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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CNA_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seamus_L said:
Catholics who are pro-illegal immigration often turn a blind eye to the devastating effects it has on working class Americans in many parts of the county. Laborers of all sorts, contractors, tree service, landscapers, construction workers, carpenters, etc, who have been effectively priced out of the market by illegal aliens doing the job for less. And yet we seldom hear of there plight.
Click to expand...
I hear about it all the time from secular, conservative news sources. Maybe it isn’t often voiced by Catholics because we are not only called to care for those who are legal citizens of our own countries. Christ didn’t place geographical boundaries on whom we are to love – He simply spoke of the least. (He also didn’t say, “But only when it means you don’t increase the number of people vying for jobs.”)
 
I still say that it is a misconception that those who oppose abortion do not care for and work to help those in need. We can and should have a vigorous debate on the best policies and expenditures to solve the issues like poverty.

Every pro-Life advocate that I know also works in support of the poor, the homeless, the addicted. It is a strong man argument to say support for the one precludes support for the other … with time, talent, prayers and money - both tax dollars and private charitable donations - every single one. I do not know one who does not care.

It is also un true that people opposed to abortion offer no help or aid once a child is born … that is patently untrue …

I do not know of any person [liberal or conservative, republican or democrat] who is pro-Life and simultaneously uncaring about those less fortunate then they are … I do know people - sadly - [liberal or conservative, republican or democrat] who are pro-Choice/Abortion while simultaneously say they are for the poor … 🤷 that is a conundrum

I think because the media - which supports the societal acceptance of killing babies in the womb [which is morally reprehensible at all times] had to manufacture a moral equivalence and thus they created the pro-Life boogie man that wages a war on women, wants to keep women oppressed - barefoot and pregnant and hates the poor - wanting to starve them … it just is not real …

We cannot legislate morality - want businesses to pay fair wages and offer good benefits - then raise moral people who recognize the dignity of the person - that is not governments job. Raise people who understand the ethic of work, who show up on time, ready to work.

Individuals own companies, work for companies and run for office … we as a country have lost our way - looking to someone else to blame for our inadequacies or to save us from ourselves … We no longer respect and honor families - families barely exist anymore.

This is what the war on poverty has reaped - Consider these statistics:

In 1965:
Among whites - 3.1 % of infants were born to single mothers.
Among African-Americans - 24 % of infants were born to single mothers.

In 1990 - 25 years after the War on Poverty:
Among whites - 18 % of infants were born to single mothers.
Among African-Americans - 64 % of infants were born to single mothers.

Estimates are that each year another one million additional children are born into families where there is no father.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
Within a market economy, there will always be winners and losers. The thing that Pope Francis and the bishops are arguing is that the losers aren’t just statistics; they are people.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree with that portrayal. People aren’t necessarily losers all their lives and rich people have been known to lose a few billion now and then. Look at 2008. Supposedly a few well-to-do became homeless. It’s a dynamic economy with a lot of moving parts. Whether you call it capitalism, socialism, or whatever, the money printers, the stock markets, the bond markets, the commodity markets, and balance sheets are at the center of the modus operandi et mundi. Compare the poorest person in the US today as opposed to the poorest one of say, 50 years ago. Wouldn’t you admit he’s better off today, thanks to advances in production, etc?
 
1newcatholic said:
It’s remarkable that there are people on here who are wondering why the bishop would even need to say such a thing.

Answer: Because the “pro-life” party in America is the same party that philosophically opposes social programs for the poor, usually with the objection that it will be difficult to pay for expansions in medical care, food subsidies, and other welfare benefits that would make life better for people living in poverty.

Someone said they don’t know anyone who is “pro-life” that ignores the poor. I know lots of people like that. Most of them are older, whiter, and living in relative comfort. They confuse protecting America’s pocket book with protecting human interests. They watch television stations that encourage them to oppose helping impoverished immigrants in irregular situations. They listen to radio personalities who blame poor communities for not being like wealthy communities. They read blogs that blame everyone who is not like them for all the problems in the world. They live in insular worlds where they are never challenged to contemplate what it means to be truly poor.

A true pro-life Catholic is no more a party-line Democrat than a party-line Republican. There are lots of single-issue voters that call themselves Catholic, people who have been convinced by the moral majority machine that there are critical issues on which there can be no compromise–unfortunately, that usually translates into siding with the devil who will tell you what you want to hear, against the devil that will be honest with you.

