The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionCatholic Academics Challenge Boehner
by Michael Sean Winters on May. 11, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Breaking News.
UPDATE: More names have been added to the list of signatories below.
A group of prominent Catholic academics have signed a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, on the occasion of his forthcoming commencement address at the Catholic University of America. I will provide commentary later today, but the letter really speaks for itself, respectfully, clearly and in a way to challenge the Speaker to consider his policies. The letter will be delivered to Boehner's office personally by some of the signatories tomorrow morning.
[Editor's Note: Michael Sean Winter's first reaction is here: Initial Thoughts on Letter to Boehner.]
I will point out that the signatories do not call on Boehner to decline to give his address, nor on CUA to revoke its invitation, as many conservatives called on Notre Dame to revoke its invitation to President Obama in 2009. They understand that a university should be a place where all voices and viewpoints are heard. But, they are well within their right to ask Boehner to explain how his budgetary proposals do, or do not, conform to traditional Catholic social teaching. Here is the text of the letter:
We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching. We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.
Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.
The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of Representatives guts long-established protections for the most vulnerable members of society. It is particularly cruel to pregnant women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and Children nutrition program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these children will face a 20% cut in food stamps. The House budget radically cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare. It invokes the deficit to justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out $3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In a letter speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its impact on poor and vulnerable American citizens. They explained the Church’s teachings in this regard clearly, insisting that:
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.
Specifically, addressing your budget, the letter expressed grave concern about changes to Medicaid and Medicare that could leave the elderly and poor without adequate health care. The bishops warned further:
We also fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and nutrition, child development and education, and affordable housing.
Representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishops Hubbard and Blaire have now endorsed with other American Christian leaders a call to legislators for a “Circle of Protection” around programs for the poor that you, Mr. Speaker, have imperiled. The statement of these Christian leaders recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility, “but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.” Indeed, it continues, “These choices are economic, political—and moral. As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called ‘the least of these’ (Matthew 25:45).”
Mr. Speaker, we urge you to use the occasion of this year’s commencement at The Catholic University of America to give fullest consideration to the teachings of your Church. We call upon you to join with your bishops and sign on to the “Circle of Protection.” It is your moral duty as a legislator to put the needs of the poor and most vulnerable foremost in your considerations. To assist you in this regard, we enclose a copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Published by the Vatican, this is the “catechism” for the Church’s ancient and growing teaching on a just society and Catholic obligations in public life.
Catholic social doctrine is not merely a set of goals to be achieved by whatever means one chooses. It is also a way of proceeding, a set of principles that are derived from the truth of the human person. In Pope Benedict’s words: “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way... the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite.”
We commend to you the Compendium’s discussion of the principles of the common good, the preferential option for the poor, and the interrelationship of subsidiarity and solidarity. Paragraph 355 on tax revenues, solidarity, and support for the vulnerable is particularly relevant to the moment.
Be assured of our prayers for you on this occasion and for your faithful living out of your vocation in public life.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Schneck
Director, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
Ken Pennington
Kelly-Quinn Professor of Ecclesiastical and Legal History
The Catholic University of America
School of Canon Law
The Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Karen M. Korol
Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies
School of Theology and Religious Studies
Catholic University of America
Rett R. Ludwikowski, Ph.D.
Comparative and International Law Institute
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Patricia C. McMullen, Ph.D., JD, CRNP
Dean
School of Nursing
The Catholic University of America
Kenneth P. Miller, Ph.D, RN, CFNP, FAAN
Associate Dean for Administration
School of Nursing
The Catholic University of America
Timothy J. Meagher
Associate Professor
Department of History
The Catholic University of America
Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
Sr. Vincentia Joseph, Ph.D.
Professor Emerita
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
Maryann Cusimano Love, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Politics
The Catholic University of America
Stephen McKenna, Ph.D.
Associate Professor & Chair
Department of Media Studies
The Catholic University of America
Linda Plitt Donaldson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
Margaret Martin Berry
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Leslie W. Tentler, Ph.D.
Ordinary Professor
Department of History
The Catholic University of America
Rev. Anthony J. Pogorelc, Ph.D.
Fellow
Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
William V. D’Antonio, Ph.D.
Fellow
Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
William Barbieri, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Theology and Religious Studies
The Catholic University of America
Enrique Pumar, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology
The Catholic University of America
Joseph J. Shields
Associate Professor
The National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
Ellen M. Scully
Assistant Clinical Professor
Columbus Community Legal Services
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Marie J. Raber, MSW, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Associate Dean and MSW Program Chair
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
Michaela L. Zajicek-Farber, MSW, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
William D. Dinges, Ph.D.
