The Preferential option for the Poor and Vulnerable is one element of Catholic Social Teaching. There are many ways to do good but we are never permitted to do evil. Helping the poor is a “good” and Catholics of various points of view on how to bring justice to the poor can freely choose prudentially whether this should be achieved best primarily via the private sector, via the federal government, via state and local governments or via a combination of government assistance and the private sector working in concert together, and to what degree the Federal government is involved with helping the poor and vulnerable.
It is important that Catholics help the poor and vulnerable. This can be done by volunteering, donating money, teaching new skills, or through government assistance.
Pope Benedict, with this statement in Caritas in Veritate, makes it clear that Catholics are able to use prudential judgment when helping the poor and vulnerable:
“The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church’s social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations[12].”
Pope Benedict points out the growing gap between the poor and rich. Is it possible to make the world better overall by simply redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor or are there better ways to help the poor achieve economic independence? Pope Benedict points out that some groups in poorer communities “enjoy a sort of ‘superdevelopment’ of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation.” I am unsure as to whether the Pontiff is asserting that the consumerist nature of our society is engulfing some in the poorer communities or that some of the poor are allowing the consumerist nature of our society to influence their decisions to the detriment of certain necessities.
I find it both interesting and puzzling how Blessed John Paul II refers to the “preferential option for the poor” as “…. the so-called “preferential option for the poor”, an option which I defined as a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity” when referring to the Church’s continued dedication and concern for the poor.
In Centesimus Annus Pope John Paul II proposes an alternative economic system which counters “upholding the absolute predominance of capital”, not a socialist system but one “which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation which protects the basic needs of society. “The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is functioning well.” But Pope JPII points out that profit is not the only factor in running a just business, and that there are other human and moral factors to be considered as well.
Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum points out that the government has a role to play in caring for the poor – deserving of special consideration – since they have no or few resources to fall back on, unlike the rich do, and they depend upon assistance from the State. One question is how much of a role should the State have in assisting the poor? And does the State create an environment of dependency?
In Rerum Novarum Leo XIII goes on to say that the imposing of taxes should be “fair’ and moderate, not excessive or progressive.
Pope Leo XIII states:
“The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier.”
He points out the slave-like wage labor conditions of the poor workers which were present during the late 19th century. In a statement below he also points out what today’s progressives have in common with the socialists of his time and how they created an environment which capitalized on the poor’s envy of the rich just like progressives capitalize when using class warfare rhetoric today.
“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community…..Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.”
Pope Leo XIII asked this question – How must one’s possessions be used? The Church answers using the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world… to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’”(12) True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity – a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving – ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive”;(15) and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself – “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.”(16)
Pope Leo XIII emphasizes that Jesus calls the poor “blessed” and that they share a closeness to Christ that the rich do not and “this is enforced by what we see in Christ Himself, who, ‘whereas He was rich, for our sakes became poor’;(18) and who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and to be considered the son of a carpenter – nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself. ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?’”(19)
He notes “that the true worth and nobility of man lie in his moral qualities, that is, in virtue” as opposed to how much money a worker earns.
Pope Leo XIII emphasizes “[The Church's] desire is that the poor, for example, should rise above poverty and wretchedness, and better their condition in life; and for this she makes a strong endeavor.”
The Church has consistently emphasized throughout Tradition the importance of the lay faithful to have special considerations for the poor and vulnerable through private charity and has also emphasized State intervention as a necessity in some situations in order to ensure the dignity of the human person.
[...] Catholic Social Teaching: My Thoughts On The Preferential Option for the Poor and Vulnerable [...]
Today’s progressives do not call “to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. ”
That is simply a lie. Today’s progressives match closely what the Popes have said, that there is a role for the market and the state; a role for businessmen and a role for organized labor; a role for private charity and for social action.
It is only the Right Wing that seeks to eliminate an effective role for social action and give all power to Big Business while the poor and working class suffer.
“Today’s progressives match closely what the Popes have said, that there is a role for the market and the state; a role for businessmen and a role for organized labor; a role for private charity and for social action.”
Not even close. Progressives Today are aligned with socialist policies which the Church has explicitly opposed for many, many years.
I”t is only the Right Wing that seeks to eliminate an effective role for social action and give all power to Big Business while the poor and working class suffer.”
Progressives “bite the hand that feeds you” playing the class warfare hateful rhetoric against those entrepreneurs who create jobs. Conservatives and libertarians are for everyone’s success and encourage people to thrive and be profitable whereas progressives have kept the chains of poverty on the poor for many years by keeping them dependent on government programs.
