To All Liberal Catholics

[bluelake]

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)

I can remember when the signs of ‘Abortion’ went up at the shopping mall. (1970"s) ?
I was flabbergasted. I spoke briefly to the young woman and asked her if she thought it was okay to kill a baby in the womb? She didn’t know what to say for a moment, then her memorized rhetoric kicked in, “it’s the mother’s choice” A choice to kill a child in the womb?
Think about it.
Now it’s legal!
I told my two girls we do not kill babies in this family. If you should be stupid enough to get pregnant, you will have the child and then decide what you will do next.
Thankfully, this did not happen.

God have mercy,
bluelake

 

[MillTownCath]

nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare
ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

I don’t support legalizing abortions, but we need to realize banning it is one of the least effective ways of reducing the abortion rate. Higher socioeconomic status and health care for women does more.

 

[estesbob]

nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare
ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

I don’t support legalizing abortions, but we need to realize banning it is one of the least effective ways of reducing the abortion rate. Higher socioeconomic status and health care for women does more.

This “study” has been debunked so many times I am surprised anyone still brings it up. Read the methodology-in countries where abortion is illegal they MADE UP the rate of abortion. They aslo made up the number of maternal deaths from abortion.

c-fam.org/docLib/20100602_WHO_FINAL.pdf

 

[kama3]

You offer *nothing *to support your assertion that there are just as many Polish women getting abortions now as before the ban.

I’m not asserting that abortion incidence in Poland today is the same as 18 years ago (before the ban). That is not meaningful, as society changes a lot over 18 years.

I’m asserting that comparision with neighboring Slovakia in 2010 shows that, ceteris paribus, real abortion rate in Poland is at least 10% and probably closer to 20%. Unless Polish women have much less sex than Slovakian women, which I simply don’t believe, there’s no other good explanation how a country with restrictive abortion law can have lower fertility rate than a similar neighboring country with liberal abortion law.

The above leads me to believe that the Polish ban on abortion is ineffective, i.e. it does not actually prevent abortions.

if abortion were outlawed in the US, women would engage in less sexual activity when they did not want to have children.

Wait, wait. So the purpose of abortion policy is to influence sexual behavior, not prevent abortions?

 

[kama3]

I notice that most laws cause people to hide their actions, in fact, I can’t think of a single law that people do not hide their breaking of.

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?

 

[kama3]

Read the methodology-in countries where abortion is illegal they MADE UP the rate of abortion.

Contrary to other criminal acts, illegal abortion, if performed correctly, leaves no evidence. This makes its extent difficult to quantify. So when determing if abortion ban is effective or not, you are forced to rely on guesswork.

Obviously, this is a perfect situation if you want to push an agenda. (Whichever camp you’re in).

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not asserting that abortion incidence in Poland today is the same as 18 years ago (before the ban). That is not meaningful, as society changes a lot over 18 years.

I’m asserting that comparision with neighboring Slovakia in 2010 shows that, ceteris paribus, real abortion rate in Poland is at least 10% and probably closer to 20%. Unless Polish women have much less sex than Slovakian women, which I simply don’t believe, there’s no other good explanation how a country with restrictive abortion law can have lower fertility rate than a similar neighboring country with liberal abortion law.

The above leads me to believe that the Polish ban on abortion is ineffective, i.e. it does not actually prevent abortions.

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?

Wait, wait. So the purpose of abortion policy is to influence sexual behavior, not prevent abortions?

Oh, the horror! That someone would actually think of possibly influencing sexual behavior!

OK, that aside, if one were to make illegal the killing of unborn babies, influencing sexual behavior could be neither the end nor the goal of the legislation. A person might be completely indifferent wrt sexual behavior but still wanting to stop the killing of unborn babies, can you see that?

However, I believe that when women see the lack of reliability of birth control, and knowing that they no longer have the “back-up” birth control of abortion, that their sexual behavior may indeed change.

 

[St_Francis]

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?

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.

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

I think N-x% of abortions would be better than N abortions, even if I didn’t know about them. I also think that the message a society sends when it says that abortion is in the same category as murder, rape, and other crimes, that this is also a good thing.

ETA: what is the deal with knowing about the abortions that occur? You seem extremely preoccupied with this issue of counting them.

 

[Contarini]

The Church does not say we MUST vote for someone because they are pro-life. It merely says we can not vote for a pro-abortion canidate unless they are more pro-abortion than they are.

