Catholic University Professors Blast Pro-Life Boehner on Commencement

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The title of the Article does say blasted. However, I read the actual letter and it seemed pretty respectful and sincere. They didn’t call for his invitation to speak to be rescinded nor did they say he should demure. They also applauded his pro-life stances in regards to abortion. However, they did offer many well thought out critiques of many other policies which they believe are not pro-life mainly regarding budget issues. The criticisms are founded in well known and long standing Catholic teaching on the subject. You are, of course, welcome and encouraged to offer a differing opinion but the title is over the top and mischaracterizes the content and tenor of the letter. I urge folks to read the letter for themselves and make their own judgments.
 
I’m just curious if these same professors signed a letter or do anything when Obama was being honored at Notre Dame? The thing is that assistance to the poor is something that can be negotiated. Abortion is one of those things that the Church teaches is wrong all the time and it is non-negotiable and we all know where Obama stands on abortion.

Me thinks some of these professors speak with a forked-tongue.
 
I’m just curious if these same professors signed a letter or do anything when Obama was being honored at Notre Dame? The thing is that assistance to the poor is something that can be negotiated. Abortion is one of those things that the Church teaches is wrong all the time and it is non-negotiable and we all know where Obama stands on abortion.

Me thinks some of these professors speak with a forked-tongue.
As these are professors at Catholic University, not Notre Dame, this is a moot point.

However, I think it’s clear, from long experience, that many folks who speak up for Catholic social teaching are strangely silent with regard to abortion.
 
As these are professors at Catholic University, not Notre Dame, this is a moot point.

However, I think it’s clear, from long experience, that many folks who speak up for Catholic social teaching are strangely silent with regard to abortion.
Not moot at all. This was a group of university professors from various schools.
More than 75 professors from CUA **and other colleges **have signed a letter criticizing Boehner and saying they don’t like that he will deliver the graduation speech
 
it’s a frustrating tactic: broadening the meaning of “pro-life” so that it becomes almost meaningless.
 
If you want to read the full text of the letter in question, you can read it [here](http://blog.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/Catholic%20leaders’%20letter%20to%20Rep.%20Boehner%20before%20CUA%20commencement.pdf) and judge for yourself. Or you can read it right now:

Dear Mr. Speaker,
We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic
University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the
thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize
(whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.
We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of
your Church on matters of social justice.
Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient
moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has
insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your
record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the
worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic
policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.
The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives guts longestablished
protections for the most vulnerable members of society. It is particularly
cruel to pregnant women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and
slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and Children nutrition
program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these children will face a 20% cut in
food stamps. The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare.
It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves
out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In a letter speaking on
behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and
Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its
impact on poor and vulnerable American citizens. They explained the Church’s teachings
in this regard, clearly insisting that:
“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential
services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate
revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the longterm
costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.” Specifically addressing
your budget, the letter expressed grave concern about changes to Medicaid and Medicare
that could leave the elderly and poor without adequate health care. The bishops warned
further: “We also fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that
serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and nutrition, child
development and education, and affordable housing.”
Representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishops Hubbard and
Blaire have now endorsed with other American Christian leaders a call to legislators for a
“Circle of Protection” around programs for the poor that you, Mr. Speaker, have
imperiled. The statement of these Christian leaders recognizes the need for fiscal
responsibility, “but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.” Indeed, it continues,
“These choices are economic, political—and moral. As Christians, we believe the moral
measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every
budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called ‘the least of these’
(Matthew 25:45).”
Mr. Speaker, we urge you to use the occasion of this year’s commencement at The
Catholic University of America to give full consideration to the teachings of your
Church. We call upon you to join with your bishops and sign on to the “Circle of
Protection.” It is your moral duty as a legislator to put the needs of the poor and most
vulnerable foremost in your considerations. To assist you in this regard, we enclose a
copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Published by the
Vatican, this is the “catechism” for the Church’s ancient and growing teaching on a just
society and Catholic obligations in public life.
Catholic social doctrine is not merely a set of goals to be achieved by whatever means
one chooses. It is also a way of proceeding, a set of principles that are derived from the
truth of the human person. In Pope Benedict’s words: “Without truth, charity
degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary
way… the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the
opposite.”
We commend to you the Compendium’s discussion of the principles of the common
good, the preferential option for the poor, and the interrelationship of subsidiarity and
solidarity. Paragraph 355 on tax revenues, solidarity, and support for the vulnerable is
particularly relevant to the moment.
Be assured of our prayers for you on this occasion and for your faithful living out of your
vocation in public life.
 
