Paul Ryan!!

[lynnvinc]

Pro death on environmental issues…

Even if you may not understand the serious environmental harms we are facing, it is nevertheless unfair for people to commit those harms against other people and future generations.

And it is very sad that there are so many Catholics who refuse to follow (or perhaps have not read) the words of JPII & BXVI about environmental problems being serious and harmful to people and God’s creation, and that we must reduce them, that it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

I know a lot of people here at CAF don’t believe there are environmental harms and problems, that it is all some conspiracy hoax. Maybe that’s because one’s favorite candidate is anti-environmental, and cognitive dissonance leads the voter to accept everything that candidate stands for, whether right or wrong. Or with some people it might be bec they gain economic benefit from industries causing the harms – by owning shares or working for such companies. Or it could be that taking reusable bags when shopping and the myriad of other measures to reduce one’s harm are just too bothersome, even when measures save people $100s and $1000s. I don’t really understand why people here at CAF are so anti-environmental.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it is unfair to engage in environmental harms to others. It may be okay to vote for people who are likewise are anti-environment, having no regard for the people and God’s creation harmed and killed by their policies and lack of environmental leadership. However, I would think it is NOT okay to gladly and happily vote for such candidates, without any attempt to let them know that one is voting for them only because they are against abortion (or whatever the person’s reason is), but that one is against their anti-environmental actions and agenda. At the very least one should hope and pray that those candidates would get that message somehow.

Whoever I vote for, it is with heavy heart – bec either way it will be someone who is pro-death on some issue or the other. And I when I write to politicians, I let them know those issues with which I agree and disagree.

How else are we going to get the politicians to straighten out and be completely pro-life?

 

[fnr]

Two Bishops criticized the plan, Bishop Pates and Bishop Blaire. Bishop Earl criticized those 2 Bishops criticism of the budget and Bishop Naumann has said solutions that place emphasis in enrolling people in government programs have been ‘tried for decades’ and failed

Bishop [Morlino](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/wisconsin-catholic-bishop-contradicts-usccb-to-support-paul-ryan) says Ryan’s approach was in accordance with Catholic principals

Actually, no. That’s not currect.

Here’s the letter sent by Bishops Pates and Blaire, “chairmen of the Committees on Domestic Justice and Human Development and International Justice and Peace.”

As USCCB spokesman Don Clemmer later issues a [clarification](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/blog/paul-ryan-dismisses-usccb-criticism-these-are-not-all-the-catholic-bishops/) in reply to Ryan’s claiming that the letters aren’t representative of the whole of the U.S. conference:
*“Bishops who chair USCCB committees are elected by their fellow bishops to represent all of the U.S. bishops on key issues at the national level,” Clemmer said. “The letters on the budget were written by bishops serving in this capacity.”
*.
To reiterate: the USCCB as a body, speaking through its duly elected representatives, criticized the Ryan budget plan.

 

[PJD1987]

To reiterate: the USCCB as a body, speaking through its duly elected representatives, criticized the Ryan budget plan.

Clearly the USCCB did not speak for all Bishops as several Bishops, who have been mentioned several times on the thread, came out in support of the Ryan-Wyden Plan, and were critical of the fact that the USCCB released such a critical analysis, even questioning the wisdom of the USCCB giving an opinion on matters they are unqualified to understand to the extent that Mr. Ryan does, and right mentioning the Bishop’s lack of emphasis on the Church’s Social Teaching of subsidiarity and solidarity, the concepts which Mr. Ryan used, in part, to craft the plan.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[fnr]

fnr,

This line of argument has been dealt with already.

I’ll point to my previous reply. The Bishops were speaking AS A BODY through their duly elected representatives who chaired the relevant committee.

The USCCB is run by the liberal lay staff, not the Bishops themselves, anyone worth their salt knows that.

I’ll let the Bishops themselves respond to this.

As a previous posted said, the current Bishop of Milwaukee and Cardinal Dolan (former Bishop of Milwaukee), Paul Ryan’s own diocese, came out in support of Mr. Ryan.

Again, individual bishops may speak their own minds, but as a body, the USCCB criticized the Ryan budge.

This argument holds no water, and it’s unfortunate that many people are misunderstanding Catholic Social Teaching.

I’ll agree with you here!

 

[fnr]

Neither Romney-Ryan nor Obama-Biden are synonyms for Catholic social teaching.

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THE TRUTH!!!

 

[PJD1987]

I’ll agree with you here!

I’m glad you agree that the argument on this topic holds no water Why continue this line of attack on a faithful Catholic doing his best to integrate Catholic Social Teaching into U.S. Law who has a strong pro-life record?

God bless.

-Paul

 

[fnr]

I am a former federal litigation attorney. Federal salaries and benefits, in particular pensions, are much greater than the private sector, with exception to those in professional fields (lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.).

“Federal workers made an average $75,296 in pay last year, plus $28,323 in medical, pension and other benefits,” a USA Today analysis from December 28, 2011, found. “That’s about 60 percent more than the average private wage, a difference explained largely by higher education levels and more professional jobs in the federal workforce,” the report adds.

