In the Wake of Santorum, Catholics Must Not Retreat From Political Participation

4/17/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies." The phrase is also found in the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" sections which pertain to the political participation of Catholics. (See, e.g. #565-574):

"The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent, found within one's conscience, which is one and indivisible."

"There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity."

"In fact, every area of the lay faithful's lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the 'places in time' where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others".

"Living and acting in conformity with one's own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of 'confessionalism', but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person."

The Catholic Church as an institution does not endorse specific political candidates. However, the Church does call her members to inform their conscience and then exercise their faithful citizenship in a morally coherent manner.

We must not remain silent as the Nation we love continues down the wrong path. American culture stumbles, drunken on the false notion of freedom as giving some people a "right" to kill the innocent, divorced from norms to guide the exercise of human choice and govern our behavior. In addition, the culture denigrates the beauty of marital love as it turns people into objects of use in the name of "sexual freedom".

I do not consider myself first a "conservative". I am certainly not a "liberal" or "progressive", within the current meaning of those terms. I am a Catholic. I affirm the classical Christian assertion that there is a law written on every human heart which can be known by the exercise of reason and should inform our positive or civil law. It is the foundation upon which a truly free society must be built.

We Catholics also affirm another existential and objective truth; human persons are by nature social. We cannot be truly happy, pursue happiness, or even be fully free without one another. We were made for relationships. This has implications in every area of life, including economics and the market.

We have an obligation in solidarity to those in need. It is elevated in the face of growing threats to their wellbeing. We are also aware of the struggles faced by our fellow citizens as the economic life of our nation teeters in a growing financial crisis and we must act as a result.

We insist that economics is not in the first instance about capital, it is about human persons. A truly free economic system recognizes that freedom is a good of the person. Only human persons can be free because we are capable of making free choices.

That is the reason recent social teachings of the Church have extolled the potential of the market economy and the free market system; it has the better chance to promote human flourishing and open the door to human advancement. That is if we recognize that the market was made for man and now man for the market.

We really are our brother and sisters keeper. We have an obligation to one another. That is what is meant by solidarity. How that truth works its way into public and economic policy leaves room for the application of prudential judgment. It must also respect the principle of subsidiarity.

We also insist upon the primacy of moral values at the foundation of our life together in human society. The notion of separating "social" or "moral" issues from "economic" issues reveals a failure to recognize the moral basis of any truly free society.

Catholics are not anti-government. We arrive at smaller government, bottom up government, not because government is bad, but because government begins with the family and moves out from there.Good government should support the family as the first government and defer to it. Government should also take place first at the level closest to the need and any government beyond that should provide assistance. This is how the principle of subsidiarity should operate.

All government should respect human dignity, foster ingenuity, provide incentive, promote and reward creativity and innovation, expand participation, provide for private ownership, promote mediating institutions and foster human flourishing and advancement. In other words, serve the common good.

Many Catholics were deluded by the candidate Barack Obama in his last campaign. In his rhetoric he used language which sounded as though he agrees with Catholics on some of these issues - in particular, our obligations in solidarity with the poor. However, his administration has acted in a manner which proves the opposite.

The most egregious example is his failure to hear the cry of the children in the womb, the poorest of the poor. However, there are many more, including his denial of religious freedom and his failure to defend marriage and the family and society founded upon it.

This Presidents actions in office have demonstrated that this administration will continue to promote a rapidly expanding Secularist State which fails to respect fundamental human rights including the Right to life and the Right to Religious Freedom. In the Wake of Santorum: Catholics Must Not Retreat From Political Participation.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: vote, catholic vote, faithful citizenship, common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, Right to life, abortion, religious freedom, free exercise, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Catholic Action, Political participation, Keith A Fournier

