US Bishops' Conference Largely Disappointed by Debt Ceiling Agreement

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you for real?

No one is forcing Christian morality on anyone except you.

Abortion is not a Christian issue. It’s a murder issue.

In the US abortion is legal, yet we are compelled to try and change that law, even if non-Christians want that choice. It is a Christian issue, written on our hearts as Christians, and specifically addressed in His commandments. But, when it comes to sharing with the needy through taxes, it become convenient to remember the non-Christians.

Either is forcing morality on the non-Christians. Now, what would I prefer to be guilty of; forcing non-Christians to share with the needy, or defending the non-Christians right not to help their fellow human being and seeing people go without? I choose the latter and am comfortable with that decision.

 

[JimG]

The approaches are in an attempt to balance. I believe the disagreement arising on this thread is which programs should receive cuts, and how much, to arrive at a balanced budget and avoid ‘borrowing’. Those discussions are about moral decisions.

I very much doubt that we will avoid borrowing anytime soon. (Why the quotes? Spending $4 billion more than one takes in each day requires borrowing. That’s why there was angst over the debt limit.) The debt is not even on track to decrease, let alone cease.)

But I forget. Didn’t Jesus tell us to take from the rich to give to the poor? Or maybe I’m thinking of Robin Hood. Of course, Robin kept a pretty good cut for himself, as does the bureaucracy.

 

[iamrefreshed]

In the US abortion is legal, yet we are compelled to try and change that law, even if non-Christians want that choice. It is a Christian issue, written on our hearts as Christians, and specifically addressed in His commandments. But, when it comes to sharing with the needy through taxes, it become convenient to remember the non-Christians.

Either is forcing morality on the non-Christians. Now, what would I prefer to be guilty of; forcing non-Christians to share with the needy, or defending the non-Christians right not to help their fellow human being and seeing people go without? I choose the latter and am comfortable with that decision.

I’ll say it one more time for you very slowly.

Abortion is a murder issue, not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish.

A M U R D E R issue!

 

[wynnejj]

See, there are many other issues to be discussed to assure a quality of life for all, from conception to natural death. The bishops have spoken on the single issue that is often discussed on these forums, sometimes because it is the topic of discussion and very often anytime another issue is being discussed. It’s not a ‘trump’ card to show someone else in these discussions doesn’t care. No one on this thread has promoted abortions, or planned parenthood. A quality of life for all, from conception to natural death, is a consistent life ethic.

See, the many other issues do not give license for a social justice apologist, Carr specifically, to neglect the issue of taxpayer funds used to subsidize enterprises that provide abortions and promote contraception. Neglect to address this budgetary issue shows a lack of resolve to pursue social justice for all. As my comments were discussing Carr’s discussion of the deals shortfalls, my criticisms of his omissions were not a criticism of thread participants - that is, nothing personal. Carr’s comments have a glaring omission and touts itself as the more comprehensive US bishop’s view of Catholic social justice teaching. If this is the US bishops comprehensive view. it would be nice if they would point a little light at citizens being forced to subsidize mass murder. Surely, it is not too much to ask for this “discretionary” budget cut.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ll say it one more time for you very slowly.

Abortion is a murder issue, not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish.

A M U R D E R issue!

I’ve explained my view, explicitly. Sorry you can’t understand it.

Can’t discuss without the condescending remarks? I thought you might be passed that from our last discussion. I’m not going to put anyone on ignore, but I won’t be responding to posts that lack charity.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve explained my view, explicitly. Sorry you can’t understand it.

Can’t discuss without the condescending remarks? I thought you might be passed that from our last discussion. I’m not going to put anyone on ignore, but I won’t be responding to posts that lack charity.

I understand perfectly that you cannot comprehend that abortion is a murder issuse not a Christian issue.

Non-christians, buddhists, athiests all should oppose murder.

You can continue to use that weak analogy to justify stealing from others to perform your charity though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wanted to point out that the article discusses the bishops conference addressing the government’s decision to cut social programs. This indicates there are more than just myself that view government social programs as helpful to the poor and needy, and the right thing to do according to Christ’s teachings. I’m sure the bishops know that the government’s budget comes from a tax revenue of ALL Americans, including non-Christians.

 

[JimG]

Certainly, government social programs can be useful, although they can sometimes be destructive of individuals and families.

But the point is, no social programs can be useful if they collapse from unsustainability. A call for no cuts to social programs does not help if it means we must spend more than we take in. That can be quite destructive, as it leads to inflation which hurts the poor asymetrically, or to economic collapse.

Not only that, it is the entitlement programs themselves which have enormous unfunded mandates beside which the 14 trillion dollar debt pales in comparison.

