American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil

[KSU]

“Actually, the article ends on a positive note. The elevation of Cardinal Dolan to head the USCCB gives the prospect that a leader that has backbone will start to make some changes. However, the article in the quote above from catholicculture.org would lead one to the opinion that Cardinal Dolan will have a hard time slowing down the cumbersome ship that is the USCCB, much less turning it around.” —jenkiedad

Only the Holy Spirit can help us, our Church and our country now. Cardinal Dolan and the unknown number of like-minded bishops and priests face an impossible task by themselves–the Devil, the Socialists, the militant homosexuals, the militant Islamists, the militant atheists and secularists (e.g., the Hollywood filth machine), and the Church-hating (Lord help them) members of other faiths have loosely joined forces. They smell blood and would love NOTHING more than to destroy the Church in America. Now is their chance.

I hope Cardinal Dolan (1) initiates a prayer crusade in our homes and Liturgy begging Our Lady of America to ask the Holy Spirit to come to the aid of the Church and the countries dedicated to her, and (2) learns not to try to play politics with our opponents, as our Shepherds have been doing for forty years. If something is wrong, say so, loudly and boldly; don’t try to bargain with evil.

I also hope that the Holy Father helps us by finally trimming down the Church’s members and actions to obedient believers doing God’s work.

 

[King_Lazy]

the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it."

That’s ridiculous. Taxation is a legitimate function of the State and is not equivalent to unjust confiscation. State provision of assistance is not equivalent to charity and is not inherently immoral. Catholics can legitimately disagree as to the best way to organise a government and what services it should and shouldn’t provide and on what level.

"[T]he Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state.

It is indeed a true and unfortunate observation that many have indeed subordinated moral issues to economic issues.

The author, however, appears to make the same mistake that he accuses Catholics of making: putting economic issues above moral issues, and it is clear where the author’s bias lies.

The Catholic Church does not teach that State involvement in the economy or that the State itself is inherently morally evil and Catholics may legitimately hold differing views with regard to what is more practical, effective and efficient. Those views, however, must and should be subordinate to the moral teachings of the Church.

 

[jenkiedad]

That’s ridiculous. Taxation is a legitimate function of the State and is not equivalent to unjust confiscation. State provision of assistance is not equivalent to charity and is not inherently immoral. Catholics can legitimately disagree as to the best way to organise a government and what services it should and shouldn’t provide and on what level.

The author was merely pointing out that the basic philosophy of “liberalism” (as we might call it in the USA; not sure what it would be called in the UK) is based on redistribution of wealth.

The author, however, appears to make the same mistake that he accuses Catholics of making: putting economic issues above moral issues, and it is clear where the author’s bias lies.

OK, you lost me here. The quote you provided did not validate your position. The author (Paul Rahe) does not make an economic case, only a moral one. He says that the bishops (in the USA) have muddled core non-negotiable convictions (e.g. opposition to abortion) with social justice issues.

The Catholic Church does not teach that State involvement in the economy or that the State itself is inherently morally evil and Catholics may legitimately hold differing views with regard to what is more practical, effective and efficient. Those views, however, must and should be subordinate to the moral teachings of the Church.

Yes, but the state becomes “morally evil” when it forces the Catholic Church to enact policies that are contrary to its core convictions of faith.

 

[King_Lazy]

OK, you lost me here. The quote you provided did not validate your position. The author (Paul Rahe) does not make an economic case, only a moral one. He says that the bishops (in the USA) have muddled core non-negotiable convictions (e.g. opposition to abortion) with social justice issues.

I’m sorry, I just felt that the way the language was used seemed to imply so. Maybe I misunderstood and was wrong.

Yes, but the state becomes “morally evil” when it forces the Catholic Church to enact policies that are contrary to its core convictions of faith.

Agreed.

 

[nordskoven]

Here’s Catholic Charities USA financials. 10m in government contracts. 600k to rent a hospice annually. Director’s salary unstated. Almost 2m in government grants.

bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/catholic-charities-usa-in-alexandria-va-1049

Can we talk Irish versus Africans? The Irish came to America to escape English genocide in the so-called potato famine, the records of whichs show rents paid in food throughout. This is Swift’s opportunity to suggest eating children (sardonically) as the English did nothing to relieve the potato crop failure, including foregoing food/rent collection.

