How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[TMC]

Yes, this supports my point that Catholic teaching is that care for the poor is BOTH a public and private responsibility. The Church absolutely teaches the importance of personal charity, but also incontrovertibly teaches that governments and other public institutions must be involved in not only assisting the poor, but in creating social structures that elevate the poor and fight inequality. Paul VI taught this in Populorum Progessio, Benedict XVI reiterated it in Caritas in Veritate, and Francis affirmed it as recently as in his remarks last week (as well as elsewhere).

A Catholic cannot honestly say that Catholic teaching informs his politics if he only takes on issues like gay rights and abortion, and leaves behind issues like care for the poor, inequality and immigration. The Church does not say that one is for the public realm and the other is for the private. That is simply not Church teaching. Both are for both.

 

[StudentMI]

Paul VI taught this in Populorum Progessio, Benedict XVI reiterated it in Caritas in Veritate, and Francis affirmed it as recently as in his remarks last week (as well as elsewhere).

But one mustn’t leave out St John Paul II.

Perhaps Catholic social teaching isn’t as cohesive as I thought. In which case it’s not infallible doctrine and merely deserves consideration, not assent. Only the moral teaching would be binding, not the prescriptions. Or perhaps it’s an integral whole. I am now undecided.

 

[TMC]

And nowhere did I say it was merely a matter of private charity. I said that if private charity can handle an issue the state has no role. Again, Beito is illustrative of this issue.

For that matter it’s been shown by some studies that private organizations do a better job with foreign aid than do nations. Foreign aid by states has been shown by other studies to come with a host of problems. Under the principle of subsidiarity what’s the solution? Keep propping up dictators?

Subsidiarity says that issue should be dealt with at the level closest to the need that can practically handle the issue. But the Church has made clear, in the documents I have mentioned and elsewhere, that issue like poverty and social inequality cannot be dealt with without government involvement. To say otherwise would be the same as saying it is enough if a Catholic decides that she will not personally get an abortion, but that the government does not have a role in the matter. Of course one can disagree with the Church about the role of government in poverty and equality, just as one can disagree with how to best address abortion. But that person should be honest with themselves and others that they have decided not to fully align their politics with the Church.

 

[StudentMI]

But the Church has made clear, in the documents I have mentioned and elsewhere, that issue like poverty and social inequality cannot be dealt with without government involvement.

You keep just not mentioning JPII. Why?

 

[TMC]

But one mustn’t leave out St John Paul II.

Perhaps Catholic social teaching isn’t as cohesive as I thought. In which case it’s not infallible doctrine and merely deserves consideration, not assent. Only the moral teaching would be binding, not the prescriptions. Or perhaps it’s an integral whole. I am now undecided.

It is an integral whole. If you have the impression that John Paul II disagrees with Paul and Benedict I suggest you read the documents again. Benedict expressly denies that his and Paul VI’s views differ from earlier views - he says it is an integrated whole. Francis’ teachings continue in that vein.

 

[TMC]

You keep just not mentioning JPII. Why?

Where did JPII contradict Paul, Benedict and Francis?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but the law is a teacher, and right now the law is teaching that abortion is a viable option.

The law is also a reflection of what society at large believes. We saw during prohibition what happens when the law is not relfective of what society believes. It is not followed, and it is an invitation for crime.

I’m pretty sure that no one (significant) has suggested this approach.

But unless they do adopt this approach, they are neglecting the most important decision-maker in the abortion process.

Given that the Democrat party has made acceptance of abortion a litmus test for (leadership) in the party, there is a limit to how much more progress can be made with the hearts and minds approach.

Not true. There is a difference between the acceptance of abortion and the promotion of abortion. There is no Democrat who would oppose a measure that discouraged abortion through removing the fear of financial ruin from childbearing. That could change hearts and minds, and Democrats could be all for it. There is nothing in the platform that says party members must make abortion as attractive as possible by making childbirth as scary as possible.

 

[StudentMI]

Where did JPII contradict Paul, Benedict and Francis?

I’m not stating he did. But I’ve cited his warnings on the welfare state and you just ignore them. If it’s an integral whole one must deal with those issues.

 

[Ender]

Have you heard of a legal theory that would enable Roe to be overturned? I have not.

I think you have it backwards. Here is Justice Thomas’s opinion about Roe:

Roe v. Wade “created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text.”

“Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled,” Thomas writes. “The idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.”

As I’ve said here before, I believe that the Court should not be packed by Justices of one political persuasion.