Good analysis, Teresa, very helpful. Thanks.
Glad that helped you. Thank you for the compliment, agellius. Have a great night!
Progressives Today are aligned with socialist policies which the Church has explicitly opposed for many, many years.
Can you name me a single piece of American social welfare legislation supported by progressives that was not also endorsed by the Catholic Episcopate? One. A single one?
Can you name me a single piece of social welfare legislation supported by American conservatives and supported by the Catholic bishops? One? A single one?
If not, Teresa, please stop the Red-baiting. It is unseemly for someone who calls herself a Christian.
The USCCB did not and still do not support Obamacare. You do realize that as far as economics goes it is a prudential matter, at least within reason, with exceptions being on socialism, Communism, and individualism. Whether bishops support this or that piece of legislation does not make it an imperative for Catholics to support this or that legislation. Take into consideration, yes, but it isn’t a doctrine like the teaching on abortion is, which is taught that Catholics must follow. There is no wiggle room as far as the Church’s teachings on abortion is concerned.
You have been blue-baiting the entire time you have commented on my blog. So if you stop blue-baiting or actually “red-baiting” Commie style then I will stop “red-baiting”.
[...] Thoughts On The Preferential Option for the Poor & Vulnerable – Teresa Rice, Cthlbrtrian [...]
The USCCB did not and still do not support Obamacare.
But not from social welfare objections. In fact, they said they would support the social welfare aspects of it if their concerns about abortion were resolved. The Bishops have supported National health insurance longer than the Demcratic Party has and the first National health insurance law (in Germany) was a Catholic proposal.
You do realize that as far as economics goes it is a prudential matter, at least within reason, with exceptions being on socialism, Communism, and individualism. Whether bishops support this or that piece of legislation does not make it an imperative for Catholics to support this or that legislation.
You can’t answer my question, can you? I didn’t say you had to agree with the Bishops. But while you can disagree with the Bishops, you can’t truthfully call us progressives who agree with them to be Socialists against the teaching of the Church.
So I think it is clear. You can have your opinions and believe that the Catholic Church’s prudential judgment is 100%wrong 100% of the time on social welfare questions. I am not saying that makes you a bad Catholic because you can’t even find the leaders our faith right the number of times a stopped clock is right. But you can’t (if you are a decent woman) call the rest of us bad Catholics for supporting the Church.
Unfortunately some bishops are bought and paid for or have been corrupted just like some of the rest of society. Some are just misguided fools such as yourself who don’t understand the ramifications of a national health insurance law. You can see that in England and the beginnings here with this admins attacks on freedom of religion and conscious rights. Some have good intentions but ignore both signs and evidence in both the past and present which proves national health insurance has negative consequences on a peoples’ health.
Just because bishops are weak and support something doesn’t mean the Church supports that something as whole and surely doesn’t make you or them correct. I follow Tradition and haven’t given into a socialist or a socialist-lite agenda like some bishops and yourself have. I adhere to Church teachings from all of Tradition and haven’t given into society’s pressures and secularism, like you and some bishops have. You pointing out two wrongs doesn’t make them right.
It is not some bishops, Teresa. It has been the whole of the Episcopate and all of the time. You are free to disagree with the entire Episcopate 100% of the time on social welfare questions, but you are not free to pretend the Church does not say what she says.
So in your opinion, every single time the Church has spoken on social welfare she has been wrong.
You have been blue-baiting …
Since red-baiting is to falsely slur someone by suggesting sympathy with Communism, blue-baiting must be to falsely slur someone by suggesting sympathy with conservativism. I have not been false, but I accept your suggestion that to call someone a conservative is a slur!
To be more specific on the Bishops and the Healthcare law they supported it whole heartedly once the Stupak amendment was added. In case you forgot the Stupak amendment did not allow any insurance sold through the exchanges to offer abortion coverage. This is the most restrictive law on abortion offered at the federal level since Row v Wade and had pro-abortion groups threatening to pull support. President Obama and the Democrats pulled in every political marker they could to get this amendment passed. The only reason it is not part of the law now is that not one “pro-life” senator from the Republican Party would vote for it. Combined with the special provisions of the law giving care to pregnant women and young children, the amendment made this law a very pro-life piece of legislation. However, conservatives who have been saying any vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights is a sin, then voted in unison against the most pro-life piece of legislation offered before congress since Row v Wade.
Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. “Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist,” Jacobs said. “Also, my house was burning down.” Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.
