How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[pnewton]

I never heard of a pro life democrat.

They exist. There are also pro-life Republicans, as “pro-life” is much broader than abortion, and does not make an exception for rape. That exception shatters the logic against abortion.

It would have taken ten seconds to find these pro-life Democrats, by the way. I already knew of one politician, and there are several here.

https://www.democratsforlife.org/

So here is the thing. How many others have the same misconception that there are no pro-life Democrats based on nothing but an over-simplification and the willingness to want what is simple? And, if people are so wrong about something this basic and easy to learn information, why do the stick to the same media, the same shtick, the same lines? Expand your horizons, people. Read more and read broader.

 

[TMC]

I must not be making myself clear. I am not taking this discussion from the perspective of the rich man, but the poor man. Universal income gives something to someone for free, whether or not they have worked. That is what is not Catholic.

I have said nothing about universal income, I am discussing the Catholic teaching of the Universal Destination of Goods. As a Catholic, I would think you would be familiar with that concept, which is most certainly Catholic - and which explicitly teaches that the right to private property is a limited right that should be regulated by proper authority such that no one goes without.

 

[phil3]

Uh, no. That is not true. The Church actually teaches that the right to private property is limited by the needs of others, such that no person should own excess goods while others are in need.

Here is where the church leaders and “those that shall not be labeled” are on an express train to pre-industrial living.

If this is the meaning of Private property, then there is no private property. No matter how little someone has, there will always be someone that has less and will need what you have.

 

[TMC]

You are merely parroting right wing talking points and not actually discussing Church teaching. Have you read the bishops’ teachings on voting, or the Pope’s?

 

[TMC]

it is never free, someone pays for it

Yes, this is why I put “free” in quotation marks.

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

I think the fight against extended health coverage to the poor, the resistance to covering more of them, and the constant attempts to take what coverage exists away, are each sufficient evidence of this fact.

 

[TMC]

Here is where the church leaders and “those that shall not be labeled” are on an express train to pre-industrial living.

If this is the meaning of Private property, then there is no private property. No matter how little someone has, there will always be someone that has less and will need what you have.

That may be your opinion, but it goes squarely against the Church’s long standing and consistent teaching.

 

[phil3]

It may be opinion, but it will be how society will act.

Once you take some of the property the billionaires have, you will have to do this over and over and over, so soon all the billionaires will become millionaires, then you have to start on the millionaires. this is a never-ending cycle until the government owns all and the people own nothing.

Confiscation without compensation. In South Africa the church support this with the exception of taking church property.

This is why some of the most learned men in History create a republic. So that government has limits on its powers.

If I read church teaching according to what you and others have posted, the government has unlimited powers to take from someone to give to someone else. As long as it is for “the common good”

 

[Dovekin]

Perhaps you and your interlocutors are speaking at cross-purposes. No one argues that abortion is legally permitted.

We are speaking at cross purposes. Abortion is legally permitted, at least in the USA.

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”.

Roe v. Wade, a decision of the US Supreme Court, says the exact opposite. It grounds the right to get an abortion in privacy rights. This perhaps could be better expressed as the government has no right to intervene because the state is public by its nature. In any event, the government allowing abortion transgresses this as much as the government disallowing it; it is a private decision in which the government has no role.

The people who argue against Roe v. Wade generally argue that it was a legislative act, something which a court should not do. They do not address the issue of privacy for the most part, simply assuming that government regulation is always permissible everywhere, so abortion is an instance of murder without any distinguishing characteristics.

IMO the privacy issue could be a fertile ground for a good discussion. There will always be those who dismiss that concern; Justice Thomas is one of those, as can be seen by his statement recently quoted here. And there always be those who oppose government interference in the most private areas of their life. What is needed is people who will honor both competing values, but that is very difficult to do. Both sides tend to paint it black and white ie if you support choice you are proabortion, if you are prolife you are tyrannical.

 

[TMC]

If I read church teaching according to what you and others have posted, the government has unlimited powers to take from someone to give to someone else. As long as it is for “the common good”

This is what the Church teaches. News flash - the Church is not capitalist.

 

[phil3]

Then I may be catholic but I disagree 100% with that teaching. Just look at south africa and the mess it has become. That is what the rest of the world would be like if this catholic teaching became law.

I will never support that level of a central government.

When I see the church turn their multimillion dollar churches into home for the poor. then this teaching is worthless

 

[farronwolf]

I never heard of a pro life democrat.

They exist.

I guess everyone missed the point of the article I linked. This amendment was sponsored by a Democrat. But I suppose this blows the whole argument of can’t be a democrat and pro life or Catholic out of the water.

