How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil3 said:
The church has no authority to tell me that I have to agree with food stamps. But it can tell me to help feed the hungry.
Click to expand...
If you believe this, then you must also believe the same about all other moral teachings. How can the Church have the authority to tell people whether or not to agree with public policy regarding abortion and gay rights, but not have the authority to tell people where to stand on policies regarding care for the poor, workers’ rights and all the rest. They are all moral issues. Why does the Church have teaching authority only in these few very narrow issues, but loses that authority in all other arenas of human life and society?
 
To rightly understand a list of non-negotiables requires an ability to understand “grades” (levels, degrees) of evil. If one can come to understand that some evils are less evil than others, and some more evil than others, then one can understand the intensity of horror that abortion deserves.

The right to life is a greater and more important right than, for example, ANY other right. What right is important, if the person whose other rights are being protected, has himself or herself, NO right to even be alive? What rights do you want to protect, when the persons you want to defend may be freely killed at the “choice” of the government? Why would that person’s right to be alive not be YOUR FIRST and non-negotiable priority?
 
Last edited:
fide said:
To rightly understand a list of non-negotiables requires an ability to understand “grades” (levels, degrees) of evil…
Click to expand...
There is no official list of non-negotiables. The list that has been circulated was created by an unofficial organization operating independently of the Catholic Church.
 
SuperLawyer said:
There is no viable alternative to capitalism.

It is an imperfect system, but it works.
Click to expand...
Of course no economic system is pure capitalism or pure socialism. All are a mix, all have varying degrees of regulatory oversight, controls etc. Thus, there is a wide array of system variations possible, with differing outcomes possible.

It’s interesting to see which countries - with what kind of economic system - have the highest “happiness” index.
 
praz said:
A woman being forced into sex shouldn’t be forced more to go through 9 months of pregnancy (not to mention the risk of miscarriage and the loss of her life i.e. maternal mortality)
Click to expand...
You can only say that if you believe that the thing that is being cut out of the woman is not a human person worthy of protection. As unjust as it is for a women who has been raped to have to put up with nine months of pregnancy and childbirth, it is even more unjust to kill an innocent human being, even in an effort to reduce the injustice suffered by the woman. The only way you could justify this act is by claiming it was not a human being that had to be killed. So, I’m guessing you do not believe it is a human being.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
The Church doesn’t teach anywhere that those two issues are the only ones that matter, or that all other issues are reduced to “practical judgments.”
Click to expand...
St. Pope John Paul II is clear on it (bold mine)
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
Click to expand...
The US bishops also prioritized abortion as the pre-eminent issue.

there is a hierarchy
TMC said:
but not have the authority to tell people where to stand on policies regarding care for the poor, workers’ rights and all the rest.
Click to expand...
there is more than one way to solve social issues. you get to choose what you feel will work. welfare that destroys the family doesn’t. creating jobs does.

with SSM and abortion, etc, theses are against church teaching. you have no option.
 
Bodily integrity? Is that a euphemism - for having no obligation to deliver ordinary care to one’s offspring, and a positive right to kill the offspring?

Yes, I’ve heard of that.
 
Yes it does happen, no one claimed it didn’t. However, there are more resources at the Federal level dedicated to rooting it out. That is not to say that everyone who commits violations will be caught, but it does tend to keep it down to individuals skimming a little bit rather than groups ripping off wholesale or individuals stealing massively. But of course there are exceptions and they tend to make the news when they are caught precisely because it is not an everyday occurrence.
 
upant said:
The US bishops also prioritized abortion as the pre-eminent issue.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read their statement instead of cherry-picking quotes. They use the word “pre-eminent” not “only.” The bishops make clear, as does the Pope, that Catholics MUST take into account all of the issues, of which abortion is one.
upant said:
there is more than one way to solve social issues. you get to choose what you feel will work. welfare that destroys the family doesn’t. creating jobs does.

with SSM and abortion, etc, theses are against church teaching. you have no option.
Click to expand...
These two statements are contradictory. Either the Church is allowed to proscribe the solutions to these issues, or it is not. There is no rational way to say that the Church may proscribe one solution in this one area, but lacks authority to do so in other areas (and the Church certainly does not limit itself in that way).
 
