Catechism 1883: Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."Based on their willingness to support the EXACT OPPOSITE of what this key doctrine proposes, we can only conclude that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has rejected the Catechism and sold out to the Marxist elements of Liberation Theology. So much for authentic Catholic social teaching. Your comments?
UPDATE (3-20-2010): In the end, the USCCB turned against the healthcare bill on grounds it violated the basic human right to life. In the final analysis I believe history will record that it was too little too late...
Washington D.C., Mar 20, 2010 / 09:41 pm (CNA).- In a final, urgent plea to prevent the passage of the current form of the Senate health care bill, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Saturday evening sent a letter to Congressmen asking them to vote “no.”
read full story here
9 comments:
Wow I am wondering the same thing? what will happen to our teachings if this happens?
The teachings of the Church will not change and have not changed. What appears to have changed is the USCCB's fidelity to them.
Keep in mind, this is an observation of the institution itself, not necessarily individual bishops. As we have seen, some bishops have made it clear the USCCB does not speak for them.
If we, as individuals, stick to the Catechism and Rome, everything will be fine. Follow the USCCB, and you do so at your own risk.
Sir Knight, I've just retired after 37 yrs. with Caterpillar. My health care with Caterpillar is always threatened by the cuts Cat wishes to make to be more 'cost effective'. And when I turn 62, Social Security and Medicare kick in, and Cat cuts out even more of my health care, because the government is picking up the cost. And now, the beknighted fools of the USCCB wish to endorse this idiocy of puting all of my health care in the hands of a monsterous bureaucracy that will not be albe to serve the best interests of yours truely and millions of other Americans. For how can a bureacrat working in DC determine what's best for me? I thought that was my doctor's job! The Pope ought to abolish the USCCB for just this act of stupidity. Steve Dalton
the USCCB needs a complete overhaul. You must be aware, Sir Knight, of its involvement with the so called CCHD, which has given money to pro abortion agencies, planned parenthood etc. Yet the bishops calmly deny anything wrong. Pete Frey
TCK, from a broader perspective, as you have eloquently posted on other occasions, Pope Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" and Pope Pius XI were quite clear, in terms of railing against the inherent evil & despotism of socialism and all its concomitant derivatives...
Mr Echevarria, more than that!!! It seems the USCCB wants taxpayer funds to pay for illegal aliens health care as well. Take on the abortion content and you have a moral, financial and social injustice. Pete FRey
Sir Knight,
The modern Catholic Church is far removed from the traditional Catholic Church handed down through tradition from Jesus Christ and the Apostles. With all the scandal coming out of Ireland, Germany, and the Vatican itself one must wonder what has happened in the last decades. The Church needs a clean sweep to rid herself of socialists, communists, Satanists, and Freemasons just to name a few. Satan does not sleep. The USCCB is infested with evil. The faithful don't even know what the Church really teaches. It's shameful and dangerous.
I'm interested in the thinking that would oppose providing healthcare to the poor. The church I know and love cares for it's poorest members, period. Enlisting a fairly moderate regulation of private insurance seems like not only a sound social policy, but a moral policy.
As far as the comment about "illegal aliens" most of whom are fellow catholics, I'm not sure what to think about that. Thank God the bishops have a more generous heart then some of the members of our church.
As far as liberation theology, it's in the best tradition of the church, and it's been around a long time. The Jesuits defended the Indians in South America from slavers, the clergy in Ireland defended the peasants from the English, many of whom paid with their lives. In my view, the American church needs to study the history of the church, or better yet, read the gospel. Let's face it, Jesus was a liberator, even a revolutionary.
Thanks for the site, by the way. Always glad to connect with fellow catholics, even if we disagree.
John, on the issue of immigration I tend to agree with the US Catholic Bishops, an you'll find entries on this blog to that effect. I have my reasons. Some of it Christian oriented and some of it very practical for social reasons. I've actually gone to bat for the USCCB on this particular issue, and I think it's something a lot of conservative Americans just won't understand for another ten years or so. As for the negative sentiment toward illegal immigration in general, I can only say that I sympathize with the frustration of those who express it. I just don't agree with their solution. I truly do not believe these negative reactions are generated in some by a lack of Christian charity, but rather a gut reaction to our current government's policy (or lack thereof) regarding illegal immigration. It has created many social and economic difficulties in the United States, particularly in the Southwest regions, that has neither helped Americans seeking stability nor the Mexicans seeking hope. Something definitely needs to change and as I've said in previous blog entries, I tend to be in agreement with the Democrats on this one. The only thing I would like to add is border security for terrorism risk as well as drug trafficking risk. In other words, seal the border security risk, and then open up the floodgates for LEGAL immigration, giving Mexico a most favored status on that.
On the issue of providing healthcare for the poor, I personally believe we should provide MORE, the only problem is I don't believe the government should do it. In fact, I think the government is the worst possible provider of healthcare in that it's policies tend to be ineffective, ineffecient and not very compassionate. Governments also tend to be self serving when it comes to entitlement programs and often tend to use them to consolidate more power to the government at the expense of human rights and subsidiarity. Personally, I think all charitable causes should be turned back over to the Church where they belong and government should limit itself to a coordination role exclusively. Likewise, we know we can reduce cost of healthcare by allowing more interstate and international competition, as well as making the good Samaritan laws apply to all healthcare professionals and institutions, so as to prevent needless lawsuits. These are just suggestions of course, but there is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. We can do it without sacrificing subsidiarity. That's my thinking on it.
Post a Comment