To All Liberal Catholics

[mcrow]

I think the main thing is that there are two separate aspects of political liberalism, the financial and the social (as I’ve seen it called).

The financial is the part that gives money and other forms of aid to the poor, and this aspect is what Catholics are attracted to. And certainly the social teachings of the Church enjoin us to help the poor (altho this teaching has a boundary on the other side, as explained by Pope John Paul II in Centissimus Annis). And unfortunately some get involved and either through ignorance or carelessness, get their prioroties turned upside-down and add in the abortion, etc, issues. Their minds move away fromthe Faith and into the “modern” ways of thinking.

But there are those who honestly believe that the liberals have the solution to poverty, or st least the right direction in helping the poor, and also believe that abortion, etc, should be outlawed. Some have expressed that internal conflict here at CAF.

So, we all agree we should help the poor, we just differ on how to best accomplish that.

Of course we all agree on that basic point. However, the means of doing that is very different.

Conservatives believe that it should be something that one does out of the goodness of their hearts because of their faith and beliefs.

Liberals believe that everyone should be forced to do it through government policies whether they want to or not.

I disagree with the liberal view of forcing people to do it. Good, faithful people will give what they can and provide what services they can either way.

People don’t realize it, but before the government got into the health insurance business there were many free hospitals and free clinics in the US where anyone could get health care without cost. These places were funded via free will donations, mostly from the rich and from churches. Now, I’m not saying we could go back to that model now, but I think if there was less involvement in taxing the heck out of people, people would give more on their free will.

So, basically I’m saying that both want to watch after the poor and needy it’s just a matter of the right way to do it. I don’t see forcing people to do it as the right way.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree about the current system of helping the poor; so many indicators have gone down for the poor since we started this on a large scale in the 60’s.

I also see other problems, one of which Nahaingil touched upon: people think that the government is taking care of the poor, so they don’t have to. And this to me perpetuates the material poverty, but also causes a lot of spiritual poverty.

The current system is ridiculously bloated and inefficient (73% to administrative costs???) and violates the principle of subsidiarity. But I don’t have much hope that it will change.

 

[Contarini]

Of course we all agree on that basic point. However, the means of doing that is very different.

Conservatives believe that it should be something that one does out of the goodness of their hearts because of their faith and beliefs.

Liberals believe that everyone should be forced to do it through government policies whether they want to or not.

I disagree with the liberal view of forcing people to do it.

But it’s a duty. It’s a matter of justice. It’s not some kind of optional thing you do out of the “goodness of your heart.” There’s nothing truly conservative about such a bizarre notion. It’s a duty that applies to any society, as a whole, that calls itself just.

Now if pragmatically it turns out that the poor can be more effectively cared for through private means, that’s an entirely legitimate argument. But I’m suspicious of it in practice, because nearly always the people who make it seem also to believe this weirdness about care for the poor being some kind of optional thing rather than a basic requirement of justice and decency. In other words, I’m happy to hear the pragmatic argument, as long as we agree that if it turns out that private means will actually leave more people “out in the cold” than public, government-sponsored approaches, then the latter are clearly a moral requirement.

So, basically I’m saying that both want to watch after the poor and needy it’s just a matter of the right way to do it. I don’t see forcing people to do it as the right way.

I see no essential difference between this and the argument that abortion is bad but shouldn’t be illegal. There’s a huge difference of degree, for sure. A society that does not attempt to prevent the murder of children in the womb is far more glaringly unjust than a society that fails to provide adequately for the poor. And it’s far more obvious that preventing murder should be done by the government than that care for the poor should. But the structure of the argument is identical in the two cases. The assumption about the private nature of morality is the same. Calling one argument “conservative” and the other “liberal” simply indicates to me how pointless such labels are.

Note that I’m talking about an argument that uses words like “force.” In other words, I’m addressing the basic question about the role of government, not the pragmatic question of which method will work better. It may turn out to be the case that government action is effective in preventing abortion and ineffective in providing for the poor. And as I said, it certainly says something worse about a society that it doesn’t legally forbid the murder of children in the womb than that it doesn’t legally enforce care for the poor. But insofar as both positions claim “this thing is good but people shouldn’t be forced to do it,” they are the same kind of argument.