I think you mean “unless the other candidate is more pro-abortion.” I have yet, in all the threads on this, to see where “the Church” has said this. I am not even sure that any bishops have gone so far as this, though I may be wrong. Certainly some lay activists have made this claim on the basis of their understanding of the Church’s teaching. What the Church says is that you can’t support the prochoice position itself (as in by choosing to vote for a candidate because he or she is prochoice). Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope, clarified that there needs to be proportional reasons for supporting a prochoice candidate. And certain individual bishops, such as Burke and Chaput, have made the further judgment that no such reasons presently exist.

If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

As we see constantly people who use your philosphy to support evil-makng absurd rationalizationtha to vote for a canidate who support taxpayer abortion on demand becuase they think he will increase social spending and/or promises to raise taxes on the rich.

Or rather, because they think that the candidate will on the whole do more for justice and mercy in the society than the opponent. I find it hard to imagine regularly or frequently supporting a “prochoice” candidate for those reasons. The other candidate would have to be pretty awful–and I’d say that they’d have to be fairly shaky on prolife and the “prochoice” candidate would have to show serious signs of being open to some limits on abortion. Otherwise surely a better approach would be not to vote or to cast a “protest vote.”

However, nowhere that I’ve seen in any official teaching of the Church is it said that you can only vote for a “prochoice” candidate if the other candidate’s position on that one issue is worse.

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

I thoroughly agree with Archbishop Chaput’s criticism of “prochoice” Catholics. But you are ignoring the huge difference between a prochoice Catholic and a prolife Catholic who votes on the basis of a wide range of issues. The fact that a candidate is “prochoice” must always be a serious reason not to vote for that candidate. But you have to look at the two candidates as a whole and not simply tote up their positions on any one issue, however important.

Granting that you may vote for a prochoice candidate if the other candidate’s position on abortion is worse gives the game away, because it logically follows that you may also vote for such a candidate if the other candidate’s position as a whole is worse. I could understand and accept a teaching that you can’t vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil no matter what the circumstances, but that is clearly not the Church’s teaching–everyone agrees on that.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I think you mean “unless the other candidate is more pro-abortion.” I have yet, in all the threads on this, to see where “the Church” has said this. I am not even sure that any bishops have gone so far as this, though I may be wrong. Certainly some lay activists have made this claim on the basis of their understanding of the Church’s teaching. What the Church says is that you can’t support the prochoice position itself (as in by choosing to vote for a candidate because he or she is prochoice). Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope, clarified that there needs to be proportional reasons for supporting a prochoice candidate. And certain individual bishops, such as Burke and Chaput, have made the further judgment that no such reasons presently exist.

If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

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 Burke

Or rather, because they think that the candidate will on the whole do more for justice and mercy in the society than the opponent. I find it hard to imagine regularly or frequently supporting a “prochoice” candidate for those reasons. The other candidate would have to be pretty awful–and I’d say that they’d have to be fairly shaky on prolife and the “prochoice” candidate would have to show serious signs of being open to some limits on abortion. Otherwise surely a better approach would be not to vote or to cast a “protest vote.”

However, nowhere that I’ve seen in any official teaching of the Church is it said that you can only vote for a “prochoice” candidate if the other candidate’s position on that one issue is worse.

I and others have posed quotes from popes, Cardinals and Bishops supporting our position. If you can fnd a single member of the magestrium who said there were proportionate reasons that woul have allowed a Catholic to vote fror Obama or any other Pro-abortion Canidate please post it.

I thoroughly agree with Archbishop Chaput’s criticism of “prochoice” Catholics. But you are ignoring the huge difference between a prochoice Catholic and a prolife Catholic who votes on the basis of a wide range of issues. The fact that a candidate is “prochoice” must always be a serious reason not to vote for that candidate. But you have to look at the two candidates as a whole and not simply tote up their positions on any one issue, however important.

Granting that you may vote for a prochoice candidate if the other candidate’s position on abortion is worse gives the game away, because it logically follows that you may also vote for such a candidate if the other candidate’s position as a whole is worse. I could understand and accept a teaching that you can’t vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil no matter what the circumstances, but that is clearly not the Church’s teaching–everyone agrees on that.

Edwin

There is no difference between a pro-abortion catholic and a “pro-life” Catholic who votes for pro-abortion canidates, Both have rejected Church teaching and supported an intrinsic evil,. I have posted quotes from Pope Benedict, Archibishop Chaput and Cardibal Burke affirming this

 

[Contarini]

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.

