Are You Happy Now?



At Mass on Sunday we were asked to sign a postcard for our bishop to deliver to our congressional delegation on the importance of not passing the Orwellian named Freedom of Choice Act or FOCA. The instructions for the card read, in part,

The “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) is a radical piece of legislation that creates a “fundamental right” to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy. No governmental body at any level—federal, state, or local—would be able to “deny or interfere with” this right, or to “discriminate” against its exercise “in the regulation or provision of benefits, services, or information.” For the first time, abortion would become an entitlement the government must fund and promote.

This engendered a thought from my wife and me. Are you happy now?

The relationship of the Catholic Church with conservatives and the Republican party is a very conflicted one. The institutional Church is probably second only to academia in glomming onto every new bit of left wing lunacy that comes bouncing down the pike. The Church has, however, as a whole been stalwart on life and family issues.

Unfortunately, the opposition to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage, indeed one could say based on these issues the defense of Western Civilization, places them at loggerheads with their emotional allies: liberal democrats.Catholic social teaching is embodied in Matthew 25:35 and if there is any party that is about feeding the starving or, now we see in relationship to Guantanamo, freeing the imprisoned it is the Democrat party. And to a great extent our Hierarchy likes being popular. It’s a fault of most people but many Catholics the age of our bishops remember when being a Catholic was a social impediment (why was JFK’s election important after all?) and they don’t, at some level, want to be too closely associated with the Evangelical lumpenproleteriat that provides the energy and foot soldiers of the pro-life movement.

In the 2004 election the Heirarchy was taken aback by demands of conservative Catholics and conservative non-Catholics alike that they adhere to their own rules in regards to support for abortion:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80 “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81

John Kerry, obviously, didn’t pass the test and neither did the flaccid response of our bishops. Having been burned in 2004, they became too cute by half. In 2007 a pamphlet was issued called Faithful Citizenship. In this document or bishops managed to make voting for any candidate acceptable while appearing to condemn abortion across the board:

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

Essentially, this construction allows you to take any social ill and elevate it above abortion.

The Sunday prior to the election a pastoral letter was read in our parish which emphasized that it was only wrong to vote for a pro-abort politician if you were voting to express your own support of abortion. This was simply nonsense because even pro-aborts claim they are against abortion (safe, legal, and rare and all that crap) but in favor of “choice.”

By trying to be cute, our bishops managed to score an own-goal.

In the past the Catholic Church has been free to cooperate with Democrats on social and defense issues (by the latter I mean our bishops support for the communist dictatorships and insurrections in Central America and being in favor of unilateral nuclear disarmament at one time declaring the possession of nukes to be immoral) while allowing Republicans to do heavy lifting on life issues. Since the Roe decision Republicans have been in the White House for all but 12 years and with a pro-life president much of the pro-abortion movement’s legislative agenda was not possible.

In 2008, the bishops woke up to the fact that they were looking at the political branches being controlled by pro-abortionists and they had undercut their own ability to teach on the importance of abortion by having already taught that opposition to abortion was a matter of the individual voter’s conscience.

Now they are trying to play catch up but it is far too late.

The “radical” law they are now opposing was first introduced in 2007. The man who is President has said he will sign that law from the earliest days of his run for the presidency. Instead of fighting the election they are now stuck fighting a rear guard action and they will find their allies few and far between.

In a quest to be invited to the right parties and seen with the right people our own bishops stand condemned of being complicit in the abortion of about one million children each year by continuing to allow pro-abort Catholic politicians to receive the Eucharist and by failing to teach the simple truth from the pulpit: that besides the horror of infanticide and euthanasia all other issues pale by comparison.


Category: ,

RSS feed

59 Comments Leave a comment

Lesser of two evils?

JDidSaint Tuesday, January 27th at 2:13PM EST (link)

What’s beyond me is why the Church is recommending voting for the lesser of two evils at all. If someone’s stance on foreign policy, welfare, health care, etc. runs so contrary to God’s will that it makes them an unacceptable candidate, isn’t writing in “Jesus” still a better choice than voting for an abortionist?

