You certainly have a great capacity for compassion for those less fortunate. This is really refreshing!!
I can tell you’ve given this all a lot of thought. I am very sorry that you have encountered a member of the clergy that seems to not understand the struggles faced by those who are stuggling economically. This is very unfortunate. I am rather blessed to be in a parish with a community that highly values all people, and seeks to help everyone where they are most able. Such a comment in my parish would be met with very harsh reactions.
I think our fundamental difference comes from how we define the role of government. I personally believe that charity is a job for the churches, not the government. I believe that the government exists to protect its people, uphold their rights from internal and external people who would unjustly deprive them of those rights or take advantage of those weaker than them, and to provide basic protections from natural disaster. Since these are things that I value, I tend to vote for candidates who uphold these principles. Since I feel social betterment is for churches and private charities, policies supported by candidates aren’t as important. I do feel that the current government is failing in its duty to look out for “the least of these” by allowing people to explot, murder, and maim their children. Because I feel this is government’s main job (not a peripheral) until that issue is addressed, I cannot vote for any other candidate than a prolife one, in good conscience.
I can see that you have a great amount of compassion and love for those who are struggling, and you see that the church (at least inyour area) has failed in their mission. This is very unfortunate, and angering for me as well as I believe that the church’s main job is to help the less fortunate. I understand your belief that since the church has failed, it’s the government’s job now to force people to help those around them. You have a very good point in that belief, but I don’t think the church is too late, or that we can’t take care of our own. I also don’t think the government is doing a good job of helping people. At least, not the same way that a church could.
As for 911, I think the issue here is that Iraq indeed did not attack us. Neither did Afghanistan. No country attacked us, a private group did. This is what makes the issue all the more difficult to deal with. However, the reasons for the attack on these nations was that they were allowing these groups in their borders without policing their activity, or in the case of Iraq, there was no cooperation with international statue and crimes against humanity. It was viewed as a protection for American people (who had already been attacked) to try and quash those groups who would murder innocent civilians. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I think the situation was handled as best as it could have been with the information that was available.
Have you ever looked into any of the wonderful christian/catholic charities that exist? There are some great organizations to give to who are in need of prayers, time, or fianancial help from people who care as deeply as you do. I also think that if you really believe that the government should play a role in charity, you don’t have to sacrifice prolife causes for that (as most of these candidates typically support abortion). You could vote for them to follow your belief in social programs, but also financially support crisis pregnancy centers, or other prolife causes so that justice can truly prevail for all people from conception to natural death, and even seek to bring about major change in the legal system so that all people are protected.