PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama vs the Catholic Church


HonestChieffan
01-20-2012, 04:10 PM
The Church operates Hospitals all over the US and provide tremendous he alt care options in small towns through clinics associated with their hospitals. This issue has been building ever since ObamaCare was passed.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-bishops-vow-to-fight-hhs-edict-137778108.html

WASHINGTON—The Catholic Bishops of the United States called “literally unconscionable” a decision by the Obama Administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans. Today’s announcement means that this mandate and its very narrow exemption will not change at all; instead there will only be a delay in enforcement against some employers.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”

The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.

At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” he said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 04:33 PM
Sue all the way up to the SC. He is trashing the Constitution far worse than Bush.

alnorth
01-20-2012, 04:39 PM
Just based on that story without more information, it would appear that the guy from this catholic hospital who is bitching about this HHS rule is very, very confused.

The story is saying that these services have to be covered in health care plans. It says nothing about the hospital having to provide it. If they were somehow required to provide that service (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), this story (perhaps deceptively and conveniently) fails to say so.

I'm reading this as the government telling insurers they must pay for those procedures. Those procedures are not life or death emergency medicine, so I'd think the hospital is perfectly within their rights to say "sorry, we do not offer those services."

Sort of like if your insurer is required to cover a heart transplant and you go to your health clinic, the health clinic is going to say that is way above their pay grade, they don't offer that service, go to one of the state's biggest surgical hospitals.

HonestChieffan
01-20-2012, 04:47 PM
Just based on that story without more information, it would appear that the guy from this catholic hospital who is bitching about this HHS rule is very, very confused.

The story is saying that these services have to be covered in health care plans. It says nothing about the hospital having to provide it. If they were somehow required to provide that service (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), this story (perhaps deceptively and conveniently) fails to say so.

I'm reading this as the government telling insurers they must pay for those procedures. Those procedures are not life or death emergency medicine, so I'd think the hospital is perfectly within their rights to say "sorry, we do not offer those services."

Sort of like if your insurer is required to cover a heart transplant and you go to your health clinic, the health clinic is going to say that is way above their pay grade, they don't offer that service, go to one of the state's biggest surgical hospitals.

Are you affiliated with a hospital or have understanding that would be better than the Catholic Bishops who oversee there hospital system?

alnorth
01-20-2012, 04:54 PM
OK, just read a bit more on other stories. This issue is very, very small impacting very few people, with even fewer people among that group complaining about it.

It is about just the insurance coverage, not hospitals having to offer contraception. Under Obamacare, apparently all health insurance plans will need to cover contraception services with no copay or deductible. Religions objected, so they were given an exemption. Religions do not have to give their ministers and employees working directly for the religion any contraceptive coverage.

Some religious-affiliated schools and hospitals then asked about it, and the HHS said no, you aren't a religion, you are a school or hospital. You must give the teachers, nurses, etc who work for you contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.

OK, fine. exempt them, dont exempt them, I don't care.

If their employees were truly faithful members of that religion (and that is not necessarily the case, this is not the religion, just an affiliate, they could have people from other religions working for them), then they shouldn't be using that coverage. Though it could go either way in court, the legal argument is not particularly interesting either, since it wont make much of a precedent for anything. This is a stupid non-issue.

alnorth
01-20-2012, 04:55 PM
Are you affiliated with a hospital or have understanding that would be better than the Catholic Bishops who oversee there hospital system?

no, I misunderstood the story. (though the story wasn't clear) I thought this guy was complaining that the hospital would be forced to offer contraceptive services to the public.

Backwards Masking
01-20-2012, 05:02 PM
my Grandparents (lifelong Catholic Republicans that watch Fox News at least 8 hours a day) told me over Christmas that they believe the Catholic Church is starting to become FAR too Liberal for their tastes.

I was too speechless to respond.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Just based on that story without more information, it would appear that the guy from this catholic hospital who is bitching about this HHS rule is very, very confused.

The story is saying that these services have to be covered in health care plans. It says nothing about the hospital having to provide it. If they were somehow required to provide that service (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), this story (perhaps deceptively and conveniently) fails to say so.

I'm reading this as the government telling insurers they must pay for those procedures. Those procedures are not life or death emergency medicine, so I'd think the hospital is perfectly within their rights to say "sorry, we do not offer those services."

Sort of like if your insurer is required to cover a heart transplant and you go to your health clinic, the health clinic is going to say that is way above their pay grade, they don't offer that service, go to one of the state's biggest surgical hospitals.

Well then, Obama is placing on more and more mandates on top of the over 2000 that were added over the years which will drive up the cost of health care. So much for his using the word "affordability" in his health care bill. So it's still Constitutionally questionable and is fascism.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 05:06 PM
my Grandparents (lifelong Catholic Republicans that watch Fox News at least 8 hours a day) told me over Christmas that they believe the Catholic Church is starting to become FAR too Liberal for their tastes.

I was too speechless to respond.
Yeah, I agree.

Like the Pope coming out calling for socialism using paraphrasing and world govt?
They sound more like the liberation theologists they've condemned in the past.

