Opinions on Catholic bishops' support for socialistic ideas

[Ridgerunner]

Your view of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops is obviously clouded by the reports of the main stream media which is totally anti Catholic to begin with. The USCCB is not tied to any political party at all, never has been and never will be. Attempts to “tie” the USCCB to any political party are only made by the main stream media in their efforts to denigrate our faith.

Individual bishops think different things, and the USCCB is not necessarily the voice of any particular bishop, or even the majority of them. It’s a bureaucracy, more or less under the general control of the Catholic bishops of the U.S. as a group, but which operates itself day to day. It’s funded by the various dioceses of the U.S. That it does “its own thing” at least at times, is pretty evident.

I would say “liberation theology lite” (American version) is pretty strongly influencing a lot of bishops, and the USCCB frequently seems to be in line with it. Since that’s consistent with the approach of the Democrat party, the USCCB sometimes does seem as if it’s a wholly owned subisidiary of that party. But not always.

It’s hard to get the perspective of the Church as a whole sometimes, regarding particular issues that seem timely. Part of that is because the Church itself does not directly endorse particular political positions. It endorses or condemns moral positions that might or might not coincide with particular political issues at any point in time.

It also moves slowly. There is a fair number of Catholic bishops who really do seem devotees of Liberation Theology Lite. But it has seemed to me that most of them are pretty old, and a lot of the newer bishops seem to be less tainted by that, if at all. Less political. More spiritual.

I’ll add this. What might make good sense in one part of the world might take on a whole different meaning in another part. But the Church has to speak to the whole, which is why sometimes its statements are so general. “Redistribution of wealth” might, for instance, mean one thing in some country where farmland IS wealth, and a handful of families own it all and let most of it lay idle while the populace starves. In the U.S., it is understood to mean “leveling” the population by confiscation and donation of middle class savings or investment to people who, by world standards, are already pretty well off.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I think its sickening. Our Bishop, Daniel DiNardo, is really pushing for amnesty for illegals. He had every priest delivery a homily, on JULY 4 for God’s sake, advocating for immigration reform (amnesty) in our diocese. How offensive was that? He has also rounded up other liberal religious leaders in Houston (a sanctuary city) to promote amnesty. Meanwhile the western hemispere’s largest abortuary was being built 2 miles from his office and he NEVER once spoke out against it for 2 years. And get this: He is head of the USCCB pro-life committee! What a sham these bishops.

Liberation Theology is alive and well my friends. These liberal bishops have all but wrecked the Church in America, now they’re going after our great Republic.

STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY.

I stopped giving to the DSF this year, with a letter to Cardinal DiNardo. I also skipped mass on July 4. This has got to stop or the Catholic Church will be ruined.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

You appear to have misunderstood the thrust of my argument, my apologies for not making it clearer. I am not criticising the Bishops; I am criticising those posting here who want to turn Catholic Bishops worldwide into mouthpieces for the American Republican Party.

rossum

I don’t want the Bishops involved in either party. We just want them to STOP being mouthpieces for socialism. Too many gullible Catholics believe what they say.

 

[Rascalking]

I don’t want the Bishops involved in either party. We just want them to STOP being mouthpieces for socialism. Too many gullible Catholics believe what they say.

YES! I agree with this completely!

Look at the quasi-socialist countries around the world.See how they “work”. Then ask yourself, are the poor people really better off down there?

 

[fisheaters]

I stopped giving to the DSF this year, with a letter to Cardinal DiNardo. I also skipped mass on July 4. This has got to stop or the Catholic Church will be ruined.

I stopped giving to the DSF as well, the only problem is that the diocese will take any pledge shortfalls out of your parish’s regular contributions at the end of the year. Its a scam. So I limit what I give to my Church as well, and just give to charities that are truly faithful to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Black_Rose]

YES! I agree with this completely!

Look at the quasi-socialist countries around the world.See how they “work”. Then ask yourself, are the poor people really better off down there?

Ok, what about the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France?