The Irish were so poor they offered to work for less than slave wages for $1 a day. The African slaves rioted at this and there was much enmity between Irish and Africans. The states rights (and pro-slavery and wage slave) Democrats garnered Irish votes; and Democrat carpetbaggers gained African votes though their history was one of blocking the Civil Rights legislation of Eisenhower and then Kennedy. Some black activists still think they are going to get 40 acres and a mule and still lobby for this.

Unions allied with Democrats to offset laissez-faire capitalists and industrialists. Radical Materialism, laissez-faire capitalism and communism, are both condemned by the Church. Union corruption has led to weakening worker’s protections, with Democrat Clinton being assured of the union vote even though passing NAFTA.

The Democrat platform supports the privilege of killing one’s child. This is the racist policy of Margaret Sanger, who wanted to destroy all brown-eyed people, targeting Italian Catholic immigrants and Africans. Abortion rights cases were underwritten by the sex trade industry and organized crime that needed to insure prostitutes wouldn’t have down-time when pregnant; and forwarded by pro-Communist Betty Friedan, a rich, husband-beating harridan. Gloria Steinem, who made a trip to Communist Russia before suddenly starting MS Magazine, also received large cash grants from the Playboy Foundation and has ties to Planned Parenthood. Abortion is a cash business. So this may be a “follow the money” story.

In short, the deal with the devil has a long and storied history, including LBJ’s War on Poverty that widened the poverty gap between blacks and whites, passive-aggressive racism. Welfare payments that are higher when father is out of the household has been institutionalized to wreck poor families with Earned Income Tax Credit payments. The unions of old are gone but the voters stay. The liberals of old are gone but the communists stay. Now America as a whole has been knocked off the ladder of success and put on the dole. Food stamps are at an all-time high. Unemployment compensation has been defrauded by millions and most states won’t investigate. And we will vote ourselves more privilege and get poorer. God bless America.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The author was merely pointing out that the basic philosophy of “liberalism” (as we might call it in the USA; not sure what it would be called in the UK) is based on redistribution of wealth.

OK, you lost me here. The quote you provided did not validate your position. The author (Paul Rahe) does not make an economic case, only a moral one. He says that the bishops (in the USA) have muddled core non-negotiable convictions (e.g. opposition to abortion) with social justice issues.

Yes, but the state becomes “morally evil” when it forces the Catholic Church to enact policies that are contrary to its core convictions of faith.

Amen.

We are about to discover that bowing to Caesar will crush us.

 

[KSU]

nordskoven, your post #63 should be required reading in every Catholic high school; TV documentaries should be made about it.

But it’s politically incorrect so nobody beyond this thread will ever see it. And the beat goes on.

 

[ACCT]

This is Milton Friedman’s conclusion in his book, Free to Choose: “The two ideas of human freedom and economic freedom working together came to their greatest fruition in the United States…We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good purposes.”

“We are again recognizing the dangers of an over-governed society, coming to understand that good objectives can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society.”

 

[jenkiedad]

Here’s a follow-on article by the same Paul Rahe that continues the discussion:

ricochet.com/main-feed/Does-the-Pope-Read-Ricochet

Some Quotes:

“(S)omething very interesting happened on Friday when Pope Benedict addressed a group of American bishops who had come to Rome to consult with him. In his remarks, according to The Wall Street Journal, he”

“*denounced what he called the failure of priests and bishops to instruct Catholics in core church teachings on human sexuality, saying many Catholics seem unaware that living together outside of marriage was “gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society.””

“The entire Christian community, he said, must recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity.*”

“One thing is clear. The Pope and his advisors are thinking strategically. They regard Barack Obama’s HHS mandate rightly as a catastrophe; and, instead of wringing their hands, they asked themselves what good could be elicited from this catastrophe. And with that end in mind, they have decided to take the challenge posed to the Church as an opportunity to set the American Church on a new course. Though long overdue, this decision is most welcome.”

