Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I’ve tried to find some way to explain this for the past year or so, and now you’ve helped tremendously.  Plus, I’m just glad to know I’m not the only Catholic in the country who feels this way!

Thank you, Mark, for this great piece and for exposing Dale’s writing to more people, and for promoting his new book.

Just an FYI, The Complete Thinker also is available at the American Chesterton Society—20 percent discount for ACS members.

http://www.chesterton.org/store/#!/~/product/category=1777461&id=15544862

-Sean

MarkShea, I enjoy your article. Please grant me permission to reproduce this very article on social teaching of the Catholic Church in our forthcoming magazine for brethren. I am a member of the Catholic charismatic Renewal of St. Leo’s Church Ikeja Lagos Nigeria. My group is called “Olowu Zone.” Please we will like you to send us more inspiring articles on good christian living and living an holy life in a high corrupt society such as ours.
Thanks and God Bless.

Capitalism has “far greater destructive effects on the family” than does gay “marriage”?
I think you overstate your case here.  The concept of gay “marriage,” in and of itself, is overtly hostile to the family.  Are you saying that capitalism, per se, is more destructive?  Isn’t it more fair to say that the abuse of the concept of capitalism—i.e. greed and selfishness—is destructive to the family?  Catholic social teaching’s emphasis on subsidiarity and solidarity does not rule out capitalism; however, Catholic social, moral, and sacramental teaching does rule out gay “marriage.”
For what it’s worth, I do prefer Chesterton and Belloc’s distributism over big business capitalism.

Except…gay marriage doesn’t actually have any destructive effects on the family. Otherwise, your thinking is solid!

Pascal:  By all means use the piece.  Just be sure give credit to the National Catholic Register.

Mike:  Yes.  Capitalism is quite obviously having a massively greater destructive impact on the family.  Capitalism media promotes consumerism, hedonism, the breakup of the family, materialism, and virtually every work of the flesh Paul can think of.  Largely untethered from the Christian tradition that gave rise to it and was the only thing holding it in check, it is a massive source of evil now.  Gays only constitute a small fraction of the population and the pernicious effect of gay “marriage”, though very real and a source of great concern for Christians who will soon find it the basis of legal attacks on their faith, is still tiny compared to the family-destroying effects of American capitalist culture, with its 50% divorce rate.

Ellen:

Of course it does.  It makes the word “marriage” essentially meaningless and it will form the basis for future legal attacks on Christians who refuse to join the pretense that a gay relationship is a marriage.  This is not about the right of homosexuals to cohabit, they already have that.  This is about forcing everybody to pretend that gay relationships are “marriage”.  They are not.  And once you start saying “marriage” means “whatever I want” you have voided the word “marriage” of all meaning.  A word that means anything is a word that means nothing.

“Openness to life” is fundamental to a Catholic marriage.  It is a necessary condition for the sacrament even to occur.  This means that the union of the two adults is fundamentally selfess and transcendent.  The couple’s selfless love for each other manifests itself in its orientation toward (“openness to”) new life.  This openness to life / love / selflessness / self-transcendence is what makes marriage the reflection of God’s image.  Any union of adults which is actively closed to new life - e.g. same-sex unions or contracepting unions—is essentially self-oriented, selfish, and non-transcendent.  This is nothing like God and is therefore hostile to the image of God.  That’s why gay “marriage,” as well as contraception, does have destructive effects on the family.

Ellen:
to take Mark Shea’s point one step farther; to redefine marriage redefines parents as well. No longer will a child have a Father and Mother but only a “parent” and may be deprived of a mother or a father depending on the circumstance. To say “gay marriage” has no destructive affect on the family is absurd.

Chesterton was a capitalist in the classical distributionist mode.  As he famously is quoted: ‘The problem with pure Capitalism is that it produces too few capitalists, not too many capitalists’.  Capitalism for everybody is what works best.  It is a principle theme of Rerum Novarum - the seminal work of Catholic social principles.

