K
katherine2
Guest
I totally agree.
- Status
S
shockerfan
Guest
So you are implying that a doctorate in Sacred Theology also gives insight as to the workings of the government and gives them inside knowledge to the waste and fraud that occurs in government?
Are you saying that that contributing to charities that we know use our money better is less preferred than giving money to a government that is riddled with waste and mismanagement?
I respect their theological perspective but remember that the Church speaks infallibly on issues of faith and morals. Not economics.
K
katherine2
Guest
Nor the criminal code.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
jim orr:
The teachings on remote material cooperation and proportionate reasons is standard Catholic moral theology, for example, see this entry from New Advent. (Except they use the term “commensurately weighty reason” instead of “proportionate reason”.)
C
Catholic2003
Guest
No, I’m pretty sure that “Republican Propaganda 101” is not a required course for a doctorate in Sacred Theology. That degree involves an in-depth study of what the Catholic Church teaches, not a mind-meld to the Republican party platform. (And in case you weren’t aware, these are two separate entities.)
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
I think it’s unfair to portray those who disagree with you as Republican Party hacks.
I arrived at my understanding of economic matters through a lot of study, none of which was done under the aegis of the Republican party. In fact, I got a pretty thorough indoctrination in Keynesian economics from a leftist business school professor. Despite that, I was able to observe what actually works in modern economies and what brings about the greatest amount of justice for all people.
Before the election someone asked me who I was voting for and why. I stated that I was voting for Bush primarily for his stance on moral issues (as contrasted with Kerry’s) and that I thanked God every day that Bush’s economic policies were mostly (not completely) in line with mine. I mentioned that if Kerry were pro-life and Bush were pro-death and everything else were the same I would have to regretfully vote for Kerry.
A point of fact: the right to life is a plank in the Republican platform. The right to abortion is a plank in the Democratic platform. If that ever changes I’ll have to change my voting habits depending on the circumstances of the individual candidates.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Then what is the appropriate attribution for the teaching that the goverment can’t be trusted with our money because it is rife with waste, fraud, and mismanagement? It sure doesn’t come from the Bible, and you have to admit that it does bear an uncanny resemblance to the Republican party platform.
The suggestion that we should dismiss the authentic teachings of bishops, who have doctorates in Sacred Theology, merely because they have not been indoctrinated in this philosophy is ridiculous. Hence the ridicule.
I try to follow all the teachings of the magisterium, regardless of which party is helped and which party is hurt by those teachings.
J
jim_orr
Guest
I still don’t see where funding the “good” of a welfare program trumps the funding of the evil of abortion contained within it. You will have to do better than what you did to try to prove your case. It’s not there with what you provided.
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
This made me remember something I forgot to include. How, as a practical matter, do you actually accomplish this? I have yet to see a candidate that is perfectly in line with all teachings of the Church (no matter how you may interpret the principle vs. prudence argument). Because of the divergence from teachings, voters are forced to prioritize these issues when selecting a candidate.
I think it should be clear how I prioritize these things. Abortion always takes an innocent life. Higher taxes may (although it usually doesn’t) help the poor. This to me should be pretty straightforward and easy to understand.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
jim orr:
Sorry, I thought you meant the general teaching. I will search for the specific budget example I mentioned. (I believe it is somewhere in Politics II.)
C
Catholic2003
Guest
This is a hard decision that all we voters must make. In 2004, I voted for Joe Schriner. It helps that I live in a state where my vote doesn’t matter.
J
jim_orr
Guest
Romans 13:8. " Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." I think confiscation by law as opposed to personal giving out of love is not exactly on par with the teaching of Jesus.
The footnote for your example of Romans 13:6 says - "Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God’s prior claim to the believers’ moral decision.’’
If the Bishops of Minnesota, and for that matter any place else, had a “better handle on the teachings of Jesus” this country would be in better shape than it is. But when half the Church-going Catholics disregard their own Profession of Faith, and what they are praying for in The Lord’s Prayer, and vote to elect men and women to “rule over us” who are diabolically opposed to what Catholics profess to believe and pray for (and that includes the majority of Catholic clergy and religious), I say they are doing a pretty losy job with what they are suppose to know.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Considering that Bush has never found a spending bill that he didn’t like, I don’t really think my CONSERVATIVE perspective is Republican in nature.
Do you really think that government is the best way to deliver programs in lieu of charitable organizations? Please answer this question. I’m curious as to your perspective.
Government is not efficient. It is not like a business that must keep costs down, deliver a quality product, and stay competitive. If it loses money, it can just raise taxes to get more. Government can spend money on any pork barrel project they want to, and apparently this does not bother you. What motivation do government employees have to reduce costs and come up with more efficient ways of delivering services? Efficiency to a government employee is a threat to their job security.
K
katherine2
Guest
Except for a flaw in the logic. You need to compare apples to apples. We should be against abortion and for the poor. Yet differences of opinion exist as to if governmental actions to help the poor are truly effective and if governmental actions to limit abortion are truly effective. Personally, I believe in both cases government action is called for and I will advocate for my views with those who disagree with me on one or the other or both.
However, you are on weak ground to say the effectiveness of one set of government actions must be taken on faith while another set is open to discernment.
K
katherine2
Guest
jim orr:
Sheeesh, I have to defend the President. What gives?
With the support of the President we have the Hyde Amendment which prohbits federal dollars from being spent on abortion domesticly and we have the President’s Executive Order on the Mexicio City Policy which prohibits tax money from being spent on abortions overseas.
So at least on the federal level, there is no such issue. You don’t have the excuse of abortion funding to bash welfare programs like the one Terri Schavio is benefiting from.
Jim, Please stop your Bush bashing!!!
Sheeesh, I have to defend the President. What gives?
With the support of the President we have the Hyde Amendment which prohbits federal dollars from being spent on abortion domesticly and we have the President’s Executive Order on the Mexicio City Policy which prohibits tax money from being spent on abortions overseas.
So at least on the federal level, there is no such issue. You don’t have the excuse of abortion funding to bash welfare programs like the one Terri Schavio is benefiting from.
K
katherine2
Guest
Actually, I strongly agree with the Republican Party on abortion (and disagree with the Democrats). But I would be interested in reading what your views are on abortion policy.
F
fix
Guest
Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
As Mother Teresa reminded us on all of her visits to the U.S., abortion tears at our national soul. It is a betrayal of our nation’s founding principle that recognizes all human beings as “created equal” and “endowed with unalienable rights.” What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
***Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005634
If this bishops teaches this set of trurhs and another bishop teaches the exact opposite, are they both binding? Are there more than one set of truths? Does the authority of a bishop bind on prudential judgments? Please provide proof.
Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.
As Mother Teresa reminded us on all of her visits to the U.S., abortion tears at our national soul. It is a betrayal of our nation’s founding principle that recognizes all human beings as “created equal” and “endowed with unalienable rights.” What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?
***Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005634
If this bishops teaches this set of trurhs and another bishop teaches the exact opposite, are they both binding? Are there more than one set of truths? Does the authority of a bishop bind on prudential judgments? Please provide proof.
K
katherine2
Guest
Thank you for your opinion.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Even if I could proportionate the issues of life with other issues, I would vote against the Hugh secularization machine of government social programs. Historically social support programs were the preview of the religious and I believe that’s where it should be.
F
fix
Guest
To whom are you referring?
- Status