US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[CMatt25]

That’s where you’re wrong. They may have voted for another candidate, but as long as they did not vote for the other candidate precisely to support that candidate’s view on abortion, they did not vote against Catholic moral teaching, according to Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict.

The group I would concern myself with would be the judgmental group condemning everyone without knowing what’s in their heart, or their reasons. If they try to explain either on these forums they are the butt end of condescension, personal attacks, spins of what they say, falsehoods, and many other things that totally lack any charity. They are pushed away by people who seem to readily further divide His Church.

True

 

[4elise]

Look at the attacks your bishops’ conference statement and Prodigal Son have received for their views. Or others on other threads. So for one problem, lurkers and posters who perhaps don’t realize yet that CAF is not owned by or affiliated with the Church but instead is a private internet forum and business, might be given the perception this extreme conservative political viewpoint are Catholic answers.

The rancor in this discussion - among people who share a common faith - is really discouraging, don’t you think?

We are people who follow the teachings of Jesus to put the needs of our brothers and sisters at equal importance with our own needs. I understand that some think this is exclusively the job of the private sector, philanthropy, and somehow this (if we had enough tax relief) there would be enough support by non profit organizations to meet these needs. Some (this is the group I find myself) believe that the government can and should provide a safety net - and those who have more, should do more, and where sacrifice should be spread across the population the larger burden on those who can afford it.

What I am concerned about is - if we people of a common faith - can’t have this discussion, without retreating to well worn corners how can we expect congress to get anything done? Maybe we can’t!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. I assume you are referring to my points about incurring debt to maintain levels of charity for foreign nations from our children’s future. I assume you are referring to public funding of birth control centers and abortion mills. In fact, I suspect it would be better that I put a millstone around my neck if I was an “enabler” of such things.

Please see who I am quoting to my responses and you’ll see I am not referring to your ‘points’ and causing you to make false assumptions about what I am really saying. I have been very clear about the social programs. Receivers and givers of social programs are ALL sinners and are not to judge others. In fact people are going to sin, but where did Christ tell us to withhold helping the poor because they are sinners?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The key term was “government program.” Jesus encouraged care for the poor. If a government program worsens society, then that is ostensibly making things worse for the poor. In your extremely twisted logic, you are saying that it is okay to make things worse for the poor through government programs because Jeaus said we should care for the poor.

We the people, are the government, or supposed to be in the US. Those government programs were put into place because of the truth of His teachings. In affect, it is His teachings that some think ‘make things worse for the poor’. Where did Christ say to withhold from the poor because they are sinners?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The rancor in this discussion - among people who share a common faith - is really discouraging, don’t you think?

We are people who follow the teachings of Jesus to put the needs of our brothers and sisters at equal importance with our own needs. I understand that some think this is exclusively the job of the private sector, philanthropy, and somehow this (if we had enough tax relief) there would be enough support by non profit organizations to meet these needs. Some (this is the group I find myself) believe that the government can and should provide a safety net - and those who have more, should do more, and where sacrifice should be spread across the population the larger burden on those who can afford it.

What I am concerned about is - if we people of a common faith - can’t have this discussion, without retreating to well worn corners how can we expect congress to get anything done? Maybe we can’t!

Well said. God Bless.

 

[rlg94086]

The rancor in this discussion - among people who share a common faith - is really discouraging, don’t you think?

We are people who follow the teachings of Jesus to put the needs of our brothers and sisters at equal importance with our own needs. I understand that some think this is exclusively the job of the private sector, philanthropy, and somehow this (if we had enough tax relief) there would be enough support by non profit organizations to meet these needs. Some (this is the group I find myself) believe that the government can and should provide a safety net - and those who have more, should do more, and where sacrifice should be spread across the population the larger burden on those who can afford it.

What I am concerned about is - if we people of a common faith - can’t have this discussion, without retreating to well worn corners how can we expect congress to get anything done? Maybe we can’t!

You forgot those of us who just believe that Church teaching on subsidiarity is best followed and large bureaucracy best avoided by following our Constitution and having states and local governments provide the safety nets in concert with non-profits and charitable organizations. It is a middle way, and I can’t figure out why my liberal friends reject it. They favor moving towards the grand Welfare State, which is rejected by the Church.

 

[rlg94086]

We the people, are the government, or supposed to be in the US. Those government programs were put into place because of the truth of His teachings. In affect, it is His teachings that some think ‘make things worse for the poor’. Where did Christ say to withhold from the poor because they are sinners?

