Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[wavesmom]

In the early church, everyone lived communally, caring for each other and especially the orphaned and the widows. Jesus had a special care for them because their family was incomplete…no man to help care for them. This was not forced on them by any earthly power.

As I see it or in my humble opinion, the left and the way they govern does two things that are in contradiction to Jesus’ teachings.

First, they subvert free will through the taking from one to give to the other. Jesus wanted us to freely give to others, out of love not through force.

Second, using government force abdicates our own personal responsibility to see the needs of our neighbors and respond to them. That is why we see so much wealth by some and such dire need by others.

 

[pnewton]

yea, I once saw on the Today show, Katie Couric criticizing John Paul II for being inconsistent since he was anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment.

That is because, as a TV journalist, all that is required is to look good on TV, not actual journalism. If a label doesn’t fit, then one’s brain must engage. This is not easy for those in television.

 

[pnewton]

‘Your sins are bigger than my sins’ is a form of reasoning that was seemingly rejected by Christ in the Gospels.

Judgementalism was rejected (e.g. judging others as not quite as loyal Catholics as oneself). Equating all sins as the same was not. In fact, not all sins are the same. Some really are bigger than others. For example, abortion.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I agree that we are to not only accept without question those teachings that are infallible but incorporate the moral teachings of the Church into our lives. I just took exception to your statement that it was an “infallible teaching” on health care being an obligation of the government. Unless you can provide a reference that is more specific, I believe that Catholics in good faith can hold a differing opinion on this matter in exercise of their prudential judgment and this is your opinion exercising your prudential judgment.

I also take extreme exception to your final comment that those who have in good faith reached a different conclusion using their prudential judgment are ignoring the preferential option to the poor, making political rationalization, and advocating moral relativism. This smacks of a self-righteous rash judgment which is grave matter and an offense against the Truth. CC2477.

Thank you, Orion. You saved me a post.

Privatized institutions do a better job of upholding the dignity of the poor then mandated government provisioning, which inculcates an idol worship of the state and a slave class mentality. Charity is not Charity if it is taxed from me. We, not the government, are called to help the poor.

Governments do not serve Christian principles when they are given more authority. I fail to see any example of such a thing in history, quite the reverse actually. With a looming Democratic/socialist President–perhaps even a charismatic one, coupled with a democratic/socialist congress I fear for liberty. People are already convicted of thought crimes, labeled under hate crimes.

How safe will those aggressively but peacefully advocating the Church’s sexual teaching be in the not too distant future? It is all very frightening.

 

[duskyjewel]

I can’t believe no one on this thread has taken up the whole Iraq war thing… guess I will.

Saddam Hussein violated no less than 18 United Nations resolutions before we attacked his country. Those resolutions were passed in attempts to make him obey the treaty he signed at the end of the Gulf War. He consistently disobeyed it. The reason for that treaty was to end the war, preserve Kuwait’s sovereignty, and to keep Saddam from destabilizing the entire region.

The United Nations is an organization based on a concept of which the Catholic Church approves, is it not? Trying to prevent war by getting nations to cooperate? Collective security? (Never mind that it doesn’t work and has been taken over by Marxist, America-bashing third-world thugs… that’s for another time.) So, if the international community, through the United Nations, cannot control a dictator who will not obey the treaty he signed and is trying to destabilize the entire area, causing a regional war he knows we will have to fight in, why again are we not allowed to use force to stop him? If he is trying to expand his influence beyond his borders and partner with known sponsors of terrorism to enslave millions of people and to assist terrorist organizations in attacking us and our allies …why again are we not allowed to use force to stop him?

And, just as a BTW, anyone who actually believes there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war is a fool. What do you think was in those convoys of trucks that were crossing into Syria while we prepared the most telegraphed invasion in history?

 

[JMMK]

I think part of the problem is so many Catholics are repulsed by the Pro-Abortion idea. I know I am. It enrages me to be told that it should be legal for parents to kill their children simply because they can’t survive outside the shelter of their mother’s womb.

The death penalty is an issue on the ‘right’ that repells Catholics as well. While the death penalty is prohibited in the catechism, I would argue that we apply it far to liberally to fit in the context that its allowed.

I do not identify with any party, I prefer to vote based on what I think needs done at the moment. I vote for the republicans (when they are pro-life) because of the abortion issue. I know people say you shouldn’t be single issue voters, and they are right. I don’t see it as a single issue. If we can create a baseline that states that we are human from the time of conception onward, we will have something powerful to point to that can help rectify a lot of wrongs in this world.

There are more issues out there than these, but I hold the abortion issue paramount.

 

[surfinpure]

I think part of the problem is so many Catholics are repulsed by the Pro-Abortion idea. I know I am. It enrages me to be told that it should be legal for parents to kill their children simply because they can’t survive outside the shelter of their mother’s womb.

The death penalty is an issue on the ‘right’ that repells Catholics as well. While the death penalty is prohibited in the catechism, I would argue that we apply it far to liberally to fit in the context that its allowed.

