Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Contarini]

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

That’s just obviously false from a Christian perspective. Where did you get this principle from? Certainly not from Jesus who died for the guilty.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I just mentioned one in an earlier post - We have an example in Nicodemus who was a wealthy pharisee and friend of Christ. We have an example in Job who was wealthy but referred to before his ordeal as a “righteous” man. There is the example of the wealthy employer who was generous throughout the day with his workers, about which the Lord referenced his right to dispense his money as he saw fit…there are more. These are off the top of my head. You cannot argue that having wealth is a sin. It is inconsistent on its face with the ten commandments which presuppose the right to property. We have to look at Scripture as an organic whole. If you nitpick this verse against that verse you are missing the big picture.

I have never argued that having wealth is a sin. I think it’s practically impossible to have wealth and not fall into venial sin, but then it’s practically impossible to be a human between the Fall and the Eschaton and not fall into venial sin–wealth is just one of the specific temptations to which we are subject.

You keep misstating my argument. You take an argument about the pursuit of wealth and turn it into an argument against the possession of wealth. They are different.

I am not arguing that wealth is virtuous. I am not a name-it and claim-it Christian. I am arguing that it is neither virtuous nor evil.

No, but it is a temptation. Furthermore, monetary wealth and social status are different from other earthly things which may tempt us in that they are not creations of God but of fallen human beings. Money may be instrumentally good insofar as it is the means of allowing ourselves and other human beings to enjoy more of the genuine goods created by God. But it is not, in itself, intrinsically good.

Edwin

 

[Faithdancer]

Dear Friend, I look at your signature, and I wonder how many have a mistaken translation of the Latin in their head.
“And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
In truth, ‘as’ can be taken as ‘in like manner’, but also, it can be understood as ‘because’.
It is clear from the context that the latter meaning is intended.
Our Lord was quite clear, he asked who had a problem with his brother, and came to the Temple to make sacrifice. He sent them away to make peace first, then to make sacrifice.

Yes, I’ve always taken the meaning of this part of the Prayer to mean that if we don’t forgive those who have wronged us completely and unconditionally, then we can expect no forgiveness from God. This would mean that “in like manner” is a faulty interpretation, since this implies that we have given our debtors conditional or measured forgiveness, not total forgiveness.

I think that for many, this is the hardest part of the Prayer to follow; I know that at times it is the most difficult for me, when I feel wronged. It requires not only forgoing vengeance (which is the Lord’s) but even putting aside one’s keen sense of justice.

 

[tomarin]

I am not arguing that wealth is virtuous. I am not a name-it and claim-it Christian. I am arguing that it is neither virtuous nor evil. It is an irrefutable argument.

(post shortened by Tomarin)

What’s a name-it-and-claim-it Christian?

 

[David_Castlen]

ManOnFire;8359204:

The only things humans really

need are basic clothing, food, shelter, and possibly healthcare. Everything above that **IS **an optional luxury that is not necessary to sustain life. That’s why I laugh at DavidLamb. I think he sees some shallow and Lost Republicans and conservatives using money to go astray, and wishes that more liberals and Democrats would have the same opportunities,

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Human beings in order to live a dignified life need a little more than what you stated. They also need meaningful work, rest from that work and meaningful time to spend with their families including extended holiday time. They also need opportunity to grow in both their secular and religious vocations and to succeed in them. Human beings also are morally obligated to practice the virtue of temperance and loving their neighbor as they love themselves. They need to understand with moral consequence that although private property is a right, it IS NOT an absolute right. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. Wealth belongs to everyone in an unequal but just manner; so the right to private property can 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. In other words, when wealth is being monopolized by a small percentage of a societies population then it is the duty of government to intervene. Wealth should not trickle down but flow down.

Tragically what the GOP has economically created in our country is a monopolization of wealth. Right Wing Conservatives want us to believe that there is some large percentage of our society who refuse to work yet demand that those who do work are to forcibly have their income confiscated in order to give it to those who do not work. This is egregious propaganda and rhetoric. The truth is there is this very large percentage of the working class who work very hard to receive little wages and benefits and it is these people who cry out for justice. The wealth of the wealthy should be transferred to them in the form of a living wage and those who receive a living wage should transfer a portion of their wages for the common good in the form of taxes for public benefits and charitable contributions for the needs of the disadvantages. This is the way things were between 1942-1981 and it is the way things ought to be now.

In Christ,

David

David you say human beings need… need… in order that… and you may mention dignity and the necessities of life. But you conclude that in order for human beings to get these things they must go to the government to get them; why not the Church. The government never, NEVER does an effecient job of GIVING the only things government does will is TAKE. We must give and we must do it a lot. We have given our heritage up to the government, it is us the Catholic Church that is the best giver and you personnally. Read the Catholic Frederic Bastiat’s pamphlet THE LAW.

