04 August 2012

I just had to parse this comment....

this is a comment from this entry at CatholicVote.org

Firstly, I am not a liberal, but do lean left in many issues and take strong offense to many of your questions and your hostile tone towards those of us who support the democratic party in some issues. While I am against abortion, the Catholic Voter guide says to not vote for a candidate who supports abortion UNLESS NO OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE exists (In most situations, there exists a clear difference between candidates. One will typically be against abortion, the other not. Abortion outweighs any other situation because it ALWAYS involves the taking of innocent life. Other situations SOMETIMES involve the taking of innocent life). It also says to note based on our conscience (yes, this is right, but our consciences must be properly formed in the mind of the Church), and the following post will show you why my conscience leads me to more strongly favor the democratic party (alright, go for it). You wanted answers, but first: I have some questions for you. How many innocent lives were lost in a war that a Republican President launched? (too many, I agree. But war is not an intrinsic evil unlike abortion. For a war to be considered just there have to be conditions that are met. St Thomas clarified what these are. War should be the last means possible, but it is not an intrinsic evil) How many innocent lives have been lost while waiting for healthcare the Republicans won't support? (healthcare and health insurance are not the same thing. What the democrats are proposing is NOT universal health care, but universal health insurance...this again is a matter of prudential judgement which 2 Catholics can disagree upon. Our health care system is flawed, but on the accounts that human beings run it, and we're all dealing with the consequences of original sin. To say that we're going to be able to have perfect healthcare is impossible, human beings run it. I could easily make the argument that government has done more to ruin our healthcare system than make it better, but I'm not trying to do that) And here are some answers and rebuttals to your questions. "Do you think that only the Democratic Party cares about helping the poor" YES! (But does that mean one has to take from someone that has rightfully earned their money to give to someone that has not? Helping the poor is important and something that Jesus did command of us, but he never said HOW best to go about it) The Republican record supports a system that makes the rich richer and the poor, poorer. (Could this not be just a situation of the ideal not working out on paper. Could it not be a consequence of original sin? Is it possible that some people choose to stay in that situation for insert whatever reason, or could it be a misunderstanding of an economic system?) If you look at tax rates for the extremely rich (define extremely rich), the Republican party wants them to be almost non existent (Well, let's look at why...typically the rich own businesses and things like that. If you take away more of their income, they have less of an ability to hire workers and to pay for the things that are necessary to run a business properly. Businesses cost money to run, just like anything else in life, and a person should be able to run their business without having to worry about the government stealing their money), they are unwilling to give their tax money for services for the poor (Is it that they're unwilling to give to the poor, or is it that they're unwilling to be COERCED into giving money to the poor? Those are 2 different situations. One should not be forced against one's own free will to give to something. In the ideal world, all comes voluntarily. Or perhaps they don't want their names attached to giving to the poor. Perhaps they do so in an invisible way. Maybe they don't want the attention that comes with doing certain activities. Many rich people I know do this). This is completely NON Catholic (The Catholic principle to keep in mind is subsidiarity, things should be done by the lowest branch whenever possible). "But is it really sensible, to say nothing of charitable, to think that Republicans don�t care about the poor?" See above answer. The record shows that the Democratic party supports the poor more (show me which record). The Republican party may SAY they care about the poor, but I care more about actual legislation and action (but does helping the poor automatically mean that there has to be governmental legislation? why can't someone out of the goodness of their own heart help the poor without the government? I could argue that the government has done more to KEEP people in poverty than help them to escape poverty) , that claims. "Isn�t the issue between Republicans and Democrats in this field really a dispute about how most effectively to help the poor, about which institutions can be relied upon to do it most effectively?" YES this is the actual issue, and the institutions that can be most relied upon to help the poor aren't supported by the Republican party (Or it could be that the Republicans are more for individuals doing it without a mandate fromt the government. Or it could very well be that those same programs are breaking the government's back and keeping us as a nation broke. It used to be that the Church did many of the things that the state is now doing. Why can't we go back to the time where the Church did most of the social services instead of the government? The government is secular, the Church has the mind of Christ to see Christ in all people. It would properly make sense that the Church would be able to better serve the needs of the poor than the state. The Church has religious orders that are dedicated to this exact charism. The state does not). Moving on to the issue of gay marriage (it is not possible for gays to marry) you say: "What is more important to get right than the sanctity of innocent life, the preservation of the correct definition of marriage (one that is affirmed even in Scripture), and the protection of religious liberty?" Allowing states to make (and that's a problem, the state does not make marriage, marriage existed before the state, marriage is the sacramental union between one man and one woman. It is a vocation, not a right)  gay marriage legal does NOT inhibit religious liberty (On this point, I would actually agree, but you do understand that if marriage is a right, it cannot be denied under the law, meaning Churches would have to conform because it is a right to be married, even if the Church is a private organization.). The laws would never make the Catholic church recognize gay marriage (Not quite in some states, in the military, they are already trying to get the Church to cave in), therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with our religious liberty. (While our ability to go to Mass would not be affected by the legalization of so called gay marriage, the Church's moral authority (or what little of it that's left) would be completely underminded in an indirect manner) 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Remember you are guests, and you can be kicked out at anytime by the owner of this blog :p...Please use a name or a pseudo name to identify yourself....it makes my life easier