Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[lynnvinc]

Oops, here’s the Trower link: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7805&CFID=111141897&CFTOKEN=58764007

I read it, and it seems to have lots of good points. Of course, now what used to be called “liberal” centuries ago (because they opposed the Church and autocratic government), is now called “conservative”; and our “liberals” of today share this Enlightenment foundation.

I don’t see Marxism coming directly out of Enlightenment thinking, as he implies, but rather out of developments that arose from both Enlightenment thinking (e.g., laissez-faire capitalism) and industrialization – which led to extremely horrible conditions for the poor and working class that even the Church condemned back in the late 19th & early 20th centuries. Communism developed as a corrective to this evil, but ended up going too far in its wrong direction, and stupidly thought Christianity was the enemy of the poor, rather than a friend of the poor (hum, wonder where it got that idea?).

Trower contrasts the French’s greater focus on equality v. British/U.S. greater focus on liberty, which seems to be correct. I do like it that my relative in France got free (paid out of their taxes) medical care and paid maternity leave during a difficult pregnancy and free, professional childcare for her other children; I do not like the French law that bans Muslim girls from wearing scarves (I’d hope that all the French women would don scarves and defy that law in solidarity with their Muslim sisters). However, it should also be known that conservatives here in America are working hard to take away freedoms of over 67% of the population (anyone within 100 miles from our borders or along the planned Keystone XL pipeline) – see next post. So we (esp conservatives) are not really into freedom as much as Trower thinks; but we are into corporate welfare that goes way beyond any welfare for the poor. This not only violates equality, but also liberty. The not-so-free market here is rigged to help the rich, esp the multinationals, squash the poor into squalor and death (thru pollution, etc). So it’s sort of like the best of Enlightenment values gone pretty much bogus. We here in America live under an illusion of freedom, if not actual or illusory equality and brotherhood.

Also he speaks of the “milder looser more pragmatic Anglo-Saxon or Anglo/North-American form…[which is not] irreconcilable with belief in God or Christianity,” as if it were better? As if it didn’t have nefarious motive in using and twisting Christianity to evil ends, as a way of keeping the masses subjugated and unenlightened.

This is where I see the main problem is, Christianity has been corrupted in especially America (which I’ve witnessed since a kid for over 5 decades) and has become the handmaiden of destruction and death…by bamboozling the (perhaps willing to be bamboozled) Christian right into thinking that corporations are human beings and deserve equal rights with humans, that corporations should be allowed to buy, control, and/or influence the government, the media, the educational system, and the military…and the churches. That corporations should be allowed to gobble up resources that rightfully belong in part to future generations; making the ultra rich richer and the poor poorer, destroying subsistence lands which provide food to the actually living people, excreting pollution and killing people and other parts of God’s creation. The very things BXVI calls on us to oppose in Caritas et Veritate.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked Trower’s address because it did bring up important issues; it just seemed to focus too shallowly and too narrowly. It missed the deeper level Enlightenment concept of person on which these values are founded and which wreaks havoc in our world today – a concept (as I mentioned above) that not only lacks foundation in modern sciences and social sciences (about our deep human-nature and human-human interconnections), but also on Church teachings throughout the millennia.

It would be whiggist to blame 18th and 19th c. Enlightenment thinking for these misconceptions that have led to such wrongs and bads (as well as goods, as Trower points out); the thinkers were just doing the best they could with the state of knowledge they had then; and they were pretty upset in Europe, if not America, about the centuries of religious wars (which I’d blame not on religion, but on people). However, 20th and 21st century people can be blamed for not having a better understanding of people and the world around them, for not paying better attention in school, or refusing to consider that we are social beings who rely on others and on God’s providence, but persist in thinking we are self-sufficient individualists with rights, rights, rights, but no duties, no family, no society, no God, except the twisted manufactured God that only favors those who help themselves to everything, including that which belongs to others.

I’m sorry this is a screed, but we have very serious problems today, and no one really wants to face them or address them, except what seems to me a bogus concern about medical abortions (bogus, bec others’ lives are at stake, but no one seems to care about them, including abortions (miscarriages) through pollution, etc). But at least that’s something.

