Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[mschrank]

Before I write this let me state something about myself. I am not right wing, and I am not left wing. I hate Communism, Modernism, and all the other fads and modern heresies, just as much as I hate Capitalism and Libertarianism.

I want to rant about something I’ve noticed with Catholics. Especially the more conservative-minded ones. I mentioned it on another thread but it deserves its own.

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism, for example the idea that women should be able to be Priests, then you will be condemned. People will tell you about the traditions of the Church and Church teachings and remind you that obstinate persistence in your mistake is heretical.

However, if you embrace a position that is commonly held by the right, and is likewise out of step, then it’s just ignored. Nobody questions it. For example, the idea that the government should provide no social services to the poor, or that (as in the wal-mart thread) corporations have no obligations apart from their shareholders.

Catholics need to go beyond right and left. We should not uncritically swallow each and every thing as long as it fits our little self-conceptions and identities. We have to be Catholics first, and Republicans or Democrats second.

For example: It’s not okay to be a Catholic Democrat, but still support abortion on demand. It’s likewise not okay to be a Catholic Republican and support cuts in assistance to the poor and needy (and did you know the Bible compares robbing the poor to murder?!).

Don’t be afraid to offend your peers.

 

[C2K2]

Thank you for this post. I have a hard time when people ask me if I am a rep or a dem and I just want to say I am Catholic. Though I don’t agree that help for the poor should be mainly from the government. I think that when the government handles assistance there is very little person to person contact and the person in need is treated more like a number and their God given human dignity is not embrased. What reason would you have to want to better your own life if no one was letting you know that you do have worth and value with personal contact? There is also the fact that we as individuals are less likely to look to the care of others ourselves if someone else is doing it and being responsible for it. But that doesn’t mean the Government can not or should not help the poor but just that the poor need more than a big system can really provide.

 

[Evan]

In a certain respect you may be right. (or left). I think those on the right are looking to do things according to guidelines set up by the Church. If, instead, you are looking for a church where the ‘people’ determine dogma, how can you argue someone is wrong, the someone is a person and can establish their own dogma.

On the other hand, much of what you said fails in a few places. Because many people in the Church that the media has labeled right or left are neither, just being Catholic.

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism, for example the idea that women should be able to be Priests, then you will be condemned.

true, because the Church has said the discussion is closed and we (the Church) were not given permission to Ordain women. The arguments justify, but do not always explain God’s choices.

The idea that the government should provide no social services to the poor

This is a prudential judgment: How are we best able to server the poor. There is not right or wrong answer so the Church gives not definitive answer. Government, private organizations, churches, or charities might all work, some better than others. No condemnation can come from my judgment being different from yours.

, or that (as in the wal-mart thread) corporations have no obligations apart from their shareholders.

True, there should be denunciations for corporations that do not see themselves as a part of human society. The Church calls us all to work for the poor, not just as individuals but corporately. Especially when they poor are your own employees.

Catholics need to go beyond right and left. We should not uncritically swallow each and every thing as long as it fits our little self-conceptions and identities. We have to be Catholics first, and Republicans or Democrats second.

I agree. The Church could be a great power of good in this world if all Catholics would support non-negotiable morally good choices.

It’s likewise not okay to be a Catholic Republican and support cuts in assistance to the poor and needy

Of course, this is a poor example since how to help the needy may not be through government but perhaps through other means. A better example might be support for embroyonic stem cell research.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The difficulty with relying on government to provide charitable services to the poor and needy is that government must rely on a “one size fits all” approach … added to which that government gets its money by taxation … by coercion. And government has HUGE administrative/bureaucratic costs. Which takes even more away from the poor and needy.

The order from Jesus is for individuals to be charitable and to look after the needs of the poor. Which is what the early Christians did and in doing so set the model and the standard.

In the United States, we set up the Constitution which has served as an incredibly effective document for hundreds of years … and a model for the whole planet.