Thank God, they don't have to obey them on economic issues because the Pope isn't speaking on faith and morals ex Cathedra.

HonestChieffan
01-20-2012, 05:07 PM
More information....For these hospitals this will simply not happen. Many will close before doing this

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8502-catholic-hospitals-pro-lifers-object-to-hhs-birth-control-mandate

alnorth
01-20-2012, 05:09 PM
Well then, Obama is placing on more and more mandates on top of the over 2000 that were added over the years which will drive up the cost of health care. So much for his using the word "affordability" in his health care bill. So it's still Constitutionally questionable and is fascism.

The broader argument of "this coverage shouldn't exist" is outside the scope of this story, though. The question here is "ok, given this coverage is required (and presuming its legal, if Obamacare gets struck down later this year, this issue becomes moot), and given that religions are exempted, should schools and hospitals affiliated with the religion also be exempted?"

My answer: I don't care.

Backwards Masking
01-20-2012, 05:12 PM
Yeah, I agree.

Like the Pope coming out calling for socialism using paraphrasing and world govt?
They sound more like the liberation theologists they've condemned in the past.

Thank God, they don't have to obey them on economic issues because the Pope isn't speaking on faith and morals ex Cathedra.

they were complaining it was becoming too socially liberal as well, but yeah, mainly it was their new economic stance they were disgruntled about. thankfully one of my cousins distracted them and i was able to get away before becoming too involved.

alnorth
01-20-2012, 05:18 PM
If I was the HHS secretary, my initial reaction would be "really? You are wasting my time with this? OK fine, I guess its my job, lets do this."

"Is the president demanding that I exempt or not exempt? No, he's leaving it up to me? OK. Who is demanding no exemption? Just a few employees of some of these schools and hospitals? Most of the employees are unaware or don't care either way? OK, who is demanding the exemption? Several schools and hospitals? Fine, exemption granted. If the employees don't like it, they can sue my office, it'll give the DOJ something else to do with their spare time"

La literatura
01-20-2012, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I agree.

Like the Pope coming out calling for socialism using paraphrasing and world govt?
They sound more like the liberation theologists they've condemned in the past.

Thank God, they don't have to obey them on economic issues because the Pope isn't speaking on faith and morals ex Cathedra.

It's true that the encyclical does not need be ex cathedra, but that doesn't mean they don't speak on faith and morals.

Also, the Pope never called for socialism and world government in his latest encyclical. It's obvious you didn't read the document, which is quite long, but you relied on someone else's (some media outlet) mistaken interpretation.

The Pope clearly talks about the call for world government, and entertains the possibility that there will be one with more authority than the United Nations.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 05:43 PM
The broader argument of "this coverage shouldn't exist" is outside the scope of this story, though.

Yeah, I know but I wanted to add how this sort of thing drives up costs.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 05:48 PM
It's true that the encyclical does not need be ex cathedra, but that doesn't mean they don't speak on faith and morals.

Also, the Pope never called for socialism and world government in his latest encyclical. It's obvious you didn't read the document, which is quite long, but you relied on someone else's (some media outlet) mistaken interpretation.

The Pope clearly talks about the call for world government, and entertains the possibility that there will be one with more authority than the United Nations.

Yes I did read it and went to the Vatican's website. Just because he doesn't use the word "socialism" doesn't mean that he wasn't advocating that. It's coated in euphemism for it. I hear this all the time from people on this board and elsewhere—well it's not socialism. If it's aimed toward economic equality without an emphasis on free-market upward mobility then it's in that camp. It's just economic ignorance. Sorry that's what I got from it even if I don't recall every word.

As for the ex cathedra part, this is economics so Catholics need not to be compelled to follow or support this, nor is the Pope infallible on this subject. He is mixing the ecclesiastical with economics.

The world govt part is disgusting though. That's what the Tower of Babel was about: diversity of language was to frustrate man's attempt for a unified humanity setting itself up as a god over all. Heresy and anti-Catholic. The place is infiltrated with leftists imo.

otherstar
01-20-2012, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I agree.

Like the Pope coming out calling for socialism using paraphrasing and world govt?
They sound more like the liberation theologists they've condemned in the past.

Thank God, they don't have to obey them on economic issues because the Pope isn't speaking on faith and morals ex Cathedra.

Have you read much official Church teaching?

Pope Benedict has said nothing that hasn't been said by Popes going all the way back to Pope Leo XIII in the 19th Century.. Blessed Pope John Paul II often decried UNRESTRAINED capitalism AND socialism. Go read the actual documents and don't rely on biased interpretations from journalists about what the Church or the Pope teaches.

The Church is not against capitalism, per se, but warns against exactly what has happened in today's economy in which the culture of greed becomes pervasive (i.e. unrestrained capitalism at expense of the poor, and the middle classes). The Church is opposed to outright socialism because it opposed to the dignity of the person because it strips them of too many rights inherent in human dignity. The distinctions are subtle, but they are there and all too often journalists miss them (or deliberately obfuscate them) for the sake of a "story."

