How Catholic is Bush's administration?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Someone on the forum asked a good question about how Bush matches Kerry as far as being "catholic" in his actions and outlook.

Well, today I found this on the whitehouse.gov website - a speech he gave to the Knights of Columbus in Dallas.

I think everyone interested in knowing not only where he stands but what he's actually done with respect to Catholic social doctrine should read the link.

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040803-11.html

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004

Answers

But at the samw time, Bush is not claiming to BE Catholic. for me if someone cannot be loyal to their own spiritual beleifs, how can I expect them to remain faithful in their duties as presedent? Kerry claism to be a devout Catholic, and obviously acts out of accord with his Chruches teachings. Thus he cannot be trusted to do anyhtign but fill his own aims, and cannot keep a commtiment.

Bush is a United Meathodist, and is not expected to BE Catolic, andnot beign cahtolic des not make him irresponcible nor noncommited.

However, as a Cahtolic you may seek to see how closely his veiws orrospond to your own.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 04, 2004.


What I think is amazing is that the Republican party says that it is close to Catholics in social teaching, but has never put up a Catholic for presidential election.

I still believe that deep down the Republican party is still against "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion."

Catholics really have no base in the party, they are just used by the party for its agenda.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 04, 2004.


Scott, before you are amazed check out the link... the GOP isn't just saying that they like Catholics (like the Dems do), it has a track record during the last 3 years of actually DOING alot of things to promote the culture of life.

The whole pro-life movement is predominantly a Catholic thing and the GOP is advancing laws to help turn the tide.

The whole faith-based-initiative thing is beneficial to Catholic charities...and it was a GOP initiative.

The freeze on federal funds going to stem cell research...was Bush's initiative in harmony with Catholic ethics when most of the Dems were opposed.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (which the Pope supports by the way) is endorsed by the GOP, not the Dems.

Ashcroft's DOJ has fought Euthanasia laws in Oregon (his position is virtually identical to the Catholic ethical teaching about end of life morals).

As for the great social questions of the day... Welfare reform...a GOP initiative. Tax cuts that grew the economy helping everyone...a GOP initiative Even the civil-rights act of 1964 was written by (gasp!) Republicans, not democrats (who got credit via LBJ).

Only by subbornly not reading what they've done (as opposed to claimed they'll eventuall do like the Dems) could one think the GOP is only paying lip service to the Church. Especially when many of the leaders of the party are known as good Catholics themselves!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004.


Joe, how exactly do you conclude that cutting welfare payments and cutting taxes on the rich are proof that the GOP is following Catholic social doctrine?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 04, 2004.

Steve, neither of the things you mentioned are as important as abortion to Catholic doctrine.

-- Inquisitor Generalis (mrwreckingball@budweiser.com), August 04, 2004.


No, but Joe has given the GOP’s “welfare reform” and “tax cuts” as examples of how he thinks the GOP has supported the Church’s teachings on “the great social questions of the day”. I’m asking him where he gets this idea. Because they seem to be, if anything, CONTRARY to Catholic social teaching, not evidence of support for it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 04, 2004.

I do NOT think the faith-based charity initiative is right. Isn't it Catholic Charities right now having issues with having to provide birth control coverage for employees? No thanks.

As far as welfare reform, I cannot offhand remember any mention in the Bible (for instance) of the people in need being drunk, on drugs, down and out by their own hand, so to speak. Much of welfare reform has to do with getting people who don't belong on it in the first place off of it.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 04, 2004.


Here's the post I referred to discussing Catholic Charities (if someone could make it a link, I'd appreciate it, or please tell me how to do so on a Mac)

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BqsO

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 04, 2004.


They may ignore most of the Gospels, but the Republicans are enacting Luke 19:26 - "Everyone who has much will be given more; but as for him who has not, what little he has will be taken away."

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), August 04, 2004.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00BqsO

Here's how: [ = < and ] = >

[A HREF="http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00BqsO"]http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00BqsO[/A]

Try going to the "View" menu and look that the source code.

-- (GTs@link.com), August 04, 2004.



Thank you--it looks like gobbledygook to me, but I guess I'll just have to work at it!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), August 04, 2004.

