geb@cadre.UUCP (11/15/84)
So the Catholic hierarchy has decided that it is time to be generous with the taxpayers' money! Use governmental coercion to redistribute the wealth. As former treasury secretrary Simon did, I looked in vain for any suggestion for increasing PRODUCTION of wealth. May I suggest that the bishops have it in their power to alleviate a lot of poverty in this country and others without recourse to the use of police power? If all catholics were urged to contribute a portion of their income (5% would probably do) to a special fund, to be used to help poor catholics (not to build any new cathedrals) and this money used to set up welfare programs to help their worthy poor with job training, or whatever other programs the fathers believe needful, a great deal of good could be done. This would relieve the strained government welfare rolls, leaving more to go around for those who were unchurched or belonged to less wealthy denominations. In addition, church-run welfare could be more humane and less bureaucratic, something the fathers complained about. This is not to say that the catholic church isn't performing any charitable acts now, but to stress the more appropriateness of a church to work within the private sector rather than relying on governmental coercion to attain its goals.
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/20/84)
[This meeting of the USENET debating society will come to disorder]
What stands out in the Catholic bishops' pastoral letter is something
shared by many advocates of expanding the welfare state: an inability, or
perhaps unwillingness, to distinguish _e_n_d_s from _m_e_a_n_s. Deploring and cal-
ling for an end to poverty and its effects is all well and good, and neces-
sary to compassionate citizens of this world. But in specifying means to
that end removes the bishops from the role of moral authority and places
them in the role of economist. And, as a Canadian paper commented, (para-
phrasing) "If they behave like economists, they will be judged as econom-
ists".
As a sector whose sustenance comes from the voluntary donations of
those who prosper in the system they condemn, the bishops are especially
unqualified by personal experience to advocate specific economic policy.
While I always support the right of citizens, whether bishops or not, to
speak freely when moved, the bishops are not speaking as citizens; they are
speaking as bishops of the Catholic Church - and in that capacity, they are
absolutely out of their element of knowledge and expertise, and out of line.
It would seem that, before preparing a document with such potential for
influence, they would gather a spectrum of thought and give some considera-
tion for the track record of the methods they advocate that have already
been enacted for years. That such methods are provable failures is no
secret, but they have chosen to close their eyes to such evidence and behave
as if liberal doctrine were as sacred and above question as Church doctrine.
Charity as embraced in Christian faith (as well as much of the non-Christian
world) is wholesome, enriching and powerful. But most of that power comes
from the personal choice in giving - a choice wholly absent in government
transfer programs.
If the bishops wish to maintain their credence as caretakers of
Catholic moral philosophy, they had better separate high moral goals from
sanctimonious dicta of methods when they speak under the aegis of the
Church.
(In case it matters, my own background is Catholic.)
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/20/84)
[This meeting of the USENET debating society will come to disorder]
What stands out in the Catholic bishops' pastoral letter is something
shared by many advocates of expanding the welfare state: an inability, or
perhaps unwillingness, to distinguish _e_n_d_s from _m_e_a_n_s. Deploring and cal-
ling for an end to poverty and its effects are all well and good, and neces-
sary to compassionate citizens of this world. But specifying means to that
end removes the bishops from the role of moral authority and places them in
the role of economist. And, as a Canadian paper commented, (paraphrasing)
"If they behave as economists, they will be judged as economists".
As a sector whose sustenance comes from the voluntary donations of
those who prosper in the system they condemn, the bishops are especially
unqualified by personal experience to advocate specific economic policy.
While I always support the right of citizens, whether bishops or not, to
speak freely when moved, the bishops are not speaking as citizens; they are
speaking as bishops of the Catholic Church - and in that capacity, they are
absolutely out of their element of knowledge and expertise, and out of line.
It would seem that, before preparing a document with such potential for
influence, they would gather a spectrum of thought and give some considera-
tion for the track record of the methods they advocate that have already
been enacted for years. That such methods are provable failures is no
secret, but they have chosen to close their eyes to such evidence and behave
as if liberal doctrine were as sacred and above question as Church doctrine.
Charity as embraced in Christian faith (as well as much of the non-Christian
world) is wholesome, enriching and powerful. But most of that power comes
from the personal choice in giving - a choice wholly absent in government
transfer programs.
