How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[TMC]

You are talking about big government policies that allow for taking money from someone to give to someone else. And your are saying the church requires that all catholic support these policies

Yes. That is what the Church teaches, after all.

 

[TMC]

That is because there is so much more to Catholic social teaching than the destination of goods. It is part of it absolutely, just not all. There is so much more you haven’t mentioned. Government must act justly. The common good isnt always about taking from one and giving to others. The common good is also about peace and harmony and the worker bring worth his wages. In other words being paid fairly for the job he does and having the incentive to work.

There is just so much more you haven’t mentioned.

You keep attributing things to me that I have not said. I never said that the universal destination of goods was all of Catholic teaching. It is the bedrock for the Church’s social teachings, however.

It is also true that Government regulated redistribution is not always the right thing to do, but the Church teaches that it often is, and when it is the right thing to do Governments may, and even must, do so.

It would certainly be better if the common good could always be achieved without any government action at all - but no human society I am aware of has worked that way. What the Church makes clear is that the idea that each person is solely responsible for their own welfare, that no person can be made responsible for his fellow man, and in particular the idea that the Government has no role in achieving just outcomes, are simply not compatible with Catholic teaching.

 

[phil3]

no, it doesn’t, that is you projecting your values onto church teachings.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

is the bedrock for the Church’s social teachings, however.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. I totally believe this is incorrect.

Everything I have read from Catholic sources, including the USCCB, says that the foundational principle of Catholic social teaching is the sanctity and dignity of human life. First.

It would certainly be better if the common good could always be achieved without any government action

I am not saying the government should not be involved or act for the common good, yes, that is Catholic teaching. It is Biblical.

What I disagree with is what you stated above. That the bedrock or foundation of Catholic social teaching is the dispension of goods. It just isnt true. It is the sanctity of human life.

 

[Ender]

Do they? The Church teaches that they are all moral choices.

No, the church nowhere teaches this. Nor does the fact that I can choose to act immorally mean that the problem I face is a moral issue rather than a practical one. If my car won’t start because my battery is dead, this is a practical problem, not a moral question even though one possible solution is to steal another battery. Immigration, health care, the budget etc are all alike in that determining the best solution is a practical concern, not a moral one, and the fact that immoral solutions can proposed doesn’t make the issues moral questions.

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?

The church is justified in setting specific positions when the issues deal with grave, intrinsic evil. This is why she is justified in discussing abortion, gay rights, euthanasia etc, but not justified in setting out specific positions on immigration, the budget, and gun control.

 

[TMC]

no, it doesn’t, that is you projecting your values onto church teachings.

I don’t think so, but I would certainly invite anyone that feels that way to simply read the teachings that I am referencing. I have generally quoted directly from the Church and provided links. I am happy to do so again:

http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html

Here is the Social Compendium of the Church, which is a good collection of relevant teachings:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

For those that prefer something more recent, Pope Francis also touches on the same concepts in his 2015 encyclical:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

 

[TMC]

No, the church nowhere teaches this.

I have linked to several Church documents that say the opposite. What is your support for your position?

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

It is private as long as the mother breathes for the child.

When people are put on a respirator, do they lose the status of being a person, and all rights due? In other words, can the hospital decide to execute them, as a private matter, since they are breathing for him?

I am open to other definitions of privacy if you want to offer one. The one I gave is based on the story of Adam, but there may be other ways to understand our nature.

Your supposed counter example is not at all helpful. A ventilator assists a person with breathing. It only covers one part of the respiratory process that a mother provides to the child inside her. Use of one is rarely private, since someone exterior to the interaction is involved. Often the hospital or a surrogate has to decide if the person on a ventilator lives or dies. Most importantly, it trivializes the contribution of the mother to her child by making breathing a mechanical act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because all those other issues involve practical judgments, not moral choices.

TMC:

Do they? The Church teaches that they are all moral choices. And the judgment that the best way to reduce abortion is to make it illegal is surely a practical judgment, as is the same judgment for gay rights. 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.” A Catholic can decide for himself that those two issues outweigh all other issues, but the Church says all the issues must be weighed. To say that only those issues matter, whether for voting or anything else, is simply not consistent with Catholic teaching.

No, the church nowhere teaches this. Nor does the fact that I can choose to act immorally mean that the problem I face is a moral issue rather than a practical one. If my car won’t start because my battery is dead, this is a practical problem, not a moral question even though one possible solution is to steal another battery. Immigration, health care, the budget etc are all alike in that determining the best solution is a practical concern, not a moral one, and the fact that immoral solutions can proposed doesn’t make the issues moral questions.

Ender and I have had this discussion many times before. The dispute, it seems, is over the definition of the word “moral”, which Ender defines much more strictly than the common use of the word. Most people would agree that the fictional character of Ebenezer Scrouge was immoral. Yet Ender would say that he just made different pragmatic decisions on how the poor could best be helped. They may have been wrong decisions, but they were not immoral decisions. Until you can get agreement on the definition of terms, no advancement can be made on substance.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Can you explicitly give a statement from those documents that states that the dispension of goods is the Catholic churches foundation of social teaching,?

