US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[iamrefreshed]

Not at all. You still don’t get it. I’m not at all envious of the rich. I’m quite thankful for my very modest 6+ yr old compact car and my 30 yr old 1000 sq ft home. I’m just blessed right now to have a roof over my head when so many have not. And besides I don’t need to then worry about whether a camel can fit thru an eye of a needle.

Great, since my car is much older will you be upgrading me or just trading?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ has no qualifiers either way regarding government intervention, so you can neither defend your position nor attack others based on what He said. However, His Church, through the Magisterium, does provide qualifiers, and I have cited them. Unless you are a Protestant, you can’t hide behind a “where did Christ qualify…” argument.

Christ’s kingdom is not a democracy, where we are at liberty to go ‘either way’. It’s not a legalistic system that one can argue against. He definitely said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That is an indication of His will. Just as reading statements by, and written by, the Pope and other clergy are an indication of what they believe.

The ad hominem Protestant remark can be applied to either side of an argument, in fact I thought the same as I read the beginning of your post.

Further, the argument I and others on CAF espouse do not "amount to “everyone for themselves” - not even close. And, no one said “everyone can work, but doesn’t want to,” so that is just more of your dishonest argumentation.

Read back through. There are comments that make that very point. The dishonesty is to deny it, even when applying a spin to specifically what was said.

Not at all. What I said, is that they aren’t contrary to anything I’ve posted. I agree that all sectors, including (did the pope say or imply “specifically”…I think not) the State have a role in social justice. I’ve never said anything contrary. However, I didn’t see anything in your articles that showed a preference for government over other sectors or a preference for a federal bureaucracy versus state/local or private charity. Perhaps it seemed simple to you because you took a simplistic view “through a biased political view.”

Play the semantics, it removes the honest intention of what was said. I did not say preference, but the Pope and others stated ‘governments’, all sectors, and other things that are being spun beyond belief.

…and we are back to the victimhood stance. Bravo! You have repeated every one of your poor arguments in a single thread. Yes, your posts speak for themselves. :clapping:

Again, our posts do speak for themselves and I don’t see much of an honest argument in opposition of what I’ve stated. But your continued condescending tone, spins and attacks are duly noted. They also speak loudly.

 

[seekerz]

And it was the Pharisee’s decision to make, not someone else’s.

Sure. The decision to follow Christ is a personal decision that is influenced to some extent by societal concerns. For example, in a society with Christian traditions, the laws and government policies tend to reflect concern for the poor and the disadvantaged. Individuals are free to embrace or reject these attitudes but, unless they are willing to relocate or change these aspects of their society they tend to have no choice but to submit to these laws and policies.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Christ’s kingdom is not a democracy, where we are at liberty to go ‘either way’. It’s not a legalistic system that one can argue against. He definitely said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That is an indication of His will. Just as reading statements by, and written by, the Pope and other clergy are an indication of what they believe.

Again, I ask. Why are people who, for all intents and purposes, mentally and/or physically able to work, at a reasonable age, etc. on welfare, food stamps, etc.? Why has this happend to generations of families without any improvement? We have thrown money at schools and other social programs but that hasn’t seemed to work - and as we’re slowly learning, the free ride can’t last forever.

 

[seekerz]

. I suspect what they would laugh at is the attitude that the federal government should be empowered to seize others’ earnings to fund their version of social justice.

Now you’re being really funny: people who grew up under the tyranny of an occupying empire and dealt on a daily basis with capricious tax collectors, would laugh at a country where tax collection is actually regulated by laws (albeit not always fair ones) and taxes generally remain in the country where they are collected?!

 

[iamrefreshed]

He definitely said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick.

You are His follower, so do it. Why do you want to force others to do it for you?

 

[seekerz]

You are His follower, so do it. Why do you want to force others to do it for you?

Why indeed? I agree with you that no one should be forced to follow Christ’s example. Then again, there are our Judeo-Christian principles as a society…I dunno, maybe people should be allowed to secede…

 

[rlg94086]

Christ’s kingdom is not a democracy, where we are at liberty to go ‘either way’. It’s not a legalistic system that one can argue against.

What in the world are you talking about? I’ve posted nothing contrary to Church teaching, and there are situations, specific role of government being one of them, where prudential reasoning does allow for differences of opinion. Ask any priest or bishop, and I’m sure they can explain that to you.

He definitely said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, and care for the sick. That is an indication of His will. Just as reading statements by, and written by, the Pope and other clergy are an indication of what they believe.

