Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[zz912]

Could you provide some proof of the support of Republicans for euthanasia? The left is the party of euthanasia, and you are using a made up reason so you can continue to support democrats who are blatantly pro-abortion.

This issue with Brewer is being spun by you with severe intellectual dishonesty. First, euthanasia is the termination of a life. Gov Brewer did not terminate anyone’s life. Choosing to refuse to pay for a very expensive procedure is NOT killing someone. The govt and you individually have NO requirement to pay for someone else’s medical care. Everyone will die, and we simply can’t afford to give everyone platinum medical care. And the childish notion that we can is one of the reasons that healthcare costs are rising so fast. When you have increased demand, prices rise, simple laws of economics.

What is really sad is that your support of govt healthcare absolutely GUARANTEES that there will be more rationing of this type. We see it now in Europe and Canada, and it is coming with Obamacare. So if you are truly upset by this, then stop wishing for more govt involvement in healthcare. They are the majority cause of the problems in healthcare.

You should apologize for the lies you have stated about Republican support of euthanasia. And all because you place politics over God.

It is disengenuous of you to say that Catholic Bishops told Catholics not to vote for Barack Obama. They cannot do that. Instead, they published Faithful Citizenship which anyone can download and read. When those who want to get to the truth of the matter do download it, than they will know it supports what I have been saying all along, and that is; we are called to the art of the possible which requires prudence and then we are to make a prudential judgement based on a well informed conscience. It further tells us they we are forbidden to use a candidates opposition to an intrinsic evil in order to promote, ignore, or show indifference to other matters of human life and human dignity which are being violated.

That is what estabob is doing and he even admitted it when he said nothing trumps abortion, which implies not even euthenasia. The Church does not teach that abortion is a greater evil then euthenasia. I believe that everytime someone who takes the rigid stance like estabob does and votes for a GOP candidate I believe such a person cooperate with the intrinsic evil of euthenasia. I believe this because euthenasia is something that can be immediately stopped and abortion is not. I believe it is clear from Church teaching that in order to restore justice from euthenasia and abortion there must be a gradual restoration of justice by the prudence of Catholic voters. We have stopped euthenasia with the new health care law, and now we work to improve the new health care law to end abortion. None of this would have been achieved had the GOP won the 2008 election. But thanks to the prudential judgment of 53% of the Catholic vote we have stopped euthenasia dead in its tracks.

We pray for President Obama to understand the gravity of abortion and that he will change his heart. I believe his hearft is already changing. FOCA has not even been an issue anymore and President Obama agrees that we need to work to reduce abortion. This is a great start. The key here folks is prudence.

The art of the possible and prudential judgment should inform our conscience that it is possible to immediately end euthenasia thus partially restoring justice. And then we can continue to fight to end abortion. We do not ignore, or show indifference to euthenasia in order to end abortion when it is within our immediate grasp to end euthenasia but not within our immediate grasp to end abortion.

I am wondering estabob if you are in union with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or the SSPX?

YES lurkers please take a look at all 2 of those “voluminous” documents estabob cited with no Nihil Obstat-Imprematur stamped on them and then take a look at the citations from Faithful Citizenship, which was written by the United States Catholic Bishops collectively and received an “Nihil Obstat-(name removed by moderator)rimatur” from the Vatican and then download the document and read the entire book (which takes about 40 minutes).

Pax Vobis,
David

 

[lynnvinc]

It’s a typical response from pro-choice Catholics. Direct quotes from members of the Magestrium are dismissed as being from “dissenters”(Cardinal Burke is in schism with the Church??? do you how ridicolous that comment is???) while you only come back is to cut-and-paste from Catholic documents and demand we accept your personal interpretation of what they say. You cannot find a single member of the Magestrium that even hinted there were proportionate reasons that would’ve allowed a Catholic to vote for Barack Obama in the last election. him

Again Archbishop Chaput says it better than i ever could:

Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind* of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event.***:

I think we’re seeing a gold medal performance in this thread

After Roe v. Wade, I campaigned vigorously, including door-to-door, against it, and in support of 1976 Democratic presidential primary candidate Ellen McCcormack, who was opposed to abortion & Roe.