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 63 Comments

Judy
1 year ago
Pete Brady: "Practical disorder". One is not perfect through the sin of Adam and Eve, thus Jesus. And the Gift of the Holy Spirit to help us avoid that "practical disorder". If one thinks in terms of a child growing up, then yes, I agree. One can have that "practical disorder" their whole entire lives, if they so CHOOSE. And some more than others. And where does it get them? Where does it lead? According to stats, it directs people, not willing to work, wanting all the government can give, because they have not "grown-up", or have had no direction in their lives.These poor souls need Someone to care about them. To know that they are Loved=the supreme Commandment. The stats prove that on one parent families, alcoholics, drug users, homeless, which leads to prostitution, (probably because of a bad family home life), etc. AND, here is where I differed w/Ron Paul, and supported Santorum: Santorum saw and cared about the break down of the family. He knew what it was and is doing to this country and the Church. I am sorry, but I did not See or Hear the Love and Concern in Ron Paul that I saw and heard in Santorum. (Here is where we differ). AND YES, it does take some people longer than others to "grow-up", or find God, or how ever else you would like to say it. And I Understand that. We are all different, yet we are all loved. We all want to make our country and our Church a better place. I hope you understand my sentiments better now. Prayerful Blessings...
JoAnn
1 year ago
Pete Brady: Since, I'm short on time today, I will refer you to Judy's response. She speaks for both of us. There is no way on Earth I would not have tried to assist that poor baby. Even if it could not have been saved. I would have wrapped that baby in a warm blanket, Baptized him/her and cuddled him/her until he/she took his/her last breath, so, at least he/she would have felt loved for those last few minutes. How inhumane. Are our hearts so hard that we can't muster up a little love for anyone? To let a baby lay in a cold tray and die as if it were insignificant is unacceptable. That little baby was a child of God with a little soul that needed to be saved. I sure hope someone Baptized him/her. What have we become? Just wanted to explain to you where I'm coming from. I really enjoy your posts. Keep them coming. God bless.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
Rob: I see in reviewing past posts that I missed your kind words to me. My apologies, thank you. And I likewise join you in your frustrations. If there is one thing that is glaringly obvious in this presidential election season it is that "money talks."
Pete Brady
1 year ago
JoAnn, Theresa H, and Judy: There is apparent agreement among you in regards to Theresa's statement: "It seems to me that Ron Paul has some views that are rather "out there"--different from the Church's understanding of "freedom" and "rights" according to the Natural Law." Really? Are you sure? In Question 96 of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas he states: "Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices... ." He continues: "The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils." You seem to think that the law is meant to keep us from harming ourselves, that is to say, it MUST outlaw drugs and prostitution. But just because something is not declared "illegal" does not mean that society or the body politic approves of it. And you are being selective. Is not alcohol a "drug?" Does it not "harm?" Why should it be legal, and some other things not? This nation's experience with "Prohibition" should tell us something about the "virtue" of outlawing things for "our own good." And then there's the never-ending and inept "War on Drugs," a complete and abysmal failure by any measure. Still, JoAnn asks: "How is that in line with the Catholic Church. You Ron Paul supporters out there need to do some serious soul searching. AND, if you are Catholics, SHAME ON YOU." Well, JoAnn, this Ron Paul supporter does "a lot" of soul searching, AND reading of "Catholic" resource material. There are two books I keep on my desk at all times: "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, and "the Soul of Liberty," an interview with Father Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute, by Flavio Felice. Father Sirico, in addition to his Master of Divinity degree, was given an honorary doctorate by the Franciscan University of Steubenville. As a counterpoint to what Theresa has stated in regard to "freedom," Father Sirico states that the "fundamental moral postulate of freedom rests on the idea that part of doing what is right includes the opportunity to do what is wrong." That is not an endorsement of chaos, or a foregoing of societal restraints on actions that harm others. Father Sirico elaborates further on this by saying: "So, yes, in a certain sense, freedom does imply and guarantee a kind of practical disorder in our moral lives. But it is one that is built into the very structure of reality that God created and ordained. (HERE COMES WHAT I'D LIKE to EMPHASIZE) I do not think that religious thinkers, much less the State, should presume to override that freedom of will that God himself did not take away even though he alone was in a position to do so." HE alone. Or do we presume to one-up God? It is my opinion that Ron Paul is far more consonant with Catholic teaching than a lot of Catholics. The only right that Ron Paul constantly and consistently advocates is the "right" to liberty. That, with "life" and "property," are the three primary natural rights upon which all other rights are predicated.
