Why is helping the poor not important in electing a president?

[fix]

Murder of innocent unborn children is a lot worse than not helping the poor.

Yes, and that is a false choice. Catholics are not against helping persons in need. But many Catholics see abortion as not important.

 

[St_Francis]

It is clear that Romney favors the rich considering he wants to cut taxes for the rich and he wants to minimize government programs (ie the ones that help the poor).

1. He does not want to cut taxes. The taxes are currently cut. He just wants to keep them at the current level. I would personally prefer that he say he wanted to set the taxes at some somewhat permanently because that would give businesses some of the stability they need to operate, but keeping things the same is a better option than raising the taxes esp when other business costs are rising.
2. Reducing the rate of increase is not a cut. Rendering progrmas more eficient so they cost less is not a cut. Our current set of what, 87?, federal progrmas to help the poor results in 27 cents of the allocated dollar you earned and paid in taxes actually getting to a poor person. That’s 73% in adminstrative costs. It would be an improvement if the government gave half the money they now spend to a charity which has only 10% adminstative costs–the poor would get **over one-third more **and we could use the excess to help pay off the debt.

So why does gay marriage, abortion, and the mandate take precedence over helping the poor?

Because these are evils in our society. It is evil to kill a child of any age or location. So that is an on-going issue.

The HHS mandate and the issue of homosexual “marriage” are both urgent. We weren’t worried about them 10 or 20 or 30 years ago because they weren’t issues then. Now they are being pushed on us and they must be fought. They must be fought because they are wrong, and they must be fought now because now because they are an issue now.

The reason that these issues take precedence is that Catholics have as the first priority doing no evil. One cannot do evil that good may result, and one cannot condone evil for the sake of a good.

So, yes, we care about the poor, but we must *first *work against evil. What good does it do to feed the poor if we are permitting the murders of millions?

Romney said he doesn’t care about the 47% of Americans that receive government help.

What he was talking about was what his campaign plans were. He was saying that there were 47% of the population who were depedent on the government and who were therefore convinced Obama supporters, and since that was the case, he would concentrate his campaign efforts on the other 53%–getting their votes and encouraging to show up to vote.

Yet he is the right candidate for Christians? If I had to pick a theme for Jesus’ message and the gospels it would be to help the poor and give what you can to those less fortunate…and one candidate promotes that and the other doesn’t.

And if the only function of the government were to give money to the poor, you would be correct; however that is not the only function of the government, and not even a primary function of the government.

In fact, before the Protestant Revolt, the “social safety net” was provided by people who dedicated their lives to the care of those in need: nuns and monks. The monasteries were supported by the community and also supported themselves. This entire system was destroyed by the theft of Church properties by Protestant rulers.

The Catholic Church teaches that government is obligated to ensure that the interests of those in need are not overlooked and that they are cared for; however, the government is not obligated to do that itself, simply to create a framework in which it is done one way or another.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Government income = @ 2.3 trillion dollars
Mandatory (Social Security, etc) and defense spending = @ 2.3 trillion dollars

EVERYTHING ELSE THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT BORROWS TO PAY FOR. EVERYTHING

This is like saying:
An individuals income = $5000/month
Cost of Nursing home for mom which they pay for $5000/month

Individuals rent & living expenses of $2500/month they put on credit card. They are maxed out and headed for disaster.

Now a certain segment of our society is complaining they don’t want to borrow another $500 a month on their kids account to help the poor…

It’s not about compassion, it’s about MATH.

 

[St_Francis]

You are advocating a false either/or morality… you should do some research on death attributable to poverty in the US (let alone worldwide). It can be argued that more deaths are linked with poverty than abortion, easily. However, both are horrendous causes of loss of life and both should be addressed with equal moral concern. It is not a case of being concerned about abortion over poverty - it is a case of dealing with both.

The problem you are having is looking at deaths from abortion and deaths from poverty as the same thing. However, deaths from abortion are the results of a specific act directly intending the unborn child’s death, known in everyday language as murder.

And this is an evil which must be taken care of. The first priority is to do not evil–our government is doing evil by permitting abortion, just as other governments are permitting evil when they allow fathers to kill the daughters who have been victimized by rape.

The second priority is to do good. Thus we cannot do evil that good may be done, because that would violate the priorities.

We should definitely concern ourselves with both, but abortion has the first priority.

 

[SpeSalvi]

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2306#.UGR7K9lFX3k.facebook

This leads me back to my topic: how can devout Catholics favor a man who has shown total disregard for fundamental moral commandments: thou shalt not murder, because he gives full priority to social improvements?

