Wealthy people must embrace 'logic of giving,' Pope tells Sunday audience

[Prodigal_Son1]

All I’m saying is that we need to inform those decisions beyond just simply saying “because the Pope” says so.

Look, it took my entire Theology class WEEKS to cover the whole of Catholic Social Teaching. What makes you think “leave it up” to government is the final conclusion of such studies?

Seems you’ve changed what you were saying. Didn’t you say…

Inform the authoritative a little more on the limitations on government power.

What? You didn’t think bishops were infallible now were you? Last time I checked, even the College of Cardinals is capable of its own collective errors. coughsBorgiacoughs

Emphasis is mine.

All those weeks in theology class put you ahead in studies over the Pope, or the bishops, so you have a better grasp on the subject than they do?

You need to read through this thread a little more carefully. No one has said ‘leave it up’ to the government. It has been repeated that it must come from individuals through activities and materially. It must come from our Church and the government.

Swiss Guy also provided this from another Pope.

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CAPITAL AND LABOR

1. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

Do we need to provide scriptures showing Christ’s commandments which are the basis for those teachings?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Seems you’ve changed what you were saying. Didn’t you say…

No, it’s still the same thing. Religious authorities need to inform themselves just as much as their flock.

Just because you are a Pope or a bishop does not mean you have a full grasp of what government can and cannot do for religion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, it’s still the same thing. Religious authorities need to inform themselves just as much as their flock.

Just because you are a Pope or a bishop does not mean you have a full grasp of what government can and cannot do for religion.

Are you an American citizen? I ask, because ‘we the people’ are the government, and the majority of Americans identify as ‘Christian’. Now, what limitations would there be if that were true?

I find it strangely convenient to declare the ability to disagree with Popes and bishops, to side with a partisan view. It appears to be partisan first, faith second; or partisan right, faith wrong.

Personally, I find comfort in agreeing with Christ’s teachings as interpreted by the prelates over me in my lifetime, especially when it comes from the Pope who is over ALL Catholics and supported by a Pope of the past.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Are you an American citizen? I ask, because ‘we the people’ are the government, and the majority of Americans identify as ‘Christian’. Now, what limitations would there be if that were true?

I’m not American but then again, your form of government is emulated in places beyond the U.S. (Besides, like many of my countrymen, I have American relatives via immigration.)

It is a bit besides the point as well. Changing the form of government does not eliminate the limitations of government powers.

I point to you again: Religious liberty. That is something both your country and mine have in common. We cannot use government powers to legislate conversion even if the bishops or the Pope himself were to call for it in the same way you say they are calling for government involvement in people’s money.

I find it strangely convenient to declare the ability to disagree with Popes and bishops, to side with a partisan view. It appears to be partisan first, faith second; or partisan right, faith wrong.

What good is faith when it is uninformed?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I point to you again: Religious liberty. That is something both your country and mine have in common. We cannot use government powers to legislate conversion even if the bishops or the Pope himself were to call for it in the same way you say they are calling for government involvement in people’s money.

Tricky business, this religious liberty. To fully agree, one must give credit to a non-believer. We have many non-believers and some believers that believe it is their liberty to have an abortion, which is legalized by the government. Do we want government involvement on those people? It is legislating morality to try and have laws that prevent abortion. It is legislating laws that produce social programs for the poor.

Also, do you realize how much money this country provides to other countries? Should we stop sending those funds out?

What good is faith when it is uninformed?

Isn’t it informed when Christ commands it, and the Church teaches it with definitions?

 

[pismopal]

And when we have the authoritative men of the Church calling on governments being obligated to help the poor, what should we do?

We should realize,just as authoritatve men of the Church do…that there should be…must be limits to government involvment because it is not the government that is paying for it. Furthermore…for every dollar meant for the poor only pennies would reach them…bureaucracies don’t work cheaply now do they? Does the statement “calling on governments to help the poor” mean that the USA is not doing enough or is the statement a general one which would certainly be true and not meant to single out or even include this country which spends an enormous amount which is meant for the poor. If it isn’t effective…well now that is another story altogether. As for me…I listen intently to the message of Church leaders and on the secular…my favorite is a quote of Margaret Thatcher…" Socialism is wonderful…until you run out of other people’s money".