When did the Church begin subscribing to a two-party system?

As a Catholic I would legitimately like an answer to this. Is voting third-party or abstaining a greater evil than voting for a luke-warm member of the DFL or GOP?

“I’d rather go through the pain of the re-emergence of free markets than endure the long suffering of a socialist state. One is natural and comes from that spark of human desire; the other is imposed and smothers the flame of ingenuity.”-Crowe (from RedState!)

Third parties achieve nothing, and so a vote for them is to do nothing

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 2:19PM EST (link)

I think the Catholic Church of all groups would see through the sham of voting third party, when in practice it amounts to a total submission to the will of others.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

Except When "Second" Parties Actually Collapse

IJB Tuesday, January 27th at 2:25PM EST (link)

And, yeah, that does happen from time to time – in the last decade or so, it’s happened in both Canada and Japan, at least. (And, historically, it’s happened in the U.S., what? twice?)

I can promise you – if this ends up being the last line of defense against a potential walkout by the rank-and-file against the Republican leadership, it won’t work.

There is still time to avoid something this disastrous from happening. But time is running short – and the GOP leadership better get on board with the rank-and-file, before it’s too late.

(Luckily, opposing the stimulus is a good, and necessary, first step…)

 

Jesse Ventura (1998), Bernie Sanders (2006), Joe Lieberman (2006)

JDidSaint Tuesday, January 27th at 4:36PM EST (link)

^ All ran as independents when elected to office. I would agree that they aren’t good independents, but third party candidates nonetheless.

When asked if a partner with HIV should be permitted to use a condom when having sex with their spouse, the Church responded, “No. The couple should be abstinent.”

One could ask if this stance achieved anything or just encouraged people to ignore Church teachings more often. My point is that the Church was unwilling to waver on its stance towards contraceptives, how could it even consider wavering on abortion?

“I’d rather go through the pain of the re-emergence of free markets than endure the long suffering of a socialist state. One is natural and comes from that spark of human desire; the other is imposed and smothers the flame of ingenuity.”-Crowe (from RedState!)

3 for a few thousand.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:42PM EST (link)

I didn’t do the math to get the exact number, but odds-wise you’d be better off laying your money on the 0 or 00 on a roulette wheel in Vegas.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 

Two points

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:46PM EST (link)

Sanders isn’t in a third party. Lieberman is a registered Democrat who caucuses with Democrats.

Ventura achieved nothing even with his one shot, one time win for a party that has gone nowhere since.

My assertion stands.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

What about a supplemental third party -

David123 (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:04PM EST (link)

perhaps like the Conservative Party in New York, that normally has the Republican candidate as its candidate as well, but that may nominate somebody different if it chooses to?

I read on other posts that Obama was a member of the New Party, that would choose the Dem candidate as its candidate if he was sufficiently far left.

David123

Sounds like a great way to lose elections

zuiko (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:30PM EST (link)

Franken “won” by a couple hundred votes out of millions cast. Partially thanks to idiots voting for 3rd party candidates because Coleman “wasn’t conservative enough.” Well, I hope Franken is conservative enough for them, because odds are that’s what they’ll get.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman

You'd have to choose your states and battles carefully

David123 (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:43PM EST (link)

But, in Coleman’s case, what if he’d been the Republican candidate AND the third party candidate? Then he’d have received all the R votes that he got plus the 6,000 or so votes that went to the third party candidate, and would be the clear winner.

I would envision the Conservative?, 2nd Amendment?, or whatever third party candidate being the same person as the Republican candidate at least 75% of the time.

