Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RCIAGraduate said:
I just want to ask why some Catholics lean conservative or libertarian on many political or policy issues?
Click to expand...
Back to the OP- here in the United States the Catholic Church has a lot of appeal to conservatives- so much so that several prominent conservatives including Speaker Gingrich and Justice Clarence Thomas have converted or reverted to the Catholic faith. Of course there are a lot more conservatives that were always Catholic as well. But political conservatism just isn’t a roadblock at all to the Catholic Church here in America.
 
This post is terrific and encapsulates a lot of what I believe, as a Catholic who usually votes the Republican ticket:
CatholicGirl1 said:
I am a conservative catholic.

The poor: we will help, but many are taking advantage of the system. My mom grew up and saw first hand. She started working at 14 to help her family of 8. She saw how many people abused it.

[edit]

Immigration: we want immigrants. LEGAL ones. Would you let people in your house near our kids without knowing who they are? Would you like to higher someone for your business without knowing if they will be beneficial to your business (economy). My grandmother is an immigrant (el Salvador) but she came legally- why are these other people special enough to break the law? If you went to Spain illegally, would it be right for them to make you a citizen automatically and all these privileges that others had to earn without them knowing anything about you other than you showing up demanding it?
Click to expand...
(1) The poor: Right, we provide a government safety net to help the poor, and we help them through our Church and other private charities. And it’s good that we do.

But, when people are using their public assistance money for fancy trips to Las Vegas or working the system in other ways (multiple Social Security numbers, etc.), well, maybe I’d like some of that money given back in tax relief to the working class.

(2) Immigration: As I’ve said before I 100% support immigration. Legal immigration.

And I also believe (and Catholic teaching is with me on this) that a nation has the right to set appropriate policies for admission to the country and to maintain border controls.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the U.S. putting its own citizens first. We help our own people before we save the whole world.

And don’t get me started on illegal immigrants getting public assistance with stolen Social Security numbers.

(3) And finally, I’d like to see the working class (especially the lower end of the working class) keep a little more of their own money.

The Republican tax cuts are working. They put more money into the pockets of most taxpayers, and that money is going back into the economy. Two of the leading Democrats (Pelosi, Warren) called the tax cuts “crumbs.” I suppose it’s “crumbs” if you’re a rich Democrat; it’s not “crumbs” if you’re a family living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Well I can vote for a party that promotes abortion and the expansion of it. Who knows how many have taken place in California since they don’t report plus they are about to pass a bill forcing college campuses to make it mandatory. Sickening, I don’t know how one can vote for that. For me, it’s the lesser of two evils and doing nothing or 3rd party I see as non-action.
 
In my mind…you are very right and straight thinking: there is no difference between “Radical Jihad” and Radical Conservatism or “Progressivism”. At the end of the day…Peace on Earth is a moderation…good old fashioned “milk-toast” that honors and respects all. This means…we as Catholics can support President Trump or Mr. Sanders…just…respect-honor and LISTEN…before you scream.
 
I’m not sure how true that is. But as someone who considers herself a devout Roman Catholic - actually I swing to the left. I don’t believe abortion is right, but until we come up with a solution for better education and to truly $upport these women &/or unborn making these partailly educated decisions, they will not be convinced to overturn Roe vs wade. And as far as lgbt issues, God commanded us to love one another! , I don’t believe in their unions to be holy nor some of their physical acts. But we’re sinners too and we are not to judge. We have to think of them as our children and we can’t help but to love them and respect them as God loves us - his children. To spew fire and brimstone as most of those that swing right. Sorry I can get behind. I need to be behind those who don’t have such narrow views.
 
MindyG said:
And as far as lgbt issues, God commanded us to love one another! , I don’t believe in their unions to be holy nor some of their physical acts. But we’re sinners too and we are not to judge. We have to think of them as our children and we can’t help but to love them and respect them as God loves us - his children.
Click to expand...
That’s an issue I didn’t mention in my earlier post, one that I think about as a Catholic.

As a Catholic, LGBT marriage is supposed to be a “non-negotiable.”

But immigration isn’t?

Personally I’d be tempted to vote for the pro-LGBT conservative who opposes illegal immigration over an open borders person. I see letting murderers and drug traffickers into our country as a much bigger threat than the LGBT couple down the street.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Families living paycheck to paycheck don’t pay taxes. Tax cuts don’t help them.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true, there are people with relatively high incomes, yet also very high expenses, so all of the money they make is already earmarked for expenses.
 
My bad, I thought the Bible said something similar. Lol, too much history from school in my mind- thank you for the correction!!!
 
After I got laid off during the dot-com bust, I did some temp work doing data entry at an insurance place. Some of the “customer support”-type people who dealt with people who were insured through the company had their cubicles near mine. I remember one support person who was on the phone with a guy for what seemed like ages---- when she finally got off, she regaled the rest of us with a recap of her conversation.

It was a surgeon who was unable to work due to (an injury?) and so he had to live off of insurance while he healed. And he was outraged. “How am I supposed to make ends meet on $250,000/year?” he demanded.

So remember this was nearly 20 years ago— and $250k back then had about $355k of buying power in today’s dollars.

But even though it was a funny story at the time— his $250k was probably more than twelve of our salaries! —it was also a very sobering reminder that as your income expands, so do your expenses. So the lifestyle you enjoyed when you made $15k a year is not the lifestyle you enjoy when you make $50k a year or $100k a year… and to have to suddenly go back to a $15k/year lifestyle is a very unpleasant experience, even though it might not have been so bad when you were there the first time.
 
