To what extent must a Catholic agree with Church politics?

[FaithBuild18]

I’ve been informed that a Catholic must adhere to Church teaching, or else they are basically a heretic.

Where does this end? I think the consensus is that you must agree with their stances on abortion and marriage. But what about the death penalty? And more pertinent to my question, what about economic issues?

I agree with the Church with its concern for the poor, and I want to do what I can to help them. I also believe in health care for all, and I agree with a welfare safety net. My problem is in the way a lot of these programs are implemented. I don’t think people should ever have taxes forced on them to pay for these things. To pay for these things, I’d rather see the government minimize wasteful spending and become more efficient with their funds. Is it unacceptable for me to have these beliefs? Must I adopt the position of the US Bishops and the Pope as my own?

Is there a difference in all of these issues? Is there more freedom of politics in economic issues than in social issues? And if so, why?

And finally, is it really fair to say the Church has a conservative social stance and a liberal economic stance? I have a hard time doing this simply because the rhetoric of the Church is so much different than these two groups, even when they have common ground on issues. For example, liberals are against wars because of the sheer fact that they’re wars. The Church on the other hand seems to oppose war out of a sense of justice, and it doesn’t always oppose war anyways.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Catholic social doctrine is authoritative. If we may dissent from Rerum novarum and Populorum progressio, then by the same logic we may dissent from Humane vitae.

If you want Catholic economics in practice, Google “distributism.”

 

[FaithBuild18]

Catholic social doctrine is authoritative. If we may dissent from Rerum novarum and Populorum progressio, then by the same logic we may dissent from Humane vitae.

If you want Catholic economics in practice, Google “distributism.”

Well what constitutes dissenting? I can’t read all of those documents right now, and being on a forum, I hope somebody can help fill me in on what they say.

As I said, I agree with what they say needs to happen, I just am not thinking of the same method on getting there. Is that dissenting?

 

[PatrickSebast]

I’ve been informed that a Catholic must adhere to Church teaching, or else they are basically a heretic.

Where does this end? I think the consensus is that you must agree with their stances on abortion and marriage. But what about the death penalty? And more pertinent to my question, what about economic issues?

I agree with the Church with its concern for the poor, and I want to do what I can to help them. I also believe in health care for all, and I agree with a welfare safety net. My problem is in the way a lot of these programs are implemented. I don’t think people should ever have taxes forced on them to pay for these things. To pay for these things, I’d rather see the government minimize wasteful spending and become more efficient with their funds. Is it unacceptable for me to have these beliefs? Must I adopt the position of the US Bishops and the Pope as my own?

Is there a difference in all of these issues? Is there more freedom of politics in economic issues than in social issues? And if so, why?

And finally, is it really fair to say the Church has a conservative social stance and a liberal economic stance? I have a hard time doing this simply because the rhetoric of the Church is so much different than these two groups, even when they have common ground on issues. For example, liberals are against wars because of the sheer fact that they’re wars. The Church on the other hand seems to oppose war out of a sense of justice, and it doesn’t always oppose war anyways.

There are two levels here. One is where you embrace an ideology that is separate from that of the Church, where you become a “conservative” or a “liberal” first and view the opposing group as being filled with idiots and/or enemies. That is not proper for a Catholic, we are called to Love and Catholicism first and everything else afterward.

The second level if where you read the words of the Pope and the USCCB and view them with disdain rather than take the time to understand where they are coming from, why they say it and then disagree with something on a technical aspect, or a belief that a more efficient system could be set up to deliver the same level of good that is within Catholic teachings. Discussion and the proposal of different ideas is encouraged in the Church, and there are many schools of thought on a range of issues.

Essentially what it comes down to is a question of beliefs versus implementation. In regards to the death penalty for instance, if you believe that people need to be killed in order to establish “justice” the Church views that as revenge which is very much against the teachings of the Church. If however you believe that the death penalty is the only viable method for ensuring the safety of others when considering some especially violent and dangerous individuals, that is a permitted dispute because you aren’t opposing the actual teaching of the Church but it’s proposed method of implementing that teaching.

