Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[davidmlamb]

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.

So a person develops colon cancer should just be able to aford to pay this out of pocket by negotiating the price? My step father was a diabetic which caused his heart to deterioirate. He had to have 5 bypasses. The entire cost of the medical involved was 135,000 dollars and this was 1993! My parents had not even saved that much money in the 22 years they had been married at the time (my step father was a truck driver and my mother a cook).

So your premise that people should just be able to pay for this stuff out of pocket by negotiating the price is perposterous. Health care did not get this expensive because of government regulations. It became this expensive because the health care industry itself has has become very complex and very advanced, and the complexities and medical advances are astronaumically expensive. Can we negotiate the prices of interstate highways, bridges and transportation systems in order to avoid paying for them publicly?

The prices of goods and services can be negotiated to a small degree but your argument is equivelent to saying that a 500,000 dollar home can be negotiated down to 25,000 dollars. Maybe negotiated down as low as 375,000 dollars if we are lucky but not 25,000 dollars. A 135,000 dollar surgery and hospital stay may be negotiated down to 80,000 dollars but how many people can come up with that kind of money or even make payments on that kind of money when they are struggling to make ends meet?

When cost get this high then we pull together as a sociey and pay for them publicly so that they become accessable to everyone. This is called “social justice” and it provides liberty for everyone. The Church teaches us that 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.”

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

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.

That’s true but our currency before the federal reserve was backed up by gold and silver. There is not enough gold and silver on the planet to cover the US GDP. The federal reserve is a way of allowing our currency to be backed up by a combination of commodities, and the international confidence in America’s ability to provide goods and services to the world.

I’d also disagree with your sentiment that everything government does is a gift from God.

I never said nor did I imply that everything the government does is a gift from God. What I said was that governments were instituted by God to support a civil society by promoting peace, justice and solidarity among men. So when the government provides health care for its citizens then that is a gift from God. When the government provides public jobs to people, then the benefactors of those jobs have received a gift from God. The Social Security checks and Medicare your grandparents received from the government were gifts from God. Hence, every good and perfect gift comes from the Father.

Governments are made of men. Men do evil things sometimes.

Yes, and the Church is also made of men who have done evil things at times. This does not mean the Church is evil no more then it makes the government evil. Both were instituted by God to perform a certain function. Sometimes men do not always do what God ordained them to do.

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.

No place in scripture are we taught that paying taxes is evil, the exact opposite is true. Paying taxes is good. The Israelites wanted to replace a government ruled by judges with one ruled by a King. This produced some pretty good Kings including King David and King Soloman. And might I point out that the throne of David is now seated by Christ with his Mother at his right side. So your implication that some how God never intended for humanity to come under the authority of civil government is unscriptural and un Catholic

Peace,
David

 

[Dan_Daly]

So when the government provides health care for its citizens then that is a gift from God.

Even when by providing that health care, the government supports abortion, contraception, and euthenasia?

 

[Dan_Daly]

That’s true but our currency before the federal reserve was backed up by gold and silver. There is not enough gold and silver on the planet to cover the US GDP. The federal reserve is a way of allowing our currency to be backed up by a combination of commodities, and the international confidence in America’s ability to provide goods and services to the world.

We didn’t move from the gold standard to a fiat currency because we ran out of Gold. A fiat currency (one which is backed up by nothing) allows those in power to manipulate its value for their benifit. It also allows government to raise taxes in much more subtle manner- inflation. By printing more money (which isn’t backed by anything) every dollar in the money supply becomes less valuable. So the government takes away citizens’ wealth by devaluing the currency they already have.

 

[Brendan]

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.

No, John 21 applies to both Spiritual and temporal food. That is why it was to the Apostles, and not the state, that the widows and orphans went too for food ( Acts 6)

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.

.

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

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.

No, it is NOT lacking in Christian Charity, I think you have a misunderstanding of what Charitas is. One is responsible for their debts. If your daughter is in danger if eviction or starvation, then yes the debt, or parts of it can be forgiven. She may also turn to the Church for additional assistance.

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.

Here you are clearly wrong and against Church teaching. The Church bases it’s Moral Theology on Virtue (best articulated by Aquinas).

