Pope Francis drives a wedge between Catholic Church, GOP

[JimmyG88]

Waiting 6 weeks for an appointment over a mild medical problem, people really love the NHS and glad people on the left tell us they love it.

You have the option to pay. There’s your free market

 

[Path_Finder]

Even if this is from the 2002, it certainly shows at a minimum, the British Public was not happy with the NHS at this point of time. Seems those who are so apt to scold and attack Conservatives and others based on Nationality should at a minimum acknowledge such.

Public satisfaction with the National Health Service is lower than when Labour came to power, according to a poll published today.

Four out of 10 people believe the NHS is “getting worse”, and the same figure would prefer to go private if they could, a Gallup survey for The Daily Telegraph found.

And the number of people who think the NHS has been a failure has doubled since 1997, the results revealed.

When Gallup asked voters four years ago whether “taking everything into account has the health service been a success or failure”, 10% said it had failed.

But today’s poll, which is one of the largest on the subject in recent years, found the number had doubled to 20%.

Nearly two thirds of those surveyed said they reckoned the NHS was “in somewhat failing health” or “very poorly indeed”.

A tiny proportion said they think the NHS is “in peak condition”, only 33% said it is “in reasonably good health”, and only 13% reckoned it is “getting better”.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94561/Public-unhappy-NHS–poll.html#ixzz3O2MKnxK2

So, this is to at a very minimal recognize that those who would be so uncharitable of others, need to see history. NHS may be improving, it’s also been the source of a number of unsavory stories.

 

[JimmyG88]

Even if this is from the 2002, it certainly shows at a minimum, the British Public was not happy with the NHS at this point of time. Seems those who are so apt to scold and attack Conservatives and others based on Nationality should at a minimum acknowledge such.

So, this is to at a very minimal recognize that those who would be so uncharitable of others, need to see history. NHS may be improving, it’s also been the source of a number of unsavory stories.

I wouldn’t either read nor believe anything from the Daily Mail neither would I depend on an article 13 years old. The NHS was founded whilst Britain was also engaged in a total war which demonstrates the determination of socialists and liberals who actually cared enough to extend health care to all. It was founded in the teeth of opposition from the establishment including the proprietor or the Daily Mail Lord Rothermere the friend of Mussolini and Hitler. I acknowledge that we should demand more of the NHS. However the alternative (and there is no indication of the future other than what happened in the past) seems to me to include a plethora of untreated chronic conditions, health and life expectancy based solely on the ability to pay and greedy speculators making money from ‘quick win’ cases rather than the humane treatment of the less profitable conditions of old age and disability.

 

[estesbob]

Have you read a platform? It contains all sorts of stuff that they won’t do and doesn’t contain all sorts of stuff that they do do. The last Republican platform called for 4 Constitutional Amendments.

And support of a abortion and homosexual marriage is,unfortunately,some of the “stuff” they do. I am still waiting for somebody to point out anything in the Republican Party platform that is contrary to church teaching.

 

[cena]

You are expecting the Pope to denounce both capitalism and socialism when he may not be of the opinion that socialism is bad. Americans on the right have a very fixed (and mostly incorrect) view of socialism that is not shared in Europe, Australia, South America or parts of Africa. State ownership of utilities, transport networks and the means of production works well on other parts of this planet. State delivery of heath care free at the point of treatment for everyone 24/7 in the form of the British National Health Seevice was resisted by conservatives and the medical profession. But is so loved that even the most swivel eyed Thatherite dare not suggest it is ended. There is a much bigger picture

Isn’t the Church against socialism?

 

[JimmyG88]

Isn’t the Church against socialism?

I think what American posters understand by socialism isn’t the same as it is understood in Europe. Communism and Socialism are distinct ideologies. Ownership in common is surely apostolic?

 

[estesbob]

Isn’t the Church against socialism?

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
» Enter the Catechism at this paragraph*

Church categorically rejects socialism and communism. She also rejects unfettered capitalism .

 

[Ender]

cena, I am with you on that. I cannot for the life of me understand the USCCB’s support of this latest immigration bill from Obama. I guess what the USCCB does is not a “teaching” per se but I don’t think it is a good idea to make a habit of rejecting their views and then trying to pass yourself off as a good dutiful Catholic. I feel that I am wrong from the Christian standpoint on this issue.

Regrettably the USCCB has become little more than the US bishops Political Action Committee. The good news is that they have no teaching authority and we are in no way obliged to agree with their pronouncements. The fact that the USCCB has come out in support of a particular bill literally means nothing at all.
*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” * Cardinal Ratzinger
Ender

 

[JimmyG88]

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
» Enter the Catechism at this paragraph*

Church categorically rejects socialism and communism. She also rejects unfettered capitalism .

No! The church has rejected …ATHEISTIC ideologies ASSOCIATED with Socialism. It is not correct to suggest otherwise. Stalinism, North Korea et al. The Socialism that nationalised the Health Service on Britain is not rejected by the Catholic Church

 

[JimmyG88]

Regrettably the USCCB has become little more than the US bishops Political Action Committee. The good news is that they have no teaching authority and we are in no way obliged to agree with their pronouncements. The fact that the USCCB has come out in support of a particular bill literally means nothing at all.
*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” * Cardinal Ratzinger
Ender

So much for the Vatican council and collegiality

 

[Tigg]

So much for the Vatican council and collegiality

The nature of episcopal conferences, and their magisterial authority in particular, was subsequently clarified by Pope John Paul II’s 1998 motu proprio Apostolos suos which stated that conferences of bishops do not participate in the teaching authority of the college of bishops although individual bishops do as they are members of the college of bishops which maintains unity with and under the Bishop of Rome, that is, the Pope.