However, taking up only one issue is not going to be very effective unless we all – conservative and liberal, anti-abortionist & environmentalist – join together to solve all these problems that threaten our lives and souls. We need all in our Catholic Church, and this attempt to exclude liberals who also have good ideas for seeking first the Kingdom of God (and I do feel it is an attempt to exclude, not a mere, “why do they stay”), will only put us all in hell.

 

[lynnvinc]

However, it should also be known that conservatives here in America are working hard to take away freedoms of over 67% of the population (anyone within 100 miles from our borders or along the planned Keystone XL pipeline)

THE BIG CORPORATE TAKEOVER: DO YOU LIVE IN A CONSTITUTION-FREE ZONE?

H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (which was recently passed by the House), would waive 36 environmental and other laws for Department of Homeland Security activities on federal, state-owned and private lands within 100 miles of U.S. borders and coastline. See: wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/

SB 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which effectively repeals the posse comitatus act and will allow U.S. military to arrest U.S. citizens within the U.S. and hold them indefinitely without any due process.

The Keystone XL Pipeline provision (part of the Payroll Tax Holiday extension bills) would do much more harm than good, and raise gasoline prices. See: ombwatch.org/node/11937 and map where it overlaps with Ogallala Aquifer, and trailer for Pipedreams), and the effect of burning fossil fuels, including unconventionals sources like tarsands leading to runaway warming and death to all life on earth – top NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen’s presentation (see esp. pg 24): columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf.

Together these 3 bills could pose serious risks to the freedoms of over 2/3 of Americans, and huge environmental and health problems, with the Keystone XL pipeline and its product contributing significantly to runaway warming and death to all life on earth.

 

[liturgyluver]

I just think there are many people who don’t agree with all the Church’s teachings, but they have been baptised Catholic and it’s just in their blood.

I think for a small minority there is an agenda about modernising the Church: and of course it’s seemingly easier to do this from within than outside. Someone once told me if you want to change something, never threaten to leave; always threaten to stay.

 

[KSU]

I just think there are many people who don’t agree with all the Church’s teachings, but they have been baptised Catholic and it’s just in their blood.

I think for a small minority there is an agenda about modernising the Church: and of course it’s seemingly easier to do this from within than outside. Someone once told me if you want to change something, never threaten to leave; always threaten to stay.

You are absolutely correct. The issue is, how and why did it get in their blood, and how do we best protect our Church, our children and our country from these well-meaning but corrupting attitudes?

 

[formerlysure]

You are absolutely correct. The issue is, how and why did it get in their blood, and how do we best protect our Church, our children and our country from these well-meaning but corrupting attitudes?

How and why did the Catholic faith get in the blood of some Catholics? These individuals were called to God, like all of us. Over generations the lessons have weakened perhaps, but not died.

I was talking to my good friend, a conservative and highly educated priest, about the infalibility of the Church and Pope. I can’t explain it as well as he did, but he said, "of course, the Pope and Church can make mistakes - the Pope can mistep and trip on the edge of a rug, or he can forget someone’s name. He can phrase something wrong, he can misunderstand something. He is human and is not immune from aging or error. He is, however, endowed by God to be unfailing in sustaining the Church and in this, he is infallible. Similarly, my friend explained that the Church can err as well - there can be disagreements between a priest and bishop in which they cannot possibly both be right. There can be human failings, such as happened with the sex abuse scandals. There can be larger scale failings such as those of the church in dealing with the abuses, and in many cases making them worse. The infalibility of the Church though, is over a protracted period of time - the Church will right itself, an continue on doing God’s work.

My friend further explained to me the idea of God’s time - his long-reaching vision and the fact that in this world which he so perfectly created, there is endless imperfection. The perfection is seen from a much more distant vantage point - like the difference betwen looking at your house from a low-flying airplane and looking at the world from the space shuttle. Over time and with greater scale, those minor imperfections and errors don’t matter.

Thinking of these lessons, I have to think, both liberal and conservative Catholics are called to the church because they are whether we want to label them liberal, conservative, converted, cafeteria, or whatever…they are foremost simply Catholics.

I am not saying that disagreement on such serious issues as abortion are minor. What I am saying is that any time two people are brought together, if they talk long enough, there will be some point of conflict and dissent. We will never achieve a church free from dissention and disagreement. But as a Church, if we strive to maintain positions that are consistent with God’s will, and we moderate our own behavior accordingly; if we avoid casting stones but rather love the sinner and work toward buiding trusting, teaching relationships with one another, the Church will, over time, right itself and God’s will ultimately will prevail. Hearts will be changed.