Ordinary Professor
School of Theology and Religious Studies
The Catholic University of America
William P. Loewe, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
The Catholic University of America
Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc, Ph.D., MSW, OSW-C
Associate Professor
Director, Data Management & Outcomes Assessment
National Catholic School of Social Service
The Catholic University of America
James A. McCann, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science
Purdue University
Visiting Fellow, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
Chris Grech
Associate Professor
School of Architecture and Planning
The Catholic University of America
Ernest M. Zampelli, Ph.D.
Ordinary Professor
Department of Business and Economics
The Catholic University of America
David A Lipton
Director, Securities Law Program
School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Murry Sidlin
Professor, School of Music
The Catholic University of America
John Sniegocki
Associate Professor of Christian Ethics
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
Kristin Suna-Koro, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Theology
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
Jean Lim
Visiting Professor, Theology
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
Arthur T. Dewey
Professor of Theology
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
Edward P. Hahnenberg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Theology
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
Vincent J. Miller
Gudorf Chair in Catholic Theology and Culture
Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Una M. Cadegan
Associate Professor, Department of History
University of Dayton
Francis Xavier Doyle
Former Associate General Secretary
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Arturo Chavez, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Mexican American Catholic College
Gary Macy
John Nobili, S.J. Professor of Theology
Santa Clara University
Gerald J. Beyer
Associate Professor of Christian Social Ethics
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
Saint Joseph's University
Dr. Eugene J. Halus, Jr.
Associate Professor of Politics
Department of History and Politics
Immaculata University
Kristin Heyer
Associate Professor
Religious Studies
Santa Clara University
Bryan N. Massingale
Associate Professor of Theological Ethics
Marquette University
Dolores L. Christie
CTSA/John Carroll University
Alex Mikulich, Ph.D.
Research Fellow
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Loyola University
New Orleans, LA
Daniel K. Finn
Professor of Theology and Clemens Professor of Economics
St. John’s University
Collegeville, MN
Terrence W. Tilley
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., Professor of Catholic Theology
Chair, Theology Department
President, Society for Philosophy of Religion
Fordham University, Bronx, NY
Thomas J. Reese, S.J.
Senior Fellow
Woodstock Theological Center
Georgetown University
Bruce T. Morrill, S.J.
Professor, Theology Department
Boston College
Nancy Dallavalle
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Fairfield University
Lisa Sowle Cahill
Monan Professor of Theology
Boston College
Bradford Hinze
Professor of Theology
Fordham University
Mary Ann Hinsdale
Associate Professor of Theology
Boston College
Paul Lakeland
Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J. Professor of Catholic Studies
Director, Center for Catholic Studies
Jeannine Hill Fletcher
Associate Professor of Theology
Faculty Director, Dorothy Day Center for Service and Justice
Fordham University
Paulette Skiba
Professor of Religious Studies
Clarke University
Dennis M. Doyle
Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Maura Donahue, Ph.D.
Director, Program for Christian Leadership
University of Dayton
Richard R. Gaillardetz
Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies
University of Toledo
Christopher Pramuk
Assistant Professor of Theology
Xavier University
Marie Dennis
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concern
Mary Ann Brenden MSW, LICSW
Associate Professor of Social Work
St. Catherine University/University of St. Thomas School of Social Work
Mark Ensalaco, Ph.D.
Director, Human Rights Studies program
University of Dayton
Dr. Marie J. Giblin
Associate Professor
Theology Department
Xavier University
Frank Farrell, Ph.D.
Chair- Liberal Arts Division
Senior Associate Professor, Religion
Manor College
Rev. Joseph Nangle, OFM
Our Lady Queen of Peace
Arlington, VA
Todd Whitmore
Associate Professor of Christian Ethics
Department of Theology
University of Notre Dame
Christine Firer Hinze, Ph.D., B.A, M.A, CUA
Professor of Theology
Director, Francis & Ann Curran Center for American Catholic Studies
Fordham University
Ed Kelly
Adjunct Professor
University Writing Program
University of Notre Dame
Maria McKenna, Ph.D.
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of Africana Studies
University of Notre Dame
Sr. Mary Hughes, OP
President
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
Ron Pagnucco
Chairman
Department of Peace Studies
College of St. Benedict/St. John's University
Michael A. Zampelli, SJ
Paul Locatelli, SJ Professor
Department of Theater and Dance
Rector, Santa Clara Jesuit Community
Santa Clara University
John A. Coleman, SJ
Casassa Professor of Social Values, Emeritus
Loyola Marymount University
Jim Hug, S.J.
