Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, has been in the news after media reports quoted his critique of the GOP budget proposal authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
In April, Bishop Blaire issued a letter that called the GOP’s proposed cut in benefits for children of immigrants “unjust and wrong.”
He has also rejected proposed limits on the funding of food stamps, as part of a larger GOP plan to curb increases in social programs. "Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs," said Bishop Blaire in a letter that issued a harsh judgment: "The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria."
Partisan groups have used the USCCB statements, combined with protests sparked by Ryan’s delivery of a speech at Georgetown University,, to bolster a campaign to discredit the Wisconsin lawmaker’s budget proposal . Meanwhile, his supporters have called the USCCB’s criticism “unjust” in the editorial pages of The Washington Post.
On May 4, Bishop Blaire spoke by telephone with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond.
Various statements from you and your committee have described the budget proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as “unjust” and have asserted that it failed to meet basic “moral criteria.” Why was it important to publicly address the moral problems of the Ryan budget?
It’s important that we weigh in in terms of our Catholic social teaching. Our great concern is the protection of the poor and the vulnerable. It’s not so much that we are criticizing the Ryan budget; we would be critical of any effort to reduce care of the poor.
We understand that there must be budget adjustments, but it’s important that it be across the board and that we not diminish food stamps and while neglecting cuts to the military [budget].
I was particularly concerned about proposals to reduce food stamps because that money goes to people experiencing hunger and food shortages. Remember that the money from people using food stamps also goes back into the community. The more food stamps are utilized, the more that money goes into the local economy.
We want to weigh in, but we also understand the complexity of finding solutions that help stabilize the economy of the country.
Rep. Ryan has asserted that he applied principles of Catholic social doctrine in the development of his proposal, but your public response stated that the proposal was “unjust.” Were the principles poorly understood or poorly applied?
The principles of social justice have to do with basic needs: housing, hunger, employment. I don’t have his budget in front of me.
Principles of Catholic social doctrine, like solidarity and subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity is one of our traditional Catholic social principles. The idea is that the responsibility be carried out at the lowest level possible.
But that principle does not excuse those in higher positions from taking care of their responsibilities. You cannot use the principle of subsidiarity to say that government does not have a responsibility to those in need.
If housing and food needs can be addressed at a lower level, that is good. But, in our complex society, that is almost impossible.
However, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the government’s role — it can’t just dole out funds. We need to make sure these programs are helping the poor help themselves.
Solidarity means that we all need to stand together and support the common good.
The individual has to accept his responsibility — and government as well. To say, “There can be no increase in revenue [for social programs” means] you are shutting down an avenue that would prevent the government from carrying out its responsibilities.
One can accept a basic philosophy that says the government is restricted in what it can do, but that does not take away its responsibility. Our No. 1 response should be to help those who need help.
Getting back to your point that cutting revenues — taxes — results in preventing the government from carrying out its responsibilities: It would seem that there is a difference of opinion on whether Ryan’s budget proposal is actually “cutting” programs that aid the poor or just slowing spending. Is there a moral difference?
You have to determine what your priorities are. If your only priority is to cut the budget, that approach is inadequate.
You might call it a balanced approach. The first question is not limiting the budget, but to ask, “What are our responsibilities?” We have to ask: “Does the budget adjust to our philosophy or does our philosophy adjust to budgetary needs?”
The budget is not just a financial document; it is a moral document: Are you cutting services to the poor and leaving the military alone?
Is “balance” a principle of Catholic social teaching?
There really is not a principle of balance, but a principle of the common good. That means the various entities are able to flourish and make their contribution for the good of the whole community.
Balance is my word. It may not be the right word. I have tried to adhere to a sense of moderation, so that society can function, so that people can live virtuous lives and have freedom to accomplish what they understand their goals and responsibility to be.
You see some of that [thinking] in Republican, Democrat and independent philosophy. Balance might mean an equitable sharing of burdens, responsibilities, rights and duties.
Reportedly, the military budget has already been substantially cut, though it is a matter of debate as to whether military readiness will be undermined by further cuts. Either way, Ryan claims that budget increases are unsustainable. If you agree that government spending is unsustainable, how should this reality drive our search for “just” solutions?
Our responsibility as bishops is to keep lifting up the moral principles. I hesitate myself to venture too much into formulating a political solution. But I would say this: There have been proposals that offer a more balanced approach. It had to do with some revenue increases and ending [tax] loopholes and deductions.
If the whole economy goes down, the poor go down with it. But we can’t solve these problems on the back of the poor.
Our society has become so politically contentious that one political side doesn’t want to give any credit to the other side to try and hammer out a solution in a way that will help the poor. Many of the proposals for balancing the budget are more beneficial to those with greater means.
The Church walks a tightrope. We have to comment on all the policies, trying to apply our social teaching. But it isn’t our role to formulate policy.
I know they have interpreted our response as critical of the Ryan budget and perhaps it is. But, really, I want to protect the poor and vulnerable in our country. We will keep speaking out no matter what party is in power.
Have you had a chance to speak with Congressman Ryan?
No. I did speak with him way back when, but not on this issue.
About a year ago, we wanted to join with other religious groups to make sure that when budget issues were addressed the voice of the poor was presented. We call this group the “Circle of Protection” — a group of churches — I’m not sure if they are all Christian, but a group of religious leaders and social agencies that have signed on to an agreement to stand up for the protection of the poor in all these political debates about the budget going forward.
Somebody has to be the voice of the poor, and the Church has that responsibility. There are other groups with experts to talk about the economy. This allows us to be more effective.
We have our priorities as bishops, but the circle has a list of priorities we address. They don’t give us direction. Our focus and direction come from our social teaching, but those principles are very similar to what other religious groups subscribe to. Together with them we identified a number of issues on which we all stand together. It’s designed to create a strong interfaith response.
If I have stumbled, I am not quite sure what it would be. I am trying to speak on behalf of the bishops, on behalf of our principles. I don’t have any intention of criticizing Ryan’s political philosophy, and I would do the same whether it was the White House or more liberal politicians.
Pope Benedict XVI has discussed the moral problems that give rise to the unsustainable national debt that has created a more serious crisis in Europe. How do you interpret his remarks?
That is correct. All we have to do is assess the problems of this country and those around the world. You see greed and corruption everywhere. Why have we had so many financial disasters? There have been companies that have been mismanaged and corrupt. One has to begin with a sense of what is just and right.
What the Christian brings to all economic matters is a sense of generosity. If you only address objective positions without a sense of the Gospel spirit of generosity, then you are not being truly Catholic or Christian. Generosity is tested by how we take care of the most vulnerable in our society.
What about our leaving a crushing debt for the next generation to pay off?
That is a moral problem.
A standard principle in our moral teaching is moderation.
We have lost that sense of moderation when dealing with debt and lifestyle. Moderation calls for [a sense of] responsibility for addressing this issue.
There will always be debt, but what is a moderate debt to be incurred? I have no quarrel with those who say we need to be concerned with not leaving the current generation with an impossible debt.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of everybody sitting down to hammer out solutions — business, communities, churches, social agencies, government, education. We need to mobilize our society to hammer out some just solutions, but not on the backs of the poor.
