Nuns Group Sanctioned by Vatican to Meet this Month

[JimG]

At one point in her repartee with Colbert, Sister Campbell says, “there’s enough to go around, if we just share.”

But that’s a key point, and it’s also a point of contention. Is there really “enough to go around, if we just share?”

The U.S. Government now has to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar that it spends every day. That amounts to about $4 billion each day that it spends that it does not have in the way of income, and has to borrow.

How much sharing would it take to make the income equal the outgo? If we tax the rich at 100% of income, it would not be enough.

We have nearly reached a point in which half of us are not working, and half of us are not paying income taxes. We increasingly live in an entitlement based society. Can that be sustained indefinitely if we just share? It’s a good policy question, and one that Sister Campbell and Network need to address.

Not only does the daily outgo exceed daily income, the debts of many nations, including the U.S., continues to spiral out of control. Likely it can never be repaid. That, along with population decline resulting from more contraception and fewer babies, puts a permanent damper on the economy. We may be in for an extended period of recession or depression.

Can all of that be cured if we just share?

Maybe, but it might mean everybody sharing a much lower standard of living than they have heretofore been accustomed to. The elderly will have to accept less in the way of social security and Medicare benefits, the young will have to accept lower paying jobs, there will be less in the way of government benefits available.

If we can fix the daily deficit and the long term deficit by sharing, maybe that’s something that Network needs to explain in greater detail when it lobbies Congress.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sister Simone Campbell did get a humorous segment on the Colbert Report.

I think it is shameful. She goes on a comedy show and laughs and jokes about a serious subject, the dissent and anti Catholic promotion of abortion, gay 'marriage, women’s ordination, feminism etc. by many LCWR members.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In the article, she is quoted as saying:

"In February, Network issued a statement “applaud[ing] the administration’s accommodation of religious conscience objections to the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptives to women at no cost to them.”

Now, I’m not saying the U.S. bishops couldn’t be better in pastoral work, but for someone like this nun claiming that her group is somehow superior in “pastoral work” is just astonishing. Who needs “pastoral work” like this? It’s Satan’s job to deceive the faithful and encourage evil anyway, not hers.

 

[jilly4ski]

In the article, she is quoted as saying:

"In February, Network issued a statement “applaud[ing] the administration’s accommodation of religious conscience objections to the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptives to women at no cost to them.”

Now, I’m not saying the U.S. bishops couldn’t be better in pastoral work, but for someone like this nun claiming that her group is somehow superior in “pastoral work” is just astonishing. Who needs “pastoral work” like this? It’s Satan’s job to deceive the faithful and encourage evil anyway, not hers.

This argument that the bishops aren’t good at pastoral work on the ground is probably baseless. The diocese I used to live in, got a new bishop while I was there. He (and I bet most bishops) was on the board of directors for the local Catholic Charities, plus the diocese had a “Cathedral Relief Services” for those living in the city around the Cathedral, and that provided free/low cost health care, help for the homeless (shelters, food, and programs), as well as a food bank and clothing for those in need. This was a very little diocese as well, I would imagine there would be even more required of bishops and archbishops of larger dioceses and archdioceses.

I find it a little sanctimonious for the LCWR and its members, who are the leaders of their congregations (and thus busy running their congregations and not providing direct care to the needy) to be lecturing the bishops on their pastoral care for the needy.

 

[catholicanne]

This is why I stopped going to the Jesuit church I had been attending. I heard that the Jesuits were supporting the dissent of the sisters but I didn’t really think it applied to all Jesuits. Next Sunday at church the father starts ranting and raving during his homily that bishops have too much power and that sisters have the right to say as they like since they have contributed so much to our society. My husband got up and walked out. I find it discouraging and frustrating that some American Catholics think Catholicism is a democracy. It’s not. Priests and nuns take vows of obedience, I wish they would remember that.

