations) is another good indicator of a humanistic, self centered culture.

As far as abortion and changing hearts and minds- I WOULD and do say that changing hearts and minds is more important on that issue then changing the law as well.

Changing the law is important. Abortion should be illegal. However, many pro-lifers seem to operate under the assumption that if abortion is legal, all would be well in the world, and the fight to protect the unborn will be over. No. Illegal abortion will not end abortion anymore than illegal theft has ended stealing or illegal murder has ended homicides. So while the law is an important element in protecting people, it is not the only one. People still do things that are illegal. That is why changing hearts and minds is the key. If abortion was illegal and some people wanted them, you would still have abortions. If abortion was legal and nobody wanted one, you wouldn’t. We should work towards a society where it is both illegal and nobody wants one.

Pax.

Dan, I wouldn’t take the declining birth rate as evidence of selfishness per se. I read quite a while back, around the time I was living in Berlin, that the costs of everything related to rearing a child are very high in Europe, and that this was a main factor in the declining birth rate among white Western Europeans. I imagine these costs are even higher now than they were then (about 15 years ago). I think there may be many married couples of childbearing age who have to weigh their strong desire for children, which is natural, with their concern for being able to provide for the child’s health and welfare. I wouldn’t necessarily consider that a selfish decision. This assumes, of course, that the parties in question are married and Church-approved means of planned parenting are being used, i.e. NFP.

I totally, absolutely agree with you that in an ideal society, abortion would not even be considered as an option and as you say, no one would want one. I think that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a key factor, and that chastity and celibacy outside of marriage are key to reducing unwanted pregnancies.