Everybody has their ideology, and some adhere to it in a zealous way. We need to be humble enough to enter into a dialogue to effectively address these problems.
But some critics point to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statements on economic policy and say that a “preferential option for the poor” is a “preferential option for government.”
A preferential option for the poor would best be realized when the government does not simply dole out moneys that keep people in their limited circumstances, but utilize funds in a way that helps people take responsibility for their lives. The preferential option for the poor doesn’t mean handouts, but how can we invest in strengthening society? What can we do to stimulate the situation, to help people find work?
For example, what do we do to promote family life? The Church is very concerned with the stability of the family. The breakdown of the family has contributed to poverty.
Not along ago, there was a focus on funding faith-based groups to aid those in need because religious institutions were judged to be more effective than secular programs, changing minds and hearts and inspiring hope and behavior that helps people move out of poverty. But now church-affiliated social agencies face cuts in their programs because of religious-freedom issues. What’s the connection between the religious-freedom fight and our nation’s effort to help the poor to help themselves?
There are many facets to the religious-liberty question. The most serious issue we are dealing with is the freedom of the Church to carry out her mission, to carry out her responsibilities through her institutions.
We are the largest private provider of education, charity and health services. Society will suffer if we are not protected in the free exercise of our ministries in accordance with our mission.
We bring the Gospel to the world through our love and care for the poor and by building the common good.
The Church wants to be free — both to be a voice of persuasion and not imposition and also to carry out our institutional expression of our faith.
Yet even within the Church there is considerable confusion about religious freedom as an element of social justice.
Yes. It is a positive step forward that we are having this discussion. The Second Vatican Council document Dignitatis Humanae puts religious freedom in the context of other rights.
Our conversation highlights two major challenges that are likely to affect the future mission of Catholic social agencies that depend on government funds — as well as those that don’t. Today, Catholic Charities in many dioceses are confronting religious-freedom issues as well as budgetary cuts. Will Church agencies be forced to rethink their dependence on government funding?
Once you are in a contract with the government, there is government money and regulations involved. The issue may not be religious liberty, but equal protection under the law — are Church agencies being treated differently than other agencies?
When the government contracts with us, they often get a bang for their buck. There has been a wonderful tradition in this country for granting exemptions and accommodations to Church agencies, but if they move away from that, who will suffer?
How far can the Church go in material cooperation in order to promote the common good? You raise a very interesting question. Some take a narrow, rigid approach, and others take a loose approach. We need to get back to moderation. The Church has to function in society. We can’t just withdraw. This isn’t easy.
How do you view the USCCB’s role in the national debate during an election year? What are the limits of that role?
This is not always an easy question to answer. Our document on “Faithful Citizenship” makes a good effort. It lays out principles and tries to give traction to these principles without becoming political.
We have to be careful how we speak — that we don’t sound like politicians. When you speak on moral principles, you can leave them in an ethereal position. But as soon as you make an application, it will be politically interpreted.
I have tried very hard. I have not made any comment about Ryan or about his political philosophy. I have simply tried to speak to the applications of his philosophy; but that is difficult, and it has been given a political spin.
We have to be as wise as serpents to speak in a way that addresses the principles that flow from the Gospel and our social teaching and try to avoid walking into traps where we come out as politicians. We will stumble — let’s be realistic.
I have been quite involved in the religious-liberty issue, and I cringe when it comes off as “anti-woman,” and our position is articulated by those who oppose us.
We have to stay on message, but that is not easy.
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Bethesda, Maryland.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
bishop blaire is a neo-Marxist, he should try the fit of a cell in Communist N. Korea…
No training in economics, yet he is an authority
No training in law enforcement yet he is an authority on gun violence
This is why the catholic church is a dead, rotting corpse, how people like this bishop feel proud…my guess is the Christ is NOT pleased.
Does anyone remember reading about the “sweat shops” in NYC….my Mother’s era…she worked in one…no unions at the time. [Mom would be 127 yrs old today] The unions, at first, did so much good for the people who were taken advantage of by their bosses -BUT- they have gone too far…Union leaders make so much money from union workers that they are able to donate to presidential elections…they live, palatially, on the backs of the workers. Someone has to get Unions back to what they used to stand for. The Catholic Church has always been for the Unions, but they never advanced in their thinking…they seem to be so slow in knowing what really is going on in the world. The Unions are now a “destruction of businesses”, especially the small business. My husband’s uncle had a milk delivery business and had to give it up because the Union was voted in. [the days when milk was delivered to homes…I told you I was old.;o) As to HHC is good for “women’s health”...what health? Abortion is good for one’s health? [Women die from abortions] The pill is good for women’s health? [women get breast cancer from the pill—or clots in the bodies] I have heard young people today say “I didn’t know fetus was a baby” [sarcastically or not] Mr. Chuck: God made it so that when the sperm and egg united, a baby would grow…when this “fetus” has all its parts, protected in the mother’s womb while growing…it is ready to come into the world at this point, & it is still continually growing until it reaches the age of puberty or a few years longer. Why can’t you and others see this.. A FETUS IS LIFE AND GOD GAVE US LIFE AND WE SHOULD NEVER KILL LIFE.
Support the PPACA? Support abortion on demand? The morning after pill? Really? Mr. Radloff, that statement is not in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Don’t be partisan? Really? Remove the plank from your own eye, sir. Mr. Obama has routinely broken promises when it comes to issues of conscience. He has packed his administration with pro-abortion executives and lobbyists. He has said time after time that he believes that the destruction of a human life in the womb is not a child, it is a choice that women must be free to exercise whenever they choose. He even used his own daughters as pawns to defend his twisted philosophy.
He doesn’t know any better. If you are a Catholic, you should.
For shame, sir.
Charles Radoff
” support the Health Care Laws…be patriotic, not patisan.”
Spoken like a true mindless, Democrat partisan.
Bishop Blair is a confused man. He speaks out if both sides of his mouth and doesn’t appear to know if he is coming or going. No wonder the Catholic Church is so confused. Too bad this Bishop never had a job in the private sector like most of us. He would be better off simply celebrating Mass and talking to Catholic lay people before opening his mouth and uttering nonsense.
For once in 30 years the Bishops got it right…please give them a “High Five”, maybe they will get another one right…like, support the Health Care Laws…be patriotic, not patisan. Peace, Chuck R
John C
“What we need to do as Catholics is to work to promote a third party featuring candidates who represent the totality of Catholic teaching, and withhold our votes from candidates like Biden, Ryan and the others.”
54% of Catholics who voted in 2008, voted for the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide president we ever had. I can assure you those votes did not come from what you call “right-wing zealots.” Pope John Paul II was not a “right-wing zealot,” yet it was he who said, “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture” (so-called “social justice” issues, my insertion) “- is false and illusory if THE RIGHT TO LIFE, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination….” (The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World [Christifideles Laici].
