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

[SuperLuigi]

Just admit that you don’t want to help the poor through the federal government because it will cost you money. Your right to your money is more important than your obligations to the poor.

First of all, the word “you” should not appear in the News Forums unless someone is being directly quoted.

Secondly, the prior comment is a false choice argument frequently made by leftists to justify big government.

Giving your money to the government beyond what it needs to function is saying the government is better at spending someone else’s money than he or she is.

 

[gracepoole]

Salon.com?

I suspect that may be why the prior comment included only a link and no substance.

Disappointing to say the least.

Yes, best to simply pass judgement without the pesky step of actually reading (which would, you know, equal substance).

 

[estesbob]

Yes, best to simply pass judgement without the pesky step of actually reading (which would, you know, equal substance).

Or you could, like I did, read the linked story and see it was full of unsubstantiated allegations of three other people supposedly tortured to death by the US.

 

[gracepoole]

Or you could, like I did, read the linked story and see it was full of unsubstantiated allegations of three other people supposedly tortured to death by the US.

I can’t account for poor reading comprehension, the willful choice not to investigate what one doesn’t want to learn about, or the seemingly purposeless choice to disregard evidence as unsubstantiated when numerous bipartisan organizations have found it credible. You’re on your own in that case.

 

[1newcatholic]

Now,thanks to Obama and his(not)ACA,many !if not all if the Catholic institutions are being forced to close their doors,because of the contraception mandate.

Can you provide me with a list of the many Catholic institutions that have been forced to close their doors by the ACA?

 

[1newcatholic]

Jesus did not ever say that we were going to hell if we did not eliminate poverty, only that we need to do what we can to assist. This is a personal obligation, as it relies on our good intent. Simply taking money from others that may or may not have that intent is not in the spirit of the directive. The means do not justify the ends, especially since, in this case, the ends is not to eliminate poverty but spiritual growth.

Does that mean their is absolutely no societal obligation, no, not saying that, but it should not be couched in terms of ultimate damnation because we maintain a budget.

I don’t recall arguing that we go to hell if we don’t eliminate poverty. I think Bishop Chaput said we will go to hell if we forget the poor, but as you can tell, those aren’t the same things.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” That means if Caesar taxes you, you give it to him.

No one likes paying taxes, but it’s strange to see Christians throwing tantrums about taxes on the grounds that some of it will be spent in ways they disagree with. It’s even stranger when they’re throwing tantrums even though some of the money will be spent on programs for the elderly (like Social Security, the LARGEST WELFARE PROGRAM IN THE WORLD) or Medicare (for sick people who need help paying for medicine) or several other programs that many Catholic Answers users directly benefit from.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t recall arguing that we go to hell if we don’t eliminate poverty. I think Bishop Chaput said we will go to hell if we forget the poor, but as you can tell, those aren’t the same things.

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” That means if Caesar taxes you, you give it to him.

No one likes paying taxes, but it’s strange to see Christians throwing tantrums about taxes on the grounds that some of it will be spent in ways they disagree with. It’s even stranger when they’re throwing tantrums even though some of the money will be spent on programs for the elderly (like Social Security, the LARGEST WELFARE PROGRAM IN THE WORLD) or Medicare (for sick people who need help paying for medicine) or several other programs that many Catholic Answers users directly benefit from.

Again you set up a false choice- we don’t have to support all government property programs in order to hear the cries of the poor . I personally believe that everybody in this country should have adequate food, medical care and housing . How that is provided, however, is a matter of legitimate debate and a matter that the church has no binding teaching on.

What we must always keep in mind, and what the good archbishop was reminding us of, is that we have a personal responsibility to help the poor and needy -a responsibility we cannot abdicate to the government no matter how much they are doing .

 

[Jeanne_S]

Can you provide me with a list of the many Catholic institutions that have been forced to close their doors by the ACA?