BTW, good Catholics are obliged to endeavor to form their consciences in light of the teachings of the Church.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:11 PM
Have you read much official Church teaching?

Did you read my above post?

I was raised Catholic btw. And I know free-market capitalists that are devout Catholics who know official Church teaching better than I, including Canon Law and the Bible.

Pope Benedict has said nothing that hasn't been said by Popes going all the way back to Pope Leo XIII in the 19th Century.. Blessed Pope John Paul II often decried UNRESTRAINED capitalism AND socialism. Go read the actual documents and don't rely on biased interpretations from journalists about what the Church or the Pope teaches.

The Church is not against capitalism, per se, but warns against exactly what has happened in today's economy in which the culture of greed becomes pervasive (i.e. unrestrained capitalism at expense of the poor, and the middle classes). The Church is opposed to outright socialism because it opposed to the dignity of the person because it strips them of too many rights inherent in human dignity. The distinctions are subtle, but they are there and all too often journalists miss them (or deliberately obfuscate them) for the sake of a "story."

BTW, good Catholics are obliged to endeavor to form their consciences in light of the teachings of the Church.
Being against unrestrained capitalism is what all collectivists do. When I see managed economics that tells me all I need to know. That's code for "central planning." Furthermore, it wasn't unrestrained capitalism that put us in our current mess. It was a managed economy or corporatism. The RCC is ignorant on economics. If they weren't they wouldn't be calling on a world govt to manage a global economy —exactly what international socialists want and what Gorbachev was also calling for recently. Funny how they came out around the same time. Gorby is a man that has never renounced socialism. The only difference is that this is going to be a hybrid known as market-socialism or Third Way socialism without calling it socialism. It's still a system that benefits the elite political classes and not the grass roots. It is tyranny. We will all be poorer, re-distributed with less up-ward mobility.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:14 PM
Sorry that what I got from it even if I don't recall every word.

Okay, that might be what you got from it, but it's not what people who carefully read the encyclical got, it's not what the Pope intended to give, and it's not what any serious and important Catholic theologians got from it either. So your interpretation might be unwarranted.

As for the ex cathedra part, this is economics so Catholics need to be compelled to follow or support this,nor is the Pope infallible on this subject.

Right, nobody is saying that the encyclical was a command. The Pope never intended it to be a demand nor gave it that language. But Catholics probably can't in good faith dismiss it as trash simply because it doesn't agree with their political ideology. I understand that you're no longer a Catholic, and you are happy to trash the encyclical like other non-Catholics trash the encyclical promoting the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life and sexuality.

And just because it's economics (yes, there are economics involved) doesn't mean the encyclical is not steeped in Catholic theology on faith and morality. Of course, you would know this if you read it.

The world govt part is disgusting though. That's what the Tower of Babel was about: diversity of language was to frustrate mans attempt for a unified humanity setting itself up as a god over all. Heresy and anti-Catholic. The place is infiltrated with leftists imo.

Remember, the Pope did not call for a world government. Rather, he recognizes the possibility that there could be a world government. And if there becomes a world government, he calls for certain principles that must control such an entity.

He's not a leftist. He might not endorse Ron Paul, but that doesn't mean he's a leftist.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:15 PM
That's what other Catholics, and others, who know economics think though.

World authority or world govt makes no difference to me. Authority = power to regulate and manage us. Tyranny. Gross. Disgusting. Something the anti-Christ could support.

otherstar
01-20-2012, 06:19 PM
Did you read my above post?



I was typing my post (and being interrupted by my 7 year old a few times) while you were typing your reply so I didn't read it until after I posted.


Being against unrestrained capitalism is what all collectivists do. When I see managed economics that tells me all I need to know. That's code for "central planning." Furthermore, it wasn't unrestrained capitalism that put us in our current mess. It was a managed economy or corporatism. The RCC is ignorant on economics. If they weren't they wouldn't be calling on a world govt to manage a global economy —exactly what international socialists want and what Gorbachev was also calling for. Gorby is a man that has never renounced socialism. The only different is that this is going to be a hybrid known as market-socialism or Third Way socialism without calling it socialism. It's still a system that benefits the elite political classes and not the grass roots. It is tyranny.

How are unrestrained capitalism and corporatism different? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I really do not see the difference here.

otherstar
01-20-2012, 06:25 PM
To quote Pope Benedict from Deus est Caritas (God is Love), no. 28:

"We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity*, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need." (*subsidiarity is the principle that that one should not take from individuals and give to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and/or industry--hardly a socialist idea if you ask me)

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:25 PM
Did you read my above post?

I was raised Catholic btw. And I know free-market capitalists that are devout Catholics who know official Church teaching better than I, including Canon Law and the Bible.

You may have been raised Catholic. That doesn't mean you understand or were even taught Catholic teachings.

The RCC is ignorant on economics. If they weren't they wouldn't be calling on a world govt to manage a global economy —exactly what international socialists want and what Gorbachev was also calling for recently.

The Catholic Church did not call for a world govt to manage a global economy. The Pope indicated that there was a need for a world political authority to help manage the world economy. Basically, the Pope said there was a need for a stronger, more democratic United Nations.

