Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[Jason_1977]

I’m actually not left or right but its interesting how those on the “right” go completely on the defensive and turn all conversations into personal attacks. I have a character trait or flaw? You only prove my point as to how uncharitable and unchristian you are in your post.

I wasn’t being defensive, but simply agreeing w. a poster & then making an observation. It makes them tougher to listen to when those things are done. My experience has been the opposite w. the lefties getting upset & no conversation takes place because they get bent out of shape. I interpret it as either a trait or character flaw. either way, it presents an inability to A: listen B: be objective C: Discuss hot ticket items with a level head. I can do it, as can many others. SO, it’s either a trait of the person or a flaw, however ya wanna look at it, they both mean the same thing in this sense. As far as proving any points, I’m not sure, but you’re beyond convincing now, as far as showing the true colors of a liberal. If you were a fundamentalist, you’d be telling me I was going to burn in hell, sulphur, brimstone, fire, that sort of thing…especially now that you seem to know how Christian or unChristian I am. This doesn’t really bother me, because I know the man upstairs knows PRECISELY how charitable & Christian I am. I guess all I can really say in response is
“If the shoe fits, wear it”, “you’re only as adult as the criticism you can take”, & “good luck with that”, LMAO!!!. Please let’s not drag this out any further, because I have a feeling it’s going to be one of those “pride” things & if that’s the case, I’ll just say I’ve had plenty of intelligent conversations w. the kids next door that trade me fresh eggs for veggies from my garden & I have to tell them sometimes, “Well, sometimes grownups do things that don’t make sense & say things that are absolutely foolish.” SO, I said my peace, you said yours, we know what we think, there’s really no good that can come from anything further. Let’s just quit while we’re ahead, shall we?

 

[davidmlamb]

For starters, those very items you are “for” don’t make you a conservative. If you were to tell me that, I would and will make the conclusion in my mind that you are left of center. Left of center is a liberal, no matter how you slice it. .

First please prove to me that the things I support are evil and please use scripture or the teachings of the Church to prove your point. You see your response to my post proves my case. You have just implied that what is good is evil by calling my position “liberal.” That makes you anti Catholic and anti Christian because you have abandoned the gospel of Jesus Christ for right wing conservatism. No one is truly self reliant, we are all reliant first on God and then our neighbor. If we were self reliant the way you imply then why would Saint Paul write this:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15 as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.” 2 Corinthians 8 13-15

If we were truly self reliant Saint Paul would not have created ecclesiastical communities where wealth was divided. If we were self reliant then there would be no need for charities. If were were self reliant then there would be no need for civil authorities and law enforcement officers to protect us. If we were self reliant then there would be no need for the federal reserve to provide us with a currency. We could all barter for trade. But we are not self reliant, we are dependent on many things. We are dependent on a just government to gaurantee our liberties and to protect our dignity. We are reliant on receiving good pay and benefits in order to build our futures and support our families.

Someone wrote on this thread that the government never helps us but only keeps us in poverty. They went on to explain that they themselves lived in poverty until they joined the military and received job training, great pay and was afforded a god life.

Well, they were afforded that good life by the government! They were NOT self reliant, they dependended on the government to pay their salary and their benefits as well as their pension. All those luxuries came not by the free market but by tax payers! The same is true for Social Security and Medicare. How many here will be reliant on the government providing them Social Security and Medicare when they are old and vulnerable? Stop the hypocrisy and start walking in the light of truth and not in darkness!

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

It’s very easy to not be a democrat. I’m a gun owner. I only have 3, 1 pistol, 1 shotgun, 1 black powder rifle. Democrats forget that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

There are more pro-choice democrats out there than you can shake a stick at. It’s a pro-choice party. That’s an easy one.

I am poor, but not down trodden (actually not any more). I’m a conservative, but I don’t think the Republican party abhors anyone. They are pro-SELF RELIANCE. There are many quotes on this topic alone. The government has ONE job and one job ONLY. Its job is to GOVERN. If its job was to take care of the poor and down trodden, then the citizens of the country would be less inclined to open their hearts and be more apt & able to take care of their fellow man. How many federally funded soup kitchens do you know of? As far as being persecuted for being poor?