Am I sympathetic to the plight of federal employees? Not much.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, individual bishops may speak their own minds, but as a body, the USCCB criticized the Ryan budge.

Others have posted the fact that the USCCB is not a teaching authority. It’s not part of it’s mission. Therefore, these letters don’t have the weight that many Catholics think they have. That is the very reason some bishops have criticized these letters from the USCCB.

 

[PJD1987]

Others have posted the fact that the USCCB is not a teaching authority. It’s not part of it’s mission. Therefore, these letters don’t have the weight that many Catholics think they have. That is the very reason some bishops have criticized these letters from the USCCB.

 

[fnr]

I hope so. I like to point out I work for the federal government and was offered a 40% pay raise to work for the private sector. These federal vs private sector comparisons are riddled with problems because they usually compare apples to oranges.

I was offered double!!!

 

[jsmith354]

No one running for President ever in our country has been a symbol or synonym for Catholic teachings, I can not imagine anyone suggesting that they would be.
Since Jesus has not been nominated or is running, there is no perfect solution, HOWEVER, if you compare the two sides on major Catholic social issues in this election including Abortion, Contraceptives-Morning after pill, the definition of marriage and the right to our Church’s religious freedom, there is NO comparison. The Republican nominees support the traditional Catholic teachings on all subjects. The Democratic President and VP do not, simple as that.
God bless,
jeannie

 

[LisaA]

Even if you may not understand the serious environmental harms we are facing, it is nevertheless unfair for people to commit those harms against other people and future generations.

And it is very sad that there are so many Catholics who refuse to follow (or perhaps have not read) the words of JPII & BXVI about environmental problems being serious and harmful to people and God’s creation, and that we must reduce them, that it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

I know a lot of people here at CAF don’t believe there are environmental harms and problems, that it is all some conspiracy hoax. Maybe that’s because one’s favorite candidate is anti-environmental, and cognitive dissonance leads the voter to accept everything that candidate stands for, whether right or wrong. Or with some people it might be bec they gain economic benefit from industries causing the harms – by owning shares or working for such companies. Or it could be that taking reusable bags when shopping and the myriad of other measures to reduce one’s harm are just too bothersome, even when measures save people $100s and $1000s. I don’t really understand why people here at CAF are so anti-environmental.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it is unfair to engage in environmental harms to others. It may be okay to vote for people who are likewise are anti-environment, having no regard for the people and God’s creation harmed and killed by their policies and lack of environmental leadership. However, I would think it is NOT okay to gladly and happily vote for such candidates, without any attempt to let them know that one is voting for them only because they are against abortion (or whatever the person’s reason is), but that one is against their anti-environmental actions and agenda. At the very least one should hope and pray that those candidates would get that message somehow.

Whoever I vote for, it is with heavy heart – bec either way it will be someone who is pro-death on some issue or the other. And I when I write to politicians, I let them know those issues with which I agree and disagree.

How else are we going to get the politicians to straighten out and be completely pro-life?

Here’s the issue, it’s not a matter of NO regulations regarding the environment, but that many of these departments and government based regulatory agencies have gone far beyond reasonable. When huge constructions projects are stopped because of one dead desert mouse (this is NOT a joke) or when a public bridge is stopped because someone monitoring the stream saw a fish swim by or when someone is prevented from building on their own property because some environmental nut decided the TEMPORARY puddle in his backyard was a “wetlands” (true case and it went to the SUPREME COURT) then your cause loses credibility.

The Cap and Trade boondoggle was not set up to do any more than transfer taxpayer money to political cronies and those who stood to make a lot of money with this ridiculous scheme.None of these huge government payment transfer schemes have ANYTHING to do with what JPII spoke of in caring for the earth. You want to be taken seriously, then come up with reasonable, rational ideas that actually solve problems.

The whole Sky is Falling attitude makes the environmental causes sound just plain nutty, particularly when the corruption, lying and false data are made public. I remember when the Alaska Pipeline went in and there was all this tearing of hair and rending of garments about the impact on the caribou. Turned out the caribou LOVED the warmth of the pipe and made lots more little caribou. I remember The Population Bomb where we were told that in only decades there would be mass starvation if we didn’t stop ‘breeding.’ Now we’re told many countries aren’t even reproducing at replacement level. Part of this is a result of the change in attitude, that babies are a burden not a blessing. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that abortion became legal right about the same time as all these population scares were being ginned up. I don’t know how old you are but I lived through the birth of the environmental movement. I think many great things have resulted. But it’s gone WAY off the reservation at this point.

Global warming…meh…I remember the Time cover with “The Coming Ice Age.” You can only scare people with baloney for so long and then they tuned out. I tuned out long ago. But I still recycle, compost, turn off lights and only drive when necessary. It doesn’t take a federal department to promote common sense suggestions.