If such a candidate were to come forth again, I’d support such…like Rep. Stupak, a Democrat who has a much higher environmental score than my Democratic congressman (which means way way higher than any Republican score). Seems conservatives lobbed death threats at Stupak and his family so he withdrew from politics. So that really leaves nearly no one to vote for who is authentically pro-life, with the conservatives almost to a man and a woman being totally in favor of annihilating all life of planet earth.

What to do? Hold one’s nose and vote for the least pro-death candidate, and hope that by their programs that they usher in some pro-life actions…such as getting us off our duffs to reduce global warming, or establishing universal health care and other programs that can save lives and encourage women not to have abortions.

I simply cannot vote for the end of all life on planet earth, no matter how effective that would be in ending abortion Mission accomplished, as Bush might say (in some old video, since we’d all be dead).

If that means I go to hell – tho I have confessed my voting sins after every election, and I am truly heartily sorry if my vote results in anyone’s death or abortion – I guess that’s the breaks. My conscience will not allow me to vote for annihilating all life on earth, and I don’t much relish voting for candidates who execute innocent people either. I’m prepared to die for my pro-life stance. That’s how important it is to me.

I think if Jesus were to come back today, the conservatives would refuse to hear any exculpatory evidence clearing His Good Name, accuse Him of being a “warmer,” and execute Him – esp the right-wing fanatic Christians who seem out for someone’s blood. (I don’t really mean that, I’m just speaking in hyperbole out of extreme EXTREME frustration and sadness over the political landscape of today.)

 

[Carlan]

After Roe v. Wade, I campaigned vigorously, including door-to-door, against it, and in support of 1976 Democratic presidential primary candidate Ellen McCcormack, who was opposed to abortion & Roe.

If such a candidate were to come forth again, I’d support such…like Rep. Stupak, a Democrat who has a much higher environmental score than my Democratic congressman (which means way way higher than any Republican score). Seems conservatives lobbed death threats at Stupak and his family so he withdrew from politics. So that really leaves nearly no one to vote for who is authentically pro-life, with the conservatives almost to a man and a woman being totally in favor of annihilating all life of planet earth.

What to do? Hold one’s nose and vote for the least pro-death candidate, and hope that by their programs that they usher in some pro-life actions…such as getting us off our duffs to reduce global warming, or establishing universal health care and other programs that can save lives and encourage women not to have abortions.

I simply cannot vote for the end of all life on planet earth, no matter how effective that would be in ending abortion Mission accomplished, as Bush might say (in some old video, since we’d all be dead).

If that means I go to hell – tho I have confessed my voting sins after every election, and I am truly heartily sorry if my vote results in anyone’s death or abortion – I guess that’s the breaks. My conscience will not allow me to vote for annihilating all life on earth, and I don’t much relish voting for candidates who execute innocent people either. I’m prepared to die for my pro-life stance. That’s how important it is to me.

I think if Jesus were to come back today, the conservatives would refuse to hear any exculpatory evidence clearing His Good Name, accuse Him of being a “warmer,” and execute Him – esp the right-wing fanatic Christians who seem out for someone’s blood. (I don’t really mean that, I’m just speaking in hyperbole out of extreme EXTREME frustration and sadness over the political landscape of today.)

:clapping:Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
THe conservative vote in my opinion is suspect , they claim to be pro life every 4 years , still, after 40years, the killing law is still on the books, I suspect their vote is only to garner the Catholic vote. Peace, Carlan

 

[AndyF]

This is best answered by adhering to the thought processes of a devout Catholic.

1/First is the thing wished to put into legislation.
2/Next is to determine if what is desired is in conformity with God’s laws. References and advice is perhaps obtained from the Diocese. Encyclicals and the Catechism are also a source of immense help. The parish priest can offer his opinion. The Magisterium has the final say.
3/Finally to vote negative or positive on the proposal in accordance with the advice given.