David123

He wouldn't also be the 3rd party candidate

zuiko (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 6:30PM EST (link)

He is not what anyone would call a really conservative candidate. I’m sure they would be able to come up with their own, more conservative candidate (who would do nothing by siphon votes away from Coleman). The same would be the case in every other close call, since close calls tend to happen in purple states, and Republican candidates from those states are usually not hard-core 100% conservative.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman

 
 
 

That only works in New York

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:42PM EST (link)

New York’s Conservative Party only works because they’re allowed to put the Republican on their line as well.

If they had to compete with the Republican every time, they’d be worse than useless now, just like every other third party.

So that’s fine if you’re in New York, or anyplace with similar laws, but not so much anywhere else.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

Thanks, for replying and explaining that, Neil.

David123 (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:51PM EST (link)

I was envisioning this as a cooperative thing, not a divissive “throw-away-your vote thing.”

David123

 
 
 
 

So if this is true

zuiko (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:55PM EST (link)

I would agree that they aren’t good independents, but third party candidates nonetheless.

Doesn’t that make you wonder about the quality of these people, should you actually somehow get them into office? Still want to throw away your vote on a third party candidate?

When asked if a partner with HIV should be permitted to use a condom when having sex with their spouse, the Church responded, “No. The couple should be abstinent.”

If a guy has HIV and his wife doesn’t, having sex at all, condom or no, is extremely risky behavior. Condoms are not even close to foolproof. So I don’t see anything wrong with that answer.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman

 
 
 

other than the incipient threadjack

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 2:26PM EST (link)

what does this have to do with anything?

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

This wasn't intended as a threadjack...

JDidSaint Tuesday, January 27th at 4:13PM EST (link)

RCC voters started to leave the GOP since the Church relaxed restrictions on voting for intrinsic evils. My question was why would the Church make this recommendation when there are other options than choosing what is morally abhorrent? Additionally, why are Catholic voters following the recommendation as an encouragement to vote DFL (which is equal to voting for infanticide, in my mind,) as opposed to abstaining, writing in, or voting third party?

I was hoping to discuss the recommendation of the Church and a response to our compassionate Catholic friends when they tell us they’re voting DFL.

“I’d rather go through the pain of the re-emergence of free markets than endure the long suffering of a socialist state. One is natural and comes from that spark of human desire; the other is imposed and smothers the flame of ingenuity.”-Crowe (from RedState!)

 
 

8 Years of Republican control

1CajunCon Tuesday, January 27th at 3:52PM EST (link)

Why the hell didn’t they get this fixed then. Third parties are a sham? Well so is the republican party

Nothing personal, kid: but we prefer people who can count.

Moe Lane (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:59PM EST (link)

I’ve tried to work it out three different ways how we could accurately say that we’ve had “8 Years of Republican control” lately, and it just ain’t happening. Surely you remember the 2006 election, yes?

Well, probably you were too busy celebrating.

PS: Blam. Try better next time. N/T

Moe Lane (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:59PM EST (link)

Blam?

loganedwards Tuesday, January 27th at 6:04PM EST (link)

So, that leaves 6 years of Republican control.. Surely even you can do the math.

it's actually about 4.5 years

E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 6:20PM EST (link)

from Jan 2002 thru Dec 2006, plus the several months in 2001 before Jumping Jim Jeffords did his thing. The other 3.5 years the Democrats had the Senate, and the last 2 years had the House as well.

Kinda curious, when you map out the state of the economy vs who had Congress.

Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO

 

Funny

zuiko (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 6:32PM EST (link)

If you are going to break out the “even you can do the math” line, you might want to be sure of your math before you open your mouth.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman

 
 
 
 
 
 

It's too bad the RCC favors government handouts.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 2:39PM EST (link)

From my experience they do a much better job of it themselves, at least here in the U.S., and would benefit more from having a populace that has more money in their pockets with which to be able to donate directly to them.

