Catholic League

[dominikus28]

“The Catholic League’s positions on faith, morality, charity, abortion and marriage reflect official teachings of the Catholic Church. However the group often takes political positions on issues such as capital punishment, the Iraq War, immigration policy, and income redistribution, and freedom of religion that have put it at odds with Catholic teaching and some local bishops.”

I want to know what are these ‘odds’. What teachings from the Catholic League contradict that of the Catholic Church?

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I know I’m about to catch a great deal of flack for this but here goes…The “Catholic League” really ought to be called the “Republican League.” From what I have seen, all of their positions line up like ducks in a row with that of the Republican platform. Where Catholic social teaching happens to be in agreement with the Republican platform–fine. Where Catholic social teaching differs, they use 50 cent words to dance their way around it. They are conservative Cafeteria Catholics, as opposed to liberal Cafeteria Catholics. Simple as that.

I apologize in advance to all of you Catholic League’rs whose blood must be boiling right now. And, yes, I know that groups like Catholics for a Free Choice and Call to Action do exactly the same thing just on the other end of the political spectrum. And, yes, I know that you can get cover from some few conservative theologians. And, yes, I know that you are all righteous, and I’m a sinner. But facts is facts.

Bottom line…Catholic League = Republican League.

Ok…I’m suited up…let the rocks start flying.

:knight1:

 

[Fidelis]

“The Catholic League’s positions on faith, morality, charity, abortion and marriage reflect official teachings of the Catholic Church. However the group often takes political positions on issues such as capital punishment, the Iraq War, immigration policy, and income redistribution, and freedom of religion that have put it at odds with Catholic teaching and some local bishops.”

I want to know what are these ‘odds’. What teachings from the Catholic League contradict that of the Catholic Church?

It would be very helpful to know who you are quoting or where you are quoting from. Off the top of my head, it appears to be from someone who does not appear to hold an objective view in this matter.

 

[Fidelis]

I know I’m about to catch a great deal of flack for this but here goes…The “Catholic League” really ought to be called the “Republican League.” From what I have seen, all of their positions line up like ducks in a row with that of the Republican platform. Where Catholic social teaching happens to be in agreement with the Republican platform–fine. Where Catholic social teaching differs, they use 50 cent words to dance their way around it. They are conservative Cafeteria Catholics, as opposed to liberal Cafeteria Catholics. Simple as that.

It’s not quite that simple. When tossing out charges like this, it’s always helpful to cite some specific documentable examples of how the CL has gone against Church teaching for the sake of politics. This way it is clear one is offering objective facts, rather than personal opinion

I apologize in advance to all of you Catholic League’rs whose blood must be boiling right now. And, yes, I know that groups like Catholics for a Free Choice and Call to Action do exactly the same thing just on the other end of the political spectrum. And, yes, I know that you can get cover from some few conservative theologians. And, yes, I know that you are all righteous, and I’m a sinner. But facts is facts.

Bottom line…Catholic League = Republican League.

Ok…I’m suited up…let the rocks start flying.

:knight1:

No apologies – or armor --needed. Just the facts, if you please.

 

[geezerbob]

The OP appears to be confusing Catholic dogmas, which are set in stone, so to speak, with other issues on which there can be legitimate differences of opinion. There is ample room for disagreement on the death penalty and the Iraq war, but such is not the case with abortion and euthanasia.

Please provide evidence that the Catholic League has come out on the wrong side of any infallible Church teaching.

 

[dominikus28]

I (dominikus28) cannot quote anything because I got this from wikipedia when I was reading about the Catholic League and was just curious into how they differ on these issues.

What is the Catholic Church’s official view on the Iraq War, immigration and income redistribution?
Would the Catholic Church support a Catholic theocracy?

 

[Fidelis]

I (dominikus28) cannot quote anything because I got this from wikipedia when I was reading about the Catholic League and was just curious into how they differ on these issues.

You’ll have to ask the writer of the article that, since they are the one who made the statement. It is foolishness to answer vague, unsubtantiated charges. If you were talking to someone face to face, the first question you would ask when someone says something like this is, “Why do you say that?”

If, in the remainder of the article, the writer of this Wikipedia does not give examples or justification of these statements, then it is only his or her opinion. We can only guess their motivation, but without supporting facts it is only an opinion.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Please provide evidence that the Catholic League has come out on the wrong side of any infallible Church teaching.

Well, see, there’s the rub. You qualify your question with the word “infallible” when you know as well as I do that infallible teachings are as rare as hen’s teeth. So, no the Catholic League does not reject the infallibly defined dogmas of the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. But they do embrace distinctly “anti-Catholic” positions on U.S. style bare knuckle capitalism, capital punishment, and the Iraq war. At the same time they reject the Bishops’ clear teaching on matters like immigration, minimum wage, and universal health care.