In doing so our contribution assists the Church has teacher by indicating has front line Catholics that we are of one accord, and we are indeed.

Decisions made on a label is dangerous. Discovering in what social collective personality grouping the party is in could indicate a history of careful or careless habit of implementing policies. Cases that make the decision process easier could be one similar to radical parties who are in the habit of choosing immoral or not carefully thought out proposals, or have an anti-social bias or agenda, or ignore official teachings of the Church. These last are warning signs for the Catholic, and simply not given any serious consideration.

Andy

 

[davidmlamb]

The left is the party of euthanasia, and you are using a made up reason so you can continue to support democrats who are blatantly pro-abortion.

I suppose you can just say my reason is made up and that Democrats are the party of euthenasia but let us look a little closer at your reasoning here:

REPUBLICANS-the party of pro life on the matter of 99 poor Arizona Residents who were abruptly cut off from receiving their life sustaining organ tramnsplants or they will die (note 3 have died so far).

We are not responsible for helping these poor people! We just can’t afford to give them cadallac health care. Let them die! We need to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich instead. We are the party of life AMEN!

DEMOCRATS-The culture of death party on the matter of 99 poor Arizona Residents who were abruptly cut off from receiving their life sustaining organ tramnsplants or they will die (note 3 have died so far).

We need to save these helpless souls. Let us raise the taxbracket on the super rich by 1% to save their lives.

*“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the political parties will be gathered before him, and he will separate the Republicans from the Democrats. He will put the Republicans on his right and the Democrats on his left. “Then the King will say to the Republicans on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, For I was happy with my tax cuts giving me more money to buy my luxuries and a couple of McDonalds so I can employ a few more people at minimum wage and thus create jobs. And you protected my money from the poor sick peasants trying to get me to pay for their health care. The Kingdom of Heaven is yours!

“Then he will say to those Democrats on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For you took away my European Vacation by raising my taxes and gave it to those miserable sick peasants so they can live longer to sit on their butts and collect welfare! “Then the Democrats will go away to eternal punishment, but the Republicans to eternal life.” *

This issue with Brewer is being spun by you with severe intellectual dishonesty. First, euthanasia is the termination of a life. Gov Brewer did not terminate anyone’s life.

You are cooperating with an intrinsic evil by white washing this. These poor patients life dependended on these organ transplants and had no other resources to help themselves. They are innocent, helpless, and vulnerable yet with your approval Jan Brewer has signed their death warrant and you rejoice over it. Explain to me how this makes you pro life? You have shown contempt for the poor, for human life and human dignity yet you say this is good?

Choosing to refuse to pay for a very expensive procedure is NOT killing someone.

No one can serve two masters ZZ. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money (Matt 6:24)…

Catholics are to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ or they are not worthy of Christ, When you put your stamp of approval on euthenizing these helpless and vulnerable Arizona residence you are doing it to Christ

The govt and you individually have NO requirement to pay for someone else’s medical care.

Would this include the unborn of young single mothers? Does this apply to their new born infants? Do you have a moral duty to support their lives by making just laws to provide for them? And if you have a moral duty to protect their lives do you not have a moral duty to protect all human life from natural conception to natural death? Or is your pro life stance only lip service?

Everyone will die, and we simply can’t afford to give everyone platinum medical care.

Using your reasoning we can say everyone will die we just can’t afford to pay for the health care of all these unborn children of poor unwed mothers. You have a choice, to serve God or money. Which is it?

You see ZZ, the god of the GOP is wealth but not Christ. Its all about the love of money. “We can’t afford it”! Those are your words. But can you afford to forfeit your soul? Why should anyone believe you care for the unborn when you do not care for those who are born and are weak and vulnerable? For if you will not make sacrafices to save your neighbor then you will not make sacrifices to save the unborn.