What should we do about these Catholics in our midsts who are not perfect? Our church is not meant to be an elitist club - it is meant to be a sanctuary open to everyone who will come. God did not assign to any of us the job of judge and jury - he taught us not to cast the first stone. He asks us to welcome them.

 

[pat_mc_1]

Just because we have different ways of thinking doesnt mean we still dont love God and his holy sacraments as conservative Catholics.

 

[oreoboy]

This kind of is like being Jewish… I’m a reconstructionist Jew… Which is the most liberal and progressive branch of Judaism out there… I like to say we’re the Jewish version of Quakers.

The other jews look at us as if we are nuts… Why do we stay Jews then? Because it’s part of our heritage and we love G-d just as much as the next person…

 

[KSU]

lynn, regarding your views on environmental issues, I posted something yesterday. However, it’s gone and I still haven’t heard what happened to it.

You conclude your post #589 as follows:
"I’m sorry this is a screed, but we have very serious problems today, and no one really wants to face them or address them, except what seems to me a bogus concern about medical abortions (bogus, bec others’ lives are at stake, but no one seems to care about them, including abortions (miscarriages) through pollution, etc). But at least that’s something.
“However, taking up only one issue is not going to be very effective unless we all – conservative and liberal, anti-abortionist & environmentalist – join together to solve all these problems that threaten our lives and souls. We need all in our Catholic Church, and this attempt to exclude liberals who also have good ideas for seeking first the Kingdom of God (and I do feel it is an attempt to exclude, not a mere, ‘why do they stay’), will only put us all in hell.”

Those beliefs, lynn, are a fairly good summation of the Liberal argument as to why they should be accepted as Catholics in good standing. But those sorts of beliefs are not only anti-Catholic, they are beyond understanding to orthodox Catholics. To believe that environmental degradation is a very serious problem while medical abortion is a bogus concern because no one really cares about mothers’ rights, is anti-Catholic and pure French Enlightenment with it’s focus on individual “freedoms”.

A house divided against itself will fall. Why would authentic Catholics want to invite Trojan horses into the Church? It’s counter intuitive and just plain silly to invite people to sow the seeds of dissent into any institution.

If anyone wants French Enlightenment style freedom, there are more than enough faiths of every stripe in this country. There are faith systems that accept the contention that trees are good but children are bad for the environment. Surely Liberals would want to be accepted into a congregation that supports and welcomes them. Only unrepentant Liberals want to invite other unrepentant Liberals into the Catholic Church, but they have no right to do so if the objective is to effect doctrinal change–an impossibility to begin with.

As Trower recounted, Pope John Paul II spoke of the need to defend human freedom “in a social context permeated by ideas of democracy inspired by liberal ideology” and of a “spiritual disorientation” caused by “various liberal and secular tendencies.” I would add, John Paul was the most gentle, loving, welcoming pope in memory.

Nevertheless, neither he nor any other pope saw abortion, contraception, homosexuality, collectivism or any other modern Liberalism as good ideas for seeking first the Kingdom of God. Those things were, are now and always will be seen by the Church for what they are–evils, not a lack of human freedom. And you are correct, lynn, to see it as “an attempt to exclude” by Conservatives. Exclusion in that sense is a very good thing, not a fault, despite what the French Enlightenment types might preach.

Anyway, lynn, you are a well spoken protagonist for your side.

 

[KSU]

This kind of is like being Jewish… I’m a reconstructionist Jew… Which is the most liberal and progressive branch of Judaism out there… I like to say we’re the Jewish version of Quakers.

The other jews look at us as if we are nuts… Why do we stay Jews then? Because it’s part of our heritage and we love G-d just as much as the next person…

But you haven’t stayed Jews in the original sense–you did the honest, honorable thing and established a different Jewish branch that reflects your beliefs about what God expects of His People.

My point is that dissident Catholics should do the same rather than stay and openly cause trouble by telling all who will listen that the Church is wrong, non-inclusive, non-welcoming, non-Christ-like and similar inanities. Then, by all means, keep studying Catholic teaching and, if it feels right, come home.