 

[Dawnia]

I saw Lawrence O’Donnell discussing the situation between the Vatican and the nuns on his MSNBC show the other day. He had some interesting points to make about each of their crusades and how they relate to Christ’s crusade. As for myself who is now looking from further away, all I know is I never imagined I’d ever live to see a day when these women doing such good work in the social justice arena, which definitely has pro life implications for the many lives they serve as they help the poor and the sick, would come under any criticism.

But the devil comes with his artful wiles, and, under the color of doing good, sets about undermining it in trivial ways, and working it in practices which, so he gives it to understand, are not wrong. ~St. Theresa of Avila

 

[ethereality]

Confusing article – No idea what to make of the quotation “[blah blah] because of my pride.” It seemed to be quoting something out of context.

But the bit at the end, huh? Reading the Qur’an during Mass? That’s absurd! It sounds like a group of Protestant-minded people who have no idea what the Mass is for …

 

[catharina]

Speaking at a Jesuit parish in Charlotte, the executive director of the social justice lobby Network disparaged Vatican officials and US bishops as “inexperienced” in pastoral work and …

More…

Just read the entire article.
It and the actions of the Sister are disturbing.
Guess the Sister managed to forget that bishops start out as
priests and most of them have had multiple parish assignments.

God have mercy on us.

 

[ellipsis2]

This is why I stopped going to the Jesuit church I had been attending. I heard that the Jesuits were supporting the dissent of the sisters but I didn’t really think it applied to all Jesuits. Next Sunday at church the father starts ranting and raving during his homily that bishops have too much power and that sisters have the right to say as they like since they have contributed so much to our society. My husband got up and walked out. I find it discouraging and frustrating that some American Catholics think Catholicism is a democracy. It’s not. Priests and nuns take vows of obedience, I wish they would remember that.

That may be only one Jesuit. Since I have been reading about this issue, many Catholics are wondering why the Jesuits are not saying more. This issue is huge since so many Catholics attribute their Catholicism to the good work of all these nuns. i personally feel that they have just as must say in the church as anyone else. They put their money where their mouth is.

 

[LisaA]

That may be only one Jesuit. Since I have been reading about this issue, many Catholics are wondering why the Jesuits are not saying more. This issue is huge since so many Catholics attribute their Catholicism to the good work of all these nuns. i personally feel that they have just as must say in the church as anyone else. They put their money where their mouth is.

Holy Guacamole, re-read your post and think about it. As someone noted, being Catholic is not a Democracy. Did Jesus put his teachings up to a vote of the Disciples?

No they do not have as much of a say in the Church as anyone else. And if someone claims to be Catholic because of the work of Religious Sisters, they have been very poorly catechized.

I honestly think much of this problem is a residue of the 60s radicalism, feminism and the reversal of traditional values. These Sisters sound just like Gloria Steinam, ranting about women being oppressed by men. Boy that feminism has worked out well hasn’t it?

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

At one point in her repartee with Colbert, Sister Campbell says, “there’s enough to go around, if we just share.”

But that’s a key point, and it’s also a point of contention. Is there really “enough to go around, if we just share?”

The U.S. Government now has to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar that it spends every day. That amounts to about $4 billion each day that it spends that it does not have in the way of income, and has to borrow.

How much sharing would it take to make the income equal the outgo? If we tax the rich at 100% of income, it would not be enough.

We have nearly reached a point in which half of us are not working, and half of us are not paying income taxes. We increasingly live in an entitlement based society. Can that be sustained indefinitely if we just share? It’s a good policy question, and one that Sister Campbell and Network need to address.

Not only does the daily outgo exceed daily income, the debts of many nations, including the U.S., continues to spiral out of control. Likely it can never be repaid. That, along with population decline resulting from more contraception and fewer babies, puts a permanent damper on the economy. We may be in for an extended period of recession or depression.

Can all of that be cured if we just share?