There are Natural Virtures, which may be excercised by anyone, Aquinas listed those as what we call the Cardinal Virtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperence.

A State may practice Justice ( as in Romans 13, which authorizes the State to wield the sword against wrongdoers and to act as an agent of venenges upon wrongdoers on behalf of God). This is what our taxes support (we don’t prooftext as Protestants, we read Scripture in context )

Faith, Hope and Charity and the Theological Virtues, they are infused upon us at at Baptism and with Baptism, we cannot excercise those Virtues. Thus Charity is ALWAYS a personal act. We are Baptized, the State is not.

The State cannot excerciese Faith on our behalf, I cannot excercise Hope on our behalf (contrary to Obama’s campaign posters) and likewise, it cannot excercise Charity on behalf. The State cannot excercise those Virtues at all.

The care for the sick is not a right under Justice, but rather a gift under Charity. There is no specific procedure or care that can be claimed under Justice, as Justice is universal in time and place.

To claim that chemotherpy is required under Justice would be to claim that Justice was denied to all person living in the 16th century. That is logically false.

Rather, we the Baptized owe Caritas to all those who are sick. That, as I pointed out above, is thus a personal act. (that is why it is a Corporal Work of Mercy and a requirement for our salvation Matt 25). Put both Virtue and Salvation are personal, the State cannot do it for us. We must do it our selves, freely and without threat of imprisonment by the State.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s a letter from the U.S. Catholic Bishops and Catholic Relief Services to the congress on their plan for heartless cuts to the poor. Also to those we have harmed through our greenhouse gas emissions. See: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/poverty/poverty-focused-assistance-letter-to-House-2011-07-29.pdf

It’s one thing to refuse charity to the poor, suffering, and dying, but it’s really wrong to harm people through our greenhouse gas emissions, then refuse to compensate and help them, then on top of that deny that we harmed them. Is there nothing to learn from the Bible? I don’t expect non-Catholic American conservatives to do the right thing, but I’d expect Catholics – conservative and liberal – to call their congressmen and insist on bills that not only help us mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but also aid those affected by it.

My husband and I are prepared to pay higher taxes to do the right thing (not for more illicit and immoral wars)…and we are very far under the quarter million income that was suggested for increased taxes.

 

[ManOnFire]

I find the post absurd rather than excellent. Saying “I’m pro life and proudly voted for Obama”…

Obama is a marxist. He’s also a die hard pro-abortionist. He has expressed his scorn for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

The disturbing and very, very sad thing is that the poster is not alone. The culture of death hasn’t arisen in America in spite of Catholics, it’s arisen in large part BECAUSE of them. As evidenced by the majority of Catholic who keep voting for politicians (mainly democrats, but also republicans) who maintain power of the abortion industry to slaughter innocent children.

Pax.

Agreed.

I just don’t know what progressive Catholics are thinking. As the years go by, the leftist media puts more and more vulgar lyrics in the music, more lust and instant gratification and less true love in the movies and TV, and yet they expect morality to somehow magically improve. It’s easy to see that both adults and kids are being REDUCED to the least common denominator by what people experience in the media, which is more lust, drugs, and violence. They’re reducing society to its basest instincts, then controlling society once people have become addicted to the basest instincts. It’s not too hard to see. The media is creating a society of weaker men who mostly want sex. That’s why they run from parenthood. One doesn’t run away from loved ones unless one loves the Self more. Single motherhood has risen from 10% a few decades ago to 50% today. That’s what the progressives want: dissolution of marriage and dads to be replaced by welfare checks. Why would any reasonable person believe this is progress unless one is falling for the propaganda? I don’t know how conscientious Catholics can continue to support this intentional destruction of true love between man and woman. It’s intentional. It’s the European model for depopulation where dad is replaced by a govt. check, and the next generation has even less faith and hope. It’s very predictable and effective.