Edwin

 

[mcrow]

It’s a duty to take care of the needy, no doubt but in America we do not have a religiously based legal system. I’m not sure that it would be right to do that way either. The law of the Lord does not need the Governement to enforce it. Most people in the US have been shown the word or the Lord or are able to be shown the Word though ministries. I don’t believe I’ve read anywhere in the bible or in the church teachings that implies that people should be forced to obey the Lord. In fact, it seems that the preference is for his people to see the right in the teachings and come to Him and obey him because it is right, not because they are forces. He gave us free will, I don’t see where the government forcing (via tax) to do charitable good is true to the free will the Lord gave us.

I think we please the Lord much more by volunarily doing good, not by doing good because we were forced to do it.

And don’t kid yourself by saying it’s not “forcing” when if you don’t do it they can put you in jail or take away your home. Now, I’m not suggesting there should be no taxes, we have to have some government to provide for a common defense and other basic government functions. I just think that instead of being what it was meant to be, the government has become this power creeping body that more and more is controlling more and more aspects of our lives. Pretty soon we will just be handing over 75% of our pay to the government and then they’ll tell us where, when, how, and if we’ll get to see a doctor.

I simply think the Government is beginning to overstep it’s purpose and it could be scaled back a bit, not so much as some would suggest but it is too big.

 

[St_Francis]

You could say my ideas are in flux, because I have more to learn, but this is how I see it.

In response to your argument about abortion, well, first, from our previois discussion I noticed that you don’t really get the Catholic position, but that aside, it is the job of the government to protect the people, and it not the government’s job to provide for the poor. The government has some obligations in this regard, which may include “force,” but overall, it doesn’t have the same obligation to do that as it does to protect the people which includes prosecuting people who kill/murder others, and of course the corrollary obligation to make laws about this.

The obligation of the government as I understand it is to ensure that structures are (name removed by moderator)lace to help the poor, and to facilitate in various ways and to varying extents.

That would be like the state and federal governments in the US.

Locally would be where most of the work was done. Consider how things were in mwdieval times. Religious (mknasteries and convents) cared for the poor, the elderly, the ill when families were unable to do so. Geel, Belgium, is a town where St Dymphna went after her father went mad and attacked her. After her death, many miracles occurred forthe mentally ill, so people started making pilgrimages there. The priests called upon the residents to open their homes to the pilgrims and over time, they became adept at caring for the mentally ill. It was a place for them to go for centuries.

Now, in the US if a bunch of mentally ill people showed up, some would call the police, some would protest that the governme t wasn’t doing enough for them, some would band together to c are for them, and some would send them to the poorhoise., right? and the thing is, the ones I think would be doing the most Catholoc thing would be the ones who pitched in and helped, and I bet that the group would be equally at least composed of either side of the political middle.

Did you know rhe tv star Danny Thomas started St Jude’s hospital?

Did you know that lepers in England were cared for in monasteries in England until King Henry 8th stole all their land?

There are so many great ideas of how to decentralize the power with guilds and other organizatiins as well. These types of organizations also serve as a sort of bridge and buffer between the people and the ruliing classes but are private groups.

These are just a few examples of how things happened in a thoroughly Catholic society, where the poor were cared for and the government was not the one doing it all.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I believe that the state policy should aim to decrease the number of abortions. This is something we should agree on.

.

My question is: Why do you think the number of abortions should be reduced?

 

[MarkInOregon]

The problem with banning abortion is that the ban precludes obtaining reliable statistics. At the same time, it provides a convenient excuse for the politicians to limit other anti-abortion policies, because if the problem apparently does not exist, solutions are unnecessary, and these other policies cost money. Now, I believe this would be a sensible trade-off if the ban was effective…

Would you then suggest that we legalize murder? Does the ban on murder preclude us from obtaining reliable statistics about murder? Have politicans used “murder is illegal” as a convenient excuse to limit other anti-murder policies? Would you argue that because people still commit murder the ban on it is ineffective and should be repealed? If you wouldn’t argue the above for murder why would you argue it for abortion? Do you really think we could cut down the murder rate by legalizing murder and focusing our attention exclusively on other prevention matters? Shouldn’t we do both?

…except that I am familiar with the case where demographic data clearly suggest that it is not. The evidence is very simple: you have two neighboring countries with a similar society and similar economic situation. Country A allows abortion on demand, country B does not. Country A (where abortion is legal) has about the same fertility rate than country B. The same contraceptives are available in both (in fact, in A they are cheaper). So unless people in B have less sex than people in A (no evidence thereof), it follows that the rate of conception is the same in A and B, so abortion-free B should have higher birth rate. It does not (in fact, it is slightly lower!). This indicates that the real abortion rate in A and B is the same. So from this the only conclusion you can draw is that the abortion rate is the same? Is it possible that in Country B where abortion is not legal that people use contraception at a higher rate because abortion is illegal? Wouldn’t that explain why the birth rates are the same in your example? Why do you say no evidence that they have sex less? Wouldn’t that also be an explanation for equivalent birth rates? Couldn’t one look at the fact that the birth rates are the same as an indication that people are indeed having less sex just as easily as jumping the the conclusion that it must mean the abortion rates are the same?