In this context, it is worth mentioning that when we abstain from committing evil acts, such as murdering, perverse sexual practices, to mention only two, we have no reason whatever to “feel good about ourselves.” We have just done our duty. (“We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.” Luke 17:10) Never has a man received an award for paying his debts, for telling his truth, for being faithful to his wife: such a man has only done what he ought to have done.

But throughout the year, people rightly receive awards for having founded a school, or a hospital, or given huge sums to worthy causes. Inevitably such benefactors, “feel good about themselves,” “this is my work,” and indeed, the work deserves praise.

St. Therese of Lisieux, one of the lights of the 19th century, did not do anything spectacular. Shortly before her death, a sister was concerned about what could possibly be praised when she died: she had done nothing special. Indeed, that was true, but she did what she ought to do with such a love that in Gods eyes, it gained eternal value.

It is tempting to accuse me of having no understanding for the greatness and nobility of “social work.” It is the glory of the Catholic Church that from the very beginning she has founded hospitals, schools, and tried in every possible way to ease the burdens of suffering humanity. But this admirable mission was in fact based on a clear awareness of the hierarchy of our moral obligations. “Seek you first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all the rest will be added unto.” To adore and love God is our primary duty, and it is also man’s glory. From this it follows that we should obey His commandments, a primary one of which; Thou shalt not murder.

Alice von Hildebrand is a lecturer and an author, whose works include: The Privilege of Being a Woman (2002) and The Soul of a Lion: The Life of Dietrich von Hildebrand (2000), a biography of her late husband. "

 

[edwest2]

It is clear that Romney favors the rich considering he wants to cut taxes for the rich and he wants to minimize government programs (ie the ones that help the poor). So why does gay marriage, abortion, and the mandate take precedence over helping the poor? Romney said he doesn’t care about the 47% of Americans that receive government help. Yet he is the right candidate for Christians? If I had to pick a theme for Jesus’ message and the gospels it would be to help the poor and give what you can to those less fortunate…and one candidate promotes that and the other doesn’t. But the candidate that doesn’t care about the poor is the right candidate for Catholics? Is this bizarro world?

We have to look at all aspects of what each candidate stands for, not just one. What is the average Catholic doing to help the poor? When we see that person on the street corner with a sign that reads: “Hungry. Homeless. Please help.” Do we realize that it is actually Jesus on that street corner?

Those who die from abortion will never have a chance to be rich or poor.
The embryos that are destroyed in embryonic stem cell research will not have a chance to be born.
Gay marriage is a threat to stable families everywhere.
The government does not have any right under any law to force its citizens to buy a product or service. Period. The HHS Mandate will force Christian employers to stop buying insurance for their employees.

The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on earth.

If someone is killed in the womb then nothing else matters. No right to life means none of the other rights will ever apply for that person. And we’re talking about millions of killings since 1973.

politicalresponsibility.com/votingstatement.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Justice_Mercy]

The problem you are having is looking at deaths from abortion and deaths from poverty as the same thing. However, deaths from abortion are the results of a specific act directly intending the unborn child’s death, known in everyday language as murder.

And this is an evil which must be taken care of. The first priority is to do not evil–our government is doing evil by permitting abortion, just as other governments are permitting evil when they allow fathers to kill the daughters who have been victimized by rape.

The second priority is to do good. Thus we cannot do evil that good may be done, because that would violate the priorities.

We should definitely concern ourselves with both, but abortion has the first priority.

No one is advocating that evil be done to supposedly do good. Where have I advocated that? All I turned to was Catholic Social Teaching that proclaims ALL life as equal. Poverty does kill, just as sure as abortion does. Lack of early detection of fatal illness because of no medical insurance, poor diet leading to health issues, lack of adequate housing, etc… all of these lead to early death. We should be equally concerned about both, as they are against the dignity of humankind and life itself.

"There will be legitimate differences and debate over how these challenging moral principles are applied in concrete situations. Differing prudential judgments on specifics cannot be allowed, however, to obscure the need for every Catholic to know and apply these principles in family, economic, and community life…
…This central Catholic principle requires that we measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity, especially for the poor and vulnerable.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/sharing-catholic-social-teaching-challenges-and-directions.cfm

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Yeah, sounds like something Jesus would say. Meh, the poor should help themselves, right?

Actually Jesus did say something similar. He said “the poor you will always have with you.”