The title of the Article does say blasted. However, I read the actual letter and it seemed pretty respectful and sincere.
Hmmmmm…
We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.] We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.
ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/breaking-news-catholic-academics-challenge-boehner?page=1

Blasted? I think the first paragraph does so.
Respectful?

I find it difficult to view this letter as representing theology – rather than ideology.
However, they did offer many well thought out critiques of many other policies which they believe are not pro-life mainly regarding budget issues. The criticisms are founded in well known and long standing Catholic teaching on the subject.
Hmmmm…

If they attempt to make an argument that the policies Mr. Boehner supports will be bad for the poor, Then they should make the argument.

The letter doesn’t do that; it just assumes the conclusion.

And assumes Mr Boehner is, somehow, less even - possessing bad faith ] Catholic for his stand.

Mr. Boehner and politically-conservative Catholics disagree with them.

They think; that raising taxes will kill jobs, which hurts the poor.

They think; that a Medicare program which is projected to swallow all federal tax revenues in a few years is unsustainable and needs to be revamped, and that the revised version can’t commit to spending on those levels.

They think that: Medicaid has a perverse funding structure and a lack of accountability.

They Letter signers ] might think they politically-conservative Catholics ] are wrong, but to approach the matter as a theological one - is a category mistake.

Worse, it presumes bad faith on Mr. Boehner’s part, and so it likely… will not be perceived as a Christian approach made out of love.

The poor do deserve better and relying on tried and failed programs is - in itself - non caring.
 
usccb.org/jphd/economiclife/10principlesqanda.shtml

The link should take you to the USCCB’s site and it’s statement on Ten Principles for Economic Life. Whether the Ryan Budget or other policies conform to this standard or not, I’ll leave it to you to decide. I do however, think the criticisms or “blast” is based on these principles which are in turn based on “sound catholic teaching”. I realize that it is not dogma and as members of the laity with a presumedly well formed conscience, we are allowed to disagree with the Bishops and each other as to what particular policies best pursue these principles. I think though that to suggest that the criticism is not based on theology is mistaken.

"“A Catholic Framework for Economic Life” offers ten key principles to help Catholics reflect on the values that should shape our participation in economic life. It was written by the bishops of the United States based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, the pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, and other statements of the U.S. Catholic bishops. In the statement, the bishops write:

As followers of Jesus Christ and participants in a powerful economy, Catholics in the United States are called to work for greater economic justice in the face of persistent poverty, growing income-gaps, and increasing discussion of economic issues in the United States and around the world. We urge Catholics to use the following ethical framework for economic life as principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directions for action. These principles are drawn directly from Catholic teaching on economic life."

The bottom line, I suppose, is that some believe that the economic policies presented by the current majority do pursue these principles and others disagree.
 
usccb.org/jphd/economiclife/10principlesqanda.shtml

The link should take you to the USCCB’s site and it’s statement on Ten Principles for Economic Life. Whether the Ryan Budget or other policies conform to this standard or not, I’ll leave it to you to decide. I do however, think the criticisms or “blast” is based on these principles which are in turn based on “sound catholic teaching”. I realize that it is not dogma and as members of the laity with a presumedly well formed conscience, we are allowed to disagree with the Bishops and each other as to what particular policies best pursue these principles. I think though that to suggest that the criticism is not based on theology is mistaken.
Thanks for the link 🙂

The principles stated by the Bishops are sound - In Fact theological.

This letter leaves Theological and enters ideology within the first paragraph.