Before I go point by point with all you guys, may I first ask whether any of you have actually READ Catholic social teaching as found in the various papal encyclicals?

I grew up in Detroit - and worked in the soup kitchens during high school. I know poverty and dispair and lack of self-control, low expectations, addictions and familial breakdown, violence and crime... and I also know all the EXCUSES people made for why after all the free lunches and free education, free food, and free health care...they STILL were wretched.

I knew vietnamese refugees who arrived to this country dirt poor, not speaking the language, suffering PTSS from the war and harrowing flight by sea, pirates and life in the camps...turn things around in a single decade while their neighbors - black and white - sat on their front porches drinking and farting and getting into fights or jail, going NOWHERE.

And I saw the HATRED on the faces of these "poor" Americans for these foreigners who stood them up by simply working harder, pooling resources, foregoing weekends off and toys and games and frivolities while struggling to move ahead.

The Vietnamese got assistance but they didn't rely on it for long. Americans from the socialist-ghetto however had no culture and no incentive to excell and use the charity they received as CHARITY! Instead they saw it as their birth-right!

I saw the anonimity of "public assistance" drain the humanity out of people. Had it been their cousins or immediate neighbors giving them a helping hand that humanism and solidarity would have tipped the scales for them...but no, the bureacrats wouldn't have that~!

Working in central america I saw dirt poor peasants climbing out of crushing poverty by hard work, their children learning dignity and respect and faith and personal responsibility at school... families and neighborhoods working together pulling themselves out of poverty one brick, one well, and one livestock at a time.

The Church realizes that a human being lives on more than bread alone! You also need family, and marriage, and values, and faith, and the word of God (all things that the socialist state can't give!)

I know what it is like to carry all my earthly possessions - all of them - on my back...and what's it like loading up a 35 foot Uhaul with my "junk"! I have been poor and I am "low middle class" now.

Before you guys get in high dungeon about how wonderfully Catholic the Democratic party's socialism is, I think you'd better breath, take a moment and THINK instead of reacting in ideological fashion.

Welfare reform is subsidiarity folks! Government money given without due respect to the local condition and human weaknesses only produces more poverty by becoming a disincentive to work and a disincentive to marriage. Otherwise how do you explain the continued existence of poverty after the Dems spent $1 TRILLION dollars since 1964?

Money alone can't solve poverty!

Our Lord wasn't teaching a social-government Gospel of taxation of the rich to hand out money to the poor. Private charity and local charity (ala faith based charities) is the way to go BEFORE resorting to massive beaucratic federal spending plans.

As for tax cuts...go to the IRS website. Look at who got those tax cuts...the Dems howl about the "rich" getting all the cuts but I got one and I'm not rich! In fact, people who make $50,000 and up pay 95% OF ALL FEDERAL TAXES...so duh, since we're the ones who actually pay taxes and we're the ones who run the economy, giving us a tax cut would make the most economic sense. With the massive federal funding we hand out every year to the poor, you can't expect tax cuts to go to those who DONT pay taxes!

Look what our tax dollars ALREADY pay for: Public schools, public transportation, public housing and employment, public financed health care and public financed retirement funds (SS)... we pay for food stamps and job training... if at the end of the day someone is STILL POOR then it's not for lack of public assistance but a lack of self motivation and local initiative because in this country with as many opportunities and freedoms that exist only a lack of self- control and self-motivation can explain poverty. Welfare reform was designed to help those who COULD help themselves do so, while still providing for those who couldn't.

But as Christians we ought to first go to our families and parishes than rely on the general public for help. How else did the "poor" survive before socialism?

Name me one Catholic document that calls for higher taxes! Or that calls for some government to support the poor by taxing the middle class out of existence. Catholic social teaching has NEVER embraced the socialist nanny-state model brought to us by the Democrats.

But all you guys have side-stepped my post: the GOP has delivered on key issues in ways that reflect the Catholic world view (including the war! They didn't discount the Catholic just war theory out of hand as the Dems do...they argued WITHIN the parameters and language of that theory that they had the authority and moral case to wage war.)

Has the Dems embraced the culture of life? No. The GOP has. Have the Dems HOWLED in indignation when Catholic judges are nominated? Yes!

