www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Election Day USA

Wasyl1931,

I don't know that you diatribe deserves an answer, but I will give a very brief one.

First, no one suggests that Mr. Bush is without sin. Perhaps you are and you should become our president. Let's here it for Wasyl!! (Ooops! I don't think that works. Isn't slander against a brother a sin? I guess Wasyl won't make it to the White House this time around. Sorry.) Whoever we select when we go into the voting booth is not perfect. Shall we therefore leave the choice to others?

Second, it is my understanding that abortion is murder of an innocent and abrogates a dogmatic statement of the Church. The condemnation of capital punishment does not rise to that level. As long as there are other options available they are to be sought but capital punishment is not absolutely condemned.

(Someone needs to help me here with the proper terminology. I'm new at this.)

Dan Lauffer

<b><font color=blue>Hey Wasy --

First of all, Bush was not my first choice either. I would have LOVED to have seen Pat Buchannan in the White House (and watch all the Fundamentalist start foaming at the mouth).

Secondly, I voted for Bush as an anti-Gore (which means anti abortion, anti taxes, anti lies, anti treason, anti environmentalist whacked out -- getting the picture, sir?) rather than Buchannan because at least Bush had a chance to defeat Al Gore.

No one said that Bush was without sin. But once again you evade the thrust of my reasoning. The Republican party may well be a little too deep into the pockets of the big businesses of this country for my liking (like when they get a pass on pollution), but at least big businesses provided JOBS!!!

(You do like making a living I presume?)

Albert Gore, on the other hand, would socialize everything, take away the initiative for businesses to expand and hire more people by taxing the businesses right out of this country, and would take away YOUR and MY right to practice the Catholic faith as the Holy Traditions of the Fathers teach us (which means NO women or sodomite priests!!!!) in favor of his social and socialist tinkering. Kindly look at Russia and China. Socialism and Communism have a considerable track record of utter failure as a way to run a country.

And......I repeat, while the Republicans are not 100% simon pure bastions of Christian virtue and morality, the Democratic party's planks are simply against everything which our Holy Mother Church stands for morally. There is simply nothing I can find in the Democratic plank of which I could even remotely say "That is a good Christian moral position" NOTHING!!!!

In short, my brother, you are letting your EMOTIONS stand in the way of your reason, which is not a good thing to do. Democrats, as evidenced by their tactics over the last 8 years of Klinton tyranny over the White House, are MASTERS at tugging the heart strings and making people feel either guilt or fear in the voting booth.

You shouldn't fall for it!!!!

I also am somewhat incensed at the Democratic insistance that I am less than charitable for my refusal to allow the government to hand out wads of cash to anyone who comes knocking at the door with a "cause", no matter how deviant and perverted that cause is.

Charity begins at home. It begins with me taking care of my family, including my aged parents if need be. Then it flows to the Church family, then the neighborhood, private charitable trusts, and LASTLY and only if all other avenues are exhausted thoroughly, some government agency. The brand of socialism the Democrats continue to foist upon us makes charity the responsibility of the state by means of forced confiscation of my monies at the point of a gun.

And you call THAT just? I thought one of the serious concerns of the Catholic Church is JUSTICE?? Tell me how stealing the money I work for and giving it to perverts is in any sense of the imagination just.

I will give charity to whom I CHOOSE and not whom the @%^($#*($^(*^ government says I have to!!!!

And YOU, SIR, are way out of line if you judge me to be uncharitable to for doing it this way!!

BTW--You do realize, I hope, that your tactics are the same as the professional anti-Catholic bigots out there, who, when out of theological and hermeneutical ammunition for their side, resort to polemics, ad hominums, and slander against the Holy Mother Church. Of all the things we as Catholics should NOT DO it would be to adopt their tactics, don't you agree?