Catholic Charities in Mass.had to close it’s doors because of the contraception clause,to name one.Right here in Denver The Little Sisters of the Poor,who house and minister to indigent elderly have been to court more than a few times,because Obama seems intent on forcing them to pay for Sandra Flukes contraception and anyone else whining that they can’t afford to purchase their own ABC. This is just the beginning of the battle.

 

[ARSpade]

///\ It’s not ACA, but Cardinal Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington shut down the Church’s adoption program over DC laws regarding same sex couple adoption. The State is not and has never been the Church’s friend. You can see with Anglicanism and the other European state church’s what happens when a Church gets too chummy with the local governments or is part of them.

No one likes paying taxes, but it’s strange to see Christians throwing tantrums about taxes on the grounds that some of it will be spent in ways they disagree with. .

It’s more because you and others seem to strangely associate taxes with charity, simply because it achieves the ends you want.

Maybe this will help: m.nationalreview.com/article/393999/want-limit-use-police-force-limit-state-charles-c-w-cooke It relates to the killing of that man by the NYPD, but also relates to taxes and everything else the state does.

As Cooke says, “Ultimately, “the State” is a synonym for “organized violence.””

So, to go off what Brat is quoted in the article: Is collecting tax money for charitable purposes you like worth throwing a man in jail or shooting him in the face? Or, if you were collecting for your Bishop’s Annual Appeal, would you shove a gun in the face of somebody who didn’t donate?

Taxes are collected at gunpoint. They can never be equated with charity or sacrifice regardless of what good use some of that funding will go to. Helping the poor doesn’t justify all means to achieve that end. Because helping the poor isn’t the true end. The salvation of the soul is.

 

[Poussin]

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” That means if Caesar taxes you, you give it to him.

In this country we are Caesar, we are deciding what Caesar should and should have via our vote. Yes, I obey the law if that is the law, but when I need to advocate what the law should be, I argue my conscience.

Again, the ends do not justify the means. If I want to give charity, I give charity. The government telling me I have to do it, is not charity. Besides, the government has shown very little ability to achieve the ends regardless of the means. I will let my faith and self decide how my charitable dollars should be efficiently spent, not the one that buys votes with my tax dollars.

 

[estesbob]

Catholic Charities in Mass.had to close it’s doors because of the contraception clause,to name one.Right here in Denver The Little Sisters of the Poor,who house and minister to indigent elderly have been to court more than a few times,because Obama seems intent on forcing them to pay for Sandra Flukes contraception and anyone else whining that they can’t afford to purchase their own ABC. This is just the beginning of the battle.

And Catholic Charities in Illionois and Mass.were forced out of the adoption ministry because they wouldn’t place children with homosexuals The Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry that cared for exploited women because they wouldn’t sanction abortion.
But it’s OK to vote for the people who implemented this because they" care" for the poor?

 

[SWolf]

As Cooke says, “Ultimately, “the State” is a synonym for “organized violence.””

So, to go off what Brat is quoted in the article: Is collecting tax money for charitable purposes you like worth throwing a man in jail or shooting him in the face? Or, if you were collecting for your Bishop’s Annual Appeal, would you shove a gun in the face of somebody who didn’t donate?

Taxes are collected at gunpoint. They can never be equated with charity or sacrifice regardless of what good use some of that funding will go to. Helping the poor doesn’t justify all means to achieve that end. Because helping the poor isn’t the true end. The salvation of the soul is.

One person I read put it very well. If there’s a law either taxing certain people or making them behave in a way you find acceptable, add “to be enforced by gunpoint” to the end of the bill and see if it still seems like a good idea.

 

[Jeanne_S]

And Catholic Charities in Illionois and Mass.were forced out of the adoption ministry because they wouldn’t place children with homosexuals The Federal Govt shut down a Catholic ministry that cared for exploited women because they wouldn’t sanction abortion.
But it’s OK to vote for the people who implemented this because they" care" for the poor?