You want to force charity, you want to force us to be virtuous: IT DOES NOT work.

the only way socialism (liberalism) works is when everyone is a saint and all the leaders are saints and gods.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Almost at that magic 1000 mark folks.
Lets wrap it up

 

[estesbob]

Thank you all for a lively and informative discussion!

 

[David_Castlen]

The CEO salaries raise faster than GDP.
The workers wages raise slower than GDP.
This amounts to relative wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
A state redistribution scheme is needed to counter this effect, and bring growth of both worker and CEO wages in line with GDP growth.

But a richer CEO will give generous contributions to the church. Which is why churches rarely openly condemn policy increasing income disparity.

Redistrution spelled backwards is Socialism which is another form of stealing. It does not work morally or economically.

So, if I make $100 and you make $1 then I should send you $11 divided by 2?
Your problem is two fold: You believe that peope who make a lot are evil. and secondly you think that money is flat; that it does not grow or regress. It is much too difficult for my small mind to explain to you this simple concept that as goods grow so does money, whether that money is in a fiat system or a metal system.

People become rich ussually by giving to others what they want. The best way to help the poor is by giving to a Church that usually wont steal it and by avoiding being one of the poor.

 

[David_Castlen]

YES!!!

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)**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) 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)

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. --Pope Paul VI POPULAR PROGRESSO

David,

Discribe that person who would take from those terrible wealthy people and distribute it to everyone. Would he be honest enough not to cheat anyone; would he be intelligent enough to know how to take from whom and how best to distribute it and what to do when those he took it from decide not to produce. Who is this god? Who is this angle

 

[lynnvinc]

Of course, every Catholic should be liberal in love and service to others, in caring and sharing. However, it seems some conservatives are not even Christian, much less Catholic.

Did you see how the folks at the Republican debate who were clamoring for that hypothetical man without medical insurance to die because he couldn’t pay for treatment. “Let him die,” they shouted (like “crucify him, crucify him.”) It’s like they had blood on their fangs and went into a mob hysteria feeding frenzy. Of course, they could not have been Christian. And most certainly they could not have been Catholics. But they were conservatives.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Ah, but using your example of a murderer, the murderer only continues to be cruel to the innocent if he is allowed to be cruel to the innocent, i.e. allowed to re-enter society. This assumes that there are no innocents locked up in prison, to whom this murderer will have access. But if the murderer is allowed to continue to live the rest of his life in prison so that he can meditate on his crimes, repent and make societal restitution through prison labor, how is the concept of mercy violated?

I am not sure what you mean.

At any rate, your statement is prima facie in direct contradiction to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ. Do you deny that He was merciful toward the murderer, Saul of Tarsus? Do you deny that as a result of this act of mercy, in which Jesus Christ blinded Saul rather than striking him dead right there on the road, Saul experienced an immediate conversion and became a great champion of Christianity? And if Saul, the relentless persecutor of Christians, can be converted, who are you or I to say that other murderers can not, at the very least, repent and atone?

Unfortunately, God does not knock every murderer off his horse, speak to him, and then blind him. Thus, dragging St. Paul into the discussion is irrelevant. Also, the threat of death is a good incentive for repentance.

Did not Christ forgive even his own murderers as he suffered on the cross?

He also forgave one of the thieves on the cross next to His. However, this pardon did not take away the thief’s punishment. Thus, we can conclude that forgiveness and the death penalty are not contradictory.

Our Lord said: ‘judge not, that ye be not judged’
If you set yourself up as a judge, then you will face judgement yourself.
Let him without sin cast the first stone.

I do not judge, I leave that to the state. As for your second Biblical reference, if there is ever a contest for the Bible verse most often misinterpreted, this one will win hands down. When Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” He is escaping a trap set for him by the Pharisees. If Jesus said, “Stone her,” the Pharisees would report Him to the Roman authorities who alone had the power to execute criminals. If Jesus said, “Don’t stone her,” He would be violating the Mosaic Law. Thus, Jesus turns the trap back on his foes by acknowledging that the adultress deserves to die and any Pharisee who would like to stone her is more than welcome too. This statement becomes a double whammy because the word Jesus uses for sin means ‘sexual sin’. Thus, the Pharisees slunk off, their trap had failed and their sins were revealed to the public.

That’s just obviously false from a Christian perspective. Where did you get this principle from? Certainly not from Jesus who died for the guilty.

This principle comes from the common sense. Lighter punishments encourage criminals to commit more crimes. Also, Christ was put to death in the place of the guilty. This of course presupposes that death is the appropriate punishment for the guilty.

 

[mcrow]

Of course, every Catholic should be liberal in love and service to others, in caring and sharing. However, it seems some conservatives are not even Christian, much less Catholic.

Did you see how the folks at the Republican debate who were clamoring for that hypothetical man without medical insurance to die because he couldn’t pay for treatment. “Let him die,” they shouted (like “crucify him, crucify him.”) It’s like they had blood on their fangs and went into a mob hysteria feeding frenzy. Of course, they could not have been Christian. And most certainly they could not have been Catholics. But they were conservatives.