Personally, I just don’t see where Matthew 25:35 says anything about the government helping the poor.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

if you agree that society

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 2:56PM EST (link)

isn’t composed of people that might be a good argument. Personally, I find it a lot less that persuasive that government has no abiding interest in reducing poverty if for no other reason than enlightened self interest by improving its human capital so said capital can earn money to buy things and pay taxes.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Or so that "human capital" doesn't turn on you

Achance (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:05PM EST (link)

and kill all the filthy capitalists. It’s good to at least keep them sullen but not mutinous.

In Vino Veritas

there is always that possibility

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:07PM EST (link)

but as someone who comes from Appalachia I don’t necessarily buy the idea that poor people are hostile to conservatism

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Same here,

Achance (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:03PM EST (link)

Piney Woods Georgia wasn’t exactly a hotbed of revolution. Poor people are hostile to people who they believe are taking advantage of them, though, and that hostility can be organized.

In Vino Veritas

 
 
 

You didn't read my words.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:14PM EST (link)

I agree that the government has an abiding interest in reducing poverty. I just don’t believe that’s best accomplished by direct handouts from the government.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

I'd be in agreement with you on methods.

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:18PM EST (link)

sorry for misreading it.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

I know we're on the same page.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:00PM EST (link)

I just wish The Church (and more of its members) would realize that their objectives would be met much more frequently by Republicans than Democrats, who are all too willing to accept them into the fold and knife them in the back right after they come through the door.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 

Fine - I'll Say It

IJB Tuesday, January 27th at 3:17PM EST (link)

“Government has no abiding interest in reducing poverty.”

Even assuming they could accomplish the goal. (And I’m convinced they can’t.)

About the only thing I’d be willing to acknowledge is that government has no abiding interest in seeing poverty “expand” or “increase”.

Beyond that – nope, not the gov’ts job.

And thinking it does is a signpost on the road to Hell.

therein we have

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:08PM EST (link)

diametrically opposed positions on this issue.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

 

Bureaucrats collect paychecks, politicians collect votes.

Tbone (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:54PM EST (link)

Prosperity and/or poverty are random and unintended consequences of those two processes.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

 
 

What about "poverty pimpin'"?

Next93 (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:17PM EST (link)

What about the principle of “poverty pimping”? Fourty percent of the population already pays nothing in taxes and gets government services “for free”. They can be counted on to vote socialist democrat simply by raising the spectre of eeevil R’s “slasing funding for (insert favorite pet project here)”

I’d say that’s an excellent reason why the (current) government is opposed to actually reducing poverty.

As for the previous administration, well, everyone knows that “George Bush hates black people”, right?

Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.

 

It seems to me

zuiko (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:28PM EST (link)

That government has an interest in increasing poverty. They are here to help, after all, and the more people they can count as poverty-stricken the bigger and more powerful they can become… which is ultimately the only real goal of those in government. That’s why they need to constantly redefine what it means to be in poverty, to the point where our definition of poverty would be completely unrecognizable as such in most of the world.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. – Milton Friedman

40%?

loganedwards Tuesday, January 27th at 6:09PM EST (link)

Where do you come up with 40%? Are you including all children, all elderly? Are you recommending no services for children and no services for the elderly who paid into the system?

Looking for like to back up your claim…

Zuiko: When you refer to the government seeking to increase poverty, were you speaking directly about the GWB administration or all forms over government. The last 8 has brought about record spending and a significant increase in the cost of living. If you’re corrent in your statement, I just want to know if you specifically blame any particular administration or government entity for the increase or just “the government”.

 
 
 
 

In bed with the devil...

owise1 Tuesday, January 27th at 2:44PM EST (link)

Matt. 25:35 has nothing to do with the government doing anything for people. It has everything in the world to do with individual Christians taking personal responsibility to assist those who are in need. There was once a time in this country when we knew our neighbors, when we knew the needs of those in our community. And by that personal knowledge, we knew as well whether or not the need was genuine or contrived, self-inflicted or the result of misfortune, temporary or permanent. And our benevolence as individuals matched the need as long as it existed.

