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

[TheRealJuliane]

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s! I think the church need not get any more involved in these crazy politics than it has to. What happened to separation of church and state? I think we should not vote and pray instead. Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy, Amen. Leave the politics to the kooks, our king is not of this world.

Separation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. We have a duty as citizens to participate in our government, and if anything, more Catholics need to get involved rather than think “I will leave it to someone else.” If more of us had been paying more attention over the last 20 years, we wouldn’t be in this situation now.

Politics is not just for “kooks!”

 

[Julia_Mae]

I am referring to the USA. There may already be such a party in some other nations or states.

It could change the status of the Church from non-profit religion. We can’t afford to start paying taxes.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Separation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.

Yeah, it really is to keep a church out of the state. That was a big problem, you know. The Crown told us we were committing adultery if we were not married in the Church of England. And other stuff. Like making immigrants sign a pledge not to pray to the Virgin Mary. State and church totally separate is the only way freedom of each can survive.

 

[catholictiger]

I understand your desire, but I do not accept part of your premise. What makes you think Repubs in general reject Catholic Social Doctrine, or that any particular Repub does? Catholic social doctrine is not what many think it is.

Recall, for instance, that Paul Ryan’s proposals were vetted by his bishop and do not, in and of themselves, reject any social doctrine of the Church. I think sometimes people mischaracterize the party based on what liberals have told them.

But don’t listen to me. Read the Social Encyclicals. Read them entirely, not just the parts that ring an immediate political bell in your mind. All you have to do is google “Social Encyclicals” and you’ll find all of them.

That’s not to say that Catholics should not have a more clearly Catholic vision and act on it politically. I think we should.

But as a previous poster noted, Catholic political parties don’t seem to work out because they tend to become just another political party, compromising the purity of their Catholic vision. I think that poster’s observation that Catholics ought to function more like the Tea Party in being an organized group to pressure politicians and parties to act in ways consistent with Catholic principles, is a good one.

just a simple question how do republicans follow catholic social teaching?

and how do you know you aren’t reading these documents just to make a political point.

we need to be careful when reading stuff like this, I don’t think we should not read it but we should be very very careful about taking our own interpretation without the aid of the church in interpreting what holy mother church says. I think all should read church documents but we should always seek professional guidance where possible.

but again how do republicans follow catholic social doctrine.

I personally believe that Catholics in the country should have no political home, both parties have their issues.

 

[Julian0404]

First, just a formatting comment - the “technicolor” highlights are a distraction to your message.

If my memory serves me, the “Republican” party was formed specifically to counter “slavery” a significant and major social failure of our Judicial and Legislative branch. But, today given the strength of the democratic party regarding its abilility to organize and secure all members to move in “lock step” to the same message and sell their souls in the process for the benefit of the party would make any 3rd party a very risky proposition as to securing a significant vote demographic out of the shute.

That being said, if the Republican Party continues to mimic the democratic party, then yes I think a 3rd party split of the Republican party is inevitable based upon the then perceived failure of the Republican Party to continue its adherence to a moral high ground; even though that might guarantee the success of the democratic party for 4 years, it would be the necessary wake up call to the Republicans, that they have lost a major demographic of the nation - and force a wake up call.

 

[St_Francis]

Yeah, it really is to keep a church out of the state. That was a big problem, you know. The Crown told us we were committing adultery if we were not married in the Church of England. And other stuff. Like making immigrants sign a pledge not to pray to the Virgin Mary. State and church totally separate is the only way freedom of each can survive.

The First Amendment states that the federal government shall not “establish” a religion. This referred to what England had done when Henry 8 left the Catholoc Church and established the Church of England. The King of England is the head of the Anglican church in England. Thus, British law enforced Anglicanism on the citizens, because this was the church it had established.

The “establishement” of a church by the government which is forbidden to the federal government was still permitted to the states–Virginia continued to have as its established church Episcopalianism.

Thus, the federal government cannot “establish” a church, but that does not mean that religion cannot enter the publc sphere of discourse. In fact, traditional Catholoc teaching is that the state is morally obliged to listen to the Church in matters of morals, since the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the King of The World.

 

[St_Francis]

As someone remarked, there are not enough Catholics in the nation to make such a thing work. We are not a multiparty system; for a new party to succeed, an existing one must go down.

I also have doubts that a religion- based party could gain traction in the USA with it’s fabled “wall of separation between church and state”.

ICXC NIKA

I do not think that the discussion of Catholic moral principles has to be put in religious terms. Even some atheists are pro-life, and I recall Small is Beautiful was very popular among people in general back in the 60s.

