1
1holycatholic
Guest
And the majority of them are contrary to the principal of subsidiarity which is part of the social doctrine of the Church. http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/deal.gif
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yes…and it’s stupid.
Sure. Why would that be a problem? People are taxed for their police and fire services.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And we’re taxed for our politicians, infrastructure, military, and many, many other federal agencies, yet it would be wrong to take federal taxes to provide medical care to the poor, because that conflicts with the doctrines of the Church?
M
markomalley
Guest
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.
Pope Bl John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48
We haven’t seen an inordinate increase in public spending since the 1930s, have we?
There aren’t any bureaucrats running social assistance agencies, are there?
Almost sounds like a Tea Partier could have written those two paragraphs…
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yes…sort of. It is not as simple as you like to word things.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thanks Mark! That’s what I was thinking of earlier… Prodigal Son 1 - please read that to help in your understanding of why the Church would be opposed to a federal bureucracy when it comes to social concerns.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Do you even have an interpretation of the quote you used? Can’t you break it down, word by word, sentence by sentence, to explain your interpretation? I have news for you. I converted in 1985, with my eyes wide open. I asked a lot of questions and did an extreme amount of research. I can very well break why I converted down as I understand it. I do my best to view everything with a spiritual eye. This opposition to universal health care really appears to be for political reasons, with many semantics being used to twist and turn to avoid ‘sharing’ with all, including His least. This argument is shocking to me. Oh, we can’t help the poor that Christ commanded we help in that way, it’s contrary to our doctrine. Without a logical explanation of how that interpretation is arrived at, I will not believe it.
Also, I have repeatedly asked for other statements by the Pope or the men of the Church close to him referencing specifically health care to be as you say it is. Nothing has been provided. That is suspect to me to say the least.
All you’ve done so far is continually repeat that I’m wrong. It’s going to take more than that to convince me, sorry.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
What does the statements by the Pope and Vatican secretary of state sound like to you? I’m going to do some digging, because I remember reading how the quality of life, health, housing, etc. etc. was important to Pope John Paul.
R
rlg94086
Guest
That is very uncharitable of you, and the same could be assumed of your position. My viewpoints on healthcare, in accord with Church teaching, don’t fit either of the two major parties. I’ve explained why your viewpoint is contrary to Church teaching. Why do you hold on to such views, knowing that they are contrary to subsidiarity?
Do you have any statements by the Pope or “men of the Church close to him” who specifically address the question of federal vs local/state funding/administration of health care? Of course not. You are being very hypocritical.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Of course they are important! That doesn’t mean he was in favor of a Welfare State…in fact, he specifically denounces such a thing in Centesimus Annus. Why do liberals equate charity with government???
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I think I see the problem. The pope used the word ‘justice’ and people are confusing it with ‘welfare’.
We are called to give to the poor, the least of His. I have not seen how that conflicts with His teachings, or the doctrines of His Church. His way is not as legalistic as it’s being made out to be. A house divided cannot stand. Just as we cannot use evil to accomplish His good, we cannot use His good to accomplish evil.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I am not intentionally being uncharitable and apologize if my honesty on this subject is taken that way. We all seem to be crossing the line, as I’ve had to repeat several statements over and over, to no avail. For example, look at how you say, ‘Why do you hold on to such views, KNOWING that they are contrary to subsidiarity’?
Please show me where I said I hold a view knowingly contrary to any Church doctrine? If you can’t do it, it’s a repeated false statement that I find, and have found uncharitable.
I have disagreed, and questioned, the precise interpretation and how the Pope and Cardinal’s statements may, or may not, work together with any doctrine people believe to be a contradiction to apply, what I find as clearly worded statements, too.
I have asked, repeatedly, for other statements by the Pope, or those close to him, that may give explanation and support to the view that universal health care by ‘governments’ is wrong, or not what they meant to say. Nothing has been produced? I’ve asked for scriptures showing that we might can take as not receiving aid from a ‘government’. Again, nothing presented.
I have repeatedly show you statements by the Pope and Vatican secretary of state, that precisely state ‘government’, ‘provision’, ‘administrative’, etc. etc. So, no I am not being hypocritical.
I have repeatedly asked someone to take those statements sentence by sentence and show me how I’m arriving at the wrong context. No one has done so.