Mark: I agree with you that the abuse of capitalism, since it is so prevalent, has had a powerfully destructive effect on the family.  Yet I still think that you are being a bit careless with your language.  Do you realize that in sentence three of your response you said that “Cristian tradition. . . gave rise to . . . a massive source of evil”?  Is that even possible?  I think you are conflating capitalism with evil in the same way that we often erroneously say “Money is the root of all evil.”  In fact, “The love of money is the root of all evil” (1Timothy 6:10).  Similiarly, the abuse of capitalism is a massive source of evil.  If by capitalism we mean the freedom to own private property for the purpose of making a profit, then we can see how one could use that freedom for the purpose of supporting his or her family. It is when profit alone becomes the goal (or the god) that capitalism becomes destructive or evil.

Mike:

Yes.  I know what I said.  The Christian tradition, untethered from the Church, has given rise to all sorts of evils.  It’s what Chesterton means when he says, “When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.”  Post-Christian capitalism has likewise taken a few Christian virtues and truths, elevated them to absolutes, and unleashed great evil.  Communism did the same thing.

Norm:

“Capitalism for everybody” is more or less what Chesterton calls “Distributism”.

Catholic social teaching must be viewed as an organic whole, not taken apart or picked through for a few ideas that conform to one’s political agenda. Social Justice, most definitely a Catholic principle, has been used and abused by those pushing a liberal political agenda, while the principle of subsidiarity is ignored, dismissed, or rejected entirely. Conservatives tend to reverse that. That’s a dangerous road to drive down, because once Catholic teachings become separated from each other they can lose their positive effects and cause great harm. Chesterton had similar things to say about the problem of virtue and vice (and all of it—capitalism, socialism, and every flawed replacement philosophy attempted for 500 years, is ultimately connected to Protestantism).

“The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus, some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus, some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”

Mark:  I have not meant to sound like a nit-picky critic.  If that’s how my comments have come across, then I apologize.  I don’t want to be a capitalist apologist as much as I just want to be careful with the language we choose, especially when it comes to sources of evil and destruction.  In Centesimus Annus, #42, Pope John Paul II points out some distinctions we should make between acceptable and unacceptable concepts of capitalism.

A “whole weave” sounds like a “seamless garment.”

Mike:

No worries.  We are tackling the same problem with slightly different English.  My point is that capitalism is a human tradition, not Sacred Tradition.  Your point is that capitalism per se is not evil.  True.  But capitalism without the Christian tradition to keep it in check is a source of great evil since it does not exist in a vacuum, but in the control of human being who, if they will not obey God, will emphatically obey their own selfish lusts.

T. Tek Nilp:

Notice how your content-free response pays no actual attention to the point, nor to the teaching of the Church, but instead searches for tribal shibboleths, buzzwords, and identity markers that free you from grappling with the hard work of thinking about the Church’s teaching and allow you to simply reject what is being said as coming from the wrong political sect.  Catholics need to learn to stop doing that and start learning about the full-orbed teaching of the Church, not just the bits they like.

Mark Shea writes: “we must stop pitting concern about abortion and euthanasia against Catholic teaching on social justice as though they are opposites. Catholic social teaching is a whole weave and it is folly to isolate the unborn baby from the family living in poverty, or the desperate teen pressured by family and friends to abort—caring only for the former while caring nothing for what drives the latter to the desperate act of killing her.”

I would see Mr. Shea as doing precisely what he later argues against, namely, “privileging” the bit he likes [the preferential option for the poor] against life issues. He might just as easily written: “we must stop pitting concern about the poor against Catholic teaching on abortion and euthanasia. It is folly to isolate the family living in poverty from the unborn baby—caring only for the economic circumstances of the former while caring nothing for the death, especially violent death, without baptism, visited upon the latter.”

Don’t be silly, Lauri.  Saying these things are not opposites is not saying matters of life and death are less important than matters of economic justice.  It is, however, to point out that opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not take away the sins of the world and that blowing off the rest of the Church’s teaching on the ground “I wear a precious feet pin” is an absurd—and very popular—take on Catholic teaching in some circles.

Actually, I agree with your argument. But you failed to anticipate that rhetorical objection—and, with it, to take account of the sad history of some churchmen’s use of holistic rhetoric to smother opposition to abortion and other pressing moral concerns.

