Chaput: 'It isn't possible to be pro-life and simultaneously forget the cries of the poor' [CNA]

[gracepoole]

I**George W. Bush **
Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded.
– November 2010, in his memoir, Decision Points.
President Bush also repeated the line in interviews that fall with the Times of London and Fox News.
**Dick Cheney, former vice president **
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists.
– May 21, 2009: Dick Cheney, in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.
In 2009, Cheney made the same claim in another speech and in interviews with the Washington Times, CNN and CBS. In 2011, he mentioned it again in a speech at AEI.
**Donald Rumsfeld, former defense secretary **
[Michael Hayden] looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded… no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military. In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA, away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo.
– May 3, 2011, in an interview with Fox News.
Rumsfeld repeated the line that year in interviews with CNN, CBS, the Associated Press, Charlie Rose and in a speech in February 2012.
**Michael Hayden, former CIA director **
Let me make it very clear and to state so officially in front of this committee that waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it was used on Abu Zubaydah, and it was used on Nashiri. The CIA has not used waterboarding for almost five years. We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time.
–Feb. 5, 2008, in testimony to a Senate committee

---

If you have anything to refute this please post it.

I wonder why there is so much outrage from the left over three people water boarded-all of whom are still alive and barely a wimper about the hundreds killed by drone strikes personally approved by the president-some of who were US citizens.

salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/

 

[estesbob]

salon.com/2009/06/30/accountability_7/

This link offer no evidence that more than 3 terrorists were water boarded. None.

Again if you have evidence that more than three terrorists were water boarded pease post it

 

[gracepoole]

This link offer no evidence that more than 3 terrorists were water boarded. None.

Again if you have evidence that more than three terrorists were water boarded p[ease post it

You seem to labor under the misconception that torture = water boarding and ONLY water boarding, which is incorrect. While water boarding is a form of torture, it is not the only method. The link I provided summarizes many other examples of torture.
[/quote]

 

[estesbob]

You seem to labor under the misconception that torture = water boarding and ONLY water boarding, which is incorrect. While water boarding is a form of torture, it is not the only method. The link I provided summarizes many other examples of torture.

Actually it doesn’t -it contains unsubstantiated allegations that 3 other detainees were tortured. Again we have EVIDENCE of a grand total of three people water boarded under the Bush Administration. We have NO evidence of other US Govt sanctioned torture.

 

[gracepoole]

Actually it doesn’t -it contains unsubstantiated allegations that 3 other detainees were tortured. Again we have EVIDENCE of a grand total of three people water boarded under the Bush Administration. We have NO evidence of other US Govt sanctioned torture.

Ya know, that article provides links to sources, like Human Rights Watch (you can actually investigate what HRW has produced on this subject on your own). Additionally, the article I provided offers autopsy reports that reveal methods of torture other than water boarding were used.

I’m not sure why you find this so difficult to swallow when non-partisan agencies have identified serious abuses. But clearly, torture isn’t the main focus of this thread and we’ve significantly derailed it now.

 

[1newcatholic]

Exactly. For the reference of others:

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

1. The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. This principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something original to offer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities;** bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere**; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.

What we have in America (with free markets and all) is so far removed from the subsidiary state that the comparison you’re making seems senseless. Are you suggesting that we should suspend our federally-funded social security programs, including food stamps, medicare, and Social Security? What you have cited calls for a “balance between the public and private spheres.” That’s precisely what we have in America–private and public programs. Take Obamacare as an example: we have public exchanges where people can purchase subsidized programs, but also private markets where they can buy what they want if they can afford it. It’s not an either-or; it’s both. Which is what I think I’ve been trying to say for the last several posts.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

**What we have in America (with free markets and all) is so far removed from the subsidiary state **that the comparison you’re making seems senseless. Are you suggesting that we should suspend our federally-funded social security programs, including food stamps, medicare, and Social Security? What you have cited calls for a “balance between the public and private spheres.” That’s precisely what we have in America–private and public programs. Take Obamacare as an example: we have public exchanges where people can purchase subsidized programs, but also private markets where they can buy what they want if they can afford it. It’s not an either-or; it’s both. Which is what I think I’ve been trying to say for the last several posts.

Well, we agree on one thing. What we have in the US today is far removed from the subsidiarity the Church calls for.

 

[1newcatholic]

Well, we agree on one thing. What we have in the US today is far removed from the subsidiarity the Church calls for.

So what alternative solution do you propose?

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

So what alternative solution do you propose?

Moving programs, and funding, to the states and municipalities, where they belong. Returning our federal government to its proper role.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Moving programs, and funding, to the states and municipalities, where they belong. Returning our federal government to its proper role.

For a more complete answer, since you must have missed my earlier post:

Conversations on this topic always devolve into a no government or federal government false dichotomy. People on the Left try to paint conservatives as anti-poor heretics. The Right paint liberals as non-charitable big government folks who refuse to help the poor directly.