The Catholic League takes the positions it takes on these issues, and when it is suggested that their positions are “anti-Catholic” they say, “cite me chapter and verse.” Catholic social teaching just doesn’t work that way, and you know it. The Bishops don’t teach in bullet points. The social teaching of the Church is deep wide and complex. So a “chapter and verse” citation is next to impossible. But, you can’t wave Evangelium vitae around like a flag, and then just choose to ignore Laborem exercens. You can’t paste the word “Catholic” on your organization while ignoring 116 years of social teaching beginning with Rerum novarum.

Our Shepards are our Shepards, even when they lead us to places we’d rather not go. You can’t just pick and choose when to follow. And, yes this applies to “liberal” Catholic groups as well as “conservative” ones.

Ok. There’s my little response. Now, if you please, cite me examples of times the Catholic League has taken positions that are contrary to the Republican party platform.

 

[estesbob]

I know I’m about to catch a great deal of flack for this but here goes…The “Catholic League” really ought to be called the “Republican League.” From what I have seen, all of their positions line up like ducks in a row with that of the Republican platform. Where Catholic social teaching happens to be in agreement with the Republican platform–fine. Where Catholic social teaching differs, they use 50 cent words to dance their way around it. They are conservative Cafeteria Catholics, as opposed to liberal Cafeteria Catholics. Simple as that.

I apologize in advance to all of you Catholic League’rs whose blood must be boiling right now. And, yes, I know that groups like Catholics for a Free Choice and Call to Action do exactly the same thing just on the other end of the political spectrum. And, yes, I know that you can get cover from some few conservative theologians. And, yes, I know that you are all righteous, and I’m a sinner. But facts is facts.

Bottom line…Catholic League = Republican League.

Ok…I’m suited up…let the rocks start flying.

:knight1:

It would be impossible to have a “Democrat League” and call it Catholic.

 

[tomarin]

the Catholic League does not reject the infallibly defined dogmas of the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. But they do embrace distinctly “anti-Catholic” positions on U.S. style bare knuckle capitalism, capital punishment, and the Iraq war. At the same time they reject the Bishops’ clear teaching on matters like immigration, minimum wage, and universal health care.

you know, i suspected this for a long time. it’s why i have conflicted feelings about this organization and have not been sure whether i should join or not.

on the one hand, defending the Church and our religion vigorously and unapologetically is always a good thing, and i was so happy to learn there was a media-savvy group out there who does this work, so needed at this particular time in history.

on the other hand, it’s important for catholics not to put anything ahead of their devotion to Christ and his teachings, whether it’s a political party, ideology or patriotic fervor. this applies to the right as much as the left. i stopped being a vegetarian after i renewed my faith, not because it necessarily conflicted with my faith, but because i wanted to be scrupulous about not putting any other “-isms” before God.

another thing i noticed about the League is that they often take what i think are unnecessarily combative and defensive stances on issues, which carry the risk of backfiring and alienating non-catholics. for example, bill donohue has made statements about a jewish conspiracy in hollywood to depict catholics in a bad light.

now, while i agree that hollywood movies denigrate catholicism almost as a matter of course, i don’t think it’s because of the producers’ religious convictions, it’s because they’re avowed secularists who are suspicious of or hostile to religion. by crying “jewish conspiracy” he’s taking a legitimate issue and shooting himself in the foot with it (by seeming to align himself – and us – with anti-semitism). that surely alienates the jewish community, some of whom might be natural allies in the catholic community’s struggle to be treated with respect and dignity.

 

[Erich]

At the same time they reject the Bishops’ clear teaching on matters like immigration

CCC 2199 teaches:

The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it.

This commandment includes and presupposes the duties of parents, instructors, teachers, leaders, magistrates, those who govern, all who exercise authority over others or over a community of persons.

I am certainly not anti-immigration (after all, both sets of grandparents, plus my father, immigrated legally and became naturalized citizens), I am just anti-illegal-immigration. The fact remains that, by definition, illegal immigrants to this country are not citizens of this country – and the very fact of their presence here is a blatant violation of the Fourth Commandment.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

It would be impossible to have a “Democrat League” and call it Catholic.

As Fonzie would say, “Correct-a-mundo!” You can’t find one political party on the American scene today whose positions are truly reflective of Catholic social teaching. That’s why I think it’s a shame to see a partisan political group like the Catholic League paste the word “Catholic” on it’s name.