Let’s not confuse “republican” and “conservative”, they are two different things, sometimes very different things.

Also there are generally two different strains of conservatism. The religious conservatives and the libertarians. Libertarians are also sometimes religious, but not as much. Most religious conservatives would not say it’s OK for anyone to die. Most libertarians wouldn’t either but there are a few more crazies there as far as that sort of thing goes.

Let’s not pretend that there are not viscious liberals out there because I’ve seen as bad or worse from them.

 

[ManOnFire]

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.

Where are these people with no cell phones, no fancy hair, no air brushed nails, no fashions, no entertainment budget, no drug use, no tattoos in the US? I demand that you give me thier names and addresses immediately so that I may send them some money. I’ll be glad to do it.

 

[ManOnFire]

Of course, every Catholic should be liberal in love and service to others, in caring and sharing. However, it seems some conservatives are not even Christian, much less Catholic.

Did you see how the folks at the Republican debate who were clamoring for that hypothetical man without medical insurance to die because he couldn’t pay for treatment. “Let him die,” they shouted (like “crucify him, crucify him.”) It’s like they had blood on their fangs and went into a mob hysteria feeding frenzy. Of course, they could not have been Christian. And most certainly they could not have been Catholics. But they were conservatives.

Healthcare is eventually a political dead end. We could theoretically spend all our money that is not spent on basic food, clothing and shelter on healthcare, getting regular full body scans, replacing body parts, trying to keep people alive until age 200, but we need to draw the line somewhere. But the permissive “yes” party of limitless dreams doesn’t want to open the public’s mind to this reality. It’s easier to pretend there’s no limit to other people’s money, while doing ZERO to hold individuals accountable for wasting money on optional expenses that create unhealthy lifestyles or that don’t sustain life. Ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately, there will always be those who choose feelings above facts (the truth).

 

[ManOnFire]

Do you actually know anything about the poor, the disabled and the homeless or are you speaking in gross generalities? You must live in an affluent area, the inner city people that I see everyday are not wasting their money on fashion and entertainment. Executives who gut the American workforce so greedy investors can get a higher rate of return are not just and holy. The idea that these people make decisions that decimate the lives of others for personal gain and then feel no sense of accountability is repugnant.

I worked in inner city New York for years. Sure, there are needy people. There’s also a media culture that holds them down by setting bad examples. There are also people who waste their money on things that don’t lift them up. Responsibility goes both ways.

American corporations offer an income. If you don’t want this opportunity to earn an income, then grow your own food, build your own house, make your own clothes, then you won’t need money. The MAIN function of business is to produce an income from its workers. This is econ 101. Any business that is making no money off it’s workforce will go bankrupt. This is econ 101. It’s a shame the schools aren’t teaching this. If you don’t like it, provide for yourself and don’t buy anything. Then you won’t need a job. Then people could be educated and freed instead of rebelling in frustration and ignorance toward a dream that can never come true = pay me what I’m worth. Maybe the homelss are smarter than we think. The mature truth is, if there’s no profit from your labor, you should be fired. That’s how it works. You don’t work for a paycheck that says $0. Neither does the company. Nobody is in business to break even ($0 paycheck). The sooner that people mature and accept this econ 101, the less ignorant and more at peace we will all be.

 

[Faithdancer]

I am not sure what you mean. Unfortunately, God does not knock every murderer off his horse, speak to him, and then blind him. Thus, dragging St. Paul into the discussion is irrelevant. Also, the threat of death is a good incentive for repentance.He also forgave one of the thieves on the cross next to His. However, this pardon did not take away the thief’s punishment. Thus, we can conclude that forgiveness and the death penalty are not contradictory.I do not judge, I leave that to the state. As for your second Biblical reference, if there is ever a contest for the Bible verse most often misinterpreted, this one will win hands down. When Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” He is escaping a trap set for him by the Pharisees. If Jesus said, “Stone her,” the Pharisees would report Him to the Roman authorities who alone had the power to execute criminals. If Jesus said, “Don’t stone her,” He would be violating the Mosaic Law. Thus, Jesus turns the trap back on his foes by acknowledging that the adultress deserves to die and any Pharisee who would like to stone her is more than welcome too. This statement becomes a double whammy because the word Jesus uses for sin means ‘sexual sin’. Thus, the Pharisees slunk off, their trap had failed and their sins were revealed to the public.This principle comes from the common sense. Lighter punishments encourage criminals to commit more crimes. Also, Christ was put to death in the place of the guilty. This of course presupposes that death is the appropriate punishment for the guilty.

Jesus the escape artist! That’s very creative! And pray tell, why is the word in the Bible (every one I’ve looked at) “sin” and not “sexual sin?” I guess those translators must have erred! If only they had you on the team, I’m sure they would have gotten it all right!

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

1000 post limit.
Feel free to start a follow-up thread.