Why do progressives take a reactionary after-its-too-late stance by demanding that the govt (taxpayers) pay for these sequelae that are easily predicictable. We can’t honestly expect kids to grow up experienceing the beauty of innocence when there is little innocence in the music, TV, and movies! One would have to be insane to expect that, yet those with good intentions somehow still expect it. Maybe they’re expecting a magic fantasy in true Hollywood fashion. (See Absolute Relativism banner on the home forums page where the cartoon is burying head in sand) The Disey channel has 14 year old girls showing cleavage for crying out loud. Wardrobe is carefully scripted. Society gets morally, spiritually, and financially poor by the loss of innocence while the media gets rich. What’s wrong with this picture? Why should taxpayers pay the bills when it’s easy to see who is profitting from society’s reduction?WHy not practice PREVENTIVE medicine by cleaning up the media??? A return to the beauty of innocence? WHy not? Because then men and women would have less obstacles to true love, and self-sustaining families won’t be Dependent on govt. The Culture of Death will die and true love will live. Progressives keep selling us the distractions of lust, drugs, and entertainment which increase personal selffishness and decrease true love between man and woman in the name of depopulation. They are like the fire fighter who sets the fire, then shows up to claim to be the heroic solution.

 

[ManOnFire]

It’s one thing to refuse charity to the poor, suffering, and dying, but it’s really wrong to harm people through our greenhouse gas emissions, then refuse to compensate and help them, then on top of that deny that we harmed them. Is there nothing to learn from the Bible? I don’t expect non-Catholic American conservatives to do the right thing, but I’d expect Catholics – conservative and liberal – to call their congressmen and insist on bills that not only help us mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but also aid those affected by it.

The fashion and entertainment industries are completely elective wastes of carbon. The entertainment industry is also reducing society’s morality. There’s enough quality entertainment archived on the internet where we don’t need to burn any more carbon to create new entertainment. If hundreds of thousands of people are going to die by rising ocean levels, then we should seriously consider ending these industries. We can save our souls, true love, the beauty of innocence, marriages, and the planet.

 

[sw85]

I’m just gonna reiterate this from earlier:

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]

Even when by providing that health care, the government supports abortion, contraception, and euthenasia?

Can you give examples of government health care commiting euthenasia and abortion? For every 1 example you can give me of the government providing such services I can give you a dozen examples of private health care providing these services paid for by your insurance premiums. So what is the alternative to publicly paid health care? Private health care insurance which provides these services on a much larger scale. Government health care cuts out 99% of abortions and probably 99.99% of euthanasia (if not 100%). So switching from private health care to publicly provided health care like Medicare or Veterans Administration is a very good thing because it provides life sustaining health care for everyone and cuts out most abortions and probably all euthenasias. I’ve never heard of government health care denying life sustaining procedures or delaying them until the person dies in order to save money. Yet this goes on on a wide scale with private health care insurance. I am willing to bet my next pay check that when it comes time for you to receive your government run Medicare health care you wont turn it down for fear they might euthenize you. You will gladly receive it and enjoy the benefits the government provides you. So if this is the case (and I am certain it is) why would it be okay for you to receive government health care while at the same time opposing it for others?

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

No, John 21 applies to both Spiritual and temporal food. That is why it was to the Apostles, and not the state, that the widows and orphans went too for food ( Acts 6).

Well Brendan, you can make this argument about John 21 if you want but the text is self evident to my favor and it is also how the Father’s of the Church understood the text. Acts 6 on the other hand is talking about meeting the physical needs of the Church which required everyone to surrender their wealth to the common good of the needs of the Church. If this is what Christians truly practiced today we would not be having this argument and you would be living under true socialist conditions with the Church becoming the defacto government. This is the way the Amish community operates.

Here you are clearly wrong and against Church teaching. The Church bases it’s Moral Theology on Virtue (best articulated by Aquinas)…There are Natural Virtures, which may be excercised by anyone, Aquinas listed those as what we call the Cardinal Virtues, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperence…

The care for the sick is not a right under Justice, but rather a gift under Charity. There is no specific procedure or care that can be claimed under Justice, as Justice is universal in time and place.To claim that chemotherpy is required under Justice would be to claim that Justice was denied to all person living in the 16th century. That is logically false.

I’m clearly going against Church teachings huh Brendan? We’ll let our reading audience be the judge of that! There can be no justice without charity and this is exactly what Christ taught us and the Church teaches us. Since you want to use St Thomas Aquinas as proof of Catholic doctrine then you should hear him,

*" political philosophy is, in one respect, simply that part or extension of moral philosophy which considers the kinds of choice that should be made by all who share in the responsibility and authority of choosing for a community of the comprehensive kind called political."