That libertarian eventually used common sense. I am not that strict a libertarian. I do believe that some government entities such as police and fire departments do serve a good and worthwhile purpose. Kevin’s dad was a fireman who died in the line of duty.
The Stupak Amendment was only one provision within Obamacare which had some pro-life aspects to it but Obamacare itself was NOT truly pro-life, especially in its final form. The Stupak Amendment passed the House but did not pass the Senate. The Senate had 57 Democrats and 2 others who caucused with the Democrats and they voted the Stupak Amendment down. This piece of legislation was the Dems “baby” so to speak so if they couldn’t pull off a vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment it was the Democrats fault, not the Republicans. The health “reform” bill passed without the Stupak Amendment so in its current form the bishops oppose Obamacare.
So, if the Dems disagreed with 98% of a piece of legislation that the GOP proposed but the other 2% was in favor of the common good you would be encouraging the Democrats to vote in favor of that one provision (the 2%) in that amendment?
I think Paul’s point, as is mine, is that the Bishops’ reservations about health care reform solely concerned the issue of abortion, not social welfare. The idea of a national health care program actually was invented by the Catholic Church and the Bishops have been the longest and strongest supporters of a national health care social welfare program.
So my oriignal point still stands, while individual Catholics like yourself might dissent from the Church on social welfare questions because they are matters of prudential judgment, the Church’s prudential judgment on social welfare questions in 100% of the time matched the prudential judgment of progressives and been contrary to the judgment of libertarians.
So, while respecting your right to dissent, it is wrong to say “Progressives are aligned with socialist policies which the Church has explicitly opposed for many, many years.” On social welfare questions, progressives have always agreed with the Catholic Church (there has been one exception in the past 100 years of American history. Can you name it?).
First of all, I am offended by your characterization of a legitimate position, not condemned by the Church, as “dissent from the Church”. I hope you retract that. Secondly, your statement that “the Church’s prudential judgment on social welfare questions in 100% of the time matched the prudential judgment of progressives and been contrary to the judgment of libertarians” is not only ridiculously false, but you contradict it at the end of your comment by stating that there was an exception and posing as the quiz master “can you name it”? As if we are going to guess the only exception you happen to know of? Please! Go inform yourself – I am not going to put up with such B.S. on this blog. If I have to go to the trouble of refuting your rubbish I am not going to spare your feelings. You will end up humiliated. I strongly suggest you amend these absurd statements while I am still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to your honesty.
First of all, I am offended by your characterization of a legitimate position, not condemned by the Church, as “dissent from the Church”. I hope you retract that.
One can concur or dissent from a position the Church has taken in her prudential judgment. Because it is prudential judgment, we do not know that there is virtue when we concur nor vice when we dissent.
Secondly, your statement that “the Church’s prudential judgment on social welfare questions in 100% of the time matched the prudential judgment of progressives and been contrary to the judgment of libertarians” is not only ridiculously false, but you contradict it at the end of your comment by stating that there was an exception and posing as the quiz master “can you name it”?
The sole exception was in the 1920s, when the Episcopate opposed child labor laws ( the Keating-Owen Act) based on the theory that parents have an absolute right to raise their children as they find best. The Episcopate has since retracted this view and apologized for its position — the singular time the Church dissented from progressives on a social welfare question and a position the Church no longer holds, putting Her now at 100% in concurrance with progressives on social welfare questions.
If I have to go to the trouble of refuting your rubbish I am not going to spare your feelings. You will end up humiliated.
Christ’s love and Mary’s favor to you. I asked your wife for an example of a social welfare initiative where the Episcopate was not in agreement with the progressive position and she was not able to respond with a single example. If you have some insight, I would welcome it. God bless you and your family.
I answered Obamacare. It is the truth that in its current form the bishops oppose that piece of legislation. It is extremely sad that you can’t recognize that reality, Kurt.
Where did the Church (The Episcopate) endorse The Affordable Care Act? It is a matter of prudential judgement and not dissenting from Church teaching to oppose the health care bill.
Are you actually claiming that every single Catholic bishop endorsed Obamacare? The Church has never endorsed socialism, which you and other progressives advocate for. Contrary to your thinking, the Church has condemned socialism.
The Church has never endorsed socialism, which you and other progressives advocate for. Contrary to your thinking, the Church has condemned socialism.
Progressives and the Church have been in accord on the social welfare legislation that has come before Congress. You keep failing to offer evidence to the contrary.