 

[sub_rosa]

I’ll say it one more time for you very slowly.

Abortion is a murder issue, not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish.

A M U R D E R issue!

He has shown that he does NOT have a comprehension problem. Is it necessary to reply in such a rude manner? i don’t want to put words in another posters mouth but I think he is saying that not all people in America believe life begins at birth. We do believe that. We live in country that is very diversified. Being rude to people who put forth another opinion doesn’
t help in persuading others that your opinion is the correct one. IMHO.

 

[Linda_Marie]

I have been ‘largely disappointed’ by the USCCB for many years.

I am scandalized that the Vatican has not acted. So many ‘teachings’ that are political rather than spiritual. It has gotten to the point that, if a statement is from the USCCB, I ignore it.

IMHO, these bishops have gone very far from the teachings of Christ and espouse the religion of socialism instead. Socialism is not Christianity. This is the next heresy to combat and unfortunately, more than a few bishops have fallen to it.

On a personal note, if we weren’t taxed so much, we would have a great deal more discretionary income that we could use to help people in need than we do now. The government also uses that money for a number of what I consider to be immoral programs. I would rather have the decision on where to spend my money than leave it up to some godless bureaucrat.

They may be able to ‘reach many more’ but with what? For instance, their solution to having a family with a lot of children to feed is to prevent more children using birth control and abortion - taxpayer funded. Rather than help that family live with all their offspring, socialists advocate killing the ‘extra children’ if the birth control does not work instead of feeding them. This is not even remotely Christian, but claims to ‘help the poor’. We should not confuse socialistic programs with Christian ones nor be forced to support them through our tax dollars.

We are put in a position of violation of our religious conscience in being forced to participate in gravely immoral actions like taxpayer funded abortion. It is just like buying illegal drugs, formal participation in grave sin, only we don’t have a choice.

To have the USCCB publically support this, which they do with this statement, is scandal indeed.

 

[4elise]

I wanted to point out that the article discusses the bishops conference addressing the government’s decision to cut social programs. This indicates there are more than just myself that view government social programs as helpful to the poor and needy, and the right thing to do according to Christ’s teachings. I’m sure the bishops know that the government’s budget comes from a tax revenue of ALL Americans, including non-Christians.

usccb.org/sdwp/catholicteachingprinciples.shtml#3 - Options For The Poor

“The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; the production to meet social needs over production for military purposes.” (Address on Christian Unity in a Technological Age [Toronto, Sept. 14, 1984] in Origins 14:16 [Oct. 4, 1984]). Economic Justice for All, #94.​

The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation. Economic Justice for All, #86.​

 

[sub_rosa]

I have been ‘largely disappointed’ by the USCCB for many years.

I am scandalized that the Vatican has not acted. So many ‘teachings’ that are political rather than spiritual. It has gotten to the point that, if a statement is from the USCCB, I ignore it.

IMHO, these bishops have gone very far from the teachings of Christ and espouse the religion of socialism instead. Socialism is not Christianity. This is the next heresy to combat and unfortunately, more than a few bishops have fallen to it.

On a personal note, if we weren’t taxed so much, we would have a great deal more discretionary income that we could use to help people in need than we do now. The government also uses that money for a number of what I consider to be immoral programs. I would rather have the decision on where to spend my money than leave it up to some godless bureaucrat.

They may be able to ‘reach many more’ but with what? For instance, their solution to having a family with a lot of children to feed is to prevent more children using birth control and abortion - taxpayer funded. Rather than help that family live with all their offspring, socialists advocate killing the ‘extra children’ if the birth control does not work instead of feeding them. This is not even remotely Christian, but claims to ‘help the poor’. We should not confuse socialistic programs with Christian ones nor be forced to support them through our tax dollars.

We are put in a position of violation of our religious conscience in being forced to participate in gravely immoral actions like taxpayer funded abortion. It is just like buying illegal drugs, formal participation in grave sin, only we don’t have a choice.

To have the USCCB publically support this, which they do with this statement, is scandal indeed.

Do you really expect people to tak e you seriously?

 

[wynnejj]

Do you really expect people to tak e you seriously?

She has shown that she does NOT have a comprehension problem. Is it necessary to reply in such a rude manner? I don’t want to put words in another posters mouth but I think she is saying that not all people in America believe social justice is for the unborn, as well as the born. We do believe that, and the USCCB should reflect that belief. We live in country that is very diversified. Being rude to people who put forth another opinion doesn’t help in persuading others that your opinion is the correct one. IMHO.