 

[KSU]

Roman Catholicism in Rome:

“(S)omething very interesting happened on Friday when Pope Benedict addressed a group of American bishops who had come to Rome to consult with him. In his remarks, according to The Wall Street Journal, he”

“denounced what he called the failure of priests and bishops to instruct Catholics in core church teachings on human sexuality, saying many Catholics seem unaware that living together outside of marriage was “gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society.””

Roman Catholicism elsewhere:

Father Marcel Guarnizo has just been suspended, with all his priestly faculties removed, by the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C… Father refused, you will recall, to participate in a sacrilegious Communion, set up for the corrupt media to cover, by a lesbian who had informed Father before Mass that she was living with her “lover.” The Mass was for her deceased mother.
lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-inside-sources-provide-new-info-on-priest-censured-for-denying-le

 

[ryecroft]

I thought that a constitutional amendment, though difficult to enact, can reverse the court’s decisions? Obviously hindsight is 20-20, but would it have been possible for the Church to have mobilized the faithful to support a constitutional amendment back in the 1970’s?

It is very difficult to get a constitutional ammendment - you would have to have most of the states in agreement with the ammendment - that means no “well we want this changed a smidge” let me tell you exactly what would have to happen:
A bill would have to pass both houses then it would have to go on to the states (this is what happens with all current ammendments) and then after these huge feats were met, then the real work would come about and you would need to ratify it by 3/4 of the states. - that means at least 36 or 38 states would then have to COMPLETELY agree on this ratification. It is a huge, difficult task. It would literally take a miracle to occur.
God Bless
Rye

 

[ajaxbogs]

On the issue of social justice he is right in many respects and many in the Church have lost sight of what true charity is. Our leadership today though should give us hope that we are moving in the right direction, especially considering the strong stance the Church is now taking with regards to the HHS mandate. Church leadership standing up for the faith is better late than never…

I’m pleased with the American Bishop’s stance on the HHS mandate but considering how many of them endorsed Obama or turned a “blind eye” to his pro-abortion,anti-Church stand during the '08 election, I truly wonder if they would have been so tenacious in the battle (or even said ANYTHING) if they did not get prodded by the Vatican.

American Catholic leadership is up in arms about the mandate, but seems to be ignoring the 5000 lb pro-death “donkey” (i.e. Democrat Party) in the room, which millions of voting Catholics have put in power. Is this a Pact with the devil??

 

[ryecroft]

Here’s a follow-on article by the same Paul Rahe that continues the discussion:

ricochet.com/main-feed/Does-the-Pope-Read-Ricochet

Some Quotes:

“(S)omething very interesting happened on Friday when Pope Benedict addressed a group of American bishops who had come to Rome to consult with him. In his remarks, according to The Wall Street Journal, he”

“*denounced what he called the failure of priests and bishops to instruct Catholics in core church teachings on human sexuality, saying many Catholics seem unaware that living together outside of marriage was “gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society.””

“The entire Christian community, he said, must recover an appreciation of the virtue of chastity.*”

“One thing is clear. The Pope and his advisors are thinking strategically. They regard Barack Obama’s HHS mandate rightly as a catastrophe; and, instead of wringing their hands, they asked themselves what good could be elicited from this catastrophe. And with that end in mind, they have decided to take the challenge posed to the Church as an opportunity to set the American Church on a new course. Though long overdue, this decision is most welcome.”

Personally, I doubt anything will really come of this - the Church in the US has really been set in a course - a course that the majority may “technically” be against what Obama stands for but are not about to stand up for what they feel they’re being told they should be holding up. As much as I want to see some changes, I don’t want the government to become a “Catholic” Government - that’s not what this country is about. I don’t want to see one religion to be put forward because it is the “right” religion (show me a religion that doesn’t believe they’re the “right” or “true” religion)- I want to see there be respect of all religions-while I know we’re no where near this at times I hear people on here speaking and I have to wonder if that’s what they’re hoping will come of America.
God Bless
Rye

 

[KSU]

" I don’t want the government to become a “Catholic” Government - that’s not what this country is about… I hear people on here speaking and I have to wonder if that’s what they’re hoping will come of America."

