Catholics with strong conservative positions

[ChristinaBerry]

Hey. I’m Christina, and I recently joined this site because I felt like I had to talk about this. I’m a Protestant but leaning more towards Catholic all the time.

A lot of people with strong conservative positions call themselves Catholic but ignore what the church teaches. They are probably Catholic because they agree with the Church about things like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. However, they also ignore what the Vatican has said about the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and affirmative action. Many of these people (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) act as if Catholicism lends itself to support of everything America does. If they examined what the church has said about these things, would they accept that by their definition Catholicism is anti-American and globalist, or would they excuse themselves by saying they are not ex cathedra teachings or something like that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hey. I’m Christina, and I recently joined this site because I felt like I had to talk about this. I’m a Protestant but leaning more towards Catholic all the time.

A lot of people with strong conservative positions call themselves Catholic but ignore what the church teaches. They are probably Catholic because they agree with the Church about things like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. However, they also ignore what the Vatican has said about the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and affirmative action. Many of these people (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) act as if Catholicism lends itself to support of everything America does. If they examined what the church has said about these things, would they accept that by their definition Catholicism is anti-American and globalist, or would they excuse themselves by saying they are not ex cathedra teachings or something like that?

You’re kinda stacking the old deck there. But let’s talk about it a little.

First of all, what, to you, is a strong conservative position? Is it someone who used to be a liberal but is now a conservative? Is it a conservative of any sort or origin? You see the term used all the time, but nobody ever defines it in any meaningful way that I have ever heard. You can share, and I ask you to share, your definition of it.

And what, exactly, is a conservative?

And what, exactly, is “affirmative action” to you?

Now, for a moment, let’s consider the following person:
-She’s a woman.
-She works for an association for retarded citizens.
-She spends a lot of her time “off the clock” helping them, because she wants to.
-She’s a nurse, and spends a fair amount of her time taking care of dying children, for no pay at all.
-She opposes abortion, and once gave a speech as a Democratic party official, to party members, encouraging the acceptance of prolife candidates in the party.
-She does volunteer work for her church.
-She attends the Pauline Mass. Her favorite priests are a Polish immigrant and a Haitian immigrant.
-She works with immigrants. In fact, part of her job is to teach them basic healthcare so they can work for the association for retarded citizens while going to college, then return as healthcare workers to their own countries, which most want very much to do. Most of them are Africans or Carribbean blacks.
-She has adult children and is very generous with her time in helping take care of their children. She has, so far, taught three granddaughters and one grandson to bake pastries quite well.
-She says the rosary every night, and has for years.
-One of her daughters is married to a Palestinian/Iraqi convert from Islam to Catholicism. The grandson who she taught to bake is therefore half Palestinian/Iraqi, as is one of the granddaughters.
-Her views of the Iraq War are strongly influenced by what the Palestinian father and Iraqi mother of her son-in-law, as well as her Palestine-born son-in-law say about it.
-She co-sponsored an immigrant family from Guatemala because the father, who does have a green card, did not earn enough to guarantee financial responsibility for them. That’s a very risky thing to do, financially, by the way. If they go on welfare or Medicaid, she has to pay for it. She took the family’s word, and that of a Mexican nun that they would not fall back on her for support. She had no other guarantee.
-She is very faithful to what the Pope says and is well aware of what he actually said about the Iraq War, and went to the trouble to actually read what both he and JPII said about it.
-Her grandfather was the Democratic Secretary of State of Indiana.
-Her best friend’s daughter is a lesbian who lives with her significant other. She has gone to dinner with the three of them in her own home town.

-What is she? Is she a liberal? A conservative? A neoconservative? A neoliberal?
-For whom did she vote in the last presidential election, and why?
-In what way or ways does her description show that she is faithful or unfaithful to the teachings of the Church?
-Who is her favorite news commentator?

 

[Dwyer]

I recognize the two names you mentioned but turned Fox News off a long time ago, as with most television (I might watch 1 hour of TV a week).

From what I know, Sean Hannity is Catholic, but said publicly on Raymond Arroyo’s World Over Live program in an interview that he considered leaving the Catholic Church during the clergy sex abuse scandal in the earlier part of this decade. But he didn’t.

