From the USCCB website:
The Church’s social teaching is a rich treasure of wisdom about building a just society and living lives of holiness amidst the challenges of modern society. Modern Catholic social teaching has been articulated through a tradition of papal, conciliar, and episcopal documents. The depth and richness of this tradition can be understood best through a direct reading of these documents. In these brief reflections, we highlight several of the key themes that are at the heart of our Catholic social tradition.
Life and Dignity of the Human Person
The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia. The value of human life is being threatened by cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the use of the death penalty. Catholic teaching also calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.
Call to Family, Community, and Participation
The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society in economics and politics, in law and policy directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.
Rights and Responsibilities
The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.
Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.
Solidarity
We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that “if you want peace, work for justice.”1 The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.
Care for God’s Creation
We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.
How does the candidate or candidates that you are leaning toward stack up to these themes? If they are not supporting these themes, does it matter? Are these themes designed to guide individuals and faith communities, but not governments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'd like to add to the ground rules. Let's not have any chain mail, i.e. forwarded e-mails with "inside stories" (most of which are urban legends), political cartoons and jokes, and "inspirational photos/graphics".
If I understand Tony's purpose, this forum should be on a rational plane. Although I enjoy humor and sarcasm as much as anyone, I pledge to keep my comments to a respectful tone. I also pledge not to forward any info about any candidate until I have verified it.
Tom
Let the blogs begin. I actually get a kick out of this, but unfortunately do not have the time to do much research and sometimes limited to my personal pontifications.
The purpose of this blog is to address the conservative view of personal responsibility and private charity. If that is the view of the Republican candidates, then I feel better about my anticipated vote for a Democrat, despite each of their stands on abortion. Here is my rationale:
I don’t see a lot of difference with the “personal responsibility” view and John Kerry’s view, which I thought was a cop-out. Kerry took the position that he was opposed to abortion personally, but that he did not think the government should step in and make the choice for the woman. It seems to me then that the Republicans are saying the same thing. They oppose abortion personally (like Kerry) and think it is more responsible to deliver the baby to term (like Kerry), but no law should be passed and no money be spent to encourage delivery over abortion. Under both views (Kerry and the personal responsibility view), the government does not do anything. I actually don’t see much of a difference between “personal choice” and “personal responsibility.”
I likewise see Mayor Gulliani’s and Senator Thompson’s view as a cop out as well (don’t know about the other candidates). Under the Mayor’s view, he will appoint “strict constructionist” judges (which as John C recognized) is a buzz word for judges who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I agree with John that such a decision will effectively pass the buck to the states. I think Senator Thompson’s view is that it is a matter that should be left to the states. I think that such a view allows them to call themselves as pro-life, but will do very little to actually reduce the number of abortions that occur. Again, this does not seem much different from Kerry, who described himself as pro-life, but proposed nothing to actually reduce the number of abortions.
I suspect the strategy is once Roe v. Wade is overturned, that they will build momentum in the states, and eventually have abortion banned in all states. However, I think that this is probably a pipe dream. So the impact is that all abortions will occur in a handful of states, but will not be significantly reduced. In some states, it will be prohibited, but in others it will probably be expanded to make it clear that late term abortions are OK and they will be easier to get.
My bottom line is that no candidate is actually addressing the problem and I think it is because of partisan ideology where each side takes a corner and refuses to compromise to reach a common goal. With respect to the abortion issue, I think most people would agree to that is better to deliver a child than to abort it. The problem is with who makes the choice, the government or the woman. What if we left the choice to the woman (which would satisfy the Democrats and presumably the personal responsibility advocates), but the government passes laws that are designed to encourage delivery over abortion (easier adoptions, more information about options, ensured health care coverage, one-time tax credits, full deductibility of medical expenses, expansion of medical leave, etc). While this admittedly won’t alleviate all abortions, the idea is to reduce them.
Unfortunately, I don’t think any candidate is really proposing what I am advocating, as everyone is afraid to venture outside the partisan box. While I am generally drawn to the Republicans on this issue, I don’t have much confidence that anything will change in this regard if one of them becomes President. Indeed, little has changed under the current administration. While it is great that partial birth abortions were prohibited, the fact is that the baby is still aborted. This law does not stop any abortions. Likewise, the federal ban on stem cell research was fine, but purely symbolic. Embryos are being destroyed at fertility clinics all the time. As both parties seem to be missing the point, this issue is somewhat of a wash for me.