In the meantime, they can love God to their hearts content, give all their money to the poor and vote for abortionists until the cows come home. But by definition, they are not Catholic if they believe that the Church has erred in ANY doctrine. Peter sets the rules and the REQUIRED beliefs by direct authority from God catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope.

That’s what it means to be a Catholic. Period. Why is that so difficult a concept for them to grasp?

Oh, and if you want to be looked at as if your nuts, tell people you literally, really truly, eat the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

99% of all Catholics adults in the USA are dissidents.

As dissident, I am counting all of these:

–All adults using artificial birth control and justifying it as permissible.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic Just Wage doctrine.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic teaching on Labor Unions.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic Just War doctrine, and instead hold to the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.
–All conservatives who hold that the government never has any right to intervene in the economy in order to redistribute wealth. This very month Pope Benedict called for “redistribution of wealth,” in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching.
–All conservatives who use pornography habitually.
–All liberals who support abortion rights, gay rights, etc.

Everything gets confused when one focuses only on the liberal dissents. Most conservatives are dissents too.

The culture war in the USA is mainly a struggle for dominance between two Catholic dissent groups.

This is what I think, anyway. This is what I see. This is my explanation for why in the last 40 years nothing has gotten any better.

But I understand the other viewpoints, and I respect those viewpoints too.

I could very well be blind and wrong. I offer my viewpoint for those who might find it thought provoking and helpful. To those who only find it annoying, I apologize. It was not meant for you.

 

[KSU]

"99% of all Catholics adults in the USA are dissidents.

As dissident, I am counting all of these:

–All adults using artificial birth control and justifying it as permissible.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic Just Wage doctrine.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic teaching on Labor Unions.
–All conservatives who reject the Catholic Just War doctrine, and instead hold to the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.
–All conservatives who hold that the government never has any right to intervene in the economy in order to redistribute wealth. This very month Pope Benedict called for “redistribution of wealth,” in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching.
–All conservatives who use pornography habitually.
–All liberals who support abortion rights, gay rights, etc."

Bartolome, people who reject actual Church teaching (as opposed to the usual Liberal allegations and distortions of teachings for political purposes) concerning ANY doctrine–not merely teachings about just wage, labor unions, just war, and redistribution of wealth-- by definition are not conservatives, i.e., not orthodox Catholics. Your flat out statement that “Most conservatives are dissents, too” is false on its face.

Secondly, a major flaw in your alleged 99% math is that you are confusing many garden variety sinners (Catholics who confess their sins and really try to stop) with dissidents. The latter are people who are unrepentant and who attempt to justify their actions by claiming that Church doctrine is opposed to God’s will for His people on this or that issue.

Another major flaw is gross exaggeration of Church social teaching. For example, when you say that “This very month Pope Benedict called for ‘redistribution of wealth,’ in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching” you know that he did not mean “redistribution” in any political Liberal/Progressive/Socialist connotation. You were disabused of that contention earlier on another thread, but you still put it out here to imply that the pope meant that the government can have the right to intervene in a country’s economy in order to redistribute wealth.

As Abyssinia pointed out in that other thread:
“Pope Benedict is not writing in the context of taxing more those who have money; he is writing in the context of the Church’s teaching as set forth in all of the great social encyclicals beginning with Pope Leo XIII and continuing down through Blessed Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict is not writing about taxing the rich to help the poor but rather he and the other Popes call for the construction of “mechanisms” in our global economy that help bring about a better distribution of wealth [such as by trade agreements and financing mechcanisms–my insert] between the nations of the First World and the nations of the Second and Third Worlds.”

In short, your 99% figure is just something you made up.

 

[Dirt]

between the nations of the First World and the nations of the Second and Third Worlds."

In short, your 99% figure is just something you made up.

Just out of curiosity, have you read Rerum Novarum?

from Rerum Novarum:
"3. In any case we clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class: for the ancient workingmen’s guilds were abolished in the last century, and no other protective organization took their place. Public institutions and the laws set aside the ancient religion. Hence, by degrees it has come to pass that working men have been surrendered, isolated and helpless, to the hardheartedness of employers and the greed of unchecked competition. The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men. To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself. "

Just one of Many points His Holiness Pope Leo XIII addressed in this encyclical on labor, property rights and Catholic theology concerning modern economies.