Great article Mike. Don’t be fooled by the low percentage of homosexuals. They do carry alot of political and banking clout. The banks are now attacking the Vatican Bank will not do business as usual until the Vatican makes a commitment to usury. The pro- gay marriage forces will physically attack the Holy Church. During Holy Mass, having a bumper sticker on your car. The Holy Church will be going through some very rough tribulation from outside the Vatican and from within. That’s why I think it was very wise of Benedict XVI to retire. One can see he was fatigued. The next Pope will have to young enough to defend the faith and the Holy Church. Not to be how St. Paul put it rather nicely, not a straw blowing in the wind! This Pope in the waiting will be historic and at the most important time in human history, the Almighty God knows this and with His grace the Holy Church will prevail! Praise Jesus and Mary!

T.: Fair enough.  As Lauri ably demonstrated, that is the common rhetorical strategy.  However, I was assuming that my readers are going to be interested in the full teaching of the Church, not in distorting it.  So I didn’t try to anticipate that they would distort it.

Nice summing up job there Mark.

Hello, we are missing Jesus Christ in this whole discussion. What would Jesus or Mary do in these circumstances. As Catholics we are to imitate Christ, carry our cross and follow Him. Mary followed her Son, Jesus to the Cross and yet we are debating if two wrongs make a right! Going against Life is death, it is darkness no matter the circumstance it is evil. Marriage of two people of the same sex is balsam against Almighty God. It is mortal sin to those who commit to it inside or outside the Church. This is not a time of St. Augustine where who with the best argument prevails. Rather, it’s a time either one has to accept or to rebel against God. As followers of Christ Jesus we must accept Life with our full love for life. Jesus gives Life! Death only comes with sin, the sting of the scorpion! Capitalism has failed. 2008! Both the rich Capitalist and Socialists throw the poor into the gutter! The Capitalists don’t care if the poor die in the gutters on skidrow! The Socialists care as long as they jump through the hoops! Jesus teaches us to help the poor with love, save the babies of the poor and the rich. But do it with Christ’s love and Mary’s humility! Teach the Capitalists and Socialists how to love. Teach how it’s better not have perpetual wars in far off places that don’t even end! Pray unceasingly for these people who are lost in the darkness and the blind are leading the blind. We are to be the light of life in this year of faith!

I have been pondering and praying about this very subject, Mark.  I am a Catholic homeschooling mother of six children, and try to live and advocate for dignity of life issues, based on Matt. 25:36-45.  My husband has dedicated his career to developing Christ-centered medical and dental care for those in the margins, including countless adults who have lost jobs, can’t afford COBRA and have no means to pay for routine health care.  Being part of a wonderfully devout, vibrant parish, we do have friends who seem to have forgotten that it is about abortion AND so much more.  Christ calls us to lift up and acknowledge HIM in the face of the sick, the naked, the imprisoned.  How can so many folks expect the government not to help in some ways?  Too many Catholics don’t put their money, time, or prayers where their proverbial mouths are.  “The Church fragments when she permits worldly ideologies to define her life.  ‘Liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are not Gospel terms.  The Gospels speak instead of truth and falsehood.  The only only arms the Church bears are truth and love.”  -Francis Cardinal George

“It makes the word “marriage” essentially meaningless and it will form the basis for future legal attacks on Christians who refuse to join the pretense that a gay relationship is a marriage.  This is not about the right of homosexuals to cohabit, they already have that.  This is about forcing everybody to pretend that gay relationships are “marriage”.  They are not.  And once you start saying “marriage” means “whatever I want” you have voided the word “marriage” of all meaning.  A word that means anything is a word that means nothing.”  It would be helpful if folks taking up this position, like yourself, would actually explain *why* marriage as an institution becomes meaningless if same-sex marriage is allowed (allowed *outside* of the Church, I might add).  Something that doesn’t rely on an appeal to tradition or a slippery slope fallacy.  (BTW, I am in total agreement regarding your general premise about understanding and committing to the full scope of the Church’s social teachings rather than selectively emphasizing one or two.)