 

[TMC]

I never said that the universal destination of goods was all of Catholic teaching. It is the bedrock for the Church’s social teachings, however.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. I believe this is incorrect.

Don’t take my word for it. Pope John Paul II called it the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order,” in Laborem Exercens, a sentiment echoed by Pope Francis in Laudato Si.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

 

[TMC]

Can you explicitly give a statement from those documents that states that the dispension of goods is the Catholic churches foundation of social teaching,?

I just did.

 

[christofirst]

You earned my “like” this time because I’m so tired of hearing this important aspect of Catholic social teaching incorrectly labeled as communist or socialist when put into practice in society.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I just did.

So you provided several links to Church documents that discuss the issue of work, caring for the poor and care for the Earth but not an explicit statement saying that the foundation of Catholic teaching is the dispension of goods.

There are alot of Church documents that discuss alot of things but what they say and how the issues are prioritized in the Church shows their level of importance.

"The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching."

Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching | USCCB

 

[TMC]

So you provided several links to Church documents that discuss the issue of work, caring for the poor and care for the Earth but not an explicit statement saying that the foundation of Catholic teaching is the dispension of goods.

Again with the straw man arguments.

I said that universal destination of good is the foundation of Catholic social teaching and doctrine (not all Catholic teaching). I said that because that is what Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis have each said (which is entirely consistent with the long history of Catholic social doctrine.)

Obviously human and life and dignity are also foundational to Catholic teaching - I never said they were not, nor is that inconsistent with the universal destination of goods.

Why is it so hard to accept that the Church teaches the universal destination of goods, including that Governments have an obligation to implement policies that effectuate that principle? I realize it goes against the goals of most American political factions, and that many American Catholics therefor discount the Church’s social teachings, but those Catholics should at least be able to acknowledge that the Church teaches as it does, and justify their dissent from those teachings.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

destination of good is the foundation of Catholic social teaching and doctrine (not all Catholic teaching). I said that because that is what Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis have each said

I dont think you understand. Please provide a quote, a statement, a directive, something from each Pope where they state explicitly that the dispension of goods is the foundation of Catholic social teaching , not alot of links to documents.

Why is it so hard to accept that the Church teaches the universal destination of goods, including that Governments have an obligation to implement policies that effectuate that principle?

It isnt hard to understand that it is a principle of Catholic teaching. I completely agree with it, it just isnt the foundation or the priority you are making it out to be, for some reason.

 

[upant]

a mother provides to the child inside her.

the bottom line is that a child is inside the mother, she should have no right to kill it.

killing is wrong any other time why is their an exception for the mother?

I have linked to several Church documents that say the opposite

you have linked to positions that are worldly and don’t recognize that America’s issues are different. Our “poor” are well off compared to the world’s “poor” and the US bishops see this and prioritized, for America, abortion as the pre-eminent concern.

This does not relinquish us from helping our poor or the world’s poor but the focus at home is abortion, if not, why would they prioritize one evil over another?

 

[TMC]

I dont think you understand. Please provide a quote, a statement, a directive, something from each Pope where they state explicitly that the dispension of goods is the foundation of Catholic social teaching , not alot of links to documents.

I have done exactly that. What do you have against looking at the actual Church teaching documents? I would think you would prefer that to taking my word for it.

It isnt hard to understand that it is a principle of Catholic teaching. I completely agree with it, it just isnt the foundation or the priority you are making it out to be, for some reason.

Well, we seem to making progress. We have shifted from arguing that the Church does not teach universal destination at all, to a disagreement over the difference between saying that universal destination is the “first principle of the whole social and ethical order” (which was Pope John Paul II’s terminology) and saying that it is foundational. So we seem to agree that it is important and binding Church teaching, but we quibble over the definition of the terms “first principle” and “foundation.”

 

[TMC]

you have linked to positions that are worldly and don’t recognize that America’s issues are different. Our “poor” are well off compared to the world’s “poor” and the US bishops see this and prioritized, for America, abortion as the pre-eminent concern.

So your position is that the Church’s social doctrines don’t apply to Americans because Americans are too rich? That is an interesting position to take. Any actual support for it?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I have done exactly that.

No you have not. You have not given any statement or encyclical claiming it is the priority or foundation. It is only a part of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity and dignity of life

Well, we seem to making progress. We have shifted from arguing that the Church does not teach universal destination

No we are not.

I have not said the Church does not teach this but that the Church does not teach it as you describe or that it is the foundation of social teaching.

IMHO based on your posts here and what you are saying, you are trying to use this as an excuse to say we can vote for pro abortion politicians.

We will have to disagree here with that. I will not drink your koolaid.

God bless