No justices should be appointed based on their “political persuasion.” They should be appointed based on their fealty to what the Constitution does say and not to what they think it should say. That (latter) thinking is how we got Roe in the first place.

The Court should hold opposing views in tension and the right answer to a question should bubble up based on sound jurisprudence.

The president should seek out justices who will properly interpret the law. Why would he not nominate those he thinks will display "sound jurisprudence" in the first place? Should he nominate unsound ones just to balance those who are sound?

Justices are notorious for their independence and surprising court watchers with their rulings.

Very true. This explains why some of the justices nominated by Republican presidents turn out to be disappointments. I’m not aware of any nominated by Democrats who have been surprises.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Have you heard of a legal theory that would enable Roe to be overturned? I have not.

I mean, there’s Brown v. Board.

 

[TMC]

I’m not stating he did. But I’ve cited his warnings on the welfare state and you just ignore them. If it’s an integral whole one must deal with those issues.

There is a world of difference between the kind of socialism that JPII grew up under, and warned us against, and the kind of social policies that have been advocated by the Church for centuries - including by JPII. Right-leaning American Catholics seem to think that subsidiarity and “welfare state” somehow exempt them from supporting government policies that aid the poor and marginalized. That is not what the Church teaches (or taught, including JPII). The Church teaches the universal destination of goods, and that the government has a role in ensuring the equitable distribution of goods. JPII agreed with that - just look at the Compendium, which he approved.

 

[Ender]

There is a difference between the acceptance of abortion and the promotion of abortion.

Is that the same as the difference between accepting slavery and promoting slavery? Does Jefferson Davis get a pass because he just wanted slavery to be legal, but never worked the auction blocks himself? I wonder if the residents of Portland identify a real difference between accepting rioting and promoting it. The rioting there continues because the mayor accepts it; it is irrelevant that he doesn’t specifically promote it.

 

[StudentMI]

There is a world of difference between the kind of socialism that JPII grew up under, and warned us against, and the kind of social policies that have been advocated by the Church for centuries - including by JPII.

So now the plain language of encyclicals is dependant on biographical information of the one whose name is on it. Okay.

 

[TMC]

Have you heard of a legal theory that would enable Roe to be overturned? I have not.

I mean, there’s Brown v. Board.

The problem is not so much that overturning Roe v Wade is impossible, as that it is extraordinarily unlikely. Both the right and the left like to pretend that we are one vote away, but that is just fund raising drivel. The reality is that there is only one sure vote on the SC to overturn RvW - Thomas. Every other Justice (right and left) has either expressly said they will not overturn it, or has passed on the opportunity to go on record in favor of overturning. Its just not going to happen. RvW is too entrenched in the jurisprudence, and has echos outside of the abortion context. I can’t see it happening in this generation, and probably not ever.

 

[TMC]

So now the plain language of encyclicals is dependant on biographical information of the one whose name is on it. Okay.

Where did I say that? I am simply pointing out that the things that the American right considers “socialism” (like healthcare, and poverty assistance) are not actually socialism under the Church’s teachings (or anywhere else). You suggested that JPII is at odds with Paul, Benedict and Francis. He is not, which is obvious from simply reading the relevant documents.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, I agree there is no excuse, in light of what is available, but I think you are not grasping what living in poverty is like, if you think it is about college and being richer.

For those in the middle class and upper class that have abortions, your argument is realistic.

 

[StudentMI]

You suggested that JPII is at odds with Paul, Benedict and Francis.

Except I didn’t.

 

[Ender]

the kind of social policies that have been advocated by the Church for centuries

The church does not advocate for any specific policy, now or ever. She identifies objectives (feed the hungry, help the poor…) but she offers no policy proposals for how those goals should be accomplished.

Right-leaning American Catholics seem to think that subsidiarity and “welfare state” somehow exempt them from supporting government policies that aid the poor and marginalized.

The selection of specific policies is based on the outcomes one expects them to yield. Policies “that aid the poor and marginalized” in your view may be legitimately viewed by others as having the opposite effect. This is why the church takes no position on such disputes; these are practical, political differences in which she does not participate.

 

[TMC]

Except I didn’t.

OK. So are we agreeing that the Church teaches that care for the poor, eliminating social and economic inequality, and other “social” issues are both public and private duties - and that American conservatives cannot continue to opt out of those teachings by suggesting they are only “personal” and not political/governmental?

 

[TMC]

This is why the church takes no position on such disputes; these are practical, political differences in which she does not participate.

Except that the Church does take positions on these things. Its just that some Catholics choose to decide those teachings are “optional.”