More recently, I think a little over a year ago, he publicly has stated on TV that he disagreed with the Catholic Church’s moral teaching that using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.

He had a well-known Catholic priest who has appeared on EWTN on his show, “Hannity and Coombs”, and Hannity, in my opinion, treated the priest disrespectfully, refused to publicly say he agreed with the Catholic Church’s moral teaching, and the show was essentially an argumentative Donnybrook with Hannity raising his voice at the Catholic priest.

I don’t know if Hannity ever publicly apologized about that or had the same priest on back on his show to apologize.

I think the immigration issue was originally about a state or federal law that was going to make it a crime to assist illegal immigrants (like feeding, sheltering or giving them money or clothes), and I think that Cardinal Mahoney of L.A. said at the time that he might defy the law and was willing to go to jail / prison.

I think this law interfered with people’s ability to exercise one’s ability to follow Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor as one would love oneself.

OP, you are referring to the Social Gospel.

Basically, neither major political party, in my opinion, 100% of the time takes the Catholic position on all of the policy issues that exist.

However, because human life itself is the greatest good as it is given by God, and made in His Image, those issues that destroy human life in the millions (which abortion and stem-cell killing research do in the USA) must be adamantly opposed, since they are directly in violation of the Divine Law.

So, a Catholic should support the political party that is the lesser of all the evils that are seeking political power in our nation.

And a Utilitarian philosophical measurement of physical pain does not enter into the Catholic analysis.

So, even though hundreds of innocent people are killed in Iraq, bombed or shot, every week, and that is a bad thing, it still doesn’t approach the numbers of the Silent Holocaust that occurs on a daily basis in the USA against completely innocent unborn lives.

There is definitely a hierarchy of importance among moral issues.

I would say the right to life issues and marriage, because they are **so fundamental **to society, are of primary importance (and, if you think about it a bit, they also fall under Christ’s command to treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself. You wouldn’t want a fellow human creature of God to enter an unholy union).

We can’t really speculate what the neo-conservatives would say.

 

[blessedtoo]

Hey. I’m Christina, and I recently joined this site because I felt like I had to talk about this. I’m a Protestant but leaning more towards Catholic all the time.

Welcome to CAF!

A lot of people with strong conservative positions call themselves Catholic but ignore what the church teaches. They are probably Catholic because they agree with the Church about things like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. However, they also ignore what the Vatican has said about the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and affirmative action.

“Things” like abortion and homosexual behavior are considered to be “non-negotiables”. A practicing Catholic who parts ways on these teachings would be considered a dissenter. These are moral doctrines which have existed since the Church’s birth. They are not subject to context or era.

With respect to War, the Church may speak out in protest when She believes an unjust action has occurred. It is still not binding upon the faithful to share in that opinion. The Pope is not a politician and does not speak dogmatically about political affairs.

Illegal immigration falls into the same catagory and the faithful may decide for themselves whether they wish to support or protest government action to curtail the problem. As with all things, the Church demands that we respect all people, regardless of their resident status or ethnicity.

Many of these people (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) act as if Catholicism lends itself to support of everything America does. If they examined what the church has said about these things, would they accept that by their definition Catholicism is anti-American and globalist, or would they excuse themselves by saying they are not ex cathedra teachings or something like that?

It’s not really an “excuse” to state the facts. I would argue that the news commentators tend to USE their religion only when it’s expedient for their causes. I find it most distasteful and have not been able to listen to any of them anymore. I don’t want to question their committment to their faith - in fact, I’m fairly certain that Laura is pretty consistent and well versed in all things Catholic. She often makes a good spokesperson for the Church.

I have heard Hannity (and O’Reilly) criticize the Church for Her “soft” positions on the War and on illegal immigration. They can do that. They are not bound to agree with the Bishops UNLESS they, and the HF, speak together as one on an issue.

Hope that helps!

BTW: Maybe listening to S. Hannity is not such a great idea if you’re considering converting to the Church!

 

[LRThunder]

One can disagree on the Iraq War, illegal immigration and I don’t think the Church has anything to say on affirmative action (really only exists in the U.S. as far as I know).

