Scott_Lafrance:
There is no party that accurately represents the Catholic worldview.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there is no single “Catholic worldview.”
Consider what happens on this forum when somebody suggests that American Catholics should press their government to treat the Catholic social justice agenda, as articulated by Pope John Paul II (and as likely emphasized by Benedict XVI) seriously. I have rarely seen so much frantic backfilling and excuse-making – from folks who firmly believe that their views represent the “Catholic worldview.”
You cited several “modern liberal” positions:
Same Sex Marriage
Abortion
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Euthanasia
Usurpation of the Constitution by activist judges who answer to no one
Party line obstructionism
The last of these you acknowledged isn’t a “liberal” failing – it’s a characteristic of party politics. I certainly agree with that; both parties play this game.
The penultimate item on the list – “activist judges” - I find amusing, because, frankly, opposition to it comes and goes, in both parties, depending on what positions the “activist” judges hold. There are certainly folks – true strict constructionists, libertarians – who are consistent in their arguments about courts…but those folks are relatively rare.
The other four…Well, I agree with you, and the Church, on all of them – and I consider myself a liberal, as much as I consider myself a conservative – because in the end, these are silly labels, arbitrary agglomerations of positions that, in the final analysis, don’t describe very many individuals’ mix of views.
Where I disagree with a lot of people on this forum, is when these folks somehow try to equate military adventurism, or unchecked corporate capitalism, with Catholic morality. I part company with them when they try to paper over the Church’s clear teaching on social justice issues, when they try to square that teaching with American corporate plunder in the Third World, when they make excuses for Washington’s indifference to public health issues, when they declare that poverty in America is,
ipso facto, the fault of those who are impoverished. I see a great deal of intellectual dishonesty here, a refusal to deal with real issues, a very head-in-the-sand approach to policy.
As a result, I don’t post much here. There doesn’t seem to be much point, frankly. Real discussion rarely ensues; you either agree with the majority, simplistic, view, or you are beaten down by the hordes of folks posting, “Right on!” in reply to those who push the (Republican) party line.
And for what it’s worth, “liberalism is a sin” pretty much sums it all up. No need to think. Nice tight little slogan.
No, I haven’t read the book – nor will I. Perhaps if you all had argued, “liberalism creates occasions of sin” you might have persuaded me – there might be a case there. But you haven’t argued that liberalism leads to sins – you’ve argued that liberalism
is a sin. That’s stupid.
I might just as well argue that “conservatism is a sin,” because conservatism promotes capitalism, and capitalism unchecked clearly and demonstrably leads to widespread abuse of workers by employers. There’s ample history on this; no intelligent person would even try to refute it. But I wouldn’t make that “conservatism is a sin” argument, because I recognize that it’s silly and specious – as is the “liberalism is a sin” argument.
.