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We should realize,just as authoritatve men of the Church do…that there should be…must be limits to government involvment because it is not the government that is paying for it. Furthermore…for every dollar meant for the poor only pennies would reach them…bureaucracies don’t work cheaply now do they? Does the statement “calling on governments to help the poor” mean that the USA is not doing enough or is the statement a general one which would certainly be true and not meant to single out or even include this country which spends an enormous amount which is meant for the poor. If it isn’t effective…well now that is another story altogether. As for me…I listen intently to the message of Church leaders and on the secular…my favorite is a quote of Margaret Thatcher…" Socialism is wonderful…until you run out of other people’s money".

If social programs are ineffective through government, what programs are effective? How can we look to an ineffective government for an effective anti abortion legislation, an effective defense of marriage act, or an effective measure of any other moral issue?

All our nations shortcomings have been enacted, or existed through both political parties. They are not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issues.

The money is not other people’s money, it’s ‘our’ money. ‘We the people’ have influence, through politicians, on what is right and what is wrong. Seems to be a vocal group that objects to spending ‘our’ money to help other people in need, as Christ called us to do. However, where is the outrage at ‘our’ money being spent on nuclear weapons? Christ said, ‘those that live by the sword, die by the sword,’ yet we pour money into armaments.

He who would fight to save his life, will lose his life. He who lose his life for His sake and the Gospel, will save his life 9(Mark 8:35). His commandments are the Gospel.

When we see these points politicized, we see the defense of the wealthy paying a less percentage of taxes than the average working person, and it’s call fair and good. The wealthy are protected by this government, just as the average working person is, and they benefit more greatly with that protection. Christ said how hard it is for the rich to enter heaven, yet we have people enabling that difficulty with partisan arguments.

Please don’t get me wrong, I know some wealthy, good and righteous people; however, that seems to be a minority among the rich.

No one is asking that someone sell all they have and give it to the poor, even though that has been asked of us.

Also, taxes are not a quick fix for giving, as He commanded. It is a way to reach the most. We are still obligated to give of ourselves through time, energy (work, love and compassion), and materially, to those immediately around us. No one is asking the government to be the sole ‘giver’, just as the authoritative men of the Church teach.

God could certainly force His will upon us, but does not. If we cannot use government for one moral good, we cannot use government for any moral good. We have laws against robbing, murder, drugs, etc., yet those things still happen around us. Man cannot do a better job of what God does not. It is good for society to have such laws, but we have to seek conversion of hearts for the best compliance from others. We cannot force the conversion of hearts. That will only come from truly reaching out and helping others, freely, with love and compassion given us by God.

Yes, people will abuse and take advantage, but we are not moral judges. There is only one judge, and He will judge us all. All we can do is follow His commandments. I would rather stand before Him saying I stood up for those in need, than saying I stood up for the rich in hopes they would make things better. For me, one is placing faith in Him and the other is placing faith in men.

 

[starshiptrooper]

How many nukes does a country need to protect themselves?

For a country like the United States, a large number is necessary. We are superpower with many nations who hate us.

Those nukes are protecting those corporations, thus allowing them to make profits, but we shouldn’t look to them to pay?

Those nukes are protecting the people.

The Catholic support is not for blanket approval of capital punishment. It is something to be used ONLY when there is no other option to protect society.

A very debatable statement at best. I suggest you read Ender’s posts on this subject. His posts are one the reasons I am still a Catholic.

What are we supposed to think of the authoritative men of the Church calling for an end to capital punishment?

They are stating their own opinion. These opinions ought to be given very serious consideration, but we are still free to not accept them.

What about North Korea? You do realize there are many countries under the rule of cruel dictators?

They also possessed WMD’s and were supporting Osama Bin Laden.

Also, can we address the topic of the thread before starting up several other subjects of discussion?

I think the Pope’s statement was correct. We have to remember that we cannot force people to be charitable via government programs though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For a country like the United States, a large number is necessary. We are superpower with many nations who hate us.Those nukes are protecting the people.A very debatable statement at best. I suggest you read Ender’s posts on this subject. His posts are one the reasons I am still a Catholic.They are stating their own opinion. These opinions ought to be given very serious consideration, but we are still free to not accept them.They also possessed WMD’s and were supporting Osama Bin Laden.I think the Pope’s statement was correct. We have to remember that we cannot force people to be charitable via government programs though.

