Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[just_came_back]

You can flame all you want, but Romney has supported abortion before and is, IMO, generally out of touch with the working class. Obama? yeah right…

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate, supports abortion and same sex marriage. If I do vote, more than likely, will be for Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate.

I would call myself a pro-life Democrat because I do think we need Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the like but in no way do I support the radical Dems who thirst for abortion and war. Sad that these godless atheists hijacked what once was a proud party, a party my devoted Methodist grandparents were PROUD to be associated with. Those days are sadly over.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicadvocate.com/2011/05/the-catholicity-of-paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-budget/

The Catholicity of Paul Ryan’s Budget

The Kingdom of God is neither a program of social reform nor a political platform. When rendering to Caesar those things that are Caesar’s, we do a disservice to God if we reduce God to the level of a political agitator. Yet while highly specific, programmatic prescriptions for government are inherently suspect if based on claims of divine inspiration, it is certainly meet and right, in assessing policy choices, to apply broad principles derived from faith – in order to ensure they are indeed consonant with the most profound truths we will ever know. Catholics wrestling with American federal budgetary issues, therefore, would do well to inform themselves of some of the themes stressed by their most recently beatified servant, Pope John Paul II. Quite reasonably called by one scholar “the Pope of Subsidiarity,” PJPII distrusted overly centralized bureaucracies for excellent, faith-based reasons.

The Catechism of the church explains subsidiarity succinctly: 1883 Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

In Centesimus Annus, PJPII wrote that an uncontrolled Welfare 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.”

Catholics worried about the erosion of the social safety net should therefore understand that there is a vast difference between reforming the safety net and destroying it. It is in that light that the current debate over the budget proposals of Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan should be understood. Ryan, himself a practicing Roman Catholic, is decidedly not undermining the safety net, but trying to salvage it for future generations – another determinedly Catholic concern, that of the sacred trust we hold for posterity. Again, this was a favorite theme of John Paul II.

Talk to Ryan for even a small amount of time and you are immediately struck by the sincerity of his concern about the debt burdens the nation faces and about how it robs hope from generations yet unborn. Examine the details of his proposals and you’ll see stark examples of subsidiarity in practice. What American political liberals describe as an assault on Medicare and Medicaid is nothing other than subsidiarity applied to those programs in order to save them. He would “block-grant” Medicaid to the states – a “community of a lower order” than the federal government – and let the states operate the programs with particular attention to local needs.

For Medicare, Ryan would preserve almost every jot and tittle for Americans 55 and older, but for those under 55 he would devolve choice, and authority, back to the individual. He would do so via what decades of moderate Democrats and Republicans alike have supported, namely the idea of “premium support,” which is basically a straight government grant controlled by the individual which the individual can use to purchase insurance. Liberals denounce this as a “voucher” – although why “voucher” should still be a bad word is not exactly clear. Regardless of what it’s called, it is certainly no affront to those who, ten years or more from now, will become fully eligible for Medicare. It gives control to them, rather than to bureaucrats. It saves money. Indeed, it is modeled after Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program – which because of very similar, consumer-based, market-oriented provisions, has cost the government far less money than projected while costing consumers remarkably less in premiums than even the most optimistic number-crunchers expected. In short, the experience of Medicare Part D suggests that Ryan is hardly being outlandish to say that giving control back to consumers in a market-based system can save money without harming benefits – and thus preserve Medicare for future generations. Either way, it is fully consistent with Catholic principles of subsidiarity and generational responsibility.

The point is not to say whether or not it will work, or whether it is wise policy, and the point certainly is not to say that Catholic teaching requires supporting the Ryan plan. The point is that, by being fully in accord with Catholic principles writ large, the Ryan plan can be adjudged on its merits as a serious contribution to the debate, without Catholics somehow worrying that it in any way violates the Christian imperative to care for “the least of these.

Catholic teaching does not endorse any particular program for elderly health care. But it does give guidance as to whether or not a program is within a broad range of acceptable outcomes. Applying the precepts of Pope John Paul II especially, one can conclude that the Ryan plan passes that test with ease.

Quin Hillyer is a Senior Editor for The American Spectator

 

[jwinch2]

acton.org/global/article/john-paul-ii-wojtyla-pope-subsidiarity-interview-r

Friday, 29 April 2011

“In a sense one might indeed refer to John Paul as the Pope of Subsidiarity. No previous pope… has outlined [the principle of subsidiarity] in such depth and detail…He showed…society needed to meet human needs where they actually existed [and that] creating expensive and ineffective bureaucracies… fail to see the deepest needs of the human heart.”

