To All Liberal Catholics

[Whitacre_Girl]

How can war not be intrinsically wrong, then? I thought the reason that abortion and euthanasia were intrinsically wrong because we cannot take life, because it is for God to decide when someone’s life ends. Most wars inevitably involve ending human lives.

There are times when war is justified to end tyranny and the violation of basic human rights. I hate to go to Godwin’s law here but I can’t think of a better example. WWII is a good example of a just war. Hitler was taking over the world, and committing mass genocide in his borders. This is an instance where NOT going to war would (in my opinion) count as a sin of omission. To stand by and not put a stop to this is almost as horrific as doing it.

However - killing an unborn human child is NEVER just.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The funny and sad thing about this whole debate is that both sides are wrong and do not even see why. The truth is far more down to earth and not filled with hate and remarks about how you are not a “true” Catholic.

**The fact is George W. Bush was our president for 8 long years and did not do a whole lot to stop abortion. In fact our government is set up to insure that one person never has much power, even the president. The closest that can be done is to TRY to put pro-life people on the bench, however in truth, that is a lot harder then it looks. Once a person is put on the Supreme Court, they are there for life. The worst part is no matter how you think they will vote, they might not vote that way. Both parties have put people on the bench that vote against them more often then not. **

Even if the court ruled against abortion, it would not take long for an amendment to be set before the people on the issue and we all know we do not have to votes to stop them. So that would not do a whole lot of good anyways. In fact it could end up worse because the bill might strip states of any and all rights to pass laws about it.

Now to the other side who seems to think that abortion is not an issue or that it is an impossible fight to win, please try to remember that these are real babies we are talking about here. Not an idea or a goal, real people who are being murdered in what should be the safest place in the world. More to the point, we are not always called on to win the fight, but to fight. It is not our fault if abortions happen even when we try to do everything in our power to stop them. We are called to resist the culture of death with every breath in our bodies. Don’t forget here that we ARE in a war here, with a very real and very powerful enemy who does not just want to kill you, but to damn you.

In closing, I am not saying I have the answers. In fact I do not think that easy answers exist on this issue. What is important here is to love, teach, pray and trust. We are called to be great saints, please try to remember THAT is our biggest and best goal we can ever obtain.

You actually put into words exactly why we should always be voting pro-life. Bush actually did as much as he could to get abortion at least slowed down. See, with 1/3rd of all pregnancies ending in abortion it’s a steam roller that one person in 4-8 years isn’t going to stop cold turkey. It’s just not going to happen. He did, however, work hard to get legislation passed that would make it harder such as ending partial-birth abortion and setting a term limit.

The other thing is we have to have pro-life politicians in all aspects of government. Especially the presidency. You are right that they HAVE to get pro-life judges on the bench. Just in this shor tterm with Obama more pro-choicers are on the bench and you can bet your bottom dollar that they are working HARD to keep abortion legal. I won’t say “safe, legal, and rare” because they are only batting 1/3rd of those claims given the sheer number of abortions and orgs like PP saying they want to INCREASE abortion numbers.

The truth is, abortion is a cultural freight train. It’s going to take a long line of pro-life presidents and pro-life majorities in politics and other aspects of public life to slow this thing down enough to stop it. If we try to derail this train, it will cause a MASSIVE train wreck.

The sad truth is that until this horrific crime against humanity is stopped, there is no excuse to EVER vote pro-choice. EVER.

 

[nordskoven]

“And they’ll blast you to pieces if you promote ‘socialist’ ideas such as public neo-natal care for poor young mothers and their babies…” Republicans founded the WIC program. I hope you’re not confusing Planned Parenthood with public neo-natal care. PP founder Margaret Sanger’s goal was to eradicate all brown-eyed people. Heil, Hillary. Her “public care” program was to jail sick people who went to private doctors. Republicans prosecuted the Civil War and ended slavery. Republicans initiated civil rights under Eisenhower, and were stymied by Southern Democrats. The Civil Rights Act passed under LBJ [implicated in the murder of JFK by the BBC not aired in the USA but on YouTube/#8] only because of Republicans. Republicans have gotten a bad rap from the same agendized press that gave us the “evil” Pius XII only six short months after the end of World War II. Pius XII, per the communist-infiltrated press (See: Venona files of KGB documents) allegedly conspired with the NAZI’s even though his glowing eulogy by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir contradicts such hate-speak. Republicans are dumb. George W. Bush had degrees from Yale and Harvard. Democrats are smart. But no Obama college transcripts.

