Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

[Tampa_Dave]

The federal government should provide for the common defense and safeguard the constitutional rights of its citizens. Nothing more. Social engineering through wealth redistribution is not an enumerated constitutional power of the United States government. Michelle Obama is intruding into school cafeterias. Obama ran a Cash for Clunkers program. He took my tax money and invested it in Solyndra. He lent my money to General Motors, screwed over private GM bondholders, and gave auto union workers a sweet deal. I could go on ad infinitum.

 

[rlg94086]

The federal government should provide for the common defense and safeguard the constitutional rights of its citizens. Nothing more.

I don’t go quite that far. I believe in reasonable regulation - environmental, drug, safety and economic. But, any economic intervention must follow [Church teaching](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...oc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Action of the State).

354. The State can encourage citizens and businesses to promote the common good by enacting an economic policy that fosters the participation of all citizens in the activities of production. Respect of the principle of subsidiarity must prompt public authorities to seek conditions that encourage the development of individual capacities of initiative, autonomy and personal responsibility in citizens, avoiding any interference which would unduly condition business forces.

With a view to the common good, it is necessary to pursue always and with untiring determination the goal of a proper equilibrium between private freedom and public action, understood both as direct intervention in economic matters and as activity supportive of economic development.** In any case, public intervention must be carried out with equity, rationality and effectiveness, and without replacing the action of individuals, which would be contrary to their right to the free exercise of economic initiative. In such cases, the State becomes detrimental to society: a direct intervention that is too extensive ends up depriving citizens of responsibility and creates excessive growth in public agencies guided more by bureaucratic logic than by the goal of satisfying the needs of the person**.[738]

 

[ishii]

My sense is that these letters and statements will have little impact. People have largely made up their minds by now.

John

That is my thought as well.

Maybe, but if a few people in Ohio or some other swing state changed how they vote because of this then it might have an impact - especially with the prospect of close elections and recounts looming. Every vote counts.

Ishii

 

[pete_29]

They only pretend to, at least on the federal level. But Catholics fall for their pretensions and magical words like suckers. The reality is different:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9966023&postcount=179

And the Democrats take such good care of the poor. Why are there still poor people? Surely the Democrats have had total power enough times that the poor shouldn’t exist.

 

[ishii]

And the Democrats take such good care of the poor. Why are there still poor people? Surely the Democrats have had total power enough times that the poor shouldn’t exist.

No kidding. Liberals (and some disgruntled conservatives) so often question Republicans’ committment to the unborn because - " abortion hasn’t been banned in spite of GOP appointed supreme court" " Roe V Wade hasn’t been overturned" etc. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander I guess - If liberal Democrats/Obama is so concerned about the little guy, the poor, etc., then why have the numbers of poor increased? Oh wait, they have access to free contraceptives now, so thats what matters…

Ishii

 

[LisaA]

And the Democrats take such good care of the poor. Why are there still poor people? Surely the Democrats have had total power enough times that the poor shouldn’t exist.

Reminds me of the quote, “Democrats love the poor. That’s why they’ve made so many more of them.”

Also laughable is the wailing about the Iraq War’s costs…compare this to the “War on Poverty” that dates back to my childhood…you know when the earth cooled. If the techniques, programs and taxes enacted by the Democrats were effective, poverty would at least be reduced rather than growing as it has under the Obama Administration.

The programs have institutionalized poverty and made it generational. The whole American Dream is based on the ability to move up and OUT of poverty. Most of us are descendents of relatively recent immigrants who came with the clothes on their backs and little else. Instead of continuing to wallow in squalor with hands outstreached to Uncle Sam, our grandparents worked hard, emphasized education and responsibility and a work ethic. Thus we are better off than were they.

The government programs have kept people down, not enabled them to move up. Yet when ineffective, inefficient and expensive programs are evaluated and put on the chopping block the Left screams that people will die in the streets and claim the Right is evil.

Has anyone thought about the devaluing of human life, both pre-born and at the end of life, having an impact on our society. As the Bishops have stated, without life there is nothing. No government program will make up for the millions killed before they had a chance to take a breath. Yet the Left puts its faith in “princes” instead of God

Lisa

 

[PTL]

Republicans help the poor with actions. Democrats help the poor with lip services and Republicans’ money.

The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities.
archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/15/02358.shtml

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - ABC news
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UJVks8XR4_0

 

[LisaA]

Republicans help the poor with actions. Democrats help the poor with lip services and Republicans’ money.

The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities.
archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/15/02358.shtml

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - ABC news
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1#.UJVks8XR4_0

But this is typical. As noted many times, the Left uses OPM to “help” the poor. But as your post stated, the Democrats TALK a lot about helping the poor, and the Democrat party has the reputation for being the party of the downtrodden (despite the many Democrate celebrities who are almost invariably slightly to the left of Mao). But it’s smoke and mirrors, not actual investment of time, talent or treasure.

The article noted that Cheneys’ generousity is in contrast to both Biden and Gore:

**The Los Angeles Times noted, for instance, that the Gores’ slender donation “caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president’s ‘good guy’ image as an advocate for public service and social causes.”

The same year the Gores gave $353 to charity, they reported $197,729 in adjusted gross income. **

Gore like many such idealogues is happy to have someone else pay for his brilliant ideas.

Lisa

 

[livingwordunity]

If they take away the tax exemption let them. At this point, the Catholic Church has nothing to lose since if Obama gets reelected he will try to force Catholic charities, schools, and hospitals out of business just so liberals can then say “see, the Catholic Church doesn’t help anyone”.