“Social justice” issues were added to the meaning of the word “pro-life.” “Pro-life” is the word coined to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice.” Some ten years later the U.S. bishops added “social justice” issues to the word “pro-life” and called the combination “A consistent ethic of life.” It is Pope John Paul II who called social justice issues “false and illusory” if the RIGHT TO LIFE is not defended with maximum determination.” Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls those social justice issues “prudential judgment” issues while it calls abortion, etc “intrinsic evil.”
If Catholics can’t even be united on what they profess to believe in their Profession of Faith, and mean what they pray for in the Our Father, as illustrated by 54% voting the pro-abortion party’s presidential candidate, how in the world can you even imagine that Catholics could come together to form a Catholic Party?
The problem with the Catholic Church in the U.S. is its bias toward the Democrat Party. They continue to support unions, even government unions that are bankrupting cities and states; and, even though 95% or more of union dues going to government elections are going to the pro-abortion party candidates, they still won’t withdraw their support of them. Furthermore, over half of Catholics consider the Democrat Party their religion, and that includes the clergy. I have found in the conservative diocese I live in that of those clergy register to vote, close to 60% are registered in the pro-abortion party.
No, we don’t need a “Catholic Party,” we need Catholics who believe what they profess to believe and pray for in church during Mass. And that is: we believe God is the giver of life, and we pray for His will to be done on earth, and not to be tempted (to think we are better than others because we are Democrats), but delivered from evil. Do those Catholics believe God creates life for to be aborted? Is God in contradiction with himself? Or are those Catholics? The Democrat Party in the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of more innocent human beings than the KKK, the Nazi Party of Germany, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - combined. And Catholics are responsible for giving us the Godless Satanic Administration that is rewarding those Catholics by not only taking away their right to medical care, they are also taking away their right of Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Speech.
Have the Bishops ever had a Conference in Mexico and reprimanded Vincente Fox or their new Leader of their obligations to the poor in Mexico. They cannot possible be doing anything for the very poor, if they are crossing the borders to get a better life here. But their “better life” often means raising taxes on the U.S. citizen. I also admit on the other hand, that many Mexicans are used as underpaid slaves in the U.S. It is a complicated problem that would never have happened if our borders were closed many, many yrs. ago. It is the fault of both sides. Thus we have the drug cartel on the border also. Most Mexicans are not 100% Americans as the Ellis Island Immigrants were. Talk to the people in California, they have put up with all this nonsense for yrs. The Mexicans are told that we stole part of their country during the Mexican/Am. War. and many of them believe this, which I heard with my own ears while attending Mexican Ministry meeting in my Catholic Church. The leader of the ministry stated: “we were here before, we are here now and we are here to stay”. I have heard it many times, it is like their motto. I have never heard of a legal immigrant from the Ellis Island period in our Country who would burn the American Flag. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not against immigrants, since my parents were, but all of them should come into our country legally and checked out thoroughly. My Mother said that her Dad came alone, having a sponsor and two yrs later her mother came with the 5 children…my Mother being 10 yrs old. At that time the immigrants were checked by a doctor for rashes and coughs and if they had anything wrong, they were sent back. There were many diseases around back then and most have vanished when antibiotics were discovered. My grandmother had her leg amputated…diabetes…no insulin at the time but many diseases that we have inoculations for are being revived because of people entering the country who have never been vaccinated. If our Country could do that in the late 1880’s and early 1900’s why can’t they do it today. Why are the liberals so against “proof of identification”.
The only way to save our economy is to get the people working, not hand-outs. I could go on and on, but I won’t…I was born in 1927, so I know what I am talking about. Also, if any of you had relatives coming through Ellis Island, go to Ellis Island.com. I found my parents passage to the U.S. and even a picture of the ship they came on..
John, whether and how to wage war and how best to utilize tax monies for the needy are issues that require prudence. Whether or not to murder a child in the womb or to engage in homosexual activity are not; they are always intrinsically evil. Otherwise virtuous actions done under compulsion are no longer virtuous, for there is no virtue whee there is compulsion. Love is freely given, or it is not love at all.
Thank you MarcusT. I love how right-wing zealots refer to war and programs that will deny needed services to the poor as “prudential judgment issues.” It’s the same rhetoric that left-wing zealots use to defend abortion and homosexual marriage. It is shameful to watch people try to twist Catholic teaching to fit their ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative positions. It is clear to me that our Lord couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in the U.S. today; both parties would attack him without mercy. And now, according to the latest rumors, Ryan will be the GOP VP pick. I am so thrilled that I will get to watch a debate between the “Catholic” Biden and the “Catholic” Ryan. What we need to do as Catholics is to work to promote a third party featuring candidates who represent the totality of Catholic teaching, and withhold our votes from candidates like Biden, Ryan and the others. Lord, forgive us for our hubris.
Bishop Blaire is a walking contradiction. He criticizes Ryan yet can’t give specifics. He seems to have no clue about the economy. Bishop, food stamps don’t help the economy - stop listening to “Pope” Pelosi. She isn’t a doctor of the Church, she is a heretic.
His bias is shockingly apparent. What does Mr. Obama have to do to Catholics before we say ‘enough’? I guess if it’s Blaire, never say never.
Finally, I question any Catholic organization cooperating in this ‘Circle of Protection’. A sizable number of participating groups are openly pro-abortion. The Catholic Church doesn’t need them.
Joan Frawley Desmond did her best but…..Bishop Blaire ended up even contradicting himself, which only proves that he should stay in his chosen vocation. Rev Bishop please stay out of politics under the name of “social justice” or maybe all contributions generous Catholics make to their parishes and various charities will cease after supporting the ‘poor’ who frequently abuse their foodstamps and benefits. If you can’t present a better solution /bill than Senator Ryan please CEASE making statments representing the USCCB.
@MarcusT
Read your post again and notice the examples you used to describe what “liberal Catholics will squawk” about. Then read what you said about the issues that cause “conservative(Catholics to)raise holly hell.” The former issues are intrinsic evil sins that one would cause one to lose their salvation supporting. The latter issues are prudential judgment issues that are not sinful at all.
Unfortunately, Bishop Blaire is “applying” Democrat political values not values Jesus taught. Bishop Blaire has not even made the effort to discuss his concerns with Congressman Ryan about his budget proposal which would be the Christian thing to do before criticizing his budget.
MarcusT: I am assuming that you are saying that we Catholics should follow what the Bishops are telling us. Fine, I agree, but we still have to vote people in office and sometimes it has to be the lesser of two evils. If I had to choose between Pelosi and Ryan, I would vote for Ryan. He may not be perfect but a lot better in his beliefs than some in the Senate. He is not against the poor he believes in giving to the poor but not the “takers” [and there are many of them—including politicians} Pelosi pushes the Healthcare by saying she is for the poor and they all will have insurance. Not true, because if you are poor you would be able to afford the least amt.of insurance with little coverage. THE RICH WINS AGAIN ACCORDING TO HHC METHODS. We can either fight this or we can go along with our Catholic Religion and live our lives as the Bishops say and in the meantime, abortion, euthanasia, etc. will be made law for everyone. [and there is no better place in this world to move to]
Most of the posts here are wonderful examples of “cafeteria catholics”. When the Bishops make statements that line up more closely with the Republican Party (abortion, euthanasia, marriage), then many of the more liberal Catholics will squawk. Similarly, when the Bishops speak against war or in support of the poor, then many of the conservatives raise holy hell. I applaud Bishop Blaire and his brothers for being consistent to the message of Jesus. In this selfish and materialistic society, we do not need Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan; instead, we need the prophetic voices that consistently apply the values of Jesus to our lives. Thank you Bishop Blaire.