Another poster may have their own interpretation, but the Church has the authority to teach us, and they speak clearly. Of course we can always go to Christ’s teachings for edification.

Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
Mat 5:45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

The nukes are protecting corporations also. Through that protection those corporations benefit, some with huge profits.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and their support was vocal. The majority of Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden in the same way. Now, if you’re counting the chemical weapons that Iraq had, do you know where they purchased some of those chemicals? American companies sold them to Saddam. America stood by while Saddam used them in the war between Iraq and Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, so to speak.

If we can’t force people to help the poor, through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life, or defense of marriage act, etc. etc. through government legislation? Is it because it comes down to money, so that we save money, but force morality that doesn’t cost us anything? Think about it.

It’s hard to ignore the fact that the Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, use words like ‘governments’ and ‘obligated’ in helping the poor.

 

[pismopal]

If social programs are ineffective through government, what programs are effective? How can we look to an ineffective government for an effective anti abortion legislation, an effective defense of marriage act, or an effective measure of any other moral issue?

All our nations shortcomings have been enacted, or existed through both political parties. They are not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issues.

The money is not other people’s money, it’s ‘our’ money. ‘We the people’ have influence, through politicians, on what is right and what is wrong. Seems to be a vocal group that objects to spending ‘our’ money to help other people in need, as Christ called us to do. However, where is the outrage at ‘our’ money being spent on nuclear weapons? Christ said, ‘those that live by the sword, die by the sword,’ yet we pour money into armaments.

He who would fight to save his life, will lose his life. He who lose his life for His sake and the Gospel, will save his life 9(Mark 8:35). His commandments are the Gospel.

When we see these points politicized, we see the defense of the wealthy paying a less percentage of taxes than the average working person, and it’s call fair and good. The wealthy are protected by this government, just as the average working person is, and they benefit more greatly with that protection. Christ said how hard it is for the rich to enter heaven, yet we have people enabling that difficulty with partisan arguments.

Please don’t get me wrong, I know some wealthy, good and righteous people; however, that seems to be a minority among the rich.

No one is asking that someone sell all they have and give it to the poor, even though that has been asked of us.

Also, taxes are not a quick fix for giving, as He commanded. It is a way to reach the most. We are still obligated to give of ourselves through time, energy (work, love and compassion), and materially, to those immediately around us. No one is asking the government to be the sole ‘giver’, just as the authoritative men of the Church teach.

God could certainly force His will upon us, but does not. If we cannot use government for one moral good, we cannot use government for any moral good. We have laws against robbing, murder, drugs, etc., yet those things still happen around us. Man cannot do a better job of what God does not. It is good for society to have such laws, but we have to seek conversion of hearts for the best compliance from others. We cannot force the conversion of hearts. That will only come from truly reaching out and helping others, freely, with love and compassion given us by God.

Yes, people will abuse and take advantage, but we are not moral judges. There is only one judge, and He will judge us all. All we can do is follow His commandments. I would rather stand before Him saying I stood up for those in need, than saying I stood up for the rich in hopes they would make things better. For me, one is placing faith in Him and the other is placing faith in men.

What programs are effective? How about local parish missions? Mine has several . How about Catholic Charities…Salvation Army…American Red Cross…look there are thousands of private charities…are you kidding me?

Not very many nice rich people? This,I think, is the root cause of the formation of your political ideas. I cannot undue this idea of yours which may have been planted by your parents but I consider this as unfair…inaccurate and a harmful stereotype. Some of the most generous and effective charities and foundations are formed by the wealthy…and they are countless. Compare the charitable activitiy of Mitt Romney to one of those liberal politicians like Clinton who considers his used underpants to be a deductable contribution.

Let me also take issue with the idea that the wealth that people are able to acquire by their own efforts…it does not belong to “us”…it belongs to the owner just like your own property does not belong to me. If it does belong to me…please submit a list of your property so that I can allocate the things I “need”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What programs are effective? How about local parish missions? Mine has several . How about Catholic Charities…Salvation Army…American Red Cross…look there are thousands of private charities…are you kidding me?