Regarding illegal immigration, every country has the right to control immigration, We cannot accept everybody who comes here, which is why we need organized procedures for legal immigration. Illegal immigrants not only make things harder for legal immigrants and citizens, but also open themselves up to abuse by companies who might want to avoid employment laws regarding taxes and wages by hiring them in the first place.

As far as affirmative action goes, people should be treated equally on the basis of race and gender. However, past treatment of a particular race or gender does not justify giving them a leg up and automatic consideration for jobs or admissions into college just because of the color of their skin or gender. That’s basically reverse discrimination, although presented with a more pleasant face.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Hey. I’m Christina, and I recently joined this site because I felt like I had to talk about this. I’m a Protestant but leaning more towards Catholic all the time.

A lot of people with strong conservative positions call themselves Catholic but ignore what the church teaches. They are probably Catholic because they agree with the Church about things like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedom. However, they also ignore what the Vatican has said about the Iraq War, illegal immigrants, and affirmative action. Many of these people (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) act as if Catholicism lends itself to support of everything America does. If they examined what the church has said about these things, would they accept that by their definition Catholicism is anti-American and globalist, or would they excuse themselves by saying they are not ex cathedra teachings or something like that?

Abortion and gay marriage are taught as abolutes in the church. We are not to partake in such behaviour as it is considered grave matter.

However, we are allowed to have differing opinions of:

• War - Please see the “Just War Theory.”
• Immagration - The Catechism states that all just laws of a country should be followed. The government does have a right/interest to know how many people are living in their borders for protection, representation and the collection/dividing of tax monies.
• Death Penalty - Again, the Catechism states this is acceptable in rare circumstances. In our country, the death penalty is hardly used, and when it is used, careful measures are taken.
• Affirmative Action - Yes, people should be hired regardless of race, however, reverse racism should not happen.

Of course, the bishops, cardnials and the pope will speak out against violence and ills in society. What else is new and what else do you expect?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Abortion and gay marriage are taught as abolutes in the church. We are not to partake in such behaviour as it is considered grave matter.

However, we are allowed to have differing opinions of:

• War - Please see the “Just War Theory.”
• Immagration - The Catechism states that all just laws of a country should be followed. The government does have a right/interest to know how many people are living in their borders for protection, representation and the collection/dividing of tax monies.
• Death Penalty - Again, the Catechism states this is acceptable in rare circumstances. In our country, the death penalty is hardly used, and when it is used, careful measures are taken.
• Affirmative Action - Yes, people should be hired regardless of race, however, reverse racism should not happen.

Of course, the bishops, cardnials and the pope will speak out against violence and ills in society. What else is new and what else do you expect?

I’m doubtful that a good excuse for the death penalty is that it is “hardly used.” And if you lived in Texas, that of course would not be the case. There it is used a good deal. I now of no state that has the death penalty that is holding back on its executions. They went full bore ahead after the latest pronouncement, that alas the killer states cannot kill people for crimes less than murder. Given that Texas has uncovered a prosecutor in Dallas who deliberately held back favoriable defense evidence for years and have had to release literally now dozens of innocent men, the fact that they continue their program of death is disgusting.

I do find it odd that people will claim that some issues (always abortion and homosexuality) must be followed scrumpulously in terms of the what is taught. but even where there is a tiny tiny opening where they can “lawfully” dissent, they do so. THe church has made it most clear that it despises the death penalty and wars of choice. Yet people use the exact letter of the teaching to get away with continuing to dissent from where the Church is moving. I find that interesting.

 

[Brendan]

I do find it odd that people will claim that some issues (always abortion and homosexuality) must be followed scrumpulously in terms of the what is taught. but even where there is a tiny tiny opening where they can “lawfully” dissent, they do so.

Do you put Pope Benedict in that category?

This is what he wrote.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

THe church has made it most clear that it despises the death penalty and wars of choice.

Actually, the Church is very clear on the Death Penalty. Here is the Council of Trent on re: the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

No Catholic may dissent from an Eccumenical Council. I certainly do not, do you dissent from the above?

Yet people use the exact letter of the teaching to get away with continuing to dissent from where the Church is moving. I find that interesting.