If you want to discuss the Christian morality of the individual agendas regarding abortion, death penalty, taxes, etc., then fine, let's talk. But let's leave the personal attacks at home, okay? I didn't use such on Gore the way you did on our man (referring to drug use, alcoholism, etc.). There is a huge difference between personal moral failure (for which we have the Blessed Eucharist and Pennance) and promoting an agenda which encourages other people to open participate in sin against God and calling that sin something "good". Our Lord pronounced a serious curse on those who call good evil and evil good and I am afraid that curse fits the leaders of the Democratic party far better than the Republican party (again, saying that neither side is simon pure).

As a humorous side note....just for your information....my idea of perfect government is a theocratic monarchy. Yes, I would rather live under a king than a democracy!!

Cordially in our disagreement,

Brother Catechumen Ed

>>might i remind you that the pope and the catholic church has taken a strong stance AGAINST the death penalty?<<

True, but this is not an absolutist position. The Church does recognize a difference between capital punishment (administered through due process in the courts) and outright murder via abortion. In the United States both major political parties support the death penalty. Only one opposes abortion. The other supports abortion right up until the time of delivery of the child.


>>if you want to know if blacks, or other minorities, are still exploited and treated unfairly, ask them.<<

No political party can make a claim the moral high ground on this issue. The Republican party is the party that freed the slaves. The Democratic party championed civil rights in the 1960's. Both claim to seek to end discrimination but it wouldn't have passed without Republican support. The difference is how they wish to go about. The Democrats seek to pass more laws and quotas to guarantee fairness for minorities. Republicans seek to provide funds to educate minorities so that they are qualified for better jobs, hopefully rendering quotas to be no longer needed.


>>as for your "moral" man, isnt he the one arrested three times? isnt he the one who refused to answer about his drug use?<<

During the 1996 campaign, Al Gore openly admitted doing drugs, namely marijuana and hash in his younger days. His friends from that era have testified that he was into drugs on a daily basis. Neither candidate has claim to a higher moral ground on this issue.


>> isnt he the one who evaded the draft by a cushy spot with the national guard?<<

And Al Gore had a cushy office job in Vietnam, courtesy of his father who was a senator from Tennessee at the time.


>>isnt he the one who presides over the worst polluted state in the usa?<<

Actually, no. Texas is one of the cleaner states in the union. The idea that it is more polluted has no merit and those making these accusations during the campaign refused to back it up with facts.


>>one problem with the Eastern churches is this knee-jerk reaction which spills over into bigotry and certainly into simple-mindedness. <<

Like assuming either Democrats or Republicans to be the only champion of Truth? Just as some here have championed Bush's position to be closer to our beliefs as Byzantine Catholic, Wasyl seems to believe that the Democrats are righetous while the Republicans are "evil". That is an unfair position.


>>back again, if you are a "moral" "Catholic" praising anti-abortion stances, why then also praise the death penalty which the Churh you belong to condemns. <<

See above. You have two choices on this issue. The Democrats, including Al Gore, are both pro-abortion and pro-death penalty. The Republicans are pro-life and pro-death penalty.


>>when asked about the FACT that they were executing innocent men, your moral hero said in effect that was the breaks. <<

See above. It is wrong and sad that anyone should be put to death. But there is no difference in the two parties on the death penalty issue. Again, Al Gore supports the death penalty.


>>i wont continue this line, it is clear that you are not up to any logical argument, and your bravo friend can see what kind of hell may await all who are on the side of those who kill people, whether through the law or through attacking small countries. i remain an outraged Catholic. <<

I think it is Wasyl who has not used logic in formulation his opinions. I do hope he responds to my earlier post, which I'll partially repost here:

>I'm curious, wasyl1931. You wrote that "to make this the prime issue and elect someone who is in all other issues morally evil is evil too." Did you realize when you wrote this you were calling the Catholic bishops of the United States evil? In their November 1998 letter entitled "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics" (and other letters) they clearly teach that abortion is the prime issue. Since Pope John Paul II teaches the same thing to the entire world you must consider him evil, too.<

I'd really like to know why you consider the teaching of the Catholic bishops to be evil?

The death penalty in Texas.

I'm not sure what Governor Bush's individual stand is on the death penalty. I used to live in Texas and there is one thing anyone who posts that a Catholic should beware of supporting Governor Bush based on the number of executions in Texas should know.