Right wing conservatives are only pro life when it cost them exactly NOTHING. But being pro life means you lay down your life for someone else. It means you should be ready to surrender all your wealth for the common good. That is what Jesus told the rich man who wanted to get into heaven. “Sell everything you have and give it to the poor and come follow me.” But the rich man refused and walked away. The richman exchanged his soul for money and that is exactly what you are doing.

What does a man profit if he gains the whole world yet forfeits hus soul? Woe to you! “For what you DO NOT DO for the least of these people you do not do it to me.” When you let those people die without crying out for their justice and approving of it you drive the nails in the hands and feet of Jesus. You re the one who takes the sword and pierces his side. Woe to you!

No Peace for the wicked!

David

 

[zz912]

Seems conservatives lobbed death threats at Stupak and his family so he withdrew from politics.

So that really leaves nearly no one to vote for who is authentically pro-life, with the conservatives almost to a man and a woman being totally in favor of annihilating all life of planet earth.

What to do? Hold one’s nose and vote for the least pro-death candidate, and hope that by their programs that they usher in some pro-life actions…such as getting us off our duffs to reduce global warming, or establishing universal health care and other programs that can save lives and encourage women not to have abortions.

I think if Jesus were to come back today, the conservatives would refuse to hear any exculpatory evidence clearing His Good Name, accuse Him of being a “warmer,” and execute Him – esp the right-wing fanatic Christians who seem out for someone’s blood. (I don’t really mean that, I’m just speaking in hyperbole out of extreme EXTREME frustration and sadness over the political landscape of today.)

1. Nobody sent Stupak death threats. He made up that excuse when he realized he was going to lose in a landslide for selling out on Obamacare. He saw the polling numbers and didn’t want to get trounced.
2. Where in the world did you get such a silly notion. Conservatives in favor of ending all life on earth? This is a horrible thing to accuse others of, and you should apologize and get yourself to Confession. I mean REALLY, you think conservatives want to end life on earth…REALLY!!!
3. No amount of socialistic programs will have ANY effect on the temperature of the earth. It is the height of arrogance to think so.
4. Govt healthcare is NOT pro-life! Take a look at Europe and Canada. People are wait-listed to death and there is serious rationing done for even routine services. Europe and Canada have to wait many years to finally get drugs and procedures that we have in the US because they have to wait for the costs to come down. (All new products have high costs when first introduced, the business has to recoup their investments in research and development.)
5. Well thank goodness you didn’t commit any sins that Jesus chose to die for! I’m sure you would have been urging the crowd to free Barrabas, right? I guess you never understood why the Church has the congregation speak the words “Crucify Him! Crucify Him” during the Passion, huh? (It’s because we are ALL guilty of His death.)

 

[zz912]

I suppose you can just say my reason is made up and that Democrats are the party of euthenasia but let us look a little closer at your reasoning here:

REPUBLICANS-the party of pro life on the matter of 99 poor Arizona Residents who were abruptly cut off from receiving their life sustaining organ tramnsplants or they will die (note 3 have died so far).

We are not responsible for helping these poor people! We just can’t afford to give them cadallac health care. Let them die! We need to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the rich instead. We are the party of life AMEN!

DEMOCRATS-The culture of death party on the matter of 99 poor Arizona Residents who were abruptly cut off from receiving their life sustaining organ tramnsplants or they will die (note 3 have died so far).

We need to save these helpless souls. Let us raise the taxbracket on the super rich by 1% to save their lives.

*“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the political parties will be gathered before him, and he will separate the Republicans from the Democrats. He will put the Republicans on his right and the Democrats on his left. “Then the King will say to the Republicans on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, For I was happy with my tax cuts giving me more money to buy my luxuries and a couple of McDonalds so I can employ a few more people at minimum wage and thus create jobs. And you protected my money from the poor sick peasants trying to get me to pay for their health care. The Kingdom of Heaven is yours!

