Should there be a new political party based on Catholic Social Doctrine and Pro-Life Doctrine?

[Filii_Dei]

Savage is as savage does.

I am not familiar with the Sudanese war so I won’t say anything about it. But those who drop the name of our LORD are just as capable of savagery as anybody else. It’s in the genetic material of these animal bodies.

ICXC NIKA

You admit that you are not familiar with the Sudanese war, and yet you are willing to so easily dismiss them as ‘savages’. Are we not jumping to conclusions here?

And to allege that this so-called savagery is ‘genetic’ and the Sudanese are ‘animals’? Now that just smacks of ignorance and a lack of compassion for others. Not all Sudanese are involved in this war, and not all wish to kill for the sake of it. Some are engaged in the battle for the sake of defending their own people from said perpetrators.

Indeed professing a religion does not stop one from committing heinous acts, but we should be cautious before labelling fellow humans - or fellow Christians, even - as such terms as these, unless we are certain beyond any doubt that they must be so.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Many of these countries are not fighting any current wars.

Don’t mind me, but as somebody who has embarked upon a humanitarian trip in such a country before, I believe you are simply speculating. Corruption and war is not a impediment to aid. It makes effective aid difficult, but still possible. You just have to be willing to follow through on the aid shipments beyond just giving it to the incompetent government and expect them to distribute it fairly.

This is not the hope and perseverance that God has taught us to practice. To give up simply because we complain that it is “too difficult”? I don’t believe this is what you’re intend to put forward, but that’s how it appears to me.

We should be doing both saving the born and unborn, for crying out loud, not either. Don’t listen to those politicians who only care about one and spit on the other. Good Catholic sense should be the rule, not party agendas.

Why don’t you address your comments to the person who stated that 25,000 people die every day from starvation? And that somehow, that is equivalent to the intentional MURDER of a child in the womb?

Abortion will be stopped, but not necessarily through legislation. The pro-life community is growing and finding ways to thwart the murder of babies that does not depend upon overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Like start another political party?

I have thought for several election cycles that a new party would appear on the right and split the Republicans into New Party members or to their rightful Democrat party membership.

While people complain about the lack of progress wrt abortion, progress has actually been made. We now have more laws restricting access to abortion than ever before, but more importantly, we have more people in this nation who are against abortion, to at least some extent, than ever before. This is fertile ground on which to plant more education about what abortion really is.

As to the social justice issues… I distrust people who say they are on the side of the little guy but who defend abortion? I look at what has happened in this country (US) since the War on Poverty started, and it seems like all that’s happened is *trillions *spent with no or *worsening *results.

As I have learned more about Catholic social justice, I have changed my political views, but in a more wholistic way. Rather than seeing a need to run and get the government to tax us more and do more, I see much more the need for *us *to do more. Giving people in need money is *insufficient. *People in need need more than a few hundred dollars a month. They need a society which values them as more than economic or political units.

I’ve written about this before, but here goes again: before the Protestant Revolt led the people in charge (kings, princes, etc) to dissolve the monasteries and convents which had provided the “social safety net,” we had people who were more wholistically helping those in need *for the love of God. *The religious engaged in this work had given themselves to it, and those who were helped knew that they were valued as human beings.

Now, I’m not saying that everything was perfect, but it was a system which engendered virtue rather than vice. It was very *human. *Now we have bureaucrats who take the job because of the job security, who are overwhelmed with work, and the whole set-up is like a factory, including production quotas.

Do you not think that a situation which ensures the needy are housed and fed but which *promotes vice *indicates a problem? Doesn’t that make you suspociois?

Wow. I think you have an unrealisticly rosey view of the conditions in Europe at that time. Human beings, may well be essentially the same today. As far as motivations, and goals. But, the world we operate in. Would be un recognizable to the citizens of that past. Nor would we be able to return successfully to their ways. As charitable giving is cyclical. The money to be spent, ebbs, and flows on it’s own calender. The needs of the, well, the needy. are constant. Everything we do is based on a calender. Workers have to be payed monthly, as do their bills. You can fault the perceived bureaurats. But, I know them personally. They are hard working and caring people.

ATB

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I would like to see more political parties, expressing diverse views. It would enliven our now moribund political process. I also favor a parliamentarian system. If catholic party candidates received 20% of the votes, then they would hold 20%of the seats. Ditto for atheists. This would go a long way toward making our government more representative of the voters.

