Rebuttal of the myth that Catholics can fully embrace either political conservatism or liberalism, by a Franciscan University of Steubenville professo

[Bartolome_Casas]

However, the post seems to hit on something, bec I think there is a tendency of striving to avoid “cognitive dissonance” to downplay the bad parts of one’s chosen candidate and play up the good parts. It is important to do a reality check and understand whoever we vote for, there will be aspects that go against our faith, that it is a very tough call in picking candidates.

From my perspective, we are not free in conscience to choose a candidate who promotes annihilation of all life of earth, even tho that may take decades and centuries to play out from the harms set in motion today – indeed we may have already passed tipping points…the uncertainty in science cuts both ways. Aborting and killing babies and future generations is just wrong, always wrong, and cannot be justified no matter what. We also vote on this every time we drive our ICE cars, since that pollution also cause abortions (miscarriages). So we need to vote on election day, and also everyday, for life.

Well said. Immaculate wisdom!

 

[austenbosten]

In the U.S., Leftists spurn Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine (unborn children’s right to life) and Rightists spurn Catholic Social Doctrine (Labor Unions, Minimum Wage, National Health Insurance, etc.)

The pope and the bishops call us to be full and entire Catholics. But the politico keep on playing their game of “divide and conquer,” which has been working well for the last 40 years, during which the decline of American and the West has continued apace.

A true Catholic cannot be a true Rightist or a true Leftist, though the leaders of these political movement don’t want Catholics to know that.

But there is hope. Christ lives. The Church lives. Christ and the Church will save us.

If being a “true” Catholic means I have to embrace Socialism, then I will abstain signing up for RCIA. Thank God that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If being a “true” Catholic means I have to embrace Socialism, then I will abstain signing up for RCIA. Thank God that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Between that post and any of lynnevic’s, there are so many lies and distortions…It’s almost driving me over the edge!

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I have never understood why Nazism is considered a right-wing political belief.

Nazism had many features that lead most people to classify it as a Right Wing movement in the same sense that Right Wing movements of today in the US and Europe are Right Wing movements.

See if any of these features below sound similar to Right Wing movement our our time in the US and Europe:

(1) Nazis urged a return to traditional male and female roles, a return to strict patriarchy, with women not in the workforce, but at home as housewives, having children and raising them.

(2) Upon coming into power, the Nazis outlawed all abortions for German woman.

(3) The Nazis were stridently opposed to expressions of or approval of homosexuality. Upon getting power, the Nazis closed all the nightclubs and theaters where homosexuals were known to frequent.

(4) The Nazis were fanatical anti-Communists and anti-Socialists. The whole of World War II in Europe can be viewed as an anti-Communist, anti-Socialist crusade. This has led to conservative Pat Buchanan to suggest that things would have turned out better for the world if UK and France had let Nazi Germany absorb Poland, instead of declaring war on Germany after it absorbed the western part of Poland in 1939 (with USSR absorbing the eastern half). Buchanan’s idea is that Hitler never wanted a war with the UK or France, just the USSR. Some are misled by the fact that Nazi is short for “National Socialist Germany Workers Party.” But the Nazis used the term “socialist” in exactly the opposite way it is and was used by Leftists. The Nazis were against all forms of economic equality, which is the hallmark of Leftwing socialists. The Nazis preached inequality as their ideal of social justice. They believed in a strict hierarchical society. The Nazis preached that the stronger have a right and duty to rule the weaker, and, in some cases, to even eliminate the weaker off the face of the earth. So different from Leftwing socialism.

(5) Nazis maintained private ownership of industry. They did not nationalize the “means of production” as in Communism. Many German industrialists became fabulously wealthy during the Nazi economic boom. The famous rescuer of Jewish people during the Holocaust, Oskar Schindler, was a wealthy industrialist and factor owner, who was able to rescue Jews precisely because he had contracts for supplying arms to the Nazis.

(6) Nazis were white supremacists, something that virtually all American conservatives were until the 1960s or early 1970s. Most conservatives voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and opposed desegregation of schools, etc. Today, the Tea Party Movement, a new conservative movement in the U.S., has a significant racist component, as well documented by journalists.

(7) Nazis favored having great national military strength and not being shy about using it for national interests. Nazis firmly rejected the Just War Doctrine, in favor of doing what is in the National Interest.

(8) Nazis were not peace lovers. Nazis felt that war was the natural state of human beings, and a context in which the superior human beings fulfill their destiny.