Yes, and every Catholic on CAF believes and follows Christ’s teaching in this regard. They just differ in the application. And, you can read the Catechism and encyclicals, as well. They are all teachings of the Church. I’ve provided citations for you, which you’ve summarily ignored, in favor of taking the mere mention of government having a role as tacit approval of bloated, federal bureaucracy.

Read back through. There are comments that make that very point. The dishonesty is to deny it, even when applying a spin to specifically what was said.

. Nope. Find me a direct quote of someone claiming that “everyone” can work. You misquoted someone, and that is dishonest.

Play the semantics, it removes the honest intention of what was said. I did not say preference, but the Pope and others stated ‘governments’, all sectors, and other things that are being spun beyond belief.

Again, I HAVE NEVER SAID GOVERNMENT HAS NO ROLE. You are the one that keeps spinning. The mere mention of “government” by the Pope and others does not equate to approval of bureaucracy. Or, do you think the Pope was speaking contrary to Church teaching about the role of government and problems with the Welfare State and bureaucracy?

 

[seekerz]

You know, it just occurred to me after writing a recent post: early Christians also faced the responsibility of paying taxes at the same time as they went about practicing charity and sharing all they had with the poor. How then did we come to the point where it’s become some kind of battle about whether contribution to the upkeep of society should be government-mandated or charitable? Both have been required as far back as the time of Christ and I don’t see where He condemned that state of affairs.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You know, it just occurred to me after writing a recent post: early Christians also faced the responsibility of paying taxes at the same time as they went about practicing charity and sharing all they had with the poor. How then did we come to the point where it’s become some kind of battle about whether contribution to the upkeep of society should be government-mandated or charitable? Both have been required as far back as the time of Christ and I don’t see where He condemned that state of affairs.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that we are not responsible for both. However, some seem to think giving the government carte blanche seems to fulfill their obligations.

Other’s argue that Christ’s mandate to care for the poor should be forced on non-beleivers.

And other seem to think that those who have more should give in their place since they are ‘rich’. Beleivers or not.

 

[CMatt25]

Or, they might read your and Prodigal’s posts and think your extreme viewpoints are Catholic answers.

No one sees the word Catholic in my profile. And for me it’s the likes of Prodigal Son’s posts here and other Catholics with his beliefs who have posted elsewhere, that actually are the ones who give me a bit of hope to barely hang onto that Catholicism is not becoming an arm of conservative political parties.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No one sees the word Catholic in my profile. And for me it’s the likes of Prodigal Son’s posts here and other Catholics with his beliefs who have posted elsewhere, that actually are the ones who give me a bit of hope to hang onto that Catholicism is not becoming an arm of conservative political parties.

Well, with the culture of death firmly entrenched on the liberal side you won’t be seeing Catholicism there!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

No one sees the word Catholic in my profile. And for me it’s the likes of Prodigal Son’s posts here and other Catholics with his beliefs who have posted elsewhere, that actually are the ones who give me a bit of hope to barely hang onto that Catholicism is not becoming an arm of conservative political parties.

Oh, and you don’t think you sound like the arm of liberal politics?

 

[wynnejj]

You know, it just occurred to me after writing a recent post: early Christians also faced the responsibility of paying taxes at the same time as they went about practicing charity and sharing all they had with the poor. How then did we come to the point where it’s become some kind of battle about whether contribution to the upkeep of society should be government-mandated or charitable? Both have been required as far back as the time of Christ and I don’t see where He condemned that state of affairs.

They formed private communities, like monasteries, and pooled their resources. The key was that they were not forced or coerced by a government agency. Nor, did they in their entire 2000+ years create a government - small or large - that forced or coerced their members to pool their resources. The members of these private communities were voluntary members who accepted the rule of the private community voluntarily. Not all their private communities where based on pure socialistic pooling principles. Some allowed for profits. One thing that was consistent with their solidarity (all for all) was their subsidiarity (at the most appropriate local level). With a small community, there was something that could be more readily administered - accountability. They knew where you lived. They knew where their resources were going. They could track transactions.

Capitalism & socialism has similar end products - mo’ money, yo’ money.

Big government & big corporations where money is laundered, manipulated, co-mingled, and hidden under tax shelters are the real enemies of society.

Smaller government & smaller corporations, where you know your neighbors & know what you are doing to your neighbors, are the real solution.

And, the smallest unit of all must be held sacred and nurtured & cultivated to good health - marriage & family.