Ah yes, dissenting from what the Church actually writes and promulgates. How terrible

Do you expect the Church to be inexact on a teaching?

 

[edwest2]

Welcome to CAF. I think it would be better to avoid labels like conservative and liberal. These are political and man-made distinctions that really do not apply to Catholics. If you are Catholic and understand and follow what the Church teaches, then you are Catholic.

I think there is too much emphasis on thinking in a “political” way as opposed to really understanding Church teaching. No one becomes smarter or dumber by “becoming” a liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat. Finding out where the Church stands on individual issues is better than trying to align yourself with any secular/political school of thought.

I have abandoned political parties and positions. I recommend reading Catholic newspapers and magazines which regularly have articles that explain the Church’s position on the issues of the day.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m doubtful that a good excuse for the death penalty is that it is “hardly used.” And if you lived in Texas, that of course would not be the case. There it is used a good deal. I now of no state that has the death penalty that is holding back on its executions. They went full bore ahead after the latest pronouncement, that alas the killer states cannot kill people for crimes less than murder. Given that Texas has uncovered a prosecutor in Dallas who deliberately held back favoriable defense evidence for years and have had to release literally now dozens of innocent men, the fact that they continue their program of death is disgusting.

I do find it odd that people will claim that some issues (always abortion and homosexuality) must be followed scrumpulously in terms of the what is taught. but even where there is a tiny tiny opening where they can “lawfully” dissent, they do so. THe church has made it most clear that it despises the death penalty and wars of choice. Yet people use the exact letter of the teaching to get away with continuing to dissent from where the Church is moving. I find that interesting.

re: Death Penalty - I have a better chance of being aborted than being executed by the state. Also, consider that our legal system, in theory, tries to be careful about three things:

1. 
   *]That the person that committed the crime acutally did it
   *]That said crime is henious enough to warrant the death penalty
   *]Optionally, the criminal may be a danger to others
   
   You also seem to forget that there are roughly 1 million babies aborted in this country every year opposed to the 100-200 executions. The state gives these children no rights, no protection under the law, no representation, etc. Criminals are treated better than this. Tell me, on that alone, which one is the greater moral evil and should be fixed first (or at least attempted)?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

THe church has made it most clear that it despises the death penalty and wars of choice.

What do you expect the church to say? Nuke everyone? If they said this, I think most everyone, including myself would leave.

Or try to broker/encourage some sort of peace deal/peaceful solution, even if war can be morally justifiable?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Do you put Pope Benedict in that category?

This is what he wrote.

Actually, the Church is very clear on the Death Penalty. Here is the Council of Trent on re: the 5th Commandment

No Catholic may dissent from an Eccumenical Council. I certainly do not, do you dissent from the above?

Ah yes, dissenting from what the Church actually writes and promulgates. How terrible

Do you expect the Church to be inexact on a teaching?

What Brendan said.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

re: Death Penalty - I have a better chance of being aborted than being executed by the state.

Nonsense. If you were able to type the foregoing message which I am quoting, it is impossible for you to be aborted.

On the other hand, statistically, it is indeed easier for an abortion to take place than a state-sponsored killing, I mean an execution.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

What do you expect the church to say? Nuke everyone? If they said this, I think most everyone, including myself would leave.

Hmph!

Or try to broker/encourage some sort of peace deal/peaceful solution, even if war can be morally justifiable?

ABSOLUTELY! The Church teaches that war should be the absolute last resort. That means even if war can be morally justified, a peaceful solution is ALWAYS preferable.

Remember what one of the warriest generals in our history, William Tecumseh Sherman, said: “There is many a boy here today who looks upon war as all glory, but boys, it is all hell.” If we go to war, we must be absolutely certain that there is no other choice because war is so bad that it must be avoided if possible.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Do you put Pope Benedict in that category?

This is what he wrote.

Actually, the Church is very clear on the Death Penalty. Here is the Council of Trent on re: the 5th Commandment

No Catholic may dissent from an Eccumenical Council. I certainly do not, do you dissent from the above?

Ah yes, dissenting from what the Church actually writes and promulgates. How terrible

Do you expect the Church to be inexact on a teaching?