One perspective on why gay marriage is NOT marriage was in an article published in “Public Discourse” by Doug Mainwaring who is gay and opposes same sex marriage.  He doesn’t write from a Christian perspective but from reason and experience.  Mark you underestimate the power and money of the homosexual lobby.  It is true that Capitalists have used their weakness for materialism to reinforce their homosexuality and has caused them great harm, but they have also worked very diligently to incorporate our children into their philosophy and many beautiful innocent souls are being killed by being dragged into grave sin.

Pam:  No, I don’t underestimate it.  I’m very aware of all that you say.  I merely say that, in comparison with the global reach of post-christian capitalism, the gay lobby is a small sideshow—and is, by the way, yet another expression of the poisonous effects of capitalism untethered from the Chrisian tradition.

Catholic social teaching is both holistic and hierarchical, with the defense and protection of Life and Family at the top of that hierarchy. Of course, defining Life and Family is key in defending them. Redefining words or questioning the true definitions of things is a clever tactic commonly employed in order to advance a political agenda or justify something sinful. Questioning the definition of Life is the tactic used in order to justify abortion and make it acceptable. It’s now being used to alter the meanings of marriage and family in order to justify same-sex “marriage” and make it acceptable. Bernadin’s “seamless garment” argument is insidious because it rejects the hierarchy of the teachings, throwing the proper order and balance out of whack. If ending poverty or providing health care to all is made absolutely equal to defending innocent human life, a great disorder is introduced into the system, and we get abortion and socialism—both condemned by the Church. Disorder is never compatible with teachings of Christ. Chesterton again:

“There is a huge and heroic sanity of which moderns can only collect the fragments. There is a giant of whom we see only the lopped arms and legs walking about. They have torn the soul of Christ into silly strips, labeled egoism and altruism, and they are equally puzzled by His insane magnificence and His insane meekness. They have parted His garments among them, and for His vesture they have cast lots; though the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout.”

Mark T.  You get me.  Holistic and hierarchical.  Spot on.

I’m aware of the trickery that tries to equate abortion with the minimum wage, and though I have encountered plenty of such rubbish from the Pelosi style of Catholic, I have never encountered any actual evidence that Bernadin actually promoted such trickery.  Conversely, as you astutely note, it has been partisans of the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism who have have tended to formulate Catholic social teaching as essentially having two and two only components.  The first is “Opposition to the Five Non-Negotiables Taketh Away the Sins of the World” and “Subsidiarity is Liberty, Solidarity is Closet Communism.” What has to be preserved is both the hierarchy and the holism.

Very well observed post, Mark T!

“Bernadin’s “seamless garment” argument is insidious because it rejects the hierarchy of the teachings, throwing the proper order and balance out of whack. If ending poverty or providing health care to all is made absolutely equal to defending innocent human life, a great disorder is introduced into the system, and we get abortion and socialism—both condemned by the Church.”

The is that Cardinal Bernardin never said any of this. Please go to his original writings, there are enough of them around. He did stress that abortion was of primary importance.

Granted that homosexuals are a small segment of the population; and the ones that want to indulge the fiction of same-sex “marriage” are even smaller. But for every homosexual out there, there is a battalion of heterosexual enablers. It is merely one piece of a set aimed at destroying any and all traditional sexual ethics. It is the spear point because by dressing it up in the camouflage of civil rights, it gives it a legal basis for persecuting gainsayers.

I wasn’t being silly, Mr. Shea. I was pointing out that it is not only those who “wear precious feet pins” who can be accused of privileging a single part of a whole. Your animus towards those who disagree with your interpretation of Catholic Social Teaching is tiresome, and your interpretation itself could use a little freshening. Why not try showing more charity and less contempt towards those whose perspective differs from yours? If you can’t do that, at least offer something a little less predictable than the caricature that pro-life Catholics couldn’t care less about the poor. Perhaps you just need to get out to some pro-life marches and activities to expand your circle of acquaintances and your heart.

Mr. Shea:  Does your support for the REAL seamless garment approach to Catholic social teaching (as opposed to how it’s usually misused) mean that specialization is not allowed?  Or just that an individual or organization fighting one social evil cannot do so in a way that promotes another social evil?  For example, must an organization fighting poverty also support crisis pregnancy centers, and must an organization fighting abortion also support third world development efforts, in order to be truly Catholic?  Thanks.