Again:
We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.] We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.
That is an assassination attempt - Nothing theological

It assumes: Mr. Boehner doesn’t have a well formed Catholic conscience.
It assumes: Mr Boehner doesn’t care about the poor.

It assumes: these cuts are wrong.
It assumes: these cuts are anti-life

It makes the conclusions without reference.
Without asking - it deems all these cuts unnecessary.
And found Mr Boehner guilty

This is ideology - not theology.

They shamelessly try to tack theology to the ideological concepts of the first paragraph.

I’m surprised these great thinkers don’t understand. Or maybe they do - and hope we won’t understand their action of signing this letter ]

The letter doesn’t do that; it just assumes the conclusion.

Surely, these great thinkers can do better…🤷🤷
 
usccb.org/jphd/economiclife/10principlesqanda.shtml

The link should take you to the USCCB’s site and it’s statement on Ten Principles for Economic Life. Whether the Ryan Budget or other policies conform to this standard or not, I’ll leave it to you to decide. I do however, think the criticisms or “blast” is based on these principles which are in turn based on “sound catholic teaching”. I realize that it is not dogma and as members of the laity with a presumedly well formed conscience, we are allowed to disagree with the Bishops and each other as to what particular policies best pursue these principles. I think though that to suggest that the criticism is not based on theology is mistaken.

"“A Catholic Framework for Economic Life” offers ten key principles to help Catholics reflect on the values that should shape our participation in economic life. It was written by the bishops of the United States based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, the pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, and other statements of the U.S. Catholic bishops. In the statement, the bishops write:

As followers of Jesus Christ and participants in a powerful economy, Catholics in the United States are called to work for greater economic justice in the face of persistent poverty, growing income-gaps, and increasing discussion of economic issues in the United States and around the world. We urge Catholics to use the following ethical framework for economic life as principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directions for action. These principles are drawn directly from Catholic teaching on economic life."

The bottom line, I suppose, is that some believe that the economic policies presented by the current majority do pursue these principles and others disagree.
All those are sound principles. And the nice part is that they do not pretend to offer technical methods to achieve those ends.

So as far as those principles are concerned, I can fully support them.

In this country, we have had a method of throwing money at problems. Since fiscal year 1966 (which is roughly when essentially all of the Great Society programs were put in place), the federal government has thrown $35,638,624,000,000 at the problem of poverty. Source: OMB. The poverty rate in 1966 was 14.7%. The poverty rate in 2009 (the last year recorded) was 14.3%. Source: US Census. The lowest poverty rate was 11.1%, recorded in 1973. It seems to me that throwing money at the problem in an effort to solve poverty is utterly ineffective.

Pope Benedict XVI nailed it when he said,
Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State.
Caritas in Veritate, 38
We need a different approach. The one we’ve taken for the last 43 years hasn’t worked. Unfortunately, certain professors at CUA are unable to grasp that fact through their ivory towers.
 
Thanks for the link 🙂

The principles stated by the Bishops are sound - In Fact theological.

This letter leaves Theological and enters ideology within the first paragraph.

Again:

That is an assassination attempt - Nothing theological

It assumes: Mr. Boehner doesn’t have a well formed Catholic conscience.
It assumes: Mr Boehner doesn’t care about the poor.

It assumes: these cuts are wrong.
It assumes: these cuts are anti-life

It makes the conclusions without reference.
Without asking - it deems all these cuts unnecessary.
And found Mr Boehner guilty

This is ideology - not theology.

They shamelessly try to tack theology to the ideological concepts of the first paragraph.

I’m surprised these great thinkers don’t understand. Or maybe they do - and hope we won’t understand their action of signing this letter ]

The letter doesn’t do that; it just assumes the conclusion.

Surely, these great thinkers can do better…🤷🤷
I agree with you. This is another group of people who want to claim they are speaking for the Catholic church who are not that are ill-informed and from the letter is very obvious they did not research the new budget plan offered by the Republicans and display that all the information that they are using to support their idiotic claims are coming from the left which have shown in this case and others to have nothing to offer to the debate except for blatant lies and propaganda.

Absolutely pathetic that some of the professors in our Catholic colleges openly display their ignorance and stupidity.