 

[estesbob]

She has shown that she does NOT have a comprehension problem. Is it necessary to reply in such a rude manner? I don’t want to put words in another posters mouth but I think she is saying that not all people in America believe social justice is for the unborn, as well as the born. We do believe that, and the USCCB should reflect that belief. We live in country that is very diversified. Being rude to people who put forth another opinion doesn’t help in persuading others that your opinion is the correct one. IMHO.

It is a false dichotomy to claim that we have to choose bewteen caring for the unborn or the born. It is not an either or proposition.

 

[Trader]

In the US abortion is legal, yet we are compelled to try and change that law, even if non-Christians want that choice. It is a Christian issue, written on our hearts as Christians, and specifically addressed in His commandments. But, when it comes to sharing with the needy through taxes, it become convenient to remember the non-Christians.

Either is forcing morality on the non-Christians. Now, what would I prefer to be guilty of; forcing non-Christians to share with the needy, or defending the non-Christians right not to help their fellow human being and seeing people go without? I choose the latter and am comfortable with that decision.

I think you are confused about what Paul said in Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

When he speaks of the law written on hearts, he is clearly talking about those who do not have the law revealed to them in Scripture. It is not a Christian issue but an issue of natural law which is an issue for all HUMANS.

 

[CMatt25]

Using the Christ didn’t teach us to use government seems like an ‘excuse’ to me, and I question the reasoning to be perfectly honest. If we cannot reach everyone through private, what would Christ say do about using government that can reach many more? Is it acceptable to let people do without because the need outnumbers the private charities? I don’t think it is. With that said, I don’t think government can reach 100%. We should place our spiritual before our secular and do as much as we can to achieve His teachings.

Prodigal Son, you are not alone. Besides the USCCB, many of us question such reasoning. Because it makes absolutely no sense to us when need surpasses the private reach, to think Christ would turn down a goverment offer of the additional help He could get for the poor, the hungry, homeless, for the sick without adequate affordable health care. For our Lord to turn away aid for the poor and the sick, in my belief, He would not then be the Christ I read of in the Gospels. While your beliefs about this appear to me to be in the minority on this forum, when my faith in the Catholic mindset begins to drop, I then feel blessed and thankful to know you and some other Catholics here hold to this view of what Christ would say about government offering a role to help the less fortunate. God bless you Prodigal Son and peace be with you always.

 

[Linda_Marie]

It is a false dichotomy to claim that we have to choose bewteen caring for the unborn or the born. It is not an either or proposition.

I never made any such claim.

My objection is with equating socialist programs with Christian charity. I pointed out that many socialist programs are at odds with Christian teachings.

IMHO, we do not fulfill our duty to care for the needy just by paying our taxes and hoping that the socialist programs will help them.

 

[4elise]

I never made any such claim.

My objection is with equating socialist programs with Christian charity. I pointed out that many socialist programs are at odds with Christian teachings.

IMHO, we do not fulfill our duty to care for the needy just by paying our taxes and hoping that the socialist programs will help them.

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.

 

[Warrior1979]

Too much generalization in your statement, and without any resources to support such a statement.

Ever been to a country where the middle class has less than the “poor” in this country? I have. And I haven’t even seen the abject poverty that some of my associates have, such as in Calcutta. I’m aware that some abject poverty exists in the U.S., but is exists for different reasons, and the resources exist to help them…unlike elsewhere.

There are many homeless, and poverty stricken people in nursing homes.

The fact that they have a nursing home to go to separates them from true poverty. BTW, I worked in nursing homes right out of high school…one of the many jobs I’ve had in my life. The particular one I worked in had people with mental issues, but not severe enough to be locked up.

I assure you we have hungry right here in the US, and many who do not have TV sets, cars, housing, etc.

One of my best friends back in the day lived in a poor minority neighborhood. They all had houses, cars, and tvs, courtesy of welfare.

It appears that some of us speak of ‘cuts’ and others are speaking of spending beyond our means. The former speaks of being careful with cutting social programs that directly affect the poor. The latter seems to be concerned for the ‘rich’, as well as the poor. Where did Christ teach, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick, AND be watchful not to affect the ‘rich’?

We are spending way, way, way beyond our means. We’re already all suffering, due to the dollar devaluation that has been go on. Some wealthy are doing well, simply because they’re taking advantage of government tampering in the market. Once that stops, it’s likely they won’t be doing as well, as was the case in 2008.

 

[CMatt25]

IMHO, we do not fulfill our duty to care for the needy just by paying our taxes and hoping that the socialist programs will help them.

And unless I missed someone’s post, no one here that I know of has ever said we do any such thing by just paying taxes and hoping government programs help. If someone actually believes that is what anyone is saying, and yes I have seen the charge levied on this forum, it’s just a strawman’s fabrication then in their minds that they falsely purport.