Thanks for relaying your experience with this. I have had it on my heart to do something along these lines and really hoped that there was a good program already in motion. I can see how I could want someone to succeed more than they would want it. I agree with everything that you stated about why teaching it in schools might not work if it is not lived out at home. I still think there should be something more than we are giving these kids that have a poor example at home.
 
Absolutely. You might try looking into a big brothers/big sisters kind of program, to try and catch them earlier than I tend to. I usually end up with the young adults who are in their early 20’s, trying to make their way in the world… but by that point, drugs have usually got them hard enough that it gets in the way of them being able to clean up and look at things clearly. When you live in poverty-- whether financially or due to lack of other resources-- it usually leads to an in-the-moment kind of perspective. Why plan for five years ahead when today is precarious and tomorrow isn’t guaranteed? kind of attitude. So things like instant gratification are emphasized instead.

But if you get involved with big brothers/big sisters, or some other youth-oriented program, you can have a better effect on them when they’re younger, and give them something to aim for, that keeps them from getting as far gone as they are later in life-- embedded in bad habits, etc. Not that it’s irrevocable---- but it’s a whole lot easier to not start smoking, than it is to go through the effort of stopping smoking, even if you see it costs you $200 every week or so.
 
xwingz2 said:
there is no difference between “Radical Jihad” and Radical Conservatism or “Progressivism”.
Click to expand...
Other than that the 1st want to execute Catholics during mass, the 2nd are Catholics at mass and 3rd are hostile to Catholics at mass, sure.
 
Do you think if the Government funded those types of programs (and there are models out there to replicate or scale up), we could see less of our issues in communities, neighborhoods and within great society like the school-to-prison pipeline and the cycle of poverty being repeated over and over at potentially greater scales and magnitudes?

Why don’t liberals, conservatives and moderates come together to build a “Society of Hope” so we can have more happy endings? That way, perhaps wouldn’t everyone get what they want, liberals get to see more people in need being helped, conservatives see the “culture of poverty” being eroded and moderates as your average citizens (like everyone else) see the benefits in a healthier and more cohesive and well-ordered society. Pardon because I understand I’m referencing very nuances and complex social issues with overly simplistic prescriptions (more money in pretty programs (which seem pretty good) = better society and more happy endings).
 
Well, we can look at other things that are similar.

There was the government’s War on Alcohol. Prohibition lasted from 1920 until 1933. Rather than saying, “Drink, but drink responsibly,” the government said, “The manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages is totally prohibited, except for medicinal and religious purposes.” It passed a Constitutional amendment-- the 18th-- and then later rescinded it with another amendment-- the 21st. What happened? Smuggling increased. Organized crime increased. It ended up getting kicked to the States to decide whether they wanted to be dry states or wet states-- but within 30 years, there were no more dry states. Dry counties still exist (I live in one), but you merely have to (a) go to a store that has permission (like Walmart), or (b) go to a nearby town in the nearest wet county, or (c ) go to a nearby town within your dry county that has voted itself wet.

There was the government’s War on Tobacco. This one, I would expect to have been much more successful. If you look at movies from the 70’s and before, everyone’s smoking; if you look at movies from the late 80’s onwards, everyone’s trying to quit. Nowadays, the people who are most likely to smoke tobacco are lower-income people-- it’s not “glamorous”. So they did a good job with peer pressure-- and yet with the “War on Drugs”, tobacco and alcohol (and caffeine) are mentioned, but not really emphasized.

In fact, with the War on Drugs, kids nowadays are more likely to smoke pot and do other drugs, than they are to smoke tobacco. Our prisons are full— but the black market is thriving, gangs are all over the place, and everyone knows where to get ahold of the stuff if they wanted it-- even if they might not know themselves, they know someone who does. And it’s not just the classic drugs, but it’s opioids as well-- prescription medication abuse is rampant. I was subbing at the high school, and the kids were talking about the reputations of all the doctors. “My grandma says Doctor So-and-So believes anything you tell him.” “Yeah, so does Dr. This-and-That.” “Yeah. But not Doctor X.” “Nah. He’s pretty sharp.” So even though those kids probably didn’t abuse prescription drugs themselves, the knowledge of which doctor to visit was still in their skillset.
 
So if we’ve spent 40 years and $1 trillion dollars to clean up our act— why are we spiraling even more into a nation of addicts? We spend at least $51 billion annually on the War on Drugs. Instead, nine states plus our nation’s capital have legalized the recreational use of cannabis; 13 more states and the US Virgin Islands have decriminalized it.

So, take something like 10% of Americans overall have used drugs in the last 30 days (28.6 million Americans aged 12 or older), which skews to something like 25% of Americans aged 18-25.

Drug use is usually a voluntary thing. You might pick it up because you’re surrounded by people who do it, and it becomes part of your life. Or you might get into it for other reasons.

But it’s similar to poverty. You might become impoverished for other reasons, like Disaster Happening, but so many people get into it because you’re surrounded by people who are already in poverty, and you don’t have the skills to escape it. It’s what you know-- it’s normal-- you know how to function in that world-- so why put forth the effort to escape it?

If the government can’t solve meth (over 12 million Americans have used meth), how can we expect them to solve poverty?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top