 

[PTL]

But this is typical. As noted many times, the Left uses OPM to “help” the poor. But as your post stated, the Democrats TALK a lot about helping the poor, and the Democrat party has the reputation for being the party of the downtrodden (despite the many Democrate celebrities who are almost invariably slightly to the left of Mao). But it’s smoke and mirrors, not actual investment of time, talent or treasure.

The article noted that Cheneys’ generousity is in contrast to both Biden and Gore:

**The Los Angeles Times noted, for instance, that the Gores’ slender donation “caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president’s ‘good guy’ image as an advocate for public service and social causes.”

The same year the Gores gave $353 to charity, they reported $197,729 in adjusted gross income. **

Gore like many such idealogues is happy to have someone else pay for his brilliant ideas.

Lisa

I am sure you are familiar with the word of “hypocrites”!!

 

[ringil]

How about using your own time, talent and treasure in furtherance of Catholic teaching with respect to the poor instead of thinking if you vote for a big government Democrat the work will be done for you?

Lisa

How do you know what I do Lisa? Indeed, I have no idea what time, talent and treasure you commit to the poor.

 

[pnewton]

The Republicans are more closely aligned with the Church on all of the non negtiables.wheras the Dems are in direct opposition to all them.

First, “non-negotiables” is not a theological term. Second, there represent only small percentages of important issues. Third, the Church clearly teaches that being aligned on even a major issue like abortion is no reason to ignore other important issues, like healthcare, immigration, etc. I do not think it would fly for me to use my fidelity to my wife as an excuse to treat her like dirt.

While this letter may address life issues, I fear that after the election conservative Catholics may be like that husband, proud of their support to end abortion, dissenting on many social issues.

 

[ringil]

Maybe, but if a few people in Ohio or some other swing state changed how they vote because of this then it might have an impact - especially with the prospect of close elections and recounts looming. Every vote counts.

Ishii

Are you acknowledging that Bishops preaching/teaching could be a tool in effecting voting- especially for a GOP candidate? I thought the Bishop’s letter simply reflected Church teaching not an endorsement of Romney.

By your comment you turn the Bishops words into a political advertisement.

 

[livingwordunity]

First, “non-negotiables” is not a theological term. Second, there represent only small percentages of important issues. Third, the Church clearly teaches that being aligned on even a major issue like abortion is no reason to ignore other important issues, like healthcare, immigration, etc. I do not think it would fly for me to use my fidelity to my wife as an excuse to treat her like dirt.

There is no reason good enough to vote for Obama since he is the biggest threat to faith and morals the USA has ever seen. His policies are a Trojan horse for promotion of a multitude of intrinsic evils. Obama gets his support from the porn industry, the abortion industry, and the top 1% of the wealthy. The bottom line is Catholics should submit to our bishops and not to Obama. We should cast our vote for religious liberty.

 

[rlg94086]

Are you acknowledging that Bishops preaching/teaching could be a tool in effecting voting- especially for a GOP candidate? I thought the Bishop’s letter simply reflected Church teaching not an endorsement of Romney.

By your comment you turn the Bishops words into a political advertisement.

You’re reading a bit much into what ishii posted. If the Church makes a statement about Church teaching, and a parishioner changes their vote after further reflection, that doesn’t mean the Church’s teaching was an endorsement of a candidate or party.

 

[LisaA]

How do you know what I do Lisa? Indeed, I have no idea what time, talent and treasure you commit to the poor.

It was the general “you” not you specifically. This is the Leftist approach, use OPM for programs of which they approve and then claim the high ground with regard to helping the poor.

Lisa

 

[ringil]

It was the general “you” not you specifically. This is the Leftist approach, use OPM for programs of which they approve and then claim the high ground with regard to helping the poor.

Lisa

It was your phrasing that led me to take your post as more directed and I will consistently defend myself when I feel that my character is being personally called into question.

 

[LisaA]

Are you acknowledging that Bishops preaching/teaching could be a tool in effecting voting- especially for a GOP candidate? I thought the Bishop’s letter simply reflected Church teaching not an endorsement of Romney.

By your comment you turn the Bishops words into a political advertisement.

I think that is a specious comment. Do you truly believe that had Obama and the writers of the Dem platform reversed their position on abortion, the Bishops’ letter would be pro-Republican? The Bishops are only commenting on the public platforms, positions and legislation promoted by politicians. If a Republican politician is militantly pro-abortion, anti-religious freedom, and pro-gay marriage would the Bishops’ letter still be considered pro Republican?

You are conflating party with position. The Democrat party has long since left life issues in the dust and if anything are becoming more militant. Do you remember the Dem Convention where they couldn’t round up THREE pro life Democrats? Somehow that this party opposes our deeply held teachings with respect to non-negotiables should be ignored?

Democrats need only to leave the dark side and see the light.

Lisa

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Are you acknowledging that Bishops preaching/teaching could be a tool in effecting voting- especially for a GOP candidate? I thought the Bishop’s letter simply reflected Church teaching not an endorsement of Romney.

By your comment you turn the Bishops words into a political advertisement.

A blind man read the bishop’s letter then asked me if it was issued by the Romney campaign.

 

[LisaA]

It was your phrasing that led me to take your post as more directed and I will consistently defend myself when I feel that my character is being personally called into question.

Your conclusions and feelings are within your control not mine.
Lisa