Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[ljpgoodwin]

The common good does not mean that the government distributes goods to all. And the universal destination of goods does not entail government distribution either. The common good is a very general idea that can means that conditions in society should be fitting for human dignity and that the natural law is observed. Freedom and security of private property are part of the common good. The universal destination of goods does not demand that everything must be held in common and it does not override the right to private property. It simply means that God created earthly goods for all,not just for those who own them,and that we are not permitted to withhold from others the goods they need.

No one said that things should go to the extremes you are suggesting. The Compendium is much more balanced than that. What the Compendium says about the common good and the universal destination of goods is that all of creation is a gift from God to be used in the service of all human beings. The idea is that we have to be careful not to let our right to private property get in the way of being charitable because nothing in this world belongs to us. It is all a gift from God to be used with charity.
This means that the government has the right and obligation to step in when control of the means of production is being misused and controlled by too few of the rich and powerful. When we give in charity, the Compendium says, we are not giving something that belongs to us, we being charitable with something that belongs to God.
It makes a difference when we realize that our right to private property also involves being good stewards of God’s creation. This is right out of the Compendium which took it right out of Genesis.
Another way of saying it is that I have to sacrifice some of my rights to private property if my control of property and the means of production are the cause of another persons’ falling into poverty. This is what happens in an oligarchy. It is a real kind of injustice that is alive and well in our world today. It also says that I am not obligated to give so much that I find myself in poverty or my business is in danger of closing. It does mean that I am morally obligated to make a little less profit for the sake of someone else. This is commonly done through taxation. It does mean that I will have to feel a little pain.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

You accept the validity of entitlement programs uncritically. They may not be necessary or successful or honest. And even if they are needed by particular persons who have become dependent upon them,they should not be needed at all,considering that it is the responsibility of families and neighbors and churches to help the poor and needy. The budget should be planned with respect to the amount of money that is available and with respect for the people’s right to keep as much of their money as is reasonable. should not be planned with the intention of raising taxes to cover whatever things the government wants to spend on.

.

It has been my experience that entitlement programs are enormously helpful to many, many people and therefore good for this county. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander as the expression goes. But they are always in need of accountability, just like the private sector. The private sector is able to do much good too. It is also at risk of becoming corrupt. People are people. People work in the government and people work in the private sector. Some are good and some are not so good.
I have also been involved in preparing a social service agency that makes use of public funds, for the accreditation process. So my trust in entitlement programs is based on direct exposure to social services and a quality assurance process that is based on outcome driven statistics. You do not know my background, so I don’t think you are in a position to judge my ability to evaluate anything. I am also able to say that entitlement programs that are well regulated, of which there are very many, have added greatly to the common good of this county. I am also able to say, together with the USCCB, that the Ryan plan will do much to diminish the common good of this country.

Catholicism stresses personal morality and responsibility also. The communitarian model of monasteries stresses these things.

Monasteries stress community. The individual is secondary to the community. That is the whole point of the monastic community. Monastic life, in part, was founded to protect people who wanted to live an ascetic life, but needed protection from marauding looters who were attacking smaller communities. They saw that there was strength in numbers. The individual’s personal wants and needs were sacrificed to protect the community.
Perhaps you are thinking of eremitic (hermits) life of the first desert mothers and fathers like St. Anthony? Hermits live in hermitages not monasteries.

What is bad about it is that you are too eager to have the government divest people of a large proportion of their property and you wrongly trust the government to help people in their personal needs,which is not the responsibility of government but of families and neighbors. This is not good intentions. This invites government tyranny,disrespects people’s right to keep their property,and weakens people’s sense of responsibility for themselves and others.

I am not eager to have the government divest individual of anything. What I am eager to do is find a balance between a well regulated private sector that is robustly creative and a government and nation that is sensitive to the needs of its most vulnerable citizens.
Catholic social teaching teaches that it is very much part of the responsibility of the government to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Part of that responsibility is to raise taxes to be used to for public and private social services that help the poor for whom Jesus had a special love. I think the 4th principle in the Compendium is Participation. It talks about how we are to take part in the public life and political life of our country.
And as I have said, my trust of the government is based on many years of solid practical, personal, and professional experience. Again, you should be careful not to tell people that they are wrong before you know who they are and what they have done. Perhaps a little dose of the virtue of prudence may be in order? ;0)

 

[jwinch2]

I’ll do my best to answer you question directly Jason. As I said in an earlier post, I object to the stated fact that the Ryan budget wants to cut $5 trillion from the federal budget. But I will repeat it again.