 

[Carlan]

You are talking here the bottom line, a bad law. It has been in effect for over 40years and still ,in spite of the talk, it remains and no matter who is leading our country It will no doubt still be in effect for another 40years, even if it a miracle were to happen to morrow, the lines will still find a route to the closest sourse of an abortion mill.
Don’t you know deadly sin is the curse and the individual who actually choose to commit murder or who actually act in formal cooperation with an intrinsic evil are ultimately the ones who must regret and seek reconciliation.
God knows what the answer is, we trying to grow in holiness trust him.
And remember the gates of hell in the end is not going to prevail.
Peace, Carlan

 

[Bill_7154]

It is clear that

What I found very interesting was simply reading the title of this thread and thinking (in my own subjective guestimation) about all of the US citizens and how much time and energy they spend discussing politics (such as who should be president and why) and comparing that to (my own subjective guestimation) about how much time and energy the US citizens spend thinking about helping the poor, or how to help the poor.

Do we, as a society, spend more time contemplating who should be president than we spend contemplating helping the poor?

God Bless,
Bill

 

[marci]

All life is of equal value… pre-born or otherwise. It is false to make a Utilitarian judgment that one is more valuable than another. That it not Catholic Social Teaching … it is rationalization based on an individual perspective, not taking the whole into account.

It’s amazing, the mental acrobatics that are necessary to validate this rational. I blame the many in the Catholic Hierarchy who have neglected their duty to inform their flock, or even worse who help perpetuate the double speak.

 

[austenbosten]

It is clear that Romney favors the rich considering he wants to cut taxes for the rich

Where in Romney’s plan do you see tax cuts for the rich?

• Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• Eliminate the Death Tax
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Let’s see Romney plans making the Bush Taxes permanent, which as a tax cut for every group
Eliminating Capital Gains for all making <$200,000 so basically only the rich are going to pay taxes on Capital Gains
Death Tax does affect many average Americans. Since there are a lot of small businesses and family farms with a lot of illiquid assets that make up over $1 million and those businesses will have to pay a 55% tax in 2013
AMT affects a lot of Middle Class Americans because of the complexity of it and the poor indexing of it.

So tell me where are all these “tax cuts favoring only the rich”?

And he wants to minimize government programs (ie the ones that help the poor).

Cause WE CAN’T AFFORD THEM…do you understand how in debt these programs are? The programs have been running deficits and the nation cannot afford to keep them as are. So Romney is seeking to reform the programs so they don’t go broke and hurt everyone.

So why does gay marriage, abortion, and the mandate take precedence over helping the poor?

Because perhaps some people believe Liberty is more important than promises to the poor. The Soviet Union made a lot of promises to the poor, 1936 Constitution of the USSR Chapter X

They even offered the right to freedom of religion in Russia during Stalin…except they blew up churches and persecuted Christians and Jews. What’s my point Intrestedman, look at all the Rights in the Soviet Union. But notice how hardly any of that came to fruition? That’s because the government can’t guarantee to offer what they don’t originally have. They have to take from others and since many were killed in the Soviet Union there were few people to take from to give to others.

Romney said he doesn’t care about the 47% of Americans that receive government help. Yet he is the right candidate for Christians?

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 3:9-12[/BIBLEDRB]

If I had to pick a theme for Jesus’ message and the gospels it would be to help the poor and give what you can to those less fortunate…and one candidate promotes that and the other doesn’t. But the candidate that doesn’t care about the poor is the right candidate for Catholics? Is this bizarro world?

Then you have an extremely narrow view of Christ and the Gospel if it was all about just helping the poor Jesus wouldn’t even be a figure in history.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

It’s amazing, the mental acrobatics that are necessary to validate this rational. I blame the many in the Catholic Hierarchy who have neglected their duty to inform their flock, or even worse who help perpetuate the double speak.

“The precious gift of human life must always be defended.”
-Pope Benedict XVI

I assume he means ALL life

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are advocating a false either/or morality… you should do some research on death attributable to poverty in the US (let alone worldwide). It can be argued that more deaths are linked with poverty than abortion, easily. However, both are horrendous causes of loss of life and both should be addressed with equal moral concern. It is not a case of being concerned about abortion over poverty - it is a case of dealing with both.

The problem I have with your statement is that abortion is the intentional murder of an innocent life. The same can not be said about deaths due to poverty (which is rather different than deaths linked to poverty; i.e. a smaller number).

 

[Justice_Mercy]

The problem I have with your statement is that abortion is the intentional murder of an innocent life. The same can not be said about deaths due to poverty (which is rather different than deaths linked to poverty; i.e. a smaller number).

That’s still a Utilitarian judgment of one type of human life or numbers of human lives being more valuable than another. Doesn’t anyone see that? Utilitarianism is NOT Catholic social teaching… EVER!

 

[St_Francis]

No one is advocating that evil be done to supposedly do good. Where have I advocated that? All I turned to was Catholic Social Teaching that proclaims ALL life as equal. Poverty does kill, just as sure as abortion does. Lack of early detection of fatal illness because of no medical insurance, poor diet leading to health issues, lack of adequate housing, etc… all of these lead to early death. We should be equally concerned about both, as they are against the dignity of humankind and life itself.