So we should edculxe the kids who ARE being bullied for being gay or for their gender identity? I guess we should only make specific children feel safe at school, so long as they pertain to our own narrow standards. Heaven forbid you actually acknowledge gay people as actually existing or having problems! Don’t brush off a very serious issue of kids being bullied for being gay to the point of suicide. If you’re a homophobe, be a homophobe – just leave bullied gay kids out of it.
No person on this blog is advocating bullying kids who are homosexual. That’s something you ginned up in your head to distort my position and use the dreaded term “homophobe” which has been rendered meaningless by its oversuage and it being misused by individuals such as yourself – just like with the accusation of racism nowadays. I treat homosexual acts as disordered, much like a disease, sorta like a person who is an alcoholic. We should treat the persons with dignity and respect but not support the problem of alcoholism. Maybe I should call you intolerant or a Christainophobe for being intolerant to my point of view in which I believe that homosexual acts are sinful but also believe as persons that they have certain rights.
Your invocation of our Lord and His Blessed Mother did much to soften this response. Et cum spiritu tuo.
But you have not retracted your first offensive statement let alone repented of the offense. Your defense of it is inadequate, and the fact that I reported that it offended me should have been enough for you, in charity if not in due justice, to have offered at least some regret for giving offense. I say again – characterizing our position as “dissent from the Church” is not only false, it is unfair and it offends me. You have invited me to correct your outrageous characterization of the Church as 100%-minus-one-exception-progressive-on-questions-of-social-welfare. I have warned you that you will not like the way I do it. You will have no right to complain when the hammer comes down.
Kurt writes, “Because it is prudential judgment, we do not know that there is virtue when we concur nor vice when we dissent.”
I think there is always virtue in submitting to Church teaching, if it is done because of faith that the Church is guided even in prudential matters. I don’t think there is vice when dissenting in prudential matters, so long as it is arrived at in good faith and based on the best information one has available to him.
I don’t think whether one’s dissent is a virtue or a vice has anything to do with whether his position is actually correct.
In any event, should it even be called “Church teaching” if it concerns only prudential matters? Maybe so, I’m just asking since I’m not sure myself.
In any event, should it even be called “Church teaching” if it concerns only prudential matters? Maybe so, I’m just asking since I’m not sure myself.
A very fair question, agellis. And moreover, if it is not even clear that it is a teaching, how can it be “dissent from the Church” to withhold assent to some-but-not-all-bishop’s prudential judgment on a matter that is not even de fide?
In any event, should it even be called “Church teaching” if it concerns only prudential matters?
If you will note, in not a single instance inthis thread have I spoke of “Church teachings”. I have spoke of Church positions and policies, of initiatives supported and endorsed by the Church and in statements She has made, but never of ‘teachings.’ I happen to concur with the positions the Church has taken on social welfare legislation. I do not judge those who dissent from those positions/policies/statements as bad Catholics, particuarly those who respectfully dissent. I would add I concur with progressives on social welfare questions but I dissent from the progressive position on abortion.
I have warned you that you will not like the way I do it. You will have no right to complain when the hammer comes down.
Because my employment causes me to be a close collabortor with the Catholic Episcopate on matters of social welfare policy (though I do not work for the Church), for more than two decades I have been copied on the letters they senf to Congress on social welfare legislation. I also receive copies of letters from progressive organizations that advocate for social welfare legislation. It is not a terribly complicated task to read the letters and see they take them same position.
But I very much agree with Agellius who says “I don’t think there is vice when dissenting in prudential matters, so long as it is arrived at in good faith and based on the best information one has available to him.” I am sure that there are deep intellectuals out there that have very scholarly philosophies against the positions the Epsicopate has taken. However, I’m sure they wish me no ill for simply concurring with the prudential judgment of our Catholic leaders.
Kurt writes, “If you will note, in not a single instance inthis thread have I spoke of “Church teachings”. I have spoke of Church positions and policies, of initiatives supported and endorsed by the Church and in statements She has made, but never of ‘teachings.’”
With respect, it seems a little like hairsplitting to distinguish between “the Church’s position” and “Church teaching”. The salient point is not “teaching” versus “position”, but rather, whether the Church as the Church, the authorized teacher and interpreter of divine revelation, has adopted an “official Catholic position” or “teaching” on certain specific social policies, as opposed to the moral principles which should guide the determination of social policies.
The salient point is not “teaching” versus “position”, but rather, whether the Church as the Church, the authorized teacher and interpreter of divine revelation, has adopted an “official Catholic position” or “teaching” on certain specific social policies, as opposed to the moral principles which should guide the determination of social policies.
