I do not think that in order to be a good Christian, one needs "to be" a member of any particular political party.  I simply think the Church is bigger than that.

For me, regarding politics, I always look for the candidate's stance on life issues.  Are the pro-life or pro-abortion?  Do they favor euthanasia or so-called 'mercy killing'?  How do they feel about the disabled and mentally retarded; do they want them done away with early (via abortion), and if they do manage to be born, does the candidate prefer sterilizing them, or somehow shortening their lives?  Do they think we should sincerely try to help women after a child is born?  How does the candidate think regarding cloning and embryonic stem cell research?  Does the candidate understand the difference between embryonic stem cells research and adult stem cell research; do they understand the difference between a Christian hospice and mercy killing?  Do they believe in objective truth, or do they think everything is relative?  Christian charity is importnat and calls us to care for the less fortunate.  What are their views on that?  Do they agree we should help our less fortunate brothers, are do they take a more darwinian view?

I know one would never get specific answers on all of these questions - especially from a politician - but since a society is correctly judged by how it treats its weakest members, I try to get a few answers on these topics, and I use them to read the person; to try to get a feel for their views on this.

Next, I try to figure out their view of and for America.  Do they think that while we are certainly not perfect, that we are in fact a decent people and that we have, under God, somehow managed to build a decent place to live, or do they take a view that we have somehow cheated the world to get where we are?  Where do they want us to go in future?  Certainly we are wealthy enough to help other countries but also, charity begins at home, and we have domestic problems as yet unresolved.  Does the candidate in question think we should try to help others and if so, how do they propose we go about that?

I was only a child when Roe v Wade came about, but it seems to be that before abortion, many Roman Catholics were on the progressive side of things regarding dignity of man, dignity of workers, race issues, and civil rights and social justice.  Certainly not all Catholics think alike regarding politics (nor should we), and conservatism has value, as does classical liberalism.

I try to gaurd against the creeping secular humanism and materialism that John Paul II used to warn us about.  I think balance is important; money isn't everything, but it is not nothing either.  It is very good to be kind to animals, but the worst human is infinitely more valuable than a dog or a bird.  Heaven is hopefully our final home, but even if only for the sake of our children, but especially out of respect for God, we also need to care properly for the wonderful planet He has given us to use.

Conservatism, classical Liberalism, nationalism, isolationism, or internationalism; they are all big and important subjects.  However thankfully, our Declaration of Independence correctly points out that all people are granted - by God; not by the government - the right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Life is first and foremost, and that is where I start when deciding who to vote for.

Let's see -- how can you have distributionism, which means that the goernment tires to redistribute wealth and at the same time have the government leave us alone?

What kind of conservativism are you talking about in your question? Social or economic?

Hey we need to movethis to politics.

I don't know how well this will paste in here, but I put together a little political piece with magisterial quotes.  I am a conservative because, as I hope to convince you, the Democratic party is currently way outside of Church teaching on most issues.  Here goes my paste in:

 There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example (this is obviously not an all inclusive list), in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. ………”

“They  (homosexual rights) can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill.  ……………….  Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (ibid No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights. ……… . The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (ibid, No. 17).”  (His Eminence, Josef Ratzinger, Cardinal Prefect, SCDF, Non-Dicrimination Against Homosexual Persons, 1992)

THE CHURCH SUPPORTS ECONOMIC INITIATIVE AS OPPOSED TO “LEVELING DOWN” THE AFFLUENT

1. The first and fundamental structure for "human ecology" is the family, in which someone receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on marriage (emphasis in the original text), in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny. But it often happens that people are discouraged from creating the proper conditions for human reproduction and are led to consider themselves and their lives as a series of sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished. The result is a lack of freedom, which causes a person to reject a commitment to enter into a stable relationship with another person and to bring children into the world, or which leads people to consider children as one of the many "things" which an individual can have or not have, according to taste, and which compete with other possibilities. It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life--the gift of God--can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life. ………….   Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many other totalitarian and "national security" regimes, today we are witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the democratic ideal, together with lively attention to and concern for human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in the process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of those rights.[96] Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother's womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one's faith and in conformity with one's transcendent dignity as a person.[97] (Centessimus Annus # 39, # 47, The Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Supreme Roman Pontiff, John Paul II, 1991) 

For an excellent commentary on the fruitless rabbit trails of "isms" and "ists", as opposed to the fruitful life offered us by our Lord, visit Catholic Culture.org here:

http://beta1.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=177

 Peace be to you.

JMJ

“A joyful heart is the inevitable result of a heart burning with love. I am a little pencil in the hand of a writing God who is sending a love letter to the world.” - Mother Teresa

As far as distributionalism I thought the idea was that the goverment would

create policies that favored small business.   ( as opposed too what we have now where large co-porations put in ordinate power in the hands of a few.)

This really would only require a tweaking of coporate law in this country to be virtually realized.  The only problem is the republicans will never do it.

I wish their was  catholic political party dedicated to promoting the political and social truths taught by the catholic church.

Wljewel - I tend to agree with your assessment, and would add that I would tend to support a candidate who showed me he or she understand that there are certain things that we, as a society should, for the general well being of society promote, and certain things we should, for the same reason, discourage.

I am referring specifically to the gay marriage issue.  Because the gay lifestyle does not add as much to society as it takes away, we should not encourage that sort of behavior.  On the other hand of course, we should not persecute gay people either.  The same notion of encouraging behavior that helps society and discouraging behavior that does not help society can be aplied to other social issues as well.

