U.S. Bishops praise passage of national housing trust fund

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kendy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kendy said:
It is not obvious to me at all that Christ’s solution is forced government confiscation and redistribution of wealth. It is Christ’s solution that we freely engage in works of charity. I am dying for someone to point to anything in scripture or a papal encyclical that demands these government programs.
Click to expand...
You said yourself that charity would be not be satisfactory.
But more importantly, charity is always inadequate, as it should be, because if it is too comfortable than lots of people will not be motivated to work.
Click to expand...
The question is not to show “love” by throwing pennies at them, but to free them from any physical adversity and want.
 
ribozyme said:
You said yourself that charity would be not be satisfactory. ?QUOTE]

I did not say that. I said, that we were not ablew to measure it.
ribozyme;4019372:
The question is not to show “love” by throwing pennies at them, but to free them from any physical adversity and want.
Click to expand...
You are welcome to throw more than pennies as you should, but freedom from want and physical adversity is not of this world, We will always have the poor with us. But the government has a record of mismanaging money as well as not accomplishing that which is aims to do. The war on poverty did not end poverty, but created dependency.

Kendy
Click to expand...
 
You said yourself that charity would be not be satisfactory.
I did not say that. I said, that we were not ablew to measure
Click to expand...
You are welcome to throw more than pennies as you should, but freedom from want and physical adversity is not of this world, We will always have the poor with us. But the government has a record of mismanaging money as well as not accomplishing that which is aims to do. The war on poverty did not end poverty, but created dependency.
Click to expand...
Kendy
Click to expand...
If charity cannot free one from want and adversity, I fail to see the point and it justs makes one despondent. And yes, you admitted in an earlier post that charity would be “inadequate.”
 
ribozyme said:
You said yourself that charity would be not be satisfactory.

If charity cannot free one from want and adversity, I fail to see the point and it justs makes one despondent. And yes, you admitted in an earlier post that charity would be “inadequate.”
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to my point that charity should never be enough to make people feel completely comfortable, but then I feel the same way about govt. programs. No one should be so comfortable living off someone else’s income that they don’t feel motivated to make their own.

Kendy
 
Kendy said:
I think you are referring to my point that charity should never be enough to make people feel completely comfortable, but then I feel the same way about govt. programs. No one should be so comfortable living off someone else’s income that they don’t feel motivated to make their own.

Kendy
Click to expand...
Then what is the point of “charity” if it is not designed to make people feel comfortable and relieve suffering? I also do not understand your concern about abortion. Sure it might “save” a “child” from having their brains sucked out, but have you saved from a miserable life of want and suffering? What would their life be like if they were born. I find the opposition to abortion without the concern for quality of life to be incongruent.
 
Kendy said:
It is not obvious to me at all that Christ’s solution is forced government confiscation and redistribution of wealth. It is Christ’s solution that we freely engage in works of charity. I am dying for someone to point to anything in scripture or a papal encyclical that demands these government programs.
Click to expand...
We the people elect our leaders and if we the people disagree with what they do we vote them out or try to do so. We are not living in a dictatorship. If you feel like you are being forced you have recourse, that is participation in government, by vote, organizing etc.

As to Church teaching…
CCC

**II. THE COMMON GOOD **
**1905 **In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person: Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25
**1906 **By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:
**1907 **First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27 **1908 **Second, the common good requires the social well-being and *development *of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28
Click to expand...
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#II
 
ribozyme said:
Then what is the point of “charity” if it is not designed to make people feel comfortable and relieve suffering? I also do not understand your concern about abortion. Sure it might “save” a “child” from having their brains sucked out, but have you saved from a miserable life of want and suffering? What would their life be like if they were born. I find the opposition to abortion without the concern for quality of life to be incongruent.
Click to expand...
If one is unwilling to protect the most innocent then the concern over suffering of the living is only empty words…
 
ribozyme said:
Then what is the point of “charity” if it is not designed to make people feel comfortable and relieve suffering? I also do not understand your concern about abortion. Sure it might “save” a “child” from having their brains sucked out, but have you saved from a miserable life of want and suffering? What would their life be like if they were born. I find the opposition to abortion without the concern for quality of life to be incongruent.
Click to expand...
I have never said that I had no concern for human suffering. I happen to give hundreds of dollars a month to charity. My only point is about forced redistribution through the state. And my second point is that no one should live comfortable off charity forever. I want to know that the charities that I give to have plans to get that person to some kind of independence, but if you can get everything you want from charity, why go to work?