The Dems on the other hand have spent a trillion dollars in the last 40 years fighting their "war on poverty" and yet there are still poor people! Had they just created a pension fund and invest automatically all that money into 401k annuities, each and every black, hispanic and poor white family would be millionares by now.

So the point is not feeling good about yourself or just throwing other people's money at a problem (while brow beating them to feel guilty) but to help the poor WISELY. Welfare isn't always the best thing to do for people, and taxes aren't the engine of economic growth!

And Our Lord didn't advise us to pay taxes to some massive government who would then dole it out to the poor. No, He and his Church tells us to take care of them - personally, as a family, as a kingdom.

Oh and another thing... have any of you actually read Bush's talk to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS??? Have any of you actually done your homework or is this just coffee break knee jerk reactions here?

If you've read this far you should know that I respect you fellow Catholics enough to spend the time writing this and researching things before typing.

In Christ Joe

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.


I must say that's the first time I've ever seen the USA described as a "socialist state"!

-- Joker (joker@cybernet.com), August 05, 2004.

First of all, I am not Catholic but I strongly respect the Catholic faith. I am a little concerned with regard to the stories I have read regarding the strong Catholic support given to Bush and the negative reaction to John Kerry. This is especially disturbing when Bush has signed the death warrants of 154 men and women, more than any public official in history, while Governor of Texas, he strongly supports, without apology or remorse, the use of capital punishment. He has even suggested it be used more frequently and with less appeals provided to the condemned individual. In addition, when ask about his belief in the death penalty, he has said on numerous occasions that he sees nothing wrong with it and wholeheartedly supports the continued use of capital punishment. I have always believed the Catholic Church has taught against and strongly opposed the death penalty. I realize not every person in the Catholic Church will oppose the death penalty, i.e., Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court, but to support an individual who enjoys the use of this the way Bush does would be a little disrespectful to the Church. Also, I realize Kerry's decision to not go against abortion rights, is a bone of contention with the Church. However, John Kerry, on numerous occasions, has said he does not believe in abortion and does not support this practice. He does, however, believe he does not have the right to interfere with an individual's rights. I don't believe Bush gave one thought to an individual's rights when he presided over these executions. I think if Bush had stopped these executions, none of the now deceased individuals would have felt that their rights to be executed were violated.

-- Dolores Christian (dolores_christian@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.

First of all, I am not Catholic but I strongly respect the Catholic faith.

{Im not Catholci either,. btu I know enough to know you make little sence...see below...}-Zarove

I am a little concerned with regard to the stories I have read regarding the strong Catholic support given to Bush and the negative reaction to John Kerry.

{Im not...}-Zarove

This is especially disturbing when Bush has signed the death warrants of 154 men and women, more than any public official in history, while Governor of Texas, he strongly supports, without apology or remorse, the use of capital punishment.

{154 deaths of criminals lawfully convicted based on actiosn they performed, VS a million or so Aboritons cmmited agaisnt Innocent babies who performed no act warrentugn the death Penalty.

odd ho you overloo the numbers here.

Likewise, Abortion is different thanthe death Penalty, preciciely because The death penalty is a Penalty. It is pubishment for a cirme commited, and an attemtp to safeguard others form a posisble violent offender. Abortion is the takign of a life that has perfrmed no crimes and is no emenent danger to anyone.

If you do not see the difference, I feel sorry for you.}-Zarove

He has even suggested it be used more frequently and with less appeals provided to the condemned individual.

{This is to speed up the justive system and asure Jusitce is done. even if you disagree with him, thelogic is not relaly unsound. Your oporition is pure emotionalism.}-Zarove

In addition, when ask about his belief in the death penalty, he has said on numerous occasions that he sees nothing wrong with it and wholeheartedly supports the continued use of capital punishment.

{Which is the eiw of many, and unlike Aortion, as I said before, the Deaht penalty is a penalty incured after semone commits a crime. Thus they are liable for the act they are out to death for. The child who si Abortied is smpley Murdered. Even of you xdisagree with Capital punishment, surely you realise the difference.}-Zarove

I have always believed the Catholic Church has taught against and strongly opposed the death penalty.