Peace.
Click to expand...
And there in lies the problem with the Catholic Democrat. A belief that we can fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for us .
 
estesbob said:
So we are to abdicate our personal responsibility to help poor needy to the government?
Click to expand...
Holy cow. The image I posted was a joke but are you really arguing that the choices identified within it are reasonable and in line with Christ’s teachings?
 
gracepoole said:
Holy cow. The image I posted was a joke but are you really arguing that the choices identified within it are reasonable and in line with Christ’s teachings?
Click to expand...
Appears to me that the image you posted abdicated any responsibility for helping and needy to the federal government and condemns anyone who disagrees with the effectiveness of the programs listed . Note what Archbishop Chaput said:

“Nothing is stronger than personal witness. If we live our faith as Christian families with generosity and joy, it will naturally attract others. If we don’t, no amount of beautiful words or harsh judgments will substitute for that witness. "

Not a word about government programs and whether a Catholic is obligated to support them .
 
estesbob said:
Appears to me that the image you posted abdicated any responsibility for helping and needy to the federal government and condemns anyone who disagrees with the effectiveness of the programs listed . Note what Archbishop Chaput said:

“Nothing is stronger than personal witness. If we live our faith as Christian families with generosity and joy, it will naturally attract others. If we don’t, no amount of beautiful words or harsh judgments will substitute for that witness. "

Not a word about government programs and whether a Catholic is obligated to support them .
Click to expand...
I see. So you advocate torturing prisoners because doing so means exercising personal responsibility?

I would really suggest rereading that image…
 
gracepoole said:
I see. So you advocate torturing prisoners because doing so means exercising personal responsibility?

I would really suggest rereading that image…
Click to expand...
Only in the fevered mind of the modern American left does anyone believe the government supports torture
 
estesbob said:
Only in the fevered mind of the modern American left does anyone believe the government supports torture
Click to expand...
Yes, well, I suppose it depends to which version of the US government one is referring…
 
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.
 
YADA said:
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 :confused:

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
Click to expand...
👍 Conservatives are consistently more charitable by liberals. Somehow forcing giving money at the point of a gun to useless programs became the leftist’s idea of Charity.
 
estesbob said:
And there in lies the problem with the Catholic Democrat. A belief that we can fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for us .
Click to expand...
The most powerful and concise sentence I’ve read that gets to the core of the issue.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t think I agree with that portrayal. People aren’t necessarily losers all their lives and rich people have been known to lose a few billion now and then. Look at 2008. Supposedly a few well-to-do became homeless. It’s a dynamic economy with a lot of moving parts. Whether you call it capitalism, socialism, or whatever, the money printers, the stock markets, the bond markets, the commodity markets, and balance sheets are at the center of the modus operandi et mundi. Compare the poorest person in the US today as opposed to the poorest one of say, 50 years ago. Wouldn’t you admit he’s better off today, thanks to advances in production, etc?
Click to expand...
Structural it is near impossible for people to get out of poverty. For one thing, the education system in the inner city is godawful. For another thing, the Randian march of progress has left victims in its midst. That is why a social safety net is needed.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
Structural it is near impossible for people to get out of poverty. For one thing, the education system in the inner city is godawful. For another thing, the Randian march of progress has left victims in its midst. That is why a social safety net is needed.
Click to expand...
Well, if $18 trillion worth of debt doesn’t cut it, I don’t know what else can. I will admit though there is something wrong when someone can game the system to his own benefit at the expense of someone poorer than he. People like Trump, who borrow money to the hilt, then declare bankruptcy, hurt a heck of a lot of people, who end up not getting paid among other things. Governments do the same thing.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
Structural it is near impossible for people to get out of poverty. For one thing, the education system in the inner city is godawful. For another thing, the Randian march of progress has left victims in its midst. That is why a social safety net is needed.
Click to expand...
Very few people denied the need for a safety net. The question is how big should the net be and how should poverty programs be implemented . But regardless of the size of government assistance it has no bearing whatsoever on our personal responsibility care for the poor and needy .
 
estesbob said:
Very few people denied the need for a safety net. The question is how big should the net be and how should poverty programs be implemented . But regardless of the size of government assistance it has no bearing whatsoever on our personal responsibility care for the poor and needy .
Click to expand...
You must be a Koch Brothers funded, Randian, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News watcher. 😛 😃

Seriously, only the strictest of Libertarians believe in no safety net. I think we should be more like Europe. And, what I mean by that is that our federal government should manage the same things the EU does and leave the rest to the individual states to determine how to handle social welfare issues.
 
estesbob said:
But regardless of the size of government assistance it has no bearing whatsoever on our personal responsibility care for the poor and needy .
Click to expand...
This is something we agree on.

I am struggling to understand why my desire for the government to help its citizens by funding programs is the same thing as abdicating my personal responsibility to feed the poor.

I can help as many people as I can, but the federal government can help exponentially more. I know dirt-poor families, disabled families, families torn apart by sin and violence–and the state helped them, and the church helped them.

We can have both a charitable state, and also be charitable people. It’s not a choice between one or the other, as you have otherwise suggested. You should be more careful with the way in which you characterize (demonize) liberals. Maybe turn off the radio and television and go read a book that wasn’t advertised on Fox News.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top