[quote="Ridgerunner, post:8, topic:285861"]
I understand your desire, but I do not accept part of your premise. What makes you think Repubs in general reject Catholic Social Doctrine, or that any particular Repub does? Catholic social doctrine is not what many think it is.
I have heard Catholic politicians in office in Washington, D.C. say that, as a MATTER OF PRINCIPLE (not just based on prudence in a given set of circumstances), no government in the USA should EVER pass or maintain the legality or constitutionality of:
-Minimum Wage or Just Wage laws
-Social Security Retirement programs
-Social Security Disability programs
-Unemployment Insurance programs
-Laws requiring business owners to negotiate with Labor Unions
-Child labor laws (I heard that in 2012, from the mouth of a leading national Catholic politician)
-Laws forbidding sexual discrimination in hiring
-Laws forbidding racial discrimination in hiring
-Food stamp-type programs (that instead, as a MATTER of PRINCIPLE, all aid to the poor SHOULD be through private charity)
All those principled positions violate Catholic Social Doctrine. I think more examples could be found.
Catholic Social Doctrine does not require that any government pass laws such as those in the list above. It just ways that doing so is legitimate if the government chooses to do so. By contrast, many Catholic politicians hold, as a matter of principle, such laws are ALWAYS illegitimate. These politicians seem to view Ayn Rand as a greater authority in political and economic matters than the Catholic popes.
I have heard many Catholic politicians say that, as a MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, all economics matters must be handed by the FREE MARKET and/or by PRIVATE CHARITY, and that the secular government MUST NEVER get involved in economic redistribution. Catholic Social Doctrine clearly says that it is a heresy to say that ALL human needs can be met by the Free Market.
I have heard Catholic politicians say that as a MATTER of PRINCIPLE the rights to Private Property can NEVER be violated by the government taxing Private Property to meet urgent serious human needs. That is the Ebeneezer Scrooge position. Catholic Social Doctrine says the opposite, the Private Property rights are NOT absolute.
Some Catholic politicians make the claim that they are faithful to the Catholic Social Teachings of the Popes, but not of the Catholic bishops appointed and maintained by the popes to serve in the dioceses of the United States. They claim or insinuate the the U.S. Catholic bishops are a bunch of liberals. Yet, to my knowledge, no Pope has ever approved of or endorsed this distinction or this viewpoint. I have never heard of a pope chastising the U.S. bishops for being liberal and for misrepresenting Catholic Social Teaching. I have heard Pope Benedict XVI say that every Catholic owes as much obedience to his bishop and the college of bishops in general as to the pope. Blessed Pope John Paul II famously told the bishops that EVERY bishop is a Vicar of Christ. Since the popes must approve and appoint every bishop, would it not be odd if most of them turned out to be unreliable dissenters?
Finally, there was the infamous case of Catholic writer and right wing think tank employee George Weigel's vicious attack on Pope Benedict's Social Doctrine encyclical "Caritas in veritate" (June 29, 2009). That attack was published in the National Review. When you read that attack, you can see how many far right political conservatives cannot stand certain elements of Catholic Social Doctrine.
Thus, I think there is some legitimate basis for the assertion that most Catholic politicians at the national level in the USA seriously dissent from EITHER Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine or Catholic Social Doctrine, or both.
I am not claiming to be right. Just claiming that I have seen considerable evidence to this effect. If some group of true experts researched the matter and found that most Catholics in public office support Catholic Social Doctrine, then I would happily submit to their conclusion.