Oh, I would not dispute that Her divine teaching authority on broad moral principles is the salinet and primary point. But there can be no wrong is also noting and considering the Church’s secondary or developmental points such as when in her prudential judgment She speaks to particular legislative initiatives.
I would also note that respectful dissent can even contribute to the Church’s apostolate in taking positions on particular legislative proposals. Just as the dissenting opinions in a judicial case can be helpful in understanding the Court’s position.
Kurt writes, “Oh, I would not dispute that Her divine teaching authority on broad moral principles is the salinet and primary point.”
You seem to be missing my point, which may be my fault. What I’m asking is, whether there is such a thing as “the Church” taking an official position on specific social policies of a prudential nature. If so, can you give me an example of a document in which “the Church” does so?
By Kurt’s definition, St. Thomas Aquinas would have been considered even more strongly in “dissent from the Church” than I (allegedly) am up until his death for his scholarly use and teaching of Aristotle’s philosophy, since some bishops condemned it and those condemnations were never retracted before his death, and even re-iterated and strengthened afterwards.
But I have never called you a “dumb ox.”
(Nor would I!)
I would probably take it as a compliment, as I am beginning to now, since you have pretty much copped to my being in the same class of “Dissenter from the Church” as master teacher of orthodox Catholic philosophy and theology.
Your use of that phrase can lead to offense, as it did in this case, so I at least advise you to caution in the future, but for my part, we’re pretty much okay now. Now you just have to deal with my wife. Good luck!
As I mentioned, I get official letters almost every week Congress is in session taking positions on specific legislative initiatives of a prudential nature. I have for decades.
But, Agellius, while I understand you came late to this discussion, it originated with Mrs, Rice’s assertion about “policies which the Church has explicitly opposed for many, many years.” So it was she who first spoke of social welfare policies of the Church, even though she has been unable to share a single example to support her position.
Kurt writes, “As I mentioned, I get official letters almost every week Congress is in session taking positions on specific legislative initiatives of a prudential nature. I have for decades.”
I understand that. Are you saying that expressing a position in an “official letter” makes it the official position of the Church as a whole?
“So it was she who first spoke of social welfare policies of the Church, even though she has been unable to share a single example to support her position.”
False.
I named one – Obamacare – and you won’t accept reality, that it’s true that in its final form, without the protections of the unborn, that the bishops are against this piece of legislation. Even though a certain comment was done halfway in jest I’ll say this instead – Can you prove that your smarter than a fifth grader?
You haven’t answered a few questions I posed in my last couple of comments to you.
Praying for your ability to adhere to principles which are in accordance with the Catholic Church, and not to twist those principles to be in accordance with the progressive policies which is self-evident that you follow.
I have now downgraded your intelligence or lack thereof from being dumb to being dumberer.
And the prayers of the Blessed Mother I hope are always with you,Teresa. Mary is our comfort and fountain of peace.
I named one – Obamacare,that it’s true that in its final form, without the protections of the unborn, that the bishops are against this piece of legislation.
I’ve not denied that. In its final form, the Bishops objectioned because it lacked the protections for the unborn. Yes, the Bishops could not endorse it because of pro-life principles, not from a social welfare standpoint.
So my question remains unanswered. Can you name a single piece of social welfare legislation* that progressives have not supported the Bishops position?
* The Bishops admirably also speak on pro-life issues, marriage issues, world peace issues, environmental issues, and human rights issues. I commend them for it. But for now I am just exploring if anyone can provide evidence to my claim (countering Teresa’s claim) that puts American progressives in agreement with the Catholic Epsicopate on social welfare issues.
Actually you did deny that, more than once.
So, am I to understand from your statement above that you don’t think that the latest health reform law is social reform legislation? Really?!?
And, you still haven’t answered my other questions.
The Church, Herself, never endorsed Obamacare. Some bishops in the Episcopate prudentially found Obamacare adequate to serve the citizens needs but that doesn’t mean that the Church endorsed Obamacare. And, with the abortion issue not being addressed adequately the bishops in the USCCB did not support it.
Your trying to have your cake and eat it too. Now the cake is being smashed to the ground.
with the abortion issue not being addressed adequately the bishops in the USCCB did not support it.
Exactly. Because of pro-life concerns (as you have repeatedly admitted) the Church withheld support from the Affordable Care Act.
The question is the concurrence of the Church and progressives on social welfare questions. In the past 100 years, can you give an example of the Church disagreeing with progressives on a social welfare question? Is the only example you can come up with a bill like the Affordable Care Act which included both pro-life and social welfare concerns?
The way you write, I would think you could rattle off a dozen examples off the top of your head. But it seems that is not possible.