I am very interested in your comments.
Tony
With regard to abortion, I never thought I would hear these words coming out of my mouth, but I more or less agree with Kerry. But with some caveats. If we were to overturn Roe v. Wade, it would drive it to the states, which would result in whole blocks of states banning abortion. What happens then? Like it or not, it's driven underground.
Abortion is not going to be fought and won by changing laws, but by changing hearts.
There's more to say, but I have a meeting now.
Also, with regard to life, why do we concentrate on abortion to the exclusion of other life-related issues, such as the death penalty, workplace safety, and even war?
In my view, these issues should also be addressed. That is one reason why I asked for comments on all "life" issues. I really wish a Democrat was more anti-abortion, but the Republicans do not have a monopoly on all life issues such as those you mentioned, the death penalty, the war etc. I feel passionately about these issues as well.
To John Roth's emails yesterday, I was not entirely sure what was your writings and what pasted from other articles. However, the stuff about Senator Obama was really quite favorable in my mind for two reasons:
1. If the only conspiracy they can find is one where he hid his whereabouts in the 2 and 3 grade, he must be pretty clean; and
2. If he did attend a Muslim school in the 2nd and 3rd grade, he knows alot more about the Muslim faith than the current administration.
Seriously, I really viewed all of that as totally irrelevant (who cares what school he went 30 years ago) and all of it has been disproven.
I submitted a question to the Nevada debate about whether any candidate would consider a plan to encourage delivery to term of babies instead of an abortion, such as easier adoptions, health care to deliver etc.
This is my response to the Subprime Nation article by Pat Buchanan that John C circulated.
I don’t disagree that we must do something about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. In the article, Mr. Buchanan states the problem, but does not offer any solutions. I also agree that none of our politicians are addressing the issue (other I guess than Representative Paul, who wants it disbanded). It seems as if the only solutions are to increase the funding or decrease the benefits. So, why don’t we take one of these steps or a combination of both? In my view the reason is because of unreasonable partisanship politics.
Tax increases seem off the table because any person who would recommend such increases will immediately be branded as a taxer, an anti-Reagonite, etc. And I am not necessarily talking about Democrats. No Republican can take a chance on agreeing to a tax increase because it will forever haunt him or her. Look at the presidential debates where the number of tax increases are complied over the candidate’s career and used against him. Look at the attacks on McCain because he failed to support President Bush’s tax cuts. Republicans are paralyzed in finding a solution that involves any tax increase. The same could probably be said about the Democrats who will not consider any solution that would decrease the benefits to the elderly, for fear of being accused anti-elderly or something like that.
The bottom line is that the solution will require sacrifices in the form of higher taxes or decreased benefits. The problem is that no politician appears to have the courage to risk his career in saying so (I may be biased, but Senator McCain may be the exception here). I am looking for a politician who asks the sacrifice from me and justifies to me the reasons that such sacrifices are needed. This is not rocket science.
The issue of unreasonable partisanship politics has been an issue for me for a long time. One of the main reasons I voted for President Bush in 2000 was his claim that he would work with he Democrats to get things done. Remember how he said he worked with the Democrats in Texas? This really appealed to me about then-Governor Bush. Of course, I have been extremely disappointed with President Bush in this regard. I think things have deteriorated since he has been in office in this regard. Although I don’t blame it all on him, I think presidents are better able to affect the current situation.
I can’t really comment on the economic arguments Mr. Buchanan makes because I am not competent to do so. However, being an isolationist from a market perspective is not well advised. In my mind, we are in a global market whether we like it or not. As a capitalist, I think it is futile to put controls on global markets or limit foreign investment in our country. I suspect Mr. Buchanan has been making this argument for years—probably dating back to when Japanese automakers made its entry in the US automobile market. Maybe I also am oblivious to the problem as Mr. Buchanan claims, but trying to curtail natural market forces will not work and will probably hurt in the long run. I also think that those countries that place market restrictions on us will be hurt in the long run as well.