In a more personal instance I personally believe that the judge in the Prop 8 case made the proper ruling in accordance with California and Federal law. This does not mean that I agree that gay marriage is beneficial to society or that it should be implemented, but simply that I don’t think the judge had any justifiable legal reason to make a different decision. The USCCB disagrees with me, but that is a matter of interpreting current US law, not Church teaching.

 

[triumphguy]

In Canada I find it hard to vote for ANY major party. Each party allow, permits, promotes Gay marriage and abortion to differing degrees.

There are many ways of achieving the same goals. Christ didn’t institute any particular economic or social order. He was more concerned with teaching about the Coming Kingdom.

However, the Church has increasingly come out more strongly in favour of the poor, without falling into a lot of the traps of liberalism.

 

[FaithBuild18]

There are two levels here. One is where you embrace an ideology that is separate from that of the Church, where you become a “conservative” or a “liberal” first and view the opposing group as being filled with idiots and/or enemies. That is not proper for a Catholic, we are called to Love and Catholicism first and everything else afterward.

The second level if where you read the words of the Pope and the USCCB and view them with disdain rather than take the time to understand where they are coming from, why they say it and then disagree with something on a technical aspect, or a belief that a more efficient system could be set up to deliver the same level of good that is within Catholic teachings. Discussion and the proposal of different ideas is encouraged in the Church, and there are many schools of thought on a range of issues.

Essentially what it comes down to is a question of beliefs versus implementation. In regards to the death penalty for instance, if you believe that people need to be killed in order to establish “justice” the Church views that as revenge which is very much against the teachings of the Church. If however you believe that the death penalty is the only viable method for ensuring the safety of others when considering some especially violent and dangerous individuals, that is a permitted dispute because you aren’t opposing the actual teaching of the Church but it’s proposed method of implementing that teaching.

In a more personal instance I personally believe that the judge in the Prop 8 case made the proper ruling in accordance with California and Federal law. This does not mean that I agree that gay marriage is beneficial to society or that it should be implemented, but simply that I don’t think the judge had any justifiable legal reason to make a different decision. The USCCB disagrees with me, but that is a matter of interpreting current US law, not Church teaching.

Thank you for your reply.

But surely people can’t use that as their defense for abortion. Could somebody say that they’re against abortion but then go and vote for a pro-choice candidate, on the grounds that pro-life legislation isn’t a practical way to handle it rather personal intervention in the lives of those women is? I just don’t think that would fly.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Thank you for your reply.

But surely people can’t use that as their defense for abortion. Could somebody say that they’re against abortion but then go and vote for a pro-choice candidate, on the grounds that pro-life legislation isn’t a practical way to handle it rather personal intervention in the lives of those women is? I just don’t think that would fly.

Even our Pope has said that it is acceptable to vote pro-choice in some cases (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3534-2004Sep7.html), what you are contesting here is the difference between a good idea and a good set of morals. A Catholic is required to believe that abortion is murder and that stopping abortion is as important as stopping any genocide.

Now if a Catholic were to be convinced somehow that the best path to stopping abortion was one separate from the legal system they could be called foolish or ignorant, but being intelligent and making wise choices is not a requirement of the Church. You for instance purposed the idea that people should not have taxes forced upon them to pay for medical care and safety nets for the less fortunate, yet one could easily point out that without forced payments many people, especially in the highly individualized western society, are not likely going to be giving up X% of their salary. Even I would be tempted to use excuses such as “Well I plan to invest this my business plan and that could result in the employment of one of these needy people down the line” in order to avoid helping to establish an infrastructure that assists the poor. So you say the abortion idea doesn’t seem practical to the point that it can be labeled as being supportive of abortion, but I in turn can say your idea doesn’t sound practical and more than likely enhances the principle of greed.

This is why the Church welcomes discussion, encourages education, and publishes ideas on how to activate its beliefs and social platforms. The Church’s solutions may not always be the best, but they constitute a ration starting platform formed by wise individuals.