It's too idealistic, in my opinion. I don't think it would work. But I recognize that the Pope isn't calling for a world government that controls everything.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:27 PM
That's what other Catholics, and others, who know economics think though.

World authority or world govt makes no difference to me. Authority = power to regulate and manage us. Tyranny. Gross. Disgusting. Something the anti-Christ could support.

Okay, so the Pope is like the anti-Christ. I haven't heard that one before!

World authority is basically international law. Law regulates and manages, in order to prevent tyranny. That's the entire point of law. International law has been around for centuries. So has the Catholic Church. Apparently, the latter is quite comfortable with the former.

mnchiefsguy
01-20-2012, 06:30 PM
You may have been raised Catholic. That doesn't mean you understand or were even taught Catholic teachings.



The Catholic Church did not call for a world govt to manage a global economy. The Pope indicated that there was a need for a world political authority to help manage the world economy. Basically, the Pope said there was a need for a stronger, more democratic United Nations.

It's too idealistic, in my opinion. I don't think it would work. But I recognize that the Pope isn't calling for a world government that controls everything.

If the Pope said what is in bold, that is calling for a world government. And if the Pope called for a world government, the Catholic Church called for a world government, as the Pope is the voice of the church.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:37 PM
If the Pope said what is in bold, that is calling for a world government. And if the Pope called for a world government, the Catholic Church called for a world government, as the Pope is the voice of the church.

It's not really a call for a world government, though. Rather, the Pope laid out an idealistic framework for a system along the lines of the United Nation's economic arms and international law. Here's part of the controversial paragraph:

"Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]."

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:38 PM
If the Pope said what is in bold, that is calling for a world government. And if the Pope called for a world government, the Catholic Church called for a world government, as the Pope is the voice of the church.

And when it calls for something more democratic it's code for socialism. In this case world socialism aka communism.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." ~ Karl Marx

For the "people" who uses that term all the time?

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:41 PM
I was typing my post (and being interrupted by my 7 year old a few times) while you were typing your reply so I didn't read it until after I posted.



How are unrestrained capitalism and corporatism different? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I really do not see the difference here.

Corporatism is not capitalism. By that I mean free-market laissez-faire which is what capitalism is.
Corporatism is the same camp as cartel-capitalism, mercantilism and fascism. None of those are free-enterprise based economics. Not if you really study it, which I have. THAT is what caused our economic crisis. The Catholic church and the Pope should stay out of economics because it doesn't know what it is talking about and it's not religion. They should stick to charity and volunteerism.


"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." John Maynard Keynes.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.” ~ Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution

This is a big part of what's been going on plus corporate and individual welfare ( socialism ). The left favors individual welfare; the right corporate welfare.

dmahurin
01-20-2012, 06:45 PM
Okay, so the Pope is like the anti-Christ. I haven't heard that one before!

World authority is basically international law. Law regulates and manages, in order to prevent tyranny.That's the entire point of law. International law has been around for centuries. So has the Catholic Church. Apparently, the latter is quite comfortable with the former.

tyr·an·ny Noun
1. Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
2. A nation under such cruel and oppressive government

mnchiefsguy
01-20-2012, 06:48 PM
It's not really a call for a world government, though. Rather, the Pope laid out an idealistic framework for a system along the lines of the United Nation's economic arms and international law. Here's part of the controversial paragraph:

"Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]."


Sure sounds like world government to me...and the bolded part implies the ability to use force. This is clearly something America should avoid. We give too much money and power to the United Nations as it is.

whoman69
01-20-2012, 06:49 PM
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-bishops-vow-to-fight-hhs-edict-137778108.html

WASHINGTON— The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.



Hyperbole much? Who said it needed to be prevented at all costs. Perhaps the Catholic church should stop acting as though every sperm is sacred. Its rampantly irresponsible to pretend everyone should be saints and that birth control is not a needed service in a world of 7 billion people.

http://www.eyeonsoaps.com/images/python1.jpg

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:50 PM
Literature you haven't studied how it's concentrated power by the few or govt that leads to tyranny. De-centralized power keeps us safer. That way if there is any injustice it's kept to a smaller area.

If a rotten apple gets to the top of a system where too much power is centralized at the top greater damage can be done, but also there is no way to escape it because it's global. Hitler is a good example of that as well as other totalitarian systems. What did he do—he consolidated power and began then to rule by decree. Same with Allende and the Soviets. It's anti-liberty for the RCC to call for such a measure.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:51 PM
Hyperbole much? Who said it needed to be prevented at all costs. Perhaps the Catholic church should stop acting as though every sperm is sacred. Its rampantly irresponsible to pretend everyone should be saints and that birth control is not a needed service in a world of 7 billion people.


People are free to believe how they want in this country including the Catholic Church. It doesn't harm you for them to believe any of that. However, calling for a global economic authority does affect all of us. That's what they need to stay out of.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:53 PM
The Catholic church and the Pope should stay out of economics because it doesn't know what it is talking about and it's not religion. They should stick to charity and volunteerism.