If the bishops wish to maintain their credence as caretakers of
Catholic moral philosophy, they had better separate noble moral goals from
sanctimonious dicta of methods when they speak under the aegis of the
Church.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/20/84)
[This meeting of the USENET debating society will come to disorder]
What stands out in the Catholic bishops' pastoral letter is something
shared by many advocates of expanding the welfare state: an inability, or
perhaps unwillingness, to distinguish _e_n_d_s from _m_e_a_n_s. Deploring and cal-
ling for an end to poverty and its effects are all well and good, and neces-
sary to compassionate citizens of this world. But specifying means to that
end removes the bishops from the role of moral authority and places them in
the role of economist. And, as a Canadian paper commented, (paraphrasing)
"If they behave as economists, they will be judged as economists".
As a sector whose sustenance comes from the voluntary donations of
those who prosper in the system they condemn, the bishops are especially
unqualified by personal experience to advocate specific economic policy.
While I always support the right of citizens, whether bishops or not, to
speak freely when moved, the bishops are not speaking as citizens; they are
speaking as bishops of the Catholic Church - and in that capacity, they are
absolutely out of their element of knowledge and expertise, and out of line.
It would seem that, before preparing a document with such potential for
influence, they would gather a spectrum of thought and give some considera-
tion for the track record of the methods they advocate that have already
been enacted for years. That such methods are provable failures is no
secret, but they have chosen to close their eyes to such evidence and behave
as if liberal doctrine were as sacred and above question as Church doctrine.
Charity as embraced in Christian faith (as well as much of the non-Christian
world) is wholesome, enriching and powerful. But most of that power comes
from the personal choice in giving - a choice wholly absent in government
transfer programs.
If the bishops wish to maintain their credibility as caretakers of
Catholic moral philosophy, they had better separate noble moral goals from
sanctimonious dicta of methods when they speak under the aegis of the
Church.
--
[ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ]
Ray Simard
Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
...Though we may sometimes disagree,
You are still a friend to me!kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/22/84)
[] In article <> simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) writes: > If the bishops wish to maintain their credibility as caretakers of >Catholic moral philosophy, they had better separate noble moral goals from >sanctimonious dicta of methods when they speak under the aegis of the >Church. Ditto for abortion. Consistently, Kevin Eric Saunders kevin.lasspvax@cornell.arpa
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (11/23/84)
Another Fuzzy Headed Sacramentalist Liberal Speaks: So, the Catholic Bishops are "unqualified" to talk about the difficulties of Economic policy? I guess that when we intone the "Ubi Caritas", we're talking about uh....a sort of "Hail Fellow Well Met." kind of live-and-let live tolerance. As someone interested for some time in the push and pull of AMerican Politics and Religion, I was frankly surprised by the tone of the bishops' letter. I expect a sort of "rah rah" note along the lines of Geo. Gilder or the Heritage foundation....not unlike the head of IBM who showed up here at Cornell and solemly intoned that Capitalism was the best of all possible worlds because it held the most realistic notions of the frailty of the Human character. The Catholic Bishops are in a perfectly good position to take a look at the people left on the outside as the Captains of Industry advance....especially if the current leader of God's chosen nation continues to send the poor, the homeless, the destitute, the lazy and shiftless(oops ;-) ) into the purview of the church by encouraging charity in the private sector. The bishops (notably the Urban ones) have seen quite well what the free market does to those who miss out, becuase whty're often the ones who take care of them. Looking at the actual text of the letter (I got *real* curious about the thing when I only got a whiff of it, and went and hunted up the real text), I do not find any sweeping call for dying our flag red or even pink....merely the entirely accurate judgement that the "benefits" of capitalism have exacted a horrible toll that is often overlooked, and that toll is kept well out of the sight of those who benefit. As I see the document, the bishops are very careful to point out the successes of the system as well as the failures, and their chief crime is to suggest that those who profit at the expense of others bear a responsibility for those they vanquish inthe free market if they are going to claim to be Christian (those who would merely co-opt Christian opinions on, say, abortion, and believe none of it save what it requires to be re-elected are, of course, exempt). That sounds dangerously Socialist, but of course it's instructive to note that a fair amount of the early Christian community looked pretty Socialist as well (se the Book of the Acts of the Apostles). You looked recently at John Paul's response to the letter. For someone as convicted of the evils of the Communist system as he is, he was full of praise for the insight into Christian responsibility (he also made it clear that he does disagree on some points, but hey.....). You wanna try some real commie stuff? Try reading JPII's last encyclical on labour.... disgustingly pro-Union crypto-Socialist drivel ;-) G.