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

[1newcatholic]

Just want to make sure everyone reads this.

The government isn’t capable of being charitable.

My grandmother married a WWII veteran who was never treated for what in hindsight was probably PTSD. His job in the Navy was to go in and clean up the dead bodies from ships damaged in battles. He had a lot of bad memories and night terrors. He drank very heavily, and often beat his wife and children in episodes of drunken rage. He was never really able to hold down a job, and grandpa died young, leaving my grandmother and her family of thirteen children to fend for themselves in rural Oregon.

Guess which federal government gave my grandmother food stamps instead of letting them starve?

Guess who paid for my mother’s college education with a federally-funded grant?

It wasn’t the Catholic church that rescued my mother from poverty–it was the federal government.

You can hiss at the federal government all you like, but government welfare actually helps orphans and widows. I know several families that have benefited directly from government assistance in times of crisis. It’s not a hypothetical. It’s not even political. It’s simply human.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Racist.

Haa!

 

[ProVobis]

It wasn’t the Catholic church that rescued my mother from poverty–it was the federal government.

The Catholic Church doesn’t print money or draft people in times of war.

 

[1newcatholic]

The Catholic Church doesn’t print money or draft people in times of war.

And your position is that the Catholic Church has never printed money or built armies for its wars?

Obvious fallacies aside, the premise that the government cannot be charitable is a great slogan for anti-government types who inform their faith through their politics, but in reality there are extensive programs for the elderly, for the sick, for the poor, for the disabled, for veterans, for the underprivileged, which are funded by the ‘heartless’ federal government.

 

[RACJ]

These comments are often twisted as an okay to vote for pro abortion democrats because they are the “party of the poor”

That’s exactly right. Liberals try mightily to pretend that there is a moral equivalence between killing babies and voting against redundant programs which redistribute wealth by robbing from future generations. It gives comfortable rationalization to those looking for a reason to vote for pols who promote killing the innocent. I’ll never understand how this works, but it does. Rob :doh2:

 

[1newcatholic]

That’s exactly right. Liberals try mightily to pretend that there is a moral equivalence between killing babies and voting against redundant programs which redistribute wealth by robbing from future generations. It gives comfortable rationalization to those looking for a reason to vote for pols who promote killing the innocent. I’ll never understand how this works, but it does. Rob :doh2:

Do you imagine that the Republican party will roll back a bunch of abortion laws once it comes into power?

 

[RACJ]

And your position is that the Catholic Church has never printed money or built armies for its wars?
Obvious fallacies aside, the premise that the government cannot be charitable is a great slogan for anti-government types who inform their faith through their politics, but in reality there are extensive programs for the elderly, for the sick, for the poor, for the disabled, for veterans, for the underprivileged, which are funded by the ‘heartless’ federal government.

Just how much are the bureaucrats being paid for administering these programs? Twice as much as one could earn in the private sector, that’s for certain. These “compassionate” programs exist first and foremost to benefit the politicians and their patrons; don’t kid yourself.

 

[1newcatholic]

Just how much are the bureaucrats being paid for administering these programs? Twice as much as one could earn in the private sector, that’s for certain. These “compassionate” programs exist first and foremost to benefit the politicians and their patrons; don’t kid yourself.

You should go ahead and compare the salaries of people who work in government and people who work in the private sector. It should take you about thirty seconds with Google.

If you think that upper-tier government is more lucrative than private-sector jobs, you have quite a shock coming.

Edit: My desire to help you with your research is overwhelming.

 

[Poussin]

You should go ahead and compare the salaries of people who work in government and people who work in the private sector. It should take you about thirty seconds with Google.

If you think that upper-tier government is more lucrative than private-sector jobs, you have quite a shock coming.

Edit: My desire to help you with your research is overwhelming.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_federal_private_comp_cbo.jpg

The difference is the public sector does not produce anything, the private sector does. Redistribution only redistributes, it produces nothing, and even then, it distributes from productive to nonproductive sectors of the economy. The ‘administrative costs’ of the government are self created and not in proportion to the value of the actual services rendered. The top CEO of a US corporation is not being paid merely to take others money from them and give it to someone else, they have to actually produce something and at the very least add value to the transaction. Public sector employees do very little in adding actual value to the GNP in comparison.

Now, that does not mean there is no place for a safety net, but it is not charity. For one, charity assumes free will, not stealing from one to giver another. Second, the ones doing the giving or doing just as much taking in the process. Essentially, ‘government charity’ is a polite way of saying buying votes.