Does all that really not ring any bells?

You can read more about this here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Semi-clever Right Wing ideologues to today are on a mission to convince Catholics that the Nazis were socialists just like the Soviets and Maoists.

Yet, to be fair, the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese were an extreme form of Right Wing-ism, such as we’ve never had in the USA, due to the strong influence of Christian belief and the American democratic ideals were expressed by the Founding Fathers.

Yet, to flimsy Rightist propagandists, all political liberals and progressives in the USA are really evil “socialists” and “Marxists.” Even the Catholic Church sometimes gets called “Marxist” for its Social Doctrine teachings.

And to flimsy Leftist propagandists, all political conservatives and traditionalists in the USA are really evil “Nazis” and “Fascists.” Even the Catholic Church sometimes gets called “Nazi” and “Fascist” for its Pro-Life teachings.

To me, the answer is to judge all things by the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, and not let political theorists or leaders be our ultimate authority on anything.

The sad fact is that Germany had lots of practicing Catholics in the Nazi period who went along with things that they knew were contrary to their Catholic Faith, since they wanted to be good conservatives and good, loyal Germans.

The Nazis made the German people so scared of Marxists that they were ready to go along with most anything to prevent Marxists from taking over.

If the Catholics of Germany had been more faithful to their Catholic Faith, the rise of Hitler would have been impossible, the Holocaust would have been impossible, and World War II in Europe would have been impossible.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Not to mention, they were big environmentalists: supported big public works projects, public-private partnerships, believed in animal welfare rights, progressive taxation, minimum wage, labor unions, secularism, anti-globalism, racist, anti-smoking, and pro-gun control.

None of which is widely supported by the Right.

–The Nazis banned all strikes by unions, thereby rendering all the unions into meaningless shells.

–The Nazis were very supportive of the Christian Churches that did not denounce them, even though, the Nazi leaders were themselves all cynical atheists. Sadly, quite a few Catholic bishops in Germany wee on very friendly terms with Hitler and other Nazis, and had friendly meetings, involving the exchange of gifts, and mutually laudatory speeches.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

(6) Nazis were white supremacists, something that virtually all American conservatives were until the 1960s or early 1970s. Most conservatives voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and opposed desegregation of schools, etc. Today, the Tea Party Movement, a new conservative movement in the U.S., has a significant racist component, as well documented by journalists.
.

The rest of your colorful response is filled with untruths, but this - THIS - IS A DAMNABLE LIE!

I will not let this stand as you wrote it. The politicians who voted against the Civil Rights Act were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS and this is well documented! YOU are completely standing the TRUTH on its head and I am incredibly disgusted that you have the nerve to do so, here, where so many people KNOW the truth.

HOW DARE YOU SAY that the Tea Party Movement is racist? As well documented by journalists??? Are you joking??? No, seriously, you have to be joking. There was a 50 million dollar reward being offered for ANY TAPE that could show ONE INCIDENT of racism at any Tea Party rally. ANY INCIDENT! That reward was never picked up! Do you think any journalist would not love to have that prize??? Why was it never even remarked upon in the press? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUCH THING!!!

You, frankly, make me sick. Sick. And disgusted.

 

[livingwordunity]

I do believe we have confirmed the truth of Godwin’s Law once again.

I have never understood why Nazism is considered a right-wing political belief. Nazism is a short form of National Socialism. This alone ought to be a big indicator that the Nazi and the conservative are not alike.

National Socialism was based on the premise that there was a master race, what conservative has believed that? Also, National Socialists used sterilization and eugenics to achieve their goals, both policies advocated by founder of Planned Parenthood the muderous organization supported by the liberal party in the US today.

Under National Socialism, the state approved wage and salary levels for private businesses, that sounds more like the minimum wage, which is a left-wing policy.

There is no evidence that the Nazis were political conservatives, unless the claims made by leftists to demonize the conservative movement are considered evidence.

The strategy of the left is to keep repeating lies until people believe them.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The strategy of the left is to keep repeating lies until people believe them.

Considering they’ve had control of our education for nigh on 4 decades, especially the “journalism” schools, most people do believe the lies.

:banghead:

I think we’re doomed.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The rest of your colorful response is filled with untruths, but this - THIS - IS A DAMNABLE LIE!

I will not let this stand as you wrote it. The politicians who voted against the Civil Rights Act were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS and this is well documented! .