Domestic Partnerships are an alternative to gay marriage. This would allow any two adults to incorporate and create households that can afford the exorbitant cost of living while enjoying certain legal protections, useful in the case of two single mothers. Even Civil Unions are not desired by the gay community that wishes non-gender-integrated couples to be united in “marriage.” This is cultural predation, as the only recorded instance of homosexual marriage is Nero’s “marriage” to the slave boy who looked like his wife he kicked to death. Liberal Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno forwarded a brief supporting a defendant accused of child pornography for taking pictures of kids pulling pants down and dresses up at playgrounds. One recent proposal by the liberal Democrats was to make “discrimination” against homosexual pedophiles–pederasts–a hate crime; this at the same time rejecting the same hate crime status for pregnant women and veterans. One may note that homosexual-on-homosexual violence is at an exorbitant rate so the true nexus of hate crimes against homosexuals are homosexuals themselves.

Females are not priestesses because women are not at fault for the “Sin of Adam.” Males, and only then those males called by God, are to atone for the “Sin of Adam.” Saddling women with the fault for Original Sin, as when done by popular culture, has shown to lead to more denigration of and violence towards woman, God’s gift to an ungrateful Adam. Adam had his responsibility for life on earth and he blew it. But he repented. Woman, and through her to her seed, is given the separate divinely-granted power and authority to crush the head of Satan, the “Father of Lies and Murder,” and his minions. The liberal agenda seems to put women and children last. Lies and murder: liberal propaganda; plus abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and bombing non-aggressive countries to empower the Muslim Brotherhood, the same people who advised Hitler to kill, not jail, Jews. Are we there yet? “It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat.”
– Chicago liberal Father Andrew Greeley, paraphrased by replacing “Republican” with “Democrat.” To all liberal Catholics, I ask you to join in prayer:

Most High God, we have no conscience apart from You. Let us cleave tightly to Your will and guidance through Peter, the Rock of our salvation. Grant us unity in the Holy Spirit. Let the Blessed Virgin Mary, “pierced with a sword of sorrow that the thoughts of all may be revealed,” expose all that is hidden, and cleanse all that is corrupt in the most merciful Sacred Heart of her Son, Jesus Christ. All praise and thanks to You, Daddy, Brother Jesus, and our Comforter, the Most Holy Trinity. AMEN

 

[Jkimbo]

Hmm, #2 and # 3 are areas I differ on, does that make me a liberal? I hope not!

1. Abortion (strongly oppose)
2. Euthanasia (undecided, sympathetic)
3. Embronic Stem Cell Research ( support Stem cell research)
4. Gay Marriage ( strongly oppose)

 

[St_Francis]

How can war not be intrinsically wrong, then? I thought the reason that abortion and euthanasia were intrinsically wrong because we cannot take life, because it is for God to decide when someone’s life ends. Most wars inevitably involve ending human lives.

We cannot take innocent life; however, we have the right to self-defense. First, you must understand that death in self-defense or war cannot be willed, merely foreseen as an unfortunate side effect of defense.

Second, whar would happen without the right of self-defense? We wpuld have no way of stopping bullies and thugs who want to harm others. We have all seen scenes on tv where a criminal holds a gun to a hostage’s head and an excellent marksman kills the criminal before he can kill the hostage. But the marksman does not want to kill the crook, he just wants to protect the hostage, it is the hostage’s own actions which create a situation in which what will protect the hostage is the criminal’s death.

And so in war, which is why we have the Just War Theory, which you can find in the Catechism. The government has a certain responsibility to protect its people and that unfortunately sometimes requires war.

 

[St_Francis]

Hmm, #2 and # 3 are areas I differ on, does that make me a liberal? I hope not!

1. Abortion (strongly oppose)
2. Euthanasia (undecided, sympathetic)
3. Embronic Stem Cell Research ( support Stem cell research)
4. Gay Marriage ( strongly oppose)

WRT #3, I just wanted to clarify that there is a huge amount of stem cell research based on stem cells which are not derived from embryos, so there is a huge difference between embryonic stem cell research and general stem cell research.

And it seems that embryonic stem cell research has accomplished nothing, while adult stem cell research has been showing geat potential. In fact, given the enthusiastic response to speeches about ESC research at the 04 Democrat Convention, I would say the main point of it is to “justify” the continuance of abortion.

 

[Contarini]

Civil unions: If I still voted, I’d vote in favor of civil unions. They are long overdue. Christian charity requires them, and past injustice necessitates them. I am a very strong believer in Sacramental Marriage.

