Catholic bishops say GOP budget proposal fails moral test

[Mickey Finn]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Are you talking about unions? Note that Catholic Social Teaching also says:

Though unions ought to have a social role and a political voice, they are not "political parties," ought to avoid the quest for political power, ought not to be "too closely linked" to political parties, and at the same time ought not to be forced to submit to the "decisions of political parties." They ought to be independent from the political process, and never "become an instrument for other purposes." Their role is to make the political arena "sensitive to labor problems," and--in a manner independent of partisan spirit--help the political process include the rights of workers as part of the political mix. (Compendium, No. 307)

If unions become instruments of political parties, or if political parties become instruments of unions, there will necessarily be imbalance. Unions in such cases "easily lose contact with their specific role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework of the common good of the whole of society." (Compendium, No. 307)

Unfortunately unions have become instruments of the Democrat party, unions give millions of dollars to Democrat politicians. Unions in part have become what Catholic social teaching does not support.

Many Catholic 'liberals' ignore the fact that protection of life from conception and protection of traditional marriage between a man and a woman are part of Catholic social justice teaching, both largely opposed by the Democrat party.

Maybe American Unions should have found a way to stay out of politics. But, it certainly is not an option today. Like I said in another thread. Only a fool, feeds a dog that bites him. So, how could you expect workers to vote for the GOP?

ATB

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn

Maybe American Unions should have found a way to stay out of politics. But, it certainly is not an option today. Like I said in another thread. Only a fool, feeds a dog that bites him. So, how could you expect workers to vote for the GOP?

ATB

In the 2008 election, 37% of union members vote for John McCain, 59% voted for Barack Obama, so a good percentage of union members are Republicans or Independents, so they find their views and concerns validated in the Republican party.

[_Abyssinia]

John Boehner responds to Bishops:

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner argued that matters would worsen, with the government eventually unable to afford programs for the needy, unless it stops spending more money than it takes in.

Boehner, who is Catholic, acknowledged that the bishops have a "moral argument," but said, "I want them to take a bigger look."

"The bigger look is if we don't make decisions (to slash spending), these programs won't exist, and then they will really have something to worry about," Boehner said at his weekly news conference.

In defending the Republicans' proposed spending cuts, Boehner did not mention another option to help reduce the deficit - raising taxes, which his party opposes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8FIHGQ20120418

What Reuters does not say is the Buffett Rule would make but a dent in the deficit, and there are ways of escape for those earning over a million dollars to get out of it. There are Republicans that support tax reform though.

[Ridgerunner]

Obviously, liberal USA Today thinks Catholics are fools.

They pony up an assertion by some theologians (and "theologians" says nothing about whether they're faithful to the Church or not...many are not) and ONE (count him...one) bishop, who says two things:

1. He thinks Ryan is going to cut aid to the children of illegals and thinks that's wrong.
2. He thinks Ryan is going to cut food stamps and thinks that's wrong WHILE still maintaining farm subsidies. (He doesn't say what he would think of subsidies were dropped)

One bishop...one. With two points to make. And USA Today and the supporters of Obama want Catholics to believe this is somehow Church teaching.

I recall again that my own bishop, a very charitable man, discouraged Catholics in our diocese from contributing to that ONE bishop's committee and, instead, encouraged giving to real Catholic charities instead of organizations that simply give money to secular, fundamentally political, organizations. The USCCB is very badly in need of reform, and some of the newer, more faithful bishops, know it.

Well, perhaps the good bishop ought to read the Popes' Social Encyclicals. If he did, he would find a great deal of support for Ryan's ideas and absolutely NONE for Obama's. But perhaps he has read them and has rejected them. Who knows?

But USA Today and other Obama supporters will never tell us that. They think we're stupid enough to believe the lies they tell, just like they (wrongly) thought Bishop Dolan and the rest of us would believe in the contraceptive/abortifacient "compromise". They want us to "burn incense at the altars of their gods" like the Roman emperors did, and, in doing so, deny our own faith.

These Obama people are the enemies of the Catholic Church and have shown it by their actions. No Catholic should believe them, especially when they, themselves, purport to speak for the Catholic Church. They're mocking the Church and you.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by ellipsis2

It seems to me that many only value what the bishops have to say if they already agree with them. If they don't agree, they don't have to listen. I guess this is what the term Cafeteria Catholic means. How does one get any guidance if one only hears what they want to hear?

It seems to me that you have presented no argument whatever to show how my comments might be wrong. That you disagree with them is obvious but it is just as obvious you have no idea how to rebut them, unless you believe that insults are arguments. Point to the flaws in my reasoning if you think you can find them but don't take cheap shots a me personally simply because you disagree with my conclusions.