The Southern Democrats were conservatives. In the 1970s, after the Democrat Party went off in a very liberal direction, many of the Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party. This is all well documented.

The Republican Party was moderate and liberal in the 1960s and 1950s, and didn’t really become conservative as it is today until the 1970s.

 

[austenbosten]

Nazism had many features that lead most people to classify it as a Right Wing movement in the same sense that Right Wing movements of today in the US and Europe are Right Wing movements.

:nope:

–Nazis urged a return to traditional male and female roles, a return to strict patriarchy, with women not in the workforce, but at home as housewives, having children and raising them.

The Soviet Union had traditional male and female roles.

–Upon coming into power, the Nazis outlawed all abortions for German woman.

Same thing happens in USSR. Venezuela has outlawed most abortions, Cuba has limited abortions…are they Right-winger states?

–The Nazis were stridently opposed to expressions of or approval of homosexuality.

Was Banned in Soviet Russia, is banned in China. Is banned in North Korea. Is still banned in Vietnam, was banned in East Germany, was banned in Albania, was banned in Romania, was banned and for the most part is still banned in Cuba, still mostly banned in Venezuela.

Your point is refuted my friend.

–Nazis maintained private ownership of industry. They did not nationalize the “means of production” as in Communism. Many German industrialists became fabulously wealthy during the Nazi economic boom.

Websters Dictionary defines so·cial·ism as: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Webster’s Dictionary also defines national socialism or Na·zi·ism as: “the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers’ party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the fuhrer.”

Time Magazine in 1939, “The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”

The above definition of Socialism in Websters Dictionary serves to refute your skewed definitions of Socialism.

–Nazis were white supremacists, something that virtually all American conservatives were until the 1960s or early 1970s. Most conservatives voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and opposed desegregation of schools, etc. Today, the Tea Party Movement, a new conservative movement in the U.S., has a significant racist component, as well documented by journalists.

This is a prime example of circular reasoning and the criteria used to make distinctions are wholly subjective - fallacy of composition.

The American Left has for decades advocated Affirmative Action, which is racial discrimination based solely on race and it contradicts his whole notion that you can call Hitler a rightist by highlighting his racial aspirations. Incidentally, the founders of liberal abortion groups like Planned Parenthood were advent supporters of Eugenics. So by your own logic - if Hitler’s racism indicates where he is on the political spectrum - to the Left he goes?

Aside from the mentioning of Eugenics above, it in fact would parallel more along the lines of where Left is regarding the current issue of human cloning and so forth. Abortion is clearly a means of population control courtesy of social elites. Left Wing governments in China force women to have abortions and are in no way protective of “freedom of reproduction,” which is a conservative ideal.

Finally,

Hitler opposed capitalism saying in part, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” The Nazi Party Platform also refutes the claim. Refer to the Time article above.

and finally I want to say one thing, I have been associated with many Tea Party members and not one ever came across to me as a racist. I have seen people of all races and faiths be a part of the Tea Party and never once did I hear them say anything about returning to Jim Crow or creating laws based on race. Your exaggerations of the Tea Party has hurt your credibility my friend.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The strategy of the left is to keep repeating lies until people believe them.

The left AND the right.

From Wikipedia:

The Big Lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Both the left and the right lie, one in order to worship the Golden Calf, the other to serve Mammon.

Only the true GOD of Heaven tells WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

God established his CHURCH to baptize us in truth. John 17: “Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.”

God has not founded any political movements or any political, worldly nations (in the New Covenant era). Jesus said, “My kingdom [nation] is not of this world.”

The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote, “For we have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the city which is to come.” (chapter 13, verse 14)

When Peter wanted Jesus to be a political Messiah, Jesus replied “Get behind me Satan!” Some say that the betrayal of Judas was motivated by Judas’ disappointment that Jesus was not going to be a political Messiah.

 

[austenbosten]

–The Nazis banned all strikes by unions, thereby rendering all the unions into meaningless shells.

and in the Soviet Union if you refused to work you were sent to the slave labor camps, so what’s your point?

–The Nazis were very supportive of the Christian Churches that did not denounce them, even though, the Nazi leaders were themselves all cynical atheists. Sadly, quite a few Catholic bishops in Germany wee on very friendly terms with Hitler and other Nazis, and had friendly meetings, involving the exchange of gifts, and mutually laudatory speeches.

