S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
This really nitpicky-but it’s bothering me. The correct spelling is laissez-faire (and I know you weren’t the original person who spelled it like this, Mutant). It means literally “let it be”.
- Status
K
katherine2
Guest
Do you know of anyone of at least the episcopal rank, living or dead, from the past 60 years who takes your view? If so, could you share their names?
I know I may just play into the out of date sterotype you may have of me, but may I suggest you turn off your computer and do some real research? Or, if that is not possible, can you find any bishops who objected to Ryan?
My dear, friend, you are finding little scraps and acting as if I have not had a lifetime of involvement with these matters. The document you are referring to is from the year 1919. The Unemployment Insurance came to be under the New Deal. UI, in all but a few states is a tax on industry not on people. (and the few states that do so it has been because of the conservatives). And, please let me know when the Church declares we have reached a just minimum wage. I’m more than willing to re-evaluate UI at that time!!!
You are not reading carefully. I would have hoped that site had given you a better idea of the wonderful Catholic Social teaching tradition. I beleive I much earlier posted that the last time the bishops came out against a social welfare initiative was the Child Labor laws of the 1920’s, something most of them and we are embarassed abotu nowdays. I’ve asked if a single example since the 1920’s could be found. No one has answered me.
Some do. Others are adopted unanimously.
I provided you a reference and I provided you with what I think is good advice, if a bit old-fashioned for some – get off the internet and do some REAL research.
But again, if the internet is so comprehensive, can you show me a dissenting bishop?
K
katherine2
Guest
No disagreement there.
Well, anotehr poster here claimed that federal socia welfare programs spend over 50% of their budget in administration. Listed for him the major federal social welfare programs and asked him to pick a few and I would provide him the actual administrative costs (not that all adminstration is wasteful) for those programs. My source would be none other than our beloved President in his budget, a signed presidential document. if he is a fool liar, well,well, that’s is a possibility I guess, but even he has limits.
I’m not saying you are as foolish as our other friend in trapping yourself in a provable error. But it sure does indicate that a lot iof misimpressions are out there. I think you ned more than just to proclaim the government is wasteful.
Now, now. You are going off on far right looneyism here. Not even our good Republican leaders dispute that these programs are unconstitutional.
read Aquinis.
T
theMutant
Guest
I don’t know what stereotype you think I have of you. Actually, I am quite interested in why you keep insisting on just the last 60 years when this teaching has been around for much longer than that? I will see if I can find actual names. I can only remember reading about debates and disagreements about these topics so I’ll do my best to meet your request.
However, You seem to be assuming that because I did my research using the computer in this instance that this is the only type of research I do. On the contrary, I do quite a bit of good old-fashioned book reading.
I’m afraid that it is you who is not reading very carefully. The site in question did, in fact reveal a great wealth of examples of truly fantastic Catholic social teaching. I did not advocate the position of the bishop who opposed Ryan, I merely pointed to it as an example of the fact that not all bishops necessarily agreed with the programs he advocated. You also seem to imply that my citation of the Program of Social Reconstruction is invalid in regard to the topic because UI did not come into existence until the New Deal. However, if you had read the site more carefully, you might have noticed this.
or this
I find it quite ironic that you chastise me for using the internet for my research in one sentence and then you redirect me back to the CUA - which I can only access via the internet because I live in the state of Washington. Come on, which is it? Additionally, since you are so well researched, maybe you can at least provide me with references to actual documents, publication dates, page numbers. At least I have provided quotes and links to the information I am citing. You have not done so in any way.
T
theMutant
Guest
Ah, so the name calling has finally begun. I was wondering how long it would take. Sad that it always does. Oh well, I had hoped that I could expect more from you.
I don’t consider the Republican party to be conservative or to adhere to the provisions of the Constitution.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I can not believe you would say I am lying
Why would I lie about a show on the discovery channel? why would I lie at all Katherine?Just because people have information that contradicts your oppinion you don’t say they are lying and try to get others to say it as well.That is uncalled for.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Add to that abortion. Our tax money pays for abortion too.Thankyou democrats but dead folks can not use the other programs.
P
Philip_P
Guest
So reading through these posts, it strikes me that the difference is not so much as to that something should be done (everyone seems to take care of neighbor as a given), but in how it should be done. Personally, I understand the skepticism of allowing the government to become too involved, but from what I know of the historical records (especially prior to the New Deal), I just don’t think private action is sufficient.
Anyway, I’m really curious about the theological/faith aspects of this question, but it’s not quite on topic, so I started a new thread in the moral theology category. I’d really be interested in what some of the posters on this thread have to say.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=448913#post448913
Anyway, I’m really curious about the theological/faith aspects of this question, but it’s not quite on topic, so I started a new thread in the moral theology category. I’d really be interested in what some of the posters on this thread have to say.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=448913#post448913
K
katherine2
Guest
Any one who is asserting that low income Americans pay 42% of their income in taxes lying. Some things are matters of opinion, but that is a simple fact.I can not believe you would say I am lying
Now, if someone was not asserting this but merely passing on in good faith some bad information, then they would not be lying but simply mistaken.