These were the words of Fr. Robert Sirico, when speaking candidly for the following interview appearing on Ilsussidiario.net. Fr. Sirico is an American priest and founder of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. He frequently writes editorials for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Forbes. Just two days prior to Karol Wojtyla’s beatification, Sirico tells us why the Polish pope’s social and economic teachings should still be appreciated by the Church and the world today

Why, in the teachings of John Paul II, are Marxist theories not a solution to the problem of poverty?

SIRICO: It is interesting that when Laborem Exercens was promulgated, early in Pope John Paul’s pontificate a commentary was published by a Canadian theologian who had been involved in the “Christian Marxist” dialogue in which he interpreted the encyclical to be promoting some kind of a kinship between Catholicism and Marxism. Of course this is all amusing to view from this perspective on the eve of John Paul’s beatification and in hindsight to see what the ideas of this pope did the Marxist Workers Paradise.

The problems with Marxism to the mind of John Paul are too numerous to delineate here, but these would include the materialism of Marxism, which cause movements inspired by its ideology to see poverty as the greatest evil. For John Paul it would be the loss of the soul through coercion and the hindrances that a socialist order put in the way of people to realize their own call from God. This materialism is, of course, rooted in a deeper and more profound error of Marxism which is anthropological in nature, as the Holy Father pointed out in great deal in Centesimus Annus.

What are the main critical comments made by John Paul II toward market economies?

SIRICO: When markets become idols, or when people operating in markets mistake them as ends, rather than means, when the human person is no longer at the center of economic decision making – all these are warnings John Paul leveled against market economies. He put it rather succinctly when he made the observation that economic freedom was only one dimension of human freedom and when building free societies it was always necessary to take into consider this broader picture.

For John Paul there was a bad or savage capitalism when the free economy was not situated in a broader juridical framework that is itself grounded in moral and religious principles.

In the teachings of John Paul II, what is the better system from a social and an economic point of view? Why?

SIRICO: In his seminal social encyclical Centesimus Annus, John Paul clearly says that it is clearly the free economy as outlined in my previous response.

What are John Paul II’s teachings about the principle of subsidiarity and the Welfare State?

SIRICO: In a sense one might indeed refer to John Paul as the Pope of Subsidiarity. No previous pope, including Pope Pius XXI, has outlined in such depth and detail and applied it so manifestly to the modern Welfare State as John Paul did. He showed the levels of society needed to meet human needs where they actually existed: when “neighbors act as neighbors to those in need” and also identified the way in which a erroneous effort leads only to creating expensive and ineffective bureaucracies that fail to see the deepest needs of the human heart.

What is the meaning of work John Paul II as defined in the encyclical Laborem Exercens, and what are the misconceptions that he criticized?

SIRICO: The encyclical underscores the Christian tradition that there are two dimensions to human work. The first is the objective-transitive dimension: the effect of an act of work upon the world. The second is the subjective-intransitive dimension: the effect of the same act of work upon the person who initiates it. It can either promote virtue or vice. From a Catholic standpoint, there is nothing especially new about this idea. [Paul VI’s encyclical] Gaudium et Spes and many popes have said the same thing. It also tracks closely Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of human action. But in Laborem Exercens, John Paul II uses it to underscore the Marxist and materialist error of conceptualizing work purely in its objective-transitive sense.

What do you think about John Paul II’s commitment to the abolition of Third World debt? Was there a better way to solve the problems of the Third World?

SIRICO: I don’t recall John Paul ever saying that the debts of developing nations should simply be forgiven unconditionally. He was very conscious of the Church’s teachings about commutative justice and the way that this demands that we keep our promises. He was not blind to the fact that there was a strong likelihood that outright debt cancellation would destroy many developing nations’ credit ratings which are essential to obtain foreign capital. John Paul did, however, ask lending nations to be generous in the way that they sought to lighten the debt burdens of many developing nations. As for your second question, debt-forgiveness would not “solve” the problems of poverty and underdevelopment in poor countries. The only long term solution is wealth-creation, rule of law, a strong regime of property rights, and rapid integration into the global economy. Realizing these goals is not simple or easy, especially in cultures that have been traditionally weak in these areas. Nor will they make change happen overnight. But, in the long term, they will work.