That is a myth. A lie of the largest magnitude to suggest Hitler was friendly with the Churches, but at least you admitted that Hitler and much of the Nazi party members were atheistic.

The OSS completed a detailed report on Hitler’s persecution of Christian churches. However you only need to look no further than Pope Pius XII Summi Pontificis in fall of 1939 which affirmed the “fundamental unity” of the human race. Also the fact that Hitler planned to kidnap and murder the Pope, completely refutes your statements that Hitler was a friend of the church’s.

 

[austenbosten]

The Southern Democrats were conservatives. In the 1970s, after the Democrat Party went off in a very liberal direction, many of the Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party. This is all well documented.

The Republican Party was moderate and liberal in the 1960s and 1950s, and didn’t really become conservative as it is today until the 1970s.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened was that the next generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Your belief that the parties switched is once again not true my friend.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

However you only need to look no further than Pope Pius XII Summi Pontificis in fall of 1939 which affirmed the “fundamental unity” of the human race.

The Catholics in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s were so numerous, and so influential, that had they been faithful to Pope Pius XII’s edict against racism, and had they as a groups, as a Church, refused to accept Hitler’s racists policies, there would have been no Holocaust and perhaps no Hitler regime at all.

To me, this is a sad case of Catholics setting aside the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to be patriots of their worldly nation, or to be good party members.

To me, the sad thing is that this failing of Catholics continues today, both with the liberal movement and the conservative movement in the USA.

Most Catholics who are involved with politics seem to be Nationalists first, Party Members second, and Catholics some where way down the line. Shouldn’t a Catholic be a Catholic first and ultimately? Can being a political conservative get one into Heaven?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened was that the next generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Your belief that the parties switched is once again not true my friend.

Well, thank you my friend. It is good to be corrected. Good for my sinful Pride. I am not really an expert enough on this part of America history to be sure that you have corrected me correctly. But, in any case, I accept your statement as probably correct.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

:nope:

The Soviet Union had traditional male and female roles.

Same thing happens in USSR. Venezuela has outlawed most abortions, Cuba has limited abortions…are they Right-winger states?

Was Banned in Soviet Russia, is banned in China. Is banned in North Korea. Is still banned in Vietnam, was banned in East Germany, was banned in Albania, was banned in Romania, was banned and for the most part is still banned in Cuba, still mostly banned in Venezuela.

Your point is refuted my friend.

Websters Dictionary defines so·cial·ism as: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Webster’s Dictionary also defines national socialism or Na·zi·ism as: “the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers’ party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the fuhrer.”

The above definition of Socialism in Websters Dictionary serves to refute your skewed definitions of Socialism.

This is a prime example of circular reasoning and the criteria used to make distinctions are wholly subjective - fallacy of composition.

The American Left has for decades advocated Affirmative Action, which is racial discrimination based solely on race and it contradicts his whole notion that you can call Hitler a rightist by highlighting his racial aspirations. Incidentally, the founders of liberal abortion groups like Planned Parenthood were advent supporters of Eugenics. So by your own logic - if Hitler’s racism indicates where he is on the political spectrum - to the Left he goes?

Aside from the mentioning of Eugenics above, it in fact would parallel more along the lines of where Left is regarding the current issue of human cloning and so forth. Abortion is clearly a means of population control courtesy of social elites. Left Wing governments in China force women to have abortions and are in no way protective of “freedom of reproduction,” which is a conservative ideal.

Finally,

Hitler opposed capitalism saying in part, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” The Nazi Party Platform also refutes the claim. Refer to the Time article above.

Well, then, following the logic above, does the bail outs of the banks in 2008 prove that President George W. Bush and his bulk of his party members who supported the bailouts were all Socialists and Marxists? Does it prove that big American bankers are mainly Socialists and Marxists?

All in all, things seem to come down to whose judgment one is going to trust. Do we trust the judgments of the right wing guys and gals on the radio and TV? Do we trust the judgments of the left wing guys and gals on radio, TV, and the Huffington Post? Most of us don’t have time to become experts on history, economics, sociology, philosophy, or anything other than what we do in our jobs. To me, it is tough problem. There is an intense ideological war going on in our nation, with both sides taking a “no holds barred” approach. As they say, “in a war, the first casualty is the truth.”

I myself try to hear the judgments of Catholics who are calm, well educated, and who seem like decent people who aren’t overborne by personal ambition (for money, power, fame).