I don’t know about being persecuted, I have been raised in a poor family my whole life & have had to move several times. Been homeless once, (for 6 weeks), and have had 2 houses pulled from under our feet & had the county authorites come to take our stuff & put it in the driveway. Imagine getting on the bus for school being asked, " are you guys having a tag sale?" I ended up joining the Navy, got not one but TWO GI Bills, am 3 yrs into my bachelors degree & am about to buy my 2nd house because the money I make in the merchant marines is SWEET! SO. God helps those that help themselves. All people have to do is try. Are there people w. disabilities, sure. BUT, I’d venture to say that MOST of them aren’t.

Okay so now let me get this straight. You were poor and homeless until you joined the military and received all your pay and benefits from the the government and now the government is paying for your college education? But yet you want us to believe we can’t be dependent on the government to help us when it was the government who helped you? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Here is the truth of the matter, God opened a door for you and you ran through it and took advantage of what God provided for you. And God used the government for your provisions. The state is an entity created by God to support the common good.

Peace,

David

 

[Dan_Daly]

First please prove to me that the things I support are evil and please use scripture or the teachings of the Church to prove your point. You see your response to my post proves my case. You have just implied that what is good is evil by calling my position “liberal.” That makes you anti Catholic and anti Christian because you have abandoned the gospel of Jesus Christ for right wing conservatism. No one is truly self reliant, we are all reliant first on God and then our neighbor. If we were self reliant the way you imply then why would Saint Paul write this:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15 as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.” 2 Corinthians 8 13-15

If we were truly self reliant Saint Paul would not have created ecclesiastical communities where wealth was divided. If we were self reliant then there would be no need for charities. If were were self reliant then there would be no need for civil authorities and law enforcement officers to protect us. If we were self reliant then there would be no need for the federal reserve to provide us with a currency. We could all barter for trade. But we are not self reliant, we are dependent on many things. We are dependent on a just government to gaurantee our liberties and to protect our dignity. We are reliant on receiving good pay and benefits in order to build our futures and support our families.

Someone wrote on this thread that the government never helps us but only keeps us in poverty. They went on to explain that they themselves lived in poverty until they joined the military and received job training, great pay and was afforded a god life.

Well, they were afforded that good life by the government! They were NOT self reliant, they dependended on the government to pay their salary and their benefits as well as their pension. All those luxuries came not by the free market but by tax payers! The same is true for Social Security and Medicare. How many here will be reliant on the government providing them Social Security and Medicare when they are old and vulnerable? Stop the hypocrisy and start walking in the light of truth and not in darkness!

Peace,
David

A few thoughts:

• We don’t need the Federal Reserve to give us currency. Actually, we have had a currency much longer then we have had a Federal Reserve. We won’t have to barter chickens if we end the Fed.

-How many us will be reliant on Social Security when we are old and vulnerable? My firm belief is not any of us aren’t already old and vulnerable, because by the time we are, social security will be gone. It’s broke and it’s going to end. It’s just a question of how it ends.

Government does have a role to play in society, but history has shown that larger, powerful governments have done far more to strip away human dignity then to protect it. Of the millions and millions of corpses the 20th century piled up, most of them died at the hands of their own government.

You are correct. We are NOT self reliant. We should rely on our family, friends, and neighbors. We should ask government to do the very few things that we can’t do ourselves or with our family, friends, and neighbors. Above all we should rely on God. Liberalism, socialism, - these things seek to replace God with government.

 

[lynnvinc]

They [Republicans] are pro-SELF RELIANCE.

So it’s kick 5 year old Johnny, 98 year old granny, and death-bed Annie in the pants and make them tow their own barge, bale their own hay, and work to pay their own way. Is that what our nation is shifting to? Heartless in Seattle and all other places in America?

I could never vote for a Republican – since I consider them exceedingly pro-death. It’s just against my values to kill people through societal neglect, the death penalty (esp those innocent ones), climate change, local pollution, immoral and unnecessary wars, etc.