Read the entire document here:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

and try to read it without bias on either side.
One may also wish to read **Sapientiae Christianae **as well.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10011890_sapientiae-christianae_en.html

A Very Blessed Christmas Season to All

 

[KSU]

Yes, Dirt, I read Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical. I would like to think that it played a significant role in correcting the situation in America at that time.

Unfortunately for our country, the table has been turned and Marxist theory now underpins national union activity. I have seen, up close and personal, powerfully corrupt labor destroy, among others, our steel and shipping industries and, almost, our automobile industry.

As is its tendency, Liberalism took a good thing too far in our secular life and killed the goose that laid the golden egg. I pray that orthodox Catholics, in light of Leo’s Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae and Quod Apostollici, can prevent the same from happening to the Church in America.

 

[lynnvinc]

…To believe that environmental degradation is a very serious problem while medical abortion is a bogus concern because no one really cares about mothers’ rights, is anti-Catholic and pure French Enlightenment with it’s focus on individual “freedoms”.

That’s not what I meant. I meant that when people claim to be anti-abortion, and yet they do nothing to reduce their own harms, including pollution that causes miscarriages or environmental disasters, then I cannot take their claim that they are against abortion seriously. They are seem to be promoting their own ego by pointing to other people’s sins, while lacking concern about their own sins and harms.

If we want people to take us Catholics seriously about the abortion issue, then I think it would help if we show that we are serious about reducing our own contributions to abortion (e.g., through reducing our pollution that causes “natural” abortions or miscarriages). And if we say we are “pro-life,” then that has to also include both protecting the lives of the unborn and the lives of the born; we cannot neglect the child once it is born and allow it to die.

In other words hypocrisy will get us nowhere in our pro-life campaigns and will cause our words to fall on deaf ears. People will not take us seriously. That is why we need to keep good of both the right and the left – those things on each side that promote life and goodness; and why we need each other to help us see our own sins (of the right and of the left) that we tend to be blind to.

My Carmelite president up north used to refer to “sins of the right” (arrogance, etc) and “sins of the left” (debauchery, etc), and that the “sins of the right” were perhaps more difficult to see, accept, and root out, and that elderly people especially (who have pretty much grown past “sins of the left”) need especially to be careful re “sins of the right.”

I would change that a bit, and say that both sides are killing people but in different ways, and we need each other to help point out the ways in which we are killing people so we can take measures to reduce and stop it.

Another way of looking at it is that the left-wing person might say that the unborn fetus is just a blob of plasma, not a real human being, while a right-wing person might say, yes that person who died from emphysema or cancer, or from Hurricane Katrina or the Pakistani flood or a drought in Africa, or the still-birth fetus from a miscarriage were all real people, but I didn’t have anything to do with their deaths. Both are wrong.

We need each other for corrrective criticism. Why is marriage such a holy institution – well, at least in our case, it has been 43 years of corrective criticisms

 

[KSU]

lynn, I know exactly what you meant, but to equate environmental degradation with medical abortion is anti-Catholic. It smacks of the discredited “seamless garment” argument adopted and put forward by the Liberal Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in the mid-eighties. The “seamless garment” argument had been (and no doubt still is) a position favored by abortion-supporters.

Finally, Pope John Paul II said in 1986 that “An extreme sensitivity, akin to a holy reaction, is felt when attempts on life are made in the form of famine, war, and terrorism; yet, one cannot find this feeling of sensitivity when faced with abortion, which takes the lives of innumerable innocent beings.”

In any case, my life’s work and love has been in the environmental field. Even if it ever could be shown that pollution in this country causes abortions, compared to the number of medical abortions the number of pollution-induced abortions would be just about non-existent statistically speaking.

Thanks just the same, lynn, but orthodox Si, Liberals No.

 

[formerlysure]

Lynn, I would caution you on characterizing issues as right or left. I fond often that there are misunderstandings on things like the environment being a “left” issue. Among my conservative friends, most are environmentalists and see no inconsistency as such with their stand that government does not run initiatives economically or effectively in this or most other arenas. And as it is costly to monitor everyone… Impossibly so… Monitoring needs to focus on the big problem Offenders and industries, with incentive and education for the rest, punishment And penalty for all who are caught. This isn’t anti environment but there are many who characterize it as such.