I also see that very small but very vocal pressure groups making huge inroads politically and socially in the US and other parts of the West. A group such as this would not require a majority of voters to be successful.

 

[kellerk]

At this point in our country, I don’t think it will matter much either which way you choose to vote. We have been warned about the evils of this world and what is to come, choosing a president or a certain political party is not going to change that. The problem is global, we have to look at the big picture here. I know I can practice my faith and am thankful for that. There may come a day we, like many other places in the world, will not be able to receive the Eucharist or go to church. That kind of persecution is what we have a duty to fight for. All the other stuff pales in comparison and is just distractions to our real mission.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The 5 Non-Negotiables for Catholic voters are:

Abortion

Euthanasia

Fetal Stem Cell Research

Human Cloning

Homosexual Marriage

There is no equivalency to those 5 non-negotiables and social issues.

First, is there really such a thing as an official list 5 Non-Negotiables for Catholic voters? Who said so? The pope? I hear and see this list a lot. But is it just a tool devised for electing politicians who claim to be Pro-Life?

Secondly, are the following NOT on a list of Non-Negotiables?

(1) Denial of religious liberty for persons of all religions. (Presently the presidential administration is being sued for denial of religious liberty in forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives in their insurance plans)
(2) The Catholic Just War Doctrine (using that doctrine Blessed Pope John Paul II unequivocally condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK; if Pope Pius XII had spoken out the way Blessed John Paul II did, maybe WWII and the Holocaust would have never occurred.). Why would this NOT be a non-negotiable. It DIRECTLY involves the KILLING of human beings.
(3) Racist legislation, or ending of legislation that makes racist discrimination illegal in hiring, housing, etc.
(4) Denial of lifesaving health care to Americans lacking the funds to pay for it. [at a political rally recently conservatives in the audience infamously chanted “Let them die!” for people without health insurance]

Even worse, all parties have consultants who advise the party leaders on how to win election. It has been reported that these consultants have advised professedly pro-life politicians to make only token efforts to criminalize abortion, since if abortion ever is criminalized, that will make it very hard for some politicians to get elected on the basis of conservative religious voters for whom lower taxes and less regulations on big corporations is not a galvanizing issue.

Some people have been puzzled about why professedly pro-life presidents have nominated people to the Supreme Court who turn out to vote pro-choice on abortion. Some have said that this was planned, so that abortion would remain legal and thus a constant campaign issue to be used to get the votes of conservative religious voters. In short, the conclusion is that politicians who claim to accept Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine but who dissent from Catholic Social Doctrine, on the basis that the Pro-Life Doctrine is a more grave matter, are, in fact, in some cases, just manipulating conservative religious voters.

Former Senator John Danforth, who ran as a pro-life politicians for his who career, after he retired wrote a book in which he confessed that he was not really fully pro-life and hated going to churches full of evangelicals in which he had to pretend to share their views. He said that the disagree with Roe vs. Wade, but only because he said he thought it had no solid basis in the Constitution. Rather, in his true view (kept secret during his career in politics, by his own admission) was that abortion laws should be decided by each state government, and he is okay if some states keep abortion legal. I cite him as just one example of a pretend pro-life politician. In my view, there are MANY more like him.

In politics, as in war, the “divide and conquer” strategy is one of the most effective. Dividing Catholics into those who vote only the basis of Pro-Life issues from those who give much value to Catholic Social Doctrine is way for both Godless Socialists and Godless Capitalists to get elected and to work together to lead the nation and the world further and further down the path to a Godless, Brutal Society.

At least, that’s one way of looking at all this.

 

[kellerk]

I don’t like to bring this up, and it may very well be against the rules, but I haven’t heard any discussion on what exactly it means to Catholics to be supporting someone from the Mormon faith. Has there been any research in this area? Please understand this is a genuine concern of mine, I am not trying to promote either party. If we are to be so against anything that does not comply with Catholic teachings, then how can we support someone of this faith?

 

[MarcoPolo]

As long as voters perpetuate the symbiotic 2-party system, we’ll continue to get more of the same (assuming the electoral process isn’t rigged).

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think that it’s difficult to find any candidate who supports Catholic moral priorities for a healthy society while not also worshipping corporations. Neither party does a good job of that. The symbiotic relationship among the financial system, lobbyists, Congress, and political campaigns is very corrupt, in my view, and feeds into maintaining the status quo as far as corporate power goes. I.m.o., the unbridled capitalism in this country – including the greed, the corruption, the fraud, the manipulation of the stock market (still operative long after the '08 meltdown), the relationship between U.S. corporations and the international monetary power brokers is very, very un-gospel. It most certainly does not affect only certain classes of people or certain origins of people, but all of American society, including the middle class.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t like to bring this up, and it may very well be against the rules, but I haven’t heard any discussion on what exactly it means to Catholics to be supporting someone from the Mormon faith. Has there been any research in this area? Please understand this is a genuine concern of mine, I am not trying to promote either party. If we are to be so against anything that does not comply with Catholic teachings, then how can we support someone of this faith?