Maybe, but it might mean everybody sharing a much lower standard of living than they have heretofore been accustomed to. The elderly will have to accept less in the way of social security and Medicare benefits, the young will have to accept lower paying jobs, there will be less in the way of government benefits available.

If we can fix the daily deficit and the long term deficit by sharing, maybe that’s something that Network needs to explain in greater detail when it lobbies Congress.

What alternative is there to sharing without violating Catholic belief on life? If we agree that there is “not enough to go around”, how can we simultaneously tell people they need to be “open to life” and to shun contraception? Isn’t our belief that God does and will provide for everyone He creates? Isn’t it for the Catholic then simply a question of seeking how best to cooperate with Divine Providence rather than mulling anxiously whether there is enough to go round? Don’t have all the answers…just asking.

 

[LisaA]

What alternative is there to sharing without violating Catholic belief on life? If we agree that there is “not enough to go around”, how can we simultaneously tell people they need to be “open to life” and to shun contraception? Isn’t our belief that God does and will provide for everyone He creates? Isn’t it for the Catholic then simply a question of seeking how best to cooperate with Divine Providence rather than mulling anxiously whether there is enough to go round? Don’t have all the answers…just asking.

You make the mistake of seeing new citizens (we call them babies) as a curse, not a blessing, as a taker not a giver. Yes true for the early years but eventually those babies grow up and become participating citizens. Take a look at those countries that are DYING…because they are not even replacing themselves. More peolpe does not mean starvation, violence or grim lives.

And this has NOTHING to do with the bloated government. How much of that 40 cents on the dollar is truly necessary? How much waste, fraud, abuse, ineffective programs, government bennies, etc is necessary for our citizens to sustain life? Further why are you looking to the government to support families. How about the vast majority of us who support ourselves, our families and our communities.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

You make the mistake of seeing new citizens (we call them babies) as a curse, not a blessing, as a taker not a giver. Yes true for the early years but eventually those babies grow up and become participating citizens. Take a look at those countries that are DYING…because they are not even replacing themselves. More peolpe does not mean starvation, violence or grim lives.

You make the mistake of ascribing perspectives to me that I have in no way assumed. Of course a child in a blessing - that does not make the massive hospital bill which will be incurred if he/she happens to be in a hurry to enter the world, any less unmanageable.

Considering that many families in our earn less than $50,000/year, the reality is that, without social supports, they would have to go naked, homeless and starving for 3 to 5 years in order to pay said humongous bills. That’s just reality - nothing to do with whether that child is considered a blessing or not, a giver or a taker.

And this has NOTHING to do with the bloated government. How much of that 40 cents on the dollar is truly necessary? How much waste, fraud, abuse, ineffective programs, government bennies, etc is necessary for our citizens to sustain life? Further why are you looking to the government to support families. How about the vast majority of us who support ourselves, our families and our communities.
Lisa

Good questions. Certainly efficiency in use of our resources is to be demanded and expected. That is only tangentially related to the question of whether we must accept that some must go without because there’s not enough to go around.

 

[LisaA]

You make the mistake of ascribing perspectives to me that I have in no way assumed. Of course a child in a blessing - that does not make the massive hospital bill which will be incurred if he/she happens to be in a hurry to enter the world, any less unmanageable.

Considering that many families in our earn less than $50,000/year, the reality is that, without social supports, they would have to go naked, homeless and starving for 3 to 5 years in order to pay said humongous bills. That’s just reality - nothing to do with whether that child is considered a blessing or not, a giver or a taker.

Good questions. Certainly efficiency in use of our resources is to be demanded and expected. That is only tangentially related to the question of whether we must accept that some must go without because there’s not enough to go around.