This is seriously demented. The Catholic Church shouldn't comment on economics? But let me guess, you should comment on it. One thing about economics and government is how they are so structured by social values and human morality. It's completely silly to argue that the Catholic Church's opinion is so disfigured that they should stay completely out of discussions of the world economy.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 06:54 PM
tyr·an·ny Noun
1. Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
2. A nation under such cruel and oppressive government

Okay. I'm not sure what your point is. Not all law is cruel and oppressive.

mnchiefsguy
01-20-2012, 06:54 PM
This is seriously demented. The Catholic Church shouldn't comment on economics? But let me guess, you should comment on it. One thing about economics and government is how they are so structured by social values and human morality. It's completely silly to argue that the Catholic Church's opinion is so disfigured that they should stay completely out of discussions of the world economy.

Discussing the world economy is one thing....advocating a world government is another.

dmahurin
01-20-2012, 06:57 PM
Okay. I'm not sure what your point is. Not all law is cruel and oppressive.

Every law is oppressive by nature. You can't enforce law without oppression/force.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 06:58 PM
Yes the RCC should stay out of economics because it's ignorant on the subject. It, however, has every right to teach to it's people about good works and charity as one of their own social values but not recommend the use of force to harm others for what they see as more noble. ( especially when it isn't). Others, including economically knowledgeable Catholics, such as Tom Woods, feel the same way. As my family's friend who is very devout and knowledgeable on Catholicism, Canon Law, Church history, the Catholic Bible who is active in the RCC and follows his faith strictly tells me, he doesn't have to follow the Church on economics. He is a student of the Austrian school of Economics.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:03 PM
Sure sounds like world government to me...and the bolded part implies the ability to use force. This is clearly something America should avoid. We give too much money and power to the United Nations as it is.

If you consider the United Nations a world government, then I guess it probably does sound like world government to you. To me, and I don't consider the United Nations to be the world's government, it sounds like the Pope is basically asking for the United Nations, and since we already have that, one that's a little stronger and more effective in helping poorer countries.

We give a lot of money to the United Nations, but that's a good thing because it does a lot of great things for the world. It's really important that America realizes it's not an island, but is part of a global community. And if it helps you feel any better, we don't pay all of our dues to the UN.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 07:03 PM
BTW I remember Tom Woods said he posted to that issue by the Vatican on the Vatican site and it was removed. LOL!

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:06 PM
Literature you haven't studied how it's concentrated power by the few or govt that leads to tyranny. De-centralized power keeps us safer. That way if there is any injustice it's kept to a smaller area.

If a rotten apple gets to the top of a system where too much power is centralized at the top greater damage can be done, but also there is no way to escape it because it's global. Hitler is a good example of that as well as other totalitarian systems. What did he do—he consolidated power and began then to rule by decree. Same with Allende and the Soviets. It's anti-liberty for the RCC to call for such a measure.

I don't find this too disagreeable. Yes, too much concentrated power typically leads to poor, sometimes disastrous, outcomes. That said, apparently there is an argument against anarchy, too. Anarchy leaves a void in which a Hitler can consolidate power and, well, be a Hitler.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:08 PM
Discussing the world economy is one thing....advocating a world government is another.

And advocating a world government is one thing . . . advocating for a more effective United Nations, that provides better for third world countries and effectively puts down injustice, is another.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:09 PM
Every law is oppressive by nature. You can't enforce law without oppression/force.

Oppression means more than forceful.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 07:09 PM
By a Roman Catholic, Economic Historian and free-market capitalist ( Austrian School of Economics) — Tom Woods


'Idolatry of the Market'? (http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods181.html)

On the other, it calls for a world economic authority that will…what? Be exempt from the errors and hubris of government officials and national central banks?

We were assured that the best and the brightest were running the Fed. These were people who told us the rise in housing prices was attributable to strong fundamentals. There was no housing bubble. Alan Greenspan told people to take out adjustable-rate mortgages. Ben Bernanke said in 2006 that lending standards were sound. And so on.


Had we really been engaged in "idolatry of the market," as the Vatican document suggests, we might have listened to the market. Instead, the central authorities drowned out what the market was trying to tell us.

It’s been idolatry not of the market but of central banks, institutionalized sources of moral hazard and financial instability around the world, that has yielded us the boom-bust cycle. (The aura of infallibility and the cult of personality surrounding Fed chairmen make the language of idolatry more than mere poetic license.)

The widespread misdiagnosis of the crisis now engulfing us has led to the frequent claim that lax regulation, or deregulation, must have caused it, and that better supervision of the system can prevent future crises. This is a delusion, albeit a common one


In the United States we have 115 agencies that regulate the financial sector, and the Securities and Exchange Commission never had a bigger budget or staff than under George W. Bush. There has been a threefold (inflation-adjusted) increase in funding for financial regulation since 1980. For reasons I’ve explained in my 2011 book Rollback, the repeal in 1999 of one provision of Glass-Steagall had zero to do with the financial crisis. Europe has never operated under Glass-Steagall-style restrictions and is none the worse for it. There is no repealed regulation that would have prevented the crisis consuming the world right now.

