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.
1newcatholic said:
If America one day falls so low as to need help from the UN, I hope to God that people have the common sense to accept it. But that day is not today.
Click to expand...
Oh, there’s plenty of folks in the UN who want to “help” America…
 
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...
The biggest problem in all of this is one-dimensional thinking. Intelligent and informed members of the public need to dig deeper than headlines on their favourite political blogs, and it’s very clear from many of the responses I get in general that does not happen.

There is no room for emotion in making logical assessments and not much more room for selfish interests either. :nope: :dts:
 
SunnyslopeIII said:
“Legally” isn’t the correct question.
Click to expand...
Then let’s stop appealing to a legal document (the US constitution with all its amendments) and start debating the morality of letting the hungry stay hungry and the sick stay sick, according to the traditions and documents of our common religion.
 
1newcatholic said:
Then let’s stop appealing to a legal document (the US constitution with all its amendments) and start debating the morality of letting the hungry stay hungry and the sick stay sick, according to the traditions and documents of our common religion.
Click to expand...
No offense, but you aren’t that interesting as a debate partner. I’ll let you hash it out with others. Best of luck.
 
SunnyslopeIII said:
You are blind to your own faulty reasoning. You make arbitrary decisions regarding whether the local, state, etc government is falling short, in order to justify the increase of the Welfare State, in opposition to Church teaching. That fits with your preference for the pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-Gay Marriage party. You might as well oppose all Church teaching, I guess.
Click to expand...
Providing for those not well off i.e. welfare state, is opposition to Church teaching? I think Pope Francis would say otherwise.
 
1newcatholic said:
Then let’s stop appealing to a legal document (the US constitution with all its amendments) and start debating the morality of letting the hungry stay hungry and the sick stay sick, according to the traditions and documents of our common religion.
Click to expand...
Except the debate is not whether the should stay hungry of the sick should stay sick. The debate is how to best help the hungry and the sick and the extent of federal government involvement in that help. The church neither endorses nor opposes either party’s approach to these issues .
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Providing for those not well off i.e. welfare state, is opposition to Church teaching? I think Pope Francis would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
You think that Pope Francis disagrees with the Social Doctrine of the Church? That would be surprising.
 
sttcatherinefan said:
Neither Republicans nor Democrats reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Also, most moderate establishment Republicans don’t actually believe what they spout off about social issues. You don’t really think that Mitt Romney cared about social issues, do you?

Trying to fit Catholic teachings neatly into one party platform has caused Catholic Republicans to ignore the Church’s teachings on immigration, war, the death penalty, and economics and Catholic Democrats to ignore the Church’s teachings on sexuality. I know well meaning Catholics who were upset about Pope Francis’ condemnation about capitalism in Evangelii Gaudium because they assumed that neither JPII nor Benedict had made similar comments. They thought because the two previous popes were anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage that they were also supportive of unrestrained free markets. (The opposite is true for Pope Francis; liberals assume that because he is so gung ho about the social gospel that he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.)
Click to expand...
I agree completely with you! I remember someone else in CAF once saying democrats want to kill you before you are born and republicans want to kill you after you are born. That is exactly how it is.
 
1newcatholic said:
I hope so. I suspect there were cases of abuses, and cases where it made a critical difference.
Click to expand...
Of course, the Fed could always print the money and replenish their funds, but the U.S. is already $18 trillion in debt. How much more debt do we ring up before everyone on the planet is ensured of being fed?
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
Providing for those not well off i.e. welfare state, is opposition to Church teaching? I think Pope Francis would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Providing for the poor and needy is not synonymous with the welfare state . in fact it would seem to go directly against the Church doctrine of subsidiarity. Again the debate is not should we help the poor and needy-the debate is over the best way to do it.
 
estesbob said:
Providing for the poor and needy is not synonymous with the welfare state . in fact it would seem to go directly against the Church doctrine of subsidiarity. Again the debate is not should we help the poor and needy-the debate is over the best way to do it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Right paint liberals as non-charitable big government folks who refuse to help the poor directly.
Click to expand...
Comments such as these have but one purpose: to score points with certain groups and get a bunch of up-votes/thumbs up. :rolleyes:

Jesus taught us that we should be generous with what we have. He didn’t run to Rome and tell the emperor to start redistributing wealth.

The “help the poor” activists too often avoid giving of their own stock. See, it’s not so much fun when one’s own resources get used and their fun turns to work, is it?

It’s easier to pull teeth than to get some of them to open up their own wallets.
 
The Right paint liberals as non-charitable big government folks who refuse to help the poor directly.
Click to expand...
SuperLuigi said:
Comments such as these have but one purpose: to score points with certain groups and get a bunch of up-votes/thumbs up. :rolleyes:

Jesus taught us that we should be generous with what we have. He didn’t run to Rome and tell the emperor to start redistributing wealth.

The “help the poor” activists too often avoid giving of their own stock. See, it’s not so much fun when one’s own resources get used and their fun turns to work, is it?

It’s easier to pull teeth than to get some of them to open up their own wallets.
Click to expand...
Hi SuperLuigi,

I think that is from my post? I stand by that statement…along with all of my other statements regarding Church teaching on subsidiarity and how to apply that in the US under our Constitution. It wasn’t said to “score points.” While I believe we mostly agree on how to care for the poor, all you did was reinforce what I said. Thanks. 👍
 
estesbob said:
3 terrorists were waterboarding in an 8 year period.You are welcome to consider that torture.I do not.We can all agree, however, there’s is no moral equivalence between supporting waterboarding 3 terrorists and supporting ambition.
Click to expand...
First, this is incorrect. I’ve no idea where you’re getting the impression that the issue of torture is limited to 3 terrorists who were waterboarded but that’s factually wrong. Second, thankfully, the Church doesn’t determine morality according to utilitarianism. The number of those who die doesn’t determine the moral weight of their deaths.
 
gracepoole said:
First, this is incorrect. I’ve no idea where you’re getting the impression that the issue of torture is limited to 3 terrorists who were waterboarded but that’s factually wrong. Second, thankfully, the Church doesn’t determine morality according to utilitarianism. The number of those who die doesn’t determine the moral weight of their deaths.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top