Well I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but you seemed so focused on preventing the birth of babies because of the expense involved. As to your example of the “massive hospital bill,” you seem to think this is the usual situation when in fact it is not. Yes there are preemies in the NICU and yes they do cost a lot to support until they are able to breathe and eat on their own. OTOH this is not only rare but most such births are covered by insurance or Medicaid. The idea that there are legions of parents going broke to pay for hospital bills is the subjstance of partisan political pandering. It doesn’t happen as a matter of course. You are making the exception the rule and I think using POTENTIAL financial issues to support violations of Catholic teaching. I work in healthcare finance and have for 25 years so I know that side of the issue.

IOW I think you believe that the end (fewer babies) justifies the means…contraception or termination of a high risk pregnancy. I don’t

Also meant to address your second comment…who says there “isn’t enough to go around.” This seems to be something from the Left as if the economy were a pie to be carved up and split. I’m not sure we have evidence there isn’t “enough to go around.”

Honestly whenever I hear “social justice” i truly want to scream…it’s such a meaningless phrase. This Sister seems to be of the “Social Justice” model of Catholicism which is too easily morphed into some kind of forced redistributionist scheme…when the proponents of course being in charge of who gets what! YIKES!

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Well I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but you seemed so focused on preventing the birth of babies because of the expense involved. As to your example of the “massive hospital bill,” you seem to think this is the usual situation when in fact it is not. Yes there are preemies in the NICU and yes they do cost a lot to support until they are able to breathe and eat on their own. OTOH this is not only rare but most such births are covered by insurance or Medicaid. The idea that there are legions of parents going broke to pay for hospital bills is the subjstance of partisan political pandering. It doesn’t happen as a matter of course. You are making the exception the rule and I think using POTENTIAL financial issues to support violations of Catholic teaching. I work in healthcare finance and have for 25 years so I know that side of the issue.

IOW I think you believe that the end (fewer babies) justifies the means…contraception or termination of a high risk pregnancy. I don’t

Lisa

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and beliefs in my head. All I did was ask how we can refuse to share at the same time as we are saying be open to life. Any objective observer will agree that there is a conflict in doing both at the same time.

Which we choose to do us up to us a Catholics, so *** I’m not sure why you insist on pigeon-holing me into some stereotype***. If you want to know what I believe, simply ask ask me - I’m quite capable of outlining my OWN beliefs.

As for the example I gave, if you believe that prematurity is rare then you might want to research the topic…On the other hand, you mention that the babies might qualify for coverage under the very programs whose survival is among those being hotly debated as we consider how much there is to ‘go around’, so maybe you do get my point.

 

[LisaA]

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and beliefs in my head. All I did was ask how we can refuse to share at the same time as we are saying be open to life. Any objective observer will agree that there is a conflict in doing both at the same time.

Which we choose to do us up to us a Catholics, so *** I’m not sure why you insist on pigeon-holing me into some stereotype***. If you want to know what I believe, simply ask ask me - I’m quite capable of outlining my OWN beliefs.

As for the example I gave, if you believe that prematurity is rare then you might want to research the topic…On the other hand, you mention that the babies might qualify for coverage under the very programs whose survival is among those being hotly debated as we consider how much there is to ‘go around’, so maybe you do get my point.

I think you begin from a false premise that a) there isn’t enough to go around and b) there is a refusal to share. If I am pigeonholing you it’s because of what you say. You sound like someone who has a particular viewpoint of the economy, government’s role that differs greatly from mine.

I believe (and having worked in the industry have some experience) that the incidence of massive, uncovered hospital bills that bankrupt patients are very rare.

I believe that the remote chance a premature baby will run up such banktrupting bills is not an excuse to blow off Catholic teaching regarding life issues.

I believe there is plenty of sharing going on by hospitals and doctors who donate MILLIONS of dollars in uncompensated care. I believe there is sharing in the many people who donate to charity based hospitals and clinics.

I believe that the economy is not a pie to be divided up by “the powers that be.”

What do you believe on the above?
Lisa

 

[seekerz]

I think you begin from a false premise that a) there isn’t enough to go around and b) there is a refusal to share. If I am pigeonholing you it’s because of what you say. You sound like someone who has a particular viewpoint of the economy, government’s role that differs greatly from mine.

