New York Times Blasted for Criticizing Pro-Life Catholic Investing Program

[juliee]

New York, NY – With the current financial problems at the New York Times, perhaps the newspaper’s editorial board should refrain from attacking potential subscribers and investors. That’s the feeling of pro-life advocates upset that the newspaper recently blasted a pro-life Catholic investment program.

Full story at: LifeNews.com/nat4673.html

 

[Benedictus]

Here is the original editorial from the New York Times.

 

[Dale_M]

Here is the original editorial from the New York Times.

I don’t see what the controversy is about. The editorial mentions the split in the Catholic Church between political liberals (who favor social justice issues) and political conservatives (who emphasize abortion and sexual issues.) The editorial then mentions that Ave Maria mutual fund invests in corporations which could be considered anathema to Catholics who are on the left.

The editorial concludes:

Many Catholics will applaud this corporate lineup. Others will blanch. As always, they should read the prospectus carefully before they invest or send money.

This seems very sensible. Besides, anyone listening to the Laura Ingraham show is likely to approve of Ave Maria’s tilt.

 

[didymus]

I don’t see what the controversy is about. The editorial mentions the split in the Catholic Church between political liberals (who favor social justice issues) and political conservatives (who emphasize abortion and sexual issues.) The editorial then mentions that Ave Maria mutual fund invests in corporations which could be considered anathema to Catholics who are on the left.

Not just on the left, any Catholic who invests in an allegedly pro-life fund only to discover that they invest in weapons firms has a right to feel misled.

 

[vz71]

Not just on the left, any Catholic who invests in an allegedly pro-life fund only to discover that they invest in weapons firms has a right to feel misled.

Why?
The manufacture of these items is not an evil nor does it contradict Catholic Teaching.

This is a far cry from those institutions that work towards propogation of immorality (such as PP).

Of course it is always sound advice to pay attention to your investments, but the pro-life fund does exactly what it says…no more, no less. I see no deception here.

 

[didymus]

Why?
The manufacture of these items is not an evil nor does it contradict Catholic Teaching.

This is a far cry from those institutions that work towards propogation of immorality (such as PP).

Get real.
Not, arms, arms manufacturing is not, per se, immoral but guns are instruments of violence and decidedly NOT pro-life. As a moral matter I doubt the manufacturers are very discriminate about whom they sell to.

Of course it is always sound advice to pay attention to your investments, but the pro-life fund does exactly what it says…no more, no less. I see no deception here.

Agreed.
“Always read the fine print.”

 

[vz71]

Get real.
Not, arms, arms manufacturing is not, per se, immoral but guns are instruments of violence and decidedly NOT pro-life.

Guns could be instruments of violence.
Or they could also be instruments of peace.
Or they could be instruments used to provide food.
Or defend the family…or country.
Or instruments of law enforcement.

I am real. The manufacture of the weapon is not against Catholic teaching. Financial support of the manufacturer is likewise not against Catholic teaching.

The article specifies “in companies that do not violate core teachings of the Catholic Church.”
The expectation that somehow weapons manufacturers would be ousted when they do not violate Catholic teaching is unreasonable.

I am glad we agree that the fine print should always be read.
However in the instance of this fund, while there is fine print to be read, the pertinent information as discussed in this thread is stated clearly and not hidden in fine print.

 

[rwoehmke]

Guns could be instruments of violence.
Or they could also be instruments of peace.
Or they could be instruments used to provide food.
Or defend the family…or country.
Or instruments of law enforcement.

I am real. The manufacture of the weapon is not against Catholic teaching. Financial support of the manufacturer is likewise not against Catholic teaching.

The article specifies “in companies that do not violate core teachings of the Catholic Church.”
The expectation that somehow weapons manufacturers would be ousted when they do not violate Catholic teaching is unreasonable.

I.

While I am a firm believer in the right of our citizens to own guns, one must still face up to the fact of the proliferation of war and genocide by groups that buy weapons and munitions as products of the international trade in arms. They are not buying a simple handgun for protection or a long gun to hunt game. There is a vast difference between say, mass produced AK-47’s and rocket launchers for grenades and a fine Beretta shot gun.

 

[vz71]

I fail to see why the manufacturer should be ousted from a list of companies that do not violate Catholic teaching based upon what the consumer does with the product after the purchase.

Should we oust a producer of hammers if someone chooses to purchase the hammer and kill somone with it?
What of knives?
Rope?
Cars?

 

[myway22883]

On the subject of Ave Maria Funds, I learned last week that 17% of their International Growth fund is invested in China. Of all countries, China had the largest portion of the fund’s holdings. China’a one-child policy is definitely not pro-life. I emailed my concerns to Ave. Their response was that they do not invest in companies that are owned or operated by the Chinese government.

I still find this questionable because I see supporting a nation’s economy as being tantamount to supporting its government. Agree or disagree?

 

[vz71]

I still find this questionable because I see supporting a nation’s economy as being tantamount to supporting its government. Agree or disagree?

As small as the world economy can be, it would be difficult to move a large amount of money anywhere without supporting one economy or the other.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

New York, NY – With the current financial problems at the New York Times, perhaps the newspaper’s editorial board should refrain from attacking potential subscribers and investors. That’s the feeling of pro-life advocates upset that the newspaper recently blasted a pro-life Catholic investment program.

I read the original NY Times article and it is an exaggeration to say that is “blasted” Ave Maria Funds. The article merely pointed out the filtering done by the fund considers a specific set of Catholic values more than other values. The article did not call the fund a fraud. It did not say that the fund was misrepresenting Catholic values. At several points in the article it was pointed out that some may be in perfect agreement with the goals of this fund. Let’s not get all upset about a “blasting” that is not really there.