You should not support a candidate for office based on their religion, per se, but on their stated positions on campaign issues (and, if an incumbent, on their record in office).

If you oppose someone because they are a Mormon, then you would be committing the same error as those who opposed John Kennedy 13 cycles ago for being Catholic. The fact that we disagree with Mormon theology is a non-sequitur; there are voters in this country who disagree just as strongly with that of the Catholic Church.

Election to office is not about theology.

You can’t get more “all American” than Mormonism – the faith is based here – until a Native American runs for the presidency.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[jeannetherese]

It seems to me that Pro-Life doctrine is an essential part of Catholic Social Doctrine. I’m a bit concerned that this thread title seems to see them as separate. Perhaps we should spend our energy helping Catholic and non-Catholic politicians to support all of our social doctrine. This thread could be a perfect start to that quest. May God bless us as we seek to do his will.

 

[St_Francis]

ETA: the multiple colors are difficult to read and some colors are practically unreadable on some screens–I had to put your post on the quote mode to be able to read it all. Just FYI as these things work out differently on different computers.

First, is there really such a thing as an official list 5 Non-Negotiables for Catholic voters? Who said so? The pope? I hear and see this list a lot. But is it just a tool devised for electing politicians who claim to be Pro-Life?

Secondly, are the following NOT on a list of Non-Negotiables?

You bring up two sets of points in your post. One set I will not address individually because they are the talking points of one political party and 1.I don’t want to derail the thread, and 2. we are not allowed to discuss those issues on this forum.

However, the overall issue of the Non-Negotiables: The Non-Negitables are *intrinsically *evil acts which are always and everywhere wrong in and of themselves. Tge other issues you specify are either no longer a legal problem in the US or are *prudentilal *issues which must be determined by the lawful authorities.

The difference between abortion and war is a difficult one for people to understand, because war certainly seems to involve death. However, the reason that abortion is wrong is *not *because a life is lost but because an innocent life is *taken. *

The just action of war (as opposed to an unjust entry into war or unjust actions in a war), otoh, is based on self-defense and is not the taking of innocent life. A war is “just” only on one side (or on neither side), because the other side has committed an action justifying the first side to go to war. So, if nation A invades nation B without just cause, then nation B has the right to fight back to repel the invasion. This does not give nation B the right to do *anything *in the course of the war, but does give nation B the right to do *something *to repel nation A.

Notice that in this case, it is nation B which is fighting a just war. Nation A acted unjustly and is *not *fighting a just war.

This is why there is a list of Non-negotiables–things we must *always *fight against and cannot ever accept.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I too am looking for a pro-life party that doesn’t require me to hate Mexicans as most of their southern voting base does.

Good point.

I also don’t like the hateful, race-bating anti-Mexican attitude I hear in some political rhetoric. Such an attitude is un-Catholic.

The pope and bishops have pointed out Catholic Social Doctrine that pertains to the issue of migration of peoples across national borders.

To me, it seems that some politicians are willing to set aside Catholic Social Doctrine or set aside Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine, and instead manipulate the fears and prejudices and lusts and greed of votes in order to get the power and fame that goes with government office.

Show me evidence of anti-Mexican attitude in the Republican party?

Pope Benedict has said states have the right to defend their borders:

nytimes.com/2010/10/27/world/europe/27pope.html?_r=1

 

[_Abyssinia]

First, is there really such a thing as an official list 5 Non-Negotiables for Catholic voters? Who said so? The pope? I hear and see this list a lot. But is it just a tool devised for electing politicians who claim to be Pro-Life?

Secondly, are the following NOT on a list of Non-Negotiables?

(1) Denial of religious liberty for persons of all religions. (Presently the presidential administration is being sued for denial of religious liberty in forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives in their insurance plans)
(2) The Catholic Just War Doctrine (using that doctrine Blessed Pope John Paul II unequivocally condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK; if Pope Pius XII had spoken out the way Blessed John Paul II did, maybe WWII and the Holocaust would have never occurred.). Why would this NOT be a non-negotiable. It DIRECTLY involves the KILLING of human beings.
(3) Racist legislation, or ending of legislation that makes racist discrimination illegal in hiring, housing, etc.
(4) Denial of lifesaving health care to Americans lacking the funds to pay for it. [at a political rally recently conservatives in the audience infamously chanted “Let them die!” for people without health insurance]

Even worse, all parties have consultants who advise the party leaders on how to win election. It has been reported that these consultants have advised professedly pro-life politicians to make only token efforts to criminalize abortion, since if abortion ever is criminalized, that will make it very hard for some politicians to get elected on the basis of conservative religious voters for whom lower taxes and less regulations on big corporations is not a galvanizing issue.