The banking industry is by far the least laissez-faire sector of the U.S. economy; it is a cartel arrangement overseen by the Federal Reserve and shot through with monopoly privilege, bailout protection, and moral hazard.

The present malaise, therefore, does not call for another layer of supervision, as the Pontifical Council appears to think. It calls for a serious moral and economic reevaluation of institutions, among them central banking and fiat money, that we have long taken for granted, and in support of which all manner of historical and theoretical fallacies have taken widespread root.

The last thing we need is a larger, more centralized version of what we have now. Our problem isn’t greedy people or bad personnel. Every society and every period of world history have had those. The problem is the system itself.

Basically, the Vatican is calling for a bigger version of the same thing. LOL!

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:13 PM
Yes the RCC should stay out of economics because it's ignorant on the subject. It, however, has every right to teach to it's people about good works and charity as one of their own social values but not recommend the use of force to harm others for what they see as more noble. ( especially when it isn't). Others, including economically knowledgeable Catholics, such as Tom Woods, feel the same way. As my family's friend who is very devout and knowledgeable on Catholicism, Canon Law, Church history, the Catholic Bible who is active in the RCC and follows his faith strictly tells me, he doesn't have to follow the Church on economics. He is a student of the Austrian school of Economics.

Okay, I'm sure your family friend is an educated individual. That said, so is the Pope. And you know, he's the Pope, allegedly chosen to the position by the Holy Spirit.

No, the Catholic Church shouldn't be told to stay out of something as fundamental to humanity as its economics, laws, and governments. Even if Tom Woods, as ordained by God as he might be to set down the jurisdiction on the Church's commentary, thinks so.

dmahurin
01-20-2012, 07:14 PM
Oppression means more than forceful.

Recheck your dictionary and try again.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:15 PM
BTW I remember Tom Woods said he posted to that issue by the Vatican on the Vatican site and it was removed. LOL!

You can't post anything on the Vatican website. It doesn't have a forum or chat room or anything like that.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:16 PM
Recheck your dictionary and try again.

op·pres·sion
noun
1.the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2.an act or instance of oppressing.
3.the state of being oppressed.
4.the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 07:17 PM
Otherstar Tom Woods also wrote:


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51n878wPliL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Editorial Review
In The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, Thomas E. Woods Jr. makes a vigorous argument in favor of the market economy from a Catholic perspective. Filling a lapse in the debate on the role of religious thought in economic theory, Woods's uncompromising position, informed by the history of Catholic economic thought, shows that the long-seen contradiction between Catholic faith and support for the market economy does not exist. With attention to detail on almost all aspects of the free market, from the Federal Reserve System and inflation to antitrust legislation and labor issues, this book provides essential background for anyone interested in balancing issues of social conscience with modern economic principles.


One User Review:


Woods is an all-too-rare Catholic writer, one who is well versed in both Church doctrine and free-market economics.... The Church and the Market is a valuable book. (Crisis )...

The Church and the Market is an essential tool for the Catholic free-market intellectual who is fighting the pro-state biases that too often set the terms for economic discussions of modern Catholic social teaching...

The Church and the Market makes a convincing case that the 16th Century Scholastics anticipated elements of Austrian economics.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:18 PM
Tom Woods does not speak for the Catholic Church. He speaks for Tom Woods, and perhaps for libertarian groups he is paid by.

dmahurin
01-20-2012, 07:21 PM
op·pres·sion
noun
1.the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2.an act or instance of oppressing.
3.the state of being oppressed.
4.the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.

The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner sounds an awful lot like using force to me.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 07:22 PM
Just the idea of a "global authority" is burdensome and will lend itself to injustice and cruely as all over-centralization has in the past.

whoman69
01-20-2012, 07:25 PM
People are free to believe how they want in this country including the Catholic Church. It doesn't harm you for them to believe any of that. However, calling for a global economic authority does affect all of us. That's what they need to stay out of.

Sure it harms me and everyone else when they try to make contraceptives illegal again in this country. 10,000 years ago God told us to go forth and multiply. It shouldn't take a statement from heaven to let us know its time to stop.

The church is totally hypocritical about sex. They are run by a group of men who have taken a vow never to partake in sex which many of their order are not able to follow to the point of covering up for pedofiles. They deign to tell the rest how to deal with their sex lives. They even tell women that they can't aspire to serve in their church in the highest levels.

I certainly believe in freedom of religion until that religion expects all to follow their doctrines. They've been given a religious expemption and are in no way forced to provide medical services they do not believe in.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:26 PM
The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel or unjust manner sounds an awful lot like using force to me.

Well, of course it does, when you put it that way, it can't be anything but. Cruelly exercised authority will always have force, otherwise it couldn't be cruelly exercised.

However, put it the correct way, the way I'm using it -- flip the terms around. Does force mean burdensome, cruel, or unjust? No. Unless you mean that enforceable laws are necessarily burdensome, cruel, or unjust.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:30 PM
Just the idea of a "global authority" is burdensome and will lend itself to injustice and cruely as all over-centralization has in the past.