I do not identify with any party, I prefer to vote based on what I think needs done at the moment. I vote for the republicans (when they are pro-life) because of the abortion issue. I know people say you shouldn’t be single issue voters, and they are right. I don’t see it as a single issue. If we can create a baseline that states that we are human from the time of conception onward, we will have something powerful to point to that can help rectify a lot of wrongs in this world.

There are more issues out there than these, but I hold the abortion issue paramount.

You make a very good point. We must all keep in mind that of all of our rights, the right to life is the first and foremost! If we are denied the right to life, we have no rights. This is why abortion is the leading issue for so many Catholics.

Freedom begins with life, and life begins at conception.

 

[SoCalRC]

I agree that we are to not only accept without question those teachings that are infallible but incorporate the moral teachings of the Church into our lives.

Actually, the Church seems OK with reasonable questioning, but we are to strive to obey.

I just took exception to your statement that it was an “infallible teaching” on health care being an obligation of the government. Unless you can provide a reference that is more specific, I believe that Catholics in good faith can hold a differing opinion on this matter in exercise of their prudential judgment and this is your opinion exercising your prudential judgment.

But I made no such statement. I merely observed that one party was pursuing a policy of permitting euthanasia for profit, the other policies that would run contrary to that goal. There is plenty of room for disagreement on methods. For example, although I could never vote pro-choice myself, I think a compelling case could be made that changing secular law is the weakest and least effective part of our multi-prong strategy to reduce/elliminate abortions.

But I do not think that the morality can be questioned. Direct Euthanasia is held to be, infallibly always a grave moral disorder. Further, removal of hydration and nutrition are “in principle” held by the Church to be direct euthanasia (the church leaves open the possibility that even hydration and nutrion can be extraordinary means in some caes). If a any politician or political party promotes a means test for the inalienable right to life, he/she/it is not “pro life” in a Catholic sense, regardless of what self appointed label that is proudly worn.

I also take extreme exception to your final comment that those who have in good faith reached a different conclusion using their prudential judgment are ignoring the preferential option to the poor, making political rationalization, and advocating moral relativism. This smacks of a self-righteous rash judgment which is grave matter and an offense against the Truth. CC2477.

Again, you are citing comments to me that I have not made. I spoke only in general terms. Picking and choosing teachings is, in principle, poor Catholicism. Again, as the Church has noted:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

I would not presume to judge your motives or intent, but you continue to assign greater meaning and unstated specifics to my comments. Perhaps to read one paragraph farther in the Catechism:

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved." - CCC 2478

So far, I’m cutting a pretty generic garment, primarily with official documents from the Church. If someone thinks that ‘political parties aren’t the Church’ or ‘Catholics have an obligation to stive to obey the Vicar of Christ even when he is not speaking ex cathedra’ are an insult, that is an issue between their Christian Concience, the Magesterium, and God.

 

[Stratiotes]

Saddam Hussein violated no less than 18 United Nations resolutions before we attacked his country. Those resolutions were passed in attempts to make him obey the treaty he signed at the end of the Gulf War. He consistently disobeyed it. The reason for that treaty was to end the war, preserve Kuwait’s sovereignty, and to keep Saddam from destabilizing the entire region.

The United Nations is an organization based on a concept of which the Catholic Church approves, is it not?

Unfortunately for your case however- the UN voted not to take military action while the US chose to act on its own authority and ignore the UN. So if you want to play the UN card, it has to work both ways.

 

[SoCalRC]

Judgementalism was rejected (e.g. judging others as not quite as loyal Catholics as oneself). Equating all sins as the same was not. In fact, not all sins are the same. Some really are bigger than others. For example, abortion.

All the more reason not to compromise on them. Abortion is not a teaching unto itself, it is a manifestation of a broader teaching. Here is the explanation given to the Laity by the Church on our “right to life”:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, quoting the Second Vatican Council

If you comrpomise on “offenses against life”, particular ones like “torture” and “modern forms of slavery” that the Church has specifically put on par with abortion with regardings to voting and political life (see vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html) you are potentially undermining the foundation of our teaching on abortion. That is why the Church, and especially our current Pope, is so concerned with picking and choosing.

 

[SoCalRC]

Unfortunately for your case however- the UN voted not to take military action while the US chose to act on its own authority and ignore the UN. So if you want to play the UN card, it has to work both ways.

Also, CCC 2312 and CCC 2313 need to be considered. The Church does grant civil authority to make the final determination with regards to CCC 2309. However, even George Wiegel, who has been promoting the invasion and occupation of Iraq since at least 1997 and has been the most prolific writer on justifying Iraq under CCC 2309, agrees that torture of prisoners, targeting of civilians, and forsaking our treaty obligations with regards to the treatment of prisoners, would invalidate the conflict under Catholic teaching.

 

[duskyjewel]

Unfortunately for your case however- the UN voted not to take military action while the US chose to act on its own authority and ignore the UN. So if you want to play the UN card, it has to work both ways.

The UN voted not to because they are spineless. It is populated by people who believe there is nothing worth fighting or dying for. We are allowed to defend our own interests, along with the lives and freedom of others. We chose to take up the struggle that the UN would not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

On the flip side, the supposedly pro-death party is the one raising the issue of health care as a right, not a commodity. So we have two infallible teachings, which are as near as absolute that we can have, and which are promulgated in the same Encyclical using the same fundemental reasoning, and our two major parties are split on their support of them.

