How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[TMC]

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.

So what are you saying? I have shown (repeatedly) that the Church teaches the Universal Destination of Goods, including that the Church teaches that Governments have a role in ensuring that the distribution of goods in society is consistent with that teaching. I honestly can’t tell if you are denying that teaching, or dissenting from it, or something else.

I have never said that this is the Church’s only teaching, or that the Church’s other teachings are not important. But I am saying that Catholics should be aware of this very important teaching (shocked that they are not, frankly). I am also saying that Catholics are obliged by clear Catholic teaching to consider these teachings when making voting decisions (the actual topic of this thread.)

I have never said that all Catholics must always preference these issues over the Church’s other teachings, which are also clear and obviously obligatory. But I am saying that the Church teaches that Catholics must consider these issues, and that Catholics may reasonable decide their vote on that basis.

 

[upant]

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?

it is not my position at all, I’m telling you what the bishop did, you seem to think there is no significance to their making abortion the priority issue in America,

again

At the same time, some challenges have become even more pronounced. Pope Francis has continued to draw attention to important issues such as migration, xenophobia, racism, abortion, global conflict, and care for creation. In the United States and around the world, many challenges demand our attention.

The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself,4 because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed. At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.5

 

[TMC]

it is not my position at all, I’m telling you what the bishop did, you seem to think there is no significance to their making abortion the priority issue in America,

I never said anything like that at all. To the contrary, I am saying that Catholics are obliged to consider all of the Church’s teachings. It is others that are saying that some of the Church teachings should be given no significance.

 

[Dovekin]

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?

This is not really the question. Abortion is wrong and no woman should ever choose to abort her child.

This phase of the discussion came up because someone accused me of confusing the motal value with the legal, so let me repeat. I am not disputing that abortion is immoral, that abortion is wrong.

A part of Roe v Wade decides the issue on the basis of privacy. IOW, the government has the right to regulate public matters, but cannot interfere in private ones. (it is a narrower meaning of privacy than you are probably thinking) The question is not “why is there an exception for the mother?” Rather it is “Why is the government involved?”

This is a legal question, not a moral one. I can see arguments for and against. Whatever is decided, abortion will still be wrong. The question is about government.

And that is only one additional facet of a complex subject.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I never said anything like that at all. To the contrary, I am saying that Catholics are obliged to consider all of the Church’s teachings. It is others that are saying that some of the Church teachings should be given no significance.

bedrock for the Church’s social teachings

universal destination of good is the foundation of Catholic social teaching and doctrine

Care for the poor, or destination of goods, is significant and should be considered. As I have stated, what I hear you saying is that the destination of goods, which is only part of caring for the poor, is the bedrock or foundation of Catholic social teaching. That is where I disagree with you.

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.

Government does play a role in the common good. That’s why this election is so important because of what could happen to so many unborn people’s lives, women’s lives and families if democrats get into government office.

…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…

I agree with this and would imagine most every Catholic knows that caring for one another, the sick and poor is a top priority of the Catholic church. Individual Catholics should not wait on the government to care for the poor. We also in our own private lives should have this as a priority. We, also as a top priority, though, must be sure people are allowed to live. We first must see the value of every human being and their right to be here once God has created them.

Forming Consciences:

The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed.

USCCB What We Believe:

" 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."

https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-t...hing/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching

I don’t know how else to say it. Abortion is the preeminent priority according to the bishops, other issues must be weighed and considered such as the destination of goods, caring for the poor and sick, fair wages, fair prices…all of Church teaching, yes, but destination of goods isn’t the priority of the USCCB or foundation of Catholic social teaching.

I’m muting this thread now. Moderators are planning on closing it in a couple of days. Enough has been said.

God bless.

 

[Ender]

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

You have linked to nothing beyond generic guidelines. As I said before, we can all point to specific positions the church has taken on issues of grave, intrinsic evil, but nowhere can you cite similar specific policies regarding all of the other political issues, and the reason is that these are all prudential questions on which people may legitimately disagree. Since disagreement is legitimate where it involves judgment the church will not express an opinion.

What position has the church taken on building a wall, on setting the minimum wage, on the budget deficit or on anything at all? To those specific “what’s the best approach” questions she provides no answer. This is why there could never be such a thing as a Catholic Party: on all but that handful of issues dealing with grave, intrinsic evils she allows (and expects) individuals to use their best judgment.

 

[Ender]

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.

That’s not really the position I have taken.Clearly, people can make immoral choices, and those are not excusable simply because a person has made that conscious choice. Nor have I attempted to define the point dividing bad choices from immoral ones; that has never been my concern either.