 

[fisheaters]

You appear to have misunderstood the thrust of my argument, my apologies for not making it clearer. I am not criticising the Bishops; I am criticising those posting here who want to turn Catholic Bishops worldwide into mouthpieces for the American Republican Party.

rossum

This is nothing more than a straw man argument. Nobody here proposed turning the USCCB into a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, that is a complete fallacy. It just so happens that the majority of Church teachings are in alignment with conservative idealogy, and you’ve seized on that to distort the truth.

 

[anthony022071]

You and I ARE the government. Our country is government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are called by Jesus to take care of our brothers and sisters who are in need. Nothing tyrannical about that at all. I stand with our Church leaders on social issues and everything else the Church teaches.

No,we’re not the government. We’re private citizens. And the majority of people do not want the government to be taking over every aspect of the lives of the citizens and keeping them in a state of dependency. Jesus’ commandent to love our neighbor as ouselves does not entail that we support government policies and laws that purport to care for peoples’ personal needs. When the government is taking care of peoples’ personal needs it does lead to tyranny. As the saying goes,“He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To have the power to be taking care of the needy is the same as having the power to lord it over them.
This responsibility should be entrusted only to trustworthy,charitable people who respect the rights and freedoms of those they care for.

 

[anthony022071]

The Catholic Church is a worldwide organisation. While these points may be relevant to a specifically American debate on healthcare they are pretty much irrelevant to much of the rest of the world. Can you see the Catholic Church in the UK preaching against the National Health Service? How well do you think that would go down with the faithful in the UK?

The Catholic Church should not allow itself to be tied to one particular wing of American politics. Its remit is far wider than just the right wing of the Republican Party.

rossum

The need to keep the government from having regulatory control over hospitals and people’s health care,and thus their bodies,ought to be relevant to the poeple of any country. No government can be trusted with those kinds of responsibilities and power. Do you not see the connection between the government taking over the responsibility of caring for the needy and sick and the government being able to take advantage of them and mistreat them? The government does not act out of charity,it helps people in order to keep them. The Catholic Church should oppose the National Health Service,because it is inhumane,irresponsible,allows for abortion and assisted suicide. If it does not go down well with the Catholics it is because so many of them are used to being dependent upon their government,and looking to it for help,as if it were their life support system. They should demand that the Church and families and communities provide for those in need.

See post 12.

 

[rossum]

The need to keep the government from having regulatory control over hospitals and people’s health care,and thus their bodies,ought to be relevant to the poeple of any country. No government can be trusted with those kinds of responsibilities and power. Do you not see the connection between the government taking over the responsibility of caring for the needy and sick and the government being able to take advantage of them and mistreat them? The government does not act out of charity,it helps people in order to keep them. The Catholic Church should oppose the National Health Service,because it is inhumane,irresponsible,allows for abortion and assisted suicide. If it does not go down well with the Catholics it is because so many of them are used to being dependent upon their government,and looking to it for help,as if it were their life support system. They should demand that the Church and families and communities provide for those in need.

See post 12.

You make my point for me. What you say here is completely ludicrous in terms of UK politics, and if Catholic Bishops in the UK said this they would be laughed out of court. In you terms we have had a Socialist-lite government until May this year and our current government is a coalition between left wing Republicans and the Liberal Party.

Trying to export American politics is a sure way to turn the rest of the world off Catholicism. I am sure that the leaders of the Catholic Church are sensible enough to avoid that trap.

rossum

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I stopped giving to the DSF as well, the only problem is that the diocese will take any pledge shortfalls out of your parish’s regular contributions at the end of the year. Its a scam. So I limit what I give to my Church as well, and just give to charities that are truly faithful to the teachings of the Church.

For one thing, I am fortunate to have a reasonable priest and also to live in a parish who always seems to exceed their DSF goal. So I am pretty sure my withholding pledges to the DSF is penalizing the appropriate cardinal.
If that every changes, I will have to stop giving to the church as well and give directly to the catholic charities.

Please be careful in this thread…however. I got in hot water on this forum once for mentioning a certain cardinal.

 

[Rascalking]

Ok, what about the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France?

Take a look at what is going on in France right now. Then ask yourself that question.

 

[rossum]

Take a look at what is going on in France right now. Then ask yourself that question.

