How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[LeafByNiggle]

That money isn’t going to a person but a building and it’s maintenance (which includes book). A person will never be rewarded for not working because the library gets funded.
[/quote]

It is the benefit of being able to check out books, use Internet computes, ask questions of the reference librarian, use the restrooms, attend special programs, and have access to research databases not generally available outside the library without paying for access. These are all benefits of financial value. It is essentially like giving the patrons something for nothing. The fact that this benefit is not in the form of pure money is irrelevant. You could just as well imagine a Universal Basic Income that did not pay anybody money, but did pay with money for the things that person needs or wants, like food, rent, Internet service, anything. Then it would be exactly like the libraries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You missed the point. Aim and shoot again.
[/quote]

Nope. I got the point exactly right. If UBI is anti-Catholic, so are public libraries.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That itself it your opinion, because nowhere does the Church say that all forms of UBI are anti-Catholic. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to cite the paragraph in the Catechism that says so.

This is a particularly confused request, since the claim was that a certain doctrine is not taught. One does not show that a certain doctrine is not taught by citing some teaching. The burden is on the one who claims that a certain doctrine is taught to show where.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is literal theft, stealing from someone who has something and giving it to someone who refuses to work. It is a sin of a high magnitude.

Theft is the illegitimate taking of what does not belong to you. Taxes are not theft. The Catechism is quite clear on that point. And government can do what it wants with taxes in the form of giving aid. Consider disaster relieve aid. Consider foreign aid. Consider sweetheart sports stadium deals. These are all instances of the government spending taxes on what not everyone likes.

If you don’t understand the difference between a shared common use (library) and giving someone something which they didn’t earn or deserve, from people who have worked…I’m not going to be able to help you.

The UBI can also be considered a common benefit. If everyone benefits, it is a common benefit.

 

[YADA]

And there are many programs to assist low income people to obtain health care … medicaid is one such program … in Oregon we have the Oregon Health Plan to cover people in need … in addition to hospitals that provide care regardless of ability to pay.

I even know physicians who assist low income people with care at minimal or even for free.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And there are many programs to assist low income people to obtain health care … medicaid is one such program … in Oregon we have the Oregon Health Plan to cover people in need … in addition to hospitals that provide care regardless of ability to pay.

I even know physicians who assist low income people with care at minimal or even for free.

Citing people who get some aid is not the same thing as everybody having access to that aid. The fact is there are many who still do not have access.

 

[farronwolf]

I guess this completely blows up all the arguments for the thread title.

Constitutional Amendment On Abortion Headed To Louisiana Voters in 2020 | WWNO

 

[upant]

The majority opinion roots it primarily in a right to privacy

the right to privacy is not the right to kill an unborn child. it is a stretch. it is wrong.

The repeated denials that such a right exists do not help advance opposition to abortion.

there is no right to murder your child, it is bad law.

the Church teaches that all Catholics are to consider all issues.

with the priority on abortion

immigration, worker’s rights, right to healthcare, care for the poor, care for the environment, the universal destination of goods, income inequality, and so on…

I don’t think people disagree with the church on the need for action, I think the disagreement is with other people on how best to achieve progress on these issues.

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.

no, it is the pre-eminent one, why put one ahead of the rest if it carries no more weight than the rest?

Pope Emeritus Benedict: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia….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.”

Either the Church is allowed to proscribe the solutions to these issues, or it is not

the church has teachings, the dem policies that are against church teaching have no solution because the activity is wrong and forbidden.

when is SSM okay?
when is euthanasia okay?
when is embryonic stem cell research okay?
when is transgenderism okay?
when is identity politics okay?
when is contraception okay?
when is socialism okay?
when is breaking the seal of the confession okay?
when are forced abortions in Catholic hospitals okay?

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.

look above, it isn’t a single issue anymore, don’t limit it

 

[upant]

To say that the government or a political party is to blame for these sins is absolute nonsense.

when a specific party passes laws to expand abortion activity, yes, the party, government, and those who vote these people into office are responsible.

If there is no socially and economically just and solid foundation for the families, then there will never be loved and expected children

don’t forget welfare and its devastating effects on the family unit. the marriage penalty is a reason for the number of single-parent homes.

It need not always and everywhere be “free,”

it is never free, someone pays for it

Why? It is a very common position on the American right, and this forum is dominated by right-leaning Americans.

you think the right doesn’t support healthcare for the poor? please document this

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Theft is the illegitimate taking of what does not belong to you. Taxes are not theft. The Catechism is quite clear on that point. And government can do what it wants with taxes in the form of giving aid.

Two articles that point out how the Catholic church and socialism do not fit together and why the Catholic church rejects socialism as the answer to our issues today.

From the article:

*Pope John XXIII stated in Mater et Magistra (“On Christianity and Social Progress”) that “no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism.”

A Church view of socialism

and this from the next article showing again that the Church does not believe socialism is the answer to the issues of today:

it must also be thoroughly understood that the Church fully realizes the great evils which have grown up by the accumulation of immense amounts of wealth in the hands of a few, which threatens to reduce the great majority of mankind to a condition of practical slavery, and that she sympathizes with the advocates of Socialism in their desire to abolish these evils; but that she simply rejects this special plan as being primarily founded on statements as to human rights which are absolutely false, and which, if carried out in practice, would tend to increase these very evils rather than to abate them.