I take you to mean that you don’t believe that same-sex unions are sacramental marriage. If so, then I have some sympathy with your pro-civil-union position. My own preference would be to allow for very broadly defined civil unions that would allow non-related adults who have a longstanding commitment to care for each other to recognize this commitment legally, in a way that clearly took no notice of whether the people in question were having sex with each other or not. (Such unions could, for instance, involve more than two people–they could be entered into by a monastic community or some other local religious congregation). But I recognize that this position has a lot of complications and there may be conclusive arguments against it of which I’m not aware.

**

Pro-choice

: Insisting the rest of society go along with my religion’s view of reality is how we ended up burning heretics and gunning down a doctor as he exited his church on Sunday and then congratulating ourselves about it, which is disgusting in the extreme. Hate is not a Christian virtue. **

This argument seems illogical in the extreme. Would you apply the same argument to the abolition of slavery or the abuse of women or the civil rights movement? Wasn’t Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “insisting the rest of society go along with his religion’s view of reality”?

If human life begins in the womb, then any decent society should protect human life. Period. To say that because my view of human life is shaped by my religion (as everything should be) therefore I can’t advocate it politically is to deny the free expression of religion. And it would, historically, have killed most of the great reform movements in Western society.

Please reconsider this–it’s a morally and intellectually bankrupt argument.

I have no problem with being Catholic and not being willing to abrogate the right of another to their beliefs.

People have a right to their beliefs. They don’t have a right to commit murder, even if they sincerely believe it isn’t murder.

Did Nazis have a right to murder Jews just because they thought they did?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, the reason that abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and same-sex marriage are considered “non-negitiable” is that they are all intrinisically wrong. War, for example, is not intrinsically wrong; a just war is not wrong and may even be obligatory.

I get that (except for the idea that war may be obligatory, about which I’m highly dubious). That is actually my point.

In the case of war or the death penalty, there are factors that must be considered before one determines that these things are wrong. But once one has made the judgment that a given war or a given application of the death penalty is wrong, it is no less evil than abortion, because it also involves the unjust taking of human life. The difference is that an unborn child cannot be justly killed, period.

In fact, if we were to define “abortion” as a medical intervention to end a pregnancy (and not, as the Church does, as the deliberate, direct killing of the unborn child), “abortion” so defined would not be intrinsically evil either. If the purpose was to save life, and every genuine effort was made to save both lives, and if the action was not one that by its nature directly killed the child, then I think all Catholics would agree that it would be right to remove the child from the womb under certain circumstances. In principle, this is no different from the kinds of precautions that have to be taken in just war. The difference is that in just war there are “non-innocents”–people who have deliberately chosen to take up arms in an unjust cause–who may be killed if necessary, although even then they should not be killed callously or needlessly. In the case of pregnancy, that is not the case. (Some pro-choice folks argue that the child is not “innocent” because it’s invading the mother’s body, but I’m sure we both agree that this is a monstrous argument.)

As I have studied Catholic social justice principles, I have become less of a US-conservative, but I still vote for them over the Democrats because I do not see the Democrats as adhering to Catholic principles of social justice and more than Republicans do.

And I am not criticizing you. It’s easy for me to pontificate on this because I don’t vote. I recognize that it’s a tough choice–as long as folks do recognize that it’s a tough choice I’m slow to criticize them, although I tend to agree with the majority opinion on this forum that most of the Catholics who vote Democrat probably aren’t thinking through the issue carefully enough.

The main problem with voting for Democrats because of prudential issues such as capital punishment or war is that that decision ignores the elephant in the living room of Democrat support for abortion. The Dems would be against at the idea of applying the death penalty to a rapist, but support the ability of a woman to apply that sentence to the innocent human who results from the rapist’s crime. The dems may disagree with the wars which Bush got us into for which they voted on the basis of the same intelligence and information on which Bush made his decision, but they still support an intrinsic indefensible taking of human life all the time.

Indeed. But similarly, we have the Republicans who claim to support the “culture of life” and yet seem positively gleeful about taking “non-innocent” life. I’m sorry, but the more I observe contemporary Republican politicians, the more convinced I become that the basic values and motivations of the Republican party are expressions of the culture of death. The passions they appeal to are generally evil passions. I don’t think that means that Christians should support the Democrats. I think that abstention from voting, attempting to support a third party or independent candidates, and the careful choice of lesser evils are all valid options.

So if I were unable to vote for a Republican because of issues like these, I would still be unable to support or vote for the Democrats because of their support for abortion and intrinsic evils. I would have to vote third party, write-in, or not vote.