Ender

[Robert Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please discuss the issues, not each other

Also please note:

Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions -- if you're unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don't have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by incense

I don't argue with his compassion, just his economic policy on how to get there.

Jesus did not endorse government policies in the Gospel of Matthew. He endorsed
individual responsibility to relieve the plight of the poor. And in the rest of that Gospel he also reaffirmed the moral code (the full scope of the commandments) which also binds believers. Just an FYI for you all: any governmental budget which assumes institutional responsibility, solely, to help certain segments of the poor (and only in certain ways), while also promoting limitless fornication, is not a proposal Jesus would have approved of.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Thank you for quoting this from the USA Today article, why is this being ignored?

'That same day, some 60 Catholic social justice leaders, theologians and clergy also released a statement saying that "this budget is morally indefensible and betrays Catholic principles of solidarity, just taxation and a commitment to the common good."

Yes, let's examine this claim since it goes to the heart of the issue raised by this thread. Is there any truth to this claim? In truth there is not. One might argue that the budget will harm the poor - which is of course assumed by the gang of 60 - but this alone does not mean that those who support the budget have acted immorally.

A budget by itself can be neither moral nor immoral any more than can a plan for an investment portfolio. Both represent best-guess economic choices between a large number of options with the expectation that the choices will work. That's all. There is no moral issue involved. The charge being made is not so much that the GOP plan won't work - as this would require a debate on the merits of the proposals and, worst of all, a counter proposal which the Dems steadfastly refuse to provide - but rather it is simply an assertion that, because hard choices are being made, the GOP is mean.

It is disappointing to realize that people actually believe the proposed budget violates Church doctrine when in fact the disagreements involve nothing more than differing prudential opinions.

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” (BXVI)

The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. (Paul VI)

The budget is a political issue. It is not a moral manifesto.

Ender

[ComputerGeek25]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Jesus did not endorse government policies in the Gospel of Matthew. He endorsed
individual responsibility to relieve the plight of the poor. And in the rest of that Gospel he also reaffirmed the moral code (the full scope of the commandments) which also binds believers. Just an FYI for you all: any governmental budget which assumes institutional responsibility, solely, to help certain segments of the poor (and only in certain ways), while also promoting limitless fornication, is not a proposal Jesus would have approved of.

Well stated Elizabeth.


I think we can argue until we're blue in the face over how to best spend government money on how to help the poor. But, there are some things that are always wrong.

[RJ88]

This is the Ryan plan that would balance the budget by, oh, 2040 or so that we're talking about, right?

What does it say about the state of this country when such a moderate deficit reduction plan is deemed "radical" and "social Darwinism" by the left, as well as apparently "immoral" by Catholic bishops?

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by RJ88

This is the Ryan plan that would balance the budget by, oh, 2040 or so that we're talking about, right?

What does it say about the state of this country when such a moderate deficit reduction plan is deemed "radical" and "social Darwinism" by the left, as well as apparently "immoral" by Catholic bishops?

But do "Catholic bishops" really think it's immoral? I don't think anyone can generalize like that. Certainly, my bishop isn't complaining about it.

[mellowcalico]

It would be nice is someone, with the political and Catholic know-how, could write an article about the final candidates for President and list all the areas where their policies would be against Catholic teaching (and how grave) and be in line with Catholic teaching. I'd be very interested in reading such an article.

I'll be honest, the abortion issue and recent anti- Catholic intrusions on the Church really bother me about Obama. But I also have reservations about Romney as well--although I suppose it's more of a character question for me. Too bad Santorum is out. I liked him (Paul would be my next choice).

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

But do "Catholic bishops" really think it's immoral? I don't think anyone can generalize like that. Certainly, my bishop isn't complaining about it.

Neither has mine. But he has spoken vehemently against the HHS mandate.

Our archdiocese has an Annual Catholic Appeal every April. All are encouraged to participate. Donations from this appeal support local Catholic programs. None of this money is used for the archdiocesan bureaucracy. Donations can be made in payments spread out over a year. IMHO this is the most charitable, moral, and efficient means of helping those in need.

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by mellowcalico

It would be nice is someone, with the political and Catholic know-how, could write an article about the final candidates for President and list all the areas where their policies would be against Catholic teaching (and how grave) and be in line with Catholic teaching. I'd be very interested in reading such an article.

I'll be honest, the abortion issue and recent anti- Catholic intrusions on the Church really bother me about Obama. But I also have reservations about Romney as well--although I suppose it's more of a character question for me. Too bad Santorum is out. I liked him (Paul would be my next choice).

http://www.catholic.com/voteyourfaith

[mellowcalico]

Originally Posted by qui est ce

http://www.catholic.com/voteyourfaith

Thank you very much Qui Est Ce!