The best thing to do is to figure out what the Church’s social teaching is on the issues of the day and then stand on that teaching and avoid labels one way or the other.
I disagree, primarily because you are oversimplifying. You make it sound as though you can take a given issue (e.g. minimum wage) and determine the exact political standing of the Church. It doesn’t work that way. There are multiple ways to implement the various social teachings of the Church.
Labels help us to at least get an idea of the person’s political philosophy. We shouldn’t then jump to conclusions and think we know what their stance will be on every issue, but we at least have an idea.
I am doing anything BUT oversimplifying, in fact.
First of all, you need to look at what the Church’s teaching actually IS on a given subject (vice what so many “social justice types” claim the Church teaches) and then form your opinion on that issue in light of the Social Doctrine of the Church. That takes quite a bit of work, far more work than to apply a label: “I’m a Conservative…I’m a Liberal…I’m a Libertarian…I’m a Progressive.”
Then you need to see what a given politician has to say on a given subject. What he thinks of the desirable end state. How he plans to achieve that desirable end state. Again, that takes actual WORK. First of all, a Catholic voter needs to DEMAND that the person running for the privilege of serving the Catholic voter take a clear, well defined stand on important issues…most of them, of either stripe, just blurt out sound bytes, and never annunciate an actual position that displays any sort of understanding. Then, the Catholic voter needs to take the time to understand both the annunciated position and the candidate’s past position on the issue.
Take, for instance, the example you mentioned (all of this is IMHO/FWIW/YMMV, by the way): a minimum wage. An understanding of social doctrine teaches us that employers have a moral obligation to pay their workers a living wage – one that will allow them to house, feed, clothe, and educate their families, plus provide the ability to put away a moderate amount for a rainy day). So far, it sounds like the Church is in favor of a minimum wage. However, a deeper understanding of the subject shows that a
government-imposed minimum wage is, in fact, a violation of the principle of subsidiarity.
This makes sense as a living wage for a family of six living in the DC area is a lot different than a living wage for a single teenager living as a dependent in a more rural area. It would be rather difficult to enforce a government mandate for that kind of variability.
So a politician who recognizes the importance of paying a living wage while rejecting across-the-board government mandates (i.e., one size fits all), could have multiple positions, all of which could be in concert with Catholic social teaching. There are numerous other issues that dovetail onto this one (minimum wage): immigration policies, government contracting rules, healthcare, tort reform, housing, and so on. There are a diversity of positions that can be taken while maintaining a position that is aligned with the teachings of the Church
and that was the OP’s original question, wasn’t it?
, but I like saying my political views are Catholic.