Lauri:

The simple fact is that I recognize the “five non-negotiables” are indeed non-negotiable.  So it is false to say I am “privileging lesser issues over greater ones.  My point here is that many (not all, but many) Catholics effectively allow these greater issues to treat the rest of the Church’s social teaching is unimportant and even as contemptible.  So, for instance, the wholesale contempt for the term “seamless garment”, as though advocacy of the Church holistic view of social teaching is ipso facto contemptible.  The holistic must not be pitted against the hierarchical, nor the hierarchical against the holistic.

L Squarted: I see no reason why specialization is not allowed.  The mistake comes when the specialist begins to talk as though his specialty is the only thing that matter and starts attacking the rest of the Church’s teaching as unimportant or even as the enemy of “what *really* matters.”  Heresy is always the exaggeration of some aspect of the Church’s to monstrous proportion and then using that as a weapon against the rest of the Church’s teaching.  Both the social justice heretic (who tries to say “The minimum wage is just as important—nay, *more* important than prolife issues—and the prolife heretic—who reduces all Catholic teaching simply and solely to prolife issues and heaps contempt on those who try to speak to the rest of the Church’s social teaching—are, at the end of the day, heretics.  They taken their favorite bit out of the whole weave of Catholic teaching and used them to attack the rest.

Some of my readers have expressed suspicion of the image of a “whole weave” as somehow sinister and modernist.  It is, in fact, quite ancient.  The word “heresy” comes from the Greek word describing pulling thread out of a garment (like when you pull a loose thread and your sleeve falls off.  To have an *emphasis* on certin charisms or missions in the Catholic communion is healthy and normal.  Hence so many different orders and societies and apostolates and so forth.  But when your charism and mission become more important that the Church’s whole teaching, you’ve crossed from health to disease.  That’s why it is so important to retain the healthy grasp that Catholic teaching has both a hierarchy of goods, but also a holistic grasp that one good does not cancel out other goods.

Lori Pieper—
I don’t suppose anyone embracing the “seamless garment” philosophy really desires that abortion be dropped from primary importance. But the acceptance of the “seamless” certainly seems to have the effect of equalizing and sometimes neutralizing the teachings at the cost of the their proper ordering and will inevitably produce that very result—the subordination of the protection and defense of Life and Family—and soon abortion, same-sex “marriage,” etc are not far from being found acceptable. Whether Bernadin himself wanted that is unknown to me, and I can’t imagine why he would, but the facts seem clear to me that once a “seamless garment” argument is accepted (or interpreted as it has been since it was introduced), the hierarchy of teachings is more easily dismissed or ignored, if not outright rejected.

Messing with the whole of the teachings by isolating and elevating certain things that one finds most compatible with one’s world view, whether for political or even religious reasons, upsets the proper balance necessary for the whole of the social teachings to be truly beneficial. Messing with the hierarchy of the teachings by calling everything equal, whether for political or faulty philosophical reasons, upsets the proper ordering necessary for the the social teachings to function properly. Balance and order are imperative, or we get, as Chesterton observed, “wild and wasted” Christian teachings “gone mad” where they do cause great damage. Disorder and imbalance, as a general practice, are never compatible with truth, which means they are not compatible with the teachings of Christ—or His Church.

I really like this sentence: Catholic social teaching is, in many ways, very simple. You can basically sum it up as, “If it’s good for the family, it’s good. If it’s bad for the family, it’s bad.”

I have a catholic blog: click here: http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

Mark, I read your piece and I concur,but I’m not sure if it’s post Christian capitalism or post Christian democrats because it seems the desire for power is as strong as the desire for money.  Either way or both ways we have a liberal priesthood trying to loose sin or call for “tolerance” or “acceptance” when neither is love and both smack of the error of following human traditions instead of Christ’s teaching.  And I am appalled to hear the Cardinal’s speak of “skill sets” a new Pope will need!  Hello?????? Talk about thinking as man thinks.  It isn’t the man who is going to do the heavy lifting, it is the Holy Spirit working through the man.  Have they forgotten about being a “pencil” as Mother Teresa taught? I pray they pick the humblest, least self-proclaimed skill-setted Cardinal and then God can be God and our Church can be healed.