 

[Franciscan]

It took me two minutes to find a Catholic League article critical of Republicans. I typed in republican on the search engine and viewed a couple articles and then came across this one…
catholicleague.org/catalyst/2000_catalyst/0300_catalyst.html#REPUBLICANS DOGGED BY HOUSE CHAPLAIN ISSUE

you have to scroll down a bit to find it.

In it it says…

“The Catholic League has become increasingly incensed over Republican duplicity and efforts by conservatives to smear Father Timothy O’Brien.”

There are probably many more like it.

 

[Vaclav]

it’s because they’re avowed secularists who are suspicious of or hostile to religion

Don’t be too hasty to forget the other reason Hollywood movies use similar trends and stereotypes. The bottom line. Movie studios are corporations just like any other company. They want a movie that will put “butts in seats” as I’ve heard it told.

Sometimes I think that people have it backwards. They believe that movie and recording studios create societal trends. On the contrary, I tend to believe that movie and recording studios reflect societal trends. Unfortunately, secularism and hostility to Catholicism is a trend that sells well (along with spectacular amounts of violence, intimacy, and ahistorical views).

As for the topic at hand.

I agree with the sentiments of some others here. No political party represents Catholicism, nor do I believe there will ever be one that does in the United States. As someone who works closely with politicians, I can honestly say that I wouldn’t want the Church or an association affiliated with the Church to work closely with them in any way.

 

[tomarin]

It took me two minutes to find a Catholic League article critical of Republicans.

i think that’s probably the exception that proves the rule.

although come to think of it, they have been critical – and rightly so – of republican presidential candidate rudy giuliani for being pro-choice and claiming to be a catholic in good standing. that’s more “cafeteria” than sean hannity.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I am certainly not anti-immigration (after all, both sets of grandparents, plus my father, immigrated legally and became naturalized citizens), I am just anti-illegal-immigration. The fact remains that, by definition, illegal immigrants to this country are not citizens of this country – and the very fact of their presence here is a blatant violation of the Fourth Commandment.

Remember, we must obey the laws of God before the laws of governments. If a government makes an unjust law it is no sin to break it. Also, just because some people break the law, and even if their breaking of that law was unjust, that doesn’t mean that U.S. immigration policy is just. Law does not always equate to justice. It’s justice that we are called to seek, not necessarily obedience to the law.

But, I digress. We were discussing how well the positions of the Catholic League line up with the social justice teaching of the Church.

Take your Catechism and look up the word “migrant” or “migration” and see what you find there. In a nutshell the Catechism says this: States have a right to control their boarders, but people have a right to migrate to seek a better life for themselves and their families. Those two rights must to be balanced. Now take a look at this site and read the documents you find there:

usccb.org/mrs/pastoralstatements.shtml

Now, how well does the immigration position of the Catholic League line up with these pastoral statements from the Bishops?

 

[Fidelis]

I am still waiting for specific examples from the those who are making the charge that the Catholic League is politically biased in favor of one party or the other. If they are so biased, examples should be able to find.

The one example provided by Franciscan seems to lend the lie to these accusations. No one else in this thread seems to be capable of backing up what they say with evidence.

And yet, the accusations continue…

 

[Legal_Eagle]

It took me two minutes to find a Catholic League article critical of Republicans. I typed in republican on the search engine and viewed a couple articles and then came across this one…
catholicleague.org/catalyst/2000_catalyst/0300_catalyst.html#REPUBLICANS DOGGED BY HOUSE CHAPLAIN ISSUE

you have to scroll down a bit to find it.

In it it says…

“The Catholic League has become increasingly incensed over Republican duplicity and efforts by conservatives to smear Father Timothy O’Brien.”

There are probably many more like it.

When I say “policy positions” or “political platform” I don’t mean getting miffed over personalities. What I mean is policy. Even Republican or Democratic members of Congress get miffed with each other over personalities. I mean show me a policy position where the Catholic League differs with the Republican party.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I am still waiting for specific examples from the those who are making the charge that the Catholic League is politically biased in favor of one party or the other. If they are so biased, examples should be able to find.

The one example provided by Franciscan seems to lend the lie to these accusations. No one else in this thread seems to be capable of backing up what they say with evidence.

And yet, the accusations continue…

For pete’s sake, look at my earlier post. There’s example after example. I still say show me one policy position of the Catholic League that differs from the Republican party. Not a personality conflict.

 

[Franciscan]

Let’s see what Bill Donohue actually said about party politics…

“That’s partly because I’m an independent. I began as a Democrat, then quit and became a Republican, then quit and became an independent; I have no plans to return to either party. But it’s also because I don’t want Republicans or Democrats thinking that they’ve got the Catholic League in their pocket. Look what happened to the Christian Coalition—they became the Protestant arm of the Republican Party and now they’re toast.”