There are other examples… Such as the misperception that HIV/ aids is a left issue…the bush administration did more on this issue than any other entity, public or private.

This concept of liberal and conservative sin is odd to me as sin is individual. The right does not own arrogance. No sin can be aligned with the side of the aisle, only with individuals.

 

[lynnvinc]

lynn, I know exactly what you meant, but to equate environmental degradation with medical abortion is anti-Catholic.

Totally agreed, medical abortion is a much worse sin that “unintentionally” causing some pollution that joins with a lot more pollution caused by many other people, which then causes a woman to miscarry her unborn child, or in the case of global warming could cause death of most of humanity, perhaps even all of life.

However, I have never ever had an abortion, and have been against abortion since I was a small Protestant child, and have never waivered in my opposition to it. I’ve participated in anti-abortion campaigns since the 70s, and in 1976 went out getting signatures to help get anti-abortion leader Ellen McCormack on the Democratic primary ballot for president. I participate in sidewalk Stations of the Cross on Good Friday outside an abortion clinic, and contribute baby things to poor, expectant mothers. I know I could do much more, if I had the time (maybe when I retire), but I have never had an abortion and never would. As a professor, I do speak out against it in class, when the appropriate context arises.

So I have never had an abortion and have worked against others having abortions, but I HAVE been contributing to abortions (miscarriages), birth defects, harms, and deaths through my environmental harms. And this has filled me with sorrow and remorse, and made me seek out all the ways I can reduce these harms. I was willing to sacrifice to reduce my harms, but came to find out over the decades that we have actually saved money, $1000s, and improved our health, without lowering living standards (even increasing them) by greatly reducing our contributions to environmental problems that cause harm and death to others and to God’s creation.

I know it is difficult for people (including me) to believe, whether they be conservative or liberal, that if you seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, all things will be given unto you. I now believe this fully.

I think it is a bit of pride and a bit of fear that prevents others, esp conservatives, from reducing their environmental harms to they fellow humans and God’s creation. We just need a little bit of humility and a little bit of courage, and faith in God. Faith, hope, and charity. Then it’s “easy street.” There are no more mountains, only molehills.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

That’s not what I meant. I meant that when people claim to be anti-abortion, and yet they do nothing to reduce their own harms, including pollution that causes miscarriages or environmental disasters, then I cannot take their claim that they are against abortion seriously. They are seem to be promoting their own ego by pointing to other people’s sins, while lacking concern about their own sins and harms.

If we want people to take us Catholics seriously about the abortion issue, then I think it would help if we show that we are serious about reducing our own contributions to abortion (e.g., through reducing our pollution that causes “natural” abortions or miscarriages). And if we say we are “pro-life,” then that has to also include both protecting the lives of the unborn and the lives of the born; we cannot neglect the child once it is born and allow it to die.

In other words hypocrisy will get us nowhere in our pro-life campaigns and will cause our words to fall on deaf ears. People will not take us seriously. That is why we need to keep good of both the right and the left – those things on each side that promote life and goodness; and why we need each other to help us see our own sins (of the right and of the left) that we tend to be blind to.

My Carmelite president up north used to refer to “sins of the right” (arrogance, etc) and “sins of the left” (debauchery, etc), and that the “sins of the right” were perhaps more difficult to see, accept, and root out, and that elderly people especially (who have pretty much grown past “sins of the left”) need especially to be careful re “sins of the right.”

I would change that a bit, and say that both sides are killing people but in different ways, and we need each other to help point out the ways in which we are killing people so we can take measures to reduce and stop it.

Another way of looking at it is that the left-wing person might say that the unborn fetus is just a blob of plasma, not a real human being, while a right-wing person might say, yes that person who died from emphysema or cancer, or from Hurricane Katrina or the Pakistani flood or a drought in Africa, or the still-birth fetus from a miscarriage were all real people, but I didn’t have anything to do with their deaths. Both are wrong.