@sue. If you had read the whole of the section to which you allude in Acts, you would have seen that the members of the early Church were not “required” to turn over their lands or money. Please read what Peter says in Acts,5:4. Their sin was in lying, not in keeping the money
timely response
http://youtu.be/etCGP6eK5lQ
@Sue: Yes this is the 21st Century, so how can you compare it to sharing as they did in the time of Christ. [so many more people on earth] Communism and Socialism does not work, read about it in other countries. My Argentinian friend can tell you a lot abt. it and she would never go back there. As to prayer in school, all religions believe in a “God” with a different name, so they could do as we did at Hospice when we had a memorial for the dead, pray & use the word “God”. That way no religion was left out. Also remember that we have “prayer rooms” in colleges for the Islamic people and they pray several times a day. They are accomodated. As my old Capuchin priest said one day, even the Am. Indians who pray to “The Big Man In The Sky” is praying to God.
@sue
“As for ‘Communism’ being an appropriate government for Christians…well, let’s just remind ourselves that in the early church, ‘held ALL THINGS in common’”
Yes, and the first pilgrims did the same thing and a lot of them died that first winter. That was the end of that experiment. The pilgrims had to take care of themselves and out of their abundance they could help others. That’s the American way that has attracted people to come here from all over the world. But now the Democrat little dictator we have been stuck with is bankrupting us in his give aways to his buddies whose business just seem to fail one after another, and to his government union buddies. Oh well, what’s the use. You are a “true believer” in government and “believe” somehow those who think murdering babies is a good thing that should continued to be allowed really care for people especially the “poor” and truly want to help them. They care like Castro.
@sue
“As to something like ‘no prayer in public schools, I have pointed out repeatedly over the years, we are not, as some like to say, a Judeo-Christian country…and haven’t been for some time.”
We were at the time the court ruled on it. And were from the formation of our country.
Taking prayer out of schools has sure made us a better culture. Not.
@sue
“As for ‘the Democrats’ being reponsible for all those things you reference, some things you mention were Supreme Court decisions.”
And the Democrat Party is responsible for keeping those decisions in place.
@sue
“The ugly hate, anger and, yes, I think fear, displayed in the majority of posts here really bothers me…”
“As to judging the Christianity of anyone, I’d avoid that if I were you…judge not, condemn not I believe is the way Jesus put it.”
Hmmmm who is judging who?
This is not “the dusty roads of Palestine”...it’s the 21st century. Of course Jesus didn’t tell his disciples to “run to the government”...they were an occupied country (you know, those Romans). It has been proven repeatedly that individuals and private charities can only do so much, and that when economic times get rough, less money is donated to charities and the government MUST pick up the slack. As for “the Democrats” being reponsible for all those things you reference, some things you mention were Supreme Court decisions. As to something like “no prayer in public schools”, I have pointed out repeatedly over the years, we are not, as some like to say, a Judeo-Christian country…and haven’t been for some time. The reason there is no PUBLIC prayer in public school is because there is no one size fits all prayer…even though God is God, His faithful pray in myriad ways. It is, however, nonsensical to say, as many have, THEY took God out of the public schools…I think not. Anyone is free to pray anywhere and at any time and God listens…God CANNOT be fenced in or excluded. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII points repeatedly to the kind of government he envisions…a just government which guarantees that people have their basic needs met, and that if the person cannot achieve that by him/herself, it is government’s job to assist them. Telling people they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is not helpful when the person is barefoot. As for “Communism” being an appropriate government for Christians…well, let’s just remind ourselves that in the early church, “they held ALL THINGS in common” and Acts tells us that one of the first things the Apostles had to deal with was that, in the “daily distribution” of food, the Greeks felt that they were being neglected, so the apostles appointed seven men to make sure all the community was fed. On another occasion, Ananias and Sapphira sold their land but retained some of the money for themselves, contrary to the requirement for joining the early Christian community which was to turn in ALL your money…when Peter accused them of lying to God, they dropped dead. As to judging the Christianity of anyone, I’d avoid that if I were you…judge not, condemn not I believe is the way Jesus put it.
FaithfulMom and sue, please show us in the bible where Jesus said to get governments to do what he was telling his disciples and followers to do themselves.
Do you think anybody is earning rewards in heaven for supporting big government liberal, leftest welfare programs? If that was true then communism is the correct form of government for Christians. But all such governments turn anti God. Just look at what the Democrat Party is turning into: no prayer in public schools, no rights for the Catholic Church to restrict certain medical services for their employees, no right to life for the unborn resulting in the murder of 52,000,000 babies and still counting, no right to restrict marriage to being historically what it has always been, between men and women, no right for medical decisions to be made strictly between a patient and his or her doctor. The list goes on because of the Democrat president Catholics helped elect contrary to what those Catholics profess to believe and pray for in the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer in Mass on Sundays.
FaithfulMom and sue, please show me in the bible where Jesus ever taught his disciples and followers to go get government to do what he told them to do themselves.
If you think you are going to heaven or earning any spiritual rewards because you support liberal, leftest big government welfare programs, you are sadly misguided. If that was the case, then communism is the true Christian government. Let’s see we don’t have communism in our country but there is one political affiliation that is closest to communism in the U.S. - what’s that organization called? It’s the party that supports murdering babies in the womb - 52,000,000 and still counting; and they are the ones taking our health care decisions away from us and our doctors to give it to some 15 member political board that believes in medical rationing; oh yeah, the head of that organization is also in support of murdering babies who survived their abortion and recently told the Catholic Church it is going to have to provide medical stuff to their employees that will prevent or kill new life created by God, also that leader said he supports men marrying men and women marrying women and man marrying a man and a woman and vice versa. I think that organization is called the Democrat Party. Yeah, those Democrats are real good Christians.
God bless you “Sue (old) on Tuesday”! Thank you for your story and telling it like it is.
Sue. I don’t believe that Scripture is advocating breach of the 7th Commandment but is rather promoting individual voluntary charity. Don’t fall into the trap of those who preach with “words” rather than “actions.” You can go to EWTN.com and access Papal encyclicals. Following are references to various parts thereof that liberals/socialists, including some Clergy dupes, disregard. In justice, the laity is entitled to a balanced presentation that provides the authentic mind of Holy Mother Church, but left-wing clerics and theologians who criticize Sen. Ryan choose to ignore these: 4, 5,15 and 17 of Rerum Novarum; 48 of Centesimus annus; #2431 of Catechism of the Catholic Church; 47 of Caritas in Veritate and 79 of Quadragesimo anno. Don’t make decisions based on “feelings” rather than upon logic and objective truth. Ryan’s budgetary approach is an honest promotion of the “fundamental option for the poor” as opposed to feeding them bumper sticker slogans and rhetoric like Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” More than 4 trillion dollars have been spent on that war but nothing has changed except the burgeoning creation of government bureaucracies and buying of votes with false promises and inflammatory class warfare.