Library : Why the Catholic Church Cannot Accept Socialism | Catholic Culture

 

[LeafByNiggle]

when is contraception okay?

OK, this is a good one to illustrate the flaw in your argument. You are listing acts that are sins in the Catholic Church. Taking contraceptions is one of them. So is abortion. You apparently intend to use this fact to prove that one may never vote for a candidate who permits abortion. But if that were the case, it would apply to contraception too. That is, one may never vote for a candidate that permits contraception. But is that really true? If there are two candidates, one of which permits contraception and the other who has stated they should be illegal. Do you actually believe that a Catholic voter may not vote for the candidate who permits contraception, regardless of any other considerations about these candidates, such as, suppose the anti-contraception candidate is also an open member of the KKK? Do you actually believe a faithful Catholic is prohibited from voting for the other guy just to keep a KKK politician out of power? That is where your argument falls down.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Theft is the illegitimate taking of what does not belong to you. Taxes are not theft. The Catechism is quite clear on that point. And government can do what it wants with taxes in the form of giving aid.

Two articles that point out how the Catholic church and socialism do not fit together and why the Catholic church rejects socialism as the answer to our issues today.

From the article:

• Pope John XXIII stated in Mater et Magistra (“On Christianity and Social Progress”) that “no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism.”

Yes, but what I was proposing was not socialism. Not even moderate socialism.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

when is SSM okay?
when is euthanasia okay?
when is embryonic stem cell research okay?
when is transgenderism okay?
when is identity politics okay?
when is contraception okay?
when is socialism okay?
when is breaking the seal of the confession okay?
when are forced abortions in Catholic hospitals okay?

LeafByNiggle:

You are listing acts that are sins in the Catholic Church. Taking contraception is one of them… …

This is a list of the evils in the democratic party that go against Church teaching, showing that Catholics should not vote Democrat for many reasons.

The scenario you proposed is not a reality at this time. This list of dem policies is what needs to be looked at, at the present time, not a scenario that doesn’t exist.

Yes, but what I was proposing was not socialism. Not even moderate socialism.

You may not recognize it as socialism but it is showing a lot of the signs and symptoms. Reading the articles might help you to see what you are mentioning fit right into socialism.

government can do what it wants with taxes in the form of giving aid.

This is why we vote. Many times tax hikes are voted on by the people.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The scenario you proposed is not a reality at this time.

But it is a valid issue to use in a thought experiment meant to highlight an error in the logic of an argument. It is an established and accepted means of debate.

You may not recognize it as socialism but it is showing a lot of the signs and symptoms. Reading the articles might help you to see what you are mentioning fit right into socialism.

Then again it might just confirm that I proposed no such thing.

LeafByNiggle:

government can do what it wants with taxes in the form of giving aid.

This is why we vote. Many times tax hikes are voted on by the people.

Yes, and even when they pass that vote, there are still people as mad as hornets that it passed.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But it is a valid issue to use in a thought experiment meant to highlight an error in the logic of an argument. It is an established and accepted means of debate.

I agree but what the poster wanted us to seriously take note of is what is in the democratic platform right now and realize what is at stake in this election.

Yes, and even when they pass that vote, there are still people as mad as hornets that it passed.

True but people have a choice and many times these tax hikes do not pass on the vote and those who wanted the money from the people are then angry but the point is people still have some voice in the matter. That is being a republic.

Then again it might just confirm that I proposed no such thing.

You won’t know until you read it. Many democrats are proposing solutions today that are socialist. Another huge reason not to vote democrat. Their solutions would just make things worse.

 

[Rau]

Oh, come on… I choose not to work and I get free library services from other people’s taxes. That’s Just the thing to which you object. And I get free use of roads too.

 

[Dovekin]

I think you have elevated a legal conclusion about what you may do without legal consequence to the lofty level of “right” - confusing it with moral considerations in the process.

Thank you for an interesting response!

How is “what you may do without legal consequence” different from a right?

I have routinely separated legal action from moral considerations. I have not said it recently, but I believe no woman should ever choose to abort her child. That is distinct from the government should outlaw abortion.

 

[Rau]

How is “what you may do without legal consequence” different from a right?

Perhaps you and your interlocutors are speaking at cross-purposes. No one argues that abortion is legally permitted. But it is only available by virtue of the acts of man - there is no inherent right. I am sure I have a right to live and to raise a family quite regardless of any man made edict. Women may abort their offspring not as a right, but because the law has decided to say “it’s ok”.

I have not said it recently, but I believe no woman should ever choose to abort her child. That is distinct from the government should outlaw abortion.

This is not an uncommon position. One could judge that a sudden change of the law at this time would lead to more harm than good.

 

[Rau]

• Pope John XXIII stated in Mater et Magistra (“On Christianity and Social Progress”) that “no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism.”

At best this is a prudential judgement. What on earth due you think “moderate socialism” means and what are they characteristics the pope had in mind? Is it progressive taxation? Is it denying the right to private property?

 

[Rau]

when is contraception okay?

Would you CSL on government to outlaw contraceptive drugs and devices?