First, The Church Herself did not endorse the Affordable Health Care Act de fide.
Second, I hate to burst your bubble (not really) but the Episcopate did not support the New Deal. Before you cough up a lung from laughing so hard Kevin and I researched this and will be surprising you with evidence to support this statement. You will see….
I didn’t say it endorsed the Affordable Care Act.
Now, you still are unable to show where on a social welfare question, the Church and progressives were on opposite sides. I can tell you I have received copies of letters from the Bishops asking for support for increased government spending for SNAP (Food Stamps), TANF (Welfare), Public housing, and Medicaid, as well as for a higher minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, and in support of the EITC. These are the ones I can just recall from easy memory. Your inability to list any examples of the Church siding with the conservative/Libertarian position on social welfare I think speaks for itself.
Inability? What?
I said two – Affordable Care Act and the New Deal. Bishops names on letters in support of those programs is different from the Church supporting or endorsing this or that social welfare issue. That is the bishops using their prudential judgement.
Right about now I would like to offer my own summary of how I think this discussion back and forth is going. It will be biased overall in favor of my wife for obvious reasons, but I believe it can still be a fair assessment on its particular points.
Teresa began it with a CST posting dealing with the Preferential Option for the Poor in CST and cited the foundational CST document, Rerum Novarum.
Kurt responded with a denial that progressives are socialists who want to do away with private property, connected “the Right Wing” with an intention to do away with “all social help” for the poor “in favor of Big Business”, and began to offer a claim that he later developed further: that the Church and progressives are have always been pretty much in lockstep agreement for as far back as it matters, and that “today’s progressives match closely what the Popes have said”.
Kurt’s arguments range from distortions of the facts (at best) to absurd on their face. More on that another time. This is a summary, not a refutation.
Teresa disagreed with Kurt (rightly so) and said that progressives are aligned with socialism, which Kurt objected to that as red-baiting and asked a question that implied a very strongly formulated position that every “single piece of American social welfare legislation supported by progressives…was…also ENDORSED by the Catholic Episcopate” (all caps emphasis mine) and that not one “single piece of social welfare legislation” was supported by both American conservatives and the Catholic bishops”. He later reiterated this very strong position, in response to Teresa’s refusal to accept that just because SOME bishops have supported SOME progressives initiatives, that means the WHOLE CHURCH is 100% PROGRESSIVE: “It is not some bishops…It has been the whole of the Episcopate and all of the time… every single time the Church has spoken on social welfare…the entire Episcopate 100% of the time on social welfare questions…you are not free to pretend the Church does not say what she says.”
This is the very strongly formulated position (and therefore easily refuted if wrong, which it is) that every bishop (that is the meaning of the phrase: “the entire episcopate”) is politically liberal or at least progressive, and not conservative at all on any “question of social welfare”.
Agellius and I took critical note (and, in my case, offense) at the characterization of any dissent from the progressive agenda as “dissent from the Church” (Kurt’s words) on the basis of serious doubt about Kurt’s main point – that the Church has, “in her prudential judgement” taken an offocial position of social progressivism or at least full support of the latter.
Teresa pointed out that he was wrong about Obamacare, which he implied that “the entire Episcopate” ENDORSED (yes, he used that word – see my summary above and check with his comments).
Later he had to back off some of the above. He admitted one exception to the Church’s “100% agreement with progressives on social welfare” – an exception that he trivialized, even though even one admitted exception destroys his repeatedly argued position, and did not back off the 100% claim even then (despite the obvious contradiction). He had to back off the claim that the Church/(“the entire Episcopate” [all the bishops]) “endorsed the Affordable Care Act”, to the point where he denied ever saying such a thing. That’s one reason why I am grateful that this discussion is taking place on this blog, and not somewhere he has control of the content and can change the history of the discussion or delete inconvenient comments. All someone has to do is do a “Find” on the page with all the comments looking for all the occasions of the word “endorse” and draw their own conclusions.about what he did and did not say.
Now, possibly in response to Teresa’s pointing out that the Church did not, as a whole, support the New Deal in its entirety (and she is right: there was considerable suspicion of much of it from an explicitly conservative Catholic perspective by many good Thomistically trained bishops even as the laity continued to support it enthusiastically), Kurt is getting slippery and softening his position without any clear acknowledgement of this change: now he is merely implying that the Church does not disagree with progressives on social welfare (dropping such verbs as “support” let alone “endorse”). – that they weren’t on “opposite sides”.