{Not exaclty, no. She simpley teaches agaisnt its use in most cases, unless the cases are extreme. Which doesnt matter, sicned Bush sint Catholic.}-Zarove

I realize not every person in the Catholic Church will oppose the death penalty, i.e., Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court, but to support an individual who enjoys the use of this the way Bush does would be a little disrespectful to the Church.

{Theirs no real proof he Enjoys it, he merely beleives it is a laid deterant, as wlel as a mean to dsafeguard society, and ensure justice is doen after the erformanc of a heinous crime. again, unlie baortion, the condmended criminal actualy did semthing to warrent death.}-Zarove

Also, I realize Kerry's decision to not go against abortion rights, is a bone of contention with the Church. However, John Kerry, on numerous occasions, has said he does not believe in abortion and does not support this practice. He does, however, believe he does not have the right to interfere with an individual's rights.

{Here is the thing, h DOES interfere withthe others rights. The most basic right is that to life, which he allows to be taken away. Now the fetus only has the privoladge of life grante dby the mother if she so chooses. You may want to pretend Kett is for peopels rights, such as the righ tot abort, but yo seem to overlook that this means the baby has no rights.}-Zarove

I don't believe Bush gave one thought to an individual's rights when he presided over these executions.

{Kerry offered NO thought of the rights of all those babys that areAborted either. Here is where your statement relaly falls apart. You want us to supprot thre rights of criminals t life, while simultaneously denyifn the sae rights to a Baby. Spposeldy by denyign the rights o a baby in the womb, we are grantign the rights of the mother and safeguardgn her liberty. The mothe is not dying, so she cannot be compared at all tot he death row inmate. The baby dies. The baby dd nothign wrong.

Likwise,Crminals who are convicted HAVE no rights, tey are removed upon sentencing. Thats why they are claled prisoners.

S while Kerry ignores the rights of babys who have harmed None, Bush merely supports the punishment by extrme measures of Cirminals who actually did soemthgin to warrent death.}-Zarove

I think if Bush had stopped these executions, none of the now deceased individuals would have felt that their rights to be executed were violated.

{ What about the babies who died? The condemned where sentenced to die because of an action they did.

On the other hand, Kerry " Protects the rights" of women who want ot abort, thus denyign the right to life for the Baby who has doen nthgin to warrent death. How do you exlain thiz discrepancy?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 05, 2004.



Joe please show me where in the Gospels, or in any Catholic teaching, are we told that it is preferable for individuals to give to the poor rather than for rich individuals to be taxed and the proceeds given to the poor on a needs basis? Jesus explicitly endorsed the right of the state to raise taxes. Do you really think it’s more inefficient and unjust for “bureaucrats” to decide on a rational basis where the money should go, than to just leave it up to individuals giving individual handouts to individual beggars? Many beggars are skilled liars, while many truly deserving poor people are too proud to beg. And of course many rich people give nothing to charity. And yes, despite our best efforts, the poor will be with us always, as Jesus told us. Don’t worry Joe, even in the extremely unlikely event that the USA does embrace some form of socialism, there will still be opportunities for you to perform individual works of charity.

“Catholic social teaching has NEVER embraced the socialist nanny- state model brought to us by the Democrats.” Catholic social teaching has perhaps not totally “embraced” it, but it has certainly not condemned it as you imply.

How has Bush “embraced the culture of life” ? OK, he put SOME limitations on the misuse of human embryos, which will hardly effect the continuing killing and maiming of human embryos for so- called “scientific research”. He banned one rarely-used type of abortion process. The abortionists will simply use one of the several other processes, and even if they don’t, it’s unlikely anyone who knows about it will turn them in. This so-called “pro-Catholic, pro- life” President could have and should have done an awful lot more, especially being the only President in living memory whose party controls a majority in both houses. But you and I know why. Bush and the GOP are not anything like as pro-life as they pretend to be when they address Catholic audiences like the KOC.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 05, 2004.


“I have always believed the Catholic Church has taught against and strongly opposed the death penalty. {Not exaclty, no. She simpley teaches agaisnt its use in most cases, unless the cases are extreme. Which doesnt matter, sicned Bush sint Catholic.” (Zarove)

The Church strongly opposes the death penalty and has repeatedly called on all countries to abolish it and has called indiscriminately in individual cases for death penalties not to be carried out. Bush has ignored all such appeals. It DOES matter, even though he isn’t Catholic, because we are discussing the (highly dubious) claim that he acts in accordance with Catholic principles.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 05, 2004.