We need each other for corrrective criticism. Why is marriage such a holy institution – well, at least in our case, it has been 43 years of corrective criticisms

Hi. You sound well meaning, but you fudge serious crimes against God with environmental ignorance. It is like making murder equal to someone who throws a can into the wrong trash bag. Acts of God, such as Hurricane Katrina, are outside of our control and we could look for some message in them to help us in the future. However, acts of human beings against other human beings - in the case of abortion, the taking of the life of the most helpless humans - is an evil we do have control over. We can use our vote to vote out those who support this holocaust and we can make sure that we never take part in or support abortion ourselves. Liberals always fudge rather than face up to realities of the evil of human beings.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, I would caution you on characterizing issues as right or left. I fond often that there are misunderstandings on things like the environment being a “left” issue. Among my conservative friends, most are environmentalists and see no inconsistency as such with their stand that government does not run initiatives economically or effectively in this or most other arenas. And as it is costly to monitor everyone… Impossibly so… Monitoring needs to focus on the big problem Offenders and industries, with incentive and education for the rest.

Bravo, and completely agreed. Also, many liberals are not into environmental issues, and tend to blame others (like the poor countries for having too many children), and not themselves.

In fact the very best environmental presidents bar none were Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon. Would that our Democratic presidents have been so good.

However, if you look now at the Republican party at the top, they are all anti-environmentalists. Everyone of them.

I also agree that ALL levels need to address environmental problems – gov, industry, business, the church, schools, households, and individuals – or they just won’t get solved. And most of this needs to be voluntary, aided with education and raised awareness. One thing the gov could do (but is not doing, bec both parties are bought & paid for by big oil & coal) is remove all subsidies and tax-breaks from the oil and coal industries; it hurts me to have to pay on April 15th for other people to pollute, harm, and kill. The money saved from that could then be distributed to the poor so they could either pay their higher energy bills with it, or use it as seed money to become energy/resource efficient/conservative and/or go on alt energy, then really be on the road to economic prosperity.

Enviro issues are neither red nor blue; they are green, and are often forgotten or set aside by both the conservatives and liberals. We live in a world a lot more complex than just conservative v. liberal. But if we follow our Catholic faith fully (both the conservative and liberal streams of it that promote life and goodness), then it all becomes very simple.

 

[Jerome_Fan]

Totally agreed, medical abortion is a much worse sin that “unintentionally” causing some pollution that joins with a lot more pollution caused by many other people, which then causes a woman to miscarry her unborn child, or in the case of global warming could cause death of most of humanity, perhaps even all of life.

However, I have never ever had an abortion, and have been against abortion since I was a small Protestant child, and have never waivered in my opposition to it. I’ve participated in anti-abortion campaigns since the 70s, and in 1976 went out getting signatures to help get anti-abortion leader Ellen McCormack on the Democratic primary ballot for president. I participate in sidewalk Stations of the Cross on Good Friday outside an abortion clinic, and contribute baby things to poor, expectant mothers. I know I could do much more, if I had the time (maybe when I retire), but I have never had an abortion and never would. As a professor, I do speak out against it in class, when the appropriate context arises.

So I have never had an abortion and have worked against others having abortions, but I HAVE been contributing to abortions (miscarriages), birth defects, harms, and deaths through my environmental harms. And this has filled me with sorrow and remorse, and made me seek out all the ways I can reduce these harms. I was willing to sacrifice to reduce my harms, but came to find out over the decades that we have actually saved money, $1000s, and improved our health, without lowering living standards (even increasing them) by greatly reducing our contributions to environmental problems that cause harm and death to others and to God’s creation.

I know it is difficult for people (including me) to believe, whether they be conservative or liberal, that if you seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, all things will be given unto you. I now believe this fully.

I think it is a bit of pride and a bit of fear that prevents others, esp conservatives, from reducing their environmental harms to they fellow humans and God’s creation. We just need a little bit of humility and a little bit of courage, and faith in God. Faith, hope, and charity. Then it’s “easy street.” There are no more mountains, only molehills.

Whilst your concern for the environment is laudible, global warming etc has been blown out of all proportion to worry people like you, so that you do not see the real crimes against humanity increasing in your midst. Take for example, euthanasia - this is creeping into our medical services and I believe is widely practised when someone is old and has nobody to speak up for them. Another sneaking evil is the growth of Muslim enclaves in every Western, formerly Christian, country. More and more Sharia Law is being practised in England and, whilst the English, American and other Western peoples are busy killing their own unborn, Muslims are having more babies every year. Soon, it will be evident to all liberals where the real terror lies. God help us all.