We heard Sen. Rick Santorum speak an an event recently.He related how he & his family were visiting the Vatican & were ceremoniously ushered up to the very front during an audience with the pope. The Italian bishop who directed the Sanotorums to come forward kept pointing to the senator saying:“Important man, inportant man.” Sen. Santorum was kind of embarrassed & surprised that his status as a US senator had so much recognition in Rome.Finally when he, his wife & children were led up to the place of honor, the bishop turned to Sen. Santorum & pointed to the children & again said “Important man.”
The Santorums were the only ones present who’d brought their children along.That’s what was important about the senator-he was a father of a large family.The bishop likely had no idea he was a politician.
The family is the foundation of society.

I have re-read your original posting and replies to various comments and I still cannot find you making any real point. Rather, you appear to be vilifying “many Catholics”, whom you never name nor quote, who don’t do all the things you think they should do with regard to Catholic Social Teaching. Much like the American president and aggressive atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, you present a caricature as the real thing in order to make your arguments appear stronger than they are. Catholics are not the principal source of Western culture’s social ills and, even more certainly, there are only a statistically insignificant number of Catholics who couldn’t care less about more than abortion and euthanasia. You have been given a wonderful opportunity and respected forum in which to promote your ideas and opinions. Why use it to trash people who are a threat to no one and are much more in need of charity and kindness than opprobrium and scorn?

Wow! I didn’t realize how much people have to say about this. This article really shows how much community engagement it has created! I want to create something like this. In fact, here is what I started on recently.
http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

Lauri:
Thank you for hanging in there.  I’ve liked your comments and I agree with your conclusion.  It did seem like Mark was setting up a “straw man” Catholic who annoyed him rather than really addressing some of the nuances in Catholic Social Teaching.  It’s true that poverty, war, and capitalism damage the family.  It’s also true that abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex “marriage” damage the family.  The latter damage the family in very different ways from the former, which is why the Church addresses them in different ways.  If it’s legitimate for Dorothy Day or Mother Teresa to devote their lives to addressing poverty, isn’t it just as legitimate for someone to devote themselves to addressing abortion?  Why assume that either focus implies rejection of the rest of Catholic Social Teaching?

Why assume that either focus implies rejection of the rest of Catholic Social Teaching?

It doesn’t.  Which was my point.  However, given the literally hundreds and hundred of people who wrote to condemn me for refusing to vote for candidates who held vast swaths of Catholic Social Teaching in open and naked contempt, declaring that the only thing that mattered was the candidate’s faint pretense about caring about the unborn, and waving away all the rest of the Church’s social teaching as “prudential judgment” I conclude that many Catholics are ill-formed in their grasp of Catholic Social Teaching.  The Five Non-Negotiables are indeed non-negotiable.  But this does not mean the rest of Catholic social teaching can be ignored or, worse, treated as though concern for it is a signal of heterodoxy.

Wow! I’m Catholic, but I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I guess I have to read ALL the comments before responding.

http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

This comment is for Mike: Either way you do agree that gay marriage is clearly wrong, when the word “gay” is used in the correct context, whereby it does not refer to being happy. Let me quote you ” however, Catholic social, moral, and sacramental teaching does rule out gay ‘marriage.’” Thus, there is no reason to go on or argue, which seems that you are doing. Though, this is true, it is nice to see that you are agreeing in some respect, despite your clear objections to his words relating to capitalism.

http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

Sorry, this doesn’t add anything of value to the conversation. However, I usually add it after every comment. Hence, I forgot it last time, so here it is.