President
Center of Concern
Lew Daly
Director, Fellows Program
Demos
Author of God’s Economy: Faith-Based Initiatives and the Caring State
John A. Barba
will receive Ph.D. in Historical and Systematic Theology at Catholic University graduation on Saturday
Mary Paterson
Professor, School of Nursing
The Catholic University of America
Héctor Lindo-Fuentes
Professor of History, Fordham University
Douglass Alvarado
Human Services Judge
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Robert A. Krieg
Professor of Theology
University of Notre Dame
Vytenis Gureckas, RA
Associate Professor
School of Architecture and Planning
The Catholic University of America
It's not a bad letter. Not
It's not a bad letter. Not at all.
But the Speaker will be able to dismiss it quite readily, given that the same academics failed to send one to former Speaker Pelosi on "the anti-life implications" of the policies *she* supported, ones which indicated that she "fail[ed] to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching."
The messenger's selective outrage, however real, mangles his message. The most appropriate response to the incoherent voice of the divided Church in America is "Whatever."
Is Nanci Pelosi Catholic?
Is Nanci Pelosi Catholic? that's important to know before tossing her under the bus(typical of a political party supporter, when someone calls out your guy you don't bother discussing the facts put forth in front of you, but instead, choose to deflect by trying to accuse someone else of the same thing...fair enough if you do so at the end of the discussion, not so much when that is your first response)
Nanci Pelosi is also NOT giving the commencement speech at Catholic University, so your argument is moot when taken in context to what the letter was addressing. if you do have issues with Pelosi...as I think we ALL do, please save those comments for an article or letter addressing her, not John Boehner.
Please stick to the subject matter at hand so that we may have a civil discussion regarding the information we just read.
I decline your invitation to
I decline your invitation to silence myself, Mr. FL.
Since you don't know my political affiliation, and are making wrongful assumptions about me (how does that help a civil discussion again?), let me correct you: I'm not a Republican. In a perverse way, it's really funny to be accused of unseemly partisanship by someone who engages in unseemly partisanship, but no matter.
As you may have missed while working yourself into a snit, I think the letter is decent. The authors raise good points about the preferential option for the poor.
However, the fact that they only roused themselves to call out this particular Speaker is troubling. The letter hints that he may be a deliberate dissenter from Catholic teaching. That's a pretty potent charge, and one the academics have a right--even a duty--to make.
But when they didn't do the same to former Speaker Pelosi on, say, the DC abortion law vote back in 2009, one can reasonably question their dedication to the entirety of Catholic teaching. Why this Catholic Speaker but not the other one? The "but he's giving a commencement speech" argument is very weak tea. Come on--so if Speaker Boehner withdrew from giving the speech this evening the letter should be withdrawn?
What it boils down to is another case of liberal Catholics criticizing conservative ones. Tomorrow it will be vice versa. In both cases, it will be in one ear and out the other, and that is a shame.
Dr. Price again shows his
Dr. Price again shows his arrogant anti-Catholic bias in his execrable comments here. This letter must needs be read form each Catholic pulpit, and Boehner must follow it´s CAtholic lead in turning back from his war upon the poor and most vulnerable and rejoining the War on Poverty itself, upon the four horsemen of the apocalypse which he stridently now calls down upon America.
Read in particular how Boehner has gutted the WIC program and Food Stamps, which always benefited the monopolisitc agricultural industry more than the poor in any case, but now with ethonal enforcement, the agricultural industry no longer needs Food Stamps to keep afloat.
Jesus commands us to Feed the Hungry.
No questions asked
Speaker Pelosi, of course, visited His Holiness in the Vatican as part of her long Catholic tradition.
You are a strange, angry man
You are a strange, angry man with some inexplicable vendetta against me. Your behavior here reminds me of a man who stalked the comments of a friend of mine on Amazon, leaving insults on everything he wrote.
Since the moderators here are content to let you do this, I will simply ignore your comments from here on in, Mr. Scablon.
The services do not have to
The services do not have to be provided by the federal government. We have state, local and private organizations and CHARITIES that can help with hunger. You say Jesus commands us to Feed the Hungry. Jesus did not command that the federal government feed the hungry.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking. Not an expert on the Bible, but I didn't Jesus ask the rich man to give up his possessions and come follow him. I don't reading about him telling his apostles to take the rich man's possessions and give them to the poor. If the US government feeds the poor and gives housing to the homeless why should I give any of my money to charity and the church? Jesus is not Robin Hood, liberals think he is.