Yes, and de facto that’s what I do–my failure to become a citizen in spite of living in this country for thirty years is largely a matter of inertia and genuine confusion about the appropriate path to citizenship in my rather odd case, but it’s partly due to the fact that even if I were a citizen I’d find it very hard to vote for any national candidate with a reasonable chance of winning.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

To: All Conservative Catholics

On the flip side, I would like to know how you could ever vote for a conservative politician who clearly would be going against the Church’s social doctrine on issues like:

1. capital punishment
2. health care (remember, the Church teaches that this a a right)
3. the war in Iraq
4. labor unions
5. immigration
6. treatment vs. incarceration for drug addicts
7. taking care of the poor, etc.
   My point is that if we are going to deny communion to John Kerry then we damn well ought to deny it to Rick Santorum as well. Better yet, let’s give them both communion and try to get them both closer to what the Church teaches…

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” he said.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,” he said.

Cardinal Raymond Burke*

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. 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.***

***Pope Benedict XVI

---

 

[FrIntervention]

Nice try, but no…
The Pope and Bishops have clearly condemned the death penalty as practiced in this country.
The Vatican and Bishops have clearly said that health care is a right. You define it the way you want.
The Vatican and Bishops clearly said that the war in Iraq did not meet the qualifications of the Just War theory
Pope Benedict (no liberal he) has clearly re-iterated the need to have and protect labor unions.
The Church (and Bible) clearly demand humane treatment of immigrants, legal or otherwise.
The US Bishops have clearly favored treatment over incarceration for drug addicts.

You’re right in saying that these things are debatable. Your wrong if you imply that your conservative voting record is more in line with Church teaching than my liberal voting record. Don’t tell me to deny communion to John Kerry but give it to Rick Santorum…they are both an abomination to Church teaching…

Let me start out by saying that the Church transcends the labels liberal and conservative. The issues you mention are very much open up to debate. For instance, the Church accepts the death penalty in some circumstances (CCC, 2267). What do you mean health care is a right? Please define health care. The War in Iraq is not cut and dry either. For instance, what is the most prudent course considering we are already in Iraq? We have to remember that the Church believes in Just War (we can debate whether the Iraq war was just). Labor unions actually increase unemployment (and so do minimum wage laws; but I think unions are important and that individuals should have the right to join them). Regarding immigration, where does the Church teach individuals to break a country’s laws (illegal immigration)? The treatment and incarceration of drug addicts is open to honest and informed debate. And we can argue about the best ways to take care of the poor.

I can respond just as easily to a list of criticisms of liberals. The point is that we should follow the Church when she has spoken definitively and avoid broad labels like liberal and conservative. Even individual issues are open to debate in most cases.

 

[MillTownCath]

For the sake of informing others, I’d like to hear in this thread why you believe being a Liberal Catholic does not automatically put one in a bad standing with the Church and its social doctrine.

I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Labor. Can’t get more Catholic than that.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This argument seems illogical in the extreme. Would you apply the same argument to the abolition of slavery or the abuse of women or the civil rights movement?

The question is, am I separated from the Church through my beliefs? I do not believe abortion is okay. I agree with the Church. I am also pro-choice. Your judgement notwithstanding, the question in the OP is about what I believe about myself and the Church.

War has come up as a topic. If some hierarchy in the Church insists I believe that war is ever okay, then I will have a firm disagreement with them. But I do not believe that every single thing that flies from the mouths of Popes and Bishops is to be considered some sort of infallible teaching or inviolable law one must bow to to be Catholic. In fact, just the opposite. Fideism is still a sin. So is war. Always has been, always will be. IMO. Again, this attitude and belief does not separate me from my Church.

Only One will judge our Christian commitment, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, He is not posting on any Internet forums.

 

[Contarini]

The question is, am I separated from the Church through my beliefs?

I’m not a Catholic, so I’m not in a position to tell you that. But I don’t think you agree with the Church, though I’m not sure it’s so much over basic principle as over a muddled understanding of the relationship between Church teaching and civil law.

I do not believe abortion is okay. I agree with the Church. I am also pro-choice.

If by “pro-choice” you mean that you think there is or should be a right to have an abortion, then you don’t agree with the Church. Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent human being. How can anyone have the right to do that? To suggest such a thing is monstrous. And the Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave error to defend such a “right.”