Huh?

 

[King_Lazy]

" I don’t want the government to become a “Catholic” Government - that’s not what this country is about… I hear people on here speaking and I have to wonder if that’s what they’re hoping will come of America."

Huh?

In terms of adherence to Natural Law, the moral law of God, I think every government should be a Catholic government, even if there is no official religion or the official religion is Islam.

 

[Lutgardis]

I agree with what’s said in the article. The Church has for years made its own bed; now it is unhappy with the consequences.

It is probably too late to save religious liberty, indeed our Constitution. And Catholics must shoulder their share of the blame.

This audio is pretty enlightening in describing what has come about. I think it is clear that we must, as Catholics, oppose evil through the means we still have available to us: By casting our votes in this next presidential race.

youtu.be/ltTd81XpDnc

 

[David_Castlen]

I don’t think the hierarchy has ever supported forced redistribution of wealth and charity through force. He needs to look up what charity means.

Are you sure Swiss Guy?
You know the Bishops support a national health program? Obviously, they do not suppor toe with contraceptives…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’m pleased with the American Bishop’s stance on the HHS mandate but considering how many of them endorsed Obama or turned a “blind eye” to his pro-abortion,anti-Church stand during the '08 election, I truly wonder if they would have been so tenacious in the battle (or even said ANYTHING) if they did not get prodded by the Vatican.

American Catholic leadership is up in arms about the mandate, but seems to be ignoring the 5000 lb pro-death “donkey” (i.e. Democrat Party) in the room, which millions of voting Catholics have put in power. Is this a Pact with the devil??

Is it anything but?

 

[KSU]

“In terms of adherence to Natural Law, the moral law of God, I think every government should be a Catholic government, even if there is no official religion or the official religion is Islam.”–King Lazy

King Lazy, no educated Catholic would disagree with the core point you are making. My point to ryecroft was that I don’t think that people on this thread are calling for our government to become “Catholic” in the sense he means. Otherwise, I more or less agree with what he said in #71.

Your core point–if you permit me to expand it-- is that people who run a government do not have to be Catholic or call the government “Catholic” in order to adhere to Natural Law. God’s law is written on everyone’s heart and, ideally, therefore, every government that ever existed (even before Christ) should have adhered to Natural Law without having to CALL itself Catholic.
arn.org/docs/johnson/jbudz.htm

Where I might disagree with you is that Islam, Communism/Socialism, etc., as practiced and as written, could ever possibly be in accord with Natural Law/Reason. As practiced, those belief systems are pacts with the Devil. Here are some papal teachings:
tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/what-the-popes-have-to-say-about-socialism.html

 

[MarkInOregon]

Are you sure Swiss Guy?
You know the Bishops support a national health program? Obviously, they do not suppor toe with contraceptives…

Please define redistribution of wealth as you understand it.

Does redistribution of wealth include the government allowing tax deductions for say charity and mortgage interest–after all one pays less tax than they otherwise would–other taxpayers–without mortgages are helping others buy their houses. Is this a bad thing? Where is all the angst about this? Where are the protests?

Or is redistribution of wealth only when someone who can’t make ends meet gets some assistance to feed their children?

We all receive assistance from the government–that assistance is called tax breaks and credits. They help us do things like purchase a house, raise children–things that are considered good for society as a whole. No one rails against these much. It’s hypocritical to take a mortgage interest and property tax deduction which facilitate the purchase of your house and complain that Joe with the minimum wage job–is somehow less worthy of government assistance and is the one receiveing wealth redistribution.

As a society we have the right to decide what that society will look like and what government should do. What that society can look like and what government can do is controlled (at least in theory) by our constititution–but within that frame work we have wide lattitude. We also have a duty to lobby for what we believe is best for society–and one would hope that for Catholics those beliefs are shaped by the moral teachings of the Church. To scream wealth redistribution seems hypocritical when we only scream it with regard to policies that we disagree with.

Peace,
Mark