The Democrats are admittedly bad (buying partly into the same culture of death the Republicans embrace much more strongly), but they are the lesser of the evils, and if they could get their heart’s desire of Euorpean-type social programs passed into law, then we would surely see a decrease in abortion…as in Europe. But the Republicans don’t really want to reduce abortions, only put women in prison after they have had abortions. I wouldn’t be against making abortion illegal (except for the life of the mother), but only if we 1st have all those social programs in place, and only if I’m convinced it will actually reduce abortions – otherwise it’s like increasing prison costs and taxpayer burdens unnecessarily, without any reduction in the crime.

The Republicans just want to hoodwink gullible poor and middle class voters into thinking they are pro-life – since they need to make them vote against their own economic interests – when in reality they really are quite pro-death.

So the real question is, can you be both Catholic and conservative? I don’t think so. Maybe American Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

 

[sw85]

The Democrats are admittedly bad (buying partly into the same culture of death the Republicans embrace much more strongly), but they are the lesser of the evils, and if they could get their heart’s desire of Euorpean-type social programs passed into law, then we would surely see a decrease in abortion…as in Europe. But the Republicans don’t really want to reduce abortions, only put women in prison after they have had abortions. I wouldn’t be against making abortion illegal (except for the life of the mother), but only if we 1st have all those social programs in place, and only if I’m convinced it will actually reduce abortions – otherwise it’s like increasing prison costs and taxpayer burdens unnecessarily, without any reduction in the crime.

Although I can agree with the principle of providing support to mothers in desperate need, I hardly think it’s morally licit to hold an abortion ban hostage to it. Poverty is an evil, yes, but murder is an objectively worse one by every rational metric.

 

[AHapka]

But the Republicans don’t really want to reduce abortions, only put women in prison after they have had abortions. I wouldn’t be against making abortion illegal (except for the life of the mother

That’s like saying we shouldn’t make drunk driving illegal since it’s not really the offender’s “fault” for doing it. It’s societies fault as a whole.

I reject that logic completely.

 

[AHapka]

I could never vote for a Republican – since I consider them exceedingly pro-death. It’s just against my values to kill people through societal neglect,

No, it’s your opinion. Republicans think we should help the poor ourselves, which is why conservatives give more to charity then Democrats do.

Democrats believe the only way to help another person is through the government, which is exceedingly ineffecient.

 

[davidmlamb]

A few thoughts:

• We don’t need the Federal Reserve to give us currency. Actually, we have had a currency much longer then we have had a Federal Reserve. We won’t have to barter chickens if we end the Fed.

-How many us will be reliant on Social Security when we are old and vulnerable? My firm belief is not any of us aren’t already old and vulnerable, because by the time we are, social security will be gone. It’s broke and it’s going to end. It’s just a question of how it ends.

Government does have a role to play in society, but history has shown that larger, powerful governments have done far more to strip away human dignity then to protect it. Of the millions and millions of corpses the 20th century piled up, most of them died at the hands of their own government.

You are correct. We are NOT self reliant. We should rely on our family, friends, and neighbors. We should ask government to do the very few things that we can’t do ourselves or with our family, friends, and neighbors. Above all we should rely on God. Liberalism, socialism, - these things seek to replace God with government.

The government does not replace God, it is an entity God created for the common good and for solidarity among men (Romans 13:1-6; CCC 1897-1912). So when the government provides us with things like Universal Health Care, Medicare and Social Security it is all a gift from God. Scripture tells us that every gift we receive is from God (James 1:16-17).

With respect to your comment we don’t need currency; good luck with that! If that is true then no need to worry about the US debt. If the dollar collapses we will all be okay since we do not need a federal reserve or a currency. Now about Social Security and Medicare. There is a simple way to make it instantly solvent and effective again. Anyone who is 65 or older and retires with private retirement accounts at 3X the poverty level should not get to collect Social Security and must start paying a high deductable before they can receive a dime of Medicare Benefits. The more income and assets you have at retirement age (beyond 3X the poverty level) the higher the deductable. We simply cannot afford to provide these benefits for those who are able to provide for themselves. Social Security should only be for the social welfare of those who are at risk financially and can no longer work. If Republicans really want to trim the fat this is a good place to start. So you see Social Security can be fixed.