As for the Catholic Church not coming to the widows or orphans aid when the government does. How about allow those that give to the Church stop having to give to the government and see how much more the Church can do.

 

[Jeanne_S]

The difference is the public sector does not produce anything, the private sector does. Redistribution only redistributes, it produces nothing, and even then, it distributes from productive to nonproductive sectors of the economy. The ‘administrative costs’ of the government are self created and not in proportion to the value of the actual services rendered. The top CEO of a US corporation is not being paid merely to take others money from them and give it to someone else, they have to actually produce something and at the very least add value to the transaction. Public sector employees do very little in adding actual value to the GNP in comparison.

Now, that does not mean there is no place for a safety net, but it is not charity. For one, charity assumes free will, not stealing from one to giver another. Second, the ones doing the giving or doing just as much taking in the process. Essentially, ‘government charity’ is a polite way of saying buying votes.

As for the Catholic Church not coming to the widows or orphans aid when the government does. How about allow those that give to the Church stop having to give to the government and see how much more the Church can do.

:

 

[pnewton]

Just want to make sure everyone reads this.

The government …

Do you think larger print will make it more true, or persuasive. I do not know what you mean by this statement, as it is true in some ways and not true in others. It may make a good bumper stick, but adds little to a discussion. Catholic social doctrine has consistently allowed for the role of government as the instrument of charity, just not the only instrument of charity.

 

[josemandez]

I’ve read this whole thread with some fascination, as I enjoy rhetoric. What I have seen is a rather polarized discussion, consisting mainly of gracepoole and 1newcatholic vs. everybody else. I thought I’d make a few points, for what its worth:

1. Perhaps those on the right should admit that there is some utility to some forms of government aid. While the ideal would be that the church, the community, one’s family, friends, and neighbors would be the ones to provide help in time of need, the fact is that this doesn’t always happen. Some people live in communities where they have no family or neighbors that can help them. Sometimes the family and neighbors are just as poor as they are. Sometimes those who could help in the surrounding community just don’t give a darn. In cases such as these, government aid might be of great help. This doesn’t necessarily have to be a complete “social safety net,” but some kind of government aid.
2. To those progressive/left-leaning posters: I don’t necessarily see that most of the right-wing posters are against ALL government aid (maybe they are, each one can speak for himself/herself); they are simply arguing that the aid would be best administered through private means. Moreover, their other main point seems to be that Christ will judge us based on how we help the poor with our own time/resources, not on how we vote in favor of government social programs. I don’t think this is simply a case of conservatives not wanting to pay taxes only because of stinginess; many of these people are quite willing to give of their time/money/resources to help the poor. Where they differ with the liberals/progressives is on the best means of doing so.

This discussion is very polarized and typical of much American rhetoric on poverty/social programs, which makes me wonder if it won’t be the people in the middle who will solve this mess. In principle, I’m very much in favor of private charity and giving to help the poor, but the sad fact is that there are some communities in which there just aren’t enough local resources to help (or those with the resources simply choose not to help). I volunteer at an inner-city youth center preschool and I see the results of poverty on a daily basis. Very simple things can become an impediment for these people. For example, the father of two of my preschool students had to scrounge up enough money to get a pair of black pants so that he could get a job at Rally’s. Most of us wouldn’t even think twice about having to wear a pair of black pants. I have several in my wardrobe. But this man almost couldn’t start a job because of something as simple as a pair of black pants. People like this really do need help from somewhere, and if private individuals don’t step in, they are going to be in big trouble in the absence of any government programs. The main predicament (for me, and probably for many on this forum) is that I can’t, in clear conscience, vote for many of the candidates in favor of government social programs because many/most of them are pro-choice.

I would also add that government aid sometimes has unintended deleterious consequences that actually harm the stability of families. For example, I have two cousins this year who have delayed getting married to their boyfriend/girlfriend because to do so would mean that government benefits for medical care for the pregnancy would be cut off (because the combined incomes would put them over the income threshold). Basically, the government is rewarding unmarried/single parenthood with financial benefits. I have some serious moral problems with that, though I don’t know what the best solution is to fix the problem. Maybe they need to give the aid to married couples, too, and make the income thresholds higher so they will qualify. Children need, and deserve, to be born into a stable family with their parents married (obviously, there are extreme situations that would prevent this from happening–an abusive husband, for example, might necessitate the woman splitting up the family. However, such exceptions don’t negate the ideal).