 

[Contarini]

It’s a duty to take care of the needy, no doubt but in America we do not have a religiously based legal system.

That’s the same specious and amoral argument people use to say that there shouldn’t be laws against abortion. It makes no sense. The job of the civil law is indeed not to force people to practice the true religion. But the job of civil law is to promote and defend the common good. And obviously taking care of the needy falls under that, as does (even more urgently) defending innocent life from conception to natural death.

I’m not sure that it would be right to do that way either. The law of the Lord does not need the Governement to enforce it.

Then just what do you think law is for? How, if at all, should Christians participate in public life?

Of course not all sins should be illegal. Of course it’s not the job of the government to make people good Christians. That’s a straw man. Once again: it is the job of the civil authorities to promote and defend the common good.

He gave us free will, I don’t see where the government forcing (via tax) to do charitable good is true to the free will the Lord gave us.

This seems, logically, to be an argument against having any laws at all. And I have some sympathy with a Christian anarchist position.

And don’t kid yourself by saying it’s not “forcing” when if you don’t do it they can put you in jail or take away your home.

Of course in some sense it’s “forcing”–but the same is true for all sorts of other things, like speed limits.

If you think there should be taxation at all, why not for this? It doesn’t make any sense. The Church has never denied the right of civil authorities to levy taxation. Jesus said “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I hear folks on this forum use this passage to justify all kinds of attitudes to the state that have nothing as far as I can see to do with the original context of the passage. But obviously the question of taxation does.

Now I agree (in fact I’ve insisted on this in other contexts) that this isn’t instruction for how a Christian government should use taxation. But the right of the government to tax shouldn’t be questioned. And I fail to see why this is any less legitimate a reason for taxation than anything else.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In response to your argument about abortion, well, first, from our previois discussion I noticed that you don’t really get the Catholic position, but that aside

It’s an unreasonable and unjustified aside. What I said in that other discussion was taken from another thread on this forum, and it was learned from Catholics–both posters on this forum and online essays to which they linked. It was supported (and I could show you if you cared) by orthodox, well-respected Catholic ethicists.

This is not the first time that someone has accused me of “not understanding Catholicism” because I have been listening to the “wrong” Catholics. . . . .

it is the job of the government to protect the people, and it not the government’s job to provide for the poor

First of all-can you give me a source for this view? If you are representing “the Catholic position,” surely you can give me some evidence showing that this is the Catholic position. I certainly know many learned and devout Catholics who disagree with you on this.

But in the second place, substantively I don’t see a difference. Protecting the people includes protecting them from dangers such as starvation or malnutrition. It includes providing opportunities for them to be educated, etc. It seems illogical to say that the government must protect people from enemy nations or criminals or mad elephants but isn’t allowed to protect them from wind and weather and hunger and disease.

The government has some obligations in this regard, which may include “force,” but overall, it doesn’t have the same obligation to do that as it does to protect the people which includes prosecuting people who kill/murder others, and of course the corrollary obligation to make laws about this.

I agree that defending human life against murder is the most basic obligation of the government. But providing for the needs of the poor seems to me to be an extension of the same principle. You have said that you disagree, but you have given me no reason for your disagreement. Nor have you shown me that your position has any support in Catholic teaching.

The obligation of the government as I understand it is to ensure that structures are (name removed by moderator)lace to help the poor, and to facilitate in various ways and to varying extents.

Then I’m not sure what we are arguing about. I am entirely in favor of the principle of subsidiarity.

Locally would be where most of the work was done. Consider how things were in mwdieval times. Religious (mknasteries and convents) cared for the poor, the elderly, the ill when families were unable to do so.

But you’re creating a false dichotomy: one of the marks of a holy monarch was that he or she did things to provide for the poor. Louis IX founded a number of hospitals himself. Granted, the line between personal beneficence and government action was thinner or even nonexistent in the Middle Ages. The “state” as we know it really didn’t exist. And I’d be happy if it still didn’t. But it does. And as long as it exists and is doing anything at all, and as long as Christians participate in it, this is one of the things that Christians need to try to get it to do.

