How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[arvo]

But of course I’m referring to the development of doctrine, that deeper understanding of the deposit of faith, which can seem like something new when not properly understood.

In my previous post I provided an example. To futher it - Aquinas acknowledges that conscious and committed gay love is in concordance with the principle of love, the highest principle in the Christendom. But Aquinas also acknowledges that gay love is against the laws of nature. Now we have deeper understanding of what is and what is not nature and hence - we can reevaluate the gay love in the light of new understanding what is and what is not natural.

E.g. it was widely believed that age death is inevitable. But current scientific understanding is saying that there is possibility to remove that age death and even to regain youth Turning back time with emerging rejuvenation strategies | Nature Cell Biology All this is in making, but - the principle is clear - the death from agin and the impossibility to rejuvenate - both these are not hard laws of nature anymore.

 

[nicholasG]

If we have the misfortune of living in a democracy with a demoralized populace then we must work to change their minds to change the law.

I feel very fortunate living in a democracy.
The great thing about democracy is that if one is not happy living in a democracy one can always move to a theocratic country. If you’re Catholic - Vatican City if you’re Islamic - Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc…Democracy = Freedom and Freedom is great!

 

[arvo]

Some posts eralier I provided an article from the Jesuit peer-reviewed academic journal in which it is argued that human sexuality is something more than genital complementarity (arguments of “natural law”). I will not go in discussion here, let us leave this discussion for the Catholic theologians and scholars and jesuits.

 

[christofirst]

Using the analogy of a broad thoroughfare, the Church provides guardrails, so to speak, to keep us from driving off the road. What you are proposing is right on the edge and even currently outside the guardrails, as I see it, but you are free to ponder such things. I’m only here in this thread to debunk the fallacious notion that a Catholic cannot vote for the Democratic candidate. But again, we must do so for the right reasons, as laid out in US bishops’ document Faithful Citizenship, and as further elucidated in articles such as those I have posted in this thread.

 

[arvo]

Is there some codification of natural law? Is such codification complete and immutable? Is such codification the part of Revelation? Or maybe Natural Law is not part of Revelation, but Revelation refers to it. E.g. Revelation can refer that this or that is according to Natural Law and then the human being interpret this or that with their state-of-art understanding of Natural Law? I go for the later, that is my understanding of Revelation and Natural Law.

I do not put much emphasis on sexuality, it is the same as restaurant food.

 

[StudentMI]

I feel very fortunate living in a democracy.
The great thing about democracy is that if one is not happy living in a democracy one can always move to a theocratic country. If you’re Catholic - Vatican City if you’re Islamic - Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc…Democracy = Freedom and Freedom is great!

Democracy is rule of the majority against the minority, the rule of easily malleable public opinion against truth. It’s vastly inferior to a republic or a monarchy. Even St Thomas thought so.

And please don’t pull the 'love it or leave it’s card. It’s what the right did during the Iraq war.

 

[arvo]

Democracy is rule of the majority against the minority…

and one must also add that “+ human right and rights for minorities”.

There is not democracy without human rights. Yes - the content of those Human rights are under discussion. Some argue, that fetus have them. Some argue, that social rights are mandatory part of human rights. Some argue, that protection against gender hate are part of human rights. That is the core of the discussion.

But I think that such discussion can be solved by two simple words “love and charity”. We can love babies, we can love other people so much as to give them opportunities (or unconditionally if necessary) the basic things, we can love queer people.

It is so simple - I just love people and world (my artificial intelligence projects for the automation, ending of human and animal exploitation, for the post-scarcity world is concrete expression of that) and I express this love by advancing social-liberal/progressive politics. I can not understand how one can join charity/love and right wing policies. But those are just emotions.

 

[StudentMI]

and one must also add that “+ human right and rights for minorities” .

Why is it then that the rights of the minority are constantly under attack by the majority?

 

[nicholasG]

Democracy is rule of the majority against the minority

And thankfully the majority prefers Democracy over Theocracy.

 

[StudentMI]

And thankfully the majority prefers Democracy over Theocracy.

Democracy has also lead more than once to horrific decisions, all under the form of a democratic election.

 

[arvo]

Why is it then that the rights of the minority are constantly under attack by the majority?

Is there any other example except of rights of unborn people?

I am reading Turkish novel “Snow” (from 2005) and it so clearly shows how the society can be divided by the headscarves issue in the Islamic countries. The same thing happens with ProLife/ProChoice policies.

My understanding is - that Western democracies are beacons of human rights and I don’t know any signification violation of them, except, as I said, the issue of fetus.

 

[StudentMI]

I am reading Turkish novel “Snow” (from 2005) and it so clearly shows how the society can be divided by the headscarves issue in the Islamic countries. The same thing happens with ProLife/ProChoice policies.

You’re comparing a novel about children being murdered to the argument between pro lifers and pro choicers. That’s… odd.

 

[nicholasG]

Democracy has also lead more than once to horrific decisions, all under the form of a democratic election.

No system is perfect, but even with these imperfections Democracy still rules.

 

[StudentMI]

No system is perfect, but even with these imperfections Democracy still rules.

Lest anyone forget, the Nazis were voted in.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

PP clinics are placed where the demand is the highest.

why do you say the demand is highest in certain peoples neighborhoods?

PP for abortions. They can pay top dollar and go anywhere.

Just “anywhere” doesnt provide abortions and no matter what neighborhood they are in, they are very costly, even at PP.

 

[nicholasG]

Lest anyone forget, the Nazis were voted in.

And destroyed.

 

[arvo]

You’re comparing a novel about children being murdered to the argument between pro lifers and pro choicers. That’s… odd.

I know that today people have little time for novels, literature, but if you had read this book then you would know how the issue of headscarves is raised as the most important issues that determines all the other issues - honoring the women, keeping family values and chaste family life, etc. Some people just feel necessity for certainty and hard rules. But the world is so diverse and vast and complex!

 

[StudentMI]

And destroyed.

Flag waving aside, there was a period between their election and their destruction. There’s a word for it, what is it again?

 

[StudentMI]

But the world is so diverse and vast and complex!

You’re comparing a novel about children being murdered to a debate.

 

[arvo]

nicholasG:

StudentMI:

Lest anyone forget, the Nazis were voted in.

And destroyed.

Flag waving aside, there was a period between their election and their destruction. There’s a word for it, what is it again?

Democracies have quality measures in continuum scale. Apparently, Germany lacked the effective minority protection mechanisms (independent justices). Democracies are also under the pressure of natural constraints. E.g. 30ties were the time of Great Depression. Left wing parties at that time were hardliners, where opted for socialism and not for Keynes/Roosevelt style New Deal policies, that is why German voters didn’t vote for the although it could be natural choice for that time. Macroeconomics was only in birth under that time and the eugenics was not condemned as pseudoscience completely yet - so there was lack of intellectual (name removed by moderator)ut as well. Besides - the technological advancements were not enough for keeping supply side if the government opted for 2020-style stimulus measures.

This lack of intellectual clarity, lack of political process, lack of complete democratical institutions, lack of appropriate journalism, lack of technological advancement crushed the nascent democracy. But it is not the reason why people should not try to build ideal democracy once more.