with
elections coming up soon, i believe this is relevant. this is not a
blog endorsing the democratic party, or the left in general. however,
it is a blog in response to the idea that christians, and more
specifically catholics, can and should only support the republican
party on the basis that they endorse pro-life policies. the purpose is
to let catholics know that they can be in good standing with the church
and be a democrat and why. according to pope benedict XVI (or cardinal
ratzinger at the time) issued a statement about this issue in
particular. in it he said ...
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so
unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to
deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s
permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does
not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia,
but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote
material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
these blogs will be an attempt to present you with these proportionate reasons.
first off, i will start with an old joke. mick and patrick are sitting
at their favorite pub discussing the election. mick says to patrick,
"you know, i saw tommy the other day. he told me he voted republican."
patrick's jaw drops and he says to mick, "that's impossible. you must
be mistaken, i saw him at mass last sunday."
there was a time in america when catholic churches were packed full of
democrats. this is mostly due to the fact that the catholics were all
irish and italian immigrants, generally hard laborers and looked down
on by conservatives. the democrats were the labor party and likewise
the catholics joined up, not necessarily for religious reasons (though
we'll get to that soon) but just because of their socio-economic
status. well over time the irish and italians became anglicized and in
addition to this in 1972 the democrats, in an attempt to reinvent
themselves, reached out to morally questionable groups such as gays,
drug users and feminists. roe v. wade
was critical in changing this. but perhaps we should look back to where
the catholic-democrat connection began and why it is still very much
there despite being trounced by the life issue.
in the 1890s the foundation was laid for the struggle between
capitalism and socialism that woudl persist well into the next century.
pope leo XIII saw the weight this issue would carry and decided to
write an encyclical, rerum novarum, rights and duties of capital and labor. the encyclical was addressed to all catholic bishops and concerned the conditions of the working class.
catholic social teaching predates both capitalism and socialism and leo
was not really innovating so much as making an old doctrine more
relevant. he blasted the flaws of both socialism and capitalism.
essentially it all comes down to property. socialism is flawed in that
there is no private property and everyone is forced to be equal.
capitalism is flawed in that property becomes too unevenly distributed
and the gap between ownership and work (i.e. the owners do not work and
the workers do everything, yet the owner makes a disproportiante amount
of money just for being so).
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and
in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless,
there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient
than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to
be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If
through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder
conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better,
he is made the victim of force and injustice.
basically this an example of said compromise between capitalism and
socialism. wages are to be agreed upon, but all men should be
guaranteed, by the state, a just living wage (this is clarified in
later encyclicals). in short, catholic social teaching would support
the forming of unions, the implementation of a just (living) minimum
wage, and laws on working conditions such as hours and environment. the
goal of catholic economics is to be distributist which is an economic
thought spurred by this encyclical and developed by belloc and
chesteron who said, "too much capitalism does not mean too many
capitalists, it means too few capitalists". i.e. the goal is to, in
leo's words, "The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its
policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become
owners."
in american terms this would be closely related to jeffersonian
democracy where private ownership is promoted but in small businesses
and agriculture. all at a very local, small level and no
megacorporations like we have today.
from quadragesimo anno:
Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an
opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life
cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source,
as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of
individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or
ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that
economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from
and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in
the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self
direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the
intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while
justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain
limits, clearly cannot direct economic life.
now contrast this with the stances of the political parties.
conservatives ask that the market control itself, whereas the
center-left will propose the government intervene regularly to insure
justice whether it be a minimum wage law, a law on outsourcing, a law
preventing exploitation of workers. there are morals intrinsically tied
within economic policies.
Now listen, you rich people, weep and
wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has
rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are
corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh
like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages
you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out
against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the
Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have
condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.
There are so many reason how a Christian can be a democrat. I personally believe it is the moral party. The Republicans base their moral values on abortion and gay marriage. Which in reality is all they've got. But somehow one of the major reasons a Republican was elected into office was because of his "moral values". I don't think if Jesus were to come down his main goal were to lower taxes or win the war in Iraq.
Too me, even though there are differences I can't stand when "Christians" who are so staunchly pro-life (which I do agree to some extent) and also at the same time completely supportive of the death penalty and an unjust war in Iraq as if the Iraqi citizens or Muslims in general have a lesser importance to their own lives.
The bible has so many references about helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked. I think that we as Christians should focus on issues such as poverty, economic inequality from bad trade agreements and worker exploitation, instead of just abortion and gay marriage. I am a Pro-Life democrat who believes that the rights of homosexuals should be respected by our government.
The bible also gives us the responsibility to subdue the earth as it said in Genesis, so I don't think that falls into the category of deregulating environmental laws.
| My Profile
why a catholic can be a democrat: part I - labor blog