Texas Law:

The men executed were executed under Texas Law. Had Ann Richards been the governor and had opposed the executions she could have, if she believed that credible evidence existed of her innocence, postponed the execution for thirty days in order to review the new evidence not considered at trial. I am uncertain how many thirty days the Governor can grant before the execution is required by law. It is my understanding that Texas law, unlike many states' laws, does not give the Governor the power to commute a sentence of an individual sentenced to death.

I am an opponent of the death penalty and would love to see a candidate who was truly pro-life. Since our world is filled with evil (generously and evenly distributed between political parties) I doubt such a person could win the presidency in the United States. It is unfair, however, to claim that the executions were Governor Bush's doings. They are the responsibility of the people of the State of Texas, who have the power to change the laws of their state.

We can all pray and work for that kind of change in our society every day.

Humbly,

cizinec

Moose writes:

"Is one of America's political parties holier or better than the other? No. But one political party clearly promotes the culture of death (which is excellently summarized in previous posts) and wishes to confiscate our tax dollars to pay for it."

Do the millions of dollars spent enforcing the death penalty "promote the culture of death"?

"The other has at least a semblance of decency and morality and wants to move away from socialism to allow faith-based organizations to take up their proper role in caring for the poor."

The unfortunate reality is that faith-based organizations cannot keep up with the need because the members are all too often too damn cheap to give to the church, and, as part of the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' battalion, they cannot see why they should be forced to 'give' to others. Yet, this is precisely what the Gospel commands of us: "if you wish to be perfect, go sell what you have, give to the POOR, and come follow me.

Should our government be more Calvinist ('God gives favor to certain ones whom He will save' and the rest of you fend for yourselves) or more 'socialist'? This appears to be the crux of the issue.

Moose states: "Remember that it is not the job of the government to care for the poor and those in need. It is the job of the Church - us - to do this. And if you want to compare socialism to capitalism one quick way is to pick any of the socialist and former socialist / communist countries and compare it to the United States."

This is a specious argument. The former socialist/communist countries tried to provide equally to their people; unfortunately the programs were run by idiots who followed poorly conceived "5 year programs" and there was immense corruption. For an alternate example, consider this. The Jesuit 'reducciones' (mission communities) in Latin America were based upon the early Christian communities where everything was held in common. They flourished and no one starved. They succeeded so well that the aristocracy had the King of Spain confiscate them, banished the Jesuits back to Spain and took the land by 'eminent domain'. They all failed within 10 years after the Fathers left".

Moose continues: "We, sadly, have poor among us and must continue to help them. But our poor live in abundance when compared to most of those considered wealthy in Africa. We will not assist the poor by forcibly stealing from the rich to bring them to the level of those who have not. We need to assist them by feeding them and teaching them to help themselves."

Once again, a specious argument. The poor are poor for a large number of reasons. Some lack intellectual abilities. (So, of course, God is to blame for their inabilities and their subsequent poverty.)

Others are born into a cycle of poverty from their parents and grandparents and don't have the role-models to show them how it's done. (Heaven forbid 'we' the educated should go into "those neighborhoods" -- cause they're dangerous.)

Others are the victims of laws and practices which keep them down. When poor people go to get a job, 'management' wants to get the most out of them for the least wages. Hey, this is capitalism. Sure enough, but if you are an uneducated and poor married couple in Texas, you'll get the minimum wage of $3.60 an hour, for a yearly salary of $6,500. If they have sex and create a baby, then 3 have to live on Daddy's salary. If they don't use contraception, and another child comes along, they're in deep trouble. Is this perhaps sufficient grounds for them to consider abortion? I would hope not, but intellectually I can understand how the idea might pop up.

Are the folks who established the minimum wage law that is below that of the rest of the country morally responsible and culpable if the Texas couple (most likely Mexican and Catholic) can find no other way out but starvation or an abortion?