Again, no one is saying this. If you can’t comprehend what is being argued, you probably shouldn’t bother commenting on it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You forgot those of us who just believe that Church teaching on subsidiarity is best followed and large bureaucracy best avoided by following our Constitution and having states and local governments provide the safety nets in concert with non-profits and charitable organizations. It is a middle way, and I can’t figure out why my liberal friends reject it. They favor moving towards the grand Welfare State, which is rejected by the Church.

Pope Benedict called on nations to prioritize healthcare for all. The Vatican secretary of state that delivered his message specifically said ‘governments’ when he delivered the message to representatives of nations. Are they rejecting the teaching on subsidiarity? I don’t think so. I believe those great men of our Church know how they can work together for the greater good of mankind.

Subsidiarity has become a ‘shield/tool’ for some to reject a greater truth, in my opinion. The same group accuses fellow Catholics of not understanding other teachings of the Church, that have not been clarified as they claim it to be for political reasons.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again, no one is saying this. If you can’t comprehend what is being argued, you probably shouldn’t bother commenting on it.

Specifically what is being said is that social programs are enabling people to do wrong. They have been judged, and Christ has not returned yet. I comprehend much better than you insinuate.

 

[rlg94086]

Pope Benedict called on nations to prioritize healthcare for all. The Vatican secretary of state that delivered his message specifically said ‘governments’ when he delivered the message to representatives of nations. Are they rejecting the teaching on subsidiarity? I don’t think so. I believe those great men of our Church know how they can work together for the greater good of mankind.

Subsidiarity has become a ‘shield/tool’ for some to reject a greater truth, in my opinion. The same group accuses fellow Catholics of not understanding other teachings of the Church, that have not been clarified as they claim it to be for political reasons.

State and local governments are still governments, so your post, once again, does not make sense. I’ve asked you for something from the pope or bishops stating a preference for federal programs as opposed to state and local, but you have not (and I’m sure you can not) produce such a thing. I don’t believe these men are rejecting subsidiarity, but you clearly are.

I stand by my statement that my proposed “middle way” is the best way to keep to Church teaching. I take the whole of her teaching, not your political spinning of papal/Vatican/USCCB statements about “government.”

However, as 4elise says, you can stick to your corner and refuse to work with your fellow Catholics…

 

[wynnejj]

Please see who I am quoting to my responses and you’ll see I am not referring to your ‘points’ and causing you to make false assumptions about what I am really saying. I have been very clear about the social programs. Receivers and givers of social programs are ALL sinners and are not to judge others. In fact people are going to sin, but where did Christ tell us to withhold helping the poor because they are sinners?

You asked me whether Christ taught us to enable what I thought to be wrong. My posts defined what I thought to be wrong. It was a crazy question, so I answered it literally in the context of what I described as what I thought wrong.

You clearly love to bypass my points, even though they are germane to shortfalls in the criticisms offered by Dr.Carr about how the debt ceiling doesn’t conform to the full guidelines of our Catholic bishops.

Besides, I don’t think that you have been clear about the specific social program cuts.
And, Dr.Carr really only highlights international aid and glosses about domestic programs. The only domestic programs that he enumerates are the ones that will not be automatically cut - on the plus side.

And the subject was about “enabling” societal evils in the context of budget cuts. My points seem much more specific than your generalizations.

 

[rlg94086]

Specifically what is being said is that social programs are enabling people to do wrong. They have been judged, and Christ has not returned yet. I comprehend much better than you insinuate.

Nope. Go back and read it again… They aren’t “enabling;” they are causing. You are in favor of a government social program, even if it makes things worse for the recipients. It’s a sick idea of charity - not at all what Jesus taught.

 

[4elise]

You forgot those of us who just believe that Church teaching on subsidiarity is best followed and large bureaucracy best avoided by following our Constitution and having states and local governments provide the safety nets in concert with non-profits and charitable organizations. It is a middle way, and I can’t figure out why my liberal friends reject it. They favor moving towards the grand Welfare State, which is rejected by the Church.

I see your point, but I think all people living in our country, if they live in Arkansas, New York, New Mexico, Alaska, California, Florida, all deserve (because they are all our brother and sisters) a basic quality of life. Some places in our country have larger challenges than they can meet on that state and local level, don’t you think?

Is there any part of the safety net that you think should be national, or do you think it should all be state and local? And if that is the case are we 50 countries, and not 50 states? We are US citizens, not citizens of Arizona, Nevada, (no state passports) – so given that, we can easily move between states. If one state (with a larger population or larger safety net)

I really would just like to take the heat out of the discussion and the 'gotcha’s - and really just talk about it… is that possible?

 

[estesbob]

It absolutely makes sense.

Bob: “When we quote direct teachings of the church concerning a Catholic not being able to vote for pro-abortion candidate”

Fact is a Catholic can vote for the candidate they so choose. And the teachings of the Catholic Church still say they are a Catholic.

