Political slant and being Catholic...

[Guest Aluigi]

<because America doesn't have a big distributist party >

[hyperdulia again]

[quote]i hate capitalism and socialism. i just think that is possible to be a capitalist following Church Teaching while it is not possible to be a socialist following Church teaching. my dad owns his own company, and as far as I can tell he's a good small-business man who provides for his workers as well as he ought and really does everything fairly. he's still a capitalist, and he's still pretty successful, but he's not out there "steppin on the little guy" or bein greedy. he's a capitalist who follows Church Teaching in this regard (though i'm not sure if he realizes he is following Church Teaching, at least in this area I think he does.) However, a socialist automatically is receiving what is not justly theirs from a government that took it from someone else. a socialist must abandon all private property even though people ought to own their own things according to Catholic Teaching. you can be a good capitalist and still follow Church Teaching. you cannot be a good socialist and still follow Church Teaching.

capitalism is a bad system, but we as Catholics cannot join in the efforts of the biggest group against capitalism because sed group wants to destroy the Church for the same reasons it wants to destroy capitalism. I am convinced that the only economic systems we should support are either distributism or fuedalism, perhaps there's another that hasn't been invented yet or was lost from some ancient civilization that could work, but until someone figures out another way those are my only two options. and there's no way the world's going back to feudalism, but distributism could actually practically work in the modern world after workin out a few of it's kinks from being lost for so long.

anyway, distributism all the way! no socialism, that includes government sponsered healthcare. it takes away the person's right to his own private property. healthcare is not the job of the state, it must be made available to all but the state controlling people is just another way to make people too dependent on it drifting into disguised slavery/serfdom. if you're in capitalism, you have to make the effort to do good because it's not promoted, meaning in a sense that Capitalism is evil insomuch as it does not promote good but rather promotes indifference. [/quote]

Al, I agree with almost every line of this post.

I would say, however, that Feudalism is a myth and distributism is a n ironing out of the myth.

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 16 2005, 05:05 PM']
<if you can't tell, i don't ascribe to a "progressive" view of history i'm more medieval lookin at us as if we're the remnants of a once great civilization and not the improvements upon a backwards civilization> [/quote]
What exactly do you find appealing about the medieval times (w/ serfs, oppression, the Church wrapped up in the temporal realm, etc.) I agree with you that the modern historical view that everything was backwords then and great now is certainly erroneous, but I have never heard someone argue that it was actually better then.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 02:56 PM'] I have come to the conclusion that a  Catholic who is truly following the Church's teaching is homeless in the American political system.  Following the Pope's lead in such documents as [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] and [i]Veritatis Spledor[/i], there are strong stances against things like Abortion and liberal stances.  However, there is certainly the position that we should be hesitant towards war and that the death penalty, in a society where someone can be put in jail for life w/o the danger of escape, is wrong.

Also, back to original poster, I would consider myself conservative theologically but moderate politically (liberal on some issues (i.e. universal health care) and conservative on others (abortion).

Also, on the abortion issue, I think that a pro-life democrat position is the wisest position for eliminating abortion.  Statistically, abortions went up under Regan, and the first Bush, who had conservative fiscal policies.  However, under Clinton, the number of abortions when down, even though he supported abortion rights (stats for George W. aren't out).  Also, looking at South America, The US, and Europe, S.A. has the strongest laws against abortion and Europe has the least.  HOwever, Europe has the strongest social infrastructure (universal healthcare) and S.A. has the worst (US is in the middle on both).  S.A., dispite its laws, has the highest abortion rate of the 3, and a country like the Netherlands, with little or no restrictions, has the lowest abortion rate.

Now, this is not an argument for pro-choice democrats.  We must oppose abortion.  HOwever, presidents always talk about stopping crime, and if we really want to eliminate abortion, simply outlawing it is not enough (S.A.).  We must also work for the infrastructure so that people will not feel the need to have abortions. [/quote]
Perhaps this is getting a little off topic, but I always take strong exception to the argument that it is better to vote for ("pro-choice") Democratic or liberal politicians on the grounds that they will lower the supposed "root causes" of abortion, such as poverty, etc.

Clinton was a very solidly pro-abortion politician, and if the abortion rate went down a little during his term as president, I beleive he had absolutely nothing to with it! It was caused by other factors totally unrelated to Clinton's presidency. This is not to let the Republicans off the hook however! They certainly could be doing more actively to help end abortion. The sad truth is that until laws against abortion are actually returned, the politicians will have little effect against abortions. Even when there are good pro-life politicians, their efforts are overturned by the pro-abortion politicians!

