To All Liberal Catholics

[yosupman]

I am too. And I believe in universal health care too (although I also support privitized health care for those who want better service, etc.). The Church teaches that we SHOULD have universal health care. I’m not sure why you brought this up. Maybe you inferred that I said something against Church teaching.

But I said:

And maybe I’m wrong, but I always seemed to view health care as half an economic issue, and half a social issue. but when categorizing, I consider it an economic issue.

The basic teachings on faith and morals in church are of course a must do. The church can teach the principles, but its up to the layman to apply those principles in the world. I would say there is a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. For the United States I would say the capitalist system has benefited a tremendous amount of people. Is it perfect? No. But it has produced the most successfull economy in the world undisputed.

As far as an official standing in the church, ya, you can be a liberal as long as you follow the faith and moral teachings of the church. But as far as truly helping your nation, I would say liberalism has drastically harmed our country. Is the conversative ideology perfect. No. The neo-conversative movement has promoted almost endless war, and so have some on the liberal side also.

But on health care, I would say for the US, since we’re such a big country, healthcare should be provided at the state level, where legitimate differences warrant different types of programs.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Well, I had vague ideas that seemed to go this way and that but this explanation of Dr Peter Kreeft’s made a lot of sense. It comes from a talk he gave, which I can’t get to on my iPod, but here is the page, and the talk is a ways down under something to do with First Things. (It’s somewhere around the middle of the page.) and the part I am referencing starts within a few minutes and he talks about how the government is for justice and the Church is for mercy, more or less, and shows how that affects the Communist-democratic discussion, and it’s not really long.

So in trying to find something aside from that, because I was looking for something more authoritative and also in text rather than audio, what I found when looking rather quickly, is that there seems to be no particular authoritative statement from the Church on this topic.

So no one really seems to have an answer, not even non-Catholic political philosophers.

So I’m willing to go on the basis that the Church has no particular understanding, only quite a lot of different theories, and that the Church has been speculating about this for centuries, because I also ran across some writings of St John Chysostom discussing exactly what we are discussing now.

So I guess I have to go back to my previous idea that the success of almost any system will be directly related to the proximity of the people to Christ and His teachings.

Unfortunately, it seems that a very nice society can be built up that way, then everyone becomes complacent and falls away and then things don’t go so well.

 

[nahaingil]

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.

My point is exactly that I get classified as a conservative even though I agree with them pretty much only on moral issues, which is the case with many people. It’s not conservatives, it’s religious people who get classified as conservative. We all know about the political party switch that many Catholics made after abortion was made legal. My experience with the republican party in Michigan is that it’s mostly just lip service. It’s not that liberals are at all better. It’s that our entire legal system has too much moral baggage on both ends to be worth supporting.

Also, political action groups aren’t for profit either. I’m not talking about having tons of money, I’m talking about not having enough to serve local populations in great need. Which is the case with most of the non-profits I have worked for. Especially ones that I have worked with that help women in need, since they are too religiously affiliated to receive government funding (which wouldn’t be a problem, if people gave enough).

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.

I think that’s the point. A criticism of liberalism should not automatically entail a defense of conservatism. Many liberal Catholics are that way for understandable reasons. The republican economic policies are terrible. It’s because there is a such a polarization that they end up throwing out the baby with the bath water and lose their moral ground. It’s incredibly hard to listen to the selfishness of some conservative ideologies when you see the despair that infects the inner city. I am an orthodox Catholic because the only remedy for despair is ultimately God. Many liberal Catholics who I have read and worked with seem to have let the despair infect them. I can understand why some Catholics lose the orthodoxy of their faith when they face a party that is openly un-compassionate, opposed to one that seems compassionate on the surface. The answer is to be truly compassionate, instead of reactionary. Show them God and you will teach them hope.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The basic teachings on faith and morals in church are of course a must do. The church can teach the principles, but its up to the layman to apply those principles in the world. I would say there is a huge difference between liberals and conservatives. For the United States I would say the capitalist system has benefited a tremendous amount of people. Is it perfect? No. But it has produced the most successfull economy in the world undisputed.

As far as an official standing in the church, ya, you can be a liberal as long as you follow the faith and moral teachings of the church. But as far as truly helping your nation, I would say liberalism has drastically harmed our country. Is the conversative ideology perfect. No. The neo-conversative movement has promoted almost endless war, and so have some on the liberal side also.

But on health care, I would say for the US, since we’re such a big country, healthcare should be provided at the state level, where legitimate differences warrant different types of programs.

Wow, its hard to believe someone responded to me.

I think capitalism is the best in the form of a social market economy (think West Germany). Many Catholic parties in Europe support it, and I like it also.