I agree with his views that we should recognize that we cannot afford to defend the world or ensure that every country is a democracy. I think we need to follow a policy of containment and let the people of those countries decide their destiny (even if it takes generations to do so). I am torn about what we can do about places like Darfur and other spots where atrocities are occurring (even if the country does not have any strategic significance). If we do anything, we should go in and get out quickly, but I think this is a very hard question and makes me glad that I am not the president.
Tony
Try this short quiz to see which presidential candidate best fits your views.
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
My top choice came up Hillary and second was Barrack (the only diference was my answer on education). McCain was the top for the Republicans. Romney was last. I think the exercise was good, but I think it would be better to give a broader range of importance to issues (like maybe 1-10 or something liket that). Also, Iraq is just one question. There should also have been something on foreign policy in question. Also, a big issue for me is the need for more bi-partisianship. Whether it will be true or not, I give a pretty big edge to Obama on that and that was not reflected on the survey. Having a Clinton/Romney (or any Republican) is going to be such a negative election in my mind. I really get discouraged about that and knowing that nothing will change.
For what it is worth, heres' how I scored.
John McCain
Score: 65
Agree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
Education
Disagree
Marriage
Mike Huckabee
Score: 43
Agree
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Education
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Energy
Environment
Mitt Romney
Score: 43
Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Social Security
Energy
Gun Control
Ron Paul
Score: 35
Agree
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Gun Control
Environment
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Education
Rudy Giuliani
Score: 31
Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Death Penalty
Environment
Education
Disagree
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Barack Obama
Score: 15
Video
Agree
Immigration
Death Penalty
Education
Disagree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Hillary Clinton
Score: 12
Agree
Immigration
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education
Mike Gravel
Score: 10
Agree
Immigration
Education
Disagree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty
Gun Control
Environment
John Edwards
Score: 5
Video
Agree
Death Penalty Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Gun Control
Environment
Education
I'm back to my original candidate: none of the above.
McCain 33
Paul 31
Romney 30
Giuliani 28
Huckabee 27
Edwards 16
Kucinich 14
Gravel, Hillary, and Obama < 10
No one agrees with me on Iraq or immigration and no candidate has more points of agreement than disagreement.
The fact that I agree with Kucinich on anything alarms me greatly.
Chris, why not McCain?
I'm voting for McCain tomorrow. We disagree on Iraq, immigration, Stem-cell, Energy, the death penalty, and gun control. But there are other things I disagree with McCain on, starting with McCain-Feingold.
This is in response to the emails about McCain.
I have not made up my mind yet about the election (even whether I will vote Democrat or Republican), but if I vote Republican, McCain would be the only candidate I would consider (maybe Huckabee, but let’s face it he really has no chance in my view the way things stand now).
While I appreciate the passion of the hard-right conservatives, I firmly believe that they do not represent the majority of Americans. I likewise do not think that the hard left liberals represent the majority of Americans. If anything is going to get done, whether it be with judges, the economy, Social Security, immigration etc, there will need to be meeting of the minds between the two parties to reach a solution that the public can trust and feel good about.
In my mind, McCain’s greatest accomplishments have been when he collaborated with the Democrats on passing legislation. He seems to me he placed a desire to find a solution to a problem in the country in lieu of the party line. Yet he is roundly criticized by the hard right conservatives for this. I don’t know much about McCain-Feingold, but campaign finance reform is needed in my view. Maybe the legislation is not good, but I admire any legislator who doesn’t just complain, but actually works on finding a solution.
I think he showed great political courage in leading the Gang of Fourteen. Instead of making Congress look like a bunch of spoiled kids with the so-called nuclear option, he provided some adult supervision and avoided a useless political and ideological stalemate. Aren’t conservatives happy with Roberts and Alito? These judges were approved, but without the threatened filibusters etc. Why is McCain faulted for this? Do conservatives believe Roberts and Alito are not conservative enough? It seems to me that McCain got the judges everyone wanted, but without the congressional fight.
Buchanan’s article is so typical—complaining about problems in America, but without suggesting any compromise solutions to those problems. It is easy for legislators/commentators to refuse compromise and blame the other side for the stalemate. It is much harder, and politically much more courageous, for a legislator to draft legislation to find a solution that addresses competing and diverse positions. We all have to make our own choice about voting, and if we vote, for which candidate. For me, I am backing the person who is willing to follow the harder and more courageous path. That may be John McCain.
Post a Comment