We don’t have a parliamentary system. If you want to see how that works, go to Europe.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Why don’t you address your comments to the person who stated that 25,000 people die every day from starvation? And that somehow, that is equivalent to the intentional MURDER of a child in the womb?

And somehow we are not morally compelled to prevent either? We should not insist on a false dilemma between choosing to avert starvation and preventing abortion. Can we not emphasise both? This is not the American political arena where we pit one predetermined set of views against the other. We are Catholics, and we emphasise the value of life above all things.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Why don’t you address your comments to the person who stated that 25,000 people die every day from starvation? And that somehow, that is equivalent to the intentional MURDER of a child in the womb?

Julianne, I’m not sure we can equate an abortion with allowing someone to starve to death. The mother, has free will. Even when we finally outlaw abortions. They will still go on. As do a host of other sins.

Standing by, while someone starves is a little different. Don’t you agree? Both are wrong, and both need our attention. Thats all we are saying. Simply picking Party “A”, or Party “B”. Is not getting the job done.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

We don’t have a parliamentary system. If you want to see how that works, go to Europe.

C-span would be more entertaining.

 

[Filii_Dei]

We don’t have a parliamentary system. If you want to see how that works, go to Europe.

Well it works fine in some countries, like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia. On the other hand, one could always point to Africa to give examples of how presidential systems failed.

This isn’t about a comparison between presidential or parliamentary systems. Both can be effective. It’s the people and the politicians in the system that are the problem.

 

[Ender]

Forgive me for disagreeing…

Not at all … if there was no disagreement we’d have nothing to talk about.

…but the popes and the bishops have written a lot about the need to provide workers with a Just Wage

There has been a lot written about objectives but nothing at all about the means to attain them. Don’t you think the term “just wage” is a bit undefined? Is it unjust to pay a high school kid $5/hr to flip burgers? The Church doesn’t define what a just wage is; that’s our job.

…and that the government can have a legitimate in making sure that workers get a Just Wage.

Sure it can but we may have an equally legitimate difference of opinion of what the government should do … and the Church is silent on that subject.

This is my point: the Church’s social teachings are guidelines, objectives; they are not blueprints and (generally) no specific proposal from either side is more or less moral than the counter proposal from the other side. This is why a call for a party based on Catholic social teaching can never succeed. The social proposals of both parties are equally moral today and equally in line with Church teaching. We may reasonably disagree about which proposals will work - and clearly some proposals will be superior to others - but there is no moral distinction since both sides are doing what they think best.

Ender

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well it works fine in some countries, like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Australia. On the other hand, one could always point to Africa to give examples of how presidential systems failed.

This isn’t about a comparison between presidential or parliamentary systems. Both can be effective. It’s the people and the politicians in the system that are the problem.

Agreed, but our Constitution was written to form a Federal Republic with democratic features, not to emulate Europe. Way too late to re-write it now. And most of us like the way OUR government works in comparison to say, those of Italy or France.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The social proposals of both parties are equally moral today and equally in line with Church teaching.

Forgive me again for disagreeing.

I am not an expert on what the two major parties have in their official party platforms.

But I constantly hear popular national right wing politicians and commentators in the USA say that, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, the Government should have no role in improving or helping the material/economic situation of its citizens, and that instead, these matters should be handled ENTIRELY by the FREE MARKET and PRIVATE CHARITY. Anyone who says that, as a matter of principle, is a dissenter from Catholic Social Doctrine. That’s just a fact.

Consider this comparable situation. There is a famous Catholic from about 50 years ago named Dorothy Day. She is saint and hero to liberal Catholics. She was, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, against all wars. She even urged Americans to not fight in World War Two! She was a complete pacifist, just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Quakers.

Now compare Dorothy Day to Abraham Lincoln, who, speaking of the Mexican-American War while it was going on, said of that war that it was “unconstitutionally commenced” by President James K Polk, and that the president commenced it by using “sheerest deception.”

Abraham Lincoln was condemning President Polk based on two principles:
(1) The Constitution should be followed.
(2) Presidents should not lie to the American people.

Abraham Lincoln was against that war, by applying prudential judgment and widely-held principles of just war doctrine. But he was not against all war AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE. Lincoln was not against the U.S. fighting in ALL wars in ALL situations (as we know from that war he helped start in 1861).

By contrast, Dorothy Day was against all war AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.

Therefore, if a politician today is opposed, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE (based either on the Constitution or on Austrian Economic Theory, Ayn Rand’s writings, or whatever), implacably opposed, NO MATTER what the situation or conditions may be, to ALL Minimum Wage laws, ALL Anti-Monopoly Laws, ALL Child Labor Laws, ALL mandatory Social Security Retirement programs, ALL Inheritance Taxes, ALL Income Taxes, ALL National Healthcare laws, ALL laws requiring business owners to negotiate with Labor Unions, ALL Unemployment Insurance laws, ALL Food Stamp-type programs, and so on, THEN he or she is in fact that a DISSENTER from Catholic Social Doctrine, since Catholic Social Doctrine says clearly that all of those things are legitimate and permissible, in general (though not mandatory).

Why are such politicians certainly DISSENTERS? Not because, at given time, he may think contrary to the Common Good to raise the Minimum Wage or have a Minimum Wage, but because his assertion is that these things ARE NEVER ALLOWABLE as a matter of a PRINCIPLE that is HIGHER than the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Therefore, respectfully I cannot agree with your statement that “The social proposals of both parties are equally moral today and equally in line with Church teaching.”

I myself cannot find a single major national Catholic elected official or politician or commentator who is fully faithful to both Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine and Catholic Social Doctrine. I wish I could find such a person. I’d send them a check immediately.

Am I wrong? Have my teachers misled me about Catholic Social Doctrine? I am not an original thinker. I just say what my teachers have taught me.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I cannot believe you are seriously equating the abortion, the murder of an innocent baby who has never drawn a breath, to someone who is alive but can’t figure out a way to get food.

This is UMI:

The inset pic is also Umi at 3 months old. She weighed 3.5 lbs. That’s approximately the weight of a six-month old fetus.

Umi is a not-dead growing baby because someone gave money to Save the Children.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)



(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

25,000 a day.

Mercy Corps

Save the Children

 

[Ender]

But I constantly hear popular national right wing politicians and commentators in the USA say that, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, the Government should have no role in improving or helping the material/economic situation of its citizens, and that instead, these matters should be handled ENTIRELY by the FREE MARKET and PRIVATE CHARITY. Anyone who says that, as a matter of principle, is a dissenter from Catholic Social Doctrine. That’s just a fact.

But what is not a fact is your description of “right wing” principles. I challenge you to find a single example of a (serious) person making such a radical statement. What the right says is that the government is too large and controls too much of society - but that is a long way from saying the government should have no involvement whatever.

Therefore, if a politician today is opposed, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE (based either on the Constitution or on Austrian Economic Theory, Ayn Rand’s writings, or whatever), implacably opposed, NO MATTER what the situation or conditions may be, to ALL Minimum Wage laws, ALL Anti-Monopoly Laws, ALL Child Labor Laws, ALL mandatory Social Security Retirement programs, ALL Inheritance Taxes, ALL Income Taxes, ALL National Healthcare laws, ALL laws requiring business owners to negotiate with Labor Unions, ALL Unemployment Insurance laws, ALL Food Stamp-type programs, and so on, THEN he or she is in fact that a DISSENTER from Catholic Social Doctrine, since Catholic Social Doctrine says clearly that all of those things are legitimate and permissible, in general (though not mandatory).

I didn’t say you couldn’t invent a position that was at odds with Church teaching. What I said was that neither party has positions today at odds with those teachings (on social justice). Certainly no party has the position you just described above.

Therefore, respectfully I cannot agree with your statement that “The social proposals of both parties are equally moral today and equally in line with Church teaching.”

Your descriptions don’t apply to either party; they are pure invention.

Am I wrong? Have my teachers misled me about Catholic Social Doctrine? I am not an original thinker. I just say what my teachers have taught me.