And finally getting back to the thread, Paul Ryan has demonstrated a lack of hysteria and a measured and reasoned approach to these and other issues.

Lisa

 

[JoeBowen7]

Others have posted the fact that the USCCB is not a teaching authority. It’s not part of it’s mission.

I thought that the bishops were the successors to the apostles and that they had the mission to teach, rule and sanctify?

 

[PJD1987]

I thought that the bishops were the successors to the apostles and that they had the mission to teach, rule and sanctify?

Yes, not the USCCB, which is run largely by the liberal lay staff.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[fnr]

I’m glad you agree that the argument on this topic holds no water Why continue this line of attack on a faithful Catholic doing his best to integrate Catholic Social Teaching into U.S. Law who has a strong pro-life record?

Because to reduce Catholic social teaching to homosexuality, contraception, and abortion is to miss the boat entirely!

In saying this I mean it with the utmost reverence. Modern Catholic social teaching is in many ways looking back onto the pre-industrial era, when most of the population was agrarian, when we didn’t have industrial production that ran the risk of alienating workers and increasing social inequity, nor the industrial production of condoms, birth control pills, televisions, automobiles, and all of the other changes that our society has undergone.

Fundamentally, Catholic social teaching is an extension of the concept that a person has irreducible dignity, which itself is not reducible to a formulaic prioritization of reproductive and sexual issues. To me, Ryan’s “social policy” which is bound up in his economic policy is anti-poor, motivated by a belief in a “better class” of men who, freed of their government-imposed shackles, will lead us all into a utopian paradise (reflected in his Objectivist reading list). That, to me, is just plainly and simply not what Christ told us about building the Kingdom of God, nor is it what the Apostles were doing in Acts, nor what Paul tells us about mutual charity in the Lordship of Christ, nor what 1 John tells us about the person who hates his neighbor, nor what James 2 tells us about faith without works.

That he’s Catholic and pro-life is all well and good, but I believe that his advocated policies will facilitate the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, and to me, that’s not pro-life!

 

[JimG]

Even if you may not understand the serious environmental harms we are facing, it is nevertheless unfair for people to commit those harms against other people and future generations.

And it is very sad that there are so many Catholics who refuse to follow (or perhaps have not read) the words of JPII & BXVI about environmental problems being serious and harmful to people and God’s creation, and that we must reduce them, that it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

I know a lot of people here at CAF don’t believe there are environmental harms and problems, that it is all some conspiracy hoax. Maybe that’s because one’s favorite candidate is anti-environmental, and cognitive dissonance leads the voter to accept everything that candidate stands for, whether right or wrong. Or with some people it might be bec they gain economic benefit from industries causing the harms – by owning shares or working for such companies. Or it could be that taking reusable bags when shopping and the myriad of other measures to reduce one’s harm are just too bothersome, even when measures save people $100s and $1000s. I don’t really understand why people here at CAF are so anti-environmental.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it is unfair to engage in environmental harms to others. It may be okay to vote for people who are likewise are anti-environment, having no regard for the people and God’s creation harmed and killed by their policies and lack of environmental leadership. However, I would think it is NOT okay to gladly and happily vote for such candidates, without any attempt to let them know that one is voting for them only because they are against abortion (or whatever the person’s reason is), but that one is against their anti-environmental actions and agenda. At the very least one should hope and pray that those candidates would get that message somehow.

Whoever I vote for, it is with heavy heart – bec either way it will be someone who is pro-death on some issue or the other. And I when I write to politicians, I let them know those issues with which I agree and disagree.

How else are we going to get the politicians to straighten out and be completely pro-life?

A great many environmental issues are going to be mitigated by declining fertility rates, particularly in western nations which are placing themselves into a demographic winter.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Yes, not the USCCB, which is run largely by the liberal lay staff.

God bless.

-Paul

The membership of the USCCB consists of Catholic bishops.
From their website:
"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the Christian faithful of the United States. The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose.

The bishops themselves constitute the membership of the Conference…"

 

[rlg94086]

I thought that the bishops were the successors to the apostles and that they had the mission to teach, rule and sanctify?

The bishops do. The USCCB doesn’t. It is not a teaching office.

 

[fnr]

A great many environmental issues are going to be mitigated by declining fertility rates, particularly in western nations which are placing themselves into a demographic winter.

Actually, no. Declining fertility rates occur as a result of economic development and increasing child survival. This tends to mean more people living in urban areas, which means that more land gets paved (which produces a lot of water pollution and increases urban temperatures, more land converted to monocultural agriculture (which produces a lot of erosion), infrastructure gets built to subsidize the transport preferences of elites (which produces more car and truck travel in the US and Asia with attendant resource draws). With lower fertility, you have patterns of greater numbers of single-adult homes, which means more real estate square footage per capita, which increases per capita resource consumption. All this adds up to demography not fixing the problem! Sorry!

 

[fnr]

The bishops do. The USCCB doesn’t. It is not a teaching office.

Fine. You win.

Does that mean that you should disregard what they say?