What we’re up against is the rise of militant secularism … Mandatory government solutions (which have failed everywhere they have been tried.) And the forced abolition of private and religion-based initiatives in areas ranging from education to welfare.

Interested people should do some relevant reading:

“Fire in the Minds of Men” by James Billington.

amazon.com/Fire-Minds-Men-James-Billington/dp/0765804719

“None Dare Call it Treason” by John Stormer.

amazon.com/None-Dare-Call-Treason-Stormer/dp/0899667252

“Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.

amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206556756&sr=8-1

These three books catalog the blow-by-blow details of how secularism is taking over our society and how it is unable to solve the problems with the empty promises.

There are other books as well … I like “Energy Victory” by Robert Zubrin … www.energyvictory.net

And all of the books and articles on Venona … which go into the “development” of liberalism prior to WW2. An excellent new book on this topic is “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans.

amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X

But the three I listed start with the beginnings in the 1700’s and bring the struggle between religion and militant secularism up to the present moment.

It is sometimes comfortable to “go with our feelings”, but making political and/or moral/ethical decisions based on feelings can get us into big trouble very fast.

Fortunately, we can learn by the experiences of others. And we are blessed with having some outstanding authors.

 

[mschrank]

Under the current system, the government is really the main actor that is going to help people.

Sure, hypothetically, you know what I’d love to see? A system where every man owns his own land, his own farm, a high speed internet connection and a large amount of guns as well as children. The Vatican could act as legal arbiter between people, and these could be like little city states, like in the middle ages… the Church as well as the local guilds could provide for the poor, and every cent would be spent in the right place. Oh, and while we’re fantasizing, let’s ban the Novus Ordo and start burning heretics again.

But this is not going to happen, this is mschrank land, a total fantasy.

This hypothetical, vast and voluntary network of charitable organizations that right wingers laud simply does not exist in real life, just as my hypothetical anarcho-Catholic utopia does not exist.

It basically comes down to this: either you let the government do it and waste a good amount of that money, or you pull food out of the mouths of the needy. If you vote “no” on that Democrat bill to buy kids milk at school, no “voluntary organization” is going to magically pop up and give those kids milk, they just won’t get any, and go hungry, while Republicans get all steamy-eyed at flags waving and the free markets.

I am not a socialist, I don’t think the government is good or the state has some kind of magical moral power. I’m just saying you can either help people, or justify not helping them by referencing ideology.

 

[BamaRider]

Ok, so what do you propse we do Ms?

Pour more money in it? SInce the inception of Johnson’s Great Society, almost 20* trillion *dollars has been poured in to to help the poor. Enough to give every welfare family a ONE MILLION dollar check, with millons left over. Just cut them a check and say here ya go.

The govt can NOT save anybody,and no amount of money is gonna change that, and until we start doin what Al M is talking about, nothing is gonna change.

 

[rlg94086]

Under the current system, the government is really the main actor that is going to help people.

Sure, hypothetically, you know what I’d love to see? A system where every man owns his own land, his own farm, a high speed internet connection and a large amount of guns as well as children. The Vatican could act as legal arbiter between people, and these could be like little city states, like in the middle ages… the Church as well as the local guilds could provide for the poor, and every cent would be spent in the right place. Oh, and while we’re fantasizing, let’s ban the Novus Ordo and start burning heretics again.

But this is not going to happen, this is mschrank land, a total fantasy.

This hypothetical, vast and voluntary network of charitable organizations that right wingers laud simply does not exist in real life, just as my hypothetical anarcho-Catholic utopia does not exist.

It basically comes down to this: **either you let the government do it and waste a good amount of that money, or you pull food out of the mouths of the needy. **If you vote “no” on that Democrat bill to buy kids milk at school, no “voluntary organization” is going to magically pop up and give those kids milk, they just won’t get any, and go hungry, while Republicans get all steamy-eyed at flags waving and the free markets.