So from your frame of
So from your frame of reference: Jesus did teach to set up a system that robs from all poor to make the rich wealthy? Understand first how the system works before you evoke Jesus' name. He may very well take a look at those who turn their backs on the underprivileged and disagree with you.
You might want to follow your
You might want to follow your own advice, MWC, and learn a bit about practical politics and separation of responsibility...render unto Caesar that which is his and to God, that which is His.
you know before you run your
you know before you run your mouth you should at least have a clue as to what you talking about. Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." He told the rich man to sell EVERYTHING and give it to the poor. Not real hard to figure out. And who are you kidding I doubt you give anything to charity or the church.
Taking it one step further,
Taking it one step further, our church is one of MASSIVE wealth internationally. Why not dispose of that wealth and put it toward feeding, clothing and educating the poor. Better yet, how about putting it toward fulfilling the Great Commission?
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking. Not an expert on the Bible, but I didn't Jesus ask the rich man to give up his possessions and come follow him. I don't reading about him telling his apostles to take the rich man's possessions and give them to the poor. If the US government feeds the poor and gives housing to the homeless why should I give any of my money to charity and the church? Jesus is not Robin Hood, liberals think he is.
State, local and private
State, local and private organizations and CHARITIES have never been sufficient to deal with the entirety of the needs of the poor in this country. And currently, with states and local government slashing their funds in an effort to close their budget gaps, they will most certainly not have the funds to assist these people. It is absolutely on the federal government to pick up and fill the gap that the locals cannot manage. We are, after all, a UNITED states. We are a national community and we owe it to each other to assist at every level, for who will help you should you fall on hard times?
And I say this as a moral and upstanding, atheist US citizen. I do not subscribe to their religion, but I absolutely agree with them about charitable services and helping the poor, especially children.
"We are, after all, a UNITED
"We are, after all, a UNITED states."
No, that is incorrect. We are THE united States. Read the Constitution; it is written in the plural. The Founding fathers reserved all powers to the States and the People and gave the Federal government only those specific powers enummerated to it . . .and nothing else.
Unfortunately, the left wing approach, most especially through the courts, has been to grab onto the Commerce Clause as a way to make EVERYTHING a "federal case."
We are not "a United States."
We are not "a United States." We are "these United States." The very Catholic principle of subsidiarity demands that these things be addressed at the lowest possible level. When a large bureaucracy steps in and dictates the methodology used to address civil issues, we get Katrina. When private people take responsibility for their neighbors, as taught by our Lord, you get Tuscaloosa.
The taking of wealth, by force or threat of force - which is what the Federal income tax ammounts to, in order to redistribute that wealth to those who do not have it is distinctly un-American. It is Robin Hoodery dressed up as charity.
If you do "absolutely agree with [us] about charitable services and helping the poor, especially children" then do as we aim to do. Take personal responsibility to help however you can in your immediate community.
By the way, God is extremely prejudicial toward each and every one of his creatures, especially you. And you, too.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Please explain corporate
Please explain corporate subsidies to me using your logic.
If these other organizations
If these other organizations and charities would feed the hungry, then the government wouldn't have to! Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet! Charities are hard pressed to help those who "fall through the cracks" of government programs.
As an interjection I just
As an interjection I just thought I'd add that the federal government is the people, and to say differently is like saying we are ruled by someone else. last i checked it was for the people, by the people, and since there are quite a few of us that are christian who are also in government, we are commanded by christ to feed the poor, despite what heathens think. however, I have noticed this is the foundation of most churches out there. - thank you
Thank you for pointing out
Thank you for pointing out the obvious...so obvious that we really overlook the point far too often! I am a heathen who agrees, on this, and I suspect, a great deal more. A BIG exception to your point about most churches is the group that runs the "C St house"...known as the "Family". An insidious bunch who openly court those people in power, supposedly to bring them to Christ. These are the folks who have worked to bring Christs's message to Uganda...unless you are gay, or transexual, in which case, they want you dead!
In any case, have a great day. It's an interesting blog, I'll visit from time to time
Government programs, such as
Government programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and WIC are funded by contributions from federal, state and local government. States administer the programs, but the costs of the program are shared. Charities are in no position to take over the costs of providing "safety net" programs to the poor. If food stamps, WIC, and other safety net programs are severely curtailed or terminated, these people will turn to charity, deplete the food pantries, and then resort to panhandling in the streets. We all need to help. And we help by demanding that our government maintain strong programs that will continue to meet the most basic needs of our fellow humans.
There was no cut in WIC
There was no cut in WIC spending. It just didn't go up as much as the Democrats demanded.