Judy
1 year ago
Pete Brady: Very well articulated and meditated post. I have had great admiration for all your posts. They are always respectful, intelligent and responsible. However, as God made each of His children different, I guess there comes a time when we respectfully disagree. My disagreement was, as you know, your supporting of Ron Paul. And that is fine. We are all entitled to our own opinion. But I must tell you, that having agreed w/everything you had posted, and then later, hear you voice your support for Ron Paul, I thought, hummm....we do think differently. Politically, Ron Paul is simply not my cup of tea. He is as JoAnn said at one point, or I said, "a bit out there", on some of his political views. And as the GOP race seems to be about ended, there is no point hashing over old news as far as that is concerned. I agreed w/Theresa H. on: Libertarian, Liberty, and Freedom. These words can be an across the line debate, I know. I also agreed w/her that abortion should NOT be left up to the states. Thereby, some states having it and some not. It must be Federal, in my humble opinion, to stop all loss of life. And JoAnn: I think she agrees on the above. You made very good points as to Ron Paul being in Resident, it was the '60's, who knew what was in his mind, And, the very important point, that perhaps this baby was beyond saving. All good. And, as I said on another post, how do I know or read what is in a person's heart at a particular time? Unless perhaps one is given facts. Thus, from your viewpoint, we of course can not judge him. To me, I am thinking however, that JoAnn put herself in Ron Paul's position. And if it were she, or I, and no one was doing anything to save a baby that was still alive and breathing, no matter how faint, we would pick that baby up, and run for the nearest help. I hope I have explained my modest impressions to your satisfaction. Blessings..
Pete Brady
1 year ago
JoAnn, Theresa H, and Judy: The second point on which I disagree with you is on where abortion is best defeated. And on this turns our understanding of the Constitution. You say it must be at the Federal level, which is what Santorum was saying in the South Carolina Republican presidential debate. Here, though, is a novel question, is what Santorum and you propose "Constitutional?" Is murder, as you've stated, Theresa H, "The Federal Government must outlaw abortion--just like every other act of murder," a "federal" offense? Or is it not, as Ron Paul has stated, a matter of law, like all other violent crimes, theft, rape, etc., under the jurisdiction of each one of the several states. If it is not then how do we explain the differences in punishments for those crimes from one state to the next? If tomorrow Congress, by majority vote, shall declare that the Supreme Court DOES NOT have "jurisdiction" to decide on the matter of abortion per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution - which is what Ron Paul has stated can be done - thereby rendering Roe v. Wade immediately VOID then who then has been the more efficacious in ending the scourge of abortion? Lastly, is it properly a matter for the states (NOT the federal government)? The "balance of powers" would answer that question "yes." Look no further than the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What powers are delegated to the United States by the Constitution? Grab your Constitution and look up those specifically delineated in Article I, Section 8. You will not find there the authority that you seek. I look forward to, nay, I relish our continued dialogue.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
