How Can A Faithful Catholic Be A Democrat?

[dairygirl4u2c]

on that "let's hand out 500 dollars" point. as an example
we don't do this as a country because its' socialistic. if we wanted to get this done, though, there'd be very little gov oversight involved, it's very simple.... very direct, and "efficient".
if there's lots of gov oversight, it becomes very little maximized output.... the private sector won't waste money buying 200 dollar toilets when it can pay 50, it's more "efficient' in that way. yet, even that gov oversight has some worth to it, even paying 200 on a tiolet stimulates things... just not in a way that's maximized, or fair to the tax payer. etc. in that way it's not "efficient"

[dairygirl4u2c]

you have some valid points though. i heard in new york they want the state to pay millions for homlessness. it doesn't require millions to build a few buildings for people to sleep etc. well, suffice it ot say, it's pretty much taken as a granted that there's too much buck and not much bang. there's too much gov oversight here. give it back to the private sector and they will make wiser use of the money.... no 200 dollars toilets, please.
course, there's the issue of the homeless not benefiting when we don't use that tax money.
this is an issue that needs a creative solution, which i think could be done with the gov, but the point is that i recoginze your point about efficiency.

[Groo the Wanderer]

you do know that $200 toilet seats are actually line items to fund black ops, right?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1337293110' post='2431904']
i'm not following the article you gave me. maybe you could explain it to me in layman's terms?
note, i don't advocate growing the economy by spending money (and understand how borrowing money is dangerous, so usually dont promote that either).... all i'm saying is that when the government does spend money, that it gets from taxpayers, granted, it's causing the GDP to go up, and creating jobs etc. how is this debateable? example, while i don't agree this is how the government should work in this specific case, someone i know works at a health care unit (a label, euphemism, for a school for the handicap) for certain handicap people. they bill medicaid for their wages. this and all of his coworkers are getting jobs. when we measure GDP, their wages will be included in the measurement.

if Bob is subpar as who the workforced will hire, your "teach a man to fish" analogy is irrelvant.
and what's your point on where they money comes from? i don't deny it's hard working tax payers. Bob won't get the 200 food stamps, cause Bob is subpar, yet we want bob to have food... or mroe food than he'd get otherwise. maybe i should have used a real life example instead of just a random naumber to make a point.
(though i think a case could be made for more socialistic tendencies, such as giving everyone 500 who can't find a job. there's no debate from me though, cause that's way too socialistic for my tastes.)
[/quote]dairy, I'm not a teacher or highly educated. I've been using layman's terms and you seem to understand lot's of things intuitively. Give the article a second chance.

For an economy to grow, money needs to be created. If I provide a service, like bring your mail from your mailbox and putting it on your table for 25cents, my efforts created for me, 25cents. If I take a day's wages, and buy a happy meal, McDonald's paid for their costs and made let's say, 10 cents. 10 cents of wealth was created within the economy. Capital in economies are not a zero sum game, let's say it's a billion dollars and the idea is to spread the billion around equally to everyone. Just as Jesus told the story of the Master who gave 10 Talents to 3 stewards, if you do nothing with it, it doesn't grow. If you invest it or lend it, it grows.

Rich people will almost always help the economy. If they leave it in the bank, it is lent out by the bank for other people to use in business or to purchase things and the money generates profits or interest, and lot's of people win. Money spent by the Government will usually do the same, however, if it is just money they printed, it doesn't add to the value of the economy as it wasn't created from value. However, as it is injected into the economy and is used, it creates wealth.

In the case of Gov. paid health services, no body is paying for the services like it would happen in the private sector. The fact they purchase medical supplies, build a building, and hire people does provide stimilus to the economy. But the Government has to continual put money into the operation. If it's tax money, it's money from the economy and that is good. If it's printed money, the net worth of the money in the economy goes down a bit (inflation), not so good. If it's money borrowed by China's economy, the interest goes back to China's economy which is not good for US, but good for China. That brings up a whole other ball of tar.

But economics are not simple and cut and dried. There are a wide variety of valid and reasonable opinions that would be morally proper because it's complicated and dynamic. We can agree to disagree on many points and not violate shared morals despite how we love to label with Dema-Crooks or Republi-Rats.

The issue of Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are much more definitive, which is what Groo brought up in the first place. The hypocrasy for Catholics, as I see it, is they will let social economic issuess over-ride a more fundamental issue of abortion. Though most posters here at PM say they would never vote for pro-abort Dems, the fact is, most Catholics do vote Democratic.

It seems to me (I love the interwebz because I can spout my personal opinion with 'authority'), that voting third party in the primaries is good because it gives support to specific opinion. Votes for Ron Paul, Santorum, or Bachman were never wasted because it quantified support to their specific agenda. However, when it comes down to the final choice, you have to vote for who's best for the Country in the Long Term between the two. If you don't vote, you allow the popularity of the worst to easily get elected. The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. Politicians ultimately pay attention to who votes, not who blogs. Bologgers only matter "if" they influence the people who actually vote. When they look at numbers and see most Catholics are registered Democrats and that's how they vote, they rightly conclude that Abortion is a minor issue as compared to Social Economics.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337346007' post='2432164']

c.

It seems to me (I love the interwebz because I can spout my personal opinion with 'authority'), that voting third party in the primaries is good because it gives support to specific opinion. Votes for Ron Paul, Santorum, or Bachman were never wasted because it quantified support to their specific agenda. However, when it comes down to the final choice, you have to vote for who's best for the Country in the Long Term between the two. If you don't vote, you allow the popularity of the worst to easily get elected. The only wasted vote is the vote not cast. Politicians ultimately pay attention to who votes, not who blogs. Bologgers only matter "if" they influence the people who actually vote. When they look at numbers and see most Catholics are registered Democrats and that's how they vote, they rightly conclude that Abortion is a minor issue as compared to Social Economics.
[/quote]

This only works if the primary is open but here in PA, it is not. Independents can't vote at all;you can only be Democrat or Republican and only voter for the candidates in your selected party...so if you want to elect a pro-life Democrat you have to be eligible to vote in the primary.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1337356069' post='2432202']
This only works if the primary is open but here in PA, it is not. Independents can't vote at all;you can only be Democrat or Republican and only voter for the candidates in your selected party...so if you want to elect a pro-life Democrat you have to be eligible to vote in the primary.
[/quote]

And I'm pretty sure in most places open primaries are illegal, because the Supreme Court ruled that they allow members who aren't in a club (aka party) to elect that club's leadership. So some states like Washington and Louisiana get around that by either not listing party affiliation on the ballots, or by saying what party a candidate "prefers" instead of whether that candidate is officially endorsed by it.

So long story short, yeah, in almost all places in the country, open primaries aren't the norm.

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1337359523' post='2432219']
And I'm pretty sure in most places open primaries are illegal, because the Supreme Court ruled that they allow members who aren't in a club (aka party) to elect that club's leadership. So some states like Washington and Louisiana get around that by either not listing party affiliation on the ballots, or by saying what party a candidate "prefers" instead of whether that candidate is officially endorsed by it.

So long story short, yeah, in almost all places in the country, open primaries aren't the norm.
[/quote]

Illegal? Do you mean just blanket primaries or regular open primaries too? Almost half of the states have open primaries.

[BG45]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1337356069' post='2432202']
This only works if the primary is open but here in PA, it is not. Independents can't vote at all;you can only be Democrat or Republican and only voter for the candidates in your selected party...so if you want to elect a pro-life Democrat you have to be eligible to vote in the primary.
[/quote]

Ditto in WV. Or as my first academic adviser told then Governor Manchin at a reception, "I voted for you because you were the best Republican running." Both the prof and the governor were Democrats.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337346007' post='2432164']
When they look at numbers and see most Catholics are registered Democrats [b]and that's how they vote[/b], they rightly conclude that Abortion is a minor issue as compared to Social Economics.
[/quote]I included the qualifier 'and that's how they vote' in my statement. There's a difference between 'being a Democrat' (voting for Democrats in the final election, such as for Obama) and being a "DINO" (Dem in name only, voting for issues which I would assume voting for anit-abortion Dems.) The problem is, if you are voting in Dems, that puts more people into the legislature that have to go along with the Dem political machine, which publishes as part of it's platform and actively advocates pro-abortion policies. [u]I also note that most Catholics voted for Obama.[/u] Obama didn't get elected without participating with, and cooperating with, the Democratic political machine which is pro-abortion.