Dovekin said:
And the only way you do see a parallel is by denying any rights to the pregnant mother
Click to expand...
Which “rights” am I denying pregnant women? The “right” to murder the humans in their wimbs? You’re right. I’m absolutely denying them the non-existent “right” to which u refer, exactly as I do those Roman husbands and fathers and the slave-owners from 200 years ago: None if these people own any other humans and so cannot possibly have a right to destroy them. None of them has a right to murder because the only place such a “right” exists is Satan’s dominion. Good Lord.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
Which “rights” am I denying pregnant women?
Click to expand...
A simple “yes, I deny pregnant women have any rights relevant to this issue.” would have sufficed to show I stated your position accurately.
Rau said:
To which right of women are you referring?
Click to expand...
upant said:
it is a question, where is killing unborn children defined as a right?
Click to expand...
Roe v. Wade?

The majority opinion roots it primarily in a right to privacy, ie the government as a public entity does not have a right to intervene in this situation. Justice Douglas in a concurring opinion roots it in (I think) the 14th amendment.
JimG said:
The plurality and the Chief Justice ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents. But those decisions 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.
Click to expand...
This quote from Justice Thomas is an excellent summary of the position being pushed by others here. It differs because it recognizes that, under our current system, a right to abortion exists; it is what he calls “our precedents.”

The repeated denials that such a right exists do not help advance opposition to abortion. The impression given is that prolife supporters live in a fantasy world, cut off from even discussing the central topics.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
A simple “yes, I deny pregnant women have any rights relevant to this issue.” would have sufficed to show I stated your position accurately.
Click to expand...
Your statement takes for granted a plain falsehood: that such a right (to destroy human life) exists. It exists the same way there was a “right” to kill Jews 70 years ago. I, too, stated your position correctly.
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
The majority opinion roots it primarily in a right to privacy, ie the government as a public entity does not have a right to intervene in this situation.
Click to expand...
The right to privacy does not protect the right to kill another human being, even in the privacy of your own home.
Dovekin said:
The repeated denials that such a right exists do not help advance opposition to abortion.
Click to expand...
The denials are made only in response to the repeated claim that such a right exists. If people would stop claiming this right exists, there would be no need to keep denying it over and over again.
 
Last edited:
“Bodily integrity” is a legal term, and the one upon which the position for legalized abortion is built. It has other ramifications though, like the right to refuse medical treatment. Forced medical treatment is only allowable in a few situations, like where one is adjudged incapable of rational judgement.

Since abortion does not fit the legal standard of irrationality, even if it does fit both the moral and the philosophical standard, the only legal argument to oppose abortion must focus on personhood, that the fetus is a human person. “My body, my choice,” or “abortion is murder” are just slogans. If we stick to slogans, we will be at an impasse on abortion. Right now, the Republicans and Democrats are at this impasse. Neither side wants rational dialogue to understand each other’s position, and thereby arrive at an understanding of the truth, at least that has been my observation.
 
Last edited:
phil3 said:
so the church is in fact telling me how to vote?
Click to expand...
phil3 said:
I thought I was replying to a post from TMC.
Click to expand...
I have not said that. What I am saying is that the Church is telling all Catholics that Catholics must consider all issues when deciding how to vote. I am actually countering the notion that the Church mandates voting for one party or the other in the US. The Church expressly teaches that Catholics are not to be “single issue” voters on any issue, but should look at all issues and come to a conclusion.
 
You are saying there are governmental polices I have to support to be a good catholic. So the church is pointing how you should vote?

No they are not telling me I have to vote for Biden, but that I have to support big government “policies”.

I will never support them as they do not work and do more harm than good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top