What can Catholics politically disagree among eachother?

[adawgj]

As Catholics we tend to share many political agreements among various politics. So I’m wondering what kind of politics can Catholics disagree among each other?

 

[Jon_S_1]

As Catholics we tend to share many political agreements among various politics. So I’m wondering what kind of politics can Catholics disagree among each other?

Anything that’s not an article of faith. Like a farm bill or economic issue for example.

 

[phil19034]

to add what the previous poster said, read the linked Catholic Voter’s Guide…

catholic.com/sites/default/files/voters_guide_for_serious_catholics.pdf

 

[Ender]

I’m wondering what kind of politics can Catholics disagree among each other?

Virtually everything is open for legitimate disagreement. There are only a handful of issues that deal with choices that are forbidden (abortion, euthanasia,…). Most issues, like immigration for example, present us with choices which can be legitimately made one way or the other. In those cases it is not the choice per se that determines the morality of our position but the reasons behind the choice. My objection to the involvement of the clergy (especially the bishops) in political issues is that it clouds this distinction and (incorrectly) suggests that theirs is the moral position and opposition to them is wrong. That implication is inaccurate.

Ender

 

[Kamaduck]

As Catholics we tend to share many political agreements among various politics. So I’m wondering what kind of politics can Catholics disagree among each other?

A lot of government has to do with making prudential judgements, and we can disagree about those. I suppose you could say Catholics should all have similar eventual goals (safety, freedom to practice our faith, stable families, seeing all human lives protected, an educated populace, economic prosperity, etc.), but we disagree about what the best way is to achieve those goals.

For example, some people think we can best protect people by giving them the ability to defend themselves, so they believe in giving all citizens fairly easy access to guns. Others believe that people will be safer if there are fewer dangerous weapons out there in the first place, so they support some form of gun control. Neither position is inherently immoral. The “right” decision in this case is the one that is most effective at keeping people safe and allowing them to go about their business without fear, and we are perfectly free to disagree about which option that is.

 

[on_the_hill]

Fracking, for example.

Probably not much in the news in California, adawgj, but in some of the mid-Altantic states it’s a huge issue.

Should drilling companies be taxed, or would a tax suppress investment? How should environmental concerns be balanced with economic concerns?

 

[djames99]

As Catholics we tend to share many political agreements among various politics. So I’m wondering what kind of politics can Catholics disagree among each other?

All decision making is to be measured by the “rule” given to us by Jesus through is only Church. Politics is a dependent of this. Whatever conforms fully to ALL of his teaching is approved.

For instance. A politician/political entity agrees to implement 5 changes. One of them is intrinsically sinful. Then all are refused. There is a weeding out that occurs with all intelligent
entities, whatever their form. Here, the “majority rules” takes a backseat to Divine rules, since collectives are just as prone to error. Here is where the “chaff” nations get separated from the “wheat” of Sanctioned nations.