I beleive the whole argument that abortions in this country (or other countries for that matter) are caused primarily by poverty and economic conditions is a lot of rot!

America is one of the richest nations in the world, yet it has high abortion rates. This is also in the wealthy countries of the Europe, which also have high abortion rates. Many get abortions merely for convenience, not because they are in dire life-or-death poverty! The problem has little to do with economics, and everything to do with godless, materialistic attitudes which place comfort and luxury ahead of human life! ("If I have this baby, I won't be able to afford that nice new car!")
Many in our decadent West have abortion for purely vain and selfish purposes!

The problem is not poverty, it is our materialistic attitude, and loss of moral compass!!!

Edited January 17, 2005 by Socrates

[Pennypacker11]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 16 2005, 09:37 PM'] Perhaps this is getting a little off topic, but I always take strong exception to the argument that it is better to vote for ("pro-choice") Democratic or liberal politicians on the grounds that they will lower the supposed "root causes" of abortion, such as poverty, etc.

Clinton was a very solidly pro-abortion politician, and if the abortion rate went down a little during his term as president, I beleive he had absolutely nothing to with it! It was caused by other factors totally unrelated to Clinton's presidency. This is not to let the Republicans off the hook however! They certainly could be doing more actively to help end abortion. The sad truth is that until laws against abortion are actually returned, the politicians will have little effect against abortions. Even when there are good pro-life politicians, there efforts are overturned by the pro-abortion politicians!

I beleive the whole argument that abortions in this country (or other countries for that matter) are caused primarily by poverty and economic conditions is a lot of rot!

America is one of the richest nations in the world, yet it has high abortion rates. This is also in the wealthy countries of the Europe, which also have high abortion rates. Many get abortions merely for convenience, not because they are in dire life-or-death poverty! The problem has little to do with economics, and everything to do godless, materialistic attitudes which place comfort and luxury ahead of human life! ("If I have this baby, I won't be able to afford that nice new car!")
Many in our decadent West have abortion for purely vain and selfish purposes!

The problem is not poverty, it is our materialistic attitude, and loss of moral compass!!! [/quote]
I would like to note that I never argued that it was better to vote for a pro-choice democrat over a pro-life candidate; while I disagree that it is necessarily sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate, the statistical argument for lowering abortion does not outweigh a consistent ethic of life which opposes abortion outright.

The argument that poverty is a [i]contributing factor[/i] (not [i]the[/i] cause) of abortions is statistically well documented. Furthermore, I agree that American and Europe are both rich and both have high abortion rates and indeed, many abortions are done by people who are not impoverished at all. However, there are also many poor people and statistics show that when the poor are given more social service (i.e. health care - like expensive pre-natal care) abortion rates go down.

I think that you are viewing this issue too simply:
I 100% agree with you that are materialistic attitudes and are lack of value for life is a strong factor for the high abortion rate. However, statistics show that poverty is also a strong contributing factor to abortion and thus, if we want to stop the crime of abortion we must work to do [i]ALL[/i] of the following:

1) Outlaw abortion
2) Reduce Poverty
3) Transform our culture of death to a culture of life by giving a consistent Catholic witness to the dignity of all human life, from conception to death.

[Guest Aluigi]

the medievals viewed themselves as remnants of a once great civilization, the Roman Empire.

I view us as the remnants of a once great civilization, Christendom.

along with belloc, i view the thirteenth century peasant as in many ways more free, (even if not politically), than many people under the current capitalist system.

also, there's absolutely positively nothing wrong with the Church holding temporal power. if anyone deserves temporal power in this mess of a world we live in today, it's the Catholic Church.

Edited January 17, 2005 by Aluigi

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 09:55 PM'] I would like to note that I never argued that it was better to vote for a pro-choice democrat over a pro-life candidate; while I disagree that it is necessarily sinful to vote for a pro-choice candidate, the statistical argument for lowering abortion does not outweigh a consistent ethic of life which opposes abortion outright.

The argument that poverty is a [i]contributing factor[/i] (not [i]the[/i] cause) of abortions is statistically well documented. Furthermore, I agree that American and Europe are both rich and both have high abortion rates and indeed, many abortions are done by people who are not impoverished at all. However, there are also many poor people and statistics show that when the poor are given more social service (i.e. health care - like expensive pre-natal care) abortion rates go down.