I am not a socialist, I don’t think the government is good or the state has some kind of magical moral power. I’m just saying you can either help people, or justify not helping them by referencing ideology.

I’m sorry mschrank, but you have set up a false dichotomy. I’m not a libertarian, so I accept government taking a limited role in some social programs. However, there is no reason to make a blanket statements that you make.

For example, on the question of healthcare, I believe in a public/private solution which involves government-supported clinics for basic health care, but private insurance for catastrophic care. Is that right-wing or left-wing? For welfare, I happen to think the cutbacks were made have had a positive effect, not negative. For minimum wage issues, I am totally against a national minimum wage, but fully support local and state governments instituting minimum wages.

In the meantime, I put my money and my time into Catholic charitable organizations, which do have a big impact on our world. I think your characterization that a “vast, voluntary network of charitable organizations” doesn’t exist is both insulting and lazy. If you want to change things, go get involved in charitable works.

 

[manualman]

This is weird. I get to copy another of my responses verbatim to answer a different question!

The argument from the right goes like this:

The gospel call to charity (the THEOLOGICAL definition) is a two edged sword. First it changes the heart of the giver in that he sees the effect of his gift and grows in Grace because of it. Second, the receiver not only receives material benefit, but sees that the true SOURCE of that gift is the love of God acting in the heart of the giver.

When all this is replaced by a system of taxation and bureaucratic handout, neither the giver (taxpayer) nor the recipient receive any of the spiritual benefits of true charity. Instead, the recipient takes his ‘right’ to receive for granted, the taxpayer only sees a burden and so resents it. Charity is gutted of its spiritual meaning and all that remains is mere material transfer of assets.

Some people use this argument merely as a way to eliminate the need to spend money on the poor altogether. But that abuse of the logic does not negate the logic of the argument. (End of repeat quote)

It is important to note that Jesus never said “Blessed is he who lobbies Caeser to establish food banks and health care for the poor.” It is a legitimate argument to say that MORE important than the food given to the poor is the LOVE given to them in genuine charity. When genuine charity is abolished in favor of a state entitlement program, the love is not present.

Many critics of Mother Theresa ranted that her facilities lacked modern medical equipment and training and that money went to build and equip more convents and hospices instead of equipping the existing ones better. Her response was always that the people she served needed love more than they needed medicine. That drove the critics wild with rage (Hitchens polemic biography for example: amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/185984054X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books ).

 

[roanoker]

Old Al Masseti, is, as usual, dead on right. You just can’t “gift” people out of poverty. The U.S. has sure proved that. Roanoker

 

[hasikelee]

Oh, love this thread. I don’t like democrats or republicans. Yet, because I am anti-abortion, pro-homeschooling, anti-gay marriage, you get the picture, I hear time after time about how I must be a right-winger or a republican.

 

[Swan]

Well, this shows the truth of “never say never”. I never thought I’d agree with the OP on anything but I agree with this post. It has always amazed me that folks who claim to want to help the poor balk so strongly at government aid/social programs. You want to talk about relativism? To me, this is relativism in a big way. Jesus didn’t say how to take care of the poor, he said “do it”. While you folks argue about social programs people are dying! Kids and old folks suffer the most, yet so many who carry on about the evils of abortion are the same ones who vote to cut programs for the poor. What about these babies? Some are actually homeless!!! Hey, I had an abortion decades ago because I was in such desperate straits, so I know what I’m talking about. And old folks - you wonder why some might chose euthnasia? Because they don’t have insurance and end up living in squalor and/or in a stinky, ugly nursing home where they are treated like refuse because that’s all medicade pays for. We sure have plenty of “corporate welfare” though. Sorry if I’m getting mad but this topic really gets to me. So many of our social ills, the ones that lead to sin, could be erased if we spent a fraction on the poor as we do on the prisons. We need to give kids a reason to hope - that’s what keeps them off drugs and out of gangs, not more prisons. Sheesh!