Sue, well said. As a Catholic (who attends mass faithfully and regularly says the rosary), I am ashamed to see the selfishness and self-centeredness of many of these posts. Jesus spoke of our responsibility to the poor and marginalized more than any other issue in the New Testament. To say that the poor will always be with us is not to vitiate our responsibility to them. Instead, it is to remind us of our constant duty to our neighbors. One-on-one support and acts of charity and mercy are critically important, but in our increasingly complex society, they cannot, alone, overcome the structure of cyclical poverty and injustice. Institutional assistance, in both immediate (food stamps, healthcare, shelter, etc.) and long-term (job training, education, a just tax system) ways are our responsibilities.
Jesus said,“Whatsoever you do to these, the least of My brothers and sisters, you do to Me.” Jesus said, “Woe to you rich…you have had your reward. Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus said,“If any person takes your cloak, offer him your tunic as well.” Jesus related a parable where the poor man Lazarus, who was so destitute that he would have settled for scraps, but never got any, goes to “the bosom of Abraham” while the RICH MAN is in Hell, lifting up his eyes in torment, for hoarding his riches and ignoring the plight of Lazarus. Jesus said,“It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle” than for a rich man to get into Heaven.” Had enough, or are you thirsty for more? The ugly hate, anger and, yes, I think fear, displayed in the majority of posts here really bothers me…and, in answer to someone’s suggestion, I have a serious prayer life, a spiritual director and I attend liturgy every morning…and I thank God daily that He allows me the privilege to serve my less fortunate brothers and sisters.
Oh, oh, Bishop Blair is really getting into trouble by all above. ;o) I agree with everything that the bloggers have said. This coming from an 85 yrs. old who was brought up by Ellis Island immigrants. They came to this country for a better life and ran into the Great Depression and then WWII. They got nothing from the government, yet was able to raise a family of six children. They worked and worked hard. Dad lost his business during the Depression and would work at any lowly job to put food on the table. They were Republicans and as Mom said “The Democrats want to give you a hand-out and keep you down. The Republicans want to give you a job and raise you up”. [Isn’t this emulating Jesus when he told the Apostles to throw in their nets for fish} Yes, there are some poor people and handicapped people who need extra help, but there also are so many who take advantage of what they can get from the government and on the other hand, the people in government also are on the take with all the extras they vote in for themselves. They all run for office to get wealthy, not to serve the people. Paul Ryan is right in that there is so much waste in this country, from the politicians and what the people get free. I have seen it with my own eyes. In my own town I have seen people getting free lunches and yet they lived well. I have known people who owned property and were paid by the Gov. now to farm it. They were not farmers, they had good jobs elsewhere. Graft goes on all over and no one stops it and it has gotten us into the mess we are in today and people like Ryan wants to do something about it. I think we should give him a try.
David Carlon epitomizes today’s liberal elite who, having no substantive ideas, engage in name-calling rather than participate in an honest discussion of issues. Your pomposity doesn’t cut it. Bishop Blaire falls short of your skillful sleight-of-tongue but is your equal when it comes to using words without saying anything. Like so many left-wing ideologues he apparently engages in cherry-picking from the ample well-balanced fruit of the applicable encyclicals. What’s so sad is that his approach to social justice and the fundamental option for the poor belies his protestations against solving problems “on the backs of the poor.” As Churchill might say, “Never has one man used so many words to say so little.”
Regarding defense expenses and war, the liberals have never seen a war that they wanted to win, most especially the vaunted War on Poverty. After spending in excess of Four Trillion dollars on that war, there has been no progress, unless you call destruction of the nuclear traditional family as an advancement. The liberals prefer having the quadrennial demagogical issue than to actually helping the poor, let alone ending poverty. Poverty is their bread and butter so to speak.
It cannot be said often enough that the USCCB and its members are largely responsible for the secularization of our society because of the equivocation and accommodation contained in their allegedly Faithful Citizenship documents. Even now as we are reaping the wild wind including Obama’s all out assault on the Church, the Bishops avoid discussing the much needed remedy available in the voting booth.
A properly instructed/motivated laity would stop voting for those politicians, i.e. Obama and faux Catholic Senators, who keep promoting and increasing intrinsic evils like abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Our Bishops need to clearly distinguish between intrinsic evils and budgetary issues amenable to differing prudential solutions (Note the “get out of Hell free card” in #35 of Faithful Citizenship.) Don’t let the political-style double talk employed by the USCCB in Faithful Citizenship mislead you.
Don’t take my word about Faithful Citizenship documents. Just Google Cardinal Raymond Burke and Faithful Citizenship.
The USCCB and individual Bishops need to promptly and publicly confess that their Faithful Citizenship (oxymoron) documents have misled Catholic voters, whether deliberately or inadvertently, and then follow the fine example of Catholic Answers by issuing a clear, concise, accurate, simple, unambiguous, unequivocal and faithfully Catholic Voters Guide well in advance of the election.
I’ll leave it to moral theologians to determine the degree of moral culpability of our Bishops for having skewed the Catholic vote toward Obama and other pro-intrinsic evil politicians. Bishops need to place adherence to and honest instruction on genuine Catholic teaching ahead of their left-wing partisan preferences.
It might be helpful for the USCCB to **listen** to faithful Catholics involved in various aspects of policy—and to listen to a broader array than Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Dick Durbin.
There are many educated Catholics on Capitol Hill whom the USCCB staff ignores (except for the small pro-life contingent). Perhaps Blaire, Hubbard, and others involved in policy areas could rent a room in the basement of the Dirksen Senate office building every three months or so and invite **all** Catholic staffers for a candid conversation. Having worked for years on Capitol Hill, I assure the bishops that such an overture would be revolutionary.
One question abides, regarding the political views of our bishops regarding issues on which good Catholics can disagree: do they carry the same magisterial weight as teachings which all faithful Catholics must embrace—like Humanae Vitae? Bishop Blaire seems to equivocate on that question. Isn’t it worth addressing candidly and directly?
