Comments for The Political World Seen – and Unseen at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 12:37:20 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5268 "Do you think that dissolving these programs and giving back the money to taxpayers will lead to a better society? If so, how?" Money now distributed through government programs will be distributed through charitable organizations, many of them religious in nature. People's lives could be transformed, not just maintained. - Brian English Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:03:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5266 "Urging public institutions to help the disadvantaged is hardly unChristlike nor antithetical to Church teachings. As Americans, we have the power to guide the collective strength of our government to support programs to better our society. The Church supports public means of societal change and the role of government in achieving these goals, and has done so for over a century. Most recently, this was done by the Holy Father in Caritas in Veritate." Urging public institutions to help is one thing; surrendering the field to the government is another. This belief that Christ's mandate to help the poor can be satisfied through more and more government intervention misses a critical point -- that material assistance necessarily excludes God. If you have B16's book Jesus of Nazareth, look at the section on the temptation to turn stones into bread. He is emphatic that any program based purely on material aid is doomed to failure. - Brian English Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:58:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5256 Are you saying that there is no role for public institutions in caring for the disadvantaged? Urging public institutions to help the disadvantaged is hardly unChristlike nor antithetical to Church teachings. As Americans, we have the power to guide the collective strength of our government to support programs to better our society. The Church supports public means of societal change and the role of government in achieving these goals, and has done so for over a century. Most recently, this was done by the Holy Father in Caritas in Veritate. What happens when there is no private institution large enough to care for those in need? The realistic consequence of dissolving social security, medicare, welfare, public education, and other programs is a society in which the elderly go hungry, the disabled go without care, the poor go homeless, and the powerless go uneducated. This happens today even with these programs, but the breadth and depth of the suffering is much less. Do you think that dissolving these programs and giving back the money to taxpayers will lead to a better society? If so, how? - CP Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:26:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5255 "the hard fact of the matter is that the Republicans in our day have become the pro-life party in our politics." Republicans have been the pro-life party for about 30 years now; yet you write as if this is a recent, perhaps uncompleted, change in our politics. I wonder why. The sad fact is that pro-life Democrats have been as rare as hens’ teeth for a long time. Witness Bob Casey’s shabby reception at the 1992 Democratic convention. My roots are in the “solid South.” Once solidly Democratic (so much so that in most states the “real” election was the Democratic primary); now solidly Republican. And why did that happen? Because the Northeastern liberals captured the Democratic Party in about 1972 and proceeded to oust everyone who did not march in lockstep with the. Both sides of my family voted Democrat only for generations. By all rights I should be firmly in the Democratic camp. But there is no room for me there, so I am a Republicn. My grandfather remained a yellow dog Democrat until the day he died. When I was elected to my state legislature as a Republican he couldn’t decide if he were more proud of my accomplishment or more embarrassed by the my party. This, despite the fact that he was to my right politically. Yet he pulled the D lever every election, “because Roosevelt kept us from starving during the Depression. That’s why damn it!” - Barry Arrington Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:00:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5254 Christ did indeed teach us to care for the unfortunate among us. However, He did not teach us to do that by handing over our funds to our government and have them do it. In fact, I argue that 'entrusting' our government to do our social welfare for us, we have removed ourselves from daily acting out Christ's mission. Be realistic, most people pay no attention to the dollars removed from their check in taxes. People live and budget on their net income and therefore do not 'feel the sacrifice' of their contribution to the 'poor among us'. If, in fact, we had a much greater portion of our own earned income, we could then truely live Christ's mission as individuals giving to those in need directly. Christ did not tell us to give to Caesar so that he could take care of the poor and lame. He told us to do it ourselves. In supporting a party who taxes and spends in the name of caring for the unfortunate, we have given over the definition of who is worthy of care to the very same group who does not value life. This is a huge dilema. - BD Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:03:53 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5246 The Republican Party is quite clearly more pro-life than the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, many Catholics are holding their noses and voting Republican in spite of a strong distaste for the rest of the Republican agenda that includes things like support for the death penalty and the dissolution of social welfare programs. Unfortunately, some Catholics are so put off by this agenda that they compromise their beliefs to the point that they support pro-abortion candidates. What you so easily ascribe to "ancient loyalties" is actually a real, heartfelt decision being made by those who cannot rationalize voting for the negative aspects of the Republican agenda. The argument against this compromise is that abortion trumps all other issues. I can agree with this argument. But where are the the pro-life, Catholic Republicans trying to push the party to support a ban on the death penalty or a more just society for immigrants and the underprivileged? Whether they wish to wash their hands of other social justice topics by citing prudential judgement or not, the teachings of Christ are quite clear in a call for compassion and a preference for the poor. The teachings of the Church assent to the role of public authority in supporting social justice initiatives up to and including Caritas in Veritate. Support the Republican Party because it is pro-life, but never stop fighting to change the platform of that party so that it is more aligned to the charity and mission of our Church. To surrender these values for political reasons is to lose both the battle for abortion (as we lose the support of those who compromise their pro-life beliefs) and social justice (as we support an agenda antithetical to it). - CP Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:40:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5237 Ted is quite right--and this was the slip: I recalled that Mondale had carried only two jurisdictions, but one was the District of Columbia, not a state. I'm sorry for the slip and pleased to have the correction. As a wipe out, that outcome was comparable to 1972, when Nixon lost only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia "Joe" anticipates my next column, but he falls into the mistake more common in our own time: assuming that the political branches have nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution and at time governing the courts. If President George W. Bush had been more inclined to take any initiatives here, he and the Congress had in their hands two pieces of legislation--the Partial-birth Abortion Act and the Born-Alive Infants' Protection Act--that gave them critical levers. With those levers they could have pushed the party of abortion to the beginning of the Endgame on abortion. Those levers could be used now by the House--and by a Pro-life president. But beyond that, the Court with Roberts and Alito have virtually invited the States now to bring forth a chain of laws that restrict abortion in precise, limited ways, and with the prospect now that this chain of steps will be sustained by the Court, one step at a time. With about 680 new legislators in the States, the States can become now engines ever more active in generating that chain of cases brought to the Court. - Hadley Arkes Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:09:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5236 The solution to controlling judges is to submit them all to elections, like those in Iowa who were kicked out for usurping their authority by daring to preside over the institution of marriage. - Chris Boegel Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:45:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5235 "When Ronald Reagan won reelection in 1984, carrying forty-eight States...." Reagan actually carried 49 states... Mondale (by a razor thin margin) carried his home state of Minnesota and (by a wide margin) carried the District of Columbia. Reagan came darn close to carrying all 50 states. The 1984 election was a wipeout. - Ted Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:32:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5233 While legislative gains are notable, Professor Arkes, the additions of Sotomayor and Kagan do not bode well for an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Ultimately, it would seem, the Supremes will have the final say on abortion and with no changes in the left-leaning court foreseeable, any reversal would appear to be unlikely. Overlooked in the media focus on the Congressional gains by the GOP is the strides made in state legislatures, where something like 680 seats were taken by Republicans. Wisconsin, for example, once as blue as the sea, is now nearly totally red with both houses going over and 6 of 8 congressional seats, plus the governor's job. If federalism is still alive -- and that is very much in doubt -- then impetus for new abortion restrictions can take root at the state level. Still, in the end, it seems that the judges are the ones who decide social policies (e.g. gay marriage). - Joe Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:12:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/the-political-world-seen-and-unseen.html#comment-5232 Well done, Dr. Arkes. Thank you for reminding us that there are non-Catholic politicians who are also Pro-Life. - Bill Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:54:18 +0100