Where is the evidence?

Some people have been puzzled about why professedly pro-life presidents have nominated people to the Supreme Court who turn out to vote pro-choice on abortion. Some have said that this was planned, so that abortion would remain legal and thus a constant campaign issue to be used to get the votes of conservative religious voters. In short, the conclusion is that politicians who claim to accept Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine but who dissent from Catholic Social Doctrine, on the basis that the Pro-Life Doctrine is a more grave matter, are, in fact, in some cases, just manipulating conservative religious voters.

What truly pro life presidents have their been? George Bush was not completely pro life, he believed in restricting abortions. Abortion rate went down 8.1% under George Bush’s presidency, he enacted many pro life laws.

Former Senator John Danforth, who ran as a pro-life politicians for his who career, after he retired wrote a book in which he confessed that he was not really fully pro-life and hated going to churches full of evangelicals in which he had to pretend to share their views. He said that the disagree with Roe vs. Wade, but only because he said he thought it had no solid basis in the Constitution. Rather, in his true view (kept secret during his career in politics, by his own admission) was that abortion laws should be decided by each state government, and he is okay if some states keep abortion legal. I cite him as just one example of a pretend pro-life politician. In my view, there are MANY more like him.

That is one individual, and your opinion on other politicians that does not make it fact.

In politics, as in war, the “divide and conquer” strategy is one of the most effective. Dividing Catholics into those who vote only the basis of Pro-Life issues from those who give much value to Catholic Social Doctrine is way for both Godless Socialists and Godless Capitalists to get elected and to work together to lead the nation and the world further and further down the path to a Godless, Brutal Society.

At least, that’s one way of looking at all this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Benedict on non negotiables

Pope Benedict spoke to the European People’s Party in a speech March 2006, said, ‘as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.’

2007 in Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis the Pope said of the ‘not negotiable’ values as being of key concern to politics, ‘respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.’

2011 Pope Benedict said, ‘no one can claim to speak ‘officially’ in the name of the entire lay faithful, or of all Catholics, in matters freely open to discussion. On the other hand, all Catholics, and indeed all men and women, are called to act with purified consciences and generous hearts in resolutely promoting those values which I have often referred to as ‘non-negotiable’.’

2004 letter to the US Bishops on Catholic politicians and Communion then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, ‘while the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment… 'there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.’

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I do think that it’s difficult to find any candidate who supports Catholic moral priorities for a healthy society while not also worshipping corporations. Neither party does a good job of that. The symbiotic relationship among the financial system, lobbyists, Congress, and political campaigns is very corrupt, in my view, and feeds into maintaining the status quo as far as corporate power goes. I.m.o., the unbridled capitalism in this country – including the greed, the corruption, the fraud, the manipulation of the stock market (still operative long after the '08 meltdown), the relationship between U.S. corporations and the international monetary power brokers is very, very un-gospel. It most certainly does not affect only certain classes of people or certain origins of people, but all of American society, including the middle class.

Exellent post!

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Pope Benedict on non negotiables

Pope Benedict spoke to the European People’s Party in a speech March 2006, said, ‘as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.’

2007 in Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis the Pope said of the ‘not negotiable’ values as being of key concern to politics, ‘respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.’

2011 Pope Benedict said, ‘no one can claim to speak ‘officially’ in the name of the entire lay faithful, or of all Catholics, in matters freely open to discussion. On the other hand, all Catholics, and indeed all men and women, are called to act with purified consciences and generous hearts in resolutely promoting those values which I have often referred to as ‘non-negotiable’.’

2004 letter to the US Bishops on Catholic politicians and Communion then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, ‘while the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment… 'there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.’

Well, lets see now.

Party “A”- Ending abortion. Marriage as god intended. (man + Woman) Capital punishment. Ending workers rights. Tax breaks for the super wealthy. Reduction is social welfare programs. Turning SSI over to “the Market”. Doing away with Pension programs for retiree’s. (work til you drop)
Party “B”- Pro abortion. Social welfare in many forms, (I’ll included workers rights here) for all. Ending capital punishment? Legalizing same sex marriage. Forcing religious groups to violate their “faith traditions”.

I don’t see "dignity of the person " represented in either party.

Third party anyone?