Now if as a prudential matter you say, “I don’t think that in the current state of society our priority should be to fight abortion legally,” I’m sure many folks here would still say that you were contradicting the Church, but I think it’s a lot more dubious. I don’t understand how you can believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and not think that preventing such killing should be a high priority. I take the point that given the nature of the relationship between unborn child and mother, the practical considerations are somewhat different than in other cases of murder. But in principle, if you agree with the Church about the status of the unborn child, it makes no sense for you to be in any sense “pro-choice.”

War has come up as a topic. If some hierarchy in the Church insists I believe that war is ever okay, then I will have a firm disagreement with them. But I do not believe that every single thing that flies from the mouths of Popes and Bishops is to be considered some sort of infallible teaching or inviolable law one must bow to to be Catholic. In fact, just the opposite.

Naturally you will get no argument from this Anglican on that one

Edwin

 

[Julia_Mae]

Naturally you will get no argument from this Anglican on that one

Edwin

I won’t get any argument from any informed Catholics, either.

 

[silicasandra]

I’m Pro-Life and Pro-Labor. Can’t get more Catholic than that.

I have been struggling with voting for a long time. Honestly, there aren’t really any labels that fit me, but I am definitely pretty far to the left on some issues (at least in American terms). But I am not willing to compromise on abortion (anymore. I used to, but no longer.)

I guess it’s third party/write-in for me. I can’t in good conscience not vote when I have the power to do so. If we all did it, maybe we wouldn’t be stuck in such a deadlock all of the time! I have pretty much had it with the two-party system.

 

[MarkInOregon]

For the sake of informing others, I’d like to hear in this thread why you believe being a Liberal Catholic does not automatically put one in a bad standing with the Church and its social doctrine.

I didn’t think Catholics were liberal or conservative (I assume you are speaking of political affiliation) but that we were Catholic. I consider myself Catholic not liberal or conservative. I find positions in both to be contrary to being Catholic. Why would you assume that being conservative automatically puts you in good standing with the Church? It is time we put away political labels in defining ourselves and simply define ourselves as Catholic and act that way.

Peace be with you,
Mark

 

[Julia_Mae]

I didn’t think Catholics were liberal or conservative (I assume you are speaking of political affiliation) but that we were Catholic. I consider myself Catholic not liberal or conservative. I find positions in both to be contrary to being Catholic. Why would you assume that being conservative automatically puts you in good standing with the Church? It is time we put away political labels in defining ourselves and simply define ourselves as Catholic and act that way.

Peace be with you,
Mark

I think the issue here is what “acting that way” involves.

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. One of the “five non-negotiables”–same-sex marriage–is not a human life issue at all. While I oppose same-sex marriage, I can’t possibly see it as being equally important with the life issues.

Edwin

Enjoy your posts. They are always well thought out, measured and polite.

One observation–in some ways this is also a human life issue–though not in the same way as say abortion. Same-sex marriage is not open to the transmission of life. The transmission or creation of human life is not a possibility in such a union. As such I would argue that it is indeed a human life issue–one that deals with the creation of human life as opposed to the taking of human life.

Peace be with you,
Mark

 

[St_Francis]

I didn’t think Catholics were liberal or conservative (I assume you are speaking of political affiliation) but that we were Catholic. I consider myself Catholic not liberal or conservative. I find positions in both to be contrary to being Catholic. Why would you assume that being conservative automatically puts you in good standing with the Church? It is time we put away political labels in defining ourselves and simply define ourselves as Catholic and act that way.

Peace be with you,
Mark

When I hear the phrase liberal Catholic, I think of Catholics who advocate ordaining women to the pristhood and the like. Most of those people are also liberal politically, so a lot of people that the two groups are the same, but I think some people can be liberal politically, oppose abortion, et al, and still be good Catholics.

 

[St_Francis]

…In fact, if we were to define “abortion” as a medical intervention to end a pregnancy (and not, as the Church does, as the deliberate, direct killing of the unborn child), “abortion” so defined would not be intrinsically evil either. If the purpose was to save life, and every genuine effort was made to save both lives, and if the action was not one that by its nature directly killed the child, then I think all Catholics would agree that it would be right to remove the child from the womb under certain circumstances…

Edwin

We cannot simply redefine abortion and make it all right! The act of abortion is the taking of innocent human life, and the intention of saving the life of the mother does not change the intrinsic evil of the act itself.

Now, other acts may occur. For example, altho doctors know that a medical treatment such as chemo may cause the death of the child, the intention of the act itself is not to kill the child; the death of the child is a side-effect.

I hope I have clarified the difference. Please let me know if I haven’t.