There are so many great ideas of how to decentralize the power with guilds and other organizatiins as well.

I’m all in favor of decentralizing power. I have a lot of respect for a consistent libertarian like Ron Paul, though I do disagree with some of his views. The folks who really worry me are the ones who are happy to have a big government when it comes to killing people, but start talking about the evils of coercion when anyone suggest that the government might use force more indirectly to protect the weak and needy.

Edwin

 

[MarkInOregon]

Excellent. But if the law is ineffective, i.e. does not actually prevent people from breaking the law, what is the point in having it?

In other words, which is worse: N legal abortions, or M illegal abortions you don’t even know about?

Come on now–laws prevent many people from breaking them–just not all people. Are you for a lawless society simply because 100% of people don’t follow the laws we have?

It is also funny that you dismiss out of had, just simply refuse to accept, that people can control themselves and have less sex–you treat people as if they are animals driven by instinct and not rational creatures with the ability to make an informed decision. We have somehow exulted sex as the highest good and everyone should be entitled to it when ever they want–without any consequences–after all we just can’t control ourselves. Look around at western culture–it is everywhere, it is cheap and it is casual and we will fight for the right to kill babies to get it. We have turned ourselves in nothing more than drug addicts who will do anything for the next fix–and justify it at all costs. We are better than that and it is time we proclaimed it and reclaimed society.

 

[nahaingil]

The politically conservative also volunteer more and give more blood. They also engage in more religious activity.

Exactly. Anyone else remember the Obama “Guns and religion” line? A conservative wouldn’t say such a thing.

Most conservatives are Chrisitians. Christians as a whole donate more money and time in service than those who are not. IME, most liberals are either non-religious or anti-religious. Some have a concept of a creator but it’s not compatible with our beliefs and many Christian congregations beliefs.

I just can’t see a Catholic wanting to associate themselves with people who approve of fetal murder, gay marriage and are Catholic hating. Most attacks on our church come from liberal sources.

It’s not about liberals being right (or certainly not better) it’s about both sides being wrong. I only fall into the conservative category because I am pro-life. Otherwise I completely disagree with both. Political conservativism is not consistent with Christianity. It is simply a economic system that promotes capitalism. Morality is a voting play.

I am aware of the statistics of volunteering etc…If conservatives volunteer more it’s because they are religious (as the stats show), not because they are conservative. Not to mention that just because liberals are worse at it, doesn’t mean conservatives are actually doing a good job. Almost every non-profit I’ve worked with runs on a shoe-string budget, while political action groups are usually more financially secure (comparatively).

Making social justice about which of two ridiculous political labels you belong to creates dichotomies and keeps people from truly embracing what it means for us to be Catholic. Or has no one read the Pope’s last few encyclicals?

 

[St_Francis]

It’s an unreasonable and unjustified aside. What I said in that other discussion was taken from another thread on this forum, and it was learned from Catholics–both posters on this forum and online essays to which they linked. It was supported (and I could show you if you cared) by orthodox, well-respected Catholic ethicists.

Yes, I remember your alluding to another thread, and if you could link to one or two of the articles, I would like that. Perhaps I am not properly understanding the argument.

I want to reply to the rest of what you wrote, but I am looking up some things.

Thanks!

 

[JosephNY]

You should keep in mind that being a liberal means that you have a mental sickness. And thats what liberals are.

 

[mcrow]

It’s not about liberals being right (or certainly not better) it’s about both sides being wrong. I only fall into the conservative category because I am pro-life. Otherwise I completely disagree with both. Political conservativism is not consistent with Christianity. It is simply a economic system that promotes capitalism. Morality is a voting play.

The part you seem to misunderstand is that part of political conservatism is religion. As I stated above, not all conservatives are religious but a large portion are and they vote based on their faith and values. You can argue whether or not there are any true conservatives in on congress, but religion is very much a part of political conservatism.

I am aware of the statistics of volunteering etc…If conservatives volunteer more it’s because they are religious (as the stats show), not because they are conservative. Not to mention that just because liberals are worse at it, doesn’t mean conservatives are actually doing a good job. Almost every non-profit I’ve worked with runs on a shoe-string budget, while political action groups are usually more financially secure (comparatively).

Yes, conservatives do a higher volume of charitable acts because of their faith, that’s my point. More conservatives are christian therefore more conservatives do charitable acts than liberals. That last statement is nonsense they are non-profits which by nature necessitates a shoe-string budget. All money is used in the serves they provide, if they happen to have more than their expenses they reinvest it into the organization showing zero profit. It’s the way it works, I know, I work for a large non-profit organization.