Are the Texas citizens (or any other state's citizens) guilty of 'mortal sin' if they fail to provide adequate workplace safety measures and a worker dies as a result of substandard regulations and enforcement. (Texas corrections officers earn $23,000 a year, the lowest in the nation; 6% of the inmates have either HIV or Hepatitis C, but in case of a bloody altercation, the officers are provided with NO protective equipment like latex gloves or face shields unless the warden decides it's OK. And many decide that an officer needs to 'take it like a man'. This is state-sanctioned Texas morality. Is this in harmony with Christian teaching of respect for life? Unborn babies get protected so they can grow up to be sons, husbands and fathers who get NO state protection against early death in the workplace?

(Before anyone aims their missiles at me, I'm a 'seamless garment' moralist: no abortion, no murder, no euthanasia, no capital punishment. God said: "Thou shalt not kill." There is NO footnote in the scriptures exempting the state or anyone else. And this was the practice of the early Christians. Many forget that early Christians were OBLIGATED to leave military service lest they take a human life.)

One final note. Someone above inveighed against labor unions. Pope Leo XIII, of blessed memory, in 1892 or thereabouts, declared that laborers should join themselves together in unions for the common good. They did so. And our organized forebears saved many lives through improved wages, improved working conditions and an end to child labor. For those who have forgotten the stories of miners' bodies in Pennsylvania and elsewhere being dumped on doorsteps after a mine accident (and the women and children evicted from the overpriced but mandatory 'company housing' on 48 hours notice) I suggest visiting the elders of the 'old country' and asking them.

I would also suggest reading a detailed history book about working conditions in the U.S. Factory workers worked from 7 am to 6 pm, six days a week. They had Sunday off (usually) because their Calvinist/capitalist masters wanted to give them time to go to church-- because the church (not ours--usually) helped maintain the prevailing social order of the "Slaves be obedient to your masters" variety.

Working people, united in unions, fought for reduced working hours and as a result we have: THE WEEKEND.

And, in this election, the 'political contributions' of the US Chamber of Commerce members and the National Association of Manufacturers amounted to SIXTEEN times the contributions of unions. (Check out the Federal Elections Commission reports).

So, when people are trying to vote 'morally', it's not just abortion that is the prime issue despite protestations to the contrary. It's children going to bed hungry at night (just like Africa), it's elderly folks who used up their life savings because of catastrophic illness like cancer, stroke, Alzheimers and heart disease and who would be eating cat food but for 'big government programs', for government contractors who post record profits while military families need food stamps to feed their children, and for 20 AWACS bombers whose cost exceeds our budget for research on breast cancer that will kill thousands of our women citizens every year. If this is socialist government (or the 'early Christian community model'), then I'll take it over people begging and/or dying in the streets.

Abortion is just one of a large number of social issues that deserves our attention in the political arena. But let's not neglect the truly pressing needs of the rest of society. And while no one candidate or party is going to represent everything that we followers of Christ would want, we have to choose the party or candidate that is going to save the most lives, i.e., the most "pro-life".

7,000 of my neighbors are Mexican/Central American seasonal farm workers. In this area of Florida working and living conditions are adequate for them, but there certainly is need for a great deal of improvement. However, providing the social service needs (including health care) that so many of them need would literally bankrupt the churches.

As flawed as the government programs have been in the past, they have done what the churches knew they could not possibly do and the churches willingly conceded these social service functions to the various governmental agencies generations ago.

Government did not become a main provider of social services on a fluke, but out of necessity and with the full cooperation of the churches. Unless we change our constitutional history and allow the churches to become quasi state-supported churches (as in Europe), governments must remain the main providers of social services. (Obviously, American religious institutions will never be state funded.)

Republican or Democrat? This is a dilemma for my farm worker neighbors. In many ways, the family values agenda of the Republicans has a certain commonality with Catholic Latino culture. But, when you live on the edge and hand to mouth; when you gaze into the face of your beautiful children and worry about health care or exploitation by "patron," well....it is impossible to slap the hand that protects you and that hand is the Democratic Party. " Nosotros estamos en buenos manos con el partido democratico." (You are in good hands with the Democratic Party.) This is their voting philosophy. It is not based on ideology, theology, or ethical abstractions, but on raw necessity and the survivalist law of the jungle.