"Global authority" isn't an idea. It's a noun. Undoubtedly, you are attributing thoughts to global authority. If I say "Local authority" idea is burdensome, and will lead to injustice and cruelty, it might be, but not necessarily. Can we say that the idea of city council is cruel? Not reasonably. It could be, though.

Is the United Nations lead to injustice and cruelty? Not at all. In fact, just the opposite. The United Nations has done incredible amounts to prevent injustice and cruelty.

otherstar
01-20-2012, 07:35 PM
[QUOTE=BucEyedPea;8314450]By a Roman Catholic, Economic Historian and free-market capitalist ( Austrian School of Economics) — Tom Woods


'Idolatry of the Market'? (http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods181.html)

Tom Woods is criticizing a document issued by a lesser Vatican department known as the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, as such this document does not have the same teaching authority as a document that comes from the Pope himself. This article by Tom Woods (http://takimag.com/article/truth_charity/#axzz1k3WrOH7J) is much better.

Here are some more articles (expressing varying points of view):

A Misguiding Note from the Vatican (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/a-misguiding-note-from-the-vatican)

Pope Calls for "Central World Bank"... Only he didn't. Here's Why. (http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21986)

Catholics, Finance, and the Perils of Conventional Wisdom. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281099/catholics-finance-and-perils-conventional-wisdom-samuel-gregg)

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:37 PM
Tom Woods does not speak for the Catholic Church. He speaks for Tom Woods, and perhaps for libertarian groups he is paid by.

And plenty of Catholics disagree with him. Consider Christopher Ferrara, himself perhaps a crazy person, who wrote the book "The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Man, Economy and State" which takes Austrians and Tom Woods to task for their advocacy.

Here's a review: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1210-storck

dmahurin
01-20-2012, 07:39 PM
Well, of course it does, when you put it that way, it can't be anything but. Cruelly exercised authority will always have force, otherwise it couldn't be cruelly exercised.

However, put it the correct way, the way I'm using it -- flip the terms around. Does force mean burdensome, cruel, or unjust? No. Unless you mean that enforceable laws are necessarily burdensome, cruel, or unjust.

Force is always cruel. If you are made to do something against your will that is a cruel act. You might find a particular law perfectly just and reasonable but someone else may find it unjust. So they either ignore the law and if caught they are met with force. If they get caught then the punishment will oppress them. If they follow the law even though they find it unjust then they are being oppressed.

La literatura
01-20-2012, 07:49 PM
Force is always cruel. If you are made to do something against your will that is a cruel act.

Force is something that compels. It doesn't have to be cruel, burdensome, or unjust. Let's just hypothesize that Bob wants, he desires, to kill his wife, but the only thing that is stopping him is that he knows he will get caught and sent to jail by the force of the police and state. Thus, he is compelled to merely divorce her. Where was the cruelty?

Next, say Bob still wants to kill his wife, and doesn't care if the state gets him. However, Bob's Christian faith holds that killing is a sin that he would be sent to hell for. He doesn't want to anger God and go to hell, so he forced to not kill his wife.

Obviously, these are extreme examples, but my point should still get across.

We meet forces everyday in life that cause us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. Cruel? Unjust? No.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 08:55 PM
Sure it harms me and everyone else when they try to make contraceptives illegal again in this country.

Where is this being done? If it's in their own hospitals that's their natural and Constitutional right and it's NONE of your business.
If the govt is forcing it on them then that's not okay.

You're a Catholic basher. I have no use for Catholic bashers.

BucEyedPea
01-20-2012, 08:57 PM
Tom Woods is criticizing a document issued by a lesser Vatican department known as the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, as such this document does not have the same teaching authority as a document that comes from the Pope himself. This article by Tom Woods (http://takimag.com/article/truth_charity/#axzz1k3WrOH7J) is much better.


Already read it. And I already said it doesn't have the teaching authority of the Pope even if he said it himself. But there's a question about that not really being supported by the Pope since it comes from his organization. Woods has expressed the same.

banyon
01-20-2012, 09:09 PM
Force is always cruel. If you are made to do something against your will that is a cruel act. You might find a particular law perfectly just and reasonable but someone else may find it unjust. So they either ignore the law and if caught they are met with force. If they get caught then the punishment will oppress them. If they follow the law even though they find it unjust then they are being oppressed.

No offense, but this is an utterly silly view of the law.

Laws are enacted by a free people in this country by their freely elected representatives. Don't like a law? You're free to try to get it changed.

I'm "forced" in this society not to murder those who disagree with me. To view that as "always a cruel act" is, of course, patently absurd.

Dick Bull
01-20-2012, 09:42 PM
Okay, so the Pope is like the anti-Christ. I haven't heard that one before!

World authority is basically international law. Law regulates and manages, in order to prevent tyranny. That's the entire point of law. International law has been around for centuries. So has the Catholic Church. Apparently, the latter is quite comfortable with the former.