*“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,” *

Cardinal Raymond Burke

Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade

Archbishop Charles Chaput

We are seeing a lot of those moral and verbal gymnastics in this thread.

 

[estesbob]

Sure…let’s forget about it, since you arent making sense…

The old lets change the subject by starting a semantics arguments. First argue about the definition of “Catholic” then swich to what does “cant vote” mean all of which translates into “I cant defend supporting abortion so its time to change the subject”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

State and local governments are still governments, so your post, once again, does not make sense. I’ve asked you for something from the pope or bishops stating a preference for federal programs as opposed to state and local, but you have not (and I’m sure you can not) produce such a thing. I don’t believe these men are rejecting subsidiarity, but you clearly are.

I stand by my statement that my proposed “middle way” is the best way to keep to Church teaching. I take the whole of her teaching, not your political spinning of papal/Vatican/USCCB statements about “government.”

However, as 4elise says, you can stick to your corner and refuse to work with your fellow Catholics…

I do not reject any Church teachings and your repeated accusations are nothing more than falsehoods, spun to solely to support your own political view.

Pope calls for guaranteed health care for all people

“Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions,” he said, cautioning that protecting human health does not include euthanasia or promoting artificial reproductive techniques that include the destruction of embryos.

Pope Calls Health Care An ‘Inalienable Right,’ Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage

At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions”:

The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

“The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights” are issues that should concern Christians, the pope said.

Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”

In a separate statement, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said, “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” adding that minimal levels of medical care are “a fundamental human right.” “Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care,” the cardinal explained, saying that, “The governments of richer nations with good health care available should practice more solidarity with their own disadvantaged citizens.”

I am not spinning. I am not middle way. I feel it’s too much similar to lukewarm.

 

[rlg94086]

I see your point, but I think all people living in our country, if they live in Arkansas, New York, New Mexico, Alaska, California, Florida, all deserve (because they are all our brother and sisters) a basic quality of life. Some places in our country have larger challenges than they can meet on that state and local level, don’t you think?

Is there any part of the safety net that you think should be national, or do you think it should all be state and local? And if that is the case are we 50 countries, and not 50 states? We are US citizens, not citizens of Arizona, Nevada, (no state passports) – so given that, we can easily move between states. If one state (with a larger population or larger safety net)

I really would just like to take the heat out of the discussion and the 'gotcha’s - and really just talk about it… is that possible?

We are 50 states. What’s the difference? Citizens of all states deserve fire and police services. Should we nationalize them? I disagree with your statement that some places “have larger challenges than they can meet on that state and local level.”

The same argument you are making could be made on a global level. The Church teaches that every person on the planet deserves a basic quality of life. Are you in favor of a global government with a global safety net? If not, why not?

 

[rlg94086]

I do not reject any Church teachings and your repeated accusations are nothing more than falsehoods, spun to solely to support your own political view.

Pope calls for guaranteed health care for all people

Pope Calls Health Care An ‘Inalienable Right,’ Urges World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage

I am not spinning. I am not middle way. I feel it’s too much similar to lukewarm.

I agree…you are an extreme liberal. Good for you…

Where in the Pope’s speech did he say that the nations had to guarantee healthcare through a bloate, federal bureaucracy? Where did he say the government has to run the program? Where did he say state/local programs are unacceptable?

 

[bbarrick8383]

The key term was “government program.” Jesus encouraged care for the poor. If a government program worsens society, then that is ostensibly making things worse for the poor. In your extremely twisted logic, you are saying that it is okay to make things worse for the poor through government programs because Jeaus said we should care for the poor.

Yep.

To the blind man who believes he is following Jesus by supporting government welfare programs that do not help the poor and consider poor as people making over 40,000 dollars a year, they will never understand the logic.

I heard someone talking about the difference in states today, and how people should start realizing that if they go to a state like Texas that does not spend as much on welfare as a state like New York, they will see that the people are just as well off.

What is it, like 25% of the people in New York are on some sort of welfare?

It’s one thing to attempt to correct unintended consequences in ones belief, it’s another to never realize the negative impact those unintended consequences are having and continue with the same beliefs. I’m weary of the debate, it’s an uphill battle against an opponent that can not hear.

 

[CMatt25]

Subsidiarity has become a ‘shield/tool’ for some to reject a greater truth, in my opinion. The same group accuses fellow Catholics of not understanding other teachings of the Church, that have not been clarified as they claim it to be for political reasons.

Yes it has. I was involved in a discussion once on CAF where subsidiarity was even used to describe Medicaid as grave evil, if you can believe that Prodigal Son.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8119871&postcount=44

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8113279&postcount=31