I think that you are viewing this issue too simply:
I 100% agree with you that are materialistic attitudes and are lack of value for life is a strong factor for the high abortion rate. However, statistics show that poverty is also a strong contributing factor to abortion and thus, if we want to stop the crime of abortion we must work to do [i]ALL[/i] of the following:

1) Outlaw abortion
2) Reduce Poverty
3) Transform our culture of death to a culture of life by giving a consistent Catholic witness to the dignity of all human life, from conception to death. [/quote]
Sorry, my post was not intended as a direct attack on yours. I also probably should also have read your whole post more carefully before I posted. I have seen others in the past use the Clinton abortion statistics, etc. to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians, and wanted to make my own position clear. I just honestly don't think Clinton had anything to do with lowering abortion rates.

I think I'm in basically in agreement with you on the principles, though we probably disagree on what policies will actually reduce poverty in the long run (as many people honestly disagree on these issues!) However, I would say it is always sinful for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion politician if he is running against a pro-lif candidate who has any reasonable chance of winning. Economic issues can never trump the life issue!

Also, though I haven't myself seen the abortion statistics in the Netherlands, this is definitely not because the Dutch are more likely to have children! All Europe has a negative birthrate, and if the Dutch are having comparitively few abortions, it is only because of the high use of contraceptives, unnatural vice, and other non-fertile sex practices!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 16 2005, 09:56 PM'] the medievals viewed themselves as remnants of a once great civilization, the Roman Empire.

I view us as the remnants of a once great civilization, Christendom.

along with belloc, i view the thirteenth century peasant as in many ways more free, (even if not politically), than many people under the current capitalist system.

also, there's absolutely positively nothing wrong with the Church holding temporal power.  if anyone deserves temporal power in this mess of a world we live in today, it's the Catholic Church. [/quote]
I would argue with the medievals that they were a greater civilization than the Romans (which was quite screwed up in many ways)! (Medieval people were so wonderfully, sometimes ridiculously, humble!) Late medieval technology in many respects was even higher than that of the Romans, though medieval scientists could not admit this!

Unfortunately, power corrupts, and increasing worldy power in the Church during the middle ages led to widespread corruption by the end of this period. As churchmen gained the power of worldy princes, they began acting like worldly princes, rather than men of God, and were increasingly distracted from their sacred duties by worldly affairs.
All this culminated in the scandals of the Renaisance Church, which in turn sparked the Protestant Revolt.

Also, I think the Church needs to first clean up the evils within itself (such as heretical churchmen, corrupt and dissident bishops, and homosexual/pedophilic priests before it can be a credible influence in the world!)

Edited January 17, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 05:06 PM'] Also, I think that it is worth noting that there is no 'perfect' political system on this side of Christ's return. Whether we are talking capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc, SIN will always corrupt. However, some systems are better than others (a moderated capitalism seems to be most in line w/ Church teaching) and we should work for these with the knowledge that there is no perfect system which cannot be corrupted by sin. [/quote]
Dittos!

[Colleen]

[quote name='Pennypacker11' date='Jan 16 2005, 02:56 PM']  Statistically, abortions went up under Regan, and the first Bush, who had conservative fiscal policies.  However, under Clinton, the number of abortions when down, even though he supported abortion rights (stats for George W. aren't out).  [/quote]
I just wanted to point out that the rate of abortions in America has been decreasing since 1984:

[url="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html"]http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abo...itedstates.html[/url]

[url="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html[/url]

[Guest Aluigi]

the medievals thought of themselves that way, iit's a humble way to think.

but yeah, Christendom is about the height of civilization. when it was shattered, man was done a great disservice, and that is why there are so many problems today

[Micheal5403]

[quote] simply outlawing it is not enough (S.A.). We must also work for the infrastructure so that people will not feel the need to have abortions. [/quote]

Amen.

[Micheal5403]

[quote] I would say it is always sinful for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion politician if he is running against a pro-lif candidate who has any reasonable chance of winning.[/quote]

Why is it always sinful for a Catholic, what about other religions?

[Guest Aluigi]

Catholics are more culpable for the sin because they should know better.

[FilmGuy127]

What if there are more important issues than abortion in the election? is it sinful to vote for the candidate which holds similar views to you on every other issue except abortion? or is it like an automatic trump card type thing that we should only vote on this one issue because if we dont vote for the pro life guy its a sin?