Then along came government. “You can’t help everyone,” they said, “but if you’ll send your money to us we’ll see that it goes to everyone who is in need.” Sounded like a pretty good plan, so we sent our money to the government and let them look for those who were in need. Then we forgot about our neighbors. Oh, we might be vaguely aware that someone down the street might be having problems, but we comforted ourselves that “the government” was going to take care of the situation. And I suppose it did, sometimes.

Then one day we woke up and discovered that the government was taking our money and helping people whose needs were contrived, not genuine; whose poverty was self-inflicted by laziness, not the result of misfortune; whose hardship was temporary, not permanent. Then we complained how government wasted our money and encouraged sloth. But by then, it was too late. The dye had been cast.

For all the good it has done to assist the poor and indigent, the Catholic Church (as well as many other denominations) has succumbed to the allure of “the government” being our benefactor. It is not a benefactor, but a taskmaster, and a horrible one at that. Churches need to get back to doing things the way the Bible says to do them. Individuals helping one another, and the church helping its own out of its own funds. Don’t get in bed with the government to do the Lord’s work. Don’t ask or depend on the government to do your work for you. The Catholic Church, perhaps more than any other denomination, has forgotten this simple principle. It not only welcomes, but very often encourages government to get its hands in the business that it has no business in. Now, it finds itself compromised in its spiritual aims because it got in bed with the devil.

that's one interpretation

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:02PM EST (link)

I don’t personally subscribe to it.

I disagree with your interpretation of history. Private charity became incapable of dealing the demands of the Great Depression. In the aftermath of World War II, the communities which had provided relief to the indigent were hard hit by geographical mobility– the automobile — and social dislocation caused by demobilization from WW II.

The stable communities which had taken care of their own became transient communities composed of strangers. People change residences about every 5 years. That doesn’t build stability.

I appreciate your view point but I simply don’t agree, and will never agree, that caring for the most vulnerable in our society is not a necessary and proper government role as well as a role for communities and churches.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

 
 

The "Market Driven Church" strikes again.

wayneinnh (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 2:58PM EST (link)

What we have witnessed is the result of the utter failure of the church to educate the masses on what it is to be a Christian. Liberal pastors have managed to water down the message of the Gospel in order to build up the weekly attendance to the point that we now have a church full of pew warmers.

The true Gospel message of repenting, or turning away from sin and putting your faith in Jesus Christ as the savior has been replaced with a new message. This message is one of feeding the poor and meeting people’s worldly needs. While this is required of us as followers of Christ, it is to be done as a measurement of gratitude to God for what we have been given through Christ. Our main purpose as the Body of Christ is to make disciples of all people. What we are now doing as a church is making the world a better place to go to hell from.

We now have people who would consider themselves Christians voting for a person who believes that children born as a result of a botched abortion should be left to die in soiled laundry baskets. And they have a clear conscience in doing it because they have no convictions of their faith. They will overlook the FOCA and the Mexico City Policy repeal and sleep well tonight because they voted for someone who “cares.”

The corruption of the Church is a sure sign of the end times.

Jon 14:6 –
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

It’s not intellectual to believe we evolved from hydrogen gas.

disagree

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:05PM EST (link)

caring for the poor has been an overriding concern of the Church since Acts

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Maybe even earlier

Next93 (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:22PM EST (link)

Bit of a threadjack here, but as I understand it, Jesus’ position in re: the poor was more of a return to basics than a radical break with Jewish tradition.

Charity for the poor is a pretty dominant theme among our “elder brothers in faith”.

Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.

this whole thread has become a threadjack

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:32PM EST (link)

but that is my understanding, also

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

 
 

We do have a responsibility

wayneinnh (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:37PM EST (link)

to care for the poor and the sick. We do not work with demons to get it accomplished. We do not look the other way at the murder of innocent life in order to see another part of our agenda carried out.