 

[markomalley]

Before I write this let me state something about myself. I am not right wing, and I am not left wing. I hate Communism, Modernism, and all the other fads and modern heresies, just as much as I hate Capitalism and Libertarianism.

I want to rant about something I’ve noticed with Catholics. Especially the more conservative-minded ones. I mentioned it on another thread but it deserves its own.

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism, for example the idea that women should be able to be Priests, then you will be condemned. People will tell you about the traditions of the Church and Church teachings and remind you that obstinate persistence in your mistake is heretical.

However, if you embrace a position that is commonly held by the right, and is likewise out of step, then it’s just ignored. Nobody questions it. For example, the idea that the government should provide no social services to the poor, or that (as in the wal-mart thread) corporations have no obligations apart from their shareholders.

Catholics need to go beyond right and left. We should not uncritically swallow each and every thing as long as it fits our little self-conceptions and identities. We have to be Catholics first, and Republicans or Democrats second.

For example: It’s not okay to be a Catholic Democrat, but still support abortion on demand. It’s likewise not okay to be a Catholic Republican and support cuts in assistance to the poor and needy (and did you know the Bible compares robbing the poor to murder?!).

Don’t be afraid to offend your peers.

As a card-carrying member of the VRWC™, I am constantly offended by the fact that the more left-leaning members of this board seem to not be able to cite some authoritative document (e.g., scripture, papal encyclical, or other document) showing that their positions line up with the teachings of the Church. They try to apply “guilt” to support their positions, but either can’t or won’t back it up with a specific citation. As a corollary, when I do cite Church documents, the response is either silence (crickets chirping) or “so what?”

It gets frustrating as h3** to not be able to have an intelligent discussion with folks who disagree. This is supposed to be a Catholic board. I would think that Catholics would be able to cite Catholic sources to support their positions.

(/rant off)

Thanks for posting this thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, love this thread. I don’t like democrats or republicans. Yet, because I am anti-abortion, pro-homeschooling, anti-gay marriage, you get the picture, I hear time after time about how I must be a right-winger or a republican.

That’s because when people run out of logic and facts, they resort to pretending to know what their opponents think as a way of branding them as eeevil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, this shows the truth of “never say never”. I never thought I’d agree with the OP on anything but I agree with this post. It has always amazed me that folks who claim to want to help the poor balk so strongly at government aid/social programs.

That’s because the government social programs don’t work. Did you miss the point that if we simply gave the money to the poor, instead of spending it on “poverty programs,” they’d all be millionaires?

Have you noted that poverty was dropping like a stone – until the mid-70s, when the “Great Society” programs kicked in, and then stabilized?

Did you note that about 30% of all children who enter high school don’t graduate – and the education system vigorously resists all attempts to make it accountable?

With the best will in the world, we have done uncountable damage to the poor, locking them into poverty for generation after generation with our “poverty programs” – and paid over a trillion dollars to do it!

 

[donmaximuso27]

In Biblical times, perhaps the best method of serving the poor was to give away money, and in certain occasions this is the case today. But in today’s highly complex economic system, you can’t simply give away money to the poor in welfare programs. What would be more beneficial is to workfare programs, similiar to how Guiliani greatly reduced poverty when he was mayor of NYC. Christ called us to serve the poor, and there are many ways to do this other then giving them money, food, and shelter. Give them something that is of lasting worth, a job! This will serve them for the rest of their lives if they pursue it passionately. There is nothing un-Catholic about seeking other ways to serve the poor then disastrous welfare programs.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There are a huge array of private charitable / welfare programs that work extremely well, but which get no acknowledgment in the debate of government programs versus private programs.

St. Vincent de Paul. The Salvation Army. Alcoholics Anonymous. Thousands of local parish programs and diocesan programs (which exist in Catholic and Protestant systems from my own personal knowledge) and probably exist in Jewish congregations, as well. I have a small familiarity with the Mormon community and they have social programs as well.