What I am resisting is the idea that political issues involve moral decisions. By and large they do not, and the assertion that they do involves nothing less than the rash and uncharitable judgment of those holding contrary opinions about what ought to be done. As I have repeatedly said, what is being judged (and condemned) are not the individual policies, but the individuals who hold them.

So, no: I have no unique, crabbed definition of moral. It is what the church says it is, which we might do well to revue. (CCC1750) “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.”

If the object is intrinsically evil the act is evil; this is why the church is justified in addressing such issues (e.g. abortion). If, however, that object is not evil, then the morality of the act essentially depends on the intention motivating it. (The circumstances are of lesser importance.)

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. …Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves…

This is why most political issues do not involve moral choices in determining “best” solutions, and why I claim that judgments that specific proposals are immoral are simply uncharitable judgments of others…something the church does condemn.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…

This is absolutely not what is happening politically when prudential judgments are condemned as immoral.

 

[Ender]

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

And this is exactly the issue: what, from a practical standpoint as it applies to implementation, does the “universal destination of goods” mean? A high minimum wage? The elimination of private property? Universal health care? You cannot claim that Proposal A violates this principle if you cannot define what it actually means, how it is to be applied… and why your understanding should be accepted over someone else’s.

 

[pnewton]

Your supposed counter example is not at all helpful.

I knew you would not think so. But then I never heard that it is the mother breathing for a child that makes a child not a person with any rights. That is the first use of that definition. However, I commend you on understanding the issue of abortion rights. When is a child deserving of human rights? Conception, viability, passage through the birth canal, cutting the cord, after he can speak his first words? The darkest eras in history have come from those with more power drawing the line of what is human in the wrong place. I suspect our experiment with legalized abortion will one day also be viewed in such light.

 

[Rau]

The church is justified in setting specific positions when the issues deal with grave, intrinsic evil.

What does “setting” mean? How specific ? And are you saying when the subject matter is (say) abortion, a church originated policy position is to be regarded as not merely prudential judgement?

not justified in setting out specific positions on immigration, the budget, and gun control.

So how non-specific is ok? And are you saying in these topic areas, the church’s specific policy positions are merely prudential judgements?

 

[Rau]

The question is not “why is there an exception for the mother?” Rather it is “Why is the government involved?”

If a “morning after” abortion drug is up for FDA approval - how does the government remain uninvolved? Does it deem itself to have no role in assessing such a drug? Does it assess the drug but pretend the child is not a consideration - only mum exists and the drug is good to go if no harm to mum? If it assesses the drug, seems to me the government would be taking one of two positions:
A). The child is not a human being; Or
B). Mum can kill children in this way.

Regardless - the government is involved.

 

[Ender]

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.

Or it could be that the church has particularly condemned abortion universally.

“From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”. (Gaudium et Spes)

It’s not clear that disagreements over where the minimum wage ought to be set rise to the level of “unspeakable crimes.”

11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental - the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. (CDF Declaration on Procured Abortion)

 

[Annie]

But to say the government has the right to take goods from one group to give to another is not for the common good. It in fact hurts the common good.

It does not necessarily hurt the common good; the harm or benefit depends on the way in which it is all set up.

We think of the US welfare system which disincentivizes improvement in one’s situation. But that is not the way it has to be.

Also, Catholic social teaching does not allow for a universal taking. There are limits to what can be taken because people have the right to own stuff and to retain the fruits of their labor. But they also have the obligation or duty to share what they with those less fortunate than themselves, because their ability to work is a gift from God.

It creates a class of people that become dependant on the government removing self-responsibility from the individual.

And this is related to the disincentivization we have structured into our welfare system. The system should not be set up to keep people in a state of dependency.

 

[Annie]

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

The government has the duty to act for the common good, and the common good calls for care for the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, etc.

So the government would act immorally if it were to forbid all charities and charitable giving. Especially of it also refused to help the poor itself.

Before the Protestand Revolt, the “social safety net” was administered by the Church. Monasteries, etc., were set up to care for people in need.

And the monasteries were funded to a substantial degree by those in charge of areas the organization served, ie, by the government. A duke would donate land for a hospital; a squire donate for a school, etc.

Under the Anglicans and Protestants, the rulers of Europe seized the monasteries, etc., and then there was no safety net, and who was there to set one up?

So yes, the government needs to be involved in the care of those in need. And of the government does this by setting aside certain revenues to help the poor, well, that is what was done in earlier times in the Church.

And if the government does it by giving such large tax breaks that everyone gives to charity, that would be another way of handling it.

The point is that the government has, not a right but a duty, to ensure the needy are cared for. But the government is also limited to moral means.

 

[Rockoh22]

As I understand this, the word of God Himself said. What YOU DiD…

The word of God did not say. What you made others do.