The effect of any action may be judged from its end; because it is by action that the attainment of the end is effected. Now the end of the government of the world is the essential good, to the participation and similarity of which all things tend. Consequently the effect of the government of the world may be taken in three ways.

First, on the part of the end itself; and in this way there is but one effect, that is, assimilation to the supreme good.

Secondly, the effect of the government of the world may be considered on the part of those things by means of which the creature is made like to God. Thus there are, in general, two effects of the government. For the creature is assimilated to God in two things; first, with regard to this, that God is good; and so the creature becomes like Him by being good; and secondly, with regard to this, that God is the cause of goodness in others; and so the creature becomes like God by moving others to be good. Wherefore there are two effects of government, the preservation of things in their goodness, and the moving of things to good. St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica*

So according to St Thomas Aquinas the virtues of the Catholic faith become an etension in politics and are to be practiced. If this were not true then why interfere in government affairs when it comes to abortion and gay marriage? But I have already cited for you what the Church teaches on this matter when I cited several pages of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (1897-1912) and numerous encyclicals written by every Pope since 1890. Hear the words of Pope Pius XII:

*"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.” *

Brendan, you have to make a choice, either you are going to embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church or the teachings of right wing conservatism. The two are not compatible. Right wing conservatism is a cancer in the body of Christ because it attempts to seduce God’s sheep from the straight and narrow road onto the road to perdition. I pray God will unblind your mind and every Catholic believer being lead astray by this evil spirit desguised as an Angel of light.

To Him be the Glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever and ever amen!

David

 

[The_Republican]

As it was said earlier in the forum, most lieberal beliefs are anti-Catholic and some are absolutely anti-Christian. Like the fact they are pro abortion and homosexuality (I forgot who first mentioned that, but I agree with you on that) it makes liberals seem anti-Catholic. I would have to say I do not think liberals can be Catholic because of their beliefs. When you look at liberals and conservatives, you see the conservatives’ beliefs are a lot more Catholic than the liberals’ beliefs. If you look at most celebrities that endorse liberalism are usually not even Christian and even seem against Christians. I remember seeing on the news Rosie O’Donnel saying strong Christians are like terrorist Muslims. Which is absolutely not true.

I hope my answer has helped you.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Can you give examples of government health care commiting euthenasia and abortion? For every 1 example you can give me of the government providing such services I can give you a dozen examples of private health care providing these services paid for by your insurance premiums. So what is the alternative to publicly paid health care? Private health care insurance which provides these services on a much larger scale. Government health care cuts out 99% of abortions and probably 99.99% of euthanasia (if not 100%). So switching from private health care to publicly provided health care like Medicare or Veterans Administration is a very good thing because it provides life sustaining health care for everyone and cuts out most abortions and probably all euthenasias. I’ve never heard of government health care denying life sustaining procedures or delaying them until the person dies in order to save money. Yet this goes on on a wide scale with private health care insurance. I am willing to bet my next pay check that when it comes time for you to receive your government run Medicare health care you wont turn it down for fear they might euthenize you. You will gladly receive it and enjoy the benefits the government provides you. So if this is the case (and I am certain it is) why would it be okay for you to receive government health care while at the same time opposing it for others?

Peace,

David

Even IF government health care funded less abortions then private health care, a VERY dubious claim, especially considering that unless Obamacare is repealed, it will have it’s designed effect of eliminating private health care in the near future, and ALL abortions will be funded by the government…but even so, for the sake of argument we’ll say you’re right on this (even though you are not). Government health care would still not be a good move. Why not? Because it makes everyone complicit in abortion. It’s the difference between 3 of my neighbors going to rob banks or 1 of my neighbors robbing a bank. Well we should go with the 1- it cuts bank robberies to 1/3. Well what if I gave the lone bank robber the gun and told him the security code for the vault. I assisted in his sin, and thus endanger my own soul. You can’t fight evil with evil. The idea of reducing abortions by forcing every member of society to pay for a smaller number of abortions is not moral. It’s same lie pushed by advocates of contraception who say it curb abortions.