I just took exception to your statement that it was an “infallible teaching” on health care being an obligation of the government.

But I made no such statement.

I do not want to bicker. I agree that our faith needs to transcend political parties and agendas. I also believe we are to strive to incorporate all the Church teaches in all we do.

I just refer to your first post which says that health care is a government obligation is an infallible teaching. Maybe that isn’t what you meant so just say so.

With regard to the merits of universal health care paid by the government, I find them contrary to my prudential judgment. If there is a thread on this matter, I’d be happy to discuss it.

 

[Stratiotes]

The UN voted not to because they are spineless. It is populated by people who believe there is nothing worth fighting or dying for. We are allowed to defend our own interests, along with the lives and freedom of others. We chose to take up the struggle that the UN would not.

That may be the case but then it means we cannot claim to act in the name of the UN. Either comply with the UN or stop invoking their name to justify your actions. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[surfinpure]

Unfortunately for your case however- the UN voted not to take military action while the US chose to act on its own authority and ignore the UN. So if you want to play the UN card, it has to work both ways.

As you may recall, the UN was not attacked. The US was.

 

[pnewton]

The more I read here the more I am convinces that the lumping of abortion with other ills is a deliberate tactic to justify a pro-abortion stance. If liberals have done this, they obviously have a Catholic contingency. All issues are not the same. They have commonalities, but the are not the same. The deliberate butchering of the most innocent among us will be the first priority with me. Always. Nothing compares at this time and in this place in abject evil.

 

[Stratiotes]

Concerning the original topic of this thread  …. I think there is a legitimate debate also on whether you might think something is morally wrong but not a matter for the state to decide. For instance, marriage is something I don’t think the state has any business in. It is not up to the state to determine if someone should be married – it is up to the church. That’s one thing I like about being catholic too – your marriage may be recognized by the state but not by the church – and who, after all, is the real authority in that matter? The state’s “opinion” on your marriage is immaterial. The state has no place making a judgement in such matters. As soon as the state is involved then there are all sorts of troubles – money becomes involved (insurance and beneficiary and privacy issues) as do tax issues more directly. Get the state out of the business of defining moral issues – it is out of its realm of authority. So, while I may be against homosexual marriage, it does not mean I want the state to be my billy-club – nor do I want to go to the state, cap in hand, asking it to bless my marriage as if God needed congressional approval for me to marry who I wish. The same could be said about welfare or a dozen other issues that are essentially moral and not strictly legal in nature.

I think we have a bit of a dilemma too because Christians do not always agree on moral issues. My Baptist friends would tell some of us that we are the most horrible sinners and the cause of much ill in this country because we drink alcohol. We would not want to adopt their definition of morality for federal laws.

Which is another point – one might also think that more restrictive laws should be at the lowest level – state or county or city – but not necessarily at the federal level. A strong belief in states-rights (that little annoyance called the 10th amendment) feeds this view. So, how I vote on a federal level may reflect that understanding and might make abortion or drinking or public nose-picking a very serious issue on the local level but irrelevant on the national level.

The issues are far too complex to fit two measly categories as so many here seem to think.

 

[TMC]

Too many? Not sure what is too many, but this forum certainly trends to the politically conservative. I’m not sure why - Catholics in general tend to be much more centrist. If it were not for abortion, Catholics would probably be majority Democrat. But you couldn’t tell that from this place.

I agree with those that have pointed out that these labels don’t apply to the Church. The Church seems ‘right wing’ on some things and ‘left wing’ on others because the Church is making moral, not political, decisions. Neither major party in this country is in line with the Church’s moral teachings, or even close to it. And because the parties’ decisions are political, not moral, you can’t trust them to stay with them as politics change.

 

[wavesmom]

In the book of Amos, the Lord says, “they have purchased the poor for a pair of shoes.” Sorry, typical Catholic, i don’t remember the chapter or verse LOL.

The left wing in this country has preyed on the needs of the poor to institute their anti-family, anti-religion agenda. Their policies have done more to destroy the family and Christian ideals that have made this country great than any other. But, as long as they offer their free hand outs to the poor, they will continue to be elected by the very people for whom their policies are most damaging.

As for the judgment we are warned against… I believe that it was not so much the judgment of bad behavior that the Lord was forbidding but the fact that it is used to withhold love from the sinner. What I mean is that, we are supposed to remember that we are all sinners and in need of love and forgiveness. And, while I do think that there are some sins that are worse than others, the magnitude of those sins does not keep us from the salvation freely given by/through Jesus when we turn to him. For the Lord said that where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

 

[Shoshana]

The UN voted not to because they are spineless. It is populated by people who believe there is nothing worth fighting or dying for. We are allowed to defend our own interests, along with the lives and freedom of others. We chose to take up the struggle that the UN would not.

So I see. The UN is good when you need it to decide to go to war.

John Paul 2 also spoke with the UN and blasted the US for their bloody hands in the case of Pinochet and Contra, and yet, the US leaves the UN.

This is hypocrisy at it s worst.