Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives?

[Bartolome_Casas]

I am thinking that what Catholics in the USA need is a Pastoral Letter addressed to those in the political/cultural camp known as the “Conservatives.”

I envision that this letter would, above all, make clear that the Catholic Church does NOT fully endorse or agree with everything that is high on the agenda of Conservatives, and does not accept or approve of all the theories, philosophies, motives, ideologies that are an accepted and popular part of the Conservative Movement in the USA.

I think many Conservatives feel that the Catholic Church, and God, is 100% on their side in their cold war with Liberals. I think that my be true of some individual priests, and maybe even a few bishops. But, it is not true for the pope and bishops of the Catholic Church as a whole, and they constitute the true and real Teaching Authority.

Many Conservatives really are firmly opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on Labor Unions (a Labor Union called Solidarity in Communist Poland brought an end to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, thank God), the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage), Global Government, Social Medical Insurance, the Death Penalty, sometimes the Just War theory (supplanted by the theory of American Exceptionalism in the minds of some Conservatives), and other matters as well.

Many people were deeply dismayed when a prominent Conservative who is also a Catholic, George Weigel, wrote and published a scathing denunciation of Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate.” Read about it here: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100002538/george-weigels-intemperate-attack-on-benedicts-incoherent-encyclical/

I see no need for a Pastoral Letter to the Liberals, since Liberals and everyone else already knows of their radical rejectioni of many parts of Catholic teaching (on abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, etc.

A “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives” would provide a lot of clarification, I think. It could also cover things that the Catholic Church teachings and the Conservative Movement have in common, which are many. But it would make clear that the Conservative Movement is not a Catholic movement, and the Catholic Church is not “one with” the Conservative Movement, or in service to the Conservative Movement, nor is the Conservative Movement in service to the Catholic Church (how can it be, when so many of its leaders dissent from Catholic teachings?)

What do you think? Would like to see and read a “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives”? Would it be good for souls, for America?

 

[Newbie2]

No.

Church is to be apolitical. Address the concerns to EVERYONE.

 

[Joe_5859]

There is no way such a letter could be issued without being extremely polarizing and coming across as “picking sides”. Sorry, it’s a bad idea.

Some of the topics you mentioned are topics on which good Catholics can come to differening conclusions, particularly when it comes to policy.

For example, take minimum wage. Certainly, all Catholics should support the principle of laborers earning a just wage. But there can be legitimate difference of opinion over (a) what dollar figure constitutes a just wage, and (b) what role the federal and state governments have in legislating that. To me, a federal minimum wage doesn’t make much sense because the cost of living varies so much from place to place. Those types of things seem better dealt with at a more local level. Also, it doesn’t make sense to me to apply the standards of a just wage (whereby a person could reasonably expect to provide for themselves and their families) to high school kids earning some extra money after school.

If you want to read what the bishops of our country think about political life, it’s already all spelled out in “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.

 

[Speedypizza]

I am thinking that what Catholics in the USA need is a Pastoral Letter addressed to those in the political/cultural camp known as the “Conservatives.”

I envision that this letter would, above all, make clear that the Catholic Church does NOT fully endorse or agree with everything that is high on the agenda of Conservatives, and does not accept or approve of all the theories, philosophies, motives, ideologies that are an accepted and popular part of the Conservative Movement in the USA.

I think many Conservatives feel that the Catholic Church, and God, is 100% on their side in their cold war with Liberals. I think that my be true of some individual priests, and maybe even a few bishops. But, it is not true for the pope and bishops of the Catholic Church as a whole, and they constitute the true and real Teaching Authority.

Many Conservatives really are firmly opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on Labor Unions (a Labor Union called Solidarity in Communist Poland brought an end to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, thank God), the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage), Global Government, Social Medical Insurance, the Death Penalty, sometimes the Just War theory (supplanted by the theory of American Exceptionalism in the minds of some Conservatives), and other matters as well.

