God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It

[Brad]

ToddC:

I tend to agree with you on your points except for number 4.

Government programs in poor areas are inadequate to say the least. My family and I volunteered in southern West Virginia (coal country) last summer, and we had a real eye-opening experience with poverty. There is a cycle to poverty, and the local environment in these areas are conducive to predator businesses that keep the poor people, poor.
Your argument assumes that anyone who is poor will sign up for these assistance programs, but the reality is not many do sign up. The reasons are numerous: they may not qualify, the programs don’t provide much, they can’t even get to where they need to go in order to sign up, etc…
The Passionists have a presence down there; some of the volunteers tend to be on the ‘liberal’, cafeteria Catholic side, but they do excellent work. I highly suggest anyone volunteering with them. The big reason we chose them was because we could make it a family affair.

You mention the exceptions to the general rule that I stated, which will occur because the government system is inefficient (to use a nice word for it), which I also indicated. I don’t quite understand what you mean by the programs not providing much. If they need it, anything is worth getting. If the conditions are that dire, it is only private individuals and organizations of compassion that could ever really help them.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

But being rich can make you conservative!!!

Interesting considering Kerry won the demographic of persons with graduate degrees. Somehow I doubt they are all poor.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Brad:

Interesting considering Kerry won the demographic of persons with graduate degrees. Somehow I doubt they are all poor.

I have a graduate degree, but it’s in finance, so perhaps that’s why I didn’t vote for Kerry.

I read somewhere that registered Democrats are very heavily skewed towards the mega-rich and the very poor. This makes sense when you think about it. The mega-rich hire teams of tax-lawyers to shelter their income from taxes (and remember, wealth is not taxed), so they can assuage their consciences by advocating government welfare programs. The very poor live off the largesse of the state and vote their pocketbooks.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

I will add that you are somewhat obstinant in your belief that the Catholic Church holds socialistic views when both you and I know, in looking at encyclicals and other documents dating back to the 1800s, the Church has consistently condemned socialism outright and vigorously promoted private property ownership and private charitable institutions to solve much of these social problems.

Yes. Your error is that do think every social welfare action is socialism. Not suprising, I can still find you some conservatives who think floridated water is proof one is living in a Leninist society.

The issue is that what you think is socialism is not what the Church (or many other people) think is socialism.

I’ll pose this to you. Confronted with the Chruch’s stance on actual proposals rather than the documents you cite in which your reading (correct as it may be) is certainly the minority view of Catholic scholars and churchmen, the new rebutall is often that the American episcopate is dominated by faithless liberals.

But here is my question. Certain some bishops have been more focused on social action than others. Certainly there have been initiatives the Church opposed not out an opposition to social action but because the initiative itself was immoral (abortion for one). Certainly there have been issues the Churchhas had no commentary on. Certainly when she does comment, individual Catholics might dissent. But I won’t limit you to the post-concliar church nor to the whole Episcopal Conference. How far back in time to you have to go to find even as few as two bishops objecting to a social welfare proposal because it violated the Catholic Church’s belief in private property and private charity?

Now my belief is that the USA has such a minimalist welfare state that it does not come close to approaching anything the church is referring to.

So I ask you Brad, I respect your own personal intellectual analysis of the application of Catholic social principles, but can you find any occassion at any time where two of even the most conservative bishops have publically opposed the creation or extention of a public social welfare action (except based on objections to the service rather than the delivery as in the case of abortion)? Or is this a matter that no one in the American episcopacy has every seen the wisdom of your views?

I’ll tell you what my research has produced. In the 1920’s the bishops opposed a law against child labor as a violation of the rights of parents to direct their children. That’s how far back you have to go – 1920’s. And BTW, the bishop shave since reconsidered their position and I think are a little embarassed by it.

 

[ToddC]

Brad:

You mention the exceptions to the general rule that I stated, which will occur because the government system is inefficient (to use a nice word for it), which I also indicated. I don’t quite understand what you mean by the programs not providing much. If they need it, anything is worth getting. If the conditions are that dire, it is only private individuals and organizations of compassion that could ever really help them.

You are right. That is why the Passionists have a presence there. The programs don’t provide much above sustenance, for example, the program that was set up for victims of Black Lung. Hope this helps.

Todd

 

[ToddC]

Brad:

You mention the exceptions to the general rule that I stated, which will occur because the government system is inefficient (to use a nice word for it), which I also indicated. I don’t quite understand what you mean by the programs not providing much. If they need it, anything is worth getting. If the conditions are that dire, it is only private individuals and organizations of compassion that could ever really help them.

You are right. That is why the Passionists have a presence there. The programs don’t provide much above sustenance, for example, the program that was set up for victims of Black Lung, and this is a limited group of people who can receive it. If you mean OASDI, I guess that is nice, but again, if you can’t get to the place to register for it, it doesn’t help. Also food stamps don’t help buy other things you need like clothes, diapers, etc. It is interesting to note that the largest demographic is elderly with single mothers with young children as the next largest. Once kids are old enough they leave the area seeking a jobs, and never return.