 

[FaithBuild18]

So then, is it morally permissible for Catholics to be 100% liberal or 100% conservative? Based upon every discussion I viewed on this forum one would think the answer was absolutely not.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I’ve been informed that a Catholic must adhere to Church teaching, or else they are basically a heretic.

Where does this end? I think the consensus is that you must agree with their stances on abortion and marriage. But what about the death penalty? And more pertinent to my question, what about economic issues?

These are all very interesting questions. I couldn’t even pretend to give a “correct” single stance on any of these issues, except for the first two you mentioned, (abortion and marriage), as these are clear and non-negotiable Church doctrine. Abortion is direct from the commandment not to murder, and it baffled me how anyone could ever even imagine that this was somehow something for mankind to even argue for, let alone turn into a civil right. I held, what I guess must now be labeled as “pro-life” (how horrid is it that we must have a labelled segment of the population for this?) LONG before I even dreamed I would find myself as a Catholic Christian. There are also a few clearly spelled out doctrines directly in holy writ regarding immorality of homosexual union, fornication, adultery, and divorce.

As far as I know, the answer to every other question you brought up is that we are all endowed by our creator with our own conscience. I’ve heard Catholic leaders of every stripe give strong opinions which are all over the map on the death penalty, economics, etc. I tend to believe personally that the “distributism” extracted from papal encyclicals by Hillaire Belloc, and Gilbert Chesterton among others is probably pretty close to the real answer, (if indeed there is a single answer). The CCC both manages to both leave open AND close the issues of war and death penalty with a very narrow idea of when the death penalty may be morally employed, (which I personally agree with, but am not required to as far as I know), and the just war doctrine, (which I also personally subscribe to, but don’t believe I’m canonically bound). I haven’t specifically read the Catholic Code of Canon Law, and frankly, I’m not even sure if the death penalty and just war doctrine are addressed within it. I do know that distributism isn’t in the Canon Law.

But when you say “politics”, are you referring to the individual thought processes which good Catholics should employ when deciding how to cast a vote in an election where different ideologies are being put forth by a variety of candidates? There is a teaching from the Bishops in the U.S. that you must find a candidate who understands and subscribes to the principle that life begins at conception, then you use your God given discernment and conscience regarding what the candidates have to say about economics, social justice, war, death penalty, etc… So we at least have one prescribed screen. It is such an important one, that you can discharge the idea of any candidates who are not sincerely “pro–life”. This is what I take away from any literature I’ve read by the U.S. Bishops.

Beyond this, I would think that following Catholic doctrine would imply a great deal of freedom of will and thought, so long as it doesn’t explicitly defy Catholic doctrine, and is in compliance with one’s own conscience. There are some perfect dogmas of the Church, but these generally deal with issues related to the creed, nature of God, trinity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ, and therefore the importance of His mother as well.

We are not automatons. Nor should we be. People, (including Catholics), experience the world, and form opinions about justice, welfare, etc… Yes, we are all to do our best to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is a commandment from Jesus, who we believe to be divine. He taught about what this means in the big picture. In the perfect way, but He also taught that we can not be perfect. Just that we ought to be. If we were able to be perfect in our decisions, then man would not have fallen, and the incarnation would not even have been necessary.

There are many good papal document regarding social justice, just war, etc., and the ones I’ve read, anyway, tend to agree with each other. They are most likely the truth. But they would also require the consent of all mankind to be implemented. They are published as an act of conscience by the Church to assist us in forming our consciences to the way of Christ. We should all consider these papal words and ideas very carefully, and with more weight than we give to the ideas of the United States Democratic and Republican political parties of the 20th and 21st centuries. This is of course just my opinion ;-). But the problem, as you can see, is that it’s not a tidy, clean template which can just be overlaid onto every living institution. Jesus and His Church are not easily pigeonholed into any single ideological group. So man will always be at war with himself about how to best decide on some issues we would, in some cases I’m sure, very much like to have our Church decide for us. It’s not that simple. At least not as far as I can tell.

