7 Responses to Stealing From The Poor

  • Poverty comes in many forms. Some of us are in dire “poverty” yet are given even less by many who should know better, thus causing immense suffering.

    There is not sufficient reflection on this reality. As such, it is an occasion of grace for those afflicted………but a yolk upon those who chose to ignore how their actions, in word and deed, injure another, already almost unable to bear their cross.

    Nice post. Thanks.

  • Does the Church teach that you will be judged by your personal charitable/corporal works; that is what YOU DO with YOUR money and your time/talents?

  • Really good article.

  • “However, the investment of superfluous income in secureing favorable opportunities for employment […] is to be considered […] an act of real liberality, particularly appropriate to the needs of our time.”

    In other words, one way (though certainly not the only way) that rich people can help the poor is by starting up businesses that provide jobs for them! Score at least one for the economic conservatives 🙂

    “It will be necessary above all to abandon a mentality in which the poor – as individuals and as people – are considered a burden, as irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced.”

    Very true; however, that raises the question of whether the growth of high-tax nanny-state liberalism hasn’t done a lot to contribute to the perception of the poor as “irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced.”

  • Elaine, I agree about the rich starting up a business, but we have to admit that there are many other rich who start up business ventures with not a care for those being employed thereby. I am thinking, especially, of all the CEOs and vice presidents of corporations who think nothing of taking a 1Million or 3M salary, while at the same time causing the company to need to downsize to maximize profits. Truly, a real board of directors should say to such money-grubbing CEO wannabes: “You say that your requested 3M salary is the ‘going rate’ for truly qualified executives. We say that no executive who would ask for such a salary could possibly be morally qualified for the job. We’ll look elsewhere.”

  • Pingback: The $1 Million Chelsea Clinton Wedding « The American Catholic
  • The mega corporations and the excessively compensated executives cannot exist without the incestuous relationship of Big Government and Big Business. Mutual funds are a trick to get people to fund corporations without having any voting rights. The wealth of all is controlled by a very few. This is a problem that must be dealt with or everyone will become a slave, begging the government/corporations for a handout and charity (caritas, love) is not something that corporations or governments can engage in.

    As for our excess wealth, this is a relative area for us to discern. What may constitute excessive wealth in sub-Saharan Africa is not the case in the USA. We have tax obligations that they do not, we have transportation costs that they do not, we have many costs that they do not have and what we have in excess has to be looked at from that perspective. Additionally, money is not wealth. Having a few dollars in money market, CD, etc. is not wealth, it is merely a temporary store of currency that is losing value faster than it can be earned or profited from. a 10,000 sq. ft. home with only two children, that could be excessive – but, a 10,000 sq.ft. home with a dozen children, maybe not.

    This article is excellent because it summarizes Church teaching and, at least to me, it seems to stress the necessity of a free market, restrained government, strong Church and men who desire to lead a life of virtue. Sadly, our culture of duo-opolies intentionally clouds our thinking about such matters. Big Government vs. Big Business, Democrats vs. Republicans, Capitalism vs. Socialism, Thesis vs. Antithesis – all are two paths to the same perdition. We need to break free of this dualistic thinking, making us think we have choices. There is really only one choice: God or man. Hard as it is sometimes, especially with vestiges of ideology trapping my thinking, your’s too I suspect, we need to be more Catholic – we are so far short of the mark following years and years of minimalism.

    It is time for Maximum Catholicity and this article appears to summarize exactly that sentiment. Thanks for the reminder. Can you do it again tomorrow? 🙂

25 Responses to Why I am Filing for Separation from the Democratic Party

  • Welcome to the world of independent idealism. Good to have you on board. It’s still (maybe especially) possible to be a good citizen being off the party rolls. I encourage the strategy.

  • I know exactly how you feel. I live in Washington DC, where it’s all politics, all the time. For a few years now I’ve answered the question “Are you a Republican (Democrat)?” with “I’m a Catholic.”

  • I simply must repeat what I said when you mentioned this to me privately — this is a great loss for pro-life Democrats, but God as you seem to have discerned may need your gifts and talents elsewhere for the sake of His Kingdom and, temporally speaking, for the common good.

    I need not ask to know whether I still have your support and you need not ask if you have mine. Have faith, there are sincere pro-life Catholics in the trenches my friend. You have simply chosen a new battlefield; there is only one Enemy.

  • Congratulations to you, and welcome aboard, Tim! But one question: am I completely imagining this, or didn’t you announce/decide this a couple of months ago? I thought I remembered reading a post you had written to that effect, but without all of the outlines for an independent party based on Catholic moral teaching and the Natural Law.

  • What’s wrong with the US Constitution Party?

    It’s platform is the closest to Chrcuh teaching:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

    I understand, however, that it doesn’t fit the false gospel of the common good, social justice and peace at any price.