Mark you don’t sound even a little believable when you reduce the argument to “someone’s feint pretense about caring for the unborn.”  It is ludicrous to believe that if Catholics put their energies behind candidates who support life and marriage and family they could not also influence them on war and poverty and whatever other supposed issues they are choosing to use to support candidates whose platform is blatantly immoral.  Be honest enough to say you don’t think Christ cares that children are aborted or people engage in homosexual acts or that the poor and marginalized are used to retain power just as much,if not more so, than they are cared about. Because that’s where we REALLY disagree.  He does care and He shows it clearly in the Bible. We do not love anyone by excusing what God has declared sin or by pretending sin is just too tough to overcome and God isn’t up to the task of helping us.  Look at the FRUIT.  Our children are being labelled and sorted by those who think they know best what sexual orientation they are while they are still in elementary school! (We used to call them sexual predators). They are being deprived of wholesome, nurturing surroundings to develop into the best they can be.  Instead a weakness is spotted and emphasized and magnified and becomes the core of how the person is known. Our priesthood is being undermined by men who work within the Church to loose the sin of homosexual relations and who work to change the translations of the Bible to suit their agenda and who do not preach the full Truth to parishioners.  They want to ignore all the psychological aspects that accompany homosexuality and harm them and society.  They do NOT relate to men as heterosexual men would.  They do NOT relate to women and children as heterosexual men would.  They do NOT look at the world through the same lens nor Christ’s word the same way UNTIL they are healed and many do not really seek healing.  They seek acceptance as is.  It has hurt our Church tremendously.  They call it inclusiveness but the only thing they are including is ignorance of who God is, disobedience to His teaching and lack of faith in Him.  Our media glorifies sexuality and vilifies faith.  Our President is trying to single-handedly redefine marriage. Our country has no budget and the President refuses to make meaningful cuts to government spending holding the most vulnerable hostage until his demands are met.  All of this causes rancor, dissension, loss of faith and on and on. Through the push of those you think are MORE in tune with Catholic social teaching, the Catholic faith and freedom of religion is being crushed. I just can not see an honest reason for supporting any of that unless you really believe Christ could care less about sin. Divine Mercy is often used as the lynch pin for liberals but even there it is a problem of understanding what that really is.  According to St. Faustina’s Diary, Divine Mercy invites the most hardened sinner to come to Jesus.  But it does not invite them to come and remain the same. Christ loves them to much to keep them slaves to sins this generation is so eager to loose. The message of Divine Mercy is that the hardened sinner will receive an OUTPOURING OF GRACE to OVERCOME their sin, not Christ’s promise to overlook it. And they will be restored to friendship with Him.  It is interesting to note that there were two sisters in a relationship at St. Faustina’s convent that Christ did not like.  She had to BEG Him to shine the rays of His mercy on them when she saw that everyone BUT them was bathed in His rays.  He didn’t want to, believing or knowing they would be wasted.

“It is ludicrous to believe that if Catholics put their energies behind candidates who support life and marriage and family they could not also influence them on war and poverty and whatever other supposed issues they are choosing to use to support candidates whose platform is blatantly immoral.”  I don’t see why that’s a ludicrous claim.  We’ve seen no evidence that “pro-life” candidates (who largely champion the death penalty though it’s blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-social teachings) have done anything significant to end war (instead, they seem bent on starting and continuing warfare) or poverty (they tend, instead, to have policies and budget plans that exacerbate it).  Why isn’t it ludicrous to believe that the candidates to whom you’re referring *would* change regarding these issues?

Grace,
I’m never sure when I respond to some posts that I’m fueling a fire that should not have been lit in the first place.
That said,assuming your comments are sincere, I agree with you regarding the death penalty & war.You didn’t mention it, but I’d add immigration issues, too.
I disagree with the poverty part, though, because social programs that extend beyond a safety net can actually enable poverty to continue.Even so, I’d agree that many GOP candidates seemed hugely out of touch with working class & low income level citizens.
The death penalty is not 100% completely outside Catholic teaching.There is a very, very small window where it can be applied, but only if there is no other means to protect society.

Pam:

I was speaking of Mitt Romney’s faint pretense of caring about the unborn.  And it was a pretense.  He only “changed his mind” when he needed the votes of prolife conservatives.  His sole contibution to the national discussion was to convince his previously prolife running mate to support abortion in certain circumstances.  And he himself made clear in an interview last summer that he supported abortion “for the health of the mother” (i.e. “always”).  And yet, I was told countless times that this faint and phony “support for the prolife cause” cancelled out all the other evil policies he advocated and made voting for him a moral imperative.  So yes: many Catholic believe that wearing a Precious Feet pin takes away the sins of the world.