Clearly, most Catholics would seem to value Abortion as being secondary to Death Penalty and Social Economics.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1337363367' post='2432256']
Illegal? Do you mean just blanket primaries or regular open primaries too? Almost half of the states have open primaries.
[/quote]

*headdesk* Clearly I need to go back to my AP US Government and Politics class. Yeah, you're right.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1337359523' post='2432219']
And I'm pretty sure in most places open primaries are illegal, because the Supreme Court ruled that they allow members who aren't in a club (aka party) to elect that club's leadership. So some states like Washington and Louisiana get around that by either not listing party affiliation on the ballots, or by saying what party a candidate "prefers" instead of whether that candidate is officially endorsed by it.

So long story short, yeah, in almost all places in the country, open primaries aren't the norm.
[/quote]
Louisiana has one of the wackiest electoral processes ever. They are the only state that can have two Republicans or two Democrats on the ballot at the same time.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1337365125' post='2432265']


Ditto in WV. Or as my first academic adviser told then Governor Manchin at a reception, "I voted for you because you were the best Republican running." Both the prof and the governor were Democrats.
[/quote]Joe Manchin has disappointed me since he became a senator. He was at the March for Life Vigil Mass the year he started office, but his voting record has really been pretty terrible on abortion.

[BG45]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337372902' post='2432309']
Joe Manchin has disappointed me since he became a senator. He was at the March for Life Vigil Mass the year he started office, but his voting record has really been pretty terrible on abortion.
[/quote]

I've not really paid attention to it, but shuddered when he voted along with Obama's plans on other things. The high point of his career as a human being, instead of just a politician, for me at least, was during the Sago mine disaster. He made personally certain that the media was kept as far away from the families as possible while allowing coverage of the story; I think, based on what I heard at my masters commencement speech by him, it was probably done out of remembering what that was like as a boy, when he lost a friend in one of the state's worst mine disasters.

I can sum up his speech at that commencement though, much as my officemate's boyfriend did, "mine disaster, mine disaster, mine disaster. Vote for me. Mine disaster. Businesses should come here. Mine disaster. Stay in the state with your education even though we don't have the jobs for you to make use of it, mine disaster, bring in more businesses."

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337368851' post='2432281']
Clearly, most Catholics would seem to value Abortion as being secondary to Death Penalty and Social Economics.
[/quote]

...and they are going to burn for it if so

[qfnol31]

I ran across this interview earlier today and thought of this thread:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/05/wuerl-to-burke-you-face.html

[quote]He also disagrees when I equate Notre Dame's invitation to pro-choice Obama to its past invitations to George W. Bush, as enthusiastic a proponent of capital punishment as is possible to find, or to Ronald Reagan only a few months after the murder of Catholic nuns by Salvadoran death squads funded by the government his administration was supporting.

"The big difference is that abortion is the defining issue of this generation," Wuerl says. "Those other situations you're talking about could have gone either way. [b]On the death penalty, the church has said it's not necessary, but it hasn't said it's intrinsic evil[/b].''[/quote]

I think a lot of people do not understand the significance of the section in bold and try to equate the two as equal issues (or even give more weight to the latter).

[havok579257]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337403669' post='2432538']
I ran across this interview earlier today and thought of this thread:
[url="http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/05/wuerl-to-burke-you-face.html"]http://whispersinthe...e-you-face.html[/url]



I think a lot of people do not understand the significance of the section in bold and try to equate the two as equal issues (or even give more weight to the latter).
[/quote]

although to further the point the church tells us when the death penalty is acceptable. the death penalty in america is not used how the church says is acceptable.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337403794' post='2432539']
although to further the point the church tells us when the death penalty is acceptable. the death penalty in america is not used how the church says is acceptable.
[/quote]While in general I agree with you, Catholics have a bit of leeway to disagree on the death penalty. As Cardinal Wuerl says, it is not an intrinsically evil act.

The implication of this teaching is that there might be a time when the death penalty in America becomes necessary (even if it be only one case), so that abolishing the death penalty entirely might not be the best choice, or at the very least abolishing the death penalty is not the only Catholic option. This possibility means that Catholics can work to end the death penalty through legislation, or they can work to lower the instances of the death penalty through other means.

On the other hand, Catholics have an obligation to end abortion outright. Catholics have to lower the number of abortions through legislation or through legislation and other means. Working to end it through other means isn't realistic and isn't appropriate for how awful abortion is. As I posted above, abortion is much much graver and much much more widespread than the use of the death penalty.