Food stamp spending and participation are at record highs.
Charles Scanlon doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
A big rise is not 'gutting' a program.
Render unto Caesar what is
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Giving to the poor is an individual requirement.
Taxing people to give to the poor is just pathetic and a perversion of Christ's message.
But we're a Christian nation,
But we're a Christian nation, and as such, our laws must enforce Christian principles at every opportunity!
what is wrong with you? what
what is wrong with you? what do you have against helping poor people? do you like kicking puppies and tripping old people too? geez!
I have a simple question for
I have a simple question for these profs and those who promote helping the poor through government. Is it moral for you to take money away from me to give to the poor? I am priviledged enough to be a top 2% earner, I pay taxes, but is it moral for you to take more from me through higher taxes to support causes you believe in but pay less a percentage to fund? I donate as I see fit with my money. It really very simple. Thou shalt not steal.... don't recall a commandment for "give your money and property to the poor".
Simple answer - your question
Simple answer - your question is ill formed. If by "you" you mean the government, then you are asking if a government can act morally. A government, of course, is not a moral agent, and therefore the question is ill formed. If you ask whether people can legitimately believe that it is moral to support the government doing this, then the answer is even more simple - yes.
and Jesus said, I say unto
and Jesus said, I say unto you, it is easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God. Also, In the KJV it is clear,
all possessions were to be sold and donated to the church
which then alloted funds to each man "as his needs". As qe
no longer have one church seems reasonable that the one
"christian" government fulfill that role. So, you are not
a christian. No problem.
Speaker Pelosi did, indeed,
Speaker Pelosi did, indeed, visit His Holiness. He handed her her head on a platter for her unbridled support of abortion and other anti-Catholic policies. He would not allow her to be photographed with him.
Speaker Pelosi is only Catholic-when-convenient. You may make the argument that Speaker Boehner is also. So, why wasn't Speaker Pelosi held to the same standard as Speaker Boehner? Oh! Right! One has a "D" behind their name and the other has an "R".
Even the author of the seamless garment stated that the principles stood on the foundation of right to life.
"Jesus commands us to feed
"Jesus commands us to feed the hungry"
Indeed he does, but Jesus does not command the government to do it for you.
These Roman Catholic professors are justifiably concerned about feeding the poor. I suggest they petition the Roman Catholic church to form the "circle of protection" around the poor, instead of asking our government to do something it was not designed to do.
Jesus commanded the Church and the community of believers to take care of the poor, not the government.
"Jesus commands us to Feed
"Jesus commands us to Feed the Hungry.
No questions asked"
True...but Jesus was talking about you and I personally...and no where did He indicate it was the responsibility of government or that we should render charity through government. In fact, Jesus plainly made the distinction that we are to "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God, that which is His." And there is nothing in the Catechism or the edicts of the Holy See that indicate we should change our view on this. This is not Catholic doctrine; this is liberal, secular politics and academic revisionism at its finest and either it needs to stop or the word "Catholic" needs to be disassociated from it!
If we "render ounto Saesar
If we "render ounto Saesar that which belongs to Caesar" we won't mind paying our taxes then will we?
So, all you who say it is
So, all you who say it is personal responsibility to care for the poor, are you willing to take them into your home and feed them and clothe them, as you say? Are you willing to sell all, so you can do this?
Yes, Ms Pelosi did, as many
Yes, Ms Pelosi did, as many other nonCatholics and some anti-Catholic visitors in the past.
So, if I understand your
So, if I understand your piece, you are in a snit because Speaker Pelosi was NOT held to account for her political/ethical stand by these academics, while Speaker Boehner IS. Meanwhile, apart from your indignation, what do you think about the real issue of what this letter is about? The academics' letter is not about abortion, it's not pro-life in the usual narrow sense; would that be a problem, THE problem?
And while you're at it, tell us what you found out about the real reason why Pelosi was not held to account for her stand by these academics while Boehner is.
Short answer: You
Short answer: You misunderstood it.
So, if I understand your piece, you are content to ignore the bulk of what I said and read your own misinterpretation into the rest. Instead, I recommend you read some of my other responses to get a fuller picture of what I might be thinking instead of providing your own rewrite.
It's quite tiring to have to repeat myself to people bent on reading a malign subtext or ulterior motives into what I've written.
"It's quite tiring to have to
"It's quite tiring to have to repeat myself to people bent on reading a malign subtext or ulterior motives into what I've written."