Why are some of the ‘effective’ programs including the necessity of government assistance?

 

[seekerz]

If we can’t force people to help the poor, through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life, or defense of marriage act, etc. etc. through government legislation? Is it because it comes down to money, so that we save money, but force morality that doesn’t cost us anything? Think about it.

It may be too long but would you mind if I tried using this quote in my signature? There is so much depth in that statement it would be a shame for it to get lost among all the words we type here each day…

 

[starshiptrooper]

Another poster may have their own interpretation, but the Church has the authority to teach us, and they speak clearly.

Pope Benedict XVI stated that there may be legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics on the application of capital punishment.

The nukes are protecting corporations also. Through that protection those corporations benefit, some with huge profits.

Those corporations provide thousands of jobs, their stock funds retirement plans, and they already pay more in taxes than I will make in my lifetime.

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and their support was vocal.

They did have WMDs and Hussein met with Osama on several occasions.

The majority of Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden in the same way. Now, if you’re counting the chemical weapons that Iraq had, do you know where they purchased some of those chemicals? American companies sold them to Saddam. America stood by while Saddam used them in the war between Iraq and Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, so to speak.

So when they become a threat to peace we should not act?

If we can’t force people to help the poor, through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life, or defense of marriage act, etc. etc. through government legislation? Is it because it comes down to money, so that we save money, but force morality that doesn’t cost us anything? Think about it.

The role of government is not to force people to moral. The government’s sole responsibility is protection of the rights of its citizens.

It’s hard to ignore the fact that the Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, use words like ‘governments’ and ‘obligated’ in helping the poor.

Governments are obligated to stay out of the way and let private individuals do what they do best. The welfare state first began in Henry VIII’s England after he sacked the monasteries which prevented them from helping the poor.

 

[pismopal]

Why are some of the ‘effective’ programs including the necessity of government assistance?

If I had ny idea what you mean I would reply.

 

[zab]

If I had ny idea what you mean I would reply.

I’m glad that I am not the only one who has trouble comprehending some of these posts.

 

[IronMIke]

Respectfully diagree.

 

[zab]

Respectfully diagree.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Stop the millionaire farmers, and social programs, and take care of the millionaire oil companies. Did I get that right?

The millionare (actually billionare in some cases) oil companies get tax breaks.

Those are not subsidies. The left only says that because their alternative energy programs need subsidies to even remotely survive in the energy market and use it as talking point to get people to hate oil and gas.

Yes, millionare farmers in places like Minnesota and North Dakota don’t need government money, and that includes the Michelle Bachmann family. They are just fine on their own and if you look at the raw numbers, like the price of course, even small farmers have a good chance to weather the drought.

My extended family farms and I’ll bet the revenue will be well into the six figure zone from just combining and taking it to the elevator.

In reference to social programs, having a conservative tax policy will bring more revenue for those who need help.

People need to start realizing it isn’t an “opinion” that tax-breaks for the rich create jobs and have been done by both republicans and democrats in order to do just that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It may be too long but would you mind if I tried using this quote in my signature? There is so much depth in that statement it would be a shame for it to get lost among all the words we type here each day…

It’s already been debunked on here over and over.

Constitutional government should be looked at for all issues.

I would bet real money that the Founding Fathers would tell everyone to let the states decide on those issues.

In fact, that is the way it is used to be. If you look at how politicians ran in the old days, they used to go to DC first and then to state or territorial government, because the latter is where all the power was.

But liberal busy-bodies just can’t resist injecting themselves into everyone else’s lives because they think they are the smartest people in the room and for all the earthly glory it will bring.

Don’t be surprised if and when on Judgement Day you are told that you’ve received your comfort.

 

[seekerz]

People need to start realizing it isn’t an “opinion” that tax-breaks for the rich create jobs and have been done by both republicans and democrats in order to do just that.

Ah, so if Sensata had had bigger tax-breaks on top of their not-insignificant profits, they might not be putting people out of work to move to China?

If I’m not mistaken, your sort of reasoning is the same that was used to force Obama to maintain the Bush tax cuts…so how is it that the employment rate isn’t back to where it was before the recession began?