If you want to debate what the Republicans are trying to do then do it with true knowledge and not with assumptions. All these professors have done is display their ignorance.
 
I agree with you. This is another group of people who want to claim they are speaking for the Catholic church who are not that are ill-informed and from the letter is very obvious they did not research the new budget plan offered by the Republicans and display that all the information that they are using to support their idiotic claims are coming from the left which have shown in this case and others to have nothing to offer to the debate except for blatant lies and propaganda.

Absolutely pathetic that some of the professors in our Catholic colleges openly display their ignorance and stupidity.

If you want to debate what the Republicans are trying to do then do it with true knowledge and not with assumptions. All these professors have done is display their ignorance.
👍👍

I agree 🙂
 
There really is something fundamentally wrong with federal spending that spends vast sums on middle class welfare and treats the truly poor as negligently as this country does.

I have no pretense to being an economic or political expert, but it appears these profs and the bureaucrats at USCCB really don’t have a clear picture of the real inequities that are going on. So, okay, they don’t like it that high earners aren’t taxed more. But I wonder how many of them are aware there are people drawing double or triple governmental pensions because they went from one form of “public service” to another. Do the profs take into account their own princely salaries and lavish benefits? Do they give them up in order to supplement the incomes of those, e.g., on SSI who are somehow expected to live on $600/month? No, they don’t. Are they eager to give up the tax-free money that goes into their pension funds? Do they even propose that the additional tax on “the rich” (high earners, actually) go to the truly poor? Oh no, we want to fund middle class welfare (Obamacare) in part, with it.

Does nobody see anything wrong with the fact that the wealthy can draw Social Security benefits, usually at the maximum rate, while struggling young people have to pay for it? I guess not.

Where are the critiques of Medicare spending for millionaires who can afford their own private coverage? I haven’t heard it.

And anyone who has read the charts of many Medicaid recipients can’t possibly fail to know the overutilization is absolutely massive, and why? Because the recipients have no stake at all in the cost, and benefits are so broad-brushed as to cover everything from a visit for E.D. to appointments with GPs who have no business at all prescribing psychotropics to people who are “nervous”, but do anyway. But let it be administered by authorities more proximate to the recipients; people who actually look at where the money is being spent, to whom and for what? No, can’t do that.

And we now have high unemployment, particularly among the young; the very people who ought to be involved in family formation. And yet, this government does everything in its power to discourage employment. And, of course, it funds contraception and abortion as the population ages. No critique there.

And $4.00/gallon gas to be paid by people who have to drive to work? No, let it be $10/gallon to please the “global warming” crowd.

And they’re in a high dudgeon over Boehner, calling him a bad Catholic and all for proposing some meager semblance of fiscal responsibility and decentralization? Have they never read the Social Encyclicals or, having read them, ignored them?

I really do wish people like these profs, who live on taxes paid by others (yes, even in Catholic universities) and the hard-earned incomes of people who actually work and who batten on the borrowings of young people who will have a terrible time paying those debts, would be required to live out in the world the rest of us live in for awhile. I have a feeling they wouldn’t stand a chance on the street.
 
Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State.
Could this arguably be a better way at approaching the abortion problem? If we just let govt allow people to exercise their freedom (after all how is there supposed to be the opportunity for sacrifice and spiritual growth if the govt. forecloses a choice from you, where is spiritual growth from that?) So why don’t we decentralize the Right to Life Movement and focus more on charity and community outreach, this would maximize the amount of possible good each Catholic would be able of doing. I am sure that once we charge ourselves with regulating the morals within our own households rather than relying on big brother govt. to tell us what to do, the abortion problem will disappear over night. Catholics will then expand their good works to not only their house but also to the community. Imagine! Catholics rushing to help support the children of the poor, with charitable donations, but why stop there the Church can encourage Catholics to go out and adopt an unwed mother, provide her with financial support and education, and in the most dire situations it is no hard to imagine Catholics taking in crack babies, the unwanted, high expense children, children with behavioral problems who suffer from a history of abuse, oh what a beautiful world. I know that even if we change the hearts and minds inside our communities to respect life through love and support, that this will just be a hollow victory since abortion will still be on the is in the books and even though the people in our communities are experiencing the love of Christ manifested through the his Church, this is not what God wants. So there is still a chance that abortions will happen but hey abortions happened when the procedure was illegal. But at least we wont have delegate our moral responsibility to the state!! :rolleyes:

