Regarding politics

[Cat]

No matter how much I tried to see liberal/democrats as the good guys, their policies just don’t work! I was very much a liberal in my early 20s, but their policies just did not work and did not benefit those who they claimed they were out to help. No one who works should have their hard earn money taken away by the govenment and distributed to organizations that “claim” to help the poor, ex. well-fare. I think it’s more charitable and Chritian like for the person to give a share of their earned money to an organization of their choosing. Socialism just doesn’t work!

And that’s exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

Everyone, I would really recommend looking up those paragraphs that I referenced earlier. The Church is NOT silent on politics.

BTW, correct politics was one reason that my husband and I became Catholic.

 

[archangel04]

And that’s exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

Everyone, I would really recommend looking up those paragraphs that I referenced earlier. The Church is NOT silent on politics.

BTW, correct politics was one reason that my husband and I became Catholic.

Lol see I knew I had good feeling about you
Thanks again for the info on catechism I should read that as well.

 

[Cat]

I vote against the perpetual war, against selling out the country to usurers, against the total irresponsibility related to the environment, against banishing the religion and morality from the schools and the public life. I do not vote for empty pro life lip service. I submit and empty ballot.

I would recommend being really careful about condemning politicians, unless you are absolutely certain.

I don’t want to misread you, and I apologize if I am doing that. I know that some pro-life Christians are not happy with what they see as “half-hearted measures” by politicians. They feel that if it doesn’t put an immediate stop to abortion, then it’s no good at all, and that politician is just posturing.

National Right To Life is a great resource, and this hard-working lobby organizaiton recommends that pro-lifers be willing to accept “baby steps” rather than demanding “giant leaps”. Yes, sometimes it seems like the laws and bills are hardly worth bothering with, and that it’s just a political show to make conservatives look good. But NRTL makes it clear that these little laws are better than nothing, and that we have to be willing to work our way through the system. We can’t expect a big sweeping law that will make all abortion illegal.

NRTL makes it clear that we often have to vote for people who will do the “least harm.” Certainly Catholics can never vote for a pro-choice candidate. But isn’t it better to vote for a lukewarm pro-life candidate rather than not voting at all and thus giving the blatantly pro-choice candidate an easy win? You are not making any worthwhile statement by submitting an empty ballot. Rather, you’re allowing the anti-Christian and anti-life candidates to slide into the office with no contest.

Again, please check out NRTL’s excellent information about specific politicians and elections all over the U.S.

One example of a great politician is Henry Hyde (RIP), who is responsible for the law that forbids federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. The Hyde Amendment has been a god-send for babies and their families. No, it hasn’t stopped abortion. But it sure has helped, and Henry Hyde is a pro-life hero, even though he didn’t stop abortion altogether.

There are other politicians that are working to bring about these kinds of bills and laws, and I’m concerned that you will lump them into the category of “lip service law makers” and disdain their good work just because it’s so “small”.

If you truly know that a politician is just giving lip-service, perhaps because you know the man or woman personally, that’s one thing, and it’s good of you to let people know so that they can pressure this politician to get real, or choose to vote for another politician. But please make sure your information is correct.

Again, I apologize if I’m misreading you.

 

[DElias]

I’m curious as to thoughts on the Catholic voting demographic. One topic to which I gave a lot of time and focus in one of my degree programs in college was on this. Since Kennedy, Democrats have held the Catholic demographic consistently save one election.

 

[Bluegoat]

And that’s exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

Everyone, I would really recommend looking up those paragraphs that I referenced earlier. The Church is NOT silent on politics.

BTW, correct politics was one reason that my husband and I became Catholic.

How you get that from the catechism stumps me. Have you read the social encyclicals that it draws from? It is pretty clear that subsidiarity and solidarity are complementary and must always be in tension together. Modern economic conservatism, which is really neoliberalsim, is not very much in line with Catholic teaching at all.

Historically it isn’t really very accurate either. In the US up until Roe vs Wade, most people thought of the Democrats as the party that most closely represented Catholic values.

 

[TrueLight]

Subsidiarity: Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1883, 1884, 1885.

Paragraph 1885 makes it clear that the principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism.

I hope this is what you are asking for.

I’m going to paste the contents here for easier reference.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

I would like to hear someone’s opinions of paragraph 1885, aside from Cat, who has eloquently stated her opinion.

God is not the God of political parties and as someone said, give unto Caesar that which is due Caesar.

I have never heard of subsidiarity and I would like to know if this belief existed before the catechism and if so, what is its origin and how soon was it defined?

Thanks.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Ok, I see nothing here to contradict what I believe. So I will go on fighting the good fight. I expect any disagreements I have with some people are secular/methodological ones rather than religious ones regarding this subject.

 

[valentino]

Simply put, in the U.S., it is the conservatives who are pro-life, and the liberals who are pro-choice (pro-abortion).

Since a pro-abortion stance is utterly inconsistent with Catholic teachings, many Catholics gravitate towards the conservative side of politics.

There’s more than just abortion involved. In the U.S., the conservatives are generally in favor of smaller government and more local government involvement, while liberals are generally in favor of bigger government and more federal government involvement. The concept of involving the smallest, most local authority is called “subsidiarism,” and it is advocated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. So that’s another reason why Catholics are often conservatives.

There is a false idea in the U.S. that conservatives are for the rich, while the liberals are for the poor. This is utterly false. Many of the policies that liberals advocate keep the poor poor, while many of the conservative policies actually help the poor to advance to a better state in life. Also, the conservative policies generally end up allowing us to keep more of our earnings, which means that we have more money to give to charitable institutions, including our Church.

This is an extremely simplified explanation of politics and Catholics, and I hope that it is helpful to you. I can’t speak about politics in other countries, but in the U.S., it is very difficult to go through life without taking a stand on politics. We are a democracy (actually, a republic), and that means “government by the people.” If the people don’t become involved, then the government doesn’t work, or a group of people who do not represent most Americans take charge. I don’t believe that Christians can just sit back and let others do the politics thing. If we sit back, others step forward, and those people are not generally going to institute policies that are friendly to Catholics.

I hear what you are saying but when they reps.refuse to make higher wage earners pay their fair share,won’t stop subsidizing big oil,and refuse to stop other such controversial matters don’t you believe that kind of nullifies their statements on trying to help the poor and make it a better country for all?Smaller government is a commendable position but there are just too many contradictions in what say IMO.I heard all the debates many times and i am still not convinced that they are really looking out for the good of all people.I still feel that they are being manipulated by people behind the scene and refuse to let the public know the reasons for their decisions on many issues.

 

[whipp711]

Just a quick aside, the framers of the constitution took great pains in pointing out the separation of church and state to avoid the centuries of abuse of power and undue influence of religions. It must be a strict separation with no gray area. Both sides of any issue try to push that line of separation back and forth, but it’s a process with certain checks and balances. Society, as whole, must protect the constitution from extremes.

That being said, you still “vote your conscience” for candidates that support your thoughts, philosophy, and wishes. An imperfect system, but hopefully a self correcting system.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m going to paste the contents here for easier reference.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

I would like to hear someone’s opinions of paragraph 1885, aside from Cat, who has eloquently stated her opinion.

God is not the God of political parties and as someone said, give unto Caesar that which is due Caesar.

I have never heard of subsidiarity and I would like to know if this belief existed before the catechism and if so, what is its origin and how soon was it defined?

Thanks.

You need to read the whole section to make sense of it. And ideally the documents it draws from.

It makes it clear that what it calls socialism is not acceptable from a Catholic perspective. You have to be very careful to read correctly what it means when it says socialism, which is not the way it is used commonly today.

It also talks about the need as a society to care for the poor, and other endeavors that we have to undertake as a group. It says clearly that on the one hand, we cannot usurp the proper functions of the smaller units of society by giving them to government, but on the other hand we cannot fail in our duties to others by refusing to give government the ability to act as needed - that is, we need to have solidarity as well as subsidiarity.

So, from Quadragesimo Anno:
"Twin rocks of shipwreck must be carefully avoided. For, as one is wrecked upon, or comes close to, what is known as “individualism” by denying or minimizing the social and public character of the right of property, so by rejecting or minimizing the private and individual character of this same right, one inevitably runs into “collectivism.”

In practice what this would mean is that individuals, families, local communities, and wider government organizations would all have proper responsibilities. It doesn’t say just what they are at each level, because it can really depend on the situation, and also what people want, and many other things.

Subsidiarity as a term I believe comes out of the late 19th century. The Catholic Church’s social teachings were largely developed beginning in that period, when many priests were in the trenches of helping those who were effected negatively by the social changes of the industrial revolution. The interesting thing to note for modern Americans is that in the current American political climate, those people would likely be called socialists. One needs to be careful about using these teachings on subsidiarity to push the libertarian agenda, which is not at all what they were getting at.

If you are interested in the social teaching documents, here is a webpage with information and the texts.

 

[valentino]

Just a quick aside, the framers of the constitution took great pains in pointing out the separation of church and state to avoid the centuries of abuse of power and undue influence of religions. It must be a strict separation with no gray area. Both sides of any issue try to push that line of separation back and forth, but it’s a process with certain checks and balances. Society, as whole, must protect the constitution from extremes.

That being said, you still “vote your conscience” for candidates that support your thoughts, philosophy, and wishes. An imperfect system, but hopefully a self correcting system.

where did you hear the centuries of abuse because of religion?surely your not referring to the church?Except for the Papal States which only occupied some of Italy which were not in the popes hands but under the control of people who were under the pope’s control tell me of one other country wheere the Church controlled the State.

 

[St_Francis]

Just a quick aside, the framers of the constitution took great pains in pointing out the separation of church and state to avoid the centuries of abuse of power and undue influence of religions. It must be a strict separation with no gray area. Both sides of any issue try to push that line of separation back and forth, but it’s a process with certain checks and balances. Society, as whole, must protect the constitution from extremes.

This is sooo far from being the case…

When the Americans revolted against England, in England there was the state-established church, the Church of England. In the colonies, there were colonies which had their own government-established churches. The laws of the individual colonies ranged from requiring people to attend that church or pay a fine to legal indifference.

The First Amendment was that the *federal * government would be forbidden to establish a national church over the states. It was a states’rights issue rather than a religious or individual’s rights issue.

In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were religious, and many believed that principles of this nation would endure only the citizens were religious and maintained a high degree of morality.

(a thought-provoking article on the Catholic influence on the Founding Fathers)

 

[St_Francis]

let’s look at the flip side of yoir proposals:

I hear what you are saying but when they reps.refuse to make higher wage earners pay their fair share,

Dr Thomas Sowell recently wrote about this very issue. When the rich are taxed at high rates, they do not pay more in taxes, they shift their money into tax-free bonds. The government is lent money on which they have to pay interest instead of getting money for their operating expenses.

When the rich are taxed at a lower rate, they pay the taxes and use their money in ways which enrich the entire community, investing locally.

stop subsidizing big oil,

most of the “subsidies” of the oil business are actually tax breaks. Those companies are subsidized the same way many people’s mortgages are subsidized.

Let’s look at the real situation with oil. First, a huge percentage of what we pay at the pump is local, state, and federal taxes… Most of these are on a percentage basis, so if the price of gas goes up, there is an increase in the taxes.

Now, suppose we disallowed the tax breaks for oil companies. Who would pay that? You and me. The price of gas would go up, the taxes would go up, and the end result would be essentially a negatively progressive burden on people, who would then buy less gas and thus reduce the income of the oil company, which would then be paying the tax, but on less money.

and refuse to stop other such controversial matters don’t you believe that kind of nullifies their statements on trying to help the poor and make it a better country for all?Smaller government is a commendable position but there are just too many contradictions in what say IMO.I heard all the debates many times and i am still not convinced that they are really looking out for the good of all people.I still feel that they are being manipulated by people behind the scene and refuse to let the public know the reasons for their decisions on many issues.