Kendy
 
Kendy said:
The housing crisis is a result of owners by more than they can afford (some of them are close family members), banks making loans to people who can’t afford them (like people who have not worked for years, aagain personal experience), and speculators investing and building more housing than there is demand. The rest of us should not have to pay for these decisions.
Click to expand...
The federal govt itself is not without responsibility in creating the crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act, which was opposed by many in the mortgage industry, mandated that each banking institution must “meet the credit needs of its entire community.” That meant making loans to many who would not normally have qualified.

Also keep in mind how mortgage banking normally works. Loan officers are paid on how much business they generate–i.e., loans closed. Mortgage companies make money on origination fees, other fees, and sales of loans. It’s no matter to the loan originator if a loan goes bad, since by then the loan paper is sold.

As I used to tell home mortgage applicants–there are a lot of people involved in the process, and not one of them has any incentive to kill the deal, except possibly you.
 
Bennie_P said:
We the people elect our leaders and if we the people disagree with what they do we vote them out or try to do so. We are not living in a dictatorship. If you feel like you are being forced you have recourse, that is participation in government, by vote, organizing etc.

As to Church teaching…

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#II
Click to expand...
The passage you cited does not support redistribution of wealth or anything that I find objectionable. As for our democracy, I have a problem with the notion that 50% plus 1 of the voting public should be able to take my money to give it to someone else. And by the way, so did many of our founding fathers.

Kendy
 
Kendy said:
I have never said that I had no concern for human suffering. I happen to give hundreds of dollars a month to charity. My only point is about forced redistribution through the state. And my second point is that no one should live comfortable off charity forever. I want to know that the charities that I give to have plans to get that person to some kind of independence, but if you can get everything you want from charity, why go to work?

Kendy
Click to expand...
Then volunteer some of your time with the poor and be a mentor. Don’t just give to charities live charitable…
 
ribozyme said:
If charity cannot free one from want and adversity, I fail to see the point and it justs makes one despondent.
Click to expand...
Any government powerful enough to free everyone from want and adversity is entirely too powerful. If it can do that, it can also remove all your freedoms.
 
JimG said:
The federal govt itself is not without responsibility in creating the crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act, which was opposed by many in the mortgage industry, mandated that each banking institution must “meet the credit needs of its entire community.” That meant making loans to many who would not normally have qualified.

Also keep in mind how mortgage banking normally works. Loan officers are paid on how much business they generate–i.e., loans closed. Mortgage companies make money on origination fees, other fees, and sales of loans. It’s no matter to the loan originator if a loan goes bad, since by then the loan paper is sold.

As I used to tell home mortgage applicants–there are a lot of people involved in the process, and not one of them has any incentive to kill the deal, except possibly you.
Click to expand...
Finally, someone I agree with!!! Were you trying to disagree with me?
 
Kendy said:
The passage you cited does not support redistribution of wealth or anything that I find objectionable. As for our democracy, I have a problem with the notion that 50% plus 1 of the voting public should be able to take my money to give it to someone else. And by the way, so did many of our founding fathers.

Kendy
Click to expand...
I think you commenting on one subject and th OP and I another

Oh you are the OP:o
 
JimG said:
Any government powerful enough to free everyone from want and adversity is entirely too powerful. If it can do that, it can also remove all your freedoms.
Click to expand...
That is true, we can only try to help build a bridge for some and do maintenance for others…
 
Kendy said:
Finally, someone I agree with!!! Were you trying to disagree with me?
Click to expand...
Not at all! 🙂 I recall a time during the horrible Carter years, when home loan interest rates got as high as 17%, that our agency came up with a creative way to get more people into homes. It was called a GPM–graduated payment mortgage.

The lender amortized the loan AS IF the interest rate were much lower, and the monthly payments were significantly less. So more people could afford the payments. Because less interest was being collected than was actually owed (the note was at the higher rate!), the mortgage balance INCREASED every month for five years, then started going down. By year 10, the borrower was back to where he started–the original principal balance.

All of this had to be fully disclosed. I thought, “why would anyone agree to these terms?” But many did.
 
JimG said:
Any government powerful enough to free everyone from want and adversity is entirely too powerful. If it can do that, it can also remove all your freedoms.
Click to expand...
I’d say Sweden and Denmark do that pretty well with minimal intrusions on liberty. Not having to worry about food and shelter is certainly worth the price of infringing on the right for children to throw birthday parties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top