 

[SamH]

Now you’re being really funny: people who grew up under the tyranny of an occupying empire and dealt on a daily basis with capricious tax collectors, would laugh at a country where tax collection is actually regulated by laws (albeit not always fair ones) and taxes generally remain in the country where they are collected?!

Could you name a country in the last 100 years that collected taxes in violation of its own laws?

 

[seekerz]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that we are not responsible for both. However, some seem to think giving the government carte blanche seems to fulfill their obligations.

Other’s argue that Christ’s mandate to care for the poor should be forced on non-beleivers.

And other seem to think that those who have more should give in their place since they are ‘rich’. Beleivers or not.

What does it mean to give the government carte blanche? I think arguments about how much should be taken and how it should be spent are valid, but in these kinds of discussions I tend to seem lots of generalizations about how the poor don’t deserve what they are being given and very little validation of their actual needs.

Simply saying that someone should get a job instead of relying on gov’t assistance for example, does not take into consideration the fact that some low paying jobs may not allow people to meet the basic needs of their families. Consider also the fact that because of planning and zoning patterns (and the lack of reliable public transportation), even the poorest of people often need a car to get to any kind of job on time…then they need gas money…and money for daycare…and on and on. Poor people surely had the least (name removed by moderator)ut as to how our cities and towns were planned!

Are there irresponsible poor? Is there waste? Sure, (factors seen even with charitable organizations) but what we need to do is not paint the poor with a broad brush and instead address those specific problems. For example, mandatory financial management training for recipients of public support, far more stringent requirements to qualify and remain qualified and a system whereby the public can monitor and report on violations.

I see no reason not to expect the rich to contribute more than the less wealthy: to whom much is given, from them much is expected.

 

[rlg94086]

No one sees the word Catholic in my profile. And for me it’s the likes of Prodigal Son’s posts here and other Catholics with his beliefs who have posted elsewhere, that actually are the ones who give me a bit of hope to barely hang onto that Catholicism is not becoming an arm of conservative political parties.

You don’t have a religion in you profile, so a “lurker” would easily assume you are Catholic since its a Catholic forum. That said, my point is that you, Prodigal, seekerz and many, many other misguided liberals are part of CAF. You can’t place CAF in the “them” category when you are playing the victim, since you are part of CAF.

 

[ishii]

Agree - and unregulated capitalism, fed by the greed of human nature, is also at odds with Christian teaching, IMHO, and has led to the growing imbalance… this is where government policy can make a difference - and I believe this is were we are called to speak out in favor of policy that upholds the lives of everyone - not just the CEO’s and stock holders. However those ‘with’ seem to have much more influence with those who make policy - so I think this is why it actually matters that the Church tries to be in the dialogue, being the voice for the increasingly voiceless.

Where do we have “unregulated capitalism” ? We don’t have that in America. What we have is out of control government spending on programs that largely create more despair, dependence, and disfunction in society. There is nothing charitable about supporting a regime that pepetuates and increases these conditions. I happen to work for a CEO of a large company that strongly believes in both the financial well being of the stock holders as well as the employees. The problem with capitalism (it is, after all, an imperfect system) is the greed and evil of some capitalists. The problem with socialism on the other hand, is socialism.

Ishii

 

[seekerz]

Could you name a country in the last 100 years that collected taxes in violation of its own laws?

In case you haven’t been following the discussion, we were comparing today’s conditions with those of first century Christians. I think it is generally accepted (and recorded in the bible) that tax collectors had a reputation for being, shall we say…over-zealous?

 

[seekerz]

They formed private communities, like monasteries, and pooled their resources. The key was that they were not forced or coerced by a government agency. Nor, did they in their entire 2000+ years create a government - small or large - that forced or coerced their members to pool their resources. The members of these private communities were voluntary members who accepted the rule of the private community voluntarily. Not all their private communities where based on pure socialistic pooling principles. Some allowed for profits. One thing that was consistent with their solidarity (all for all) was their subsidiarity (at the most appropriate local level). With a small community, there was something that could be more readily administered - accountability. They knew where you lived. They knew where their resources were going. They could track transactions.

Capitalism & socialism has similar end products - mo’ money, yo’ money.

Big government & big corporations where money is laundered, manipulated, co-mingled, and hidden under tax shelters are the real enemies of society.

Smaller government & smaller corporations, where you know your neighbors & know what you are doing to your neighbors, are the real solution.

And, the smallest unit of all must be held sacred and nurtured & cultivated to good health - marriage & family.

They were not forced to live in community (or even to give to the poor) but they were required to pay taxes. Same situation today.