“Then he will say to those Democrats on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For you took away my European Vacation by raising my taxes and gave it to those miserable sick peasants so they can live longer to sit on their butts and collect welfare! “Then the Democrats will go away to eternal punishment, but the Republicans to eternal life.” *

You are cooperating with an intrinsic evil by white washing this. These poor patients life dependended on these organ transplants and had no other resources to help themselves. They are innocent, helpless, and vulnerable yet with your approval Jan Brewer has signed their death warrant and you rejoice over it. Explain to me how this makes you pro life? You have shown contempt for the poor, for human life and human dignity yet you say this is good?

No one can serve two masters ZZ. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money (Matt 6:24)…

Catholics are to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Christ or they are not worthy of Christ, When you put your stamp of approval on euthenizing these helpless and vulnerable Arizona residence you are doing it to Christ

Would this include the unborn of young single mothers? Does this apply to their new born infants? Do you have a moral duty to support their lives by making just laws to provide for them? And if you have a moral duty to protect their lives do you not have a moral duty to protect all human life from natural conception to natural death? Or is your pro life stance only lip service?

Using your reasoning we can say everyone will die we just can’t afford to pay for the health care of all these unborn children of poor unwed mothers. You have a choice, to serve God or money. Which is it?

You see ZZ, the god of the GOP is wealth but not Christ. Its all about the love of money. “We can’t afford it”! Those are your words. But can you afford to forfeit your soul? Why should anyone believe you care for the unborn when you do not care for those who are born and are weak and vulnerable? For if you will not make sacrafices to save your neighbor then you will not make sacrifices to save the unborn.

Right wing conservatives are only pro life when it cost them exactly NOTHING. But being pro life means you lay down your life for someone else. It means you should be ready to surrender all your wealth for the common good. That is what Jesus told the rich man who wanted to get into heaven. “Sell everything you have and give it to the poor and come follow me.” But the rich man refused and walked away. The richman exchanged his soul for money and that is exactly what you are doing.

What does a man profit if he gains the whole world yet forfeits hus soul? Woe to you! “For what you DO NOT DO for the least of these people you do not do it to me.” When you let those people die without crying out for their justice and approving of it you drive the nails in the hands and feet of Jesus. You re the one who takes the sword and pierces his side. Woe to you!

No Peace for the wicked!

David

You are truly a lost and confused soul.

 

[AHapka]

*“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the political parties will be gathered before him, and he will separate the Republicans from the Democrats. He will put the Republicans on his right and the Democrats on his left. “Then the King will say to the Republicans on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, For I was happy with my tax cuts giving me more money to buy my luxuries and a couple of McDonalds so I can employ a few more people at minimum wage and thus create jobs. And you protected my money from the poor sick peasants trying to get me to pay for their health care. The Kingdom of Heaven is yours! *

We used to discriminate against people by race in this country, now I see it being done by party.

 

[Carlan]

1. Nobody sent Stupak death threats. He made up that excuse when he realized he was going to lose in a landslide for selling out on Obamacare. He saw the polling numbers and didn’t want to get trounced.
2. Where in the world did you get such a silly notion. Conservatives in favor of ending all life on earth? This is a horrible thing to accuse others of, and you should apologize and get yourself to Confession. I mean REALLY, you think conservatives want to end life on earth…REALLY!!!
3. No amount of socialistic programs will have ANY effect on the temperature of the earth. It is the height of arrogance to think so.
4. Govt healthcare is NOT pro-life! Take a look at Europe and Canada. People are wait-listed to death and there is serious rationing done for even routine services. Europe and Canada have to wait many years to finally get drugs and procedures that we have in the US because they have to wait for the costs to come down. (All new products have high costs when first introduced, the business has to recoup their investments in research and development.)
5. Well thank goodness you didn’t commit any sins that Jesus chose to die for! I’m sure you would have been urging the crowd to free Barrabas, right? I guess you never understood why the Church has the congregation speak the words “Crucify Him! Crucify Him” during the Passion, huh? (It’s because we are ALL guilty of His death.)