Anyway, this thread is not about the plight of American poor. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with most of what you said earlier.

Have a good one!

 

[Brad]

StJeanneDArc:

I have a graduate degree, but it’s in finance, so perhaps that’s why I didn’t vote for Kerry.

I read somewhere that registered Democrats are very heavily skewed towards the mega-rich and the very poor. This makes sense when you think about it. The mega-rich hire teams of tax-lawyers to shelter their income from taxes (and remember, wealth is not taxed), so they can assuage their consciences by advocating government welfare programs. The very poor live off the largesse of the state and vote their pocketbooks.

I don’t think their consciences are assuaged if they are trying to avoid there part in funding the programs - you’d think it would just make their guilt worse - to the point of doing outrageous things like… creating Michael Moore movies.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Yes. Your error is that do think every social welfare action is socialism. Not suprising, I can still find you some conservatives who think floridated water is proof one is living in a Leninist society.

The issue is that what you think is socialism is not what the Church (or many other people) think is socialism.

I’ll pose this to you. Confronted with the Chruch’s stance on actual proposals rather than the documents you cite in which your reading (correct as it may be) is certainly the minority view of Catholic scholars and churchmen, the new rebutall is often that the American episcopate is dominated by faithless liberals.

But here is my question. Certain some bishops have been more focused on social action than others. Certainly there have been initiatives the Church opposed not out an opposition to social action but because the initiative itself was immoral (abortion for one). Certainly there have been issues the Churchhas had no commentary on. Certainly when she does comment, individual Catholics might dissent. But I won’t limit you to the post-concliar church nor to the whole Episcopal Conference. How far back in time to you have to go to find even as few as two bishops objecting to a social welfare proposal because it violated the Catholic Church’s belief in private property and private charity?

Now my belief is that the USA has such a minimalist welfare state that it does not come close to approaching anything the church is referring to.

So I ask you Brad, I respect your own personal intellectual analysis of the application of Catholic social principles, but can you find any occassion at any time where two of even the most conservative bishops have publically opposed the creation or extention of a public social welfare action (except based on objections to the service rather than the delivery as in the case of abortion)? Or is this a matter that no one in the American episcopacy has every seen the wisdom of your views?

I’ll tell you what my research has produced. In the 1920’s the bishops opposed a law against child labor as a violation of the rights of parents to direct their children. That’s how far back you have to go – 1920’s. And BTW, the bishop shave since reconsidered their position and I think are a little embarassed by it.

You are asking the wrong question. It is not I that is saying that you must NOT agree with a social pastoral letter or some “religous” person’s interpretation of Christianity. It is liberals that are saying we MUST agree with these things. I’m simply pointing out that Magisterial teaching is anything but saying that we MUST agree. You can disagree with my intellectual assertion that the higher the tax rate, the more socialistic state you have, but you cannot tell me that I MUST agree to raise the tax rate and be opposed to all war as a Catholic nor that a Caholic IS NOT required to be opposed to abortion, euthanasia etc.

In the past, the Church has condemned socialism. As a government’s policies become more in line with socialism, it may become prudent for a Bishop to speak out. Thankfully, the U.S has not gotten to that point as of yet.

It’s fairly simple (and you are intellectually astute enough to understand this as well) that the higher the tax rate, the more the government owns everything versus the individual. The more that this is the case, the more you have what I consider to be an economically socialistic state. I know personally, that, when all is said and done, I pay between 30 to 40% of my income in taxes. This is a high amout. As politicians continue to increase tax percentages and apply fees, this will continue to go up. At what percentage is it that the government has full control and I have none - indicating a socialistic state?

I’m sure there are members of the American episcopacy that share my views, but the majoriy of them focus on what they are supposed to focus on - pastoral care of the souls for whom they are responsible for. To this end, they effect social welfare by teaching that Catholic individuals are responsible for creating organizations and donating their own time and money to help the needy. They do not see the need to engage in government tax or military policy. Nobody is going to Hell because they didn’t support a tax increase. But souls are going to Hell because of personal unrepented sins.

continued…

 

[Brad]

As far as the American episcopacy in general goes - I don’t think they are all faithless liberals. I do however believe that many of the dioceses and conferences are dominated by liberal thinkers. I think the USCCB and the dioceses put out far too many teachings and documents on secondary issues (movie guides - please) when their own members, religious, and priests are dissenting and operating in scandal as regularly as water goes over Niagara Falls. We need to put first things first.

Many of our social problems, as has been pointed out, are the result of immoral behavior - we need to teach right and wrong and why.