K
katherine2
Guest
Didn’t I get blasted somewhere else for bringing abortion into a discussion?
T
theMutant
Guest
Don’t let this temporary diversion into whether or not the American bishops have universally supported these social initiatives divert from the underlying topic; whether or not the taxation of citizens to support these programs is consistent with the unchanging and unchangeable papal teaching on the relationship between solidarity and subsidiarity. katherine2 has suggested that, because the American bishops have been unanimous in their support of these initiatives for the last 60 years, any contrary interpretation by the laity must be incorrect. However, her logic doesn’t hold up and there are several examples that show this to be the case.
To begin with, history has shown that the bishops, even when acting in great numbers, even when they represent the overwhelming majority of all the bishops, can in fact be absolutely wrong in matters of faith. The principal example of this is in the Arian heresy. I am not claiming here that the American bishops are in heresy, I am merely pointing out that, even if they are unanimous, it does not guarantee that they are correctly interpreting and passing on the teaching of the faith. In all cases, the constant unchanging teaching of the popes is the key to our unity and understanding of the faith.
Examples of American bishops getting things wrong abound.
1: For decades, the laity have complained that the translation of Church documents into English have been faulty. The bishops have not only approved the translations but defended them. Even Rome had approved the publication of some of these translations, such as the ICEL translations of the previous Missals. Does this mean that they laity were wrong? No. Proof of this is shown in the recent stance of Rome insisting that the English speaking bishops correct the errors of translation they had been previously allowing. Rome removed the task of translating the Catechism from these bishops and had to translate it herself. The translation practices of the ICEL have been severely criticized by Rome and there has been much more careful scrutiny of the translation of the new Missal with specific instructions to correct previous errors even though they now have long standing practice in the English speaking Churches. Bishops approved the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and Rome had to step in and ban its use in the Liturgy because it is a very bad translation.
2: With the institution of the new GIRM, the US bishops had requested a modification of the long-standing practice of kneeling both during the liturgy and while receiving communion. This modification was approved. Some of the laity who continued the long-standing practice of kneeling – particularly when receiving communion – were being denied the Blessed Sacrament. On appealing to Rome, the English speaking bishops were instructed to cease this practice because Rome never intended that the faithful would be denied the Blessed Sacrament for choosing to kneel when receiving Him.
3: The laity have complained for decades about the fact that bishops have failed to address abuses of the Mass. Those who have tried to raise these issues have sometimes faced harsh rebukes from bishops. Were they wrong? No. In fact Rome has recently acknowledged that the problem has grown so bad that she had to issue instructions to the bishops to correct abuses.
4: The laity have complained for decades that the practice of granting annulments has been flawed and that the bishops have not corrected the problems. Rome is about to release a document with instructions on correcting these problems.
5: The laity complained for decades that the bishops were not living up to their responsibility to ensure that Catholic educational institutions were living up to the requirement of being Catholic. Were they wrong? No, Rome had to issue instructions to the bishops to ensure that educational institutions that identify themselves as being Catholic are, indeed, Catholic.
So, you see, when we read papal documents that clearly and unambiguously explain the relationship between solidarity and subsidiarity in terms that one does not need a degree in theology to understand, and then we see actions of bishops that seem to contradict those teachings, we are not acting against the faith to explain where we feel that their positions contradict papal teaching. Instead, we are exercising a right that is defined and defended by popes.
To begin with, history has shown that the bishops, even when acting in great numbers, even when they represent the overwhelming majority of all the bishops, can in fact be absolutely wrong in matters of faith. The principal example of this is in the Arian heresy. I am not claiming here that the American bishops are in heresy, I am merely pointing out that, even if they are unanimous, it does not guarantee that they are correctly interpreting and passing on the teaching of the faith. In all cases, the constant unchanging teaching of the popes is the key to our unity and understanding of the faith.
Examples of American bishops getting things wrong abound.
1: For decades, the laity have complained that the translation of Church documents into English have been faulty. The bishops have not only approved the translations but defended them. Even Rome had approved the publication of some of these translations, such as the ICEL translations of the previous Missals. Does this mean that they laity were wrong? No. Proof of this is shown in the recent stance of Rome insisting that the English speaking bishops correct the errors of translation they had been previously allowing. Rome removed the task of translating the Catechism from these bishops and had to translate it herself. The translation practices of the ICEL have been severely criticized by Rome and there has been much more careful scrutiny of the translation of the new Missal with specific instructions to correct previous errors even though they now have long standing practice in the English speaking Churches. Bishops approved the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and Rome had to step in and ban its use in the Liturgy because it is a very bad translation.
2: With the institution of the new GIRM, the US bishops had requested a modification of the long-standing practice of kneeling both during the liturgy and while receiving communion. This modification was approved. Some of the laity who continued the long-standing practice of kneeling – particularly when receiving communion – were being denied the Blessed Sacrament. On appealing to Rome, the English speaking bishops were instructed to cease this practice because Rome never intended that the faithful would be denied the Blessed Sacrament for choosing to kneel when receiving Him.