Many people were deeply dismayed when a prominent Conservative who is also a Catholic, George Weigel, wrote and published a scathing denunciation of Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate.” Read about it here: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100002538/george-weigels-intemperate-attack-on-benedicts-incoherent-encyclical/

I see no need for a Pastoral Letter to the Liberals, since Liberals and everyone else already knows of their radical rejectioni of many parts of Catholic teaching (on abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, etc.

A “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives” would provide a lot of clarification, I think. It could also cover things that the Catholic Church teachings and the Conservative Movement have in common, which are many. But it would make clear that the Conservative Movement is not a Catholic movement, and the Catholic Church is not “one with” the Conservative Movement, or in service to the Conservative Movement, nor is the Conservative Movement in service to the Catholic Church (how can it be, when so many of its leaders dissent from Catholic teachings?)

What do you think? Would like to see and read a “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives”? Would it be good for souls, for America?

I think the biggest problem I see with it is that it does not matter what it says, MOST people on the far right (or far left for that matter) are not going to change what they think no matter what is said to them. I also think we need to be very careful when we throw around words like “conservative” and “liberal” because they have very different meanings depending in what issue we are talking about. For example, I could say that the Church is very conservative, in the meaning that the Church does not run around changing what it teaches. However this same statement is false in the issue of politics.

The Church is also not “liberal” in the issue of politics. The Church has issues where she is 100% in line with either party, or somewhat in line with either party, or does not in fact agree with EITHER party.

I don’t see myself as either a democrat or a republican, I am an independent and have voted for people of both parties. In some issues I agree with one party or the other, in other issues I do not agree with either party. I for example believe that we should have NO gun laws at all, my idea of “gun control” is how well I aim my assault rifle!

I also believe that all drugs should be 100% legal. Which party wants to do THAT?

I am not bringing this up to get into a fight over the merits for or against gun laws or drug laws, but only to point out that trying to fit people into boxes can be very silly. Especially when you are dealing with some people (like myself) who have views all over the political arena.

 

[kama3]

For example, take minimum wage. Certainly, all Catholics should support the principle of laborers earning a just wage. But there can be legitimate difference of opinion …]

…over technical details which are well outside the bishop’s area of competence, and a pastoral letter is not a good place to debate these. The bishops are supposed to provide moral guidance, not legislative solutions.

From my outside vantage point as an European observer, it appears that some political strategists in the Republican party have realized that Catholic (wider: Christian) voters have firm anti-liberal views, and are cynically playing the abortion and gay marriage card to get their votes. A statement from USCCB reminding the official teaching on economy, which is a direct opposite of what the Republican party is really after, would demolish this strategy and serve everyone well.

However, I believe that such event is unlinkely, since bishops (and clergy in general) are so enchanted with the prospect of banning abortion that they will help elect the politicians who promise so, ignoring other considerations.

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas #1
A “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives” would provide a lot of clarification, I think.

A swipe at American “Conservatives” and the failure to understand the practical impossibility of knowing what is a “just wage” everywhere, among other things – tackled many times already. More attention to the teaching and fewer assumptions would stand posters well.

It’s good to see that “theology” has now been dropped as a description for the economic principles of cause and effect developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics as there is the clear affirmation of the free market by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, as well as the clear confirmation by Benedict XVI in *Caritas in Veritate *that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”

kama3 #5
The bishops are supposed to provide moral guidance, not legislative solutions.

Correct.

A statement from USCCB reminding the official teaching on economy, which is a direct opposite of what the Republican party is really after, would demolish this strategy and serve everyone well.

How bizarre. Anyone seeing the various, and considerably different, economic proposals from the candidates could hardly conclude “what the Republican party is really after”, as a Party. That the candidates are against real Catholic Social Teaching on the economy as such seems also very strange.

 

[Beati_Pacifici]

Forgive me if this sounds like thread hijacking, as it is not my intent.

But I saw that the original poster mentioned Global Government. I know about “Caritas in Veritate”, but what is clearly defined about the Church’s stance on a Global Government? I personally am not for it (not anything resembling a one world government - I guess it’s old Protestant end times fear that was leftover from my pre-Catholic days ). If anyone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

 

[Abu]

Beati Pacifici
what is clearly defined about the Church’s stance on a Global Government?