With that being said, it is still secondary to the Great Commission: ” And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jon 14:6 –
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

It’s not intellectual to believe we evolved from hydrogen gas.

as I said earlier

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:47PM EST (link)

this thread isn’t about Catholic Social Teaching and were I splitting hairs with you I’d say “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” clearly covers the Beatitudes as well as service to the poor.

And service to the poor doesn’t run contrary to the Great Commission. I don’t think the work of Mother Teresa, for instance, was at the expense of evangelization.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

 
 
 
 

Faith based welfare is as dangerous as God based politics...

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:17PM EST (link)

The Catholic Church, perhaps more than any other denomination, has forgotten this simple principle. It not only welcomes, but very often encourages government to get its hands in the business that it has no business in. Now, it finds itself compromised in its spiritual aims because it got in bed with the devil.

This is the reason I was skeptical of the whole “Faith Based” system of government welfare cooked up by the Bush administration. Many good conservatives were for it because, “Hey, better the churches than the government.” But I could never grasp how it could be possible to render unto God via Caesar. I think we’re seeing now that it was just wishful thinking.

couldn't disagree more.

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:19PM EST (link)

I simply don’t care to live in a society that sees things that way

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Not clear what your disagreement is...

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:43PM EST (link)

Conservatives who outgive liberals in charitable contributions by a couple of orders of magnitude somehow thought it was a good idea to begin routing government welfare money through church based social programs. Was it not inevitable that the liberal “community organizers” would flock to these religious troughs and the church bureaucracies would become addicted to the steady flow of nice warm money? Doesn’t it stand to reason that behind the reticence of the Catholic bishops w/r/t pushing Pro Life from the pulpit was the potential loss of those funds and the access to power that they represented?

“Faith based” social welfare doled out by Uncle Sugar seemed like a bad idea on its face the first time I heard it explained to me.

um, all of it

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:54PM EST (link)

this wasn’t to argue my views on social justice. I think I’ll put something up shortly to do that.

I don’t think the threat of losing money had anything at all to do with their decision. I think the decision was based on assuming that they would not be in the position of having to confront the political party they are most comfortable with over a matter of Faith and Morals.

I accept the need for government funding of social programs. Whether those programs should be federal, or state, or local I’m willing to argue but I don’t thing a non-agricultural society with personal mobility can provide for those at the fringe by charity alone. If government is going to be involved, I’m much more comfortable with religious organizations being able to provide those services than I am with government entities.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

5...nt.

NightTwister (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:02PM EST (link)

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill

 
 
 

This is an amazing statement from you, Streiff

nivlem (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:47PM EST (link)

Interesting points of view between you and Reed Chesterton. It appears to
me you both have failed to look at the numerous successes of the church
in the last few years. The number of lives they have changed and improved
due to the grace and love of believers.
Katrina is a perfect example. Churches across the nation were able to assist
people throughout this hurricane torn area that government could have never
reacted to. Many, many Christians felt the call to serve their fellowman, leave
theri lives, and devote hours and hours to caring for those in need.
Here is the problem. We have gotten way past focusing on “those in need”.It
now covers people who don’t have a box for converstion to digital TV. We
are covering health care for people who can afford to pay it. We are giving
mortgages to people who do not have an income.
How anyone can say the government should be the main source of serving
those in need is beyond me. They are clueless to the local needs of each
community and try to blanket the solution for everyone. Churches can
react and serve much quickly and effectively. My own community churches
serve and provide far more thouroughly for the homeless men and women
of our community then the government has ever done. Most of us believe it
is due to government that so many are homeless.
I am not crazy about living in a society that does not recognize and empower
the ability and tireless people of the church community.

I've really no interest

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 3:56PM EST (link)

in arguing that point with you as that is not the subject of this post. I respect your point of view. It simply is not my point of view in all aspects

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

You wrote a great article,

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:19PM EST (link)

and I subscribe to it lock, stock, and barrel. But just to keep the thread on topic, we’re obviously in disagreement over whether government/Church financial ties have any bearing on the American bishops’ failure to speak truth to power w/r/t the Right to Life.