There you go again, putting your false impressions into my head…Seriously, why do you feel the need to do that? If you go back to my initial post on this thread, you will see that I was responding to someone who asked the question: Is there really enough to go around?

I believe (and having worked in the industry have some experience) that the incidence of massive, uncovered hospital bills that bankrupt patients are very rare.

In what year did you work in “the industry”? Here are some statistics on the issue:

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable
to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

(Emphasis, mine)

Source

I believe that the remote chance a premature baby will run up such banktrupting bills is not an excuse to blow off Catholic teaching regarding life issues.

Define “remote”? Do you even know what the incidence of prematurity is or the size of the bills? And who is blowing off Catholic teaching? I’m simply pointing out that such teachings cannot be lived if the concept of sharing is thrown out the window.

I believe there is plenty of sharing going on by hospitals and doctors who donate MILLIONS of dollars in uncompensated care. I believe there is sharing in the many people who donate to charity based hospitals and clinics.

Show us the numbers: the millions being shared versus the millions that are needed. You can believe anything, but real numbers are needed to make those beliefs facts.

I believe that the economy is not a pie to be divided up by “the powers that be.”

Someone has to do the divvying up of resources…whom do you suggest?

 

[JimG]

What alternative is there to sharing without violating Catholic belief on life? If we agree that there is “not enough to go around”, how can we simultaneously tell people they need to be “open to life” and to shun contraception? Isn’t our belief that God does and will provide for everyone He creates? Isn’t it for the Catholic then simply a question of seeking how best to cooperate with Divine Providence rather than mulling anxiously whether there is enough to go round? Don’t have all the answers…just asking.

Being something of a pessimist myself, I see few alternatives at this moment in history. I think it was a mistake to so expand entitlements in the past half-century that the promises made can not be kept. We are nearly at a point where half of us are not workng and half of us pay no taxes. As the population ages, putting more people onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls, the problem of keeping up with entitlements can only get worse.

Yes, we should share, yet sharing alone cannot solve the deficit. If the economy cannot grow, the problem cannot be solved this side of bankruptcy.

And for the economy to grow, we need a growing population rather than a declining one.

The immediate problem though, is demonstrated by countries such as Greece who are the first to experience the effects of unmanageable debt. They will be bailed out by having the central banks lend (and print) more money, resulting in high inflation which hurts the poor the most. Eventually, they will have to get the U.S. involved in the bailout of Europe.

Meanwhile, our own social programs will become unsustainable. Maybe we can all share at a feudal level of living, but people will not like that either.

I heard Robert Reich say something on a television show the other day which was something like “There is no need for a recession! We don’t have to have one!”

I had to laugh. He is convinced that government can solve all problems, and that huge government spending will simply make the recession go away. It’s not necessary to have one. That might have worked temporarily for short term downturns. I don’t think it will work for long term structural problems. It will likely just bring on the crisis sooner rather than later.

But hey, he’s an economist and I’m not! So we’ll just have to wait and see. How long can we borrow to keep afloat? I don’t know. But I seriously doubt that national bankruptcy can help the poor.

 

[LisaA]

There you go again, putting your false impressions into my head…Seriously, why do you feel the need to do that? If you go back to my initial post on this thread, you will see that I was responding to someone who asked the question: Is there really enough to go around?

In what year did you work in “the industry”? Here are some statistics on the issue:

(Emphasis, mine)

Source

Define “remote”? Do you even know what the incidence of prematurity is or the size of the bills? And who is blowing off Catholic teaching? I’m simply pointing out that such teachings cannot be lived if the concept of sharing is thrown out the window.

Show us the numbers: the millions being shared versus the millions that are needed. You can believe anything, but real numbers are needed to make those beliefs facts.

Someone has to do the divvying up of resources…whom do you suggest?

