Bishop Blaire, Bishop Pates Urge Congress To Protect The Poor, Future Generations As Sequestration Looms

[JimG]

I think, though, one can blame the Bishops for putting out very broad statements, which water down non-negotiable issues like abortion, with a bunch of economic stuff that’s subject to debate, which someone can use as an excuse to vote for candidates like Obama.

One consideration I’m not seeing - when we’re completely bankrupt, and in the same shape as Greece or Portugal, how will the poor fare when we have to impose austerity to qualify for an international bailout? It’s like being stuck on a ship adrift with limited supplies - if everyone continues to eat full rations, everyone staves when the supplies run out.

My point exactly. If the bishops wish to help the poor, they ought to first urge the government to live within its means. A bankrupt government soon fails, and the poor suffer most. And there will be no international bailout. There will only be hardship.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

My point exactly. If the bishops wish to help the poor, they ought to first urge the government to live within its means. A bankrupt government soon fails, and the poor suffer most. And there will be no international bailout. There will only be hardship.

And if we go, Europe goes (assuming they don’t go first).

 

[Tigg]

My point exactly. If the bishops wish to help the poor, they ought to first urge the government to live within its means. A bankrupt government soon fails, and the poor suffer most. And there will be no international bailout. There will only be hardship.

There will only be hardship FOR ALL! Then how are we to help the poor?

 

[jediliz]

Are these the same Bishops that attacked Paul Ryan’s
budget for only having a 4% increase for food stamps
instead of 8%???

 

[CMatt25]

As Catholic bishops, we renew traditional principles and values to guide budgetary deliberations:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25:31-46). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in a manner worthy of their dignity in difficult economic times.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/sequester-letter-house-2012-11-13.pdf

:clapping:

 

[CMatt25]

It should be noted that this is a statement issued by two bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire, and Bishop Richard Pates.

Duly noted. Similar I will suppose to some of the times when CAF political conservatives have quoted for instance Archbishop Chaput.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe that some of the money from the CCHD collection does go to help the poor and other victims.

There’s nothing stopping you from doing what many of us do: contribute to the specific groups within umbrella organizations, instead of the larger organization. That’s the way to answer Jesus’ call to help the poor: not by shifting responsibility to the government, not by giving to causes which represent the opposite of Catholic morality – under the guise of a larger group, but giving directly to those groups which you know to aid those who truly cannot aid themselves, and rely only on private donations (or matching donations, also an excellent idea).

 

[zab]

There’s nothing stopping** you** from doing what many of us do: contribute to the specific groups within umbrella organizations, instead of the larger organization. That’s the way to answer Jesus’ call to help the poor: not by shifting responsibility to the government, not by giving to causes which represent the opposite of Catholic morality – under the guise of a larger group, but giving directly to those groups which you know to aid those who truly cannot aid themselves, and rely only on private donations (or matching donations, also an excellent idea).

I’m taking it that you meant to use the word “us” instead of “you” (meaning me).

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m taking it that you meant to use the word “us” instead of “you” (meaning me).

I did indeed, zab. It’s just that your post seemed to express some kind of question about how you could possibly give to groups you felt needed it, deserved it, etc., when this is not even vaguely a problem. The solution is to give directly to the group. It is always an option. A choice to give to a morally ambiguous cause, vs giving nothing at all, is never necessary. There is no dilemma.

 

[zab]

I did indeed, zab. It’s just that your post seemed to express some kind of question about how you could possibly give to groups you felt needed it, deserved it, etc., when this is not even vaguely a problem. The solution is to give directly to the group. It is always an option. A choice to give to a morally ambiguous cause, vs giving nothing at all, is never necessary. There is no dilemma.

Not even close to what I said.

 

[Tigg]

Duly noted. Similar I will suppose to some of the times when CAF political conservatives have quoted for instance Archbishop Chaput.

Why is everything, but everything reduced to partisan politics? Political conservatives or not, faithful Catholics would argue that we most often quote those who uphold church teaching and tradition.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not even close to what I said.

(Here addressing another poster)

comments like yours are still a problem for me because ***I believe that some of the money from the CCHD collection does go to help the poor ***and other victims. … I believe it was $500,000 from the CCHD was being given to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

The point is that nothing catastrophic need happen to the poor if CCHD funds suffer. The option to give either to other agencies directly helping single causes, or to give directly to individual organizations, has the same effect (some would say more efficient efffect) as giving to the umbrella organization, CCHD.