I’m not going through all the death penalty stuff again. those who continue to champion state sanctioned death ignore the CCC, the USCCB and the pronouncements of JPII on the issue. They site to old encyclicals assuming apparently that the vatican is unable and unaware of these documents.

We agree that the death penalty has not been formally declared sinful. That is is considered a terrible practice by the Church is also not in dispute, but some folks are too stubborn to even accept the truth of that.

This is such a well known phenomenon in the Church that those outside it mention it quite frequently, aluding to the reactionary right of the Church being unwilling to follow their own pope on issues of the death penalty and just war. Thankfully I believe it is a minority position within the Church according to the latest Pew polling. And before you start, no majority opinions are not indicative of right, but minority opinions are by the same analysis not either and quite obviously less so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

re: Death Penalty - I have a better chance of being aborted than being executed by the state. Also, consider that our legal system, in theory, tries to be careful about three things:

1. 
   *]That the person that committed the crime acutally did it
   *]That said crime is henious enough to warrant the death penalty
   *]Optionally, the criminal may be a danger to others
   
   You also seem to forget that there are roughly 1 million babies aborted in this country every year opposed to the 100-200 executions. The state gives these children no rights, no protection under the law, no representation, etc. Criminals are treated better than this. Tell me, on that alone, which one is the greater moral evil and should be fixed first (or at least attempted)?

1. 
   Your attempt to raise another issue does not support your position does it? Are you sying that there cannot be more than one moral evil? If there can be, your point is not well taken. If somehow abortion is required to be addressed before the death penalty can be, then show me that evidence.
   1. There are literally hundreds of proven cases of people being convicted and executed who later were determined not to have committed the crime alleged. We have an imperfect system which anyone would acknowledge. There is not moral basis for executing someone which is a final act. Our system is predicated on the belief that “it is better than 100 guilty go free than that an innocent man is convicted.”
   2. Correct, the Supreme Court has concluded that nothing other than Murder warrants the death penalty. It is of course very subjective as to what is heinous enough. Many would conclude that all murder is heinous. Such is the nature of our law.
   3. That is why criminals are locked up. This is precisely what JPII was referring to when he indicated that in modern countries the threat of a criminal being able to victimize the population at large is minimal since prisons are relatively secure. Anecdotal evidence of “a” jail break from time to time resulting in additional murder do not justify a different opinion to JPII or the USCCB for that matter.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m not going through all the death penalty stuff again. those who continue to champion state sanctioned death ignore the CCC, the USCCB and the pronouncements of JPII on the issue. They site to old encyclicals assuming apparently that the vatican is unable and unaware of these documents.

We agree that the death penalty has not been formally declared sinful. That is is considered a terrible practice by the Church is also not in dispute, but some folks are too stubborn to even accept the truth of that.

This is such a well known phenomenon in the Church that those outside it mention it quite frequently, aluding to the reactionary right of the Church being unwilling to follow their own pope on issues of the death penalty and just war. Thankfully I believe it is a minority position within the Church according to the latest Pew polling. And before you start, no majority opinions are not indicative of right, but minority opinions are by the same analysis not either and quite obviously less so.

I agree with you on most of this. However most people arguing this position fail to realize that abortion is the greater evil at this point in time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What do you expect the church to say? Nuke everyone? If they said this, I think most everyone, including myself would leave.

Or try to broker/encourage some sort of peace deal/peaceful solution, even if war can be morally justifiable?

Is this some argument? If so, I’m trying to figure out what you believe is the truth? The Holy Father has lied?

 

[gmags2003]

Don’t listen to corporate shills like Hannity, O’Reilly and company. They are just going to keep promoting Murdoch’s agenda.

 

[dudleysharp]

support for the death penalty is up to one’s own prudential judgement.

PJPII’s prudential judgement was the basis for the change in the Catechism.

Furthermore, PJPII neglected strong biblical, theological and traditonal support for the death penalty - support which overwhelmed both PJPII and the Catechism.

Please review the essay THE DEATH PENALTY, by Romano Amerio (†1997), a Vatican insider and scholar, a professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html