 

[Julian0404]

Of course you can, and I will gladly proclaim that I am. What a Catholic cannot be is a social or religious liberal. Social liberals tend to be for things like abortion and gay marriage, while religious liberals reject basic tenants of our faith. Political liberalism is something different entirely, and while the social liberals seem to have the biggest voice today, it was not always so. It is a tradition and style of government. I identify more with Roosevelt and Jefferson than with social liberals.

Well explained, and something I had not considered. However, your division of liberalism does not address your vote. Yes, philosophically, you can separate and divide as you have explained, but once you have voted for a Liberal - perhaps your only choice on the ballot - who supports and advocates the Social and/or religious liberality view then, you have crossed the line’s created by your division and now stand in violation of GOD’s commandments and the churches teachings. And, one step further, as most liberals in politics today are clearing very strong advocates of both the “full on” social and religious extremes of liberalism the probability of finding a viable candidate appears extreme as well. So, what hope do you have of ever finding a candidate who you can vote for without violating your conscience or the churches teaching?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Here’s a letter from the U.S. Catholic Bishops and Catholic Relief Services to the congress on their plan for heartless cuts to the poor. Also to those we have harmed through our greenhouse gas emissions. See: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/poverty/poverty-focused-assistance-letter-to-House-2011-07-29.pdf

It’s one thing to refuse charity to the poor, suffering, and dying, but it’s really wrong to harm people through our greenhouse gas emissions, then refuse to compensate and help them, then on top of that deny that we harmed them. Is there nothing to learn from the Bible? I don’t expect non-Catholic American conservatives to do the right thing, but I’d expect Catholics – conservative and liberal – to call their congressmen and insist on bills that not only help us mitigate anthropogenic climate change, but also aid those affected by it.

My husband and I are prepared to pay higher taxes to do the right thing (not for more illicit and immoral wars)…and we are very far under the quarter million income that was suggested for increased taxes.

It’s pretty clear to everyone at this point that man made global warming isn’t happening. Even those who were some of the main pushers of the idea/deception have now admitted that the earth is getting COOLER. Which is why you don’t hear about “global warming” anymore…you hear about “climate change” instead.

The clues were there for anyone to see that Global warming was a lie from the beginning, but a lot of well intentioned people missed them and were duped, many of the Bishops among them.

 

[davidmlamb]

Even IF government health care funded less abortions then private health care, a VERY dubious claim, especially considering that unless Obamacare is repealed, it will have it’s designed effect of eliminating private health care in the near future, and ALL abortions will be funded by the government…but even so, for the sake of argument we’ll say you’re right on this (even though you are not). Government health care would still not be a good move. Why not? Because it makes everyone complicit in abortion. It’s the difference between 3 of my neighbors going to rob banks or 1 of my neighbors robbing a bank. Well we should go with the 1- it cuts bank robberies to 1/3. Well what if I gave the lone bank robber the gun and told him the security code for the vault. I assisted in his sin, and thus endanger my own soul. You can’t fight evil with evil. The idea of reducing abortions by forcing every member of society to pay for a smaller number of abortions is not moral. It’s same lie pushed by advocates of contraception who say it curb abortions.

Your claim is bogus. Up until recently the United States was the only country without Universal Health Care yet still the highest by far for the number of abortions. If your claim was true then France, Italy, Spain, Britain, Canada and Japan should all have high abortion rates. Yet combined they do not have the abortion rates the United States has. So according to your reasoning private health care causes people to become complacent for abortion.

Furthermore, in order for there to ever be government paid abortions (outside of the life of the mother or forcible rape) the Hyde ammendment would have to be abolished. That will never happen. Finally, health care reform is now the law of the land and it is saving lives. There is no need to continue to use abortion as an excuse to return to the wide spread euthenasia private health care insurance forced on the United States in the name of profit. The Church teaches us that it is a grave sin to use one intrinsic evil (abortion) as a means to ignore or show indifference towards another (euthenasia) and that is exactly what you are doing here when you want to return to the old system of health care. Woe to you!