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

 

[MagdalenaRita]

the Church is not capitalist.

it is not socialist either. It sounds to me like you are talking about distributism.

phil3:

If I read church teaching according to what you and others have posted, the government has unlimited powers to take from someone to give to someone else. As long as it is for “the common good”

Then I may be catholic but I disagree 100% with that teaching.

That is good because I think the key word in your question was “unlimited” and I do not believe that the Church holds to “unlimited” government.

 

[TMC]

Then I may be catholic but I disagree 100% with that teaching. Just look at south africa and the mess it has become. That is what the rest of the world would be like if this catholic teaching became law.

I will never support that level of a central government.

When I see the church turn their multimillion dollar churches into home for the poor. then this teaching is worthless

Lots of Catholics dissent from Catholic teaching in various ways. Just understand this is the Church’s teaching and understand that dissent from it is no different than dissenting from other Church teachings.

 

[phil3]

What I wrote is a quote from Catholic teaching. Here is one place it is found:

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life . In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”

But when you read what TMC has quoted, the church is in fact saying government has unlimited powers to take private property.

I would love to see Priest preach this during the Homily. The collection baskets would come back almost empty.

 

[TMC]

it is not socialist either. It sounds to me like you are talking about distributism.

Yes, the Church is neither socialist nor capitalist. Not sure what definition of “distributism” you are using, but I am talking about the Church’s long standing teaching on economics, wealth, and society. It is neither socialist nor capitalist - it is Catholic. It is rooted in the universal destination of goods which, in short, is the teaching that God created all of Creation for All, and that each person’s right to private property is limited by that fact. This includes the teaching that governmental authority may (and in fact must) ensure that the goods of society are redistributed where necessary to meet the needs of the common good.

American Catholics are often poorly catechized (really completely uncatechized) on the Church’s teachings in this area, and therefore surprised to learn that the Church does not support a capitalist approach to economics. But the Church’s teachings are clear, long-standing and binding on Catholics.

 

[TMC]

But when you read what TMC has quoted, the church is in fact saying government has unlimited powers to take private property.

I would love to see Priest preach this during the Homily. The collection baskets would come back almost empty.

Don’t rely on me, go read the Church’s teachings for yourself. Should the Church not teach truth because of fear that American capitalists will disapprove?

 

[phil3]

You need to read what I wrote.

I am assuming you dont own much. Would that be wrong? Or you work for government.

But lets look at life, if government has the authoritarian powers the church seems to imply with private property.

I own 38 chickens and I have spent about $10,000 to keep those chicken safe and egg-producing. They will produce about 177 eggs a week. That is with the assumption a chicken will lay an egg every 1.5 days

Most of my chicken will lay 280 eggs out of the year, some will do about 200 days out of the year.

Now the government the church seems to support is a government that can legally come a take some or even all the egg they decide I dont need them. This isnt even a matter how many I want to eat every week. Plus they have the authority to take my chickens and all the stuff I purchased. Plus they dont have to pay me for it.

so what is the outcome? I have wasted $10,000, but once people start to see what happened to me. People will stop raising things, stop create new things.

Why would anyone start a business knowing at if successful the government has the right to take it away?

Just look at all the new technology that has improved our lives. almost none of it would be here.

Look at all the medicines and technology that help keep people alive, we have gone from a life span of 45 years to 75 years.

How much has capitalism been a factor in creating all these things? End capitalism and you end progress.

 

[TMC]

You need to read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote. I repeat what I said. Should the Church not teach truth because doing so annoys American capitalists? Should capitalists desert the Church because doing so might cost them money? Should all Americans act like the rich young man?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But when you read what TMC has quoted, the church is in fact saying government has unlimited powers to take private property.

Yes and he is incorrect. The government does not have unlimited power to take private property.

it is Catholic. It is rooted in the universal destination of goods which, in short, is the teaching that God created all of Creation for All, and that each person’s right to private property is limited by that fact.

You are partially correct and seem to be emphasizing the distributing of goods but the Church is balanced and also believes in the right to private property and man’s freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

So, also from the catechism:.

For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property.

also from the catechism:

The seventh commandment forbids theft , that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner.

Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment:

and

responsibility of the state . "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

 

[JimG]

I keep hearing about the universal destination of goods. But what does it mean?
The universak destination of smart phones?
The universal destination of oatmeal? Universal destination of cornflakes?
The universal destination of GPS satellites? (I don’t own any.)
The universal destination of search engines? (Seems mostly monopoly here.)
The universal destination of MRI machines? (Many doc’s offices have their own.)
The universal destination of Nike tenns shoes?
Does everything get distributed to everybody?