First of all, that is a bit of an inaccurate statement. Ryan’s budget cuts 5 trillion over the next 10 years off of Obama’s projected spending. It does not cut 5 trillion from the yearly federal budget. At current project rates from the CBO, we will be 15 trillion in debt. With Ryan’s plan, we would be 10 trillion in debt. Does that sound like a radical cut to you?

Non-defense discretionary: Brings spending back to pre-2008 levels and freezes it there for five years

Good, Bush spent other people’s money like it was his also.

Repeals the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Good. Its a disaster. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempt from the regulations and they are some of the biggest reasons for the housing crisis in the first place. Dodd and Frank have both been in bed with them for a long time. It also makes it harder for private business to compete as they have to worry about Risk Retention, while Fannie and Freddie do not.

Medicaid: Converts federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that’s indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation or more.

Ryan’s plan works almost the same as Clinton’s did back in the mid 1990’s. Everyone predicted doom and gloom then also, and it worked. In fact, it worked very well.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Better known as food stamps, SNAP gets the Medicaid treatment: block grants indexed for inflation and population growth.

Heaven forbid we tie food assistance to seeking work or work training. In addition, it exempts those who are disabled and cannot work as a result.

Pell Grants: Cut back to 2008 Bush era levels, wiping out recent increases.

Good. As I noted earlier, millions and millions of dollars worth of scholarships go unused every year in America, largely because people cannot be bothered to apply for them.

Health-care reform: Repeals the Affordable Care Act.

Good. The Bishops were against it anyway. The things is a disaster of epic proportions and should be taken out back and capped like Old Yeller.

Medicare: Privatizes Medicare. Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.

I would like to see it tied to growth in costs, but that is part of the reason that costs go up in the first place. Other than that, you cannot be opposed to giving people choice of what providers they see and allowing them to make their own health care decisions. Is not giving poorer people larger vouchers a preferential option?

Tax reform: “Reform the tax code by consolidating the current six brackets and cutting the top individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

Good. Perhaps we can attract business back instead of them shipping all of their operations overseas. Haven’t you every wondered why some states are doing well in terms of growing new business and some are not? Its because they create a tax environment which is attractive. In addition, Ryan’s plan closes many of the tax loopholes which currently exists which will more than likely net greater revenue.

Tax revenue: Prevents the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013. So the revenue-neutral tax reform locks in today’s rates, which is to say it makes the Bush cuts permanent.

Thank God. Even Clinton has said that it is the wrong decision to raise taxes. Obama himself said it was a bad idea to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

There is one reason I don’t like these things and that is because they all have a bias against the poor. When poor people become poorer it tends to put stress on communities as they try to look for things that they need. So this is budget is an affront to the first principle, “the common good” found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church in chapter 4.

I disagree. There comes a point where enough is enough. Our history has shown repeatedly that the federal government stinks at fixing problems. We have thrown money at these problems again and again and it doesn’t change anything. If money was the issue, it would have been fixed a long time ago. We have effectively institutionalized dependency in America.

These are also some of the same objections that the USCCB and Catholic Charities have made.

Unfortunately, the bishops are not economists or they would be able to see the depths of the cliff we are getting ready to go over if we do not get a handle on our spending.

I think I have provided you with enough examples to answer the “repeated” question.

Yes you have. Thank you.

Also, if you would, please lay off the font and size thing. It makes it almost impossible to quote your posts to carry on a conversation. It took me longer to delete and work around that then it did to write my response.

Thanks, and Peace.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I think I would also like to add Anthony that not only are the needs and wants of the individual secondary to the community in monastic life, it is also true for all religious and people in consecrated life and priests. The lives of these men and women are joyfully subordinated to the local community and the greater community of human kind. The lives of these men and women are put at the service of the community.
I would even go so far as to say that, modeling our life after Jesus, our life as baptized Christians is best lived at the service of our brothers and sisters. This is the meaning of marriage and any other vocation.
This on the meaning of baptism from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ
1267
Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73
1268
The baptized have become “living stones” to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
1269
Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79
1270
“Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.80
The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians
1271
Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

In short, Catholics are communal people by virtue of our baptism.

 

[anthony022071]

No one said that things should go to the extremes you are suggesting. The Compendium is much more balanced than that. What the Compendium says about the common good and the universal destination of goods is that all of creation is a gift from God to be used in the service of all human beings. The idea is that we have to be careful not to let our right to private property get in the way of being charitable because nothing in this world belongs to us. It is all a gift from God to be used with charity.

That’s true,but this does not support your opinion that the government should raise taxes to support entitlement programs,which is neither charity or social justice.

This means that the government has the right and obligation to step in when control of the means of production is being misused and controlled by too few of the rich and powerful. When we give in charity, the Compendium says, we are not giving something that belongs to us, we being charitable with something that belongs to God.

The government does not have any natural rights over the means of production. It is just a matter of power. And government officials should not be assumed to be more trustworthy than businessmen. Government officials who try to wrest control over businesses are usually not motivated by good intentions. They want to expand the power of government and get hold of the profits accrued by businesses. Government officials who set rules for businesses are themselves few and rich and powerful,and usually unscrupulous and greedy.

It makes a difference when we realize that our right to private property also involves being good stewards of God’s creation. This is right out of the Compendium which took it right out of Genesis.

That we are supposed to be good stewards of earthly goods does not support your opinion about what the government should do. The responsibility is given to individual persons,not to government.

Another way of saying it is that I have to sacrifice some of my rights to private property if my control of property and the means of production are the cause of another persons’ falling into poverty.

No,that doesn’t follow. If you want to give up some of your property to help others you can do so without sacrificing your right to own property. The right to own property is a tenet of natural law,which is given by God. It is not something that can be sacrificed. And your right to own property cannot be the cause of another person’s poverty. There is not causal connection. Nor is it necessarily your fault if your business causes another person to fall into poverty,unless you were really doing something morally wrong or imprudent or reckless through your business. One man’s success in business does not necessarily make him at fault for another man’s poverty.

This is what happens in an oligarchy. It is a real kind of injustice that is alive and well in our world today. It also says that I am not obligated to give so much that I find myself in poverty or my business is in danger of closing. It does mean that I am morally obligated to make a little less profit for the sake of someone else. This is commonly done through taxation. It does mean that I will have to feel a little pain.

That is a naive idea of making a sacrifice for others. Your giving up profits to the government does not necessarily help someone else in a meaningful way. Your tax money is used for many bad and unnecessary and wasteful purposes,not for direct charity. Government funds are fungible. And you if you want to give more money to the government,you can do so on your own initiative. You don’t have to wait for the government to raise taxes. If you were able to keep more of your profits,you would be able to give more money directly and meaningfully to others.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Anthony

The bishops continue to support Obamacare. They don’t support a few parts around contraception and abortion. But they do suppor a nationa healthcare plan.

For every “Good” that you wrote, I still support why I don’t like the Ryan budget.

For the record, I know of at least 2 bishops who have degrees in economics and a number have degrees business administration. I know one bishop who has I think is an MD and a Doctorate of theology and a doctor of economics all rolled into one very smart man.
Not only this, but the bishops do make use of politicians, layers and economists and doctors and many many other professionals as they put together policy papers to determine how to proceed in their dealings with congress.

I have no idea what you mean about the “text size” thing. But I will try to make thing easier for you somehow. Consider it my social service to you! ;0)

 

[jwinch2]

[LEFTAnthony

The bishops continue to support Obamacare. They don’t support a few parts around contraception and abortion. But they do suppor a nationa healthcare plan.

For every “Good” that you wrote, I still support why I don’t like the Ryan budget.
[/LEFT
[SIZE=3[FONT=CalibriFor the record, I know of at least 2 bishops who have degrees in economics and a number have degrees business administration. I know one bishop who has I think is an MD and a Doctorate of theology and a doctor of economics all rolled into one very smart man. [/FONT[/SIZE
Not only this, but the bishops do make use of politicians, layers and economists and doctors and many many other professionals as they put together policy papers to determine how to proceed in their dealings with congress. [/FONT[/SIZE
[SIZE=[FONT=Calibri[/FONT[/SIZE
I have no idea what you mean about the “text size” thing. But I will try to make thing easier for you somehow. Consider it my social service to you! ;0)[/FONT[/SIZE
[LEFT [/LEFT[/QUOTE
[/QUOTE]

 

[rlg94086]

For the record, I know of at least 2 bishops who have degrees in economics and a number have degrees business administration. I know one bishop who has I think is an MD and a Doctorate of theology and a doctor of economics all rolled into one very smart man.

Not only this, but the bishops do make use of politicians, layers and economists and doctors and many many other professionals as they put together policy papers to determine how to proceed in their dealings with congress.

While I’m sure it is helpful to those bishops to have economics degrees, it doesn’t change the fact that good Catholics can disagree with those bishops on these questions.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I think you might be missing the nuance of what CST says about the relationship between the public and private sector. CST does teach that the government can and should intervene in the public sector when the public sector cannot or will not provide for the needs of citizens. It does not say that it has power to take over. CST says that the government is right in making just laws to protect both the public and private sector. CST does say that the government can collect taxes for the provisions of social services.
I did say that the government is as trust worthy as the private sector. Both the public and private sectors need regulation.
The government does according to CST have a right to enact legislation to protect the public and private sectors. I am not sure if it is a natural right or a supernatural right…it does have A right nonetheless. I can’t seem to make this point stick with many people. CST does have a right and moral obligation to collect taxes and to write regulatory legislation. Government does have this right according to CST.

You said “The government does not have any natural rights over the means of production. It is just a matter of power. And government officials should not be assumed to be more trustworthy than businessmen. Government officials who try to wrest control over businesses are usually not motivated by good intentions. They want to expand the power of government and get hold of the profits accrued by businesses. Government officials who set rules for businesses are themselves few and rich and powerful, and usually unscrupulous and greedy.”
I would agree that there are some government officials who are corrupt just like there are private sector people who are corrupt. One important difference is that public officials are elected and can be unelected.

You said:
“No, that doesn’t follow. If you want to give up some of your property to help others you can do so without sacrificing your right to own property. The right to own property is a tenet of natural law, which is given by God. It is not something that can be sacrificed. And your right to own property cannot be the cause of another person’s poverty. There is not causal connection. Nor is it necessarily your fault if your business causes another person to fall into poverty, unless you were really doing something morally wrong or imprudent or reckless through your business. One man’s success in business does not necessarily make him at fault for another man’s poverty.”

CST does not say that the government can make you “give up your right to own property.” What CST does say is that where there is corruption, a property owner is morally obligated to sacrifice SOME of his profit…but not to the extent that he should destroy his business. The Compendium is careful not to use phrases like “sacrifice your right to own property.” The language of CST is trying to help people see that we need to be generous and charitable not a sucker. CST does not want you to give up any of your rights. CST just wants you to be charitable.
And yes, sometimes people do things that are very immoral that cause others to become poor. Think Burney Madoff. Many people lost life savings at his hands. That is very immoral and it a classic reason for which CST was written.

I don’t know if you are old enough to remember or know about the sacrifices people made in this country during WWII…but these real and long lasting sacrifices had a real, tangible effect on the world. Peoples’ sacrifices during this time saved lives and put down an evil cancer that was at work in the world.
Sacrifice for the sake of the betterment of another person is ALWAYS meaningful. This is the meaning of the Cross. The Cross is not just some stupid little story that did not really happen. The sacrifice of the Cross has real meaning today. Sacrifice for the sake of another is how we are called to live our lives as Christians and that includes our family life, our work life, our business life and social life and our public life.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

While I’m sure it is helpful to those bishops to have economics degrees, it doesn’t change the fact that good Catholics can disagree with those bishops on these questions.

Yup, we can disagree with them. I wonder if you would say we can disagree with the bishops when it comes to birth control, or abortion or women priests or any other hot topic? Would disagreeing with the bishops on abortion send a soul to hell?
I really do find it fascinating to see what things challenge people as far as Church teaching goes. For the record, I am not advocating for birth control, or abortion or women priests. I am completely 100% pro-life, so much so that I am against the death penalty as well as abortion. My life’s work will attest to that. I am just making an anthropological observation. I truly do find this stuff fascinating and I truly do want to get into the heads of other people to see what makes them tick as far as their relationship with God and the Church.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

That is what I mean about the text size and font comments. When you use a non-standard font and text but don’t just run it though the entire post, you create a big mess for anyone trying to take your post point by point. Does that make sense?

 

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
QUOTE
B. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

a. Autonomy and independence

1. …The Second Vatican Council solemnly reaffirmed that, “in their proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing”.[867] The Church is organized in ways that are suitable to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful, while the different political communities give rise to relationships and institutions that are at the service of everything that is part of the temporal common good. The autonomy and independence of these two realities is particularly evident with regards to their ends.
   …For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications. vatican.va/roman_curia/po…t-soc_en.html#

The last two words, “moral implications”, would include issues such as laws forcing the Church to “marry” gay couples upon request, etc. By no stretch of the imagination can those words authorize a bishop to declare Congressman Ryan’s budget immoral.

It is simply an exercise of lack of knowledge to argue otherwise.
END QUOTE

---

Yes, I agree, the government has no right to ask the church to perform any kind of action that goes against Church teaching. But here we are talking about economic issues and not gay marriage. So, I agree with you on this point. (cf. Jas 5:1-6).

My friend, your reply concerns the limited right of government regarding the Church. That’s not the subject of this thread. Nor, contrary to your reply, does it have relevance to the subject of my post, which is, in the words of the Church, that she has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community; that she is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution; and that it does not belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programs, except as concerns their religious or moral implications.

Bishop Blaire’s remarks about an"immoral" budget, therefore, could not and were not spoken on behalf of the USCCB as you continue to incorrectly assert, e.g., in #109 you say,“This is why the USCCB is opposing the Ryan budget.”

The USCCB as a body does not speak about social justice doctrine extra-Compendium. The good bishop’s comments regarding an immoral budget proposal were his own and certainly not authorized by the Compendium, as clearly demonstrated in the above quote from Chapter Eight VI B. The quote by itself is primary evidence of that fact, and is the principal principle, if you will, which the Church expects the faithful to keep in mind when reading about the interaction of Church and politics.

You can quote all the subsidiary principles you wish about social justice doctrine, but they have little or no debate value without reference to the governing principal in Eight VI B. There simply are matters beyond the magisterium’s specific domain, which JP II confirmed in Centesimus as a governing principle to understanding social justice doctrine.

 

[TEPO]

Anthony, please, I’m not stupid. I’m not sure why it is happening. It’s not as if I am trying to make things hard for you. Nobody has ever pointed this out to me before.

If you know why it’s happening, let me know and I will make the adjustments to make things more easy.

Man, you are too much. I don’t know how many times you have tried to tell me that I am uninformed or naive. Give me a little credit man.

This is much better, thanks. I’ve been trying to keep-up here but the other font actually did put a little too much strain on my eyes… Now I can read your posts beyond two or three lines on my IPhone. .

 

[jwinch2]

jwinch2;9443897:

Anthony, please, I’m not stupid. I’m not sure why it is happening. It’s not as if I am trying to make things hard for you. Nobody has ever pointed this out to me before.

If you know why it’s happening, let me know and I will make the adjustments to make things more easy.

Man, you are too much. I don’t know how many times you have tried to tell me that I am uninformed or naive. Give me a little credit man.

It was happening because you were using a different font and letter size than the standard fo the forum which I already explained above. As for telling you that you are uninformed or naive, I have not done so. What I have done is called you out on claims that you have made which you cannot back up. When I point out with actual numbers where you are wrong, you try to change the subject. And I might start giving you some credit, when you stop calling me Anthony, or Jim or any of the other names you have called me besides my own which happens to be right there in every single post that I make.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Originally Posted by KSU
QUOTE
My friend, your reply concerns the limited right of government regarding the Church. That’s not the subject of this thread. Nor, contrary to your reply, does it have relevance to the subject of my post, which is, in the words of the Church, that she has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community; that she is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution; and that it does not belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programs, except as concerns their religious or moral implications.

Bishop Blaire’s remarks about an"immoral" budget, therefore, could not and were not spoken on behalf of the USCCB as you continue to incorrectly assert, e.g., in #109 you say,“This is why the USCCB is opposing the Ryan budget.”

The USCCB as a body does not speak about social justice doctrine extra-Compendium. The good bishop’s comments regarding an immoral budget proposal were his own and certainly not authorized by the Compendium, as clearly demonstrated in the above quote from Chapter Eight VI B. The quote by itself is primary evidence of that fact, and is the principal principle, if you will, which the Church expects the faithful to keep in mind when reading about the interaction of Church and politics.

You can quote all the subsidiary principles you wish about social justice doctrine, but they have little or no debate value without reference to the governing principal in Eight VI B. There simply are matters beyond the magisterium’s specific domain, which JP II confirmed in Centesimus as a governing principle to understanding social justice doctrine.

Sorry KSU. Now I understand what you are saying.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I think I figured out the problem. I cut and paste stuff in and out of MS Word when I am writing for editing purposes.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I think I figured out the problem. I cut and paste stuff in and out of MS Word when I am writing for editing purposes.

This seems to be much better. Hope this works for you all.

Sorry about getting your names confused. I have 3 or 4 of you beating me up at any one time. It gets a little confusing.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

ljpgoodwin;9443982:

It was happening because you were using a different font and letter size than the standard fo the forum which I already explained above. As for telling you that you are uninformed or naive, I have not done so. What I have done is called you out on claims that you have made which you cannot back up. When I point out with actual numbers where you are wrong, you try to change the subject. And I might start giving you some credit, when you stop calling me Anthony, or Jim or any of the other names you have called me besides my own which happens to be right there in every single post that I make.

Yup, sorry, Fred…I mean, Thomas…I mean…I have a bunch of people enjoying taking pot shots at me. It’s kinda hard to keep everyone straight. When I was a kid my grandfather use to get the names of my siblings and me mixed up all of the time. Now I know how he must have felt. Not that you are my grandson…but, I’m old and easily confused.

 

[rlg94086]

Yup, we can disagree with them. I wonder if you would say we can disagree with the bishops when it comes to birth control, or abortion or women priests or any other hot topic? Would disagreeing with the bishops on abortion send a soul to hell?

Of course not. An item being a “hot topic” does not make it a question of prudential judgement. Those that you listed are not matters for prudential judgement. That said, I’m not sure what you mean by “abortion send a soul to hell.” Do you mean abortion is a grave matter, and someone who aborts is committing a mortal sin (assuming they fit the other two requirements of a mortal sin) and risks going to Hell, if they don’t repent and receive absolution?

I really do find it fascinating to see what things challenge people as far as Church teaching goes. For the record, I am not advocating for birth control, or abortion or women priests. I am completely 100% pro-life, so much so that I am against the death penalty as well as abortion. My life’s work will attest to that. I am just making an anthropological observation. I truly do find this stuff fascinating and I truly do want to get into the heads of other people to see what makes them tick as far as their relationship with God and the Church.

I have no “challenges” with any of the Church’s social teaching.

I am surprised that someone who quotes the Compendium doesn’t understand the difference between the application of Social Doctrine and de fide teachings of the Church, such as the male priesthood, abortion, etc.

 

[jwinch2]

I have a bunch of people enjoying taking pot shots at me.

You have people taking pot shots at your claims and statements, but I have not seen anyone take pot shots at you. There is a significant difference between attacking the argument and attacking the person.

As for enjoying it, no I am not and I doubt anyone else is either. Frankly, I do not enjoy having to refute false claims about things like the GI bill or college funding for foster children, taking 5 trillion dollars from the budget versus spending 5 trillion dollars less than Obama over the next 10 years and still being 10 trillion in debt, or the fact that the Ryan budget does not really reduce money for social programs at all, it simply does not increase them as fast as others would prefer; the supposed reductions are in comparison to a budget proposed by the left which does not even exist.

I do not enjoy having to correct someone who thinks it is a moral imperative that we keep on spending money that we do not have. In 2011 the federal government spent 3.6 Trillion Dollars. 1.3 Trillion of that was money that we do not have. If the head of a family spent a bunch of money that they did not have and put themselves massively in debt, it would be a sin. If the pastor of a parish or the bishop of a diocese did the same, it would be a sin. If the CEO of a business did that they would be thrown in jail. Yet, somehow it is our moral duty as a country? Hardly. The Catechism and the Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church is not a suicide pact. We have a moral imperative to do what we can, not what we cannot. Simply put, we cannot give what we do not have.

I don’t enjoy pointing out that the Dodd - Frank law, which you lament the repeal of in the Ryan budget, does not provide oversight or regulation to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who are the two biggest lenders in the country for home loans. I don’t enjoy saying that because they are not regulated while private lenders are, it forces the private lenders to spend more money to finance a loan than it does Fanny and Freddie which is unfair competition on the part of the government. I don’t enjoy saying that both Dodd and Frank are knee deep involved with both Fanny and Freddie and have been for years. But it is the truth nonetheless.

I do not enjoy having to point out that in 2010 alone the United states spent 1.9 trillion dollars of tax payer money on programs at the state and federal level to help the poor (over half of the federal budget). In 2010, approx. 200 billion dollars was given to charities to help the poor in the United States. If you add all that up with projected number of persons below the poverty line in the United States at 20% in 2010, every single poor person (men, women, and children) in the country could have been handed a check for $340,000. A family of four could have been given a check for 1.58 Million dollars. Do you really think that those families of four got 1.58 million dollars worth of services in 2010? And after all of this, you would have us believe that we are not spending enough money. Really? The truth of the matter is that very little of the money that is actually spent to help the poor ends up reaching them. Instead it is used to prop up bloated state and federal agencies and programs that have largely failed in their purpose.

I don’t enjoy any of that and I doubt anyone else does either. However as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated claims, I will continue to refute them.