You certainly know how to dish it out ZZ…too bad you are no good at taking it.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

You are truly a lost and confused soul.

What’s that zz? Don’t be so hard on yourself!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Faithdancer]

Europe and Canada have to wait many years to finally get drugs and procedures that we have in the US because they have to wait for the costs to come down.

In regard to new medications, have you ever looked at the long list of side effects at the ends of the advertisements for these new drugs? There is tremendous lobbying to get new drugs to market as quickly as possible so that, as you observed, the manufacturers can begin to recoup R&D costs. Then come the recalls, when it is realized that the research was inadequate, or even twisted. Of course, this process does provide an economic stimulus to late night TV lawyers who will help you sue the drug manufacturers, so at least there is some “trickle-down.”

More fundamentally, however- Americans are an over-medicated society. If insurance companies funded health club memberships and other preventive health care and required reporting of usage to ensure that people were following preventive health plans, people wouldn’t need many of the pharmaceuticals in the first place, particularly those drugs used for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension. People can’t be physically forced to exercise, or eat moderately, or adopt other healthy habits, but they can certainly be economically coerced by employers and health insurance providers- and should be!

 

[Faithdancer]

Second, when John wrote down Jesus’ answer, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he used the Greek word ‘Αναμαρτητος’ for sin. ‘Αναμαρτητος’ means, “the same kind of sin,” so in reality, Jesus said that any Pharisee free from the the sin of adultery could proceed with the execution. (bible.cc/john/8-7.htm)

Farther down the page this URL references, under the heading, Clark’s Commentary on the Bible, is the following passage: “He that is without sin - Αναμαρτητος, meaning the same kind of sin, adultery, fornication, etc. Kypke has largely proved that the verb ἁμαρτανειν is used in this sense by the best Greek writers.”

According to this analysis, the word Αναμαρτητος has a more inclusive meaning than the exact same sin of adultery, but also includes, “fornication, etc.” And Jesus himself says, “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” So Jesus’ definition of “adultery” or sins equivalent to adultery, was much broader than the narrow definition of a married man or woman engaging in fornication with someone who is not his or her spouse. If adultery includes lustful glances and thoughts, then no doubt every adult male in Jerusalem, except for Jesus himself, was guilty of “adultery.” Regardless, Jesus forgave all, just as he forgave murderers and tax collectors.

While Jesus did say that he had not come to overturn the law, in fact, his teachings do just that!

 

[Faithdancer]

Honesty compells me to be very blunt. Your interpretation of this section of the Bible is ridiculous and irreverent. God does not and will not contradict His Own rules. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets.

When the Pharisees dragged the woman to Jesus, they were not concerned about upholding the Law, they simply wanted to trap Jesus. John acknowledges this in his Gospel. If Jesus said, “Stone her,” the Pharisees would be claim that Jesus was usurping the authority of the Roman authorities, who were the only people with the power to execute offenders. However, if Jesus said, “Don’t stone her,” the Pharisees would claim He was not God’s messanger, for God would not encourage disobedience to His Own Laws.

Therefore Jesus, turns the trap around with His brilliant answer the equivalent of a one-two punch. First, He acknowledges that the woman deserves to die, and if any of the Pharisees wants to start the execution, he is more than welcome to. Now, the Pharisees are stuck with the problem they tried to stump Jesus with.

Second, when John wrote down Jesus’ answer, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he used the Greek word ‘Αναμαρτητος’ for sin. ‘Αναμαρτητος’ means, “the same kind of sin,” so in reality, Jesus said that any Pharisee free from the the sin of adultery could proceed with the execution. (bible.cc/john/8-7.htm) Thus, Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in a very public and embarassing way. They had no authority to condemn this woman, they were guilty of the same crime themselves.

Soundly beaten, the Pharisees left the scene.

To sum it up, Jesus was not making an exception to His rules, He was only escaping the trap set for Him by His foes.