Thanks for that. It establishes that at least one prominent bishop has endorsed this approach.

I and others have posed quotes from popes, Cardinals and Bishops supporting our position.

Supporting the position that a person voting for a prochoice candidate for other reasons is no different than the prochoice candidate? In what post might I find these quotes?

If you can fnd a single member of the magestrium who said there were proportionate reasons that woul have allowed a Catholic to vote fror Obama or any other Pro-abortion Canidate please post it.

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said explicitly in 2004 that such a situation was possible:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons

And yes, I’m quite aware that specific bishops have expressed the pastoral judgment that it’s hard to imagine such proportional reasons existing. You cited Abp. Burke, above, saying that the only such reason would be that the “pro-choice” candidate being voted for supported some limits on abortion, while the other candidate did not.

Those pastoral judgments should certainly be respected by those who are under the authority of those individual bishops. But these are specific applications of the principles laid down by Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of the Church. They are not, themselves, the teaching of the Church, which allows in principle for such “proportionate reasons,” and certainly does not equate the “remote material cooperation” of a Catholic voting for a “pro-choice” candidate with the “formal cooperation” of the pro-choice candidate himself or of a voter who supported that specific position of the candidate.

There is no difference between a pro-abortion catholic and a “pro-life” Catholic who votes for pro-abortion canidates, Both have rejected Church teaching and supported an intrinsic evil. I have posted quotes from Pope Benedict, Archibishop Chaput and Cardibal Burke affirming this

Where? I have just given you a direct citation from Ratzinger (before he became Pope)
saying the opposite. One is “formal cooperation” and the other “remote material cooperation.” Formal cooperation is always wrong and makes a person ineligible to receive the Eucharist according to Catholic teaching. Remote material cooperation may be legitimate in principle (even if a case can be made that this is highly unlikely under present circumstances), and as far as I can tell it does not make a person ineligible to receive communion even if the person should be in error in weighing the “proportionate reasons.”

Oh, and here’s an article by Jimmy Akin analyzing the memo. Akin, like the bishops you mention, can’t see how there could be such proportionate reasons, and he helpfully points out (for anyone who might be confused by the language) that Ratzinger wasn’t endorsing “proportionalism,” since he was referring only to remote material cooperation, which isn’t itself intrinsically wrong. However, contrary to Akin’s protestations, even when all his caveats are acknowledged, the fact is that Ratzinger did say that in principle voting for a “pro-choice” candidate could be legitimate. And unlike Akin or Abp. Burke, Ratzinger did not say that such reasons had to involve the other candidate also being pro-choice.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Thanks for that. It establishes that at least one prominent bishop has endorsed this approach.

Supporting the position that a person voting for a prochoice candidate for other reasons is no different than the prochoice candidate? In what post might I find these quotes?

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said explicitly in 2004 that such a situation was possible:

And yet in Ratzingers letter he mare it clear that War and the Death penalty was not sufficient reasons to vote for a pro-abortion canidate . Chaput followed it up saying the economy and social issues were not sufficient followed with Burke saying the only way you could vote for a pro-abortion canidate was is his opponent was more pro-abortion than he was in fact you can not find single member the Magestruim stating any of these other issues were sufficient to allow a Catholic to support a pro- abortion canidate.

And yes, I’m quite aware that specific bishops have expressed the pastoral judgment that it’s hard to imagine such proportional reasons existing. You cited Abp. Burke, above, saying that the only such reason would be that the “pro-choice” candidate being voted for supported some limits on abortion, while the other candidate did not.

Those pastoral judgments should certainly be respected by those who are under the authority of those individual bishops. But these are specific applications of the principles laid down by Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of the Church. They are not, themselves, the teaching of the Church, which allows in principle for such “proportionate reasons,” and certainly does not equate the “remote material cooperation” of a Catholic voting for a “pro-choice” candidate with the “formal cooperation” of the pro-choice candidate himself or of a voter who supported that specific position of the candidate.

Where? I have just given you a direct citation from Ratzinger (before he became Pope)
saying the opposite. One is “formal cooperation” and the other “remote material cooperation.” Formal cooperation is always wrong and makes a person ineligible to receive the Eucharist according to Catholic teaching. Remote material cooperation may be legitimate in principle (even if a case can be made that this is highly unlikely under present circumstances), and as far as I can tell it does not make a person ineligible to receive communion even if the person should be in error in weighing the “proportionate reasons.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And yet in Ratzingers letter he mare it clear that War and the Death penalty was not sufficient reasons to vote for a pro-abortion canidate

No, he didn’t. He said nothing of the sort. He said that a candidate’s position on war or the death penalty would not be a sufficient reason to deny the candidate communion. That’s completely different.