Finally, we get to the crux of that matter – that Kurt has received letters from “the bishops” asking for support of this that and the other piece of progressive reform. That is his basis for his claim that the whole Church and the entire Episcopate is 100% progressive.
I wonder if the letterhead on the top of these letters shows it to be from the NCCB. But the NCCB is an organization, is not “all the bishops”, not even here in America. It is not the entire episcopate, and it does not represent the “prudential judgment of the Church” as a whole. It just doesn’t. If it were an Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope, then he would have something there. In fact, even non-infallible papal encyclicals could serve to represent the mind of the Church, and he would certainly find some support there for some of his progressive positions. But the liberals who control the NCCB are not the entire Episcopate (there is a still a big world out there beyond the U.S, for one thing), and as long as they take positions contrary to what the Fathers and some of our previous popes have said, they do not speak for the Church as a whole, and to insist on labelling an individual Catholic who disagrees with the NCCB on some social issues as in “dissent from the Church” is to use language in a strangely distorted and potentially offensive way.
End of Summary. Later I will demonstrate that Teresa’s claim that progressives are socialists who want to do away with private property is no less supportable than Kurt’s claim that the Church is 100% progressive. (minus whatever exceptions he cops to and trivializes).
The American Episcopate speaks on federal legislation through the National Catholic War Council, later the National Catholic Welfare Council, later the NCCB/USCC, now the USCCB. In their letters, they certainly claim to be speaking for the American Episcopate and on federal social welfare legislation.
Moreover, no other organ exists for addressing particular pieces of federal legislation by the Catholic Church. If you are not going to accept the Bishops Conference representing the Church, then we can say the Church never speaks on legislation (though I am sure there are some intellectuals out there with a very high opinion of their own opinions who will insisit that they have special and perfect insight into discerning the application of broad CST to bills before Congress, insight that no bishop has ever stumbled into but that they have been blessed with).
My purpose here, as I have repeatedly stated, it not to accuse any conservative of being a bad Catholic. It is simply to affirm that one can support progressive social welfare legislation and be a good Catholic.
So, for the sake of argument, if we were to ignore the claim of the letters from the Bishops’ Conference claiming to speak for the whole American Episcopate, and only consider them to be statements of the position of the Bishop whose name is signed to it, along with other public statements of Bishops on federal social welfare legislation, can you give me a summary of where American bishops have been on social welfare bill? I am anxious for your defense.
“It is simply to affirm that one can support progressive social welfare legislation and be a good Catholic.”
It depends on how progressive you mean by “progressive”. If it involves socialism or big government policies which could be harmful to religious liberty and ultimately lead to socialism the Church has always come out against socialism, and in favor of private property rights.
It’s funny how progressive Catholics like to think those things that are considered matters of prudential judgement should be binding whereas those things such as abortion which are definitive teachings of the Church they would like to make prudential. That just don’t make sense. But liberals aren’t too swift when it comes to logic.
It depends on how progressive you mean by “progressive”.
I’ll take that as an apology and a retraction of your previous startement definatively calling progressives to be socialists to your current position of “it depends.” I appreciate your humility.
It’s funny how progressive Catholics like to think those things that are considered matters of prudential judgement should be binding whereas those things such as abortion which are definitive teachings of the Church they would like to make prudential.
Except that is not what progressives believe. Are conservatives capable of telling the truth? Or is it based on lies and Red-baiting?
If you write the words red-baiting ever again since that is not engaging in meaningful discussion but you acting like a liberal douche nozzle who only cares about divisiveness and not bringing Catholics together in fruitful discussion I will delete your whole post.
Liberals are the ultimate liars. And you have spewed numerous lies throughout your comments.
Who feels baited by something and objects to it by calling it “red-baiting”? Hmm? I wonder? What are we to make of that?
Perhaps Comrade Kurt will elaborate on what he meant (but he’d better not use the word again when explaining himself)!
Kevin writes:
“The idea of a national health care program actually was invented by the Catholic Church and the Bishops have been the longest and strongest supporters of a national health care social welfare program”.
This gives the notion that “the bishops” act as one voice, a concept that has led to too much dispute and discussion. What I presume is meant is that a document has been issued under the name of the USCCB. Do all the bishops agree to it? Have all the bishops studied it carefully? Doubtful.