Making social justice about which of two ridiculous political labels you belong to creates dichotomies and keeps people from truly embracing what it means for us to be Catholic. Or has no one read the Pope’s last few encyclicals?

Well, I will point out that I didn’t say you had to be conservative to be Catholic, just that I see liberalism as being incompatible with Catholicism. I actually think Catholics are less conservative as a whole than other Christians. I would probably classify most Catholics in the moderate or moderate with a slight right lean.

 

[mcrow]

That’s the same specious and amoral argument people use to say that there shouldn’t be laws against abortion. It makes no sense. The job of the civil law is indeed not to force people to practice the true religion. But the job of civil law is to promote and defend the common good. And obviously taking care of the needy falls under that, as does (even more urgently) defending innocent life from conception to natural death.

Then just what do you think law is for? How, if at all, should Christians participate in public life?

Of course not all sins should be illegal. Of course it’s not the job of the government to make people good Christians. That’s a straw man. Once again: it is the job of the civil authorities to promote and defend the common good.

This seems, logically, to be an argument against having any laws at all. And I have some sympathy with a Christian anarchist position.

Of course in some sense it’s “forcing”–but the same is true for all sorts of other things, like speed limits.

If you think there should be taxation at all, why not for this? It doesn’t make any sense. The Church has never denied the right of civil authorities to levy taxation. Jesus said “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I hear folks on this forum use this passage to justify all kinds of attitudes to the state that have nothing as far as I can see to do with the original context of the passage. But obviously the question of taxation does.

Now I agree (in fact I’ve insisted on this in other contexts) that this isn’t instruction for how a Christian government should use taxation. But the right of the government to tax shouldn’t be questioned. And I fail to see why this is any less legitimate a reason for taxation than anything else.

Edwin

We’re not going to completely agree on this. I think that the government is needed, laws are needed, helping the needy is needed, and stopping abortion is needed. I think we can agree on those basic things. I don’t think there is any way we’ll agree on how these issues should be addressed. I think the answer is more activity from Christians in educating people, perhaps laws that fully inform women of the dangers of abortion and to explain the moral impact of them. The law at the least should require a consultation with a chaplain so that they can be fully informed of the moral impact. More effort should be made to push these mothers toward adoption. I think there are more productive ways to combat the issue than trying to ban it, particularly in states full of abortion rights people.

 

[SanAgustin]

Trying to attach a political label around Catholicism is dangerous. Even worse, when people try to apply “liberal” and “conservative” labels as they are understood in the United States of America, please remember that there are a lot more Catholics is other parts of the world and that these labels don’t mean the same there.

And to the poster that said liberalism is a mental disorder, your statement highlights everything that is wrong with the political conversation in this country.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Trying to attach a political label around Catholicism is dangerous.

VERY dangerous and I think it’s immoral as well

 

[RobbyS]

That’s not true. The cost of coverage is/was prohibitive for a number of people.

Edwin

The high cost of medicine is the result of along chain of events. First of all the decision of business to reward employees with free/cheap medical insurance instead of increasing their wages. Then we have the desire of the Democratic Party to imitate the NHS in Great Britain. Under Lyndon Johnson we get something like that but only for the aged and infirm, which is to say Medicare/Medicaid. But the infusion of federal money into health care does what it has done in education, which is to drive up the cost. It also served to turn medicine into a business and adulterate the relationship between doctor and patient. The basic one is a fact that My family doctor pointed out to me before Medicare passed. There is no way that supply can ever meet demand in this field. People desire good health; indeed, people expect to have it up to the time of their deaths. Short of this, they wanted health care that works to achieve these impossible goals. A kind of bidding war goes on, with each citizen expecting the same care that the President receives. Well, I exaggerate, but that is the trend. No system was meet these goals. Rationing is inevitable.

 

[RobbyS]

VERY dangerous and I think it’s immoral as well

Liberal Catholicism is better described as modernism, although a variety that puts more stress on politics than the old theological modernism. Perhaps social gospeler is a better descriptor.

 

[SanAgustin]

Liberal Catholicism is better described as modernism, although a variety that puts more stress on politics than the old theological modernism. Perhaps social gospeler is a better descriptor.

I think the poster that said “liberalism” is a disease (a lame mantra from a talk show host I think) was talking about political US liberalism, not liberal Catholicism. Although I’m not sure if the poster would appreciate the difference.