Clearly, the Church teaches there is a proper role for the State and simultaneously warns against the growth of a bureaucratic Welfare State. There is a favoritism for applying solidarity at lower levels, both politically and privately, and through social organizations. This is important from a human dignity standpoint.

The application of that teaching in the United States is pretty easy to figure out, if you read the Constitution. At the state level, we should vote in the state leadership and/or propositions that will serve the needs of our state. Obviously, if it is better handled municipally, then it should be done at an even lower level. Regardless of level, the state, county and city should work in concert with social organizations within the community.

Ah, but the Catholics who prefer to have everything centralized at the federal level protest - what if the state isn’t doing x? For x, you can substitute their personal, preferred method of solving a social ill, because they know what’s best for people in other states.

I would argue that we need to trust each other. And, if you think that a given state you don’t live in has a problem that you would like to help with, get involved with a charity that will help. Go in and help directly, if you feel called to do so.

 

[1newcatholic]

For a more complete answer, since you must have missed my earlier post:

Conversations on this topic always devolve into a no government or federal government false dichotomy. People on the Left try to paint conservatives as anti-poor heretics. The Right paint liberals as non-charitable big government folks who refuse to help the poor directly.

Clearly, the Church teaches there is a proper role for the State and simultaneously warns against the growth of a bureaucratic Welfare State. There is a favoritism for applying solidarity at lower levels, both politically and privately, and through social organizations. This is important from a human dignity standpoint.

The application of that teaching in the United States is pretty easy to figure out, if you read the Constitution. At the state level, we should vote in the state leadership and/or propositions that will serve the needs of our state. Obviously, if it is better handled municipally, then it should be done at an even lower level. Regardless of level, the state, county and city should work in concert with social organizations within the community.

Ah, but the Catholics who prefer to have everything centralized at the federal level protest - what if the state isn’t doing x? For x, you can substitute their personal, preferred method of solving a social ill, because they know what’s best for people in other states.

I would argue that we need to trust each other. And, if you think that a given state you don’t live in has a problem that you would like to help with, get involved with a charity that will help. Go in and help directly, if you feel called to do so.

Everything before the last two paragraphs seems somewhat reasonable.

But refusing to help people who are otherwise neglected by their states, just because they live a certain distance from my own state? You do understand that slavery was framed as a state’s right, correct? Do you propose that the North should’ve shrugged and said, “Yeah, we can’t help the slaves in the South because it’s none of our business. We should just trust them to do the right thing.”?

IDEALLY, states should always do the right thing. In reality, we have a Federal Government to ensure a minimum quality of statehood. I have no objection to state programs; why do you have a fundamental objection to federal programs that intervene when the state fails?

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Everything before the last two paragraphs seems somewhat reasonable.

**But refusing to help people who are otherwise neglected by their states, just because they live a certain distance from my own state? **You do understand that slavery was framed as a state’s right, correct? Do you propose that the North should’ve shrugged and said, “Yeah, we can’t help the slaves in the South because it’s none of our business.”

IDEALLY, states should always do the right thing. In reality, we have a Federal Government to ensure a minimum quality of statehood. I have no objection to state programs; why do you have a fundamental objection to federal programs that intervene when the state fails?

Non sequitur. Stopping something like Slavery is not the same as social welfare. You may note that stopping Abortion is equivalent to stopping Slavery, and I am all for changing the Constitution to end Abortion. Meanwhile, your preferred party…

Regarding “refusing to help people who are otherwise neglected by their states,” I have two points.

1. I said no such thing. Please read my last paragraph again. You are free to help with charities or go to that state and do good works.
2. The citizens of that state made the determination of how they want to run their state. Why do you think you know better than they do? The “state” in our country consists of the people. We are in a democratic republic.

 

[1newcatholic]

Non sequitur. Stopping something like Slavery is not the same as social welfare.

I think the slaves would fundamentally disagree.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

I think the slaves would fundamentally disagree.

Really? How so? I made a clear distinction that slavery, as a great evil, should have been ended. Why would slaves fundamentally disagree with that? How do you think souls of the unborn feel about your decision to support their deaths by supporting the party that wants to their killing legal?

Edit: Oh, and by the way, my party is the one that ended slavery. Your party fought to keep it legal…I guess they are consistent.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I think the Bishop was speaking to personal responsibility not to government solutions but … it became a bad pro-Life Republicans Vs Good for the Poor pro-Abortion Democrats discussion

I am pro- Life - and you don’t know the first thing about me … I will tell you that I will not vote for a democrat [again] - even one who claims to be pro-Life [fool me once shame on you - fool me twice shame on me ] …

This I know from reading the party platforms - and from looking at voting records … the Democratic platform is militantly pro-death - pro-Abortion - and all pro-Life candidates [yes - they are a rare breed] with a [D] after their name with national aspirations quickly changes their position to match the party platform.