As far as conservative-liberal things and helping the country, I think some policies should DEFINITELY be conservative, but some should be (somewhat) liberal. IMHO the U.S is WAY too involved in foreign affairs and what not, and I am not a fan of the neo-conservative movement. On the other side of things, the liberal social agenda (legal abortion, gay “marriage”) of many people is FAR worse than the neo-conservative movement. So I would agree that liberalism hurts more than helps. I myself am a moderate with conservative leanings.

you seem to have a good strategy for healthcare. As long as it’s universal (preferably low costs), doesn’t fund abortions, euthanasia etc., and we still have great treatment, I’ll be alright.

(Think Switzerland )

 

[St_Francis]

…Also, political action groups aren’t for profit either. I’m not talking about having tons of money, I’m talking about not having enough to serve local populations in great need. Which is the case with most of the non-profits I have worked for. Especially ones that I have worked with that help women in need, since they are too religiously affiliated to receive government funding (which wouldn’t be a problem, if people gave enough).

This is a problem I see with government aid–people think that the government will take care of everything. The government has $850 billion allocated to Health and Human Services, something less than half of which seems to have been spent on Medicaid. That leaves $75,000 for each of the 46 million estimated to be living in poverty today. But the government spends 77% on administratiin, which a lot of people do *not * know.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

VERY dangerous and I think it’s immoral as well

Right. Christ and His Church are not of this world.

But that doesn’t mean that some policies of the Church that its members support the world labels conservative moderate and liberal.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Also, just to get a random thought out of my head, I think that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate if there is a financial problem for the state or something like that; rich people have more to give. however, if everything is fine and there are no problems, I see no reason why the rich should have to give more. Unless someone can prove otherwise.

 

[RobbyS]

This is a problem I see with government aid–people think that the government will take care of everything. The government has $850 billion allocated to Health and Human Services, something less than half of which seems to have been spent on Medicaid. That leaves $75,000 for each of the 46 million estimated to be living in poverty today. But the government spends 77% on administratiin, which a lot of people do *not * know.

Yes, this is the weakness of the liberal or statist approach. Historically, the Germans were the ones who devised the welfare state, so at bottom it is a form of paternalism, and therefore aims to make citizens dependent on the state. Socialism is another form of paternalism, but it is much less patient with intermediate institutions. Therefore. Instead of private insurance agencies, you have direct state payments and instead of insurance executives making decisions, you have government boards.You get a situation like in public education, which pushes the parents out of the way and leaving education in the hands of government officials.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes, this is the weakness of the liberal or statist approach. Historically, the Germans were the ones who devised the welfare state, so at bottom it is a form of paternalism, and therefore aims to make citizens dependent on the state. Socialism is another form of paternalism, but it is much less patient with intermediate institutions. Therefore. Instead of private insurance agencies, you have direct state payments and instead of insurance executives making decisions, you have government boards.You get a situation like in public education, which pushes the parents out of the way and leaving education in the hands of government officials.

Citizens shouldn’t be dependent on the government, but the government should still give a little boost to citizens. And public education isn’t that bad if the nation is Catholic like Germany used to be…

BTW the government having programs doesn’t equal socialism as you seem to imply.

 

[kama3]

Wow, we have laws against rape, and that still occurs. By your logic, since people are still raping people, there’s no point in having those laws against rape.

Rape leaves a victim, which can testify and genetic material. Murder leaves a body (or a missing person). These crimes can be detected, evidence can be analyzed, and the perpetrator can be identified and prosecuted. A correctly performed abortion – especially an early term abortion – leaves no evidence. That makes an abortion ban inherently difficult to enforce (although not completely unenforcable).

I think N-x% of abortions would be better than N abortions, even if I didn’t know about them.

Agreed.

But how do know what x is, i.e. how do you count illegal abortions? Worse, how do you know after, say, 20 years that the abortion rate did not rebound, because people have learned how to bypass the law? My problem with legal ban on abortion is that once passed, it puts everyone in a mentally comfortable ignorance.

The abortion rate in Poland was half the rate of Slovakia’s in 1980, and under 1/4th Slovakia’s in 1990, before abortion was banned. How would you account for this documented difference?

That’s easy. Before 1990, (Czecho-)Slovakian authorities were much more effective in suppressing Catholic Church than Polish authorties.

Is it possible that in Country B [Poland] where abortion is not legal that people use contraception at a higher rate because abortion is illegal?

Slovakia provides contraceptives for free under social security, Poland does not. So logically, Slovakia should have higher use of contraceptives. (Thanks for pointing this out, though. The amount of contraceptives sold in each country should be verifiable.)

Why do you say no evidence that they have sex less? Wouldn’t that also be an explanation for equivalent birth rates?

The problem is that Poland’s fertility rate is not equivalent, it’s lower (1.30 vs 1.37).

If ceteris paribus comparision between Poland and Slovakia is valid (and I don’t see anything which would obviously invalidate it (*)), then there are two possible options:

1. The anti-abortion law does not actually prevent abortions (i.e. the number of underground abortions is high enough to significantly influence the birthrate!)
2. The anti-abortion law makes people have less sex, which reduces the birthrate. If that’s the case, then – in face of woefully low birth rate in the first place – the law is actually detrimental to the society.