 Some examples might help me explain myself.  Take drunk driving; obviously this is a behavior that damages society and we actively try to discourage it via heavy fines and incarceration.  The effects of the more routine social drinking on society are neutral to maybe slightly positive, and so while social drinking is not promoted, it is taxed a bit to keep a lid on it, and it is pemitted.  Another example is smoking.  Now, everyone knows it is not good for one's individual health, and so because of the cost it inflicts in that regard on society at large, it is actively discouraged via rules and taxation.  But in general, since the effects of cigarettes on society at large are relatively minor compared with other issues, smoking is still legal.

This is how I think we should consider issues like gay rights and gay marriage.  While in general the overall effect of gay folks on society is probably not terrible (probably no worse than cigarette smoking statistically, but of course they are apples and oranges), it is not overly positive either.  Consequently while we should of course tolerate gay folks and not tolerate them being persecuted or harrassed, we certainly would not like to encourage that lifestyle, and so we should not be issuing marriage licenses for gay couples.  There is also the problem that by issuing gay marriage licenses, we would be indicating a sort of moral equivelancy to traditional marriage that simply does not exist.

I know that was long-winded, but I don't want to simply be branded a homophobe, and sometimes explaining the rationale for a belief like this is tedious.  Indeed, there is more to my logic, because the answers to these sorts of things are not short, but that is enough for now. 

Well that is just the deal, isn't it?  I have heard people wish their kids grow up and give them grandchildren, or grow up to be a doctor or other professional (or a priest or nun), but I have never heard anyone say they want their child to grow up and be homosexual.

Certainly not everyone's children will go to college, and not everyone's kids will give them grandchildren and yes, some kids will grow up and be homosexual.  But that should not mean that we do not push our kids to study in school and, more to the point of this part of this discussion, develop as good Roman Catholic Christians in a socially reasonable manner.

It is one thing to tolerate something; it is quite another to promote it. 

Obviously we are not perfect, but in general I think as a society, we do a fairly good job of tolerating folks who wish to live out a homosexual lifestyle, thank you very much.  I see no reason why we should promote it by granting licenses and engaging in foolish, and in my opinion socially dangerous, excercises of moral equivalency between that which has served both pagan and Christian societies well for all these eons during the history of humanity (i.e. traditional marriage), and that which has not.

 WRT homosexual marriage, there was an interesting series of articles in L'Osservatore Romano back in about 96/97 wrt the whole homosexual issue. The piece on homosexual marriage was enlightening to say the least. A condensed summary:

The morality of homosexual acts is not pertinent per se to the issue of homosexual marriage as a civil institution.  Marriage, unlike other civil contracts, is a public contract, the parameters of which are fixed by the state. It is a public contract because it involves an issue of the public interest. This is the begetting and rearing of future citizens without which society can not continue.  Since homosexual unions (I am getting a very disgusting mental image here and I admit I am homophobic) inherently incapable of producing offspring there is no public interest and thus no public contract.  The whole reason that we are at the point that we are even discussing something so goofy (the Holy See used a different term) is that we have already abrogated the public interest in marriage by the widespread use of contraception and no fault divorce even when children are involved.

 This whole series of articles was supposed to be published in a book but I can't find it?

 Political parties change over time.  So let us use the terms liberal and conservative. That said, the whole idea of my original post was to point out WITH PAPAL QUOTES that the liberal position on a host of social issues, INCLUDING THE ECONOMIC ONES, is out of line with Catholic social teaching often in subtle but very important ways.  I have studied every social justice encyclical since Rerum Novarum, written in 1891. The USCCB, per their website, is out of line as well.  Besides bishops conferences have ZERO teaching authority per the code of canon law (Canon 455).  Even local diocese' slant things. In our goofy diocesan paper an article about the minimum wage has a huge headline supporting an increase, followed by a long speel wrt the "just wage" requirement.  Although the "just wage" speel was correct in so far as it goes, the very last paragraph pointed out that most minimum wage workers are young high school/college students or temporary second income workers.  This renders the "just wage" speel NA to the US.  In so far as immigration is concerned, First Things mag, edited by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, points out that an effectively open border with Mexico takes all capability of the US to pressure the Mexican government to end the corruption that stymies their economy.  The REAL CHURCH'S (ROME) position is that the cause of the need to emigrate needs to be eliminated.  Cardinal Mahoney's speel on the subject deleted that part.  Most of my long post is quotes from real (ROME) teaching documents. If you think I have taken them out of context read the documents.

 THE REAL BOTTOM LINE IN THE US IS THIS. WANT TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE POVERTY IN THE US?  GREAT THEN SUPPORT THE FAMILY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE FAMILY. HOW?

1. FORGET HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!

2. OUTLAW PORNOGRAPHY!

3. GIVE PARENTS CHARGE OF EDUCATION BY ENDING THE GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY!

4. FORGET "GAY" RIGHTS!

5. END ABORTION

 Liberals are against all these measures!

Perhaps it is problematic to use the term "homosexual" instead of "person struggling with a same sex attraction." 

We should not limit the identity of a person to a behavior.

I certainly could have been "fornicator" in my younger days, but I was in reality a "person struggling with non-marital sexual activity."  I am no longer such a person and it would be wrong to label me by my behavior.

Then and now.

We ought not limit the identity of a person to a behavior.

This is what I remember as the lesson of the novel "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne.  [although these days my children tell me they learned the message is about the evils of intolerance of certain sexual acts]

The USCCB, per their website, is out of line as well.  Besides bishops conferences have ZERO teaching authority per the code of canon law (Canon 455). 

cericlenhof,

Your statement above contradicts Lumen Gentium:

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

Angels fly because they take themselves lightly. G.K. Chesterton