 

[buffalo]

THE SYMPTOMS OF LIBERALISM

 

[Brad]

THE SYMPTOMS OF LIBERALISM

You like this book, buffalo? I have to sit and read it through as soon as I get through my 25 book or so backlog.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

You are asking the wrong question. It is not I that is saying that you must NOT agree with a social pastoral letter or some “religous” person’s interpretation of Christianity. It is liberals that are saying we MUST agree with these things.

Speaking on behalf of liberals (why not? But I wish I got paid for doing this). We are not saying you MUST agree. Its the church’s discernment, bur faithful laity may differ.

you cannot tell me that I MUST agree to raise the tax rate and be opposed to all war as a Catholic nor that a Caholic IS NOT required to be opposed to abortion, euthanasia etc.

the church teaches the immorality of abortion, euthansasia, unjust war, oppression of the poor, racial injustice, greed, and obstruction of human rights including the natural law right of workers to associate in trade unions. How civil soceity acts on those issues and protects justice becomes more complicated, the exact degrree of complexity depending on the issue.

In the past, the Church has condemned socialism. As a government’s policies become more in line with socialism, it may become prudent for a Bishop to speak out. Thankfully, the U.S has not gotten to that point as of yet.

Well, we are making progress in that we understand the status quo in our society is not socialism.

I’m sure there are members of the American episcopacy that share my views,…

Such as? Even Bishop Fabian B from Nebraska has not made any pro-laizze faire statements.

… but the majoriy of them focus on what they are supposed to focus on - pastoral care of the souls for whom they are responsible for.

They do focus on that. But for better than 60 years they have found time to be a clear and conistent voice for economic justice as well, both individually and collectively.

As far as the American episcopacy in general goes - I don’t think they are all faithless liberals.

Thank you, Brad

Many of our social problems, as has been pointed out, are the result of immoral behavior - we need to teach right and wrong and why.

Of course. And those that can’t walk and chew gum at the same time should devote themselves to that mission. The more able might actually be able to take on multiple tasks.

 

[buffalo]

Brad:

You like this book, buffalo? I have to sit and read it through as soon as I get through my 25 book or so backlog.

I would move it to the top.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

katherine2:

Speaking on behalf of liberals (why not? But I wish I got paid for doing this). We are not saying you MUST agree. Its the church’s discernment, bur faithful laity may differ.

It’s wonderful to see you admit this. May I remind you of it if you call someone a cafeteria Catholic over such issues again?

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Of course. And those that can’t walk and chew gum at the same time should devote themselves to that mission. The more able might actually be able to take on multiple tasks.

Although you say you don’t, you still seem to be insisting that the lay faithful hold relgious assent whenever a Bishop writes a pastoral letter on a social issue, irregardless of Magisterial teaching. The main difference here is that I require a Magisterial teaching for the Bishop to be in communion with. This is how we know we are dealing with one true Church. Considering there are in the midst of my geographical region outright dissenting priests that object to Magisterial teaching, there is no reason to believe that the same isn’t possible true with some Bishops. The checkpoint is Magisterial teaching.

I like your analogy. I would suggest that many dissenting priests chew gum but don’t do any walking. Perhaps some Bishops do likewise?

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

I require a Magisterial teaching for the Bishop to be in communion with. This is how we know we are dealing with one true Church.

Yes, that’s basicly what Luther said, substitute Luther’s opinion of Scriptural teaching with your opinon of Magisterial teaching.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I was just at Borders and had the intention to see if that book was available… however…I got sidetracked by a neat biography on Dean Martin as well as Al Frankens, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot.

I havent read Gods Politics yet…I may or may not agree with ALL of it…but I bet much of it I will…simply based on the title…that title ALONE gets a 10/10!

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Yes, that’s basicly what Luther said, substitute Luther’s opinion of Scriptural teaching with your opinon of Magisterial teaching.

So how do you explain that the majority of Bishops were wrong during the Arian heresy?

 

[Brad]

Faithful 2 Rome:

I was just at Borders and had the intention to see if that book was available… however…I got sidetracked by a neat biography on Dean Martin as well as Al Frankens, Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot.

I havent read Gods Politics yet…I may or may not agree with ALL of it…but I bet much of it I will…simply based on the title…that title ALONE gets a 10/10!

Even though it has no claim to be based on the Catholic faith?

Makes one wonder what your definition of “faithful to Rome” is.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

Dude…
Get over yourself with questioning my name and if I am a true Catholic cause I may think someone who is a Christian but not a Catholic just may have something truthful to say…YAWN…

I dont wrap myself up in worry that just cause someone isnt Catholic, they arent CHRISTIAN…is the author CHRISTIAN? YEP…Well…then I think the man may have something to say worthwhile… if YOU are too fragile in your faith to read nothing BUT Catholic material in regards to Christianity, more power to ya… I however am open to ALL Christians perspectives in regards to the political issues… I’m secure in my faith that way.