3: The laity have complained for decades about the fact that bishops have failed to address abuses of the Mass. Those who have tried to raise these issues have sometimes faced harsh rebukes from bishops. Were they wrong? No. In fact Rome has recently acknowledged that the problem has grown so bad that she had to issue instructions to the bishops to correct abuses.
4: The laity have complained for decades that the practice of granting annulments has been flawed and that the bishops have not corrected the problems. Rome is about to release a document with instructions on correcting these problems.
5: The laity complained for decades that the bishops were not living up to their responsibility to ensure that Catholic educational institutions were living up to the requirement of being Catholic. Were they wrong? No, Rome had to issue instructions to the bishops to ensure that educational institutions that identify themselves as being Catholic are, indeed, Catholic.
So, you see, when we read papal documents that clearly and unambiguously explain the relationship between solidarity and subsidiarity in terms that one does not need a degree in theology to understand, and then we see actions of bishops that seem to contradict those teachings, we are not acting against the faith to explain where we feel that their positions contradict papal teaching. Instead, we are exercising a right that is defined and defended by popes.
K
katherine2
Guest
In the past 100 years of Catholic Social Teaching, do we have even a single statement from any of the holy popes from Leo XIII to our current Holy Father correcting the bishops (either collectively or individually) for their constant and unrelenting contradictions of papal teachings? Or have the popes for over 100 years abandoned their faithful children? Are we living in an Avingon captivity where the popes ignore the evil preachings of these unworthy bishops and where the popes withhold their fatherly protection from their little children?
Is this the way a father treats his children?
B
Brad
Guest
This isn’t the point. The point is that we are completely free to disagree with the Minnesota Bishops and that their teaching does not mandate all Catholic faihtful to agree with it.
T
theMutant
Guest
Lisa4Catholics in post 186:
To be fair, Katherine did not reference the Democrat party in the post to which you were responding. She was referring to the democratic process.
T
theMutant
Guest
Were there any corrections for the constant and unrelenting contraditions of Vatican directives in any of the examples I cited during the many decades in which the laity were complaining? No, Rome only addressed those issues after many decades of being silent. It sometimes takes Rome many decades to forcefully address issues. The fact that this issue is taking longer than the others doesn’t negate my argument.
K
katherine2
Guest
Now here is an excellent example of the importance of small words. I’ve never claimed any one was bound under pain of sin to concur with the Minnesota bishops. Nor, do I recall as anyone else here. Therefore, I think it is silly to pretend anyone is asking for such. But Brad makes a small switch in the words used previously. Now is is “we are completely free”.
Actually, I don’t think we are “completely free”. I do think we, as faithful Catholics, are obligated to prayerfully reflect on such episcopal statements, take them seriously and give them every benefit of the doubt and respond respectfully.
This goes to a post somewhere here that I am not impressed with the type of of Catholic who thinks the Church is limited to two types of statements: 1) infallible that must be obeyed, 2) hot air.
However, as to if my previous psot was to the point, I think it was to Mutant’s point. While Brad agrues that we are free to tell the bishops to flake off, Mutant seems to suggest that the Church is affirmative teaching free market principles. I was responding to Mutant.
T
theMutant
Guest
Actually, I have clearly claimed that the popes for over 100 years have presented the correct view in the documents which I previously cited and quoted in this thread. However, if you think the Church is immune to such a situation then you clearly lack a knowledge of Church history. The history of the Church is marked with periods in which her very foundations were rocked by scandal, heresy, and schism. Rocked but not broken because the foundation of the Church is Christ Himself which he maintains through the successor of Peter, the Rock on which the Church was built.
There have, for example, been various approved apparitions which indicate the the Church herself will be scourged by God for the sins of here members, including the hierarchy. I am not claiming that we are living in such a time. I’m only pointing out that your argument goes against the history and teaching of the Church.
T
theMutant
Guest
Yes, but not in an absolute sense. The popes have been very clear on that point. A completely unfettered free market system is just as wrong as a completely socialized system. Inded Leo XIII condemned both positions in the most forceful terms! The Socialist and subsequent Communist movements were a reaction to the evils wrought by an unfettered free market society which reduced the workers to little more than slaves.
K
katherine2
Guest
Yes. The Church’s stance is seen in the programs of Christian Democracy and the social welfare systems where it was dominant.
K
katherine2
Guest
A century? And not with the pope actively fighting such errors but remaining mute in correcting even a single bishop? We have 100 years and yet as even one of the popes setn so much as a single letter to a single bishop correcting his errors on his support for expansive social welfare?
it one thing to have a pope activily fighting error in the world at a time when bishops were locally elected. But in modern times when the pope selects most bishops, to not issue a public correction at all while the bishops constantly and consistently engage in this error? It doesn’t speak very well for the popes, does it?
- Status