In fact, I asked you some questions, but in your reaction above, you appear to suggest that I am "bent on reading a malign subtext or ulterior motives into what I've written". I gather from your response that you appear to be bent on reading a malign subtext or ulterior motives into what I'VE written! I'm sorry to hear that this tires you.
this self-pleasing doctor
this self-pleasing doctor even indulges himself in the ancient fallacy of "You misunderstood me, and I am too bored to explain."
In other words, we are correct, and the doctor is out.
You are being disingenuous.
You are being disingenuous.
DRPrice Will you just shut
DRPrice
Will you just shut up! You are pompous, narcissistic and just plain rude. You provide nothing to the conversation except for your holier than thou attitude towards all posters. Get a life and find some happiness. You really need it. Otherwise, STFU please.
Contextualize? The abortion
Contextualize? The abortion issue is about bringing us into the world, the issue under discussion is to take care of us after birth. Mr. Boehner and the GOP perennially features "throwing them under the bus" once on board.The legislative imbalance is notorious, the GOP is creating a nobility class, a "Let them eat cake" bunch -- nice folks, nevertheless, they have lost their way. Is Americanism changing?
ABS
Not only is Nancy Pelosi
Not only is Nancy Pelosi Catholic, she also went to Trinity College. A Catholic College! Just for the record!
Thanks for the warning. I'll
Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to steer my children elsewhere when they're ready for college...to, say, Christendom College.
Thanks for the warning. I'll
Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to steer my children elsewhere when they're ready for college...to, say, Christendom College.
"Is Nanci [sic] Pelosi
"Is Nanci [sic] Pelosi Catholic?"
The answer is yes. I would have hoped that the Catholic University faculty would have been similarly troubled that former Speaker Pelosi's voting record is "at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings." The lack of a call for former Speaker Pelosi to "reawaken [her] . . . familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals" (specifically positions that are in conflict with the Church's position regarding the protection of life) leads me to suspect that the letter to Speaker Boehner is a disingenuous attempt at make partisan points under the guise of moral theology.
The point of including nancy
The point of including nancy Pelosi is valid! Not only had Pelosi excluded American Samoans from the minimum wage increase but the reson was so her husbands millions in Delmote stocks would rise...pretty greedy and no concern for those of less means. One thing Ronald Reagan tought us and has been ignored by Obama is All boats rise in higher water or earnings. Since the speaker is a member of the same party of Reagan, look for him to support jobs while limiting the total loss of a safety net brought on by historic deficit (and debt). Where was our catholic voive when Clinton issued the CRA community reinvestment act that made the underqualified suddenly qualify for loans they could not repay? or when Bush started deficit spending and now Obama only wants to rule over the crumbling of our society to afford even the basic assistance to any of less means. Quit looking the other way when your pockets were filling with un sustainable goods, life is long term for all.
The Community Reinvestment
The Community Reinvestment Act required a substantial downpayment and solid verifiable job and credit history of every potential homeowner a bank lent to. Get your facts straight if you are going to malign a federal statute that helped untold number of single women parents purchase their first homes after years of bank counseling, solid work performance and monthly verified savings toward the required accumulated down payment. By contrast non CRA-predatory lenders were not invoking or even using the Community Reinvestment Act. They were giving mortgages at outrageous interest rates without downpayments and no credit check on borrowers. Then these same non-CRA lenders collected their outrageous finders fees and sold the loans for bundling by Wall Street. The disastrous economic poverty producing consequences of this predatory non-CRA pillaging world wide are ably documented in the movie Inside Job. Poverty had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act and everything to do with what greedy manipulative predators did.
Totally disagree. Whether
Totally disagree. Whether giving a speech at CUA or not, if anyone on behalf of CUA wants to write a letter criticizing a Catholic politician then the context should also be what have these professors done to call into order Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and other politicians who claim to be Catholic yet support anti Catholic laws? Completely disingenuous.
And even though you still won't agree with that position, I'll address the letter. It is crap; pure and simple. The Catholic church supports the poor, but does not support socialism and social welfare to the extent that the gov't becomes more important and powerful than the individual self and eventually more relevant than God. The Church should, and does I believe, teach that as St. Paul did that we teach those to be fishers and not just continue to give them fish. Our poor get to a point where they are too co-dependent on gov't and don't believe in themselves and thus lose respect for themselves and life and gov't should not continue to promote this evil.
Agreed on all points,
Agreed on all points, Jacob.
While Jesus certainly made repeated references about helping the poor his exhortations were always an appeal for individual action. NEVER did He call upon government to act as our agent in these and other moral affairs.
