Is it possible for a True Catholic to be a Liberal

[Era Might]

Neither are many Christians, for that matter.

[qfnol31]

Yes, da vero.

[Colleen]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:07 PM'][quote name='Aquinas']"nothing prevents a virtuous man from being liberal"

--Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 117, Article 1[/quote]


[right][snapback]852218[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is, of course, taking Aquinas out of context. : His use of the world "liberal" is different from the modern useage. :

[Socrates]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 08:08 PM'] im not stupid. i knew conservative but i wanted to hear your explanation of conservative. sheesh.
[right][snapback]852220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Conservative (my definition)

A conservative respects the legitimate traditions of the past, and the authority of God and Church.
He believes in the importance of family, religion, and love of God and country.

Law should respect tradition and religion, not oppose it.

The conservative sees the limitations of human nature, and does not believe in utopian schemes.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

He believes in limited government, especially at the federal level. The federal government should not do anything that cannot be handled at a lower level (principle of subsidiarity).
Things are handled better at the local and private level than by government beaurocracy.

The right of individuals to own property, raise their family as they see fit, defend themselves, and worship freely must be respected by the state.

[Era Might]

[quote]This is, of course, taking Aquinas out of context. : His use of the world "liberal" is different from the modern useage. :
[/quote]

I know, I know. I was just having a little fun, because some people seem deathly afraid of the word "liberal" in any context. :

Interestingly enough, in his Encyclical Letter "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis", Pope John Paul II speaks of two economic extremes, "liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism". Note that hardcore capitalism is considered "liberal", and not identified with Marxism, which is presented as its polar opposite.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

He never debated with American social/economic liberals, I think. :

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 08:39 PM']Conservative (my definition)

A conservative respects the legitimate traditions of the past, and the authority of God and Church. 
He believes in the importance of family, religion, and love of God and country.

Law should respect tradition and religion, not oppose it.

The conservative sees the limitations of human nature, and does not believe in utopian schemes.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

He believes in limited government, especially at the federal level.  The federal government should not do anything that cannot be handled at a lower level (principle of subsidiarity).
Things are handled better at the local and private level than by government beaurocracy.

The right of individuals to own property, raise their family as they see fit, defend themselves, and worship freely must be respected by the state.
[right][snapback]852263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree with your definition. However, I wonder about the "raise their family as they see fit"? Does that extend to non-traditional families?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:39 PM']Conservative (my definition)

A conservative respects the legitimate traditions of the past, and the authority of God and Church. 
He believes in the importance of family, religion, and love of God and country.

Law should respect tradition and religion, not oppose it.

The conservative sees the limitations of human nature, and does not believe in utopian schemes.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

He believes in limited government, especially at the federal level.  The federal government should not do anything that cannot be handled at a lower level (principle of subsidiarity).
Things are handled better at the local and private level than by government beaurocracy.

The right of individuals to own property, raise their family as they see fit, defend themselves, and worship freely must be respected by the state.
[right][snapback]852263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so in defining conservatives this way it would be appropriate to assume that liberals are the polar opposite of everything you have stated?

[Guest Rick777]

Liberals could believe in many of the same things.

[Era Might]

[quote]A conservative respects the legitimate traditions of the past, and the authority of God and Church. 
He believes in the importance of family, religion, and love of God and country.[/quote]

Nothing unique here. A Catholic liberal believes in all these things.

[quote]Law should respect tradition and religion, not oppose it.[/quote]

Again, nothing a Catholic liberal would not profess.

[quote]The conservative sees the limitations of human nature, and does not believe in utopian schemes.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."[/quote]

Ditto here. The only difference between Catholic liberals and Catholic conservatives would be whether something is in fact broke, and how to go about fixing it (eg, health care).

[quote]He believes in limited government, especially at the federal level.  The federal government should not do anything that cannot be handled at a lower level (principle of subsidiarity).
Things are handled better at the local and private level than by government beaurocracy.[/quote]

Since subsidiarity is a point of Catholic social doctrine, of course, both political liberals and political conservatives must abide by it. Still, there is plenty of room for disagreement on whether more federal effort can be expended without usurping the work of a lower level, or, again, disagreement on whether the lower level is doing its job in the first place.

[quote]The right of individuals to own property, raise their family as they see fit, defend themselves, and worship freely must be respected by the state.[/quote]

Again, here, nothing a Catholic liberal would not believe in.

Your definition, for the most part, comprises general Catholic (rather than political) principles. The differences are not in general principles, but in actually implementing them in an imperfect world.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Era Might

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Let's throw this question into the ring.

SHould the government support as much welfare as they do.?Why or why not?

Traditional liberals would say yes. Traditional conservatives would say no.

[qfnol31]

I wonder, just to add some fun, if it's so that the responsibility to take care of the poor from the people so they feel like they're actually doing something (which I don't think is the case).

[Sarah_JC]

There is no perfectly competative market, look at these multinational companies. They're distroying my city. How about yours?
Well, maybe they're good for the US, but they're choking out employment here.
Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Staples...

This is not heading in a good direction. As a "economic liberal" I despise the Liberal party for forcing this on us.

And I'm upset that people think this is good, that it doesn't need to change.
Change back to the tradtional way, looking after our own families, cities, countries.

I'm orthodox. Plain and simple.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam' date='Jan 11 2006, 08:40 AM']Let's throw this question into the ring.

SHould the government support as much welfare as they do.?Why or why not?

Traditional liberals would say yes.  Traditional conservatives would say no.
[right][snapback]852605[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If government doesn't provide a baseline of support for the poor, who should do it? Should we rely entirely on private donations and volunteers to care for the needs of poor?

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Jan 11 2006, 10:47 AM']If government doesn't provide a baseline of support for the poor, who should do it? Should we rely entirely on private donations and volunteers to care for the needs of poor?
[right][snapback]852874[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Agreed, but the question is, should the amount of welfare be supported?

There are so many who are on welfare who shouldn't be. Those who are only on it because they're lazy and don't want to get off their butts. If these people would get off their butts and work, taxes would be lower, because there wouldn't be as much welfare to pay out of our paychecks. Social Security is another screw-up. Sorry, I'd rather be conservative and say things as they are concerning welfare and SS than be a liberal.

There's too many lazy bums on welfare, plain and simple.