David

 

[Dan_Daly]

Why do progressives take a reactionary after-its-too-late stance by demanding that the govt (taxpayers) pay for these sequelae that are easily predicictable. We can’t honestly expect kids to grow up experienceing the beauty of innocence when there is little innocence in the music, TV, and movies! One would have to be insane to expect that, yet those with good intentions somehow still expect it. Maybe they’re expecting a magic fantasy in true Hollywood fashion. (See Absolute Relativism banner on the home forums page where the cartoon is burying head in sand) The Disey channel has 14 year old girls showing cleavage for crying out loud. Wardrobe is carefully scripted. Society gets morally, spiritually, and financially poor by the loss of innocence while the media gets rich. What’s wrong with this picture? Why should taxpayers pay the bills when it’s easy to see who is profitting from society’s reduction?WHy not practice PREVENTIVE medicine by cleaning up the media??? A return to the beauty of innocence? WHy not? Because then men and women would have less obstacles to true love, and self-sustaining families won’t be Dependent on govt. The Culture of Death will die and true love will live. Progressives keep selling us the distractions of lust, drugs, and entertainment which increase personal selffishness and decrease true love between man and woman in the name of depopulation. They are like the fire fighter who sets the fire, then shows up to claim to be the heroic solution.

Amen. A great explanation of just the few of the reasons not to have TV in your house.

 

[davidmlamb]

It’s pretty clear to everyone at this point that man made global warming isn’t happening. Even those who were some of the main pushers of the idea/deception have now admitted that the earth is getting COOLER. Which is why you don’t hear about “global warming” anymore…you hear about “climate change” instead.

The clues were there for anyone to see that Global warming was a lie from the beginning, but a lot of well intentioned people missed them and were duped, many of the Bishops among them.

You need to have a fundamental understanding of what global warming is. Global warming affects the polar ice caps which causes a severe climate shift all over the world. This is exactly what we see happening today. The cause of global warming is caused by humans putting billions of tons of carbon emmissions into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. It is irresponsible and a serious sin to have willed ignorance about this. Your reasoning is not from a person filled with the grace of God but by a person whose soul has been corrupted by right wing conservatism. The Apocalypse tells us that man will destroy the environment and that God will punish those responsible…

The nations were angry;
and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your saints and those who reverence your name,
both small and great—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” John’s Apocalypse 11:17-18David

 

[Dan_Daly]

Your claim is bogus. Up until recently the United States was the only country without Universal Health Care yet still the highest by far for the number of abortions. If your claim was true then France, Italy, Spain, Britain, Canada and Japan should all have high abortion rates. Yet combined they do not have the abortion rates the United States has. So according to your reasoning private health care causes people to become complacent for abortion.

Furthermore, in order for there to ever be government paid abortions (outside of the life of the mother or forcible rape) the Hyde ammendment would have to be abolished. That will never happen. Finally, health care reform is now the law of the land and it is saving lives. There is no need to continue to use abortion as an excuse to return to the wide spread euthenasia private health care insurance forced on the United States in the name of profit. The Church teaches us that it is a grave sin to use one intrinsic evil (abortion) as a means to ignore or show indifference towards another (euthenasia) and that is exactly what you are doing here when you want to return to the old system of health care. Woe to you!

David

Everyone who pays taxes pays for abortion in the US already. Even before Obamacare. It’s called taxpayer money that goes to Planned Parenthood. It doesn’t matter if it is allocated into an account called “abortions” - all funds are fungible. Obamacare only makes it worse. They Hyde Ammendment prevents taxpayer funded abortion in name, but not in practice.

Why were the Bishops against Obamacare if it is such a wonderful and holy thing?

Finally, abortion statistics are incredibly hard to rely on in terms of absolute numbers and rates within a population- especially considering how many are caused by “contraceptives”.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Also, supporting abortion, in the case of rape or life of the mother, is still supporting the murder of an unborn child and is against Church teaching.

Laws that allow murder, even if we’re only allowed to murder a very few select people under specific circumstances, are still immoral.

The Church also teaches that not all issues are equivalent. When it comes to ensuring quality health care for the population vs abortion (although I think seeing it as an either or is a false choice), abortion is more important.

Pax.