 

[ProVobis]

And your position is that the Catholic Church has never printed money or built armies for its wars?

To be fair, it’s true that the Vatican has its own defense department. And I couldn’t tell you over the 2000 years whether they have counterfeited anything but to the point of the Federal Reserve? No one can compete with that.

 

[YADA]

abcnews.go.com/Business/generous-states-charities-lean-republican/story?id=17030246

religionpoliticsandlaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/charitable-donations-in-conservatives.html

nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

outsidethebeltway.com/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/

It is just wrong to say that conservatives do not care for the poor - that is a media sound bite that has no basis in reality …

We do not want to starve people - women, children, minority, disabled …

I want the media to stop recording Cuts to government programs when in reality it is not a Cut … In truth - It is not a Cut to a program when one party wants to increase spending by $65 billion over 10 years and the other party only wants to increase the spending by $56 Billion over that 10 year period of time … A true Cut occurs when the funding level of one year is less in a subsequent years -

Social Programs paid for with tax dollars are not charity - never were - never will be …

If we all - Families [first], Churches and other Charitable organizations stepped up our kindness and concern for those less fortunate - there would be less need for government social programs - and social programs should be carried out at the local level - closest to the people in need.

 

[ARSpade]

My grandmother married a WWII veteran who was never treated for what in hindsight was probably PTSD. His job in the Navy was to go in and clean up the dead bodies from ships damaged in battles. He had a lot of bad memories and night terrors. He drank very heavily, and often beat his wife and children in episodes of drunken rage. He was never really able to hold down a job, and grandpa died young, leaving my grandmother and her family of thirteen children to fend for themselves in rural Oregon.

Guess which federal government gave my grandmother food stamps instead of letting them starve?

Guess who paid for my mother’s college education with a federally-funded grant?

It wasn’t the Catholic church that rescued my mother from poverty–it was the federal government.

You can hiss at the federal government all you like, but government welfare actually helps orphans and widows. I know several families that have benefited directly from government assistance in times of crisis. It’s not a hypothetical. It’s not even political. It’s simply human.

The federal government didn’t give them that.

Their fellow citizens were forced to do it. The federal government merely facilitated the transfer.

If I put a gun to your head, took your wallet, and then give that money to a hungry homeless man was that okay simply because the end result helped somebody?

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

I consider myself fairly traditional and conservative but what I am reading comes across as BS libertarianism.

If you think you can say that a Catholic can be a libertarian consider reading this:

religionnews.com/2014/06/03/catholic-libertarian-popes-top-adviser-says-theyre-incompatible/

Comparing taxation (how government gets its revenue) to holding a gun to a person’s head is ridiculous.

 

[SWolf]

I consider myself fairly traditional and conservative but what I am reading comes across as BS libertarianism.

If you think you can say that a Catholic can be a libertarian consider reading this:

religionnews.com/2014/06/03/catholic-libertarian-popes-top-adviser-says-theyre-incompatible/

Comparing taxation (how government gets its revenue) to holding a gun to a person’s head is ridiculous.

I can not believe I wasted my time reading that.

Nobody, I mean nobody that I know in Libertarian circles ascribe to Trickle Down Economics. Libertarians believe not only is government mandated redistribution not helpful in alleviating poverty, it’s actually destructive.

Also, Paul Ryan is far, far, from an economic libertarian.

You can be an economic libertarian and be in good standing with the Church.

You will be in the good company of Robert Sirico, Judge Nap, Tom Woods, and many others.

 

[SWolf]

Apparently, it’s possible.
I see pro-lifers forget the cries of the poor.

.

The prolife activists I know are by far the most charitable with their money,

 

[estesbob]

Apparently, it’s possible.
I see pro-lifers forget the cries of the poor.

.

I’ve been involved in the pro-life ministry for over 40 years and have never seen what you’re claiming, never . The crisis pregnancy center I counseled at offered not only counseling for women in crisis pregnancies but parenting classes, rent assistance, clothing assistance, food vouchers, and even a junior college scholarship for women who chose to parent their child rather than abort. The assertion that pro-life adhernents don’t care about the child once they are born is utter nonsense

 

[estesbob]

The prolife activists I know are by far the most charitable with their money,

For the current crop of “progressives” one’s commitment to the poor is measured solely in one’s commitment to bigger government