To be clear, I voted for neither major candidate since both supported grave and intrinsic evil.  Here is my account of how I did (and do) my moral reckoning in the voting booth.

As to the theory that if you vote for a candidate who is a cynical liar like Romney, grace may touch his heart: yes.  But then the Obama voter could make the same claim.  Me: I don’t think encouraging cynical liars to believe they are getting away with their lies (by voting for them) is wise civics.  I think voting for people who are not cynical liars is the best course.  That’s why I did not vote for Romney or Obama.

I agree grace.

http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

This is in response to the person talking to Pam.
The point you brought up really does make Mitt look bad. He’s obviously, not committed to being pro life because you said “only “changed his mind” when he needed the votes of prolife conservatives”—- enough said!

http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/

Mark, Just had a chance to read your article about how you vote and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement.  I believe your example of the widow’s mite is a very poor analogy.  It seems more to me that we are the Israelites in Egypt and we are allowed to vote on Pharoah.  One Pharoah will crush religious freedom, destroy marriage, loose sexual sins, prey on the souls and minds of children seeking to endoctrinate them and alienate them from any family faith or tradition and use bullying tactics to get his way, all the while destroying Israelite relations by causing infighting and using labels to marginalize anyone of any character that points out the tactics Pharoah is using.  The other Pharoah candidate has raised a family to believe in a higher power, although not Yahweh, and has been a successful businessman whose methods have come under attack. he has sent business overseas and laid people off by his business practices. He has been castigated for his methods but has pledged to change and do better. He has recognized the destruction of basic moral teachings that have hurt children, families and Egypt and has raised a large family in a loving environment and the children have grown to be good citizens of Egypt.  He believes in showing strength in the Egyptian army not because he wishes to engage in war, but because history has shown him what a powerful deterrent it is. He would use force against a serious threat.  He does not wish to crush religious freedom.  He might even allow Israelite children to see a future where prayer returns to schools and religious symbols are part of everyday life.  He does not embrace rewarding illegal acts, such as illegal immigration, but realizes that our current methods harm everyone involved. He would uphold the law and work to reform the system. He sees that many people are actually abusing government subsidies and their votes are being bought by a Pharoah who will raise taxes to obscene amounts to maintain power. He does not believe Pharoah should control every individuals life by making government bigger.  He believes many people have the potential to develop skills to make them self-sufficient and will benefit from progams that don’t make it worthwhile to stay dependent on government subsidies.  He sees this as building their character and self-esteem and happiness. He believes government has a place in society but people are better off with less government.  He believes that society as a whole is healthier when people don’t depend on government for their survival but can find work and learn skills to be productive citizens.  He believes that there are times when a crime is so heinous that the death penalty is appropriate.  Now the widow could vote for one of these men or for an Israelite who will never be elected because the Egyptian government has been so publicly critical of the candidate that his own people do not trust or like him.  She looks at the children around her.  She looks at the poor around her.  She looks at the young couples starting families and the older neighbors heading to retirement and she recognizes that every one of them has a soul. She sees the unhealthy direction of dependency and entitlement of one Pharoah and the more positive direction of personal growth and character in the other.  Her vote is going to matter because many elections are won by very slim margins in each precinct.  She votes for the pharoah who will support religious freedom and protect morality.  Any other vote harms too many souls or has the effect of being no vote at all. She knows God put her here to bring souls to Him.  One Pharoah leads them away. One will allow them to draw closer.  You argue that the question is what the vote does to you. It makes you evaluate the state of your town or state or nation and helps you to see whether they are getting closer or farther from God.  By not defeating the first Pharoah you are pushing people farther from God because he has clearly stated his desire for a secular Egypt.  I do not see how you can deny that consequence nor do I see how you can compare any evils.  The harm to souls is significantly higher under the secular Pharoah.  He works tirelessly to remove God given values and God Himself from the public square.  He divides by pointing out our differences instead of uniting us as Egyptians. And He works to make an idolatrous state where man is god, and God must be made to bow to man’s sexual appetites, and where man is capable of solving all social evils on his own making God unnecessary or worse, hateful.

Still waiting for moderator to post my last comments. Help with this please?

Sorry, I wish I could help. http://tempprayerblog.blogspot.ca/