I have seen a lot of semantics, and what appears to be biased interpretations. Like this as an example, ‘Oh they said government, but didn’t say which level of government.’ Oh it says ‘access’ not ‘provision’. Oh yes it sounds like a good thing, but too bad we can’t go against Church doctrine to ‘cure’ the poverty stricken poor.
Anything to justify finding disagreement with the subject, universal health care for all.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yes. I think you are confusing justice for welfare. We are called to give to the poor. Liberals believe we are called to take from others to give to the poor. Jesus never taught that.
Governments have a role, as I’ve repeatedly explained. As our popes have consistently taught, solidarity and subsidiarity must both be considered. If all you got out of Centesimus Annus is “welfare state,” you missed the point. A large bureaucracy is not the way to go. You have stated you’d be okay with a UN health plan; therefore, you hold a view contrary to subsidiarity…contrary to Church teaching.
C
Carlan
Guest
In the end of all the talk, the only answer is going to be a well run universal health program paid for by all the people proportionately. Call that thinking what you like.But our health care status keeps getting worse, we must give the new reforms a chance to develop and expand . If we work together it will happen. I pray it does.
The high and rising cost of medicine today has virtually closed down many Catholic staffed hospitals- and I am sure other religion sponsored medical centers can’t be in much better shape.
How selfish of the healthy and able younger generations not to want share in the cost of a nations health welfare.
God,help us to get on the right track, your way! Peace, Carlan
The high and rising cost of medicine today has virtually closed down many Catholic staffed hospitals- and I am sure other religion sponsored medical centers can’t be in much better shape.
How selfish of the healthy and able younger generations not to want share in the cost of a nations health welfare.
God,help us to get on the right track, your way! Peace, Carlan
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Labels are no good as they did not exist with Jesus. Jesus called on all through their free will to give. I am prepared to do that but am confused how fellow Christians find sharing with the less fortunate as something is being taken away? Or, it appears they don’t mind sharing by having theirs taken away, but find great disdain in seeing non-believers being taken away from over the needs of the sick, or poverty stricken. Where did Jesus qualify his teaching to exclude any person, or group of people?
Then we may have a problem, since Popes address nations through their government leaders on important issues. If subsidiarity were at risk, it would appear his messages would only go out to all the people and avoiding the ‘large bureaucracies’ all together. Just this alone supports my belief that there is no conflict between universal health care and Church doctrine. I cannot see any logic that there are Church doctrines that would prevent the teachings of Christ from taking place.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Why, I’d call that thinking ‘Christian’.
R
rlg94086
Guest
H
Holly3278
Guest
Obamacare is stupid. I thought I might support it in the beginning until I realized that it could easily be used to pay for abortions and euthanasia. That said, they say this won’t happen but to be honest with you, I don’t trust Obama or his Democratic cronies.
To me, Obamacare is just socialized medicine and while at one time I thought it might be a good idea, I really don’t think it is now. That said, I do support health care for all people. However, I do not support having it at the cost of government funded abortions, birth control, and euthanasia which I honestly believe this will lead to in the long term.
To me, Obamacare is just socialized medicine and while at one time I thought it might be a good idea, I really don’t think it is now. That said, I do support health care for all people. However, I do not support having it at the cost of government funded abortions, birth control, and euthanasia which I honestly believe this will lead to in the long term.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I support health care for all, as well. I just think the states should each come up with their own programs. Doing it at the federal level is a bad idea.
C
Carlan
Guest
What I am about to post maybe some what of topic but I will stand up and post anyway!
Because I am tired of the talk.
I AM A DEMOCRAT WHO IS FOR LIFE!
I believe the Democratic Party has a proper life ethic toward legislating to protect the powerless.
However ,their position on abortion is wrong.
I pray for pro-life Dems to come forward and fight for movements to end
Abortion, to end the death penalty, domestic violence, racism, and poverty.
The Democratic Party has always championed for the most vulnerable in our
Country- Children , the elderly, the poor, the sick, and disabled.
Republicans , for the most part, claim to be pro-life and yet rarely do you hear them, passionately, cry out for the poor and the deprived, for the working class(labor), for control of hand guns and other weapons used to kill. Or for their politicians to fight for national health care for all our citizens.
Everything good and moral can be done if all would only agree to work together for it.
Peace, Carlan
- Status