It is not the subject of a “definition”.

This appraisal from First Things gives the perspective.

**Is Benedict in Favor of World Government?
Aug 20, 2009 Douglas A. Sylva **
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/08/is-benedict-in-favor-of-world-government

Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization.

It is true that Benedict believes that a transnational organization must be empowered to address transnational problems. But so has every pope since John XXIII, who wrote in 1963 that “Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are worldwide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization, and means coextensive with these problems, and with a worldwide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such form of public authority.”

But such an authority has been established, and we have lived with it since 1948, and in many ways it has disappointed. So Benedict turns John XXIII’s formulation on its head: Morality no longer simply demands a global social order; now Benedict underscores that this existing social order must operate in accord with morality. He ends his own passage on world authority by stating that “The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order. . . .” Note the phrase “at last.”

What went wrong? According to Benedict, a world authority worthy of this authority would need “to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment.

Douglas A. Sylva is Senior Fellow at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . .
Would like to see and read a “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives”?

The CC already has: the social encyclicals.

The CC informs members of social/political/economic movements; it doesn’t direct the movement.

What is needed, in my opinion, is for Catholic conservatives to (1) digest all of the content of the social encyclicals in connection with the rest of its moral teaching; (2) see which movement in an imperfect world most closely enshrines the RC’s total position; and then (3) inform and participate in that movement.

 

[Joe_5859]

Forgive me if this sounds like thread hijacking, as it is not my intent.

But I saw that the original poster mentioned Global Government. I know about “Caritas in Veritate”, but what is clearly defined about the Church’s stance on a Global Government? I personally am not for it (not anything resembling a one world government - I guess it’s old Protestant end times fear that was leftover from my pre-Catholic days ). If anyone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

Maybe the OP is thinking of the document from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace that came out late last year.

 

[manualman]

The problem with this idea is that it has been tried and backfired horrifically.

Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was famous for endorsing what he called “the seamless garment of life” as a mean of making clear that the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church were to be interpreted consistently, not used as a mere political tool for favoring one party. Basically the same thing you are proposing.

What happened instead was that the left picked and chose bits and selections from what Bernadin said and used those to construct a phony “equivalency” between the errors of the pro-abortion politicians and the errors of the Reaganomics politicians.

The end result is that catholics for a generation failed to comprehend the need to prioritize and cast their votes on the basis of the issues with the greatest proportionate impact. We ended up largely canceling each other out and having almost no effect on elections.

Had catholics been instructed to evaluate issues according to the actual impacts created, abortion would have been outlawed decades ago, both parties would be officially ‘pro-life’ and we might be able to make some progress on the NEXT pressing issue. But because we’ve failed to prioritize, we accomplish nothing.

 

[yosupman]

The problem with some evangelical conservatives is that they almost lock step with each other on Israel, nation building, Iraq war, torture of criminals, the death penalty, huge defense spending. In my opinion it discredits them. I don’t think the church should issue an encyclical on this, laymen should cite church teaching and refute these people.

 

[Abu]

Manualman #11
Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was famous for endorsing what he called “the seamless garment of life” as a mean of making clear that the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church were to be interpreted consistently, not used as a mere political tool for favoring one party.

Unfortunately Cdl Bernardin did far more harm by endorsing “dissent”.

The confused ignore Cardinal Newman at their peril: “there is no medium between assenting and not assenting.” (A Grammar of Assent, Image Books, 1955, p 148). How strange to ignore such wisdom expressed around the time of Vatican I (1870). But who else did ignore this wisdom? The American Cardinal Bernardin who in 1996 proclaimed that “limited and occasional dissent” from the Magisterium of the Church was “legitimate” (!) [Address on the Common Ground Project, 24/10/1996].

The horrendous error by Cdl Bernardin is all the more starkly condemned by the fact that John Paul II had warned the American Bishops in 1987 that “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” (Address to the U.S. bishops, Los Angeles, September 16, 1987). John Paul was applying *Lumen Gentium *25 (Vatican II), which corrected the error that dissent from the Pope could at times be legitimate. This teaching of the Holy Father never seemed to have been passed on to the faithful in the U.S.A. by the bishops. Further, in Veritatis Splendor, 1993, #113, the Pope taught: “Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts.”

 

[JimG]

Of course the Church is not married to political conservatism. Neither is it married to political liberalism. (And note that the term ‘liberal’ has changed its meaning in social documents over the course of the decades.)

In the United States, one used to be able to find many Catholic aligned with what one might now be called ‘liberal’ causes. The year 1973 changed all that. After that year, the year of Roe v Wade, one of our major political parties increasingly married itself to the pro-abortion cause. That was, and cannot be, acceptable to Catholics. The killing of unborn children ought not to be a liberal cause. As long as it is construed to be so, no Catholic can support the party that espouses abortion on demand as a litmus test for national political office.

 

[Ender]

I envision that this letter would, above all, make clear that the Catholic Church does NOT fully endorse or agree with everything that is high on the agenda of Conservatives, and does not accept or approve of all the theories, philosophies, motives, ideologies that are an accepted and popular part of the Conservative Movement in the USA.

I reject the entire concept on which this thread was created. With very few exceptions the Church has no position on political issues therefore she is neither for nor against the proposals made by either side.

Many Conservatives really are firmly opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on Labor Unions (a Labor Union called Solidarity in Communist Poland brought an end to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, thank God), the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage), Global Government, Social Medical Insurance, the Death Penalty, sometimes the Just War theory (supplanted by the theory of American Exceptionalism in the minds of some Conservatives), and other matters as well.

This is where this charge comes completely severed from reality in that none of these claims is true. Was there a Church position on the labor battles just fought in Wisconsin and Ohio? No. Is there a Church position on the minimum wage? No. Neither is there one on health care or global government. The Church does have a position on capital punishment and war but she has also made it clear that the decisions to apply them are generally prudential and are the responsibility of the proper authorities - not the Church - to decide.

I see no need for a Pastoral Letter to the Liberals, since Liberals and everyone else already knows of their radical rejectioni of many parts of Catholic teaching (on abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, etc.

The difference here is that these examples involve intrinsic evil where the Church does have a specific teaching that, unlike all of the issues discussed above, allows for only one position.

But it would make clear that the Conservative Movement is not a Catholic movement, and the Catholic Church is not “one with” the Conservative Movement, or in service to the Conservative Movement, nor is the Conservative Movement in service to the Catholic Church

The Church is not one with conservative thought not because her positions are contrary to conservative ones but because she has no positions at all. For issues like immigration, health care, and unions she offers guidelines and objectives, not specific proposals that must be adhered to. This is why there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party: with but a handful of exceptions political issues involve prudential choices and we are free to make them as we choose.

how can it be, when so many of its leaders dissent from Catholic teachings?

There can be no dissent on choices that are prudential.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Of course the Church is not married to political conservatism. Neither is it married to political liberalism. (And note that the term ‘liberal’ has changed its meaning in social documents over the course of the decades.)

In the United States, one used to be able to find many Catholic aligned with what one might now be called ‘liberal’ causes. The year 1973 changed all that. After that year, the year of Roe v Wade, one of our major political parties increasingly married itself to the pro-abortion cause. That was, and cannot be, acceptable to Catholics. The killing of unborn children ought not to be a liberal cause. As long as it is construed to be so, no Catholic can support the party that espouses abortion on demand as a litmus test for national political office.

The very notions of “liberal” and “conservative” have changed since 1973. I would have been considered a “liberal” in 1972. I was also a “dyed in the wool Democrat”. I have not changed my thinking except to the extent it has been changed by studying the Church’s teachings, particularly the Social Encyclicals.

Now, most would regard me as a “conservative”, and I never support or vote for Democrats because there are never any prolife Dem candidates on my ballot. But it isn’t just that. The Church has never stood for the crony capitalism or statism or middle class welfare or immorality that the Dem party now stands for. Nor did the Democrat party espouse those things back when I was a party officeholder. As I have opined before, the Repub party now most resembles the Democrat party of my younger days, while the Dem party most resembles the Rockefeller Republican wing of before. So, who’s “liberal” now, and who’s “conservative”?