The terrible truth is: God can be very cruel and the poor know that better than others. The government is the safety net that saves the poor from the indifference of God and the haplessness of the church in the face of stark and cruel reality.




[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 11-13-2000).]

>>So, when people are trying to vote 'morally', it's not just abortion that is the prime issue despite protestations to the contrary. <<

Sorry, but this is flat out wrong and contrary to the teachings of our Church. The Holy Father and our United States Catholic bishops make quite clear that the respect for life is the key upon which everything else hangs.


>>Do the millions of dollars spent enforcing the death penalty "promote the culture of death"?<<

Not to the same extent as taxpayer funded abortion does. Most Americans who are Christian (and even those who are non-christian) can differentiate between the taking of innocent life and the taking of a life as a penalty for one's actions. Both are wrong but the first is outright evil. To repeat, both major political parties in America are pro-death penalty.


>>Yet, this is precisely what the Gospel commands of us: "if you wish to be perfect, go sell what you have, give to the POOR, and come follow me."<<

Exactly! Even the best intentions of the government will not help the poor and it is sinful of us to sluff off our responsibility to the government. The Gospel directs us to do this, not the government. It is only when we give until we give our own widow's mite that we have done enough.


>>The former socialist/communist countries tried to provide equally to their people; unfortunately the programs were run by idiots who followed poorly conceived "5 year programs" and there was immense corruption.<<

Sorry, but it was not just corruption that brought down these societies. The socialist / communist ideology they held was flawed.


>>The Jesuit 'reducciones' (mission communities) in Latin America were based upon the early Christian communities where everything was held in common. They flourished and no one starved. They succeeded so well that the aristocracy had the King of Spain confiscate them, banished the Jesuits back to Spain and took the land by 'eminent domain'. They all failed within 10 years after the Fathers left".<<

These types of communities are possible, but only on a small scale. They work because of good leadership. They will not work when they rely on force to keep them going.


>>The poor are poor for a large number of reasons. Some lack intellectual abilities. (So, of course, God is to blame for their inability and their subsequent poverty.)<<

There are those poor who cannot help themselves and never will be able to help themselves. It is quite appropriate for the society to help these people on a life-long basis. The poor I speak about are those who are educable and can work and contribute to our society. It is these poor that our current programs oftentimes enslave by giving them enough to survive but not enough to change their lives. Sadly, some liberals are not interested in going the extra mile (including bringing in the more efficient faith based groups) to help these poor because they represent a large voting block. Government workers cannot provide role models and the type of support needed by these people to effectively change their lives. The Baptists and Methodists have begun to 'twin' their parishes in more affluent areas with those in poorer areas (kind of like adopting a parish). Those who are educated help the poorer, inner-city youth to see that they indeed have a future outside their neighborhoods. This assistance, both monetary and personal, does much more than a government check.


>>Are the folks who established the minimum wage law that is below that of the rest of the country morally responsible and culpable if the Texas couple (most likely Mexican and Catholic) can find no other way out but starvation or an abortion? <<

Only if this couple didn't know that having sex results in creating children. This is the eternal cycle. We Christians are responsible to help those in need even if they make bad choices. If we, as a Church, would teach people to follow God's laws then many could avoid such problems to begin with.


>>Unborn babies get protected so they can grow up to be sons, husbands and fathers who get NO state protection against early death in the workplace?<<

If one is born, then one has a chance at surviving the problems of our society. If one is killed in the womb, then that person is dead. I surely hope that Dr. John isn't using quality of life as a justification for abortion.