Are there significant differences between the ideas of John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the ways in which wealthy nations can help the Third World? If so, what sort of differences are there?

SIRICO: I would argue that the differences are very small. Neither John Paul nor Benedict see protectionism as a solution – in fact, it is condemned in a number of encyclicals. The best things that wealthy nations can do are (1) open up their markets to free trade with developing nations and (2) stop behaving like neocolonialists by trying to impose population control on developing countries. Both John Paul and Benedict knew that the only “population crisis” is one of falling populations – as Europe is currently discovering. Benedict also takes the principle of subsidiarity and applies it to international investment development, which I consider one of the most innovative aspects of his own social encyclical, Caritas in Veritatis.

In terms of John Paul II’s social and economic positions, which ones are still relevant today, and which ones are now outdated?

SIRICO: How I wish our world has learned the lesions John Paul tried to teach us about subsidiarity, human freedom in the economic realm and the moral potential for a Christian entrepreneurship! While Real Socialism has collapsed in the form of the Soviet Union and its allies, the same errors are at work today in radical environmentalism and the political form of globalization which is really protectionism under the guise of free trade.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicadvocate.com/2011/05/archbishop-dolan-and-rep-paul-ryan-exchange-positive-letters-on-the-budget/

Since offering his recommendations to cut the federal budget, Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, has been accused by the Catholic Left of destroying Medicare and ending funding of programs to help those in poverty. That none of this is true was explained clearly by Quin Hillyer in “The Catholicity of Paul Ryan’s Budget” published at Catholic Advocate.

Speaker John Boehner, also a Catholic, was on the receiving end of a letter signed by over 70 Catholic academics claiming he, too, was abandoning the poor and destroying the “safety net” of programs mandated by Catholic social teaching. The total lack of regard by these same academics for the settled issues of abortion and marriage has been noted.

But, Congressman Ryan did something that most Catholic members of Congress before him have not done. He took seriously the public debate among Catholics and wrote a letter, dated April 26, to the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York. His letter conveys his respect for the social Magisterium of the Catholic Church and how it can “contribute to the ongoing healthy dialogue about the nation’s budget and the economic foundations that make possible the exceptional generosity of Americans of every faith.”

Ryan’s letter puts his budget recommendations in the context of the world’s economy, underscoring the consequences of ignoring the economic downturn and the growing deficit. The nations of Europe, Ryan explains, by ignoring the problem too long, were forced to make “drastic cuts in benefits to the retired, the sick, the poor, and millions of public employees. Unsurprisingly, this austerity has generated widespread protests, riots, and violence. The social concerns of the Church cannot be addressed under these conditions.”

Ryan warns that the “U.S. has been traveling on a similar path for years,” and that if our nation continues to ignore the need for fiscal responsibility “the weakest will be hit three times over: by rising costs, by drastic cuts to programs they rely on, and by the collapse of individual support for charities that help the hungry, the homeless, the sick, refugees, and others in need.”

On May 18, Archbishop Dolan responded with a letter to Congressman Ryan that begins by stating his appreciation for Ryan’s “continued attention to the guidance of Catholic social justice in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress.” The Archbishop notes his agreement with religious leaders who claim “budgets are moral statements.”

But, where some religious leaders focus entirely on concern for the poor, Archbishop Dolan makes a broader statement:

“Thus I commend your letter’s attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.”

Dolan’s inclusion of fiscal responsibility is clear recognition of Congressman Ryan’s basic point that without a sound economy the safety net of programs for the poor, both governmental and private, are put at risk. The Archbishop also points out the importance of human life, a point completely ignored by the Catholic academics who wrote Boehner, and which led all the bishops to urge Catholics in Congress not to pass the health care legislation, now the law of the land.

It’s also significant that Archbishop Dolan writes that Ryan, “rightly pointed out Pope John Paul’s comments on the limits of what he termed the ‘Social Assistance State.’” Dolan explains this by stressing the interrelation of subsidiarity to solidarity, quoting the Blessed John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus (48):

“… the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus, 48).”

Archbishop Dolan concludes by telling Congressman Ryan that he, along with Bishops Blaire and Hubbard, who wrote a public letter on budget issues, “would be pleased to make ourselves available.” We at Catholic Advocate hope that Congressman Ryan accepts this invitation, because both the Church and our nation will be the beneficiary of a continued discussion of these foundational issues.