A bishop’s approval is good only for his diocese; only the bishop of Rome may make statements binding on the whole Church. I suspect that such documents were compiled by bureaucrats in the USCCB. Synods wrote Newman are the very nuisance, and the sources of much discord. If the bishops, or say, a bishop, wished to have an influence in political matters, he would do better to organize the sheep in his diocese to write or speak to their representatives. Politicians are savvy enough to recognize that most Catholic voters pay little attention the dicts & sayings of the episcopate, but they will listen to their constituents.. The bishops collectively do not realize how much credibility they have lost with the coverups in the sex scandal. They are a timorous lot.
@ Gabriel If you look at Kurt’s posting on Nov. 22 at 3:45 you’ll see that he actually stated that quote. Not Kevin.
I doubt that there is even consensus among all the bishops on any given document released by the USCCB. Or that it is a rarity. Plus, depending on what the document covers I doubt that it is binding on the faithful. And, yes, the USCCB is filled with a bunch of bureaucrats.
“If the bishops, or say, a bishop, wished to have an influence in political matters, he would do better to organize the sheep in his diocese to write or speak to their representatives.”
That is a good idea.
Thank you for your comment.
This gives the notion that “the bishops” act as one voice, a concept that has led to too much dispute and discussion.
Dispute and discussion by conservative cafeteria Catholics. As for the Episcopate themselves, they have set up the Conference for the purpose of speaking with one voice on matters of federal legislation.
From your post I take it you dimiss the Church’s involvement in matters of federal legislation. Fine, just be consistent about it.
We conservative Catholics are the people who adhere to Catholicism, or at least try our best to be faithful Catholics, unlike you liberals Catholics who use nuance to undermine Traditional Catholicism, the true Catholicism which has been around for over 2000 years, not the distorted views of Catholicism that progressive Catholics try to pass of as true Catholicism.
Your the one who thinks that the entire Episcopate consists of the USCCB. Wrong Dude!
Kurt, you have already admitted elsewhere that you are in dissent from the Catholic Church on a binding, non-negotiable moral principle – namely that the same sex couples cannot be recognized having a an equal moral status as a family that traditionally married couples have and consequently having the same right to adopt as the latter, so your right to use the label “cafeteria Catholics” to publically besmirch conservative Catholics who are 100% in line with the binding moral dogmatic content of the Church but reserve the right to question the non-binding prudential content of some of what has come to be called Catholic social teaching is, on this blog, hereby revoked. You are well on your way to being banned from these discussions.
Kurt, you have already admitted elsewhere that you are in dissent from the Catholic Church on a binding, non-negotiable moral principle – namely that the same sex couples cannot be recognized having a an equal moral status as a family that traditionally married couples
Anyone who says definatively that I believe that is liar and risks damnation to Hell for his/her sin.
conservative Catholics who …reserve the right to question the non-binding prudential content of some of what has come to be called Catholic social teaching
I have repeated affirmed that right. I have simply objected to Mrs. Rice’s statement that those of us who concur with the non-binding prudential statements of Church authorities are not good Catholics. While not holding these prudential judgments as binding, I do hold them as matters I can concur with and not be justly accused of being a bad Catholic. If Mrs. Rice could bring herself to finally agree to that, we would have no dispute.
“Anyone who says definatively that I believe that is liar and risks damnation to Hell for his/her sin.”
Kurt, you are a hair’s breadth from being permanently banned. I said what I did based on an admission in a Vox Nova comment box dated November 30, 2011 10:00 am. Instead of calling me a liar and allowing your position to be inferred based on a denial, here is your chance to positively clarify your position publicly – do you deny that same sex couples deserve status under the law equal to the traditional one-man-and-one-woman couple? Do you deny that two men or two women deserve the same right under the law to marry each other as one man and one woman? Do you deny that same sex unions have equal status as a family to adopt (that is, equal to traditional married couples)? An answer to these questions is required for your continued participation on this blog. Nothing else under your name that you submit after this comment will remain on this blog until you answer these questions. Then and only then can you expect an apology from me for misunderstanding and, based on that misunderstanding, misrepresenting your views.
“I have simply objected to Mrs. Rice’s statement that those of us who concur with the non-binding prudential statements of Church authorities are not good Catholics.”
You have NOT simply done that. Should I call you a liar now or should I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume a memory lapse. At 3:10 am above you called conservative Catholics “cafeteria Catholics”.
For the benefit of the readers of this blog, and for the sake of full disclosure, Kurt has replied to my comment above, but his reply did not contain answers to the questions I presented to him as being required for continued participation on this blog. For that reason I have spam-filed it. I am not censoring his comment. Anyone who wants to read his comment can email me at Catholibertarian@yahoo.com with the request and I will forward it. Keep in mind that I do not check that email address fifty times a day so the requester may have to sit tight for little while.