Peace,
David

 

[love2learn]

I’m actually not left or right but its interesting how those on the “right” go completely on the defensive and turn all conversations into personal attacks. I have a character trait or flaw? You only prove my point as to how uncharitable and unchristian you are in your post.

Previously you wrote, “Excellent post!! It is exactly how I feel as well. Aside from the pro-life/abortion issue, I can’t imagine how Catholics can align themselves with the Republican party. The Republican party abhors the poor and downtrodden and seeks to persecute them at every turn.”

Saying that Republicans abhor the poor etc. is you being uncharitable and unchristian. And it’s not just you saying such things in this forum. Others have said conservatives/Republicans are evil and cruel–which is not merely disagreeing with what our opinions are. Oh, if only liberals would simply accuse conservative women like Sarah Palin as having “character flaws” and leave it at that! What we on the right endure is nothing less than verbal abuse and character assassination. I expect that in the general population, but it is a disgrace to see it here in a Catholic forum.

If you go back and read the posts to this thread you see conservatives trying to explain the rationale for conservative policies. Then you see liberals suggesting, apparently in all seriousness, that conservatives want to kill the poor and the sick. There is something odd about how liberals persistently misunderstand what conservatives policies are trying to achieve. What is on display in this thread is the total incomprehension of a few bigots who can see nothing sincere in the convictions of those with whom they disagree. Again I expect this in the general populace, but Catholics should make an effort to overcome their prejudices about one another. On the conservative side, I can recommended some books that could serve this purpose: Money God and Greed by Jay Richards, Climategate by Brian Sussman, The New Road to Serfdom by Daniel Hannan. I have read these and they are good books, written in a measured tone, not insulting or provocative (like Ann Coulter). I would also recommend Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII for a strictly Catholic document. Catholic Liberals, you are invited to recommend whatever reading you feel best supports your worldview.

I have asked those of the liberal persuasion to point out what is “evil” in the Republican Party platform gop.com/2008Platform/. There must be someone who feels it a duty to help your Republican Catholic brethren who have gone astray.

 

[davidmlamb]

So it’s kick 5 year old Johnny, 98 year old granny, and death-bed Annie in the pants and make them tow their own barge, bale their own hay, and work to pay their own way. Is that what our nation is shifting to? Heartless in Seattle and all other places in America?

I could never vote for a Republican – since I consider them exceedingly pro-death. It’s just against my values to kill people through societal neglect, the death penalty (esp those innocent ones), climate change, local pollution, immoral and unnecessary wars, etc.

The Democrats are admittedly bad (buying partly into the same culture of death the Republicans embrace much more strongly), but they are the lesser of the evils, and if they could get their heart’s desire of Euorpean-type social programs passed into law, then we would surely see a decrease in abortion…as in Europe. But the Republicans don’t really want to reduce abortions, only put women in prison after they have had abortions. I wouldn’t be against making abortion illegal (except for the life of the mother), but only if we 1st have all those social programs in place, and only if I’m convinced it will actually reduce abortions – otherwise it’s like increasing prison costs and taxpayer burdens unnecessarily, without any reduction in the crime.

The Republicans just want to hoodwink gullible poor and middle class voters into thinking they are pro-life – since they need to make them vote against their own economic interests – when in reality they really are quite pro-death.

So the real question is, can you be both Catholic and conservative? I don’t think so. Maybe American Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

This is an excellent post and so very true! If Republicans really wanted to end abortion socializing health care would do it! The Hyde Amendment would prevent abortions from being performed in America. You cannot hold to right wing “values” and be Catholic. You must hold to Catholic Social justice teachings in order to be both Catholic and righteous. The abortion numbers are high in America because of right wing conservatism which has not lifted a finger to end abortion. What right wing conservatism cares about is reducing government so that the rich and powerful along with corporate America can become the defacto government. This is individualism and was condemned as liberalism by the Church long ago. Let us hear the Words of Pope Leo XIII which were echoed by Pope Pius X, XI, XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

*23. “He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23)

1. **However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)***
Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development.