To criticize Paul Ryan, then to punt as to specifics when asked in an interview, really is risible—and it just keeps getting better. More importantly, and sadly, the good bishop seems not to grasp that the collapse of the great religious orders dedicated to works of mercy (before they were degraded to social justice programs) and the failure of his brothers before him to preach the necessity of works of charity to be performed by all Catholics regardless of their station or means have led us to the sorry state in which bishops themselves rely upon Government funding to do the heavy lifting. Well. (As George Will would say). We can thank poor implementation of Vatican II for that. If in fact the preaching were better, the faithful were growing in interior life, and tax policies were not confiscatory, I daresay Catholics would do an awful lot more and without the need of the state to step in. But the American bishops really have cleaved to Americanism, and to alliance with the State, beginning at least since Cardinal Gibbon enthusiastically backed American entrance into the First World War (when he could have advocated neutrality while the Pope was calling for an end to the war), around the same time as the bishops called for national health insurance, and continuing with enthusiastic support for the New Deal and then for the Great Society. I doubt a priest becomes a bishop unless he is known to be deeply committed to the welfare state as the normal way and purpose of Government. Nor do they as a group seem to be particularly adept at encouraging those new congregations of holy brothers and sisters that are forming in order to live the works of mercy. They have Catholic Charities for that. And those nice Catholic politicians whose outrages they must bear lest they lose Government funding and maybe even favored tax status.
Earlier in my life I thought it right for Government to have some role in outreach and assistance to the needy, and I thought it right that the burden be borne by all in our society rather than by just believers, as might be the case if the Tea Party were to come to power and put an end to all social assistance. There is something unjust for the society not to address some of the problems our way of living and of winning poses for those who are not winning and, it appears, cannot win. I still think there is some role for Government because I still think it unjust that the duty of picking up the pieces fall solely on religious believers. But I grow increasingly concerned that for all the trillions—trillions—we as a society have invested in these programs, things are not better and in fact they are worse by almost every objective measure: lower rates of intact families, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, pandemic drug and alcohol abuse, high rates of incarceration for men, low levels of educational attainment, high rates of lifestyle diseases—heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, etc.—and the list goes on. No one bothers to step back and say that the programs fail those whom they are meant to serve; and the success stories—there are success stories—stand out by way of exception rather than of example. Ever hear a bishop or a social justice activist talk about without saying that we need more money?
So when a Bishop Blaire disses a guy like Paul Ryan, who really is trying to grapple with the problem in a fresh way—and whose only “crime” is to slow the rate of expansion of existing programs—it’s an act of mercy to chuckle at him.
So glad to see these thoughtful comments in response to the clouded mumblihood by His Excellency. He needs to go back to school.
Sorry, there are some times I simply have to tune out. I stopped reading when he said it is also necessary to cut the defense budget, as if that is where the money is. Any suggestions, Bishop? Care to name some specific weapon systems, base closures, cuts in military pay, reduction of armed forces (which will put more in unemployment)? Aid to Israel? No? Oh I forget, you don’t have to be specific. Too many of the bishops have been drinking the federal welfare expansion kool aid for thirty years or more, loving it, but are surprised when the beneficent Democrats, representative of all that they think is good in Catholic teaching turn on them with a mandate that actually goes directly at the heart of Church doctrine - - oh wait, sorry, those bishops haven’t focused on doctrine - - or at least the Church’s - - for quite some time. I give up. Blaire’s isn’t a responsible critique—its boiler-plate Democratic economic policy (let’s cut the military!) cloaked in the language of the gospel. I’d like to see this Bishop with the entire UCCB staff beside him, publicly debate Ryan on the question of budgets. Embarrassment in cassock and collar. No Democrat could show up at such a debate, of course, because they don’t HAVE a budget. Maybe the Bishop mentioned this, but I didn’t get that far.
I do believe our Lord and Savior said,’ My kingdom is not of this world.” Jesus also said “Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” He said to Judas, following the use of perfumes used on his feet. “The poor will always be with you.” Then when asking Peter if he (Peter) truly loved Him, Jesus response to Peter’s affirmative was “Feed my sheep.”
Now when a Bishop speaks to political opponents (and I mean opponents) because most Catholic bishops are most fully committed to the (socialist) Democrat Party, he (Bishop Blaire) should have all of these (and more) words of Jesus Christ floating in his head. In order to sustain these payments currently issued to the poor, a continued expansion of government must take place.
The Bishop plays into the hands of so many socialist positions, especially the Chinese Communist, and Russian Communist who want desperately to dismantle the US military. So the bishop would change our Lords words to “Do NOT give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give MORE (that what is possible) to God what belongs to God.
It is not the position of the Catholic Church to promote a “One World Government.” Nor is it moral for Catholic Bishops to break the back of working families so that the poor can survive on Food Stamps. We have many poor because the Government has closed and regulated the harvesting of the vineyard, coal mines, oil fields, which has increased the size of the poor. You will not hear of a single Bishop speak like this because his local so-called Catholic University would not be given funding from the Federal Government.
If Bishop Blaire was truly sincere about being a Catholic bishop, he should say to the Federal Government, “Get out of my College Campus, my Hospitals, my churches, and “Let my people go.”
But no, this bishop, is afraid that he will not get federal funding, Georgetown and Notre Dame will have to close it’s doors.
Apparently the “out-of-touch” thinking is not only in Washington DC, but is slowly made its way into the hierarchy of the US Church.
I also think that expecting the government to fix the “broken family” trend in order to fight poverty is not the Catholic way. Marriage (family) requires the presence of God. When people pushes God out, marriage lose 1 leg in the 3 leg stool that eventually lead to broken family. What ever happens to self reliance, to hard work as in St. Paul’s ” if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”? Should we Catholic citizens follow the model of St. Joseph the worker who labor hard for a living? Even St. Paul said “in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you”. I don’t think we should expect the government to do charity work, because it’s the responsibility of Christ followers to do that!!!
Michael Algarme well said. You make a lot more sense than this naive Bishop.
Does Bishop Blair realize he is practically alone on an island? Most Catholics who regularly attend Church are not taken in by the constant “need” for welfare and food stamps, etc. especially for illegal immigrants. Where does this Bishop think the money for food stamps come from - out of the blue sky? Apparently the Bishop does not believe in teaching a man how to fish so he can support himself with some pride. Apparently the Democrat Bishop’s idea is to just keep the poor downtrodden and always dependent on a hand out.
With naive and confused leadership like this, no wonder the Church is in such a sorry state.