>>It's children going to bed hungry at night (just like Africa), it's elderly folks who used up their life savings because of catastrophic illness like cancer, stroke, Alzheimers and heart disease and who would be eating cat food but for 'big government programs', for government contractors who post record profits while military families need food stamps to feed their children, and for 20 AWACS bombers whose cost exceeds our budget for research on breast cancer that will kill thousands of our women citizens every year. If this is socialist government (or the 'early Christian community model'), then I'll take it over people begging and/or dying in the streets.<<

Yes, it is a shame that children go to bed hungry and it is sinful of our society to allow it. But it is also sinful for us to expect the government to take care of us "cradle to grave". One of the problems with the liberal standard viewpoint is that it bases its case upon distorted information and then uses fear tactics to scare people into believing it. The choice Dr. John offers is based upon a false premise. The choice is not between a socialist government where everyone is perfectly cared for and a capitalist society where the poor are ever downtrodden. Our capitalist society has given us resources that no socialist society has ever had. The challenge is to teach our society that these resources must be used in a way that best benefits those who are less fortunate, both feeding them and teaching them to fish. Neither American political party has the key to solving this because neither is imbued with the spirit of the Gospel. The more we Christians abandon our personal responsibility to get involved (at both the personal and governmental levels) the worse it will get.


While I highly respect Dr. John and all who post here, much of the liberal arguments in this thread are not just specious, but filled with the liberal mantras based in falsehood. Again, neither liberals nor conservatives have the moral high ground when it comes to helping the less fortunate in our society. But from the argument of some liberals (and their willing cohorts in the media), one would assume that the American conservatives seek to condemn the poor to starvation. The exact opposite is true.

STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE 2000 ELECTIONS

Thanks, Kurt, for the quotes. They are the basis for the Bishop Loverde's pre-election letter that is the topic of this thread. We need to keep in mind that each of the four priorities is important and although each must be pursued in parallel, the bishops clearly place the first emphasis on protecting human life because without respect for human life there is no foundation for social justice. We cannot trade any of these priorities in return for political expediency for our own personal favorite causes.

The bishops are, of course, correct in that no political party fully respects our values as Christians. Both major political parties in America have fundamental flaws and neither can claim the moral high ground on any of the issues the bishops speak to. All of us should avoid looking to one particular party for the solutions because they don't have them. The solution to the moral and justice problems our country faces can only be found when we, as individuals and Church, live the Gospel as best we can. We should support the initiatives of individual members of these parties when they advance the common good while always encouraging them that these four moral priorities is the only possible foundation for true justice.

Greetings in Christ!


"Let every person be subject to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgement upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Thne do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer." Romans 13:1-4

Aslo note the instances of sin in the Mosaic law that warrnated the death penalty.

The word used in the 10 Commandments is more rightly translated as murder, not kill. There is a differnce. Governments are appointed by God to protect us and the authority of the sword is given to them.

The death penalty is justified by the Church if the criminal is a continuing threat to society. I say, that since it cannot generally be guaranteed to keep a prisoner in jail until he dies, it is still justified. If sentences of "life w/o possibility of pardon or parole" were handed down and enforced, I wouldn't support the death penalty. But as things stand, I feel I must.

If I were unjustly convicted of murder and sentenced to death, yes, I would take every appeal open to me, but I would accept the final solution if I must and would make a statement to the effect that while I was innocent, I would still support the concept of the death penalty.

BTW, Fr. John, I am not taking shots at you personally. Just stating my own views. I live in Texas, by the way.

Tony

Ukrainian activist from Winnipeg runs in November federal election

WINNIPEG - Dr. Roman Yereniuk, a prominent member of the Ukrainian Canadian community in Winnipeg, is running in
the November 27 federal election for the New Democratic Party in the riding of Winnipeg North St. Paul. The riding
includes the north section of the city, on both sides of the Red River, and reaches out across the north perimeter highway
and includes the bedroom communities of West St. Paul and East St. Paul.

Dr. Yereniuk is an associate professor of St. Andrew's College in Winnipeg and a sessional lecturer in religion at the
Center for Ukrainian Canadian Studies at the University of Manitoba. His career includes that of a college administrator, as
he has been the principal of the college for some 11 years, as well as acting director of the Center for Ukrainian Canadian
Studies. He also has served as a school trustee for eight years with Winnipeg School Division No. 1.

