Why do some Catholics lean politically conservative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Discerning that killing a child is inherently evil does not judge persons.
Only God does that. God through Jesus Christ knows every mitigating factor of every single person from the beginning of time until God wipes away every tear.
But God does not rescind, ‘thou shalt not kill,’ for any of humankind’s laws.
Laws that oppose this, are opposed to God, and are not charitable nor help facilitare
true peace that God is always striving for us to allow God to give.
And this is especially true of the weak and helpless.
 
Elf01 said:
I don’t think that’s typical of the poverty of a woman seeking an abortion.
Click to expand...
A more realistic sceario may be Hagar’s. A woman and her child are thrown out by her boyfriend/husband and made homeless as a result. If she kills the child what is your response.
 
Elf01 said:
I don’t think that’s typical of the poverty of a woman seekign an abortion.
Click to expand...
As is often the case, maintaining a conversation within the context of the discussion requires a re-direction back to the intent of the message.
The idea is not so much the woman in the sewer systems “actions” during the time of being a Jewish woman during a Nazi occupied Poland. The idea is the woman’s “mind” set and what propelled her to do so.
Hopelessness often does cause persons to do things they would not otherwise do.
I’ve laid my case that physiological needs must be addressed before higher values can be embraced. This is a psychological issue that is human, life exists only because physiological issues are met. It is difficult to ask a woman to consider life within her if she cannot feed, house, clothe, or maintain proper healthcare for her needs and ultimately the needs of an infant.
I will not be subjected any further to limited understanding of problem that can be multi-faceted such as this. I am pro-life and understand I am called to love and understand, and move on the understanding to something that is meaningful. In many cases this will be the physiological needs of the mother.
 
And I do think that those who work to help women in crisis pregnancy are doing that.

The problem with determining the reasons women get abortions is that women are going to give “good” reasons for taking this step. They are not going to say that they do not want to have their fun cut off by having a baby, so they say their education would be affected. They do not want to say that they don’t want to deal with the hassle of a small child, so they say they have other children who would be negatively affected if they had a child. (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1xqMdK0i41jnlfyY-vCx8u)

I am not saying that this is the case for all women who get abortions, only that there is no real way to tell the true reasons. Even the question of whether they are being pressured to have the abortion will not be answered truthfully in some cases, because the woman will want to please the bully more than she wants to get help, or perhaps she thinks she wouldn’t get help, for example, PP seems unconcerned about violating the law when it comes to underage patients.

The pro-abortion folks have no problem lying and exploiting extreme cases to get the outcome they want. (Exposé: Planned Parenthood ignored sexual assault of 13-year-old victims)(Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist)

Way too much of our society pushes sex onto people. People then have sex with people or at times when they do not want to have a baby. Then what can they do? How many patients think that “the pregnancy” is just a clump of cells, that “the pregnancy” is just a problem to be solved rather than an actual living human being as they themselves once were?

Dr Maslow was unhappy with his work towards the end of his life. The idea of self-actualization is very flawed, and the human potential movement inspired by his work was an complete disaster. Read or listen the Catholic psychologist Dr William Coulter, who came to realize the harm these ideas were having after an entire Catholic Catholic school system was destroyed by him and Carl Rogers. (Seite nicht gefunden) (the best but audio, needs to be purchased (I will pay for it if you want to listen to it): Full Hearts and Empty Heads - Keep The Faith)

The way to help people out of poverty is to help them become better persons: people who are able to delay gratification, who are able to think through their actions and consider the consequences.

A government which continually allows them to avoid the consequences is enabling, not helping, people. A government which, as the poster above mentioned, takes away $300 of benefits for a $50 increase in income, is keeping the poor poor. And a government which forces itself on the people is a tyranny.
 
yet you dismissed the example of the woman who has an abortion because she doesn’t want to lose her figure.

You can not exclude some cases while keeping those which back up your thesis.
 
I lean right because I’m against abortion first and foremost. Without life all the other rights don’t matter. I’m against homosexual marriage and culture. I’m against pandering to minorities knowing you have to keep them suppressed to earn their vote. I’m against a welfare state designed on dependence not assistance. I’m against globalist ideas of a world without borders or culture. I’m against the idea of big government taking the place of God. The more I think about it the more evil the other ideologies sound.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
yet you dismissed the example of the woman who has an abortion because she doesn’t want to lose her figure.