Chaput followed it up saying the economy and social issues were not sufficient followed with Burke saying the only way you could vote for a pro-abortion canidate was is his opponent was more pro-abortion than he was

Indeed. Single bishops have indeed expressed such opinions, and these should be taken seriously. But that is not what was claimed.

in fact you can not find single member the Magestruim stating any of these other issues were sufficient to allow a Catholic to support a pro- abortion canidate.

I agree that Ratzinger did not list what such “proportionate” issues might be. But you cannot conclude from this that there are no such issues. Certainly people living under the authority of the individual bishops who have made such a pastoral judgment should respect the authority of their particular bishops. But that is not the same thing as a teaching of the Church.

The claim I’m opposing is that the Church has said that it is always wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate unless the opposing candidate is worse on that specific issue. You have failed to support this claim, since individual bishops do not speak for the Church as a whole. They are making the reasonable pastoral judgment that at the present time there are no such issues. That is not binding on the whole Church and is not the same thing as saying that there cannot be such issues.

You are the one who made a claim about what “the Church” teaches. Not only have you failed to support that claim by citing anyone speaking for the Church as a whole (which individual bishops cannot do), but I have given you a statement from Ratzinger that is incompatible with your claim. Ratzinger doesn’t need to give a specific example of a “proportionate reason.” It is possible that Chaput and Burke are right and no such reasons exist at this point (except for cases where two pro-choice candidates oppose each other and one has a preferable position to the other). It is possible that Ratzinger agrees with them. That doesn’t change the fact that “the Church” has not ruled out the possibility of such issues existing. Therefore, your statement was wrong. You are identifying as a statement of “the Church” what is in fact the statement of an individual bishop.

Ratzinger (pre- and post-election as Pope) and others who speak for the Church are very careful both in what they say and what they do not say. The fact that he does not list a specific “proportionate reason” certainly leaves open the possibility that no such reason exists in the U.S. context at present. But it also leaves open the possibility that such a reason does exist.

On the whole, the USCCB–responsible for joint pastoral guidance of the American Church as a whole, but with less authority than that of individual bishops in their dioceses, as I understand the Catholic polity–seems to indicate that such issues may exist. Individual bishops clearly think they don’t. So it’s fair to say that American Catholics as a whole do not have a single binding teaching on this point that they must follow, but that they are certainly responsible to think very, very carefully before engaging in “remote material cooperation” with so monstrous an evil as abortion–and I’d advise those Catholics living under the authority of the individual bishops who have said no proportionate reasons exist to obey the pastoral guidance of their bishops.

As you said, no bishop has ever said that a Catholic must vote for a candidate just because the other candidate is “pro-choice.” Catholics are always free to abstain from voting or to cast a protest vote, if they judge that voting for either “major” candidate would constitute a sinful cooperation with evil.

My position on this is academic, since I’m neither a Catholic nor an American citizen–but I live in the U.S. and I accept the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, so I am not just engaging in this debate out of idle curiosity. I was responsible for persuading at least one person in 2008 to abstain from voting rather than voting for Obama. So I have no stake whatever in defending a practice of routinely voting for pro-choice candidates out of a concern for other issues. I agree that one would need very, very serious reasons to do so, and I would have no problem following the pastoral guidance of a bishop who instructed me that no such reasons existed (though I might do so by not voting for either candidate at all). The point I’m arguing, however, is that this is the pastoral judgment of individual bishops and not the teaching of the Church as a whole.

I note that you declined to respond to most of my arguments. You insist on holding me to an unreasonable standard–you are the one who made the claim about what “the Church” teaches, and you are the one who needs to back it up in the face of the clear though general teaching to the contrary by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[mcrow]

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

This is not just a conservative position. I don’t believe in it myself but I know more liberal people who do.

1. health care (remember, the Church teaches that this a a right)]/quote]
   Sick people can go to the ER and get free care, it’s a non-point.

1. the war in Iraq

War is wrong but the church does not condemn defending yourself. Clearly G.W. thought there was a threat to us there. Was he wrong? Yes and no. Plenty of liberal voted for that war BTW.

1. labor unions

The church does not say one way or the other on these and neither does the bible so I don’t see how this is relavant. I think unions had a purpose at one time but I think now they mostly drive up prices on everything and the union members are not always the ones who benefit fromt he extra money.