 

[zab]

(Here addressing another poster)

The point is that nothing catastrophic need happen to the poor if CCHD funds suffer. The option to give either to other agencies directly helping single causes, or to give directly to individual organizations, has the same effect (some would say more efficient efffect) as giving to the umbrella organization, CCHD.

One needs to go back and read the conversation to understand the meaning of my post.

 

[commenter]

The prophetic role is neither liberal or conservative, but counter-cultural. The CCHD gives money to causes that have many other groups helping them. In some cases these organizations get money from the government, in other cases these organizations duplicate activity by other organizations that is supported by the government, and others.
Our local CCHD groups get lots of free publicity from the media, with no opposition. Apart from the CCHD, there are other causes that have no other supporters, and many opponents, especially in the media and government. It would be prophetic for the Church to support causes that support those truths that are most under attack THIS decade. Defund the CCHD, not because it’s bad but because it’s redundant.

 

[CMatt25]

Why is everything, but everything reduced to partisan politics? Political conservatives or not, faithful Catholics would argue that we most often quote those who uphold church teaching and tradition.

Yes that’s what they argue. And I’ve seen faithful Catholics who are not politically conservative argue with them about it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One needs to go back and read the conversation to understand the meaning of my post.

I did read the conversation. I do understand it. There’s nothing I need to “go back to.”

 

[zab]

I did read the conversation. I do understand it. There’s nothing I need to “go back to.”

You totally read things into my post that I never said nor implied and you are hell bent on telling me what I wrote and saying that you understand what I posted. What more can I say?

 

[Tigg]

Yes that’s what they argue. And I’ve seen faithful Catholics who are not politically conservative argue with them about it.

To Catholics who love their church and embrace its teaching as truth, there is no controversy and their politics are integrated into their faith…not the other way around. There is no cognitive dissonance as all POV resonates from the belief they hold which comes from the Church. Of course teaching may be misinterpreted if objective truth is denied. And we are seeing more and more disciplines coming from Rome which are correcting certain wayward bishops.

But you, CMatt, know all this and I’m wondering if perhaps you could just maybe be indulging in a certain amount of glee and enjoying the fireworks among the Catholics who defend the faith vs those who think they know better than the Church?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You totally read things into my post that I never said nor implied and you are hell bent on telling me what I wrote and saying that you understand what I posted. What more can I say?

Sorry you feel that way. I’m not “hell bent” on anything but merely clarifying the words, in their context. Peace.

 

[austenbosten]

You know, I’m gonna be the unpopular one and come out and say “Who cares about the poor!”

I am getting really sick and tired of hearing from bureaucrats and bishops about “caring for the poor”, “oh we can’t do anything that hurts the poor”

Meanwhile the middle-class is pinching pennies to survive. I see both cases with two of my friends. One is middle-class ($50,000/year job, big house ect.) and then I see my other friend (On disability, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps ect.) and here’s what I see.

My “well-off” friend is hounded by creditors because their mortgage is under-water and they can’t sell it. They also cannot refinance, because the bank would rather have my friend’s credit-rating ruined before they can “work with him” The man has cut back so much that he’s clipping coupons and seldom eats out anymore. Everything he does, he’s constantly checking “how much it will cost” The man is constantly in a state of financial fear and misery. He can’t work hard, because he already is and of course taxes take more money out the more he works. It also doesn’t help he himself is sick and he’s constantly spending money for surgery and medication to keep him working.

Now my other friend who is classified by the government as “poor” Doesn’t work, he spends most of his time sleeping and playing video games over the internet…his reasoning? “He’s disabled”. So he does nothing and is sick (no doubt, constantly plagued with health aliments, but guess what…so is my other “well-off” friend) but the difference is, they pay barely anything for their medical treatment. My “poor” friend eats out every week and they do very well in terms of grocery shopping. My “poor” friend may have a smaller house, but a nice tv and he’s not worried over anything…he’s got in several instances a better standard-of-living than my “middle-class” friend and he doesn’t even have to work!

So no, I do not care about the poor when they do nothing to earn their assistance. As Saint Paul said

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 3:10[/BIBLEDRB]

In my eyes the real poor are the ones who work and receive no assistance. So until that is addressed, I don’t give two hoots about the poor. If they want charity, then they should work as Saint Paul said!