Oh wait, no one wants to spend that kind of money, time, or commitment? I guess we better just wait it out and let the abortion epidemic continue until us Catholics find our moral center. Yeah it will cost us human lives, but just think of the loss we incur by delegating this responsibility to the state.
 
Catholic University Professors Blast Pro-Life Boehner on Commencement

Speaker John Boehner, the pro-life Republican who heads the House of Representatives, is slated to deliver the commencement address at Catholic University, but a group of professors there have blasted him in a new letter.

lifenews.com/2011/05/12/catholic-university-professors-blast-pro-life-boehner-on-commencement/
First, I’m a bit confused with the title of this original post. According the the Catholic Church Boehner is NOT pro-life. I applaud Boehner’s awesome awesome awesome voting record against abortion 👍 He truly should be commended with a great record in the fight against this horrible holocaust.

However, I cannot consider him to be pro-life based on his terrible voting on death penalty issues:
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995) -
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994) -
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)

Yikes, let’s not get too hasty when calling him pro-life because he isn’t.
 
The following are the true teachings of the Church. In some cases the death penalty does not carry the same weight as abortion and euthanasia.
Abortion and euthanasia are absolutes.

CCC - " 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
"

From Cardinal Ratzinger
-
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

" 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. "
 
Could this arguably be a better way at approaching the abortion problem?
Better than what?
If we just let govt allow people to exercise their freedom (after all how is there supposed to be the opportunity for sacrifice and spiritual growth if the govt. forecloses a choice from you, where is spiritual growth from that?)
Would you say the same about murder or child abuse? Should we just let government allow people to exercise their freedom?
So why don’t we decentralize the Right to Life Movement and focus more on charity and community outreach, this would maximize the amount of possible good each Catholic would be able of doing.
The Right to Life movement is, for the most part, community based. The only national component is the lobbying function.
I am sure that once we charge ourselves with regulating the morals within our own households rather than relying on big brother govt. to tell us what to do, the abortion problem will disappear over night.
Really? All of our laws regulate morals. Do we not need laws since we can just regulate morals in our own households?
Catholics will then expand their good works to not only their house but also to the community. Imagine! Catholics rushing to help support the children of the poor, with charitable donations, but why stop there the Church can encourage Catholics to go out and adopt an unwed mother, provide her with financial support and education, and in the most dire situations it is no hard to imagine Catholics taking in crack babies, the unwanted, high expense children, children with behavioral problems who suffer from a history of abuse, oh what a beautiful world.
All of this is already happening.
I know that even if we change the hearts and minds inside our communities to respect life through love and support, that this will just be a hollow victory since abortion will still be on the is in the books and even though the people in our communities are experiencing the love of Christ manifested through the his Church, this is not what God wants.
God does not want government endorsement of the killing of innocent children. I would rarely dare to speak for God, but of this I am certain.
So there is still a chance that abortions will happen but hey abortions happened when the procedure was illegal. But at least we wont have delegate our moral responsibility to the state!! :rolleyes:
Again, why is it such a bad thing to charge the state with being a moral enforcer with regard to abortion but we have no problem giving that responsibilty for other crimes?
Oh wait, no one wants to spend that kind of money, time, or commitment?
Considering the huge amount of time, money and committment already being spent, I can only assume sarcasm.
I guess we better just wait it out and let the abortion epidemic continue until us Catholics find our moral center. Yeah it will cost us human lives, but just think of the loss we incur by delegating this responsibility to the state
This makes no sense. We can wait for the whole world to adopt the same value for human life as we claim. Or we can push for expanded respect for life through charitable acts, legal restraint, education, etc. **at the same time **we are working and praying for more people to value all human life. Which costs more lives?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top