As an aside, the Church has said that the death penalty should be limited (so that it is pretty much never used), but it is as a witness to the sacredness of life and to give a person the fullest chance to repent. Its criteria do not necessarily preclude justified use in the United States.

[havok579257]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337405005' post='2432548']
While in general I agree with you, Catholics have a bit of leeway to disagree on the death penalty. As Cardinal Wuerl says, it is not an intrinsically evil act.

The implication of this teaching is that there might be a time when the death penalty in America becomes necessary (even if it be only one case), so that abolishing the death penalty entirely might not be the best choice, or at the very least abolishing the death penalty is not the only Catholic option. This possibility means that Catholics can work to end the death penalty through legislation, or they can work to lower the instances of the death penalty through other means.

On the other hand, Catholics have an obligation to end abortion outright. Catholics have to lower the number of abortions through legislation or through legislation and other means. Working to end it through other means isn't realistic and isn't appropriate for how awful abortion is. As I posted above, abortion is much much graver and much much more widespread than the use of the death penalty.

As an aside, the Church has said that the death penalty should be limited (so that it is pretty much never used), but it is as a witness to the sacredness of life and to give a person the fullest chance to repent. Its criteria do not necessarily preclude justified use in the United States.
[/quote]

although the problem is the usa uses the death penalty for retribution and punishment. they use it because they deem the person commited a crime so bad it is worthy of death. not because they fear for the saftey of america because they would not necessarily be able to properly keep society safe from this criminal.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337407915' post='2432562']
although the problem is the usa uses the death penalty for retribution and punishment. they use it because they deem the person commited a crime so bad it is worthy of death. not because they fear for the saftey of america because they would not necessarily be able to properly keep society safe from this criminal.
[/quote]As I said, I don't really disagree with you, though capital punishment is partially punitive. It's not wrong for the US to use it as such, but it's a bit extreme without the fear of further harm.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337368851' post='2432281']
I included the qualifier 'and that's how they vote' in my statement. There's a difference between 'being a Democrat' (voting for Democrats in the final election, such as for Obama) and being a "DINO" (Dem in name only, voting for issues which I would assume voting for anit-abortion Dems.) The problem is, if you are voting in Dems, that puts more people into the legislature that have to go along with the Dem political machine, which publishes as part of it's platform and actively advocates pro-abortion policies. [u]I also note that most Catholics voted for Obama.[/u] Obama didn't get elected without participating with, and cooperating with, the Democratic political machine which is pro-abortion.

Clearly, most Catholics would seem to value Abortion as being secondary to Death Penalty and Social Economics.
[/quote]
In recent national elections, it is true that a majority of Catholics (though only a slightly higher majority than that of all voters) voted Democrat, however the numbers change significantly when Catholics are polled according mass attendance, as opposed to merely self-identifying as "Catholic" on a poll.

Studies show that the more often a Catholic attends mass (and thus be more likely to be active and serious in his faith), the less likely he is to vote Democrat. While the majority of Catholics who attend mass only occasionally or not at all vote Democrat, a solid majority of Catholics who attend mass weekly or more vote Republican. (I don't have this information with me now, but can probably look it up if your curious).

These poll results confirm my personal experience. Having gone to and been involved in Christendom College, an orthodox Catholic school committed to teaching in accord with the magisterium, there are no actively voting Democrat students or faculty. That does not mean that everyone there is enamored with the Republican party (there are a fair number who support third party conservative or libertarian candidates or parties, or who will not vote for either major party), however it's generally accepted that voting for a party as blatantly opposed to Catholic moral principle as the current Dems is not an acceptable option for the serious Catholic. Also, the political science and economics department is strongly devoted to free market principles. From what I've seen, the undergrad program at the University of Dallas similarly leans right, though probably not quite to the same extent.

Also, the majority of people at the more orthodox Catholic parishes I've belonged to tend to lean right politically, rather than left. Most liberal "Catholics" in my experience tend to be more heterodox in their moral or theological views. Liberal "Christianity" and "Catholicism" are largely the result of a movement to replace the spiritual teachings of the Church with a materialistic socialist agenda. Such movements have been condemned by the Church since their founding.

But I think the sad truth is that the majority of self-identified Catholics simply do not pay much regard at all to what the Church teaches when they enter the voting booth. That probably goes for most who vote Republican as well as Democrats.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Socrates