JoAnn, Theresa H, and Judy: Look, I like each of you. And, for the most part, I like and agree with your moral and/or conservative outlook, viewpoints, and positions. I applaud the FERVOR of your pro-life advocacy. I even like the "high-relief" into which you not infrequently throw the discussion. There are, however, two points that have been brought up on which I disagree with you, and that need to be addressed. First, JoAnn, you are wrong in your excoriation of Ron Paul regarding the "botched abortion baby." Yours is an unfounded (and I think, also, an "uncharitable") accusation. Beyond what you heard, or thought you heard in the debate, one has to ask, "what do you know?" Actually? What do you know of what precisely happened on that day Ron Paul referenced? Because of my occupation I don't often have the opportunity to watch the debates as they "are televised" but I do view them later over the internet. So, yes, I have seen the debates. Though I'm not sure which debate you're referencing. But it does not matter as Dr. Ron Paul has on quite a few occasions made reference to what you've brought up as that one personal moment that became the catalyst for making "life at conception" his lifelong standard in both his medical and political careers. Was he able to save the aborted baby's life on that particular day? Very likely not. What was the operating room environment like in the 1960's? The incident occurred when he was a "resident," i.e., still in "training" to be an OB/GYN. Consequently, when he says he "walked in on and saw the live baby in a tray, left to die," two things are immediately observable: 1) he was not part of the doctor/nurse team performing the abortion, and 2) it is unlikely that as an "in-training" resident doctor that he was actually in the operating room. We often see video clips of "residents" and other medical staff observing an operation from a small theater-like area above the actual operating room. Beyond that, are you now saying that you are capable today, with 20/20 hindsight, of assessing that aborted baby's condition so as to assail Dr. Paul for not attempting its resuscitation? Is it not just as likely that Dr. Paul "walked-in" on its dying moments? Or do you know better? Dr. Paul just as often states that his "training" on that day took him down the hall to where another two pound baby, born prematurely, was being attended to by a team of upwards of ten doctors doing everything they could to save the baby's life. Now contrast that team with what might have been possible for him to have done as one lone doctor for the former aborted baby? Are you still going to fault him? You scathingly deride him with "so much for pro-life;" but if that is to be your measure than I must ask you if you then also consider Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Norma McCovey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, as being something less than "pro-life?" Your accusation is not just unfounded; it is without merit. And I would hope that, in charity, you would concede your error. This has been a bit longer than I anticipated so I'll address the second point separately.
JoAnn
1 year ago
Pete Brady: You must not have been watching all of the debates when they were televised. The incident about the botched abortion baby was straight out of the mouth of Ron Paul himself. No propaganda here. God bless.
Pete Brady
1 year ago
Well, for some, it's time to wake up and recognize the reality. Santorum won the primary in Minnesota. But. He's out of the race. And... The results of the Minnesota caucus are in, and Ron Paul got 20 of the 24 delegates. Whoa. What? Yep, that's right. Ron Paul has 20 of the 24 delegates from Minnesota (and I think it's 10 of the 20 in Missouri). And here is what is wrong with the argument about his "pro-life" position from some of the most ardent Catholics in this forum: you're using the same kind of lame, superficial accusations made by "liberals" when they say if you're not going to do it "OUR WAY" then you must be against the poor, the disadvantaged, the senior citizen, the workingman, et al., that they say they're trying to help (when they're really not). Just because I or others think that doing it your way is flawed that doesn't mean we're against the desired outcome. In every state, 26 of 'em I believe, where "same-sex" marriage has been put to the voters it has gone down to ignominious defeat. And we don't think the states would do the same with abortion? We are not ruled by "Presidential edict," if you want a "federal" law passed banishing abortion that is the province of "Congress." Hammer them. And if you refer to the original ruling in Roe v. Wade you will find that it says that if the child in the womb were ever determined to be a "person" then Roe v. Wade would not, and could not, stand. Make a federal law declaring a child in the womb a person. But in the meantime don't scapegoat Ron Paul simply because you have failed to fully investigate and understand his positions on the Constitution. And as far as his reference to the newborn surviving the botched abortion, how about the full story, does anyone know it? Until the whole truth is known I would suggest that this is as much a "liberal" tactic as any other, i.e., to tell only part of the story. Hype it up, throw mud, some of it is bound to stick, right? HOW very charitable in a "Catholic" kind of way to do such as that--- NOT!
Judy
1 year ago
Theresa H. & JoAnn: Great Posts! Prayerful Blessings...

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment