L
ljpgoodwin
Guest
The point of this thread is to discuss why the USCCB rightly opposes the Ryan budget.
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
No, it isn’t. If you had read the article linked by the OP or just the first post in this thread, you would know it isn’t even remotely the point of the thread.
The point of the thread is to show that not all Bishops in the USCCB oppose the Ryan budget but rather recognize that they are not economists. The legitimate point was made by some of the bishops that the actions taken by the USCCB in the past have been seen by many as partisan. Those same bishops ask the question as to whether or not they have the humility to recognize what they don’t know and to teach on principles of morality but to leave the application of those principles to others.
You might consider reading the budget as well and tell me why we need to be spending more than $300,000 per person below the poverty line in the United States. You might respond to my earlier where I laid out the numbers provided by the OMB and tell me how the poor are better off with these programs then they would be if we slashed the money we are spending on them dramatically and just handed each person below the poverty line a check so that they could afford to buy the things they need (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.) privately.
J
jwinch2
Guest
It has been settled. The Pope is not bound by any Canon law. He has stated it and further clarification was asked for by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as to whether or not this was to be viewed as infallible or not. The answer was yes.
M
markomalley
Guest
I did review the thread, to include this line, long before I posted.
You said,
The USCCB is what Canon Law and Vatican II Declaration Christus Dominus proclaim it to be…nothing more, nothing less. A committee chair, or even the President of the Conference, have no right to speak for all of their brother bishops, unless 2/3 or more of those bishops agree, in plenary assembly. Period. Sorry.
The bishops just had their spring meeting. Could you provide me with a link to the vote where all, but two or three, condemned the Ryan budget?
There isn’t one (thought I’d save you some time)
The only thing they agreed on was to draft a statement (not approving this statement), Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy. No such statement has been approved. That is as close as they came (and, by the way, the vote was 171-26 (more than 2/3, but not exactly 2-3 bishops opposing))
I don’t buy it at all. That would imply that a plenary session would have to be held prior to any statement from any staffer. That isn’t happening.
Anyway, you were responding to this statement:
I think I got it all in context.
Actually, the purpose of this thread is to show that the bishops are not behind Bishop Blaire’s statement.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I am really having a hard time getting consistency on these reports but for 2011 it seems to me that about 13% of spending was on Welfare related programs and I do not see foreign aid in this report form. Can you link me to this 40%?
I gotta tell you though, I think you are converting me. It seems 20% to “the poor” is a reasonable expectation. We are clearly at at least 13% (21% of income).
usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2011USbn_13bs1n_40102050
E
estesbob
Guest
And the point is?Matthew 23:29-39
29 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, 30 nand you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ 31 oThus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; 32 now fill up what your ancestors measured out! 33 pYou serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna? 34 q Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The Lament over Jerusalem. 37 r"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!s 38 tBehold, your house will be abandoned, desolate. 39 uI tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ "
E
estesbob
Guest
The problem is not the importance of Catholic social teaching-the problem is your insistence that we accept you personal definition of what Catholic Social teaching is. When you counter with the idea that we ignore the specific words of the Pope and 2,000 years of teachings 0n the Male Priesthood but must accept without question your definition of Catholic Social teaching and its place on the Church you do nothing but hurt your credibility
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I am reviewing chapter three of the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021
cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_fy2011outlook.pdf
R
rlg94086
Guest
I know the passage well. It has nothing to do with the Scribes and Pharisees’ governance, budgets, taxation, etc. Reading the first part of Matt 23 will make that obvious to you. It is about exalting oneself, being a hypocrite and rejecting God’s messengers. You won’t find anything from Jesus talking about taxation policy and budgets. The one time He’s asked, he dismisses it (“render unto Caeser…”).Robert, how bout this?
I suspect this might help you think of at least one passage…Oh wait…you don’t have to think because I found it for you. It took me about 4 seconds to think of this passage.
Thanks for trying. You get an A for effort, but a C- for taking out of context and drawing an incorrect conclusion.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Who said that? Catholic Social Teaching is very important. That is why Ryan, a serious Catholic, kept it in mind as he created the budget. That is what responsible Catholics do.
L
ljpgoodwin
Guest
I did not say that we should ignore the Pope. As a matter of fact I said that we are obligated to continue with an all male priesthood. I believe that. I am not advocating for women priests.
What I was trying to do is point out the subtleties of the different kinds of teaching and that when we don’t have clear form and writing, we create confusion. The confusion in this case is why the Pope has not followed through on the form of infallible teaching. This fact has left some people who want the confusion settled, like me, asking Rome questions or why don’t we do the simple pro-forma action to make it infallible teaching like we did with the Assumption of Mary. I was only pointing out that this kind of stuff makes people who like clear cut, black and white, thinking go nutz.
Personally, I like the subtleties and seeing how these kinds of things shake out. Like I said, the Christological debates of the early patristic period are for me fascinating. I find the workings of the Holy Spirit in much of it. But I suspect you will ignore this part of my post and turn it into like this is my opinion. That’s ok I suppose.
When it comes to this topic of the Ryan budget and the USCCB I am not presenting my own understanding of CST. I am trying to say what the USCCB is saying about the Ryan budget.
My understanding of CST is not way out in space. I have a somewhat conservative, clerical understanding of CST which is pretty much in line with the USCCB.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Abyssinia made a post in the “Nuns on the Bus” thread (which is also going round and round) that I think is appropriate here, as well:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9447646&postcount=148
It quotes Bishop Morlino:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9447646&postcount=148
It quotes Bishop Morlino:
L
ljpgoodwin
Guest
If you go back a number of posts you will find the first comments about women priest and you will find where this part of the conversation came from.
The bishops do not think that the Ryan budget stands up to CST which is why they are opposing it.
Although Paul Ryan is Catholic, his understanding of CST is somewhat different than how the official Church understands CST.
I think we can learn something from listening to what the bishops have to say about this. I would say that we could learn something by listening to the 2 or 3 bishops who have opposed the USCCB on this issue.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yes. We can learn that there are matters for prudential judgement that good Catholics can disagree on. And, we can learn about the limitations of the USCCB as an organization, as markomalley has pointed out several times in different threads.
E
estesbob
Guest
The “Bishops” do not oppose the budget. A committee of the USCCB criticized it and were promptly slapped down by two Other Bishops. The majority of the Bishops have not said a word about it. OTH you tell us the clear, unambiguous words of the Pope on Female odination are not definitive.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Hi Michael.
Its a bit tough to link to a specific thing because the information is spread out. I could give you reports from other agencies but I fear those would be thought of as partisan. The OMB has federal expenditures for each year on their website. I figured that would be the least likely to be spun in a conservative direction as it comes right from the White House.
If you look at the 13% you are discussing above in 2011, then add money for food stamps, etc, Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription drug coverage, etc. and then foreign aid, you will end up around 40%. I did not count social security because people pay into that and the government also taxes those earnings later so it gets complex. If you did count social security, the numbers would be even more staggering. The percentages also depend on what the overall budget was for the year. There are surprisingly large shifts between one year and the next based on things like stimulus packages, bailouts, wars, etc. So while the percentages are not exact, they are pretty close.
What is as exact as I can make it, are the raw numbers as in the amount of money spent per person below the poverty line. I respectfully suggest that spending over $300,000 per person is more than enough. At that point, it is not the money, it is something else. Either people do not want to be helped, or the programs are so inefficient and poorly managed that they are not capable of providing the help they were intended to. More than likely, the truth is in the middle somewhere.
To put it in perspective, in 2010 the amount of money we spent servicing the interest on our national debt was 6X what we spent on higher education and 3X what we spent on primary and secondary education. We spent more money on foreign aid (If I remember correctly the OMB report calls this “non-security international expenditures”), then we did higher education.
Peace of Christ,
J
jwinch2
Guest
Thankfully, we do.
November 8, 1995
The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter’s teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.
This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure).
In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed.
The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November.
With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, **the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
**
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
L
ljpgoodwin
Guest
Yes, you are of course right. I does not directly address taxation and the like. I does give an example of Jesus chiding the governing powers. So putting my use of this passage back into the context of this thread I used this because you said that you could not think of an example of Jesus chiding the government. So it seems that I may not have been taking things out of context after all. Can I have an A now please?
As for Render unto Caesar… Jesus tells us in this passage to pay our taxes and to give our spiritual life to God. What he was doing is helping people understand the difference between civic life and spiritual life in a time when the civic leaders were also the religious leaders. That’s what he meant by “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
Nope. Pharisees weren’t “governing powers,” so you still get a C-.Yes, you are of course right. I does not directly address taxation and the like. I does give an example of Jesus chiding the governing powers. So putting my use of this passage back into the context of this thread I used this because you said that you could not think of an example of Jesus chiding the government. So it seems that I may not have been taking things out of context after all. Can I have an A now please?
So, the civic leaders (the Romans…“Caeser”) were also the religious leaders? You seem a little confused. That said, you are correct regarding the distinction between civic and religious life. Jesus didn’t make any comment about how to govern, tax, etc. That’s why I said He was dismissive, when asked the question. Jesus was instructing us on how to live our lives according to God’s laws.
His comments to the religious leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees) were about their poor leadership in religious and moral matters, not taxation and govenernance).
B- on the Render unto Caeser interpretation.
L
ljpgoodwin
Guest
The committee of the USCCB that criticized the Ryan budget is made up of the all the bishops of the United States. The two that opposed what the rest of the bishops have written are the only 2 who, up to this point, feel strongly enough to speak against what the rest of the bishops have said.
I am just wondering, who do you suppose is on the committee that criticized the Ryan budget?
- Status