    It seems like the writer just wants a socialist party that can call itself pro-life and be Christian in name instead of advocating for a return to the truly Christian Constitutional Republic we once were.

    Why not read and study what this country was founded at insteda of trying to invent some socialist utopia. The common good didn’t work for the Church in the time of Ananias and Sapphira. It won’t work now. And I (along with many, many other Constitutionalists) shall never, ever support it.

  • Paul, it is quite arrogant to assert that people whose views are different than yours and do not think that the U.S. Constitution Party is the closest reflection of Catholic social teaching in the U.S. are merely socialists who want a “socialist party.”

    I think it is an unfair judgment of our Catholicism and our commitment to the teachings of the Church, which requires on some issues much prudential judgment that naturally creates a discussion — and not clear-cut policy positions or views we must embrace.

    Moreover the idea that the United States was ever “truly” an explicitly “Christian” constitutional republic is quite arguable. I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity; other points could be made, but I think you are romanticizing history and my argument need not be taken as saying the current situation of America is better or superior but simply that the U.S. was never a “truly Christian constitutional republic” in the sense that you seem to suggest.

    Lastly the idea that people who fail to subscribe to what you have suggested have neglected to “read and study what this country” was founded on “instead of trying to invent some socialist utopia” is nonsense.

    I was not even aware that any sort of disagreement (at least it seems that way in the way you frame your argument, there appear to be only two options) with the position you offer logically implies subscription to socialism. Moreover, it is nonsensical for you to appeal to Catholic social teaching — from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI — and say that the “common good” does not work.

    It would be more credible to argue that what the political left, by and large, presents as the common good is (in your view) a pseudo-common good and the actual common good is something much different — and you could detail it with what you think would work better. But to say the common good “did not work” and will not “work now” while appealing to Catholic social teaching where that very concept is integral to the whole body of the Church’s social doctrine is unbelievably dubious. Honestly, I am not saying this to be harsh; it simply is the case.

    I suppose it is a way to look at things but it is a perspective that I would never, ever support. The political left often gets attacked for claiming to have the correct political translation of Christian values in action and I, to a considerably large degree, can concur that in the current political situation criticism is very warranted. But the political right in the GOP and in my view in conservative third parties, at present, in my view, cannot lay claim to Christian values in their entirety. Many questions are again prudential and need not be dogmaticized — perhaps it is time that we Catholics, particularly those of who choose a specific political avenue or entity, whether it be a party or some other organization, stop trying to box the Church’s teaching into acceptable political language and contrived concepts that derive primarily from secular schools of thought. It is telling when what we call “Catholic social teaching” begins to look conveniently like our party’s platform. Indeed, the Gospel easily transcends all these things.

  • Eric- thanks for your eloquent defense and support- Kevin in Texas- I have been hinting at such a move but I retained my position as vp of florida dems for life until this week- my good friend at the organization- a Catholic- had asked me to take some more time before I made a formal decision- out of respect for this great friend, I decided to wait, pray and see if the Spirit would reveal more- at this point, I really feel that being a non-partisan will be advantageous as a Catholic teacher and in trying to open channels of dialogue working on specific issues rather than risk being written off as a Democratic Party operative or Republican mole inside the Dem party. This decision just feels like a spiritual breath of fresh air- something rare in the political trenches:)

  • Tim,
    Blessings… I too left the party of my youth, however, I came from the opposite side and have landed at Independent as well.
    Eric,
    Wonderful defense.
    Peace

  • Tim,

    Interesting post. It reads to me like you are not rejecting the Democratic party so much as you are rejecting politics per se. I think this is OK; not every Catholic is meant to act in the political sphere. But I do not think such a position can be normative. It is part of the lay vocation to transform our politics from within, and to the extent that you did this as a pro-life Democrat it was a good thing.

    I think generally speaking it is good for Catholics to consider themselves unwedded to any political party. Catholics are wedded to the truth and must understand themselves as Catholics first and then Republicans or Democrats. A Catholic can be a Republican or a Democrat, but they must be a Catholic first.

    Although I’m not thrilled that there is yet another good person giving up on American politics, I am happy to hear that someone is leaving the Democratic party, which in my opinion is virtually unsalvagable. The Democratic party is in principle the party of death.

  • Eric,

    “I find it hard to believe that an authentically Christian society had legal slavery rooted in irrational hate of ethnicity;”

    Slavery had nothing to do with “hate” as we think of it today. It was certainly based in an erroneous view of race, but it was no more hateful in 1788 than it was in 300 B.C. or so when Aristotle was justifying slavery. It was seen as a part of the natural order.