Some final thoughts on the truly unfortunate way that Bishop Blaire’s criticisms of the Ryan Budget were developed. It is troubling that Bishop Blaire released his criticism publicly without first telephoning or sitting down and speaking Catholic to Catholic with Congressman Ryan. If you or I were to write letters etc. and publicly criticize another as advancing positions and policies antithetical to Catholic Social Doctrine would not we be morally bound to try to contact the person and clarify these issues first? Is this not the first rule of civil discourse? Instead we get “No. I did speak with him way back when, but not on this issue.” Secondly and more troubling is Bishop Blaire’s revelation of how he became involved with the “Circle of Protection” group in the first place. Bishop Blaire said that “About a year ago, we wanted to join with other religious groups to make sure that when BUDGET issues were addressed the voice of the poor was presented. We call this group the “Circle of Protection” — a group of churches — I’m not sure if they are all Christian ... but a group of religious leaders and social agencies that ... allows us to be more effective ... It’s designed to create a strong interfaith response.” It should be clearly noted that the “Circle of Protection” adopted and uses a name that comes unaltered from occult practices - (go ahead google it) - where you will find hundreds of hits documenting “Circle of Protection” spells. Moreover since the “Circle of Protection” does not list all members it is possible that Bishop Blaire may have inadvertently associated himself and the Church with something truly abhorrent. What is absolutely clear is that this group EXPLICITLY limits members to the “single issue politics” of addressing only BUDGET issues. Ok you say then the Obama Democrat BUDGET should also be open to criticism. The problem is that from the 1st day that Obama stepped into office the Democrat Party has never even presented let alone pass a BUDGET. So there NEVER can be and NEVER will be any criticism of a Democrat budget ... it does not exist! Finally Bishop Blaire please notice that “About a year ago” when you were contacted and were persuaded “to join with other religious groups” the Rev. Jim Wallis a very Political member of your group was telling the Nation on MSNBC’s Morning Joe about his visit to the White House and that your groups message originated with Obama in the White House! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wEetctiNGY Please Bishop Blaire; this Partisan Group is unworthy of you and the position of responsibility your hold. Please Bishop Blaire resign from the “Circle of Protection”. Please this is a terribly flawed way to arrive at and present the “Official” position of the USCCB Bishops. The issues your are trying to protect and advance deserve an untainted forum. I am sure that if you contacted Congressman Ryan personally that a proper forum that would serve to advance these topics could be arranged. May God bless you in your efforts.
Note to Bishop Blair:
It’s about time you and your compatriots at the USCCB get out of the business of economics and politics and get into the business of teaching the faith to your flock. If you would focus on developing devout Catholics who adopt a robust daily prayer life and follow the teachings of the Church, you would discover that those same Catholics would help the poor by practicing the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. When’s the last time you encouraged the Catholics in your diocese to pray the daily rosary or to start attending daily Mass?
The massive growth of the food stamp program under the Obama administration is destructive and unsustainable. Get your head out of the sand and wake up to reality! You and your fellow Bishops are no match for the serpents that populate Washington, DC. Stay out of politics and stick to what you were called to do – nurture and mentor your flock to perfection and sainthood.
Most of the comments have already said what I was going to try to say, but I don’t have the gift that these others have, but, I am very concerned about so many of his sheep that are on the way into hell with their birth-control, abortions and homosexual activities, many of which are being promoted in some of his ‘catholic schools and churches’. David Carlon, just where did you get your education from, Lenin, Stalin or Marx? You sound so much like Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein, Biden all put together. You are right in saying that it is not ‘catholic’ scope or vision, but, you forgot to say: American catholic, which is far different then the Roman Catholic Church as the Pope is in Rome and the American ‘catholic’ pope (Ted Kennedy) is in the ground. +JMJ+
“In my observation there has been a failure on the part of Pastors, Catholic, and Protestant alike to engender a sense of personal responsibility in the people. Rather, in my observation, there is a sense of entitlement amongst many “poor.” “
Our welfare system is indeed broken and abused, with the truly poor who will suffer from any backlash or when the deficits forces deeper cuts.
My wife works as a lunch room monitor at our local elementary school and there is a sizeable population of students who qualify for a free lunch. My wife observes that at least 30% of the food, maybe as much as 50%, end up in the trash.
What kind of citizens and neighbors will these children be in the future?
There is more abuse in the system, but no need to go on. The politicians who push these programs do so for their own benefit and political power, plus corporate agriculture and the food processing industry benefit profit-wsie from the gov’t largess.
Throughout the interview I couldn’t help but think of the disconnect Bishop Blair has with average American, let alone, Catholics - at least, this Catholic. I would think he would have been more concerned for the souls of American Catholics than the condition of the poor (believers and non-believers) who Jesus said we will always have with us. Over half of the Catholic clergy registered to vote are registered in the Democrat, pro-abortion party, and that includes bishops as well. I know, I checked with the Registrar of Voters here is Orange County, CA - the most Republican county in CA. And over 54% of Catholics who voted in the last Presidential election voted for the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide president ever. When the bishops and clergy don’t have enough common sense to not give their name identification and votes to the pro-abortion party, and haven’t properly influenced the consciences formation of Catholics, then why should I pay any attention to them about something as complicated as our federal budget? I bet Bishop Blair didn’t even read Ryan’s budget. I’m still waiting for a bishop to show me where in the bible Jesus taught his disciples to go get government to take care of the poor. But am glad to be able to report that my bishop finally has acquired something he has been wanting for the poor ever since he came here well over a decade ago - a “new” cathedral - he bought Rev. Schuller’s Chrystal Cathedral (the one on TV Sundays) recently for a little over $50,000,000. I’m sure that delights Bishop Blair and the rest of the USCCB, and the poor of OC.
Except for the first post, I’m in agreement with the comments expressed by every writer here about Bishop Blair’s statements in this interview. Hats off to the interviewer and NCR for publishing the article.
Bishop Blair, how much harm would it do to the “poor” in this country if we end up like Greece?
Bishop Blair, why do you think that raising taxes will increase revenue to the treasury? Are you so uneducated on economic matters that you failed to see the universal economic collapse of socialist states?
Bishop Blair, maybe if you practiced what you preached I could take you more seriously. Set the example for me, sell your mansion, sell the diocesan property, liquidate your investments and feed the poor. After all, that is what the Lord commanded. Sell all you have and give it to the poor and come follow me. But you will say that it would be imprudent to do that… and I presume that I could follow your example and say that your diocesan budget was immoral.
This could be a real teaching moment for everyone. In the Middle Ages serious questions were debated dispassionately, following the “rules of evidence”. For example no Ad Hominem attacks etc. but with charity. The goal was simply the pursuit of the truth. This great gift of the Church has too long been neglected. What a service to America and to the Church it would be to have Congressman Ryan debate any one of these Georgetown Jesuits in this classical style. Let Bishop Blaire be the moderator. Let the debate go on for a full week if necessary and let the entire debate be posted to YouTube. The last time something like this was done here in America was the Lincoln - Douglas debate over slavery. The issues involved deserve this kind of Catholic approach.
He talks like a Communist, Liberation Theology? Poor, poor, poor.. Why do not you focus more on evangelism rather than social justice?
“The preferential option for the poor doesn’t mean handouts…”
It seems like the bishop doesn’t know what a food stamp actually is. In fact, it is the very definition of a handout. If, as he says, “The more food stamps are utilized, the more that money goes into the local economy,” why don’t we print enough for us all to go the grocery store for free? In fact, let’s just print enough money for all of us to stay home and get everything for free.
These bishops have some nerve to pretend to be economists. They’ve emptied their own pews with their dereliction, and now they want to force other citizens through the strong arm of government to accomplish the spiritual and corporal works of mercy they can no longer afford.
We live in a nation where our poorest of our poor are some of the most fortunate “poor” of the world. Our problem is not physical hunger, but spiritual bankruptcy. You can’t tell the behaviors of a Catholic from any other citizen when it comes to the severe moral crises of our time, such as having abortions, divorce, contraception, cohabitation, approving euthanasia, validating gay marriage… you name it. We need our bishops to be spiritual giants, not bad economists.