I also know from almost 50 years of observations … The War on Poverty sounded good and was supposed to help the poor …However, it is a failed program for both poor minorities and poor whites - read what Tip O’Neal said about what it had done to the African American community - the dirty secret is it has done the to the white community as well. Abortion is not rare nor safe, in spite of easy cheap birth control, sex education, promiscuity is higher then every - and has become acceptable, even encouraged by parents. Marriage is not something people desire or important [except same sex marriage - that is important]. Children born out of wedlock is at all time highs - as are single parent households. Men no longer have to take responsibility for the offspring they father and women no longer expect them too. Uncle Sam has taken that role.

We live with poverty programs in place that spend and waste tax dollars while encouraging and enabling a lack of responsibility that create the results in the exact condition we say we are trying to alleviate.

I know your heart is in the right place. You are well intentioned to want to assist the poor - but blindly increasing social program spending does not appear to be the solution.

I support programs that actually help people move from the streets into housing, I have volunteered with medical missions and other humanitarian trips to foreign counties, donate and volunteer at food banks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters … I contribute both time and money … I also support homes for unwed mothers ands provide financial and material aid to crisis pregnancy shelters. I also have contributed to a home that provides end of life care to those who have no where and no one to care for them … I am a registered republican because the party platform does reflect Catholic principals …

I hear “Stop the Hate” but then I only hear hate and mis-information directed at me …

Good people can discuss the mechanisms and cost to provide food to those without … you can say that a single parent with two kids needs $2000 in food stamps and I could say we have only enough tax dollars to provide $1000 … we can both be correct - and we can work at the solution …

So let me makes this abundantly clear … The deliberate killing babies in the womb is always and everywhere immoral … there is no middle ground, there is no compromise and there are no rights that matter if first you do not have the right to life. No life - no rights

It is a fact that people need assistance and that government coffers - like my personal bank account have limits to available funds … It is a fact that governments - like me - have to prioritize expenditures …

It is not possible to be pro-Life and support pro-Abortion policies and the people who support that agenda - no matter how vehemently they talk about helping the poor.

And by the way - though unscientific just my observations from working in the trenches - my personal experience with out reach to the poor - the soup kitchens, shelters, medical missions, etc … Financial support - 70% republican - 30% democratic Face to Face work support - almost 50-50 - slightly more republican … Pro-life [end of life and babies] Financial support about 80% republican - 20% democratic - Face to Face support 95% republican and about 5%democrat …

Though the tables are flipped if the baby being saved is a whale, a bald eagle or condor egg go figure … destroy a condor egg and go to jail, face fines … destroy a baby … run for Speaker of the House

Thank you!

 

[1newcatholic]

Really? How so? I made a clear distinction that slavery, as a great evil, should have been ended. Why would slaves fundamentally disagree with that? How do you think souls of the unborn feel about your decision to support their deaths by supporting the party that wants to their killing legal?

Only someone who does not understand slavery would suggest that ending slavery has no analogue to promoting social welfare.

I’ll see your attempt to change the subject (again) and raise you a direct answer: I don’t support abortion.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Only someone who does not understand slavery would suggest that ending slavery has no analogue to promoting social welfare.

I’ll see your attempt to change the subject (again) and raise you a direct answer: I don’t support abortion.

Meh. You vote for people who support abortion. In the early 1800s that would be like saying “I don’t support slavery,” while voting for people who support slavery. Oh wait…that’s what Democrats did…

Slavery and abortion are not equivalent to food stamps and medicare. To say such a thing shows a complete disregard for the basic right to life and liberty. This is exactly why I don’t see the point in debating you. God bless you. I hope you make the same journey I did in fully understanding Church teaching, but I’m done with you.

 

[1newcatholic]

Meh. You vote for people who support abortion. In the early 1800s that would be like saying “I don’t support slavery,” while voting for people who support slavery. Oh wait…that’s what Democrats did…

Slavery and abortion are not equivalent to food stamps and medicare. To say such a thing shows a complete disregard for the basic right to life and liberty. This is exactly why I don’t see the point in debating you. God bless you. I hope you make the same journey I did in fully understanding Church teaching, but I’m done with you.

Yeah I guess Chaput is totally wrong to place them on the same level. (or did you forget the title of the thread?)

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Yeah I guess Chaput is totally wrong to place them on the same level. (or did you forget the title of the thread?)

Please don’t insult my former Bishop. I know him personally, and you are distorting his statement. That is rude.

 

[1newcatholic]

Please don’t insult my former Bishop. I know him personally, and you are distorting his statement. That is rude.

Oh well if you know the bishop personally why don’t you call him up and ask him if it’s possible to be pro-life and simultaneously forget the cries of the poor? Maybe you can explain to him that they live in a different area of the country.