May the Father help us all through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to always make the best choices, which conform most closely with the perfection of the Lord, who forms our conscience, if we let Him.

Peace,

Steven

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

According to surveys I’ve heard of, virtually all (about 98 percent) sexually active Catholics in the USA use artificial contraceptives. This includes the majority of sexually active adult Catholics who go to Mass every Sunday, who serve as lectors, receive Holy Communion, and call themselves proud “Conservatives.” The bishops and the popes know about these surveys, presumably. And yet they do little to nothing to remedy this situation. This has been going on for 40 years now. They could post a sign in churches or in the missals, “People using artificial contraceptive may NOT receive Holy Communion.” But they won’t, presumably because it would lead to a massive exodus from the Catholic Church, and a massive influx into the Episcopal Church and others. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that it okay to be a dissenter on some matters, as long as you are private about it. I don’t know what other conclusion to draw. Perhaps this is where God’s mercy come in. We adhere to the teachings we can accept, and God judges hearts, not by the strict letter of the law or doctrine. I don’t know any other way to view all of this and remain sane. If 98 percent of Catholics use contraceptives, that HAS to include about half of the Catholics who are fervent “Conservatives” on theological and political issues. Should one deem all those “Conservatives” to be liars, fraud, hypocrites, who are headed for Hell for sure? That’s seems too harsh, even if these Conservatives themselves often speak of nothing but Judgment (no mercy) for Liberals. Or maybe someone else has a better way to stay sane and Catholic. I’m all ears.

Here’s a 2011 news report citing the study citing the 98 percent figure: reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413

 

[PatrickSebast]

So then, is it morally permissible for Catholics to be 100% liberal or 100% conservative? Based upon every discussion I viewed on this forum one would think the answer was absolutely not.

Only if they are simple-minded enough to actually believe that they are putting their Church before their politics while doing so.

 

[Ender]

I’ve been informed that a Catholic must adhere to Church teaching, or else they are basically a heretic.

A Catholic is morally obligated to accept the doctrines of the Church. A Catholic has no obligation, however, to accept the prudential opinions of the clergy, including those of popes and bishops and this is the point a lot of people seem to misunderstand. Except for a few issues such as abortion, euthanasia, gay “marriage” etc which deal with intrinsic evils, the Church takes no position on how political issues should be resolved, so while we are not free to take whatever position we prefer on abortion we are free to come to our own conclusions on issues such as immigration, spending cuts, and health care.

Church doctrine does not preclude one from being either liberal or conservative with the exception of perhaps five issues. The liberal position on those five is wrong, but except for those a Catholic may believe what he will.

Ender

 

[St_Francis]

So then, is it morally permissible for Catholics to be 100% liberal or 100% conservative? Based upon every discussion I viewed on this forum one would think the answer was absolutely not.

I do not think this would be possible. Both these ways of thinking are based on ideas which are at best a-Catholic but sometimes anti- Catholi c.

I think we have to agree with Church teaching. For example, the Chur hes that the state must ensure that the poor are cared for. Your idea of how best to achieve tbis may differ from mine, but we must agree on that teachinv.

 

[carn]

I’ve been informed that a Catholic must adhere to Church teaching, or else they are basically a heretic.

Where does this end? I think the consensus is that you must agree with their stances on abortion and marriage. But what about the death penalty? And more pertinent to my question, what about economic issues?

Is there a difference in all of these issues? Is there more freedom of politics in economic issues than in social issues? And if so, why?

If you think you disagree with what some Bishop or the Pope says, check why and exactly about whatyou disagree. If the disagreement is about an issue, which is not rooted solely in moral and for reasons not rooted in moral, then you are rather safe to disagree.

E.g.
Bishop states “Minimum wage should raise from X to Y.”

Disagreement that certain low payments are amoral is not allowed, because that a full time worker should be able to live with his income is church teaching. And its solely a moral question, what would be moral about an employment situation in which one party is going to die, because it does not get enough benefit from the deal?