Peace,
David

 

[Brendan]

This is an excellent post and so very true! If Republicans really wanted to end abortion socializing health care would do it!

Better yet, have all social programs, including Health Care, mananged by the Church!

In that way, we would not have to worry about the Hyde Ammendment being repealed or overturned.

All the poor would need to do is turn to the Church for care. That is, after all, how Christ desires it.

After all, it was to Peter, not Cesear, that He gave the commands, “Feed my Sheep” and “Tend my Flock”

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

 

[sw85]

With due respect to those saying the government could do more to prevent abortions (“more” of course being anything but the logical choice of prohibiting abortions)… what more can we do? Women in dire straits who have no family to turn to can always rely on charity and the Church, government welfare and food stamps, give their child up for adoption, etc. The exceptionally poor ones already qualify for Medicaid. At what point, in your judgment, has “enough” been done that you can stop holding an abortion ban hostage and just agree to pass it already?

 

[davidmlamb]

Better yet, have all social programs, including Health Care, mananged by the Church!

In that way, we would not have to worry about the Hyde Ammendment being repealed or overturned.

All the poor would need to do is turn to the Church for care. That is, after all, how Christ desires it.

Liberals would rather Christ said these words to the State, not the Church, but in doing so, deny the wisdom of Christ Himself that the Church be the agent of care for the poor.

I would have no objections to the Church administering health care to everyone so as long as it is publicly paid for so that health care can be accessable to all. But your argument which implies that Christ only wanted Catholic hospitals to administer health care would be difficult to make from scripture. Romans 13 tells us that it is God who created the state to administer justice and promote peace and solidarity. The Church teaches the same thing ( see CCC 1897-1912). The Church is to be a voice to guide governing authorites into making just laws and governing justly. Unfortunately in America our forfathers impeded this effort when they included the establishment clause of the constitution seperating church from state. By the way, Saint Vincent Hospital in Billings, MT is attaching my 21 year old daughter’s Walmart wages because she can’t pay her hospital bill. The bill was accumulated do to her epilepsy. They could just do what Christ would do and forgive the debt. This is a reason why we cannot rely on charities alone to provide all social services.

Peace,
David

 

[Brendan]

I would have no objections to the Church administering health care to everyone so as long as it is publicly paid for so that health care can be accessable to all.

You mean paid for by free donations, correct?. St. John Chrysostom challenged us against forced Charity.

But your argument which implies that Christ only wanted Catholic hospitals to administer health care would be difficult to make from scripture. Romans 13 tells us that it is God who created the state to administer justice and promote peace and solidarity.

 

[BigFellaMick]

I agree with Brendan on the Church being the governing body for all nations, as Christ intended. The only downside to that is countries would revolt to that violently. And the Pope hasn’t had a standing army in a long time lol Republicans, Democrats they are both wrong in my opinion. Both put their parties interests above the greater good of man and above God. It is shameful to have to endure things like this in a supposed “free” country like the u.s.

And Brendan to support what you were saying earlier, look at Ireland. It breaks my heart to see the faith beaten down as it is today in Ireland, but not so long ago the Catholic Church was the only thing holding Ireland together. Providing healthcare for the poor, the Church brought Ireland’s illiteracy rate down staggering numbers. The Church provided for the people bringing medicine, food, knowledge. And in return Ireland flourished with catholics. I pray Ireland will reconcile itself with Rome and bring the faith back into the people’s lives. If the Church loses Ireland this world may very well be at an end. The Vatican aside Ireland was always THE stronghold for the Catholic Faith lol I’m praying hard that my people come back to the Church!

 

[davidmlamb]

I’ve quoted Christ when He tells Peter to “Tend His Sheep”, Romans does not give that right to the state. Rather, it gives the State the right to bear the sword against wrongdoers. Do you really think that the sick are wrongdoers that the state needs to wield swords against?.