Certainly:France: Infant mortality is 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births.
United States: Infant mortality is 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births.
Now, what were you saying about “socialist healthcare”?

rossum

 

[Rascalking]

Certainly:France: Infant mortality is 4.2 deaths per 1,000 live births.
United States: Infant mortality is 6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births.
Now, what were you saying about “socialist healthcare”?

rossum

Um-nothing. I never brought up healthcare.

 

[anthony022071]

You make my point for me. What you say here is completely ludicrous in terms of UK politics, and if Catholic Bishops in the UK said this they would be laughed out of court. In you terms we have had a Socialist-lite government until May this year and our current government is a coalition between left wing Republicans and the Liberal Party.

Trying to export American politics is a sure way to turn the rest of the world off Catholicism. I am sure that the leaders of the Catholic Church are sensible enough to avoid that trap.

rossum

What point am I making for you? that individual liberty is only important to Americans and that the English prefer government providence? This isn’t just about political ideology,its about principles based upon natural law which are valid for all men and which the Catholic Church upholds. It happens that political conservatives uphold these principles more than progressives. The English will eventually reject socialistic government,because they have always been a people that demands liberty. Recently they have voted in many conservative politicians.

 

[Rascalking]

What point am I making for you? that individual liberty is not important to the English? This isn’t just about politics,its about principles.

Oh come on my friend. Individual liberty is just so uncool.

(and yes, I’m totally kidding)

 

[richardacombs]

What is your opinion on the Catholic bishops’ support for typically socialistic ideas,such as universal heath care mandated and controlled by the governement,universal amnesty for illegals,extended unemployment benefits,diplomacy with terrorist states,and a world-wide governing authority or court of law?

Many Catholic bishops have long been influenced and misled by socialism,and tend to equate Catholic social justice with socialistic ideas. This nonsense has got to stop. These bishops are fostering the rise of tyrannical,over-bearing,mintrusive government.

Socialism is a poltical-economic system that attempts to address the inequality in the distribution of wealth: to paraphrase Marx: “To each according to need, from each according to ability.” While socialism has failed to correct and, in fact, compounded political-economic problems, both Old and New Testament biblical writers have understood the necessity to share abundance with the less fortunate (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

Charitable sharing with the less fortunate is a requirement of the Catholic Way, not an option–the Christian does not have the luxury of deciding who is worthy of his or her generosity (Almost the entire Epistle of St James, especially Chapter 2, verses 14-20).

All people have a right to essential medical treatment, whether it’s government sponsored or not. Furthermore, personal or national economic protectionism should not be used as an excuse for denying others (illegal or not) the necessities of life; that same argument can be used to justify extended unemployment benefits.

Finally, the Catholic Cathechism clearly supports giving from our abundance to the less fortunate in love (Paragraphs 1969, 2447 & 2462).

You can’t turn the other cheek when the time comes to give, only extend a helping hand

 

[ERose]

Socialism is a poltical-economic system that attempts to address the inequality in the distribution of wealth: to paraphrase Marx: “To each according to need, from each according to ability.” While socialism has failed to correct and, in fact, compounded political-economic problems, both Old and New Testament biblical writers have understood the necessity to share abundance with the less fortunate (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

Charitable sharing with the less fortunate is a requirement of the Catholic Way, not an option–the Christian does not have the luxury of deciding who is worthy of his or her generosity (Almost the entire Epistle of St James, especially Chapter 2, verses 14-20).

All people have a right to essential medical treatment, whether it’s government sponsored or not. Furthermore, personal or national economic protectionism should not be used as an excuse for denying others (illegal or not) the necessities of life; that same argument can be used to justify extended unemployment benefits.

Finally, the Catholic Cathechism clearly supports giving from our abundance to the less fortunate in love (Paragraphs 1969, 2447 & 2462).

You can’t turn the other cheek when the time comes to give, only extend a helping hand

You are right about the Catholic way being open to charity with the less fortunate. But we to gain merit are to freely give of our wealth and time however big or small it is to help others. Socialism isn’t the same thing. Socialism takes away from private citizens that have something and gives it to the poor while the goverment officials take as much as they want for themselves. In socialism you still have the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The difference is that the “haves” are the ruling governing officials. Do you think that Stalin or Mau or Castro do without? No. They have/had a lot more well to do life they the masses.