One of the big mistakes people sometimes make is in assuming that the Dem party is “for the poor”. I has not done anything more for “the poor” than has the Repub party for decades. In that sense, then, the Dem party is “living off its patrimony” like a dissolute heir to a family fortune who has squandered the wealth but whose creditors are not yet aware of it.

Unfortunately, too many people are unaware of that.

So, what do we do? The first thing is to learn enough about the real actions of both parties and not base our support on stereotypes. And most importantly, we should learn what the Church actually espouses and what it leaves to prudential judgment.

 

[Abu]

Manualman #11
Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was famous for endorsing what he called “the seamless garment of life” as a mean of making clear that the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church were to be interpreted consistently, not used as a mere political tool for favoring one party.

Unfortunately Cdl Bernardin did far more harm by endorsing “dissent”.

The confused ignore Cardinal Newman at their peril: “there is no medium between assenting and not assenting.” (A Grammar of Assent, Image Books, 1955, p 148). How strange to ignore such wisdom expressed around the time of Vatican I (1870). But who else did ignore this wisdom? The American Cardinal Bernardin who in 1996 proclaimed that “limited and occasional dissent” from the Magisterium of the Church was “legitimate” (!) [Address on the Common Ground Project, 24/10/1996].

The horrendous error by Cdl Bernardin is all the more starkly condemned by the fact that John Paul II had warned the American Bishops in 1987 that “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” (Address to the U.S. bishops, Los Angeles, September 16, 1987). John Paul was applying *Lumen Gentium *25 (Vatican II), which corrected the error that dissent from the Pope could at times be legitimate. This teaching of the Holy Father never seemed to have been passed on to the faithful in the U.S.A. by the bishops. Further, in Veritatis Splendor, 1993, #113, the Pope taught: “Opposition to the teaching of the Church’s Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts.”

 

[jonbhorton]

Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things before telling us conservatives what the Church teaches, particularly on random issues which are arguable in implementation. Allow me to put pennies on your liberal train tracks:

Labor Unions

One example for the Labor Unions in the positive? That’s it? Do you realize the labor union in Poland was trying to fix what the labor union model created in the first place? Do you even know the history of unions and how far off track they’ve gotten? How the issues and criteria which brought them about are basically irrelevant now? How they are more of a problem than the entire reason for them?

Here’s a great primer from a first-person source who knows about Labor Unions:

shakedownsocialism.com/
**
the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage):**

Look up Milton Friedman and Dr. Thomas Sowell on minimum wages. A ‘just wage’ is not minimum, it’s just, as in contains elements of justice, as in, the man ain’t being robbed blind by his employer. As for the need for minimum wage, particularly increased minimum wage, well, blame the liberal policies in place which drive up employer cost to start and thus has to put that cost onto the market’s back.

Global Government

I’ll take stupidity for 1000, Alex. Daily Double!? Wow!? Global Government… “What is a bad idea?”. Yayyyyy, I won.

Social Medical Insurance

When paying for abortion/contraception ain’t on the docket, we’ll talk. Here’s my answer: no. I ain’t paying for anyone’s medical cost because they wanted to eat McDonalds and Taco Bell while watching American Idol 9 years+.

It’s called community support. Do what ya can, and the community picks up the rest- because they want to, not because they’re forced.
**
the Death Penalty**

What about it? It’s like pulling teeth to execute serial killers convicted with video and DNA evidence. Unless you’re in Texas. Baptists know what it seems Catholics forgot- if you’re gonna kill the SOB, kill him. Don’t just torture him with random stays and delays. It ain’t like people are being executed for stealing candy bars. The Death Penalty is not easily won for a prosecutor, and when it is, it’s fought tooth and nail up til the time Junior gets zapped.

sometimes the Just War theory

What about it? Aside from “serious prospects of success”, which was arguable from a historical-religious point of view, where have we Americans erred in our wars? At an institutional level we’ve killed more of our own than theirs, and their majority dead are from their neighbors’ bombs and bullets. Come at us when you have something other than feelings and unicorn farts.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things…

I’ll start by saying that I don’t disagree with anything you said but I don’t want the point to get lost in a dispute over (e.g.) the minimum wage that the Church takes no specific position on the solution to any of these issues. On social and economic issues no party or philosophy can claim the moral high ground because the choices we make regarding the solutions to those problems are not moral but practical.