Farther down the page this URL references, under the heading, Clark’s Commentary on the Bible, is the following passage: “He that is without sin - Αναμαρτητος, meaning the same kind of sin, adultery, fornication, etc. Kypke has largely proved that the verb ἁμαρτανειν is used in this sense by the best Greek writers.”

According to this analysis, the word Αναμαρτητος has a more inclusive meaning than the exact same sin of adultery, but also includes, “fornication, etc.” And Jesus himself says, “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28 NAB). So Jesus’ definition of “adultery” or sins equivalent to adultery, was much broader than the narrow definition of a married man or woman engaging in fornication with someone who is not his or her spouse. If adultery includes lustful glances and thoughts, then no doubt every adult male in Jerusalem, except for Jesus himself, was guilty of “adultery.” Regardless, Jesus forgave all, just as he forgave murderers and tax collectors.

My point is, Jesus’s definition of sin included thought, as well as deed. Using this definition, all humans are guilty. Indeed, all humans sooner or later are guilty of sins of commission, whether the particular sin is “adultery” or not. I think that most Christians grow up thinking of this passage in just this way, that we are all sinners, and need to be forgiven, and to forgive, regardless of whether our sins are exactly the same as another’s or not. To reduce the episode of the adulteress and the Pharisees to an example of how Jesus could cleverly outwit a bunch of Pharisees, as if he was acting out of human motive, loses sight of this central message. As the agent of God’s mercy, he is incapable of toying with humans in this way. Further, being in himself divine God from God, he is incapable of being trapped. He did not, however, in his earthly life refuse the title given him of rabbi- “teacher” and in this case, he teaches the Pharisees and all of us something profound about mercy.

 

[Holly3278]

You can be both a Catholic and a liberal but you most certainly can not be a Catholic in good standing and also be a liberal. The reason is because liberals often support such evil things as abortion and gay “marriage”.

 

[davidmlamb]

You can be both a Catholic and a liberal but you most certainly can not be a Catholic in good standing and also be a liberal. The reason is because liberals often support such evil things as abortion and gay “marriage”.

What if you are a Catholic and support Universal Health Care, strong unions and mandatory collective bargaining, and big government but are against gay “marriage” and abortion? Can you be a Catholic in good standing in this case?

Peace,
David

 

[AHapka]

What if you are a Catholic and support Universal Health Care, strong unions and mandatory collective bargaining, and big government but are against gay “marriage” and abortion? Can you be a Catholic in good standing in this case?

Peace,
David

I would certainly agree with you that you could be. But I don’t see how you could call yourself a liberal, since most people I know consider abortion and gay marriage a major part of the definition of liberal (including myself).

Don’t forget, many of the Bishops have been accused of being conservatives in the mainstream media, even though they might support what you do. For example, consider this quote:

“Like many leading Catholic conservatives today, Chaput felt mugged by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. He is unapologetically conservative (though he embraces many of the “liberal” policy stances of the hierarchy, such as immigration reform). Yet he maintains close friendships with Democrats, including old friends from the campaigns and new ones like Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.” (source: getreligion.org/2011/07/conservative-vatican-hardliner-or-evangelical-catholic-bishop/).

Archbishop Chaput considers himself a democrat, yet the media defines himself as a conservative because of that position.

 

[sw85]

As I’ve been trying to say for a while now, “liberalism” is a good deal more than simply a laundry list of policy positions. It is very likely that David is not really a liberal at all beyond a few superficial similarities.

 

[davidmlamb]

As I’ve been trying to say for a while now, “liberalism” is a good deal more than simply a laundry list of policy positions. It is very likely that David is not really a liberal at all beyond a few superficial similarities.

There is no such thing as a gay marriage because marriage implies an indissovable union between a man and a woman that can produce offspring and form a family unit. Although I am sympathetic to the gay community this is a fact and therefore a cross they must carry. All people are called to chastity even gay people. If you are a gay Catholic you have to remain celebate. That being said, I think the only way to protect marriage is to protect its indissovability by making it difficult to obtain a divorce. So I support a constitutional ammendment to protect marriage by ending all no fault divorce, making adultery a federal crime and requiring a 2 year waiting period plus mandatory counceling for couple contimplating divorce who have children and couples without children who have been married 5 or more years.