In the Gospels Jesus never commanded people to NOT pay taxes, but he never preached that Rome should up the tax either!

As far as charity goes...look at Acts of the Apostles and the incident with the married couple who died. They were FREE to sell their property and give the proceeds to the apostles or not - they died for fraud, not for withholding on tax.

Paul took up the collection in Asia Minor for the suffering Christians in Jerusalem...it was a free collection, not a tax.

Tithing = 10% not 15% or 28% like modern tax rates! If we truly wanted a biblical tax rate, 10 percent is it.

As for the pro-life issue....I don't understand your point steve. So because Bush hasn't unilaterally solved the abortion crisis, he's not to be credited with being pro-life??? He's done about as much as a president can do given our system. His chief efforts have been nominating judges and other good people into high positions of influence - another 4 years and 2 more Supremes and we may just turn the tide. Given the power and wealth of the abortion industry this war won't be over any time soon - and certainly isn't helped by the DEMs who claim to be "personally opposed to abortion" while professionally doing everything they can to promote it!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.


“In the Gospels Jesus never commanded people to NOT pay taxes, but he never preached that Rome should up the tax either!” In fact He said people MUST pay taxes, and He never preached that Rome should DECREASE taxes either. Taxes and voluntary charity are not mutually exclusive. We need both.

I hope you're not suggesting we should base our laws on everything in the Old Testament, but in any case tithing meant ten per cent of your total wealth . Not just ten per cent of your income (after allowing for deductions) and certainly not just a ten per cent MARGINAL RATE on any additional income. So if we had taxes based on tithing our taxes would go way UP.

I’m not saying the donkey-dems are any better re pro-life issues. I’m just saying don’t put Bush and the GOP on a pedestal as some sort of pro-life saints, because they’re very far from it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 06, 2004.


It might be my blue collar past blurring my vision here but today’s world to me seems very different to that of Jesus's world. If he returned do we really think he would be pleased with the economic system of capitalism we find in the West today? I can only speculate but given his teachings we can safely presume he would be anything but pleased with the commercial focus and our individual, selfish, greed based “freedoms”. There are many many problems with Joe’s economic analysis, not least the superficial nature of his understanding of the fundamentals of market economics. The reality is that the very structure of the laissez-faire economic system is dependent on a certain level of unemployment in the economy to provide “labour mobility” from sunset to sunrise industries.

The real problem here however, from a Catholic perspective at least, is that workers cease to be “people” but merely another “ factor of production ” who are organised in order only to maximise profits. This dehumanising aspect of the market is what our Holy Father worries about when he warns us of the “ all-consuming desire for profit”- his greatest fear for the modern world. The false notion that charity is somehow “ the way to go” in order to even to begin to address the needs of the “losers” in the market( and the existence of such “losers” is crucial to the system working) is utterly preposterous .

Joe I must ask just whose interests are you really serving?

“The Republican Party, has engaged in a deliberate campaign of demagoguery and demonization of the poor since the days of Nixon. The poor have been pictured as being solely responsible for their own plight and government welfare programs have been accused of fostering dependency and social pathology, with little data to back up these claims and in fact, in the face of data that suggest that the opposite is true . Their focus is solely on the sins of the poor; there is no reflection or action upon the sins of the rich or the structures of society that oppress the poor.”

(Sorry Ive lost the web address for the quote- off Catholic social justice website)

“Otherwise how do you explain the continued existence of poverty after the Dems spent $1 TRILLION dollars since 1964?”

Oh my, really Joe this will not do, such a statistic unsupported by many other relative measures is by itself utterly and completely useless. Your implied posteriori conclusion that because poverty exists welfare spending should be reduced is a nonsense, as is the implication that the Republican party hasn’t spent much on welfare. Given that you spend twice as much on defence spending as you do on welfare one wonders about your nations priorities :finding new wars to fight for more oil or eliminating poverty, a tough choice for a Catholic one would have thought. One only needs to look at nations where welfare spending is high to see the near total elimination of poverty, and reduction of associated social evils, Sweden being the model often cited.