You seem to be contending that the alleviation of poverty by the government should be totally equal in importance to Catholics as abortion is. This is what I gather from your posts, and what I am arguing against. I am arguing against it because it is erroneous and because it is being used by many people to advocate voting for a man who is more pro-abortion than NARAL, so it is an important point.

You write that poverty kills as surely as does abortion. No, it does not. Abortion is the direct killing of a human being. It is an attack against a human being with the intention of causing death. Few survive abortion, and many are killed.

However, poverty is not a direct attack on a human being for the purpose of causing death. In fact, it is extremely rare that any person’s poverty is caused by the actions of another (which is not to say that the poor cause it themselves).

Abortion is an evil act which every person should avoid, and which in the course of the government’s function as protector of those within its borders should prohibit. As an evil to be avoided, it has first priority in our decisions, just as we have to avoid robbing banks even if we give the proceeds to the poor.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

You seem to be contending that the alleviation of poverty by the government should be totally equal in importance to Catholics as abortion is. This is what I gather from your posts, and what I am arguing against. I am arguing against it because it is erroneous and because it is being used by many people to advocate voting for a man who is more pro-abortion than NARAL, so it is an important point.

You write that poverty kills as surely as does abortion. No, it does not. Abortion is the direct killing of a human being. It is an attack against a human being with the intention of causing death. Few survive abortion, and many are killed.

However, poverty is not a direct attack on a human being for the purpose of causing death. In fact, it is extremely rare that any person’s poverty is caused by the actions of another (which is not to say that the poor cause it themselves).

Abortion is an evil act which every person should avoid, and which in the course of the government’s function as protector of those within its borders should prohibit. As an evil to be avoided, it has first priority in our decisions, just as we have to avoid robbing banks even if we give the proceeds to the poor.

I never said that poverty should be eliminated by the governent, did I? You are making an assumption and putting words into my mouth that I never spoke.

It is amazing how people misunderstand the clear posts I have made.

 

[wmw]

Romney and Republicans even if they won 80% majorities in both houses and Romney the Presidency are not going to even propose the reduction of either “Taxes for the Rich” or entitlements for the poor, but who appoints the Supreme Court Justices could eventually make or prevent serious changes in how the Constitutions is understood.

We have already seen the beginning of change with the allowance of the Health Insurance or Tax penalty mandate and the HHS mandate of “reproductive health services”.

The Tax rate decreases are to be offset with removal or limitations of deductions. The exact plan will have to go through Congress and will change anyway, but this allows the Dems. to exaggerate the negatives and Reps. the positives, but on the whole we are talking about making the tax code fairer and simpler by being less about specifically targeted deductions.

The entitlement question is about rates of growth not yanking checks out of peoples hands or throwing grandma off the cliff and the rates of growth currently in law out strip our tax revenues in the next 15 to 20 years even with the current tax increases that most economists and even Bill Clinton said were economy killers. All of this is not Charity. Charity is in the freely given help for the poor. The government is the worst most blunt and inefficient support for the poor. It is now necessary as far as I’m concerned, but we as properly generous Catholics should work for it becoming unnecessary through actual Charity.

The Abortion issue on the other hand is an absolutely horrendous, Nazi death camp gas chamber equivalent, intrinsic evil. The active decimation of living human beings done in the name of reproductive health and women’s supposed freedom to kill someone because they are completely dependent upon and inside her body.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

All of this is not Charity. Charity is in the freely given help for the poor. The government is the worst most blunt and inefficient support for the poor. It is now necessary as far as I’m concerned, but we as properly generous Catholics should work for it becoming unnecessary through actual Charity.

a voice of reason

 

[houseofsaul]

The Catholic Church prioritizes LIFE over happiness, as does our Constitution.

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

You have to LIVE before anything else can happen.

4,000 babies die in this nation EVERY DAY. We as Catholics cannot vote for candidates who support abortion. That’s the end of the argument, but so many Catholics find ways to twist themselves into pretzels, making excuses as to why they do still vote for those abortion-supporting candidates. Your arguments are the same.

I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, since you haven’t stated it, but this debate has been going on and on here at CAF and it doesn’t seem likely to change. The main issue is LIFE, not poverty.

Over 50 MILLION taxpayers have been slaughtered since 1973.
4,000 EVERY DAY.

Lord have mercy.

But isn’t it the poor who usually turn to abortion because they feel they cannot properly care for a child…rarely do ou hear the story that abortion is performed because of a child cramping their lifestyle. I am sure those happen but you don’t hear of those since the Morning After Pill has come into play.