 
 

Those churches who aided Katrina victims...

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:07PM EST (link)

did so mainly with the help of parishioners who literally emptied their wallets and checking accounts into the collection plates in the weeks following the storm. There is no way that the government could have or would have funneled enough money to enough churches any faster than they got help to the govt. agencies. A lot of generous churchgoers skimped on Christmas gifts that year in helping their church move trucks full of water and food into NOLA before the government could even announce their plans for aid.

I’ve got the same axe to grind w/r/t govt. welfare to the lazy and undeserving as any conservative. I’ve never had a problem with govt. having a hand in helping the poorest and weakest. But I drew the line at government using the churches as social engineering tools.

you're making an either/or argument

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:11PM EST (link)

and that isn’t the case. It can be a both/and argument which is where I come from. In matter of fact, private aid in Katrina has been dwarfed, and exponentially so, by aid from federal and state governments. This is not to devalue the contributions of churches but simply to point out that temporary housing was overwhelmingly provided by governments.

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

You are consistently misinterpreting my point...

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:25PM EST (link)

I’m not opposed to the government role in social welfare… only to the government’s strings attached to Church charities. Watch as failure to comply with FOCA causes govt. funds to be pulled from Catholic hospitals. The ones that don’t close will be nationalized because they are “Too Big to Fail (TM).”

 
 
 
 
 

A few bad Catholics don't spoil the whole bunch

nivlem (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:00PM EST (link)

I will agree there is a battle within the Catholic church with many leaning toward
the liberals. However, there are many, many Catholics who are staunch
Republicans and are continuing to fight this liberal direction. The Catholic
church throughout history has battled for those in need. Sometimes it cannot
see the forest through the trees. I believe it may be because the are so close
to the situration as they daily see people in need, and desire a simpler
way to meet the demands.
I know many Catholic priests that are fighting this left leaning direction. I am not
sure who will in, however, either way it will not remove the direction of the church to continue to fight for those in need. To disempower their ability to
serve those in need would be a real tragedy. To empower government to
do this would make it just another wasteful, ineffective government program.
It was never “Faith Based system of government WELFARE.” It was faith based initiatives to help the poor, homeless and others in need because
they could react more swiftly and efficiently to the local community needs. It works.

 
 

FOCA goes way beyond "choice", it directly

streetwise (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:55PM EST (link)

affect the right of all people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to practice their reliigion because the state is forcing them to support and pay for abortion. The situation is particularly dire if they work in the medical profession.

If this monstrosity passes, challenge its constitutionality. IMMEDIATELY.

 

FOCA goes way beyond "choice", it directly

streetwise (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 4:55PM EST (link)

affect the right of all people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to practice their reliigion because the state is forcing them to support and pay for abortion. The situation is particularly dire if they work in the medical profession.

If this monstrosity passes, challenge its constitutionality. IMMEDIATELY.

 

Point taken, but...

H (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 5:07PM EST (link)

It was never “Faith Based system of government WELFARE.” It was faith based initiatives to help the poor, homeless and others in need because
they could react more swiftly and efficiently to the local community needs. It works.

For every charity for the homeless I can’t help assuming there’s a manhating feminist pro-abortion enclave disguised as a “Woman’s Shelter.” Last year we had the scandal of a Catholic Charities social worker escorting a teenage girl to an abortion clinic. It’s public record. I have a picture in my head of Homer Simpson saying “Wowee! Taxpayers’ money straight to the church! What could possibly go wrong?”

 

Bravo Streiff

Marcus_Traianus (Diary) Tuesday, January 27th at 6:16PM EST (link)

Outside my Catholic Church we have a tombstone to “The Unborn”. Heretic that I am, my recommendation was place two more next to it; one for “Social Responsibility” and the other to “Righteous Defense”.

“Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object—the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers; the other, by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other, the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove.”.Thomas Jefferson