However, that said, I agree that ensuring the Government take care of the most in need, is our duty. Why? Because it took a lot of people and a lot of years for people to get a government that does care for the vulnerable. And it is our responsibility to not only keep the good, but improve it. Is it perfect? Nope.

I think the problem is when people focus on forcing others to, DO to others, instead of doing to others themself.

It is very easy for people to tell others to give up their money.

 

[TMC]

And this is exactly the issue: what, from a practical standpoint as it applies to implementation, does the “universal destination of goods” mean? A high minimum wage? The elimination of private property? Universal health care? You cannot claim that Proposal A violates this principle if you cannot define what it actually means, how it is to be applied… and why your understanding should be accepted over someone else’s.

I am not promoting my understanding of this principle - I am simply pointing directly to the Church’s teaching and also pointing out that these principles cannot be ignored.

As to practical policy proposals, the same can be said of literally every Catholic teaching. No Catholic teaching says “therefore pass H.B. 1027.” Catholics are called upon to take into account ALL of Catholic teaching, evaluate policies and candidates on the basis of ALL Catholic teaching, and to vote and act accordingly. The premise of this thread is the opposite - that Catholics must vote based on one or two solitary teachings and the policies that certain partisans believe support those teachings. That is not what the Church teaches.

 

[Ender]

I am not promoting my understanding of this principle - I am simply pointing directly to the Church’s teaching and also pointing out that these principles cannot be ignored.

There is no disagreement over the principles.

As to practical policy proposals, the same can be said of literally every Catholic teaching. No Catholic teaching says “therefore pass H.B. 1027.” Catholics are called upon to take into account ALL of Catholic teaching, evaluate policies and candidates on the basis of ALL Catholic teaching, and to vote and act accordingly.

This has been my position all along, and this is precisely why it is inappropriate to call one set of proposals moral and the contrary set immoral. The church does not speak to individual bills as these are personal decisions individuals make based on the impact they expect them to have. This is why neither party can claim to be more moral than the other (on most issues).

The premise of this thread is the opposite - that Catholics must vote based on one or two solitary teachings and the policies that certain partisans believe support those teachings. That is not what the Church teaches.

It seems the premise of this thread is more particular than that. There are some (very few) issues involving grave, intrinsic evils which the church has utterly condemned, and condemned not only the acts but also providing political support which legalizes the acts. Those (few) specific evils are supported and defended by one party only, and this thread reasonably asks the question how a Catholic can justify that support.

 

[Ender]

What does “setting” mean? How specific ? And are you saying when the subject matter is (say) abortion, a church originated policy position is to be regarded as not merely prudential judgement?

The church has been quite specific about not just the morality of abortion, but of the morality of providing political support for it. She has set out positions that are applicable to the law.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. (EV 62)

Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity. (EV 71)

Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. (EV 71)

Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. (EV 72)

Here is a direct linkage between the moral law and specific human laws. You will find this in very few cases, specifically abortion, euthanasia, and one or two others. What you will not find is anything similar regarding other political issues. That is, the church explicitly states what laws are not legitimate for only a small subset of issues. It has ruled certain policy positions as illegitimate.

So how non-specific is ok? And are you saying in these topic areas, the church’s specific policy positions are merely prudential judgements?

The church has given us guidelines and objectives, the “what” regarding what our goals should be, but she is completely silent on the “how” as it relates to whether this or that specific policy should be implemented. Those explicit prohibitions I listed above with regard to abortion are completely absent in church teaching on the vast majority of other political issues. And yes, decisions on those issues are prudential judgments.

 

[phil3]

Determining that is the job of the legitimate authority acting in the common good.

If if the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good is that all faiths must turn their property into shelters for the homeless, that is ok?

If the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good they nationalize all business that earns more than 1 million a year, that is ok?

If the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good force you to watch Cop Rock is ok?

Cop Rock - Wikipedia

What makes an “authority” legitimate and not draconian?

Can a totalatarian goverment be legitimate?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Determining that is the job of the legitimate authority acting in the common good.

If if the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good is that all faiths must turn their property into shelters for the homeless, that is ok?

If the authority made that decision against the will of all the people they are supposed to represent, they would not be a legitimate authority. But if a legitimate authority decides something that is not directly in conflict with Church teaching, that decision is to be obeyed.

If the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good they nationalize all business that earns more than 1 million a year, that is ok?

Same answer.

If the legitimate authority decides that acting in the common good force you to watch Cop Rock is ok?

A very unrealistic hypothesis.

What makes an “authority” legitimate and not draconian?

The Catechism explains it here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm

Can a totalatarian goverment be legitimate?

If you read the Catechism, I think you will see the answer is no.