I agree with you about this. The democrats may well be trying to help the poor, I don’t deny that, but they seem to be using an oitdated method to do so, one which has been proven many times not to work.

The Republicans… their lack of communication skills just boggles my mind.

 

[valentino]

St.Francis:1 questiion at a time:In effect you’re saying their is no way to get higher wage earners to pay thier fair share.And the rich don’t get richer they just invest more which helps the economy.They don’t buy new houses,cars,or land.When they die and they children own and sell the businesses they don’t keep the money.Why don’t we tax them O% that way they can invest it all and the economy will just get that much better?

 

[St_Francis]

St.Francis:1 questiion at a time:In effect you’re saying their is no way to get higher wage earners to pay thier fair share.And the rich don’t get richer they just invest more which helps the economy.They don’t buy new houses,cars,or land.When they die and they children own and sell the businesses they don’t keep the money.Why don’t we tax them O% that way they can invest it all and the economy will just get that much better?

It depends on what you mean by their fair share. Do you think it is fair that X pays no taxes, Y pays 12%, and Z 30%? Why would that be more fair than ea h paying the same percentage?

If you can justify progressive taxes, then how do you determine what is “fair”? is the “fair” percentage 15, 25, 50, or 75% of income? what makes one percentage more “fAir” than another, and to whom is all this fairness?

WRT the rest of your post, you are putting words in my mouth. Am I supposed to defend ideas which I did not propose?

What I said was that taxing the rich more does not necessarily lead to increased revenues. What is the goal in taxing: to increase revenue or to punish enviable people?

An

 

[Lucysmom]

Valentino: Maybe your just not listening. Do you hear Paul Ryan?
The Dem’s on the other hand just tell you what you want to hear. As a Senior, I’m listening.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This can be a taxing issue on Catholics, because we actually have something we have to decide ourselves, and we have little experience with that!

I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, and now I’m glad I don’t have to follow precisely to the conservative line, as so many of my brethren keep telling me I “must.”

 

[Stylites]

Liberals have given themselves over to the lie that “I wouldn’t personally have an abortion, but I believe others should have the right to have one.” Unbelievable. Appalling.

It would be the same as to say: “I wouldn’t personally own a slave, but I believe others should have the right to own one, if they really, really want to.”

 

[tomarin]

There is a false idea in the U.S. that conservatives are for the rich, while the liberals are for the poor. This is utterly false.

The way I’d put it is that at this particular moment the liberal party is economically populist and culturally elitist, whereas the conservative party is culturally populist and economically elitist.

 

[valentino]

It depends on what you mean by their fair share. Do you think it is fair that X pays no taxes, Y pays 12%, and Z 30%? Why would that be more fair than ea h paying the same percentage?

If you can justify progressive taxes, then how do you determine what is “fair”? is the “fair” percentage 15, 25, 50, or 75% of income? what makes one percentage more “fAir” than another, and to whom is all this fairness?

WRT the rest of your post, you are putting words in my mouth. Am I supposed to defend ideas which I did not propose?

What I said was that taxing the rich more does not necessarily lead to increased revenues. What is the goal in taxing: to increase revenue or to punish enviable people?

An

the reason why progressive tax is because of the progressive way in which the wealthy get wealthier?Honestly,Say I earn$5k,another $1M.then I earn$10 he earns$10M.that’s right.I doubled He went 10fold.that’s the way this system works as things stand.If I pay 20%thats $2K His 20%,2M.that leaves me $8K Him $8M.but all the necessities medical care,housing,food,cars,meds,are the same price for each of us.So who is hurt worse ?Obviously the poorer man will be.That’s why the richer person should pay a higher rate.Can’t you see why the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer?AS it stands now the rich pay most of the taxes where the say 50% pay none.But why isn’t that fair?the poorer fellow can just get by but the rich can pay more and still get richer.