In fact, one can easily argue that letting government tax us and handle the distribution of food, medical, education, etc. to the poor is NO SUBSTITUTE for His call for ouw own individual action. It's all to easy to assume that government social programs relieve us of personal responsibility.
Finally, to the dissatisfaction of so-called Christian left-wing social justice types who fantasize that progressive solutions exist to solve all problems, the Scriptural reality is that Jesus informs us (if we're paying attention) that the poor will always have with us. No matter what else you may think of that, it's clear that His words refute the notion that there exists (in progressive pseudo-Catholic ideology or anywhere else) no effective, permanent solution to poverty.
Add that to the list of all the other realities of life we'll never defeat in this fallen, imperfect world. All attempts at socialist-style government either culminate in violent dictatorship or degenerate into top-heavy government spending sabotaging the very economic system which generates wealth to begin with.
Jesus said we will never defeat poverty, so His words are more about personal sacrifice and responsibilty rather than effectiveness in eliminating poverty and disease. Attempts at collectivism in spirituality removes the onus on each of us individually, regardless of the lies of our "enlightened" theologian-in -chief that salvation is not individual.
It most certainly is.
Nancy Pelosi is not a
Nancy Pelosi is not a Catholic. She excommunicated herself many years ago by her heretical support of abortion and homosexual marriage. Catholic teachings require us to accept Church teachings on those issues. However, while we are called to take care of the poor, Church teachings do not specify how. Thus, one can support setting up soup kitchens to feed the poor while someone else can support expansion of business to stimulate employment which hires the unemployed. Simply supporting federal programs plagued by corruption does not make one a good Catholic. Thus, taking from the rich to fund Medicaid where in NYC alone fraud estimates are north of $2,000,000,000 per year can't be considered prudent by any Catholic. I am amused by the priests who signed the letter. I'll bet they give Holy Communion to Pelosi, Dodd, Kennedys, Kerry, and a host of heretics without blinking an eye.
I commend you on your letter
I commend you on your letter to Boehner. I wish there were more separation of Church and State. But if you are a politician and you make it clear that you are an observant politician then tell us how you vote against the Poor, the Elderly, the Sick and the Mentally challenged. What in any religion makes it okay to attack these groups and support the Wealthy, the Corporations and the Banks. I vote more progressive because they tend to support the poor the elderly, the mentally challenged and the elderly. Now that you have come out and told the Republican leadership, I would like to hear the Jewish, Protestant, Islam and all the other religious denominations let ALL the politicians who aren't supporting the needy amongst that they need to get on the side of what is morally and spiritually correct.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi is
Yes, Nancy Pelosi is definitely Catholic and, sadly, fits right in with the marxist leanings of my Church. I say, "my" Church because it belongs to the people, not the dogmatic so-called "leaders" and Catholic academics listed in this story and others.
Have you read Bitter Harvest: How Marxist Progressives Have Infiltrated the American Catholic Church? Go ahead read it ... you will find it absolutely chilling. That is unless you are already lost.
http://religiousleftexposed.com/docs/mayer.pdf
"The messenger's selective
"The messenger's selective outrage, however real, mangles his message. The most appropriate response to the incoherent voice of the divided Church in America is "Whatever.""
Couldn't agree more. I don't remember the Catholic "outrage" when Speaker Pelosi pulled the plug on funding scholarships for poor children of color in DC; nor do I recall a congratulatory letter from these same "social justice" Catholics when Speaker Boehner successfully restored the funding in the last budget deal.
If I recall, Pelosi wasn't
If I recall, Pelosi wasn't attacking, with a view toward gutting Medicare, Medicaid, Food programs. Yes, she did go after scholarship programs, but she was not throwing their overall health and welfare under the bus. Boehner's work will cause people to die. That's a huge difference. Sacrificing educational opportunities is not on the same plane. Sacrificing human lives for the sake of greed? So gird your loins fella, because you're going to be hearing a lot of people wailing in grief as the deaths mount up. Hope you've got the heart for it.
"Boehner's work will cause
"Boehner's work will cause people to die. That's a huge difference. Sacrificing educational opportunities is not on the same plane. Sacrificing human lives for the sake of greed? "
Oh give me a break. Education is the single BIGGEST factor to poverty, life expectancy, etc.
And I'm not usually a big abortion-rhetoric guy, but I'm pretty sure Pelosi's position allows innocent human life to be destroyed.
Actually, coming from a two
Actually, coming from a two parent household is the BIGGEST factor
"And I'm not usually a big
"And I'm not usually a big abortion-rhetoric guy, but I'm pretty sure Pelosi's position allows innocent human life to be destroyed."