But these get NO recognition.

Similarly, the United States gets blasted in the media for not making contributions to worldwide disasters, but the critics overlook PRIVATE donations (and overlook many of the U.S. government programs) and ignore scandals that beset the government programs of the international community.

On Wednesday, I learned of a totally private initiative that gets zero publicity and that provides free medical care to the poorest of the poor in the poorest third-world country.

I am trying to think of a government program that works better than a private program.

And I can’t think of one.

There are HUGE government bureaucracies in the “poverty industry” … that not only are slow and non-responsive, but also scandalized by massive (Billions of dollars) of fraud. Medicaid is one. The paperwork is HUGE and incomprehensible.

Think of even comparatively well-run government organizations that had to outlaw the competition but still generated competition. The Post Office does a great job, but still resulted in private competition such as Federal Express and UPS.

Government tried to run air mail itself, but failed totally. Government regulation nearly destroyed the railroads and it wasn’t until deregulation of the airlines, railroads and trucking companies that the transportation industry regained its footing.

Why should bridges run by government bureaucracies collapse?

Why should kids in government-run schools fail to educate our kids? Why do parents do everything in their power to find substitutes for government-run schools? Who WANTS their kids to be in government schools?

The fact is that for all the problems in the private sector, the government sector is worse and can only survive by outlawing competition from individuals and private companies. Basically the government sector can only survive by imposing a police state. The governments pass laws outlawing competition and if you disobey the laws, they will send the police after you and arrest you and take your kids away from you.

Problems in the private sector are easy to solve: someone else comes up with an alternate idea … it’s called competition.

But the government doesn’t tolerate competition … or alternate ideas.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In Biblical times, perhaps the best method of serving the poor was to give away money, and in certain occasions this is the case today. But in today’s highly complex economic system, you can’t simply give away money to the poor in welfare programs. What would be more beneficial is to workfare programs, similiar to how Guiliani greatly reduced poverty when he was mayor of NYC. Christ called us to serve the poor, and there are many ways to do this other then giving them money, food, and shelter. Give them something that is of lasting worth, a job! This will serve them for the rest of their lives if they pursue it passionately. There is nothing un-Catholic about seeking other ways to serve the poor then disastrous welfare programs.

Poverty in America is directly related to the failure of the Public Education system. The worst schools are in the poorest districts.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Poverty in America is directly related to the failure of the Public Education system. The worst schools are in the poorest districts.

I will try to avoid mentioning political party names.

However, cities tend to be controlled by one particular party. Yet when failures with government programs are noted, the particular party blames THE OTHER PARTY… the non-controlling political party.

In other words, the political party that controls most, if not all, of the cities has failed in all its basic tasks, yet blames the OTHER party.

How does THAT work?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will try to avoid mentioning political party names.

However, cities tend to be controlled by one particular party. Yet when failures with government programs are noted, the particular party blames THE OTHER PARTY… the non-controlling political party.

In other words, the political party that controls most, if not all, of the cities has failed in all its basic tasks, yet blames the OTHER party.

How does THAT work?

And oddly enough, the teacher’s union overwhelmingly supports that same party.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Poverty in America is directly related to the failure of the Public Education system. The worst schools are in the poorest districts.

I agree that poor education is a huge cause of today’s poverty. Most of the jobs available in America that support a family require at least a high school education, most careers require a college degree. My point is that social welfare programs run by the government have never solved poverty in poor districts, and therefore, haven’t solved the problem of horrible education in those districts. The private sector, including the many inner-city Catholic schools have greatly contributed to a rise in education in poor districts. We need to keep the government out.
I do not like to mention political parties, but I can’t resist in this case. Which party controls most of the cities and claims to be the party of the minorities and of the poor? The Democratic Party. Yet, they have failed in their social programs in reviving America’s cities and education systems, mainly for the reasons Al Masetti already posted.