Socialism and Catholic Charity are not the same thing but rather on opposite poles.

 

[ERose]

Here is my opinion on this subject:

Bishops are suppose to be the supreme teachers of faith and morals in their diocese. That is what they are called to do. To be the spiritual leaders of their flock. But by and large bishops have become CEOs or Chief Administrators running the business of their diocese. That is not what they are suppose to be and to be frank this change in their preceived duties is the root of the far majority of the problems that the church in the US is experiencing.

I know that there are exceptions to the rule, but honestly how often do you see your bishop celebrating mass at your parish or for that matter the Cathedral? I see my bishop maybe three to four times a year. Confirmation, mid-night mass at the Cathedral, Easter vigil at the Cathedral and maybe for some other function at our local parish. I even go to mass at the Cathedral fairly frequent and still not see him. This should not be!!! He needs to follow the examples of the Apostles. Go out and preach and teach. That is his job and his responsibility. They should be visiting parishes on a regular basis to celebrate masses, having talks and seminars concerning issues in the diocese, making himself visible to the local people, leading evangelism within the area, etc. That is what the Apostles did. What did they do when they got to the point where they were not able to properly juggle their teaching and their administrative duties? They assigned the seven to take up the administrative duties so they can have more time to preach and teach.

Our bishops on the other hand have thrown away their authority. They have allowed scandels into the church. They hid the child molestors instead of forcing them to make reparation for the evil they did and casting them from the priesthood. They do not stand up to the pro-death politicians, which all of them need to be excommunicated. They do not teach on the hard to hear stuff, such as contraception, out-of-marriage sex, divorce, homosexuality,etc. They allow people to believe that it is alright to pick and choose from the teachings of the Catholic church because they are afraid they will leave the church and take their tithes with them.

Instead the primary teachers of the flock after the Pope are laymen and a few priests. How many would listen more to Scott Hahn or Father Corapi than their bishop concerning the teachings of the church?

No one takes them seriously anymore. For this church in the US to fully right itself it has to start with the bishops. They need to understand their true function and get their priorities straight and truly become the spiritual leaders of their diocese instead of CEOs.

Cardinal Newman is view as an exceptional bishop. I say that he should be really be viewed as a bishop that only carried out his reponsibilities the way they are suppose to be carried out by a bishop. Instead he is viewed as exceptional because he is compared to all the bishops that are not doing their duty.

Ezekiel Chapter 33 is a passage about what is going to happen to the watchmen that do not do their duties and I suggest that all bishops read that passage and start doing what God demands of them.

Ok I am off of my soap box.

 

[anthony022071]

Socialism is a poltical-economic system that attempts to address the inequality in the distribution of wealth: to paraphrase Marx: “To each according to need, from each according to ability.” While socialism has failed to correct and, in fact, compounded political-economic problems, both Old and New Testament biblical writers have understood the necessity to share abundance with the less fortunate (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

Charitable sharing with the less fortunate is a requirement of the Catholic Way, not an option–the Christian does not have the luxury of deciding who is worthy of his or her generosity (Almost the entire Epistle of St James, especially Chapter 2, verses 14-20).

Charitable sharing is not what socialism is about. It is about government having control over the means of production and taking too much of the private property of the citizens.
God’s commandment to be merciful to neighbors is not aimed at the government,but at individuals.

All people have a right to essential medical treatment, whether it’s government sponsored or not. Furthermore, personal or national economic protectionism should not be used as an excuse for denying others (illegal or not) the necessities of life; that same argument can be used to justify extended unemployment benefits.

The supposed right to medical treatment is not a part of God’s commandments or the natural law. We don’t have a natural right to other people’s care or professional skills or time,just as we don’t have a right to other people’s love. Not all of our moral responsibilities toward others translate into rights.

Finally, the Catholic Cathechism clearly supports giving from our abundance to the less fortunate in love (Paragraphs 1969, 2447 & 2462).

You can’t turn the other cheek when the time comes to give, only extend a helping hand

Yes,we should give to the less fortunate,but of our own choice. Supporting government welfare programs is not an act of charity or justice,and the government cannot love our neighbors for us. It can only keep those who are dependent upon it. Government is not the proper means for doing good toward the poor,needy and sick.