Food stamps are not Christian charity. They are slavery.
When are the bishops in the US going to stop equating government redistribution of wealth with helping the poor?
Your Execellency, with all due respect, there are some areas wherein I disagree. This story reminds me of something a formal Pastoral Administrator I know wrote. Father wrote that in a previous Parish where he was assigned, a poor man came to the rectory office hungry and begging. The Rectory staff and Father went into the kitchen and fixed the man a sandwich. Once the man had the sandwich in hand, he proceeded to walk to the trash can, and throw out the lettuce, tomatoes, and other parts of the sandwich he didn’t like. In my observation there has been a failure on the part of Pastors, Catholic, and Protestant alike to engender a sense of personal responsibility in the people. Rather, in my observation, there is a sense of entitlement amongst many “poor.” I have been at the grocery store check out aisle many a time with my own hard earned money, only to be delayed by a “poor” person arguing with the cashier about why they cannot purchase alcohol or tobacco with their “food stamp” cards. Then if you look in the news in my state, CA, there was a scandal where it was discovered that CA cash assistance ATM like cards were being cashed at casinos in Las Vegas, NV. There are stories of ILLEGAL immigrants marching in our streets. On May 1 2006, I saw the effect of the “Day Without Immigrants.” The restaurant I liked to eat at was shut down because the staff was out that day demonstrating. The bizarre part of that moment was that that the restaurant owner was a Korean immigrant employing Latino immigrants. It was the Latino Immigrants who cost this hard working woman and immigrant a lot of money that day and I suffered a “food shortage.” Is this the voice of the poor you wish to project and protect, Your Excellency? I should hope not! How many Priests in the Diocese of Orange where I live or Archdiocese of Los Angeles nearby participated in these demonstrations? You critique cutting programs for “children of immigrants.” Your Excellency, you left out a key word, “ILLEGAL.” You wish the responsibility and help at the most local level possible? How about the responsibility of the parents of these children not to break the law? How about the responsibility of these parents not to take their children here, or bring them along when they get caught and have to leave? Perhaps you should reach out to the Bishops in Latin America and ask them to better teach the immorality of this behavior. With all due respect, your Excellency, I wish your statements would be more “measured” and much better thought out.
Well enunciated.
Balancing the budget cuts on the backs of the poor and neglecting cutting the military? Baloney is the only polite response possible. The military needs to be cut, and has, by $400B and faces another $400-500B more. Take off the blinders Bishop, take off the Democrat party-tinted glasses, and get REAL. You and your ilk are confused and cause roadblocks to any reasonable solution. Yes, the Catholic Church, in accordance with our Lord’s example and exhortation, stands with the poor as a preferential option. But, the ship of state is sinking: we need all hands at the bailing buckets! Your “criticism” without a practical alternative solution is UNWELCOME and a sad distraction.
Sign me: a Catholic without a party (they are both terribly flawed) and without much confidence in the leadership ability of many Bishops…
It would be nice if he had been asked point blank whether he considers his economic views, for example his opinion about the effects of raising taxes, to be Catholic doctrine.
Bishop Blaire needs to study history more carefully, to realize that government interference [and what else can it be called?] in helping the poor has more often than not had terrible results. It would not be completely wrong to say that the War on Poverty increased poverty; and led to the destruction of the family among the poor.
It is a curious thing that a Catholic bishop does not call for more personal action and involvement by Catholics. It is the clear duty of Catholics, as it is for all religious groups, to work to aid the poor and needy. It is not the duty of the government. To demand government interference is a moral cop out. Who is the government? The “government” is not a moral person.
The bottom line is the bishop does not have to raise a family and be taxed to death to “feed the hungry”. The greatest problem with the poor is obesity, excess caloric intake. While one may critique the quality of the food, it is clear that starvation or lack of adequate energy intake is not a problem. Further, the gigantic unending feeding and maintainable of the gigantic government bureaucracy is not sustainable. The government over-spends a minimum of 30 to 40 percent as evidenced by the fact that they are borrowing as much and providing a form of slavery for Americans in the form of an IOU to the nations creditors. There is no Utopia and the bishop should understand that. Socialism is and remains a failed experiment, only charitable giving via people who are allowed to keep their own income will solve the problem. My house needs a paint job, my decks need maintaince, my cars need replacement. All of which could be handily paid for by cutting my school taxes in half, which would free me to give more to charity and even assist my children. The church must be freed from the vampire-like taxes and the hypocrisy of sensitive liberal elites who foist them on servitude for the state. I am afraid bishop that Henry VIII model of secular states does not work no matter the level of taxes. Additionally, the level of thievery of charitable services from the state is gigantic and growing because the morally bankrupt society is approaching collapse because of the rampant moral failurures of leaders and institutions. The government should facilitate private charity only and get out of the bread and circuses business. I can imagine no clearer example of the dangers of government than the current persecution of the church by the Obama administration. How any prelate can can desire involvement of the state in the lives of people given the current tyranny is beyond me. I do believe the state has a definite roll to play in helping the poor and that role is to encourage private citizens to do their duty and to equip them with sufficient freedom to do so. That freedom means limited government so that individuals and groups are free to organize and act and to be in true solidarity with others as opposed to know-it-all all-powerful government bureaucrats inflicting mandates on people and institutions. While early attempts at progressive reform and increase in government services may, in the early stages seem helpful, it should be crystal clear to all Americans that when the state cannot be trusted with the most basic rights of life, how can they be trusted with charity? It is a false hope to expect Hitler to feed the Jews and it is a false hope to expect a government such as ours to behave benignly let alone with altruism. Open your eyes bishop, lower budgets are less power for the monster-state that is currently seeking to put the screws to the church. We need to embrace a new paradigm, America in the hands of radical secularists or in fact cultural communists, or perhaps nature worhipers. Any way you look at it, it makes no sense to pretend the moral state of the union is the same as 1950, and it was not so hit then, being a few years after some rather great failures of morality in war. The only hope we have IS subsidiarity of control and the freedom and responsibility to do it. Today we have neither. The state is the church and its taxes are the tythe of the secularist. Their religious education takes place in the indoctrination centers paid for with school taxes using courses, values and methodologies that subvert the values in the home and steal the rights of parents to educate their children in many cases. God bless those fighting the good fight. They just might keep you out of jail bishop. They just might let the Catholics keep the institutions they built with billions of dollars and lots lof effort. They might save Carholic hospitals from being forcibly sold for 10 cents on the dollar. Henry wants his friends to have that church property - he is always lurking about.
What an unappealing jumble of waffling, backtracking, and ill-informed bafflegab.
Stick to the overarching principles, your Excellency, and leave arguments over the details to the prudential judgment of politicians of good will.
Ryan is an acolyte of the social Darwinist economic theories of the Jewish atheist Ayn Rand… his budget proposal is not Catholic in scope and spirit. Ryan’s puppet masters are the jaded princes and gods of a corrupt plutocracy / oligarchy who have an insatiable lust for money and power… with a loathing of the holy and good that stands in their way of a subtle yet total velvet putsch of the American government.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.