Seekerz you continue to work from an incorrect premise…that millions more (dollars?) are needed…by whom and for what purpose and by what stretch of the imagination to you think that medical bankruptcies are a huge national problem. Even if the majority of bankruptcies are medical (and I suspect that medical bills are merely one element of the problem) why do you maintain that they resulted from “not enough to go around?” Bankruptcies are individual with as many reasons as there are bankrupt. One of the problems is that it became VERY easy to go through and get out of bankruptcy which became a perverse incentive to declare. When it was more a perjorative, people worked hard to avoid it. Not so much anymore. Just in my own circle of co-workers three people have declared bankruptcy. All three were related to irresponsible spending…easy credit, easy home loans, etc. By declaring bankruptcy they were still able to keep many of their assets while discharging massive credit card bills. IOW it’s not simply a matter of 'not enough to go around" but due to spending more than one has.

You claim “millions more” are needed. Where did that number come from? It sounds like something pulled out of a utopian Leftist dream. People are not dying in the streets here in America due to withheld medical care. Just as a coincidence, our monthly hospital newsletter had an article about the amount of donated medical care in 2011. It was $215,653,000! No one is turned away. No one dies in the parking lot. I think you have created a problem where it doesn’t exist.

As to my experience in healthcare finance, I’ve been the CFO of a hospital based medical clinic since 1987. I see this industry in action every single day. I don’t mean to claim my personal experience is all encompassing but how about giving me credit for knowing more than someone who read an article where someone else claimed, without any substantiation the “there isn’t enough to go around.”

As to who divvies up the pie are you kidding? THat sounds like a Communist strategy. Individuals making individual decisions in effect 'divvy up the pie" in this country. I really like that system. Hope you do too
Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Being something of a pessimist myself, I see few alternatives at this moment in history. I think it was a mistake to so expand entitlements in the past half-century that the promises made can not be kept. We are nearly at a point where half of us are not workng and half of us pay no taxes. As the population ages, putting more people onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls, the problem of keeping up with entitlements can only get worse.

Yes, we should share, yet sharing alone cannot solve the deficit. If the economy cannot grow, the problem cannot be solved this side of bankruptcy.

And for the economy to grow, we need a growing population rather than a declining one.

The immediate problem though, is demonstrated by countries such as Greece who are the first to experience the effects of unmanageable debt. They will be bailed out by having the central banks lend (and print) more money, resulting in high inflation which hurts the poor the most. Eventually, they will have to get the U.S. involved in the bailout of Europe.

Meanwhile, our own social programs will become unsustainable. Maybe we can all share at a feudal level of living, but people will not like that either.

I heard Robert Reich say something on a television show the other day which was something like “There is no need for a recession! We don’t have to have one!”

I had to laugh. He is convinced that government can solve all problems, and that huge government spending will simply make the recession go away. It’s not necessary to have one. That might have worked temporarily for short term downturns. I don’t think it will work for long term structural problems. It will likely just bring on the crisis sooner rather than later.

But hey, he’s an economist and I’m not! So we’ll just have to wait and see. How long can we borrow to keep afloat? I don’t know. But I seriously doubt that national bankruptcy can help the poor.

I’m no economist myself but I do know a few things about debt on a personal level. Paying off high levels of debt can be done in one of two ways: depriving oneself to hopefully pay off what is due in the remainder of one’s lifetime or SPENDING some to improve one’s earning ability so that the debt can be repaid more quickly and one can get back to the business of living.

Pretty sure it’s not quite that simple when one considers national debt, but the principle that maintaining or increasing productivity is preferable to eking out an existence seems to be a reasonable one. Entitlements are not a bad investment IF they contribute toward maintaining or increasing productivity. So feeding, educating and keeping a population healthy is not simply a charitable thing to do - if applied effectively, programs which seek to do those things represent an investment in the workforce and in the nation’s ability to repay its debts.