Dr. Yereniuk has been very involved in the Ukrainian Canadian community serving in various capacities: president of the
Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Winnipeg/Manitoba Provincial Council), board member of the Shevchenko Foundation and
the Canada-Ukraine Foundation, and chair of the Christian and Heritage Education Committee of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of Canada.

He has been most active in the English-Ukrainian Bilingual Parents Program in Winnipeg and across Manitoba, as well as
its affiliates, the Osvita Foundation and Dzvin Publishers. In 1999 and 2000 Dr. Yereniuk offered his assistance as a
consultant on public education projects in Ukraine with the Canadian Bureau for International Education, and has worked in
the cities of Lviv, Ternopil and Ivano-Frankivsk.

Dr. Yereniuk's campaign office is at 1965 Main St. in Winnipeg; telephone, (204) 982-8160. He may be reached via e-mail
at WinRomanNDP@pangea.ca

I am sure all of you are true believers in your various positions on this issue. But, if you believe government programs must make way for private/faith based organizations to care for the needs of the poor and disabled, I hope (when the day comes) you will press forward with great caution.

As someone who feeds the poor on a daily basis, who has direct daily contact with the disabled, immigrants, and the poor from many different backgrounds, I hope you will remember the consequences for children and pregnant women if the needed services are NOT provided by alternative agencies. One consequence will be an increase in abortions. In an effort to save lives, you might very well find your well- intentioned plans have just the opposite effect. This has happened in certain parts of our country where government programs have been cancelled and there have been no faith-based programs to fill the vacuum. Elsewhere, children have been forced to rely completely on emergency room care because of the lack of clinics and other health maintenance and preventive care systems. The response by faith-based organizations to provide those social services once provided by the government, in some parts of the country, has been desultory if not non-existent. I know that you know that many Christians are indifferent to the Gospel mandate---as paradoxical as that might sound. Sometimes, non-Christians are far more responsive than the "true believers." Assuming that churches will be there to fill the needs of the poor is very naive and for the victims, very dangerous.


When you hold a spoon in one hand and a napkin in the other hand, and you see (right in front of the proverbial nose!) just how hungry children can be and how quickly they can become seriously ill, the topic of this whole conversation takes on a seriousness which abstract and ideological debate only obfuscates. I hope all of you will personally test your theories in the field before you lobby for your legislatures to put them into law. Even bishops should understand that simple tactic.


And please remember, Physicians of Bodies and Souls.................................

DO NO HARM!

>>I am sure all of you are true believers in your various positions on this issue. But, if you believe government programs must make way for private/faith based organizations to care for the needs of the poor and disabled, I hope (when the day comes) you will press forward with great caution.<<

Excellent post! I, for one, am not arguing for an abolishment of government programs to help the poor. I am arguing that poor can best be served when we Christians follow the Gospel and get involved. For too long we have abandoned our responsibilities to the government. The people in Washington (both Democrats and Republicans) care more about political power - getting it and keeping it - than they do about the poor. It is because churches have abandoned their responsibility to the poor that they do not currently have the skills and know how to serve. This only means that we have much work to do both in learning to serve as well as to serve. To dismiss our individual calling to serve the poor is to dismiss the Gospel. It is just as wrong as putting one's whole faith in the government.

Vasili, I do not know whether you work with the poor as your primary means of employment or if you volunteer your time in service. Either way, you serve them. I thank you for this service to our brothers and sisters in need and pray that many, many more will also take up their personal responsibility to serve those in need.

Greetings Brother Vasili,

I agree wholeheartedly. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas' assessment of private propert. It is that, while communal ownership of property would be optimum, resources are adminitered better through private hands. However, the rich should remember that God blesses them so that they can share their bounty with the needy. St. Thomas goes on to say that if the rich do not share freely, that is when the State is empowered to go in and tax.

Tony

Latest results indicate that Catholics by a margin of 50% approve the pro-abortion plank in Democratic platform(the socalled "a woman's right to choose"). God bless the other 50%.

JoeS