Disagreement whether the minimum wage should be Y, should be X or there should at all be a law about it, is possible if the reasons are not due to moral aspects. E.g. there are economics, who claim there are only two options regarding minimum wage, either its too high and costing jobs or too low and without effect. One cannot prove this opinion to be right or wrong from church teaching, moral or scripture, because it is purely a question about the economic effects of a law. If one agrees with those economics, it would be right to abolish all minimum wage laws, as they have no positive effect but have at least the negative effect to feed more lawyers.
Then of course disagreement with the Bishop is without any problem.

(That does not change the agreement that certain low wages are amoral. Its normal that the state does not punish all amoral behavior, so if for a certain behavior the state cannot achieve something positive he has to accept doing nothing - the state is not God, something some lefties seem to forget.)

 

[Wesley7]

To what extent must a Catholic agree with Church politics?

Orthodox or Catholic I’m obligated to vote my conscience on political issues that reflect traditional values.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I got a good amount of information out of this and feel I can better tackle some of these issues.

 

[Marie77]

We are all required to adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in its harmonic wholeness (not just sections that we like), or picking one statement over another because we like it better.
The CCC is from the Magisterium of the Church.

We are NOT required to adhere to the personal political opinions of any Church leaders or any Church groups.
Also beware of groups that call themselves “Catholic” but are really heretics or schismatics.
CCC: " 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.
SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. "

Here is a statement on VOTING from Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) which is completely in line with the CCC.
For example he explains the difference between disagreeing with the Pope or Bishops regarding abortion and euthanasia versus disagreeing with their statements on the death penalty. - Both are right in line with the CCC.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

There is nothing “proportionate” in the USA today compared to the murder of approx 1 MILLION babies each year.

As stated in the CCC we all have an obligation to VOTE.
If anyone has not read the “CCC 2nd Ed”, they could be confused.

Jesus never taught that forced redistribution of wealth is good or should take place. When we die, I doubt Jesus will ask us what our government did for poor, instead what each of us as individuals have done to help those who are unable to help themselves - poor, sick etc.
God’s Commandments state we must not covet our neighbor’s goods, or steal (supporting forced redistribution).
Local, then State, and lastly Federal governments only should be involved in line with “SUBSIDIARITY” - CCC 1883, 2885, 1894 and 2209.

Immigration is also covered in the CCC. Governments have the authority to make fair immigration laws. All persons should be treated with respect as human beings. Immigrants must obey the laws of the host Country (including immigration laws).

The CCC has a wealth of info that answers almost all of our questions.

 

[carn]

Immigration is also covered in the CCC. Governments have the authority to make fair immigration laws. All persons should be treated with respect as human beings. Immigrants must obey the laws of the host Country (including immigration laws).

The CCC has a wealth of info that answers almost all of our questions.

While i agree most of your statements, what one should have in mind is that some words in the CCC are in their meaning dependent upon interpretation from fields not related to theology. And in such fields often “experts” with questionable opinions.
For example “fair immigration laws” should of course also be laws, that actually function. But the “experts” thinking about whether the laws might be functioning could be some social sciences lefties, who dream about a one-world government and think in their hearts the existance of borders a crime against humanity. Therefore a fake “expert” opinion regarding some fields can develop and lead to an interpretation of words and practical suggestions. E.g. “vote for fair immigration laws”, media only refers to bogus “experts”, who claim the law is good and any alternative very unfair → impression is a catholic has to vote for the immigration law although its very bad and the CCC would in correct understanding require in no way to vote for the law (especially as the root of the “experts” viewpoint could stem from the hope to overcome evil by mans means, e.g. erecting a fair and just one world government, which could with some justification be viewed as diabolical).

