I hear about it all the time from secular, conservative news sources. Maybe it isn’t often voiced by Catholics because we are not only called to care for those who are legal citizens of our own countries. Christ didn’t place geographical boundaries on whom we are to love – He simply spoke of the least. (He also didn’t say, “But only when it means you don’t increase the number of people vying for jobs.”)
I still say that it is a misconception that those who oppose abortion do not care for and work to help those in need. We can and should have a vigorous debate on the best policies and expenditures to solve the issues like poverty.
Every pro-Life advocate that I know also works in support of the poor, the homeless, the addicted. It is a strong man argument to say support for the one precludes support for the other … with time, talent, prayers and money - both tax dollars and private charitable donations - every single one. I do not know one who does not care.
It is also un true that people opposed to abortion offer no help or aid once a child is born … that is patently untrue …
I do not know of any person [liberal or conservative, republican or democrat] who is pro-Life and simultaneously uncaring about those less fortunate then they are … I do know people - sadly - [liberal or conservative, republican or democrat] who are pro-Choice/Abortion while simultaneously say they are for the poor … :shrug: that is a conundrum
I think because the media - which supports the societal acceptance of killing babies in the womb [which is morally reprehensible at all times] had to manufacture a moral equivalence and thus they created the pro-Life boogie man that wages a war on women, wants to keep women oppressed - barefoot and pregnant and hates the poor - wanting to starve them … it just is not real …
We cannot legislate morality - want businesses to pay fair wages and offer good benefits - then raise moral people who recognize the dignity of the person - that is not governments job. Raise people who understand the ethic of work, who show up on time, ready to work.
Individuals own companies, work for companies and run for office … we as a country have lost our way - looking to someone else to blame for our inadequacies or to save us from ourselves … We no longer respect and honor families - families barely exist anymore.
This is what the war on poverty has reaped - Consider these statistics:
Among whites - 3.1 % of infants were born to single mothers.
Among African-Americans - 24 % of infants were born to single mothers.
In 1990 - 25 years after the War on Poverty:
Among whites - 18 % of infants were born to single mothers.
Among African-Americans - 64 % of infants were born to single mothers.
Estimates are that each year another one million additional children are born into families where there is no father.
I don’t think I agree with that portrayal. People aren’t necessarily losers all their lives and rich people have been known to lose a few billion now and then. Look at 2008. Supposedly a few well-to-do became homeless. It’s a dynamic economy with a lot of moving parts. Whether you call it capitalism, socialism, or whatever, the money printers, the stock markets, the bond markets, the commodity markets, and balance sheets are at the center of the modus operandi et mundi. Compare the poorest person in the US today as opposed to the poorest one of say, 50 years ago. Wouldn’t you admit he’s better off today, thanks to advances in production, etc?
Sorry – I just can’t resist sharing this…
And there in lies the problem with the Catholic Democrat. A belief that we can fulfill our personal responsibility to help the poor and needy by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for us .
So we are to abdicate our personal responsibility to help poor needy to the government?
Holy cow. The image I posted was a joke but are you really arguing that the choices identified within it are reasonable and in line with Christ’s teachings?
Appears to me that the image you posted abdicated any responsibility for helping and needy to the federal government and condemns anyone who disagrees with the effectiveness of the programs listed . Note what Archbishop Chaput said:
“Nothing is stronger than personal witness. If we live our faith as Christian families with generosity and joy, it will naturally attract others. If we don’t, no amount of beautiful words or harsh judgments will substitute for that witness. "
Not a word about government programs and whether a Catholic is obligated to support them .
I see. So you advocate torturing prisoners because doing so means exercising personal responsibility?
I would really suggest rereading that image…
Only in the fevered mind of the modern American left does anyone believe the government supports torture
Yes, well, I suppose it depends to which version of the US government one is referring…
Conversations on this topic always devolve into a no government or federal government false dichotomy. People on the Left try to paint conservatives as anti-poor heretics. The Right paint liberals as non-charitable big government folks who refuse to help the poor directly.
Clearly, the Church teaches there is a proper role for the State and simultaneously warns against the growth of a bureaucratic Welfare State. There is a favoritism for applying solidarity at lower levels, both politically and privately, and through social organizations. This is important from a human dignity standpoint.
The application of that teaching in the United States is pretty easy to figure out, if you read the Constitution. At the state level, we should vote in the state leadership and/or propositions that will serve the needs of our state. Obviously, if it is better handled municipally, then it should be done at an even lower level. Regardless of level, the state, county and city should work in concert with social organizations within the community.
Ah, but the Catholics who prefer to have everything centralized at the federal level protest - what if the state isn’t doing x? For x, you can substitute their personal, preferred method of solving a social ill, because they know what’s best for people in other states.
I would argue that we need to trust each other. And, if you think that a given state you don’t live in has a problem that you would like to help with, get involved with a charity that will help. Go in and help directly, if you feel called to do so.
Conservatives are consistently more charitable by liberals. Somehow forcing giving money at the point of a gun to useless programs became the leftist’s idea of Charity.
The most powerful and concise sentence I’ve read that gets to the core of the issue.
Structural it is near impossible for people to get out of poverty. For one thing, the education system in the inner city is godawful. For another thing, the Randian march of progress has left victims in its midst. That is why a social safety net is needed.
Well, if $18 trillion worth of debt doesn’t cut it, I don’t know what else can. I will admit though there is something wrong when someone can game the system to his own benefit at the expense of someone poorer than he. People like Trump, who borrow money to the hilt, then declare bankruptcy, hurt a heck of a lot of people, who end up not getting paid among other things. Governments do the same thing.
Very few people denied the need for a safety net. The question is how big should the net be and how should poverty programs be implemented . But regardless of the size of government assistance it has no bearing whatsoever on our personal responsibility care for the poor and needy .
You must be a Koch Brothers funded, Randian, Rush Limbaugh, Faux News watcher.
Seriously, only the strictest of Libertarians believe in no safety net. I think we should be more like Europe. And, what I mean by that is that our federal government should manage the same things the EU does and leave the rest to the individual states to determine how to handle social welfare issues.
This is something we agree on.
I am struggling to understand why my desire for the government to help its citizens by funding programs is the same thing as abdicating my personal responsibility to feed the poor.
I can help as many people as I can, but the federal government can help exponentially more. I know dirt-poor families, disabled families, families torn apart by sin and violence–and the state helped them, and the church helped them.
We can have both a charitable state, and also be charitable people. It’s not a choice between one or the other, as you have otherwise suggested. You should be more careful with the way in which you characterize (demonize) liberals. Maybe turn off the radio and television and go read a book that wasn’t advertised on Fox News.
Anyone else booking a flight to Philly to see El Papa?