We could include outlawing gay marriage in such a bill but I think once we make divorce difficult to obtain the integrity of marriage will be strengthened and the family strengthened. I know that if such a law existed in 1995 I would have never obtained a divorce with my first wife. Good counseling and waiting 2 years would have saved it.

Abortion is a violation against human life and human dignity period. But life must be vigorously and with maximum determination defended from natural conception to natural death. This is why I am pro universal health care. I think a health care system that is private and for profit is immoral and that health care should be in the public domain and not the private domain. The exception to this is for non life sustaining medical procedures like cosmetics for the purpose of vanity. Cosmetics to repair birth defects does not count. I would also support a universal dental care plan. I believen in big government because I think that in order to have a just society the size of government should be proportional to its population. I believe it is a false assumption that big government equals totalitarianism.

I believe in strong unions and mandatory collective bargaining to assure a just and living wage. A just wage is the lagitmate fruits of work and to undermine this leads to grave social ills including teenaged pregnancy and abortion. There was a time in America where if you had a job you belong to a union and you held that job for 30+ years and drew a good pension from it. The job had great benefits including dental and health care that was comprehensive. People didn’t go bankrupt from medical bills in those days. When you retired that health care plan became your secondary insurance. You received regular raises and promotions as well as bonuses. People were able to retire relatively comfortably. Those days are gone because Capitalism has morphed into a Laissez Faire economic system which undermines the dignity of the worker and is a direct violation against human dignity.

Such a system is a root cause of many of our social ills including the demise of the family. Families cannot survive socially when wage earners are robbed of a just and living wage.

But in the war of liberal vs conservative these truths have been lost as definitions of evolved to mean things they did not mean 40 years ago or so. That is why I cited the papal encyclical Popular Progresso from Pope Paul VI where he was basically calling a Laissez Faire economic system unbridled liberalism and tyranny. People got angry at me when I posted that claiming I was presenting things out of context when I was not. I was presenting the Catholic faith which has been confused today with the new conservatism.

That is also why one may be both liberal or conservative while remaining a Catholic in good standing with the Church. But a Catholic must never cross the line between good and evil.

In the service of Christ and His Church,
David Lamb

 

[StevenFrancis]

Yes and no. There is a classical concept of liberalism which an orthodox Catholic Christian would have fit into quite nicely, in a different day and age.

Under the most common understading of the term ‘liberal’ now, which evokes the concept of a relativistic understanding of faith, morals and ethics, in American and Western European cultures of the 20th and 21st centuries, I would have to think not. Catholics are not supposed to BE relativistic, and are supposed to accept the teachings of the Church. While during some times in history, the teachings of the Church would have been considered to be quite liberal, the culture surrounding the Church in the Western world have changed the essence and meaning of what liberalism is.

Short answer is no for the purposes of this forum, and it’s mostly U.S. American, and Western European user base.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Viki63]

But in the war of liberal vs conservative these truths have been lost as definitions of evolved to mean things they did not mean 40 years ago or so. That is why I cited the papal encyclical Popular Progresso from Pope Paul VI where he was basically calling a Laissez Faire economic system unbridled liberalism and tyranny. People got angry at me when I posted that claiming I was presenting things out of context when I was not. I was presenting the Catholic faith which has been confused today with the new conservatism.

That is also why one may be both liberal or conservative while remaining a Catholic in good standing with the Church. But a Catholic must never cross the line between good and evil.

In the service of Christ and His Church,
David Lamb

Excellent post, I’m glad someone thinks the same way I do.
But it makes it hard to know who to vote for. I can’t** vote for a democrat, due to their usual stand on abortion, but so many Republicans are way off on immigration reform, healthcare,etc. It’s discouraging.
I believe we need to extend Medicare to everyone, but so many people think that’s socialism.