Therefore

 

[Marie77]

Even our Pope has said that it is acceptable to vote pro-choice in some cases (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3534-2004Sep7.html), what you are contesting here is the difference between a good idea and a good set of morals. A Catholic is required to believe that abortion is murder and that stopping abortion is as important as stopping any genocide.
Now if a Catholic were to be convinced somehow that the best path to stopping abortion was one separate from the legal system they could be called foolish or ignorant, but being intelligent and making wise choices is not a requirement of the Church. You for instance purposed the idea that people should not have taxes forced upon them to pay for medical care and safety nets for the less fortunate, yet one could easily point out that without forced payments many people, especially in the highly individualized western society, are not likely going to be giving up X% of their salary. Even I would be tempted to use excuses such as “Well I plan to invest this my business plan and that could result in the employment of one of these needy people down the line” in order to avoid helping to establish an infrastructure that assists the poor. So you say the abortion idea doesn’t seem practical to the point that it can be labeled as being supportive of abortion, but I in turn can say your idea doesn’t sound practical and more than likely enhances the principle of greed.
This is why the Church welcomes discussion, encourages education, and publishes ideas on how to activate its beliefs and social platforms. The Church’s solutions may not always be the best, but they constitute a ration starting platform formed by wise individuals.

What you posted from the Washington Post is not what Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) said. And it is FALSE.
The article is very misleading.

Catholics may not receive Holy Communion, if they vote for a politician/candidate who is pro-abortion, if they have another choice with a pro-life candidate.
Secondly please note that there is **nothing proportionate **in the USA today to the murder of approx $1 MILLION innocent babies per year.

Here is the link to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement in entirety.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[Marie77]

While i agree most of your statements, what one should have in mind is that some words in the CCC are in their meaning dependent upon interpretation from fields not related to theology. And in such fields often “experts” with questionable opinions.
For example “fair immigration laws” should of course also be laws, that actually function. But the “experts” thinking about whether the laws might be functioning could be some social sciences lefties, who dream about a one-world government and think in their hearts the existance of borders a crime against humanity. Therefore a fake “expert” opinion regarding some fields can develop and lead to an interpretation of words and practical suggestions. E.g. “vote for fair immigration laws”, media only refers to bogus “experts”, who claim the law is good and any alternative very unfair → impression is a catholic has to vote for the immigration law although its very bad and the CCC would in correct understanding require in no way to vote for the law (especially as the root of the “experts” viewpoint could stem from the hope to overcome evil by mans means, e.g. erecting a fair and just one world government, which could with some justification be viewed as diabolical).

Therefore

Good discussion.
Other than that which is in the CCC which states that governments have the right to make just immigration laws for the good of their own society, and that immigrants must OBEY the laws of the host Country (not excluding immigration laws), we are not required to support the “Dream Act” or other laws or actions that stretch or exaggerate the exact wording in the CCC or the Bible.

We are not required to follow the ‘personal opinions’ of any individuals or sub-groups of the Church.
Individual Bishops are not the Magisterium.
The USCCB is not the Magisterium.
In fact they all should be adhering to CCC #2245 and 2246, which limits their political involvement.
When those with Religious authority put forth their own political agenda such as “global warming”, “death penalty” “dream act” or another preferential agenda, it should not be done in public because it does two things: 1) Confuses those who have not read the CCC; 2) Can cause disunity with those who have read the CCC.

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that those who differ with the Pope on the death penalty can receive Holy Communion, but those who vote for pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia candidates can not.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
This is 100% in line with the CCC, regarding abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. (Please note CCC’s restrictions on the death penalty.)

St. James (Jas 2:8-10) warned against partiality in the Faith and actually stated that it was a sin.

Regarding the “lefties” that you mentioned.
Liberation Theology is wrong.
God’s Commandments of “Thou Shall not Steal”, and “Thou shall not covet thy neighbors’ goods” must not be broken.
Forced redistribution of wealth was never taught by Jesus; it is stealing.
On the other hand individiual’s must be concerned with their own greed as it will negatively affect their eternal life.

All of the above point to the fact that each Catholic must know and study the “CCC 2nd Ed” and the Bible. Otherwise they may become confused. It is impartive to know what is and is not required of us.