S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
I agree with him 100% and have said absolutely nothing contrary.
Chaput: 'It isn't possible to be pro-life and simultaneously forget the cries of the poor' [CNA]
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
0Yeah I guess Chaput is totally wrong to place them on the same level.(or did you forget the title of the thread?)
*The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than ”single issue” politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up – and they won’t be lied to.
So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ”lost” as a matter of law, **or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ”prolife,” are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. *And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to . . .
Archbishop Charles Chaput
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Then it sounds like you and I are on the same page. Thanks for clearing that up.
S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/chaput-philly-swims-against-nostalgia-and-red-ink
What about the wing of the church that says a party that supports the Ryan budget also ought to cause concern?
“Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. Period. There’s just no doubt about it. That has to be a foundational concern of Catholics and of all Christians. But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. Anybody who would condemn someone because of their position on taxes is making a leap that I can’t make as a Catholic. … You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation. Again, I’m speaking only for myself, but I think that’s a legitimate position. It may not be the correct one, but it’s certainly a legitimate Catholic position; and** to say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all**.”
Clear enough? Abortion and slavery are intrinsically evil. Where we tax and fund social programs are a matter for prudential judgment. To say that slavery is equal to food stamps and medicare is completely misguided.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Watch this. Same quote. Different emphasis.
“Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. Period. There’s just no doubt about it. That has to be a foundational concern of Catholics and of all Christians. But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. Anybody who would condemn someone because of their position on taxes is making a leap that I can’t make as a Catholic. … You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation. Again, I’m speaking only for myself, but I think that’s a legitimate position. It may not be the correct one, but it’s certainly a legitimate Catholic position; and to say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all.”
But why are we talking about taxes? I thought we were talking about helping the poor? Why do you keep changing the subject? <— This last question is a trap. We already know why you’re changing the subject.
S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
The different emphasis changes absolutely nothing. That is what you are missing. I haven’t said anything in any of my posts to declare that we shouldn’t help the poor. I’ve only reiterated Catholic teaching about subsidiarity and warnings of a growth of the Welfare State. I assure you that Archbishop Chaput agrees. I’m glad you like his viewpoint. He is one of the biggest influences on me, when it comes to understanding our faith. Please read as much Chaput as you can, so you can better understand.
S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
Seriously? Do you understand where the money comes from for the social programs you want funded by the federal government? Apparently not. It must grow on Federal Reserve trees.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
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 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. 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. Please read as much as you can, so you can better understand.
S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
That misrepresentation is why you don’t get it. You can help the poor without sacrificing the unborn, supporting Gay “marriage” and euthanasia. Obviously, you are wedded to the idea of expanding the Welfare State at the federal level, more than you care about the unborn, elderly and the family.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Oh, so your objection to Federal help is that you have to participate in helping the poor whether you want to or not? Is that what Jesus said? “Help the poor as long as it isn’t through taxation.” Jesus paid his taxes without complaining, even though he believed worldly governments are corrupt.
If you don’t want to help the poor with federal programs because it might cost you money, that’s fine. 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.
S
SunnyslopeIII
Guest
Again…more misrepresentation. I will pray for you, but I think it is best that I end our discussion. Good night.
E
estesbob
Guest
I have yet to the see a candidate who was was in favor of throwing the poor under the bus. You have set up a false choice , a false choice you use to rationalize voting for pro-abortion candidates in spite of the teachings of the church . There are no number of social programs, no amount of government money that can help those who were denied the right to life.
E
estesbob
Guest
We can not fulfill our personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take somebody else’s money and do it for us.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
The Catholic Church has been responsible for instituting the first hospitals,Catholic Charities has been responsible for not only meeting the needs of the poor and downtrodden,through their extensive outreach ministries,they also have brought joy to countless infertile couples,through their adoption ministry.Provided help and guidance for unwed mothers,women in abusive relationships.I could go on,but surely you get the picture.
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.Heck,he is even going after the Little Sisters of the Poor,whose sole purpose is to care for indigent elderly.
So,for you to state that our country is suffering because the Catholic Church isn’t doing it’s share,shows just how misguided and uninformed you are.
S
SWolf
Guest
The State is not interested in helping the poor. The State is interested in dependency on the State to get a docile population that will not bite the hand that feeds them and will vote for them again. The Catholic Church is just competition they would just as soon try and eliminate.
The three core loyalties of humanity Family, Religion, and State. The family is being destroyed and the country is becoming increasingly agnostic as the State’s power has increased. Guess how well that turns out in the end?
LBJ in regards to his “Great Society” program put it very well once, but I can’t post his quote as children might be reading this forum.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Agreed.Too bad this is lost on so many,specifically many Catholics.The State is not interested in helping the poor. The State is interested in dependency on the State to get a docile population that will not bite the hand that feeds them and will vote for them again. The Catholic Church is just competition they would just as soon try and eliminate.
The three core loyalties of humanity Family, Religion, and State. The family is being destroyed and the country is becoming increasingly agnostic as the State’s power has increased. Guess how well that turns out in the end?
LBJ in regards to his “Great Society” program put it very well once, but I can’t post his quote as children might be reading this forum.
P
Poussin
Guest
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.
A
ARSpade
Guest
But you don’t really ask your government to.
You ask me to (that’s where the money is coming from), with a gun to my head. It just happens to be the government holding the gun and moving the money.
We’re suppose to sacrifice our time, talent, and treasure to help the poor and sacrifice. It isn’t a sacrifice if somebody will throw me in prison if I don’t do it.
I give to charity voluntarily. I pay my taxes (that you then use for the poor) because I’ll go to jail if I don’t.
I’ll also note that those taxes you need so much to help the poor also help subsidize abortions. So good job there.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Salon.com?
I suspect that may be why the prior comment included only a link and no substance.
Disappointing to say the least.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
- Status