 

[jwinch2]

The Catholicity of Paul Ryan’s Budget

catholicadvocate.com/2011/05/the-catholicity-of-paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-budget/

In Centesimus Annus, PJPII wrote that an uncontrolled Welfare 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.”

Catholics worried about the erosion of the social safety net should therefore understand that there is a vast difference between reforming the safety net and destroying it. It is in that light that the current debate over the budget proposals of Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan should be understood. Ryan, himself a practicing Roman Catholic, is decidedly not undermining the safety net, but trying to salvage it for future generations – another determinedly Catholic concern, that of the sacred trust we hold for posterity. Again, this was a favorite theme of John Paul II.

Talk to Ryan for even a small amount of time and you are immediately struck by the sincerity of his concern about the debt burdens the nation faces and about how it robs hope from generations yet unborn. Examine the details of his proposals and you’ll see stark examples of subsidiarity in practice. What American political liberals describe as an assault on Medicare and Medicaid is nothing other than subsidiarity applied to those programs in order to save them. He would “block-grant” Medicaid to the states – a “community of a lower order” than the federal government – and let the states operate the programs with particular attention to local needs.

 

[jwinch2]

John Paul II: Wojtyla, the Pope of Subsidiarity (interview with Rev. Robert Sirico)

acton.org/global/article/john-paul-ii-wojtyla-pope-subsidiarity-interview-r

Questions discussed in interview:

Why, in the teachings of John Paul II, are Marxist theories not a solution to the problem of poverty?

What are the main critical comments made by John Paul II toward market economies?

In the teachings of John Paul II, what is the better system from a social and an economic point of view? Why?

What are John Paul II’s teachings about the principle of subsidiarity and the Welfare State?

What is the meaning of work John Paul II as defined in the encyclical Laborem Exercens, and what are the misconceptions that he criticized?

What do you think about John Paul II’s commitment to the abolition of Third World debt? Was there a better way to solve the problems of the Third World?

Are there significant differences between the ideas of John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the ways in which wealthy nations can help the Third World? If so, what sort of differences are there?

In terms of John Paul II’s social and economic positions, which ones are still relevant today, and which ones are now outdated?

 

[jwinch2]

Archbishop Dolan and Rep. Paul Ryan Exchange Positive Letters on the Budget

catholicadvocate.com/2011/05/archbishop-dolan-and-rep-paul-ryan-exchange-positive-letters-on-the-budget/

Since offering his recommendations to cut the federal budget, Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, has been accused by the Catholic Left of destroying Medicare and ending funding of programs to help those in poverty. But, Congressman Ryan did something that most Catholic members of Congress before him have not done. He took seriously the public debate among Catholics and wrote a letter, dated April 26, to the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York. His letter conveys his respect for the social Magisterium of the Catholic Church and how it can “contribute to the ongoing healthy dialogue about the nation’s budget and the economic foundations that make possible the exceptional generosity of Americans of every faith.”

On May 18, Archbishop Dolan responded with a letter to Congressman Ryan that begins by stating his appreciation for Ryan’s “continued attention to the guidance of Catholic social justice in the current delicate budget considerations in Congress.” Dolan’s inclusion of fiscal responsibility is clear recognition of Congressman Ryan’s basic point that without a sound economy the safety net of programs for the poor, both governmental and private, are put at risk.

“Thus I commend your letter’s attention to the important values of fiscal responsibility; sensitivity to the foundational role of the family; the primacy of the dignity of the human person and the protection of all human life; a concrete solicitude for the poor and the vulnerable, especially those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty; and putting into practice the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, here at home and internationally within the context of a commitment to the common good shared by government and other mediating institutions alike.”

 

[livingwordunity]

This isn’t a lesser of two evils choice. It’s Obama who has declared war on the Catholic Church vs Romney who isn’t perfect but then we are never going to have a perfect candidate.

 

[jwinch2]

You can flame all you want, but Romney has supported abortion before…

So did I as recently as a few years ago, but I am completely, 100% against it now. Thanks be to God, I had a conversion of heart and mind on the issue.

I am not accusing you of this, but sometimes I think we hold our politicians to the wrong sorts of standards. If they change their position from one of supporting abortion which is evil to one which is supportive of life which is virtuous, we should applaud and embrace it rather than hold them to what they did in the past. Unless of course you believe his pro-life position to be a farce.