Yeah, right.
Anyone with a minimum of knowledge of human biology would be "pretty sure" Pelosi's position doesn't allow "innocent human life to be destroyed". For life to be "innocent" or "guilty" it has to be capable of sentient action. Zygotes are no more innocent than a chair.
Everyone should also be "pretty sure" that Pelosi wouldn't be trimming scholarship money if her political opponents haden't suddenly "gotten religion" about deficits (while having no problem flushing trillions of dollars away in wars that end actual, not potential, human lives).
Some people have no sense of priorities.
Pelosi wants to tax us to pay
Pelosi wants to tax us to pay for abortions
Making her pro abortion
Wait--the "preferential
Wait--the "preferential option for the poor" means we can consign the poor to horrible schools, so long as we don't cut funding for Medicaid? I had no idea that the Catechism had been subcontracted out to the NEA. What other exceptions to the preferential option have you adopted, and when do you expect to share them with us?
No, all to often “option of
No, all to often “option of the poor” means "help" alleviate "poverty", by eliminating babies in the womb of mothers. That is the only "option" given to these babies. "We think you are going to be born "poor", and we, great academics that we are, know that such a life is not worth living, so we going to make sure that your mother can eliminate your worthless life." 1.2 million per year are killed this way in the US alone, more than people dying of malaria in the world.
Bohner may not offer great “services” after birth, but at least he say that people should be allowed to be born, so that everyone can have a chance at life.
This group needs to get their priorities straight: if someone is down on ones luck, we should give a helping hand, but first we must has make sure that the most vulnerable people can at least be born.
Why not advocate adoption? It’s not a perfect solution, but at least it gives a chance at life, yet adoptions are down.
I just don’t see outrage that 1.2 million babies are killed each year. Their righteous statements ring hollow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
Hmmm, "social justice"
Hmmm, "social justice" Catholic? Is there another kind?
Yes there are many other
Yes there are many other Catholics: including Cenobites, Hermits, Monks, Cloistered, Saints, Martyrs, Doctors, and many quiet holy souls who do not go around flaunting their social justice credentials like the Pharisees.
It is not some powerful
It is not some powerful "other" who is responsible for the poor. It is us. Stop looking for someone else to feed and cloth the poor. Get off your ideology and do it yourself. It is easy to lob bombs at pols. It takes courage to give of your own resources and feed the hungrey, cloth the poor, and look after widows and orphans. You visit the sick and those in prison. Put your faith in to practice.
When I would point out to my
When I would point out to my students back in the Cold War days that the U.S. was guilty of this or that failing, many of them thought that the clinching argument against my position was that "the Soviets do the same"! Two wrongs do not make a right, and Boehner's position is not strengthened in the least by the fact that Pelosi might have been guilty of the same kind of ignorance.
Missed the point entirely.
Missed the point entirely. The problem is that the *academics* have chosen to speak to one Catholic Speaker who ignores Catholic teaching while giving the other a pass.
If you can't see how that weakens their witness, I can't help you.
The letter was written in
The letter was written in response to the graduation speaker that is coming to the Catholic University of America. Why did the academics (no need for quotes) speak about one politician and not the other? One of them is the graduation speaker, the other is not. I know its a lot more fun to dream up a vast leftist conspiracy to undermine Catholic teaching, but often the simplest answer is the best one.
Since I said it was a decent
Since I said it was a decent letter that upheld Catholic teaching, I'm hardly "dreaming up a vast leftist conspiracy to undermine Catholic teaching."
But thanks.
More to the point, it's a bad
More to the point, it's a bad analogy that really doesn't fit. The better analogy is to a human rights organization that studiously ignores human rights violations in, say, Israel while condemning those that occur in the Palestinian Authority. It indicates that the agenda really isn't human rights.
This organization's
This organization's (selective?)inaction on Pelosi's policies in no way invalidates or weakens this organization's criticism of Boehner's policies. They are separate issues and your argument is not logical.
But I do agree with you that today's church's message is "whatever." However, I don't believe that this organization actually believes Boehner is a Catholic, unless of course, showing up to church every now and then on Easter counts.
Of course it weakens the
Of course it weakens the argument--it allows Boehner to shrug it off as a purely partisan attack. The messenger's credibility matters. If I act only when my ox is being gored, then who cares? My concern for the integrity of Catholic teaching and dissent therefrom by my political opponent can be pretty quickly dismissed if I have a history of "See no evil" when my political ally violates it.
If you still can't see the problems that raises, then by all means--keep preaching the same message to the choir.
Post new comment