The question of raising or even abolishing the minimum wage is not an ethical question but an economic one: which one is better for society as a whole? We may properly dispute the answer but whoever is wrong is merely that: wrong. He is not evil for being wrong; he has committed no sin by being mistaken. This is why a pastoral letter would make no sense - the Church has no position on these matters. She identifies the goals toward which we should work (feed the hungry, care for the sick, …) but leaves it to us to work out the details of how those objectives can best be attained.

The exceptions to this are the handful of issues that involve acts that are intrinsically evil and on those, and those alone, the Church has a narrow position. She does not say merely that we should generically “value life”, she proclaims that we must oppose abortion. Everyone knows the Church’s position on euthanasia and gay “marriage”. We should be equally aware that she has no position at all on setting the minimum wage or how to provide health care.

Ender

 

[jonbhorton]

I’ll start by saying that I don’t disagree with anything you said but I don’t want the point to get lost in a dispute over (e.g.) the minimum wage that the Church takes no specific position on the solution to any of these issues. On social and economic issues no party or philosophy can claim the moral high ground because the choices we make regarding the solutions to those problems are not moral but practical.

The question of raising or even abolishing the minimum wage is not an ethical question but an economic one: which one is better for society as a whole? We may properly dispute the answer but whoever is wrong is merely that: wrong. He is not evil for being wrong; he has committed no sin by being mistaken. This is why a pastoral letter would make no sense - the Church has no position on these matters. She identifies the goals toward which we should work (feed the hungry, care for the sick, …) but leaves it to us to work out the details of how those objectives can best be attained.

The exceptions to this are the handful of issues that involve acts that are intrinsically evil and on those, and those alone, the Church has a narrow position. She does not say merely that we should generically “value life”, she proclaims that we must oppose abortion. Everyone knows the Church’s position on euthanasia and gay “marriage”. We should be equally aware that she has no position at all on setting the minimum wage or how to provide health care.

Ender

I agree with a lot of what you said, with the exception that minimum wage, etc are not ethical issues but merely economic. Ethical approaches, utilizing inherent moral guidance of conscience, should dictate economic policy while making sure not to hurt the economic model in the process for the community at large. If it were purely economic, there wouldn’t be a question on how or why these things exist- they wouldn’t. Minimum wage is demonstrably untenable in terms of pure capitalism, and the opposite is a welfare state based on a socialist model. Apply that to products, i.e. maximum price. Suddenly, the idea of the market working itself out went to the birds. Suddenly, it’s being messed with by the government for an ethical reason/excuse, without consideration on the corollary fallout of such meddling. Such is the minimum wage, socialized medicine, etc. The entire reason for their implementation is ethical at its core, and thus must be addressed as such.

I think the big misunderstanding between liberals and conservatives is basically that conservatives want people to somehow earn their keep if they get something, whereas liberals don’t seem to want to hold anyone to a standard. The liberal mind wants to build up the government to help the people, whereas conservatives realize the people are the government and would rather keep things as local as possible. In government, the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing and wants to be greased to do anything. It’s hard decisions and brass tacks, with a ton of pork. The local level doesn’t have those issues to such a degree. The local level knows the people and knows who is just an idiot and who really needs help. And yes, I’m willing to let a drunk get a little hungry to sober up about sobering up. No, I would not let his family starve in the mean time. The liberal, however, would tell the drunk he’s a victim and provide him with unchecked and no-strings-attached handouts, he continues drinking, and his family is no better off while society is worse off.

When one seeks to divorce morality and ethics from any governmental or personal decision, that person has just swung a wrecking ball at the thread which barely holds our society together.

From Doctors Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIl_FtuDSPs

Notice what Dr. Friedman says at the end, as it raises the economic question built upon by Dr. Sowell and then shows how morality and ethically sound approaches actual do better without intervention, such as in church programs, hospitals, etc.