First, John’s Gospel in the 21st chapter where it refers to Christ commanding Peter to feed his sheep is not talking about food for nutrition but food for the soul. It is talking about Peter feeding God’s sheep the Word of God. This passage is where Christ recommissions Peter nas the visible head of the Church. He is making Peter the Pastor (Pope) of the Church. Secondly Romans 13 tells us that all political authority was instituted by God and concludes with a mandate to pay taxes in order to support the state and the laws which the state makes. This would include universal health care. The only exception would be if a particular law was morally evil. Universal health care is not morally evil, it is found all over the world in every country and has been commended by the Bishops and the Pope. The only place in the world where it is a problem is the United States. Again let me draw your attention to what the Popes have been saying since 1890 regarding the proper role of the state and economics and what it has condemned as being evil:

*23. …The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” (23)

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development. --Pope Leo XIII*

Thirdly to answer your question, Romans 12 in as it would apply to health care would NOT to the sick as being wrong doers but those who would disobey the new health care law which helps the sick as wrong doers. .

So you are claiming that the establishment clause prevents the Church from running all medical care?

Yes I believe it does. I think the establishment clause was a mistake by our forfathers but that is another argument.

No, it means that the Church may charge for services based on ones ability to pay. Christ nor the Church never demanded that all debts be forgiven, only from those who could not pay. The fact that your daughter earns wages indicates that she may pay something. Even the poor widow gave her two copper coins and Christ hailed that as a model over any money from the rich.

Well I think your entire argument is convoluted and lacking Christian Charity. my daughter doesn’t evern make enough income to pay her rent and utilites and put food on the table without falling behind. Christ may not have implied all debts be forgiven but what he did imply is that laws be just and not oppress people. Health care has become far to expensive for the average working class person to pay for much less the poor working class. That would make it good and just for the state to provide these services by tax dollars. We do not expect the public to pay for highways and road service privately and neither would we expect the public to pay for police and fire protection as well as 911 services privately. That is because these costs would be too “taxing” on the majority of the public. Health care now falls into this catagory.

What any Catholic should be calling for is for a charitable run medical system. .

Charity goes beyond private donations. It is extended into civil laws in order to promote justice and solidarity. So when the state provides things like Medicare and Social Security, these things were the results of the public acting “charitable” towards their neighbor by asking our elected officials to enact just laws in order to publicly administer charity.

Peace,

Dave

 

[Dan_Daly]

With respect to your comment we don’t need currency; good luck with that!

That’s not what I said at all. Someone else said we need the Federal Reserve because we wouldn’t have currency without it and would have to barter. I merely pointed out that’s not true. It’s obviously false because we had a currency in the United States, LONG before the Federal Reserve System existed. We can abolish the Fed AND have a currency. One does not depend on the other.

Pax.

I’d also disagree with your sentiment that everything government does is a gift from God. Governments are made of men. Men do evil things sometimes. When the Israelites asked God to give them a King, He told them all the evil it would bring them- war, oppression, taxation… The Israelites insisted. God gave them a king. And they got all the evils He said they would.

Was the Holocaust a gift to the German people? Is Roe Vs. Wade a gift?

The idea that any government program or act is a holy gift is the height of moral relativism.

 

[Dan_Daly]

David,

I hope your daughter is doing better, and will keep your family in my prayers.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

That is because these costs would be too “taxing” on the majority of the public. Health care now falls into this catagory.

Health care has become so expensive, BECAUSE of government intervention and regulation. Where did HMOs come from? Or employer provided health insurance? They came about because of government intervention. Government created the problems we currently have and now government wants to be the “cure” for the disease it created.

“Health insurance” as an entire concept is deeply flawed. Insurance is for things that are unlikely to happen but would be extremely damaging if they did- getting in a car crash, dying of an accident at an early age and leaving a widow and orphans, your house burning down.

Getting a checkup isn’t unexpected. Getting sick isn’t unexpected. They are common. For any insurance to cover things that happen ALL THE TIME TO PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE, it nescessarily has to be very expensive.

The answer is to go back to an extremely simple concept. The patient pays the doctor. It’s so simple. Both parties negotiate a fair price and the patient gets better care.