Consequently, a conference of bishops cannot make doctrinal declarations unless it receives two-thirds approval of the individual bishops of the conference and receives the subsequent recognitio, that is, recognition of approval, of the Holy See. Thus, while a conference of bishops can assist the individual bishops of the conference it cannot substitute for the authority which they individually possess.

Episcopal conferences are basically bureaucratic structures which issue guidelines. The USCCB, for instance on a national level, does not have a full ecclesial dimension. (Again, the Ratzinger Report upheld by JP II.)

 

[Ender]

So much for the Vatican council and collegiality

The reason no episcopal conference has a teaching authority is that no bishop can speak for another. Nothing one bishops proclaims is binding on any other bishop; he has no authority outside of his own diocese. Beyond that, no prudential judgment is binding even within a bishop’s own diocese. What we have from the USCCB are (generally) the prudential opinions of a few individual bishops. It is simply an error to believe these various proclamations have any authority or in any way represent church doctrines.Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

You are expecting the Pope to denounce both capitalism and socialism when he may not be of the opinion that socialism is bad. Americans on the right have a very fixed (and mostly incorrect) view of socialism that is not shared in Europe, Australia, South America or parts of Africa. State ownership of utilities, transport networks and the means of production works well on other parts of this planet. State delivery of heath care free at the point of treatment for everyone 24/7 in the form of the British National Health Seevice was resisted by conservatives and the medical profession. But is so loved that even the most swivel eyed Thatherite dare not suggest it is ended. There is a much bigger picture

I am actually not expecting anything at all from the pope. To be an effective pope however, it is probably not a wise move to make promouncements that leave conservatives believing that he is on the other side.
Calling people swivel-eyed Thatcherites, for example, likely would do very little to help him win friends and influence people either.

The papacy, since about 1870 or even earlier, has no power but for the power of persuasive argument. Alienated people who mistrust the intent of the papacy as to be at cross purposes with their own are not easily persuaded. Tact and diplomacy are therefore everything.

 

[JimmyG88]

I am actually not expecting anything at all from the pope. To be an effective pope however, it is probably not a wise move to make promouncements that leave conservatives believing that he is on the other side.
Calling people swivel-eyed Thatcherites, for example, likely would do very little to help him win friends and influence people either.

The papacy, since about 1870 or even earlier, has no power but for the power of persuasive argument. Alienated people who mistrust the intent of the papacy as to be at cross purposes with their own are not easily persuaded. Tact and diplomacy are therefore everything.

I doubt he has much regard for Thatcher after the Falklands debacle. He needs to excersise tact and diplomacy only among people who are not Catholics. He may have to persuade them but he leads us

 

[Crossbones]

And support of a abortion and homosexual marriage is,unfortunately,some of the “stuff” they do. I am still waiting for somebody to point out anything in the Republican Party platform that is contrary to church teaching.

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains
“Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.”

From that, one might conclude that a Republican President will avoid deficit spending.

Year Federal Deficit (- indicates a surplus)
2000 -236.24
2001 -128.23
2002 157.75
2003 377.59
2004 412.73
2005 318.35
2006 248.18
2007 160.71
2008 458.55

Maybe not then.

 

[Ender]

No! The church has rejected …ATHEISTIC ideologies ASSOCIATED with Socialism. It is not correct to suggest otherwise. Stalinism, North Korea et al. The Socialism that nationalised the Health Service on Britain is not rejected by the Catholic Church

It is socialism itself that has been rejected. You may argue that the NHS is not socialistic, but what is socialism is pretty thoroughly condemned. *4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

1. **Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
2. **The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
3. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind.. *(Rerum Novarum)
   Ender

 

[Ender]

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains
“Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.”

From that, one might conclude that a Republican President will avoid deficit spending.

That seems a naive conclusion, but surely the point is that whether the GOP introduces balanced budgets or not, neither condition is contrary to church doctrine. Still waiting for that example…

Ender

 

[JimmyG88]

It is socialism itself that has been rejected. You may argue that the NHS is not socialistic, but what is socialism is pretty thoroughly condemned. 4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

1. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
2. The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
3. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind.. (Rerum Novarum)
   Ender

I wouldn’t seek to say that the NHS is anything other than the proud product of British Socialism. Pope Leo (a man who never exchanged a word with his coachman in 25 years) was a gentile noble and very much a product of his time. It must however be remembered that he supported the rights of workers to join a Union (a principle not universally supported on the right) and that he also said:
'The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
I’m sure that we can find supporting quotes ad infinitum.

 

[ProVobis]

The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains
“Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.”

From that, one might conclude that a Republican President will avoid deficit spending.

Doesn’t the Vatican try to do the same? Surely they don’t expect other governments put themselves into more debt while they are trimming their own budget (firing people, reducing their bonuses, etc.).

 

[Tigg]

He needs to excersise tact and diplomacy only among people who are not Catholics. He may have to persuade them but he leads us regarding faith and morals.

When we assent to the teachings of the Church we do it by use of both grace and reason. In the process of development then, desiring to please God and being faithful to the sacraments and Mass, we grow toward things godly, and we become stronger; there is a deepening level of trust and an increase in the theological virtues given to us at baptism. In the “leading” then, I find it essential that there be a continuity of those things that originally shaped my faith formation - that nothing threaten the original foundation in truth. This is the journey and our political preferences cannot help but reflect the spiritual reality.