In fact, people who make $50,000 and up pay 95% OF ALL FEDERAL TAXES...so duh, since we're the ones who actually pay taxes and we're the ones who run the economy, giving us a tax cut would make the most economic sense. With the massive federal funding we hand out every year to the poor, you can't expect tax cuts to go to those who DONT pay taxes!

Well “duh” indeed of course those who earn more money pay more tax, 20% of $10,000 is significantly less than 20% of $100,000,000 so no surprises there, it doesn’t mean that the poor don’t pay tax. The tax burden will always fall on those most able to pay, and rightly so- it doesn’t necessarily follow through logic or economic wisdom that a tax cut for those 40% of Americans earning more than $50,000 “makes sense” or that you “run the economy”. To make such claims especially as a recipient of such a tax cut yourself is specious, self-serving, insulting, and demeaning to those less fortunate than yourself, I would go as far as to say highly morally unprincipled .

Your personal experiences are moving but altogether unconvincing. Your emotional “evidence” belies the full truth as taught by the Catholic Church. The Church acknowledges, as you have shown the importance of personal responsibility ( unlike you however the Church acknowledges the responsibilities not only of the poor but also of the rich) BUT also accepts the significant role that structural conditions outside the control of the poor play. At the other end of the scale to your erroneous social views, communism and pure socialism wrongly attempts to acknowledge only the structural while ignoring the personal. The synthesis of the two is key to understanding Catholic social teachings as opposed to your very much utilitarian moral outlook and pure free market thoughts.

Relevant Catechism Passages for reference :

2423 The Church's social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action: Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.203

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204 A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Peace!



-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.


Asking how "Catholic" is Bush's administration is like asking how "Baptist" is the Pope and the Curia?

AS for Bush's speech, talk is cheap, especially in election year, he will say anything to grovel a few votes off the Catholic block, hes that type of man, very devious.

He used his cunning himself to avoid war, I say to real Americans patriots thinking of voting Republican "Never trust a draft dodger"!

Both Bush and Cheney have never seen war from the frontline, their Daddies saw to that. No such trouble sending other peoples kids(never their own or their friends of course, just dirt poor kids) to war mind. One thing I do know the current administartion shares is a love of money above all else, in paticular a love of money from oil.

Don’t believe the oil ties, well think again, its real all right and its more comprehensive than you could ever imagine. Bush senior of Carlyle Group, (with extensive and very close ties to the Bin Laden family), Bush Jnr of Harken, Cheney of Halliburton, Condoleezza Rice of Chevron- Texaco, Rumsfield of Occidental , Gale Norton of BP Amoco. Unbelievable yet true and war in the Middle East means billions for themselves and their buddies connected to oil companies and the pentagon.

The real morality driving the Bush- Cheney junta is that of greed and wealth.

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 11, 2004.


Kiwi, so what, being blue-collar automatically makes you a better person or a wiser person?

Please explain to us how many people who make less than $50,000 buy homes, fill them with new furniture and appliances, buy new cars, and other "luxuries" such as vacations, tourism in foreign countries, etc. How many poor people buy second cars, mobile homes, go to sporting events...in short, spend money thereby helping others to make money?

How many "poor" people making less than $50,000 a year buy stock? How many invest in business and entreprenurial pursuits? In short, someone who is poor DOESN'T pay much tax at all!

Secondly, tell me great master how many people in an AGRARIAN society like that of the Roman controlled Palestine circa 33 AD were employed OFF SEASON! If you didn't own land then you worked on it for someone else - same as today. But even back then the rich paid taxes while everyone paid the Temple tax.

You laugh at my statistic of $1 trillion dollars? Then where's YOUR stats proving that the United States spends twice on defense as we do on welfare and help for the poor?

YOur wrong, as usual. The DoD's budget is about $400 billion, HHS and Medicare are in the $400 billion range as well. Throw in all the local, state and other programs for the poor and you get an ANNUAL number far larger than the entire federal defense budget.

It's NOT how much money spent but how it is spent - that's why capitalism, for all its failures is still better than a centralized government. Missionaries (faith based initiatives) always educate the poor better and less expensively than governments do - that's a constant all Catholics can agree on.