1. immigration

I feel that people should be able to come here legally and the process to get a work visa should be easier. However, those who come here illegally should be punished under the law. I don’t see how sending them all back to mexico would help anything.

1. treatment vs. incarceration for drug addicts

This isn’t a conservative/liberal issue there are many on both sides of the isle that vote both ways.

1. taking care of the poor, etc.

This is one of the most wrong and completely irriating things liberals say. They say conservatives are no for taking care of the poor. Have you seen how much money these evil, rich conservatives donate to charity every year? How much does Ophara donate comparatively? How much money do conservative owned businesses give away? Guess what? Many more Christians are conservative than liberal. How about the Knights of Columbus? Granted, we are not affiliated with a party of movement but a lot of basic KofC priniciples are conservative and we are one of the largest charities and donators of time.

My stance on the subject which is clearly not the necasarily the opinion of the KofC is that it’s hard to be a true liberal and be Catholic. Most hardcore liberals believe in abortion, approve of gay sex/marriage among other very important issues to catholics. I think you can have some liberal leanings and be Catholic but I can’t see a through and through liberal (Who generally dislike religion as a whole) being Catholic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

That’s very convenient, but leads to other problem: if you don’t vote, you enable evil to operate through your inaction.

Nothing important that gets done, like electing a President has anything to do with the votes cast anymore. No one is outlawing abortion no matter what they tell you. We no longer operate under the guarantees of the Constitution and so, it’s US in name only. As soon as they create enough factions and dissention between people, between Christians and Catholics, straights and gays, liberals and conservatives, prolife and prochoice, young and old, as soon as everyone is ignorant enough and can’t function without a computer, as soon as they have us all p(name removed by moderator)ointed with cell phones and GPS and Facebook, they’ll start a “war” and impose martial law.

Voting is pointless. Evil is running the joint while they distract us fighting each other over issues they create and fan the flames of.

 

[St_Francis]

…

I thought I would tell you a story. You’ve probably heard of the Tintanic, a ship designed to be able to not be damaged by icebergs, which went down on its maiden voyage in 1912?

They’ve made several movies about it, most recently with Leonardo di Caprio several years ago.

The passengers in the actual tragedy were helped to get onto life boats, and the men were allowing the women and children to get on the lifeboats first. As a result, almost all the men died when the ship went down.

The latest version of the movie did not show the sacrifice of the men, and the director was asked about this deviation from the reality, and he said that he’d decided this because the viewers wod not believe it.

Oir society has changed so much since the Second World War, and it is hard to believe that people once had the disciplined virtue that would allow men to do this.

 

[nahaingil]

This is one of the most wrong and completely irriating things liberals say. They say conservatives are no for taking care of the poor. Have you seen how much money these evil, rich conservatives donate to charity every year? How much does Ophara donate comparatively? How much money do conservative owned businesses give away? Guess what? Many more Christians are conservative than liberal. How about the Knights of Columbus? Granted, we are not affiliated with a party of movement but a lot of basic KofC priniciples are conservative and we are one of the largest charities and donators of time.
.

I think this whole issue is grossly misunderstood by both sides. While it is great that conservatives give more money, we are called to more as Christians. Jesus didn’t just give people spare change, or even just tithe, and live in the suburbs. We to easily forget the parable of the woman who gave her last two coins. The pharisees are not all that different from us. This whole debate is similar to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I have friends on the front lines in NYC and other places who work directly with counseling women. There is so much work to be done in direct care and ministry. Voting is secondary, and honestly for many people, is a less messy way to be involved with life issues. Which is why most of our time and energy and debate seems to be political. While it is important in some regards (we should make sure people don’t get thrown in jail for sidewalk counseling), it is not the primary front. Person to person interaction is. If we don’t want government to run everything, we should step up and run it ourselves, and that will always involve a real sacrifice, not just our spare change. If we want to really help women, we need to know them. Like Mother Teresa said, “You say you know the poor. What are their names?”

 

[St_Francis]

QUOTE=nahaingil;8381419]I think this whole issue is grossly misunderstood by both sides. While it is great that conservatives give more money, we are called to more as Christians…
The politically conservative also volunteer more and give more blood. They also engage in more religious activity.

 

[mcrow]

QUOTE=nahaingil;8381419]I think this whole issue is grossly misunderstood by both sides. While it is great that conservatives give more money, we are called to more as Christians…

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.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

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.