That’s right,I stand corrected,not the ACA in these cases,but forcing a lifestyle and immoral behavior on faith based ministries

 

[WilT]

…
…

And - yes, I check the Charities that I donate to - carefully. I do not want funds donated to
help a person get off the streets going to “overhead and fund raising” … I only donate to organizations that keep those cost at less then 7% … with 93% going toward the purpose intended … similarly, tax funds need to be used properly - without fraud and abuse…net

What Charity do you refer to that keeps the costs down?

 

[WilT]

error

 

[WilT]

Again you set up a false choice- we don’t have to support all government property programs in order to hear the cries of the poor . I personally believe that everybody in this country should have adequate food, medical care and housing . How that is provided, however, is a matter of legitimate debate and a matter that the church has no binding teaching on.

What we must always keep in mind, and what the good archbishop was reminding us of, is that we have a personal responsibility to help the poor and needy -a responsibility we cannot abdicate to the government no matter how much they are doing .

 

[YADA]

What Charity do you refer to that keeps the costs down?

There are many charities that keep their costs of fundraising - over head to a minimum … IMHO no person should donate to a charities that does not spend at least $0.85 for every $1.00 received to the purpose to which it is donated … I especially like charities that keep costs below 10% …Note a charities costs to operate can change every year - so do not forget to recheck them to make sure they haven’t moved from a focus on their mission to one that benefits someone’s pockets.

In Douglas County OR there is a charity that operates an orphanage in Mexico … they use 100% of every dollar donated for the purpose - none is used for fundraising or overhead

Charities have to file with the IRS - this information is available and people should check out charities before donating …

Charity Navigator and GuideStar are two websites to check out …

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, best to simply pass judgement without the pesky step of actually reading (which would, you know, equal substance).

Quoting three or four large paragraphs and responding with one link is ridiculous and does not live up to the discourse on this site.

Also, salon.com is a very biased source. Anyone who relies on the raw content of a site like that does so at his/her own risk.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I can’t account for poor reading comprehension, the willful choice not to investigate what one doesn’t want to learn about, or the seemingly purposeless choice to disregard evidence as unsubstantiated when numerous bipartisan organizations have found it credible. You’re on your own in that case.

Reading comprehension? The last card of a desperate progressive. :tsktsk:

Yup, this conservation is over.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=1newcatholic;12542644]If the Catholic Church was doing its job, I wouldn’t have to ask my government to step in and take care of the poor. I

Now that is really off the mark. For starters, why aren’t all of these feel-good hippie secularists who reject God and religion on the prowl to help the poor? I see Catholics all over the place hopping into the trenches to help the poor.

See, it’s fun to “help” others when one has other people’s money to throw around, even waste. But when it comes to what that person…HIT THE BRAKES!!!

Why should the Catholic Church be expected to carry the entire burden, especially when there’s all these young, secular liberals who say they want to help?

See my message on this for further commentary.

wouldn’t have to choose between candidates who don’t challenge abortion laws and candidates who throw the poor and the sick under the bus for the sake of making a profit.

That is a false choice argument. Catholic leadership has made it very clear *ad nausem *what those priorities are. Additionally, there is not much of a choice because big government policies in the long run only hurt the poor and make more of us poor.

That is the problem with feel-good, emotional nonsense. I deal with this a lot when international development projects are on the table. It’s ridiculous that a lot of people only care about feeling good instead of actual results.

Since I am a Christian and obligated to help the poor because of my faith, I will use every valid means at my disposal to make sure the job gets done.

Let me just say this:

Sitting around doing no volunteer work and donating zilch while making excuses as to why one should have all of these things and then shows up to sacrifice core Catholic values in the name of “helping the poor” every two-four years in Western elections is NOT what Jesus had in mind!

Furthermore, government doesn’t help the poor, really. In the USA the War on Poverty hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate.

Please read as much as you can, so you can better understand.

Why are Western liberals attacking people’s ability to read?

This kind of language is not appropriate for the news forums.