As USUAL you jump to conclusions. Neither I nor the Bush or Clinton adminstration abolished welfare. They just reduced it and gave those on it more incentives to get off the public dole and find education and jobs to be self-sufficient once again (totally in line with Catholic concept of subsidiarity by the way).

The donkeys spent money on programs that didn't help the blacks and "poor" - and I know because I grew up watching it and working with those subsidized people - didn't pay for their kids education, and so didn't value it. Didn't pay for their food - so didn't take care of it. Didn't pay for their income - so didn't do anything to increase it or use it wisely. Spent their entire adult lives blaming their problems on the white man...when their whole city was run by black men!

Socialism has caused more evil in this world than capitalism, hands down.

When did Jesus say that the community should subsidize people who won't do a thing to help themselves or others (I think Paul had something to say about laziness...hmmmmm).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.


Not so. The poor deserve to have their needs met and have an inalienable RIGHT to it. It’s not just something you decide to do out of the goodness of your heart only if they show a sufficiently grateful attitude.

On the eve of the third millennium of the Christian era, the Holy Father John Paul II calls the entire Church to "lay greater emphasis on the ... preferential option for the poor and the outcast," John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 1994, no. 51.

"When a person is in extreme necessity he has the right to supply himself with what he needs out of the riches of others." Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Gaudium et Spes, no. 69.

"the world is given to all, and not only to the rich," so that "no one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities." Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 1967, no. 23.

St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. the goods we possess are not ours, but theirs." "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity": When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2446

I can think of plenty of evils that unbridled capitalism has caused (and as the church has pointed out) but I’m hard pressed to think of any evils socialism has caused. You seem to be trying to shore up your argument by deliberately conflating socialism (a system of state- run welfare, and government control of certain essential industries) with communism (enforced atheism and abolition of private property, everything is owned by the State). Yes we know the communists sometimes euphemistically refer to themselves as socialists. And as I’m sure Kiwi appreciates, your suggestion that any form of “socialism” has ever been seriously considered by any US government or major political party, elicits guffaws of incredulous laughter from foreigners.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.


So you interpret the Vatican Council documents on the right for people to eat and provide for their basic needs with a government taxing its productive citizens and redistributing (by force) this wealth to those who won't produce anything?

Capitalism CREATES wealth - socialism just redistributes it! In a nut shell, that's the key difference. Capitalism isn't a governmental system, it preceeds government and rises from free interactions between free individuals who work and produce through the sweat of their brow, benefits for others.

Socialism isn't so - it only works by force (of law, which itself is enforced by police/armies).

The finest hospitals in the world AREN'T FOUND IN EUROPE - which is a socialist regime. They're run by non-governmental organizations called "companies" such as the Mayo-clinic or Yale University.

The light bulb, electricity, the telephone, railroads and automobiles, all the miracles of modern technology were invented and developed and produced BY CAPITALISM THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOT BY SOCIALISM.

Capitalism expands the pie of wealth which is share-able. Socialism just divides a static pie into smaller and smaller parts while smuggly encouraging class warfare by institutionalising envy.

Capitalism thrives when there is freedom, Socialism is born of control.

Jesus Christ told the rich young man the way to be perfect was to give all his possessions away to the poor and then come follow...but he didn't say everyone had to give everything away (becoming poor = holiness). That's never been a Catholic position even while we all learn what poverty of spirit means (owning without being owned).

Socialism was what the NAZI party was all about. Socialism was what the FACISTs were all about. The French Revolutionaries of the Terror and of Napoleon (who spilled more blood in 20 years than was spilled in a century of so-called "religious warfare") WERE ALL SOCIALISTS.

They assumed all power and control sucking France dry - even today France has 1 big city (Paris) and a couple small ones. Centralization of power and control for the good of "the people" who are kept equally poor is the social dream.

But in this country of quasi-socialism, the poor have a better quality of life and better opportunities to escape poverty for good than many of the middle-class or even rich in the socialist countries around the world.

Who built the Catholic churches, schools and hospitals in this country? Poor immigrants - working in solidarity among themselves, not getting government handouts that kill personal responsibility and involvement.