You can not exclude some cases while keeping those which back up your thesis.
Click to expand...
Dear Annie,
My focus has been the female psyche, not the female physique, that was someone else’s.
May I refer you to The United States Conference of Bishops, profoundly Catholic as a solid source of my “thesis” as you call it. However in the spirit of kindness I’d prefer it be a discussion.
This is part of the page I refer you to, we are limited in characters:

Poverty and Abortion: A Vicious Cycle

For many years policymakers have debated whether we should reduce abortions by fighting poverty or by passing pro-life laws. The question is misplaced. It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and. We need to address both poverty and bad abortion policies.
So poverty can lead to an increase in abortions. How does abortion affect poverty?

This is where those truly interested in women and abortion refer to the church’s teaching’s and concerns on the subject and do their own homework…………Thank you for the conversation, the reading with the gathered statistics is worth the reading for everyone.
 
Politically, I seem myself as a traditional Democrat - conservative on fiscal issues, but liberal when it comes to social issues.
I think Catholics, for the most part, come in all shapes and sizes when it comes to politics. There are conservatives, middle of the roaders, and liberals. It takes all kinds to make a Church.
In my opinion, the Church seems like a one-trick pony when it comes to social issues.
Abortion, abortion, abortion. It seems to be all that we Catholics talk about. Needless to say, it is an important topic. I will not minimize its importance.
But there are other important issues, including poverty, injustice, spousal abuse, and more.
When it the last time you heard a Sunday sermon on a social issue other than abortion?
There is no much incivility in this country. So much division. I would love to hear more sermons having to do with respecting others who have different beliefs about things. Listening to others, helping, and loving others is what Jesus calls us to do.
Okay, I will now get off of my soap box. 🙏
 
DENNYINMI said:
If one looks at the reasons women feel the need to procure/endure this type of procedure it is due to poverty and their standing within the community. Women in the poverty level are far more apt to consider this an option because in order for decisions to be compelled by an enlightened vision that all life is sacred, it is necessary that the minimal needs of life must first be met. They must feel the sacredness of their own life!
Click to expand...
You have simply assumed this is true, but the data do not support your position. Perhaps a quarter of abortions are performed primarily because of economic concerns. An even higher percentage of women say “I’m not ready for a child right now.” Yours is an emotional argument, but it isn’t an accurate one. Whatever the actual numbers are - and there is a lot of discrepancy among estimates - claiming that most do it because they are financially unable to support the child is not true.
 
Ender said:
You have simply assumed this is true, but the data do not support your position. Perhaps a quarter of abortions are performed primarily because of economic concerns. An even higher percentage of women say “I’m not ready for a child right now.” Yours is an emotional argument, but it isn’t an accurate one. Whatever the actual numbers are - and there is a lot of discrepancy among estimates - claiming that most do it because they are financially unable to support the child is not true.
Click to expand...
My claim is that abortion and poverty are a vicious cycle and life cannot be supported without physiological sustenance.
It is supported by data and this data is offered and supported by The United States College of Bishops which is offered above.
The Church supports it and that is my concern, not whether Ender on CAF does, but the Church. Thank you
www.usccb.org /…/respect-life-program/2014/ poverty - and-abortion .cfm
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Liberals propose plans they believe will help the needy. Conservatives oppose those plans because they believe they will actually make things worse.
Click to expand...
Ding, Ding, Ding. In economics, we learn about one’s economic self-interest; it is inherent in human nature and is entrenched in biblical teaching. Human nature makes social justice / social welfare ideologies fail if they are the primary means of running a government; it is the reason why socialism and communism fails every-time it is tried regardless of the way it is tried. In capitalism, there’s a lot more money available to provide for charitable pursuits. In other words, by allowing people to keep more of what they earn, they’re far more likely to be able to give more money away than the government could have provided without the fruits of their labors.

Take whatever is given to charity in the USA and add what the government gives to charity as a percentage of income and compare that to what people in Europe to give to charity in addition to their generous social welfare program and I bet that Americans give far more as a net to charity than their European counterparts.

According to the article, a total of 30.2% (20.0% + 10.2%) is given by USA whereas in Europe, it ranges from 24.7% in France (21.9% + 2.8%) to 27.2% (21.9% + 5.3%) in the UK.

 
Last edited:
DENNYINMI said:
My claim is that abortion and poverty are a vicious cycle and life cannot be supported without physiological sustenance.
Click to expand...
If you had the chance to vote on abortion like the Irish referendum would you make it illegal?
 
Elf01 said:
If you had the chance to vote on abortion like the Irish referendum would you make it illegal?
Click to expand...
Yes I would except maybe if the life of the mom is at risk (not referring to mental health) or where the baby will definitely not make it to term or is already dead. The hard part would be if a doctor defines a pregnancy as having a very high risk of death but where it was subject to interpretation and/or not definitive.
 
