How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Just as much as the left must stop pushing a statist solution to every problem under the sun.
 
TMC said:
Except that the Church does take positions on these things. Its just that some Catholics choose to decide those teachings are “optional.”
Click to expand...
Name one specific policy proposal the church has said or implied that we have a moral duty to support.
 
StudentMI said:
Just as much as the left must stop pushing a statist solution to every problem under the sun.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.

It is absolutely clear that no political party or movement is in perfect alignment with Catholic teaching. My primary point is that neither side should pretend that their party is the one that comports with Catholic teaching, and the other does not. Both diverge from Catholic teaching in large and important ways. Both sides (but especially the right, TBH), likes to say that its issues are the real Catholic issues and the others’ issues are either not relevant, optional or whatever. Simply untrue. Each Catholic must look at this situation of two deeply flawed parties and choose to cast their vote in good faith - but neither party can claim that only it has the imprimatur. Neither does.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is a difference between the acceptance of abortion and the promotion of abortion.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
No, he does not get a pass. That was not my point. I was not saying anything to excuse Democrats for either accepting or promoting abortion, for both are wrong. The only reason I bought out that difference is to explain why a Democrat might easily support a measure that reduced abortion by some means other than making it illegal, when you said that with Democrats in charge there would be a limit to what progress could be made changing hearts and minds.
 
Last edited:
Not really pertinent to anything we discussed but I wanted to share this quote here as Catholic social teaching was brought up.
Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church’s social doctrine receives it, [and] assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found.
Click to expand...
Pope Benedict XVI,Caritas in veritate, 9.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
40.png
StudentMI:
So now the plain language of encyclicals is dependant on biographical information of the one whose name is on it. Okay.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
It does seem like this catechism passage could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Especially 2406. And 2405, how is an artist supposed to " to employ them (artistic skills) in ways that will benefit the greatest number". ?

I. The Universal Destination and the Private Ownership of Goods

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.186 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."187 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.188
 
Last edited:
As I understand it property rights are not absolute. Even Aquinas said that.
 
Yes, but there’s a lot of gray area in the catechism. It seems like socialists could impose some form of socialism easily and have it justified under 2406.
 
27lw said:
Yes, but there’s a lot of gray area in the catechism. It seems like socialists could impose some form of socialism easily and have it justified under 2406.
Click to expand...
Well take for instance Laborem exercens by JPII. In it he praises worker ownership and even says that some property can be socialized justly. I myself don’t see that as socialism. I think a very close school of thought to Catholic social teaching that not many are aware of is mutualism. Proudhon, the ‘founder’, had his works put on the Index, but I see a lot of similarities.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
care for the poor, inequality and immigration.
Click to expand...
Certainly the Church teaches that we should care about those things.
But the poor live.
The discriminated against live.
The immigrants live.
Aborted babies do not.

There is a very big difference.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Certainly the Church teaches that we should care about those things.
But the poor live.
The discriminated against live.
The immigrants live.
Aborted babies do not.

There is a very big difference.
Click to expand...
Here is a list of 10 countries of the world that starving to death based on the GHI:

Haiti (Global Hunger Index: 23) …
Zambia (Global Hunger Index: 23.2) …
Yemen (Global Health Index: 23.4) …
Ethiopia (Global Health Index: 24.4) …
Chad (Global Health Index: 24.9) …
Sudan (Global Health Index: 26)

Some of the images. I wouldn’t call this living.
Abortion is terrible, but so is this.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Many around the world cry out at those injustices. They are universally recognized as human failure to provide for others. Who cries out for the unborn who isn’t pro-life?
 
Last edited:
We do. All except the killing of those not yet born. Because our culture and world at large fails to at least recognize their rights, I choose to fight for them first.
 
The people in impoverished countries are suffering terribly. Yes.
Does foreign aid help or hurt?
If you were to read the article about Haiti, it talks about how the Clintons were involved in every step of trying to rebuild Haiti after the catastrophe. Utter disaster.
" Within days of the earthquake, the Clintons stepped up to lead the global response. Bill was selected to co-chair the commission tasked with directing relief spending. As US secretary of state, Hillary helped to oversee $4.4bn that Congress had earmarked for recovery efforts by the US Agency for International Development, or USAid. “At every stage of Haiti’s reconstruction – fundraising, oversight and allocation – a Clinton was now involved,” Jonathan Katz, a journalist who has covered Haiti for more than a decade, wrote in 2015."
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. Wow - this Proudhon is really something.

Proudhon is most famous for his hypothesis that Property is theft, but he was for possession . He was a social individualist anarchist, see the economic-political map at System Theory. IIFOR’s precisation of Proudhon’s property vs possession concept is: Anarchies very briefly defined are systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency. Any ownership that is compatible with systems with small rank and income differences, plus efficiency, is possession. Possession may be individual or collective, private or public. 1. Any ownership that results in large income differences is capitalist, economical plutarchy. 2. Any ownership that results in large rank differences is statist. 1. and 2. are property, i.e. theft, not possession. [1]. The basic ideas of Proudhon are elaborated in the following quotes. *))**​

http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html
 
LeafByNiggle said:
But unless they do adopt this approach, they are neglecting the most important decision-maker in the abortion process.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by “important.” Perhaps primary. But also likely the one with the least amount of knowledge (certainly compared to the abortionist), least amount of culpability, and least amount of freedom. How often does the left paint abortion as a “painful choice” that threatens financial ruin, social stigma, etc. These are all very powerful influences on women which challenge their ability to fully and freely consent.

No, the “most important” decision-maker is the one with full knowledge and full consent. That is the abortionist. Start there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top