Also try to study the teachings of the Catholic Church as much as I have time for. Not enough, though, for sure.

I am no doubt wrong lots of the time. So what should I do? Say nothing in public then about things that matter to me and my fellow human beings? I hear lots of people on the radio and TV saying things that are false and shaky judgments. They get proven wrong all the time, yet that never stops them from talking! So, wrong as I often will be, I feel justified in speaking about.

My main thought is that we Catholics must not be wholehearted followers of either the liberal ideology or the conservative ideology, but be CATHOLICS.

 

[austenbosten]

The Catholics in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s were so numerous, and so influential, that had they been faithful to Pope Pius XII’s edict against racism, and had they as a groups, as a Church, refused to accept Hitler’s racists policies, there would have been no Holocaust and perhaps no Hitler regime at all.

To me, this is a sad case of Catholics setting aside the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to be patriots of their worldly nation, or to be good party members.

To me, the sad thing is that this failing of Catholics continues today, both with the liberal movement and the conservative movement in the USA.

Most Catholics who are involved with politics seem to be Nationalists first, Party Members second, and Catholics some where way down the line. Shouldn’t a Catholic be a Catholic first and ultimately? Can being a political conservative get one into Heaven?

Excuse me, but how can you lump the thousands of Catholic men, women and children who were deported to concentration camps and were imprisoned, tortured and killed by the Nazi’s to those who supported the regime?

How can you lump all the priests who were murdered (Fr. Lorenz was beheaded) by the Nazi regime for protecting the Jews with those who supported the evil Nazi regime.

It’s a shame! You are morally stained and it’s a shame on you.

 

[austenbosten]

Well, then, following the logic above, does the bail outs of the banks in 2008 prove that President George W. Bush and his bulk of his party members who supported the bailouts were all Socialists and Marxists? Does it prove that big American bankers are mainly Socialists and Marxists?

What George W Bush and the 91 House Republicans 33 Senate Republicans did, does not make them Socialists based on one vote. However they did vote in favor of a Socialist bill.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Excuse me, but how can you lump the thousands of Catholic men, women and children who were deported to concentration camps and were imprisoned, tortured and killed by the Nazi’s to those who supported the regime?

How can you lump all the priests who were murdered (Fr. Lorenz was beheaded) by the Nazi regime for protecting the Jews with those who supported the evil Nazi regime.

It’s a shame! You are morally stained and it’s a shame on you.

Wikipedia:

Apology of Pope John Paul II

In 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read “We’re deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”[100] This papal apology, one of many issued by Pope John Paul II for past human and Church failings throughout history, was especially significant because John Paul II emphasized Church guilt for, and the Second Vatican Council’s condemnation of, anti-Semitism.[101] The papal letter We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, urged Catholics to repent “of past errors and infidelities” and “renew the awareness of the Hebrew roots of their faith.”[101][102]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

See also this:

Most Recent Statements. Shortly after Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy took charge of the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in January of 1990, the Commission began work on what was intended to be a single Roman Catholic document on the Shoah. It soon became quite clear that this was not the ideal course because the experiences of different countries were so different during the Holocaust period.25 As a consequence, various national conferences of bishops spoke out before the Vatican’s own statement was released in March, 1998. German Bishops issued their statement in 1995. They admitted that “Christians did not offer due resistance to racial antisemitism” and they confessed a general indifference that paved the way for crimes or even some becoming criminals themselves. While recognizing that there were many individual acts of resistance, the bishops stressed that not even the assaults on the Jewish people and synagogues of November, 1938 led to public protest.26

bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/bernauer.htm

 

[Ridgerunner]

If being a “true” Catholic means I have to embrace Socialism, then I will abstain signing up for RCIA. Thank God that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

It doesn’t.

The social encyclicals did, indeed, support the right to organize into unions…back when it wasn’t being forced on people and served a legitimate social purpose. They support a “living wage”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean paying dependent teenagers who want work experience and a little money the same as a head of a household. In fact, Catholic social teaching supports the “head of the household” earning a wage sufficient to support his family, and such a person is to be preferred. Nothing wrong with that, and I don’t think most conservatives would object to it. In demanding “equality” for absolutely everyone, the left is actually contrary to the Church’s teachings. The Church emphasizes family formation. The left does not, but is destructive of it.

The Church does not have a specific teaching concerning what is, or is not, a proper “minimum wage” under all circumstances. That’s a political thing, not a moral teaching.