Last edited:
Reading this thread, I have noticed that nobody brought up adoption as a solution to a woman who cannot afford a child. There are more than enough people waiting to adopt in the US, so I don’t get why these debates almost always boil down to having a child be born into poverty vs. not being born at all.
 
catholic morality itself is pretty right wing
catholic monarchical integralist subsidiary kingdom when
 
redbetta said:
Reading this thread, I have noticed that nobody brought up adoption as a solution to a woman who cannot afford a child. There are more than enough people waiting to adopt in the US, so I don’t get why these debates almost always boil down to having a child be born into poverty vs. not being born at all.
Click to expand...
Because neither side wants to deal with the emotional issue or the attachment issue that occurs with bearing a child. A mom has three choices: to have an abortion and not have to make decisions in regards to raising the child or placing the child for adoption, raising the child and hoping there is the help there to take care of said child, or placing the child for adoption even though you’ve carried the child in your womb for approximately 9 months or 40 weeks.

We’re seeking adoption. There are also issues with the adoption system in that it is either prohibitively expensive, there are more adoptive parents than children who need adopting (particularly in domestic infant adoption), or adoptive parents must be willing to help reunite children with birth parents and only get to adopt if there’s a failure in the ability to reunite the child(ren) with their birth parent(s).

An adoptive parent has four avenues they can go down:
  1. the birth parent goes to an adoption agency and several adoption parents are considered thru a panel, thru profile, or thru some other selective means
  2. the birth parent adopts thru a private agency thru foster care but aren’t foster parents. Kinship has first priority, followed by foster parents. After foster parents have chosen whom they want to adopt, your agency comes to you with children that are available. In this case, most kids are above age 8 or have profound physical, intellectual, or emotional disabilities. We knew of a couple that was able to adopt a sibling pair of normally developing 2 & 3 year olds but this is not typical.
  3. To become a licensed foster parent. To be a foster parent, you must not have the intent to adopt. You can be available to adopt but you must have the goal of reuniting kids with their birth family. In other words, you’re ability to adopt is directly correlated with the birth parents failing to retain their parental rights. To do this ethically, you must have the goal and social support to handle the possibility that your assigned child will be only with you temporarily even if you do end out adopting your placed child.
  4. International - there are substantial fees not only for the adoption agency here (as in domestic infant adoption), but also fees due to the Hague Treaty. Thus this adoption is generally the most expensive; it can range from $35,000 to $60,000 (this used to be a lot less costly). Also, international countries have been using foster care instead of orphanages and this has also resulted in fewer children being available for adoption, greatly increasing the costs.
Independent adoption occurs when you know the birth family and use an attorney instead of an adoption agency. Embryo adoption is when you adopt another couple’s unused embryos from IVF.
 
Last edited:
From the Republican side, it’s not mentioned as much because adoption is prohibitively expensive, so it’s not available to many people.

From the Democratic side, the reality that adoption / orphanages exist puts a major damper in their sacrifices to Baal, so they try to mention it as little as possible.
 
There is no political litmus test to be Catholic, but I think the vast majority of really firmly believing Catholics would be at least conservative on a few select issues such as abortion and euthenasia and that kind of thing. Economics is another thing, you can have right and left wing economic Catholics, Catholic social teaching itself seems to endorse left-wing economics. Lots of Catholics are also friendly to immigration and in Europe, ardent Catholics were actually behind the creation of the European Union which is a fairly liberal institution, or at least it allows both centre-right and centre-left viewpoints within it. Those that are against the EU are usually far right or left, and there aren’t many far right or left Catholics.

There are some far-right Catholics that I know of, they tend to be critical of the Second Vatican Council (although, you can only be so critical of it without falling into heresy). They’re more skeptical of immigrants and probably much more socially conservative. The church recognizes the humanity of all people and teaches against discrimination, but some far-right Catholics would probably like to see that policy reversed. I personally think the Church gets politics right at the moment, for the most part. It has not gone down the road of Leftist mushiness completely like other mainline denominations, it still holds true to traditional teachings, but it also is not crazily reactionary, it recognizes and values the humanity of all people.
 
help1 said:
There are some far-right Catholics that I know of, they tend to be critical of the Second Vatican Council (although, you can only be so critical of it without falling into heresy)
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing two different things. Conservative politically and conservative as far as religion don’t necessarily occur together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top