The Church does not define what means should be employed to achieve her goals. She says “feed the poor”; she does not say “increase the minimum wage.” Political parties disagree on means, which is justifiable as those are prudential choices and are in fact the responsibility of the laity to make.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

Wow. I think you have an unrealisticly rosey view of the conditions in Europe at that time. Human beings, may well be essentially the same today. As far as motivations, and goals. But, the world we operate in. Would be un recognizable to the citizens of that past. Nor would we be able to return successfully to their ways. As charitable giving is cyclical. The money to be spent, ebbs, and flows on it’s own calender. The needs of the, well, the needy. are constant. Everything we do is based on a calender. Workers have to be payed monthly, as do their bills. You can fault the perceived bureaurats. But, I know them personally. They are hard working and caring people.

ATB

While it is true. That we have many things that would. amaze someone from the Middle Ages. I would say two main things. One, the technology, which I think. Time travelers from the past, could figure out. Quickly. But the other, the depravity of the people. The loss of Faith. The loss of morality. The loss of dignity of human life. These would hurt those people’s hearts, I think.

Returning to their ways would be. difficult, true. But why? Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing?

Did I fault the bureaucrats? I only mentioned that they are not monks and nuns caring for people. I mentioned that the bureaucrats are overworked, that they are paid a wage commensurate with their state in life, that of a lay person. This is more expensive than maintaining a religious, who has vowed poverty, no?

 

[St_Francis]

And somehow we are not morally compelled to prevent either? We should not insist on a false dilemma between choosing to avert starvation and preventing abortion. Can we not emphasise both? This is not the American political arena where we pit one predetermined set of views against the other. We are Catholics, and we emphasise the value of life above all things.

What exactly would you have us do, and who exactly are you referring to? Should the US do something? Should we as individuals do something? And are you suggesting that we as individuals are not already doing something? That maybe the reason only 25,000 people die is that many individuals are contributing to the feeding of many?

 

[jeannetherese]

Originally Posted by jeannetherese

The notion of value being tied to stage of ‘assembly’ has been consistantly challenged by many who are committed to defending life. Privileging those who are fully assembled seems to exclude those marginalized by birth defects or injury. Biologicaly, at the point of conception, the human being is complete.

Equal priority. Equal does not mean “privileged.” When “right to life” also means “right to live,” (Julia May)

Thank you for this point of clarification Julia May. I should have tightened my quote to avoid causing disturbance. My concern was in regard to the notion of what it might mean to be ‘fully assembled’. Little Uli, months behind in her development due to malnutrition might, by some, be considered be be less than fully assembled and I would not wish to see her devalued as a human being. As I read over your posts, it seems that we may share a pro life ethic which supports the right to life in all stages of development and seeks to address factors which militate against life.
May God bless us all!

 

[jeannetherese]

Not to derail the thread but I just checked up on Mercy Corps and Save the Children with charity Navigator. Mercy corps spends 88.1% of each dollar on program expenses, Save the Children spends 90.7 % of each dollar on program expenses.
I compared this with information available at CRS: Catholic Relief Services spends 94% of each dollar on program expenses.
crs.org/2010-annual-report/
I hope this is helpful for those looking to donate to charities such as these.
May God, Creator of all life bless us all!

 

[Julia_Mae]

What exactly would you have us do, and who exactly are you referring to? Should the US do something? Should we as individuals do something? And are you suggesting that we as individuals are not already doing something? That maybe the reason only 25,000 people die is that many individuals are contributing to the feeding of many?

It’s not enough.

We have RECREATIONAL FOOD.

If this issue got half the attention abortion did, all the money wasted making every random “pro-life” Internet site owner rich would be going to stop this terrible suffering and death.

Do more. You. Personally. DO SOMETHING.

 

[Julia_Mae]

My concern was in regard to the notion of what it might mean to be ‘fully assembled’. … As I read over your posts, it seems that we may share a pro life ethic which supports the right to life in all stages of development and seeks to address factors which militate against life.
May God bless us all!

Amen. And forgive us.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Not to derail the thread but I just checked up on Mercy Corps and Save the Children with charity Navigator. Mercy corps spends 88.1% of each dollar on program expenses, Save the Children spends 90.7 % of each dollar on program expenses.
I compared this with information available at CRS: Catholic Relief Services spends 94% of each dollar on program expenses.
crs.org/2010-annual-report/
I hope this is helpful for those looking to donate to charities such as these.
May God, Creator of all life bless us all!

CRS is not allowed to operate in many areas of Africa because it is religious. This is why, for this specific problem, I recommend these two who are very active on the ground in this area.