EVERY social ill can be solved by resorting to LOCAL volunteer initiative by local families and neighbors - not by resorting to big government heavy-handedly taxing everyone to pay for bloated bureaucrats (paid fat salaries with better pensions than any private person).

You want to get kids off the streets? The Socialists will tax everyone to run a grossly overbudget "after school" reeducation camp...whereas free people would organize sports teams or boy scouts on their own dime, with their own kids, with no waste or corruption.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.


Once upon a time, on a farm in Indiana , there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did; The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red

hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.

The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen. "Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared..... as long as there was free bread that "the rich" were paying for.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

-- surfin catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.


Surfin, you had a nice little story there until you tacked on the end bit. Not that I would bother reading either Bill’s or Hillary’s books myself, but YOU seem to be the one complaining about “excess profits” from THEIR little exercise in capitalism. They’re selling the market what it demands aren’t they?

Joe, really - Robespierre, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Petain, Franco – all “Socialists”?!! Stop it, my stomach hurts!

And no the essence of capitalism isn’t producing through the sweat of your own brow. It’s investing your wealth in enterprises which depend on the sweat of OTHERS’ brows to return you a profit.

And everyone else seems to think that the growth of one or a few big cities in a country is a symptom of capitalism, not communism. To take a few examples, the growth of London and the “death” of northern England under Margaret Thatcher. Or the thousands of medium-sized cities in Russia and China.

And if you fail to see the obscenity of the US featherbedding its richest citizens in “the world’s best” hospitals while a third of the US population can’t even afford basic hospital and medical treatment and are turned away - well then maybe you should stop giving us sermons about Catholic morality.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.


KIWI, it's so great to run into you here again! LONG TIME, NO TALK TO!

Capitalism -- meaning to capitalize. Ahhhh, yes, the god of this age! Greed being the oil that runs the engine of our country. The unending lust for more, more, more. This country is OWNED by the rich and powerful, and if anyone thinks otherwise, they have their eyes closed and their ears shut up with self-deception.

Not only is everything Kiwi says the absolute truth, but how is it that a man who is a Christian can be a member of the Skull and Bones? And what is Skull and Bones? A secret society comprised of rich, spoiled rotten, filthy-dirty brats! Men who think the world is their tennis court and we're the balls that they lobby back and forth across the net. Men who are DRUNK with power and play at folly like most of play at basketball!

*******

So here we have two spoiled rotten brats running for office; both of them born with silver spoons in their mouths, and both of them Skull and Bones members, and one is a Catholic to-boot!

Anyone who takes the highest office in this country is nothing more than a robot put in place by the powers that be. He has been bought; hook, line and sinker, signing on the dotted line with his very own lifeblood, and the blood of his ancestors.

Power, lust, greed . . . all the fruit of Capitalism!

Gail

P.S. There is an interesting quote in the Catechism about Capitalism, though I don't have time to look for it right now.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 12, 2004.


I think this is the section you mean Gail.

“2423… Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.203

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204 A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God's plan for man.209

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."239 "The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity":240 When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.241

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities.242 Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.243 Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:244

He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise.245 But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.246 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?247 “

Another interesting document:

POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES MARCH 26, 1967

22…The recent Council reiterated this truth: "God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all." (20) All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

The Use of Private Property 23. "He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." (23)

The Common Good 24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation. Vatican II affirms this emphatically. (24) At the same time it clearly teaches that income thus derived is not for man's capricious use, and that the exclusive pursuit of personal gain is prohibited. Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizeable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account of their country's interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country. (25)

The Value of lndustrialization 25. The introduction of industrialization, which is necessary for economic growth and human progress, is both a sign of development and a spur to it. By dint of intelligent thought and hard work, man gradually uncovers the hidden laws of nature and learns to make better use of natural resources. As he takes control over his way of life, he is stimulated to undertake new investigations and fresh discoveries, to take prudent risks and launch new ventures, to act responsibly and give of himself unselfishly.

Unbridled Liberalism 26. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26) Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27) But if it is true that a type of capitalism, as it is commonly called, has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development."

Hmm, nothing here about NOT helping the poor if they’re drug addicts or other “losers”. In fact “bearing wrongs patiently” is identified as one of the works of mercy we must perform.



-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.


Thanks Steve, that was quite good!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), August 13, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