 

[jwinch2]

Kansas bishops lament national debt

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15109

Reflecting on the economy and the election, the bishops of Kansas outline principles of Catholic social teaching and note that “unlike issues involving intrinsic evils such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and threats to religious liberty and conscience rights, Catholics of good will may have legitimate disagreements about how to apply Church teaching in the economic sphere. While the Church does not endorse specific solutions to our economic challenges, she has much to offer when it comes to the necessary relationship between the economy and morality,” the bishops note.

After briefly discussing stewardship, solidarity, the universal destination of goods, private property, a safety net for the poor, charity, subsidiarity, private initiative, and the human person, the bishops turn to the national debt:

“The United States has become a debtor nation with an unsustainable national debt. Most of this debt burden is unjustly transferred from one generation to the next. The potential for a collapse of our economy, resulting from a failure to address our spiraling debt, imperils everyone, but places the poor at the most serious risk. As we expect individual households to live within their means, we have the right to expect that the government will also live within its means as an indispensable part of our nation’s economic recovery. It is irresponsible for those elected to positions of political leadership to fail to address realistically and effectively government debt and unfunded obligations. Our nation, at all levels of government, is on an unsustainable fiscal path that, left unreformed, will eventually lead to an economic calamity with disastrous consequences for everyone.”

 

[Personanongrata]

So did I as recently as a few years ago, but I am completely, 100% against it now. Thanks be to God, I had a conversion of heart and mind on the issue.

.

I think all women should be allowed the same choice and chance for the same type of a conversion.

 

[livingwordunity]

Romney is endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony list and hated by Dems because of his stand against abortion. The fact that all the Pro-Abortion people hate hims should tell us all we need to know about him with regard to being Pro-Life. By contrast, Obama IS Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood IS Obama. He does whatever Planned Parenthood tells him to do. That’s the difference.

“I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield” - Obama’s pledge of obedience to Planned Parenthood for no limits on abortion

 

[JimG]

This isn’t a lesser of two evils choice. It’s Obama who has declared war on the Catholic Church vs Romney who isn’t perfect but then we are never going to have a perfect candidate.

Yes, I agree. It’s not a tough decision when it comes to comparing evils. The Obama platform will favor unlimited abortion, gay marriage, removing religious liberty from Catholics. I haven’t looked at the various pro-life scorecards lately, but I’m pretty sure that Obama is close to zero. I know that Ryan is 100% pro-life.

I just don’t see much of a comparison here.

Not only that, but while neither party can guarantee that the nation will not fall of a debt cliff into economic disaster, Obama will push us off the cliff most vigorously.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thank you for expressing how I feel…

I’m refreshed to see a number of people in this thread willing to consider the value of 3rd party voting.

 

[InLight247]

Originally Posted by livingwordunity
This isn’t a lesser of two evils choice. It’s Obama who has declared war on the Catholic Church vs Romney who isn’t perfect but then we are never going to have a perfect candidate.

Completely agree!

 

[MarcoPolo]

If I’m not mistaken, whoever gets the nomination for D’s and R’s gets whatever “party money” they have raised. Here’s what fec.gov states:*Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. National political parties also receive federal money for their national nominating conventions.*So does anyone know which parties those are? It seems to me the D’s and R’s are more than happy to keep the symbiotic 2-party system with the advantage and do what they can to keep other parties from gaining power.

 

[MJE]

Please tell me the “intrinsic evil” that Paul Ryan and those of us who support the Romney/Ryan ticket are endorsing.

 

[edwest2]

In my eyes THIS is the party for Catholics constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#TOP as it is the most inline with the Church’s teachings.

I will join no group or organization, however, I will provide links to credible Catholic resources. It could be argued that all politicians compromise, lie, distort and make deals with groups that don’t have the best interest of what Catholics want in mind. And that clearly go against Church teaching. I was shocked when a supposedly Catholic politician said that the Church has not defined when life begins.

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=921

“Gosh. I don’t know.” is not an acceptable answer.

OBAMA needs to go.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rotlex]

I’m refreshed to see a number of people in this thread willing to consider the value of 3rd party voting.

You can add me to the list as someone not only willing, but who will, be voting 3rd party this time around.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In my eyes THIS is the party for Catholics constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#TOP as it is the most inline with the Church’s teachings.

This year that candidate will be Virgil Goode.