What's your point here? Are you going for the good ness and longevity of the Catholic Church?

kstater
01-21-2012, 07:58 AM
So I assume by the backlash I've seen here and other places, that the government will be tying all catholics down and slipping a jimmy on them?

BucEyedPea
01-21-2012, 08:28 AM
How are unrestrained capitalism and corporatism different? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I really do not see the difference here.

I didn't realize this last night, but I think you have a misunderstanding on what corporatism is.
I think you thought it just means that capitalism has and allows corporations. Corporatism is much more than that. For one, you have to distinguish between corporations that make and sell products people like, need and want for an honest profit taking their own risks. If they succeed, it will be because they make enough consumers or buyers satisfied and happy which will result in them exchanging their dollars. If it fails to deliver profitably it will go out of business. In that sense it is self-regulating. This set-up involves production and exchange on a voluntary basis. There is nothing really wrong with this. It will be largely regulated by competition. ( save for things like fraud etc.)

However, that's not what is meant by corporatism. Here's an a definition that may help:

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

That's as good as any other definition. This type of set-up is where corporations are in bed with the state whereby they get advantages in the market that a free-market would not provide. They regulated competition out of business, get guaranteed markets via mandates and is less competitive. This is hardly an unrestrained market as a free-market. A free-market is more merit based and allows for more up-ward mobility. Neither socialism, a mixed-economy or corporatism has as much up-ward mobility.

otherstar
01-21-2012, 09:43 AM
I didn't realize this last night, but I think you have a misunderstanding on what corporatism is.
I think you thought it just means that capitalism has and allows corporations. Corporatism is much more than that. For one, you have to distinguish between corporations that make and sell products people like, need and want for an honest profit taking their own risks. If they succeed, it will be because they make enough consumers or buyers satisfied and happy which will result in them exchanging their dollars. If it fails to deliver profitably it will go out of business. In that sense it is self-regulating. This set-up involves production and exchange on a voluntary basis. There is nothing really wrong with this. It will be largely regulated by competition. ( save for things like fraud etc.)

However, that's not what is meant by corporatism. Here's an a definition that may help:



That's as good as any other definition. This type of set-up is where corporations are in bed with the state whereby they get advantages in the market that a free-market would not provide. They regulated competition out of business, get guaranteed markets via mandates and is less competitive. This is hardly an unrestrained market as a free-market. A free-market is more merit based and allows for more up-ward mobility. Neither socialism, a mixed-economy or corporatism has as much up-ward mobility.

Thanks for the clarification. What I was calling "unrestrained capitalism" is actually closer to this definition of corporatism. I was equating the two because I was considering unrestrained capitalism as the results of corporations/big business controlling everything including the government.

Corporations in and of themselves aren't evil, nor is a free-market economy or a capitalism constrained only by market influences (and neither in control of the state nor overly controlled by the state). Moral evil results when the state obviously caters to corporations and favors them to the detriment of the people/workers and smaller businesses trying to get by in the local economy.

BucEyedPea
01-21-2012, 10:38 AM
Yup! You got it.

banyon
01-21-2012, 11:07 AM
And advocating a world government is one thing . . . advocating for a more effective United Nations, that provides better for third world countries and effectively puts down injustice, is another.

I will say, since the Catholic Church used to be the world government, I don't think they are exactly the most adverse group to the concept.

Many international law precepts, of course, derive from historically catholic sources.

whoman69
01-21-2012, 03:02 PM
Where is this being done? If it's in their own hospitals that's their natural and Constitutional right and it's NONE of your business.
If the govt is forcing it on them then that's not okay.

You're a Catholic basher. I have no use for Catholic bashers.

I ask where is what you're saying being done? Where has the government forced services on them?

This is the official position of the Catholic Church regarding birth control as put forth by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae:

"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means."

In short the church has said they want to outlaw contraceptives and even sterilization.

Is your definition of a Catholic basher anyone who talks bad about the church?

RNR
01-21-2012, 04:08 PM
I ask where is what you're saying being done? Where has the government forced services on them?

This is the official position of the Catholic Church regarding birth control as put forth by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae:

"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means."

In short the church has said they want to outlaw contraceptives and even sterilization.

Is your definition of a Catholic basher anyone who talks bad about the church?

The fact these type of teachings continue amazes me. If you have sex even with your spouse and use a rubber, you shall burn in external fire. If you wish not to have anymore children but would like to continue having sex with your spouse you will burn in hell LMAO

Pioli Zombie
01-21-2012, 04:17 PM
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate.

dmahurin
01-21-2012, 04:21 PM
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate.

Is that how you convince people to swallow?

Pioli Zombie
01-21-2012, 04:25 PM
Is that how you convince people to swallow?

Worked with your mom

HonestChieffan
01-21-2012, 04:56 PM
Back to the original issue, the church is not going to be for Ed to provide sErvices in Catholic hospitals that are against the tenants of the church. Obama is off base on this issue

whoman69
01-21-2012, 05:27 PM
Back to the original issue, the church is not going to be for Ed to provide sErvices in Catholic hospitals that are against the tenants of the church. Obama is off base on this issue

Nor is he asking to, so you are way off base on this issue.