(*) In fact, Poland has both higher Catholic Church membership and more pricy contraceptives, which should work towards higher birth rate!

 

[St_Francis]

Rape leaves a victim, which can testify and genetic material. Murder leaves a body (or a missing person). These crimes can be detected, evidence can be analyzed, and the perpetrator can be identified and prosecuted. A correctly performed abortion – especially an early term abortion – leaves no evidence. That makes an abortion ban inherently difficult to enforce (although not completely unenforcable).

It is true that abortion would be difficult to investigate and prosecute, but that should not be a reason for us to say it should be legal. Rape can also be very difficult to prosecute as it is usually done in private, and the victims frequently shy away from reporting it (making it in the US both the most under-and over-reported crime (overreported because of false allegations). This the victims are often also “invisible,” and evidence disappears very easily. And yet we do not think that we should get rid of our laws against rape, do we?

But how do know what x is, i.e. how do you count illegal abortions? Worse, how do you know after, say, 20 years that the abortion rate did not rebound, because people have learned how to bypass the law?

Yes, you have mentioned your concern about knowing the numbers on several occasions, and yet you did not answer when I asked why you had such a strong concern over knowing the number of abortions?

My problem with legal ban on abortion is that once passed, it puts everyone in a mentally comfortable ignorance.

I don’t really understand about people’s being in a mentally comfortable ignorance. They would probably know that abortion is feasible, just as are other major crimes. What would they be comfortable about? The fact that women are having abortions? There is actually a way of preventling the “problem” that abortion seems to be the solution to.

Poland has one of the highest percentages of practising Catholics in the world, as far as I can tell. Being a serious Catholic causes one to think about more serious things, things like sin, and life, and death and consequent judgement. You might not believe in all that–i noticed that you don’t have a religion listed-- but for those who understand and believe, sexoutside of marriage becomes difficult to consider as well as easier to avoid.

 

[nahaingil]

This is a problem I see with government aid–people think that the government will take care of everything. The government has $850 billion allocated to Health and Human Services, something less than half of which seems to have been spent on Medicaid. That leaves $75,000 for each of the 46 million estimated to be living in poverty today. But the government spends 77% on administratiin, which a lot of people do *not * know.

Well right, the government has taken over many of the functions that the citizens should be doing themselves. This joke pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

Systems explained using two cows:

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Well right, the government has taken over many of the functions that the citizens should be doing themselves. This joke pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

Systems explained using two cows:

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

Communism:

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

You wait in line for hours to get it.

It is expensive and sour.

 

[RobbyS]

Citizens shouldn’t be dependent on the government, but the government should still give a little boost to citizens. And public education isn’t that bad if the nation is Catholic like Germany used to be…

BTW the government having programs doesn’t equal socialism as you seem to imply.

Germany has never been a Catholic Country. In any case, the government should not have a monopoly on education. Because it is, private schools are unavailable to anyone but well-off people.

 

[estesbob]

Well right, the government has taken over many of the functions that the citizens should be doing themselves. This joke pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

Systems explained using two cows:

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a Bull. You then start a business selling calves-soon every has cow.

 

[St_Francis]

Germany has never been a Catholic Country.

I beg to differ. Germany was a Catholic country, or the lands now considered Germany were all Catholic until Martin Luther came along.

In any case, the government should not have a monopoly on education. Because it is, private schools are unavailable to anyone but well-off people.

And what makes you think that schools of the quality of current private schools would be available to the poor if the government got out of the education business?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Germany has never been a Catholic Country.

No, it was very Catholic until martin luther. Even after him, there are still many Catholic parts of Germany. West Germany as a whole was a Catholic country. Bavaria and areas along the Rhine are Catholic.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

In any case, the government should not have a monopoly on education. Because it is, private schools are unavailable to anyone but well-off people.

Exactly. that’s why there are public schools - free education for those who can’t afford it, and even for those who can afford private education. And it’s not as though public schools are that bad (although they aren’t great, let me tell you).

 

[St_Francis]

Exactly. that’s why there are public schools - free education for those who can’t afford it, and even for those who can afford private education. And it’s not as though public schools are that bad (although they aren’t great, let me tell you).

No, I was just pointing out his lack of logic, not justifying government-funded schools.

I think locally-funded schools (not necessarily government) are ok, but what we have now in the US, with federal funding of 6% driving 100% of the curriculum is insanity. (and it would seem that Obama has stopped that temporarily)

 

[Swiss_Guy]

No, I was just pointing out his lack of logic, not justifying government-funded schools.

I think locally-funded schools (not necessarily government) are ok, but what we have now in the US, with federal funding of 6% driving 100% of the curriculum is insanity. (and it would seem that Obama has stopped that temporarily)

Ok. but** I** was (sort of) justifying government-funded schools.

however, as a student, I would much rather go to a private school.