    A lot of the founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, struggled with the issue. So, avoid blanket condemnations in the other direction. The northern states abolished slavery right from the beginning. The southern states had “rational” economic reasons for wanting to keep it – but “rational” does not = morally right.

  • The democrat and republican parties are not the same.

    If more people voted for McCain, we’d have a chance overturning Roe v Wade with the nomimation of more good supreme court justices like Roberts and Alito, but no, we get Sotomaer and Kagan.

    Thanks alot 54% Catholics who voted for Obama or Indepedants! Like you really care about the unborn…rightttt.

    A Catholic with a well formed conscience can not in any way vote for the party of death.

  • Zach- I don’t think you are reading me correctly- I’m not giving up on American politics- I am just backing out of the Democratic party since I could not find any traction for pro-life Dems in my geographic area- I tried through offering a viable candidacy and having a presence in the local media and making contact attempts- but it didn’t happen. I decided it was best for me to purify my own end of things and come clean as an Independent who will work with partisans on the various issues of importance- but will be a non-partisan about it. In a way I am following the lead of Archbishop Chaput who was once one who identified more closely with the philosophy of governance represented by the Democratic Party, but because of the emergence of social liberalism and hardcore secularism in the heart of Democratic Party activism- he has chosen the Independent political path- and since I am a Catholic teacher myself, I think it is prudent to stake out non-partisan territory myself- not to avoid the political fight over the important issues of our times, but to be taken more seriously and to be seen as more consistent than those who seem to allow their Party loyalties to determine their political consciences. We’ll see if this decision makes sense over the longer haul- I am a Catholic first- that is my core message in all this.

  • I pray a lot and the Holy Spirit reveals a lot to me.

    When he talks to me, he starts with “Shaw, love humility, live the Gospels, obey the Ten Commandments, and adhere to the teachings of Holy Mother Church handed down from The Apostles and today from the Pope.”

    He revealed to me “Shaw, you can’t be both a democrat and be pro-life.” And, “You won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote democratic.”

    Early in 2008, this Pope gave four non-negotiables. Despicable dems are 180 degrees, and violently (47,000,000 exterminated unborn), opposed to each and every one.

  • I agree with Jasper and I’m ashamed of being a (cradle) Catholic these days, when 54% of them voted for Barack Obama, a pro-abortion and pro-infanticide politician. As a matter of fact, the Democratic Party has become the party where the Culture of Death has taken hold, and I’m glad I abandoned them over 10 years ago.

    Jasper is correct in that with the GOP, at least we got two solid, pro life, conservative Supreme Court Justices, but with Obama, we’re getting rabidly pro-abortion ones. Way to go, my brothers and sisters in the Church. Next time, please use the God-give reason you were born with and LEARN the candidates’ record on abortion!

  • Paul – Pope Benedict doesn’t agree with you

    Pope calls for ethics in world economy

    “Benedict said the search for common good must inform globalization and be the goal of progress and development, which would otherwise merely serve to produce material goods.”

    http://tinyurl.com/29d528y

  • Non-partisan? Transpartisan?

    I think there’s room for a Christian-Democratic political and social presence in the United States, and it can grow if it plays by the populist playbook, particularly the experience of the Non-Partisan League.

    Perhaps you can take the whole matter up with Oscar De Rojas? I have a hunch he has an interesting perspective on this whole thing.

  • Putting one’s faith in a political party will inevitably lead a sincere Catholic to a sense of disillusionment with politics in general. However, as a means to an end, parties may be used as an imprecise apparatus and like an imprecise apparatus they more often than not accomplish the task with less success than we would like.

    I have yet to see a practical way out of the 2 party system we have in the US that does not, as a by-product, result in one party dominance, after the other party fractures it’s base.

  • Dear Mr. Shipe,
    I was very touched by, and sympathized with, your declaration. I would like you to know that a group of citizens are forming a new centrist political party: The Christian Democratic Union of the United States (CDUSA). We are in the process of redesigning our webpage, but please use my address for any additional communication or request for information. We invite you to please advise us and be in touch with us.

    Our basic political philosophy is quite straight-forward: we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues. We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for. Indeed, we reject the labels of “liberal” or “conservative”, because these can have different meanings, depending on what standpoint you look from.
    We do hope to hear from you and your friends, and, in the meantime, remain, sincerely yours,
    Oscar de Rojas
    Executive Director
    Christian Democratic Union of the United States

  • “We are, essentially, the OPPOSITE of what libertarians and Tea-Party groups stand for.”

    That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?

  • we are “center-left” (i.e., agree with many Democratic party positions) on most economic and political issues, while we are “center-right (i.e., agree with many Republican party positions)on most social and cultural issues.

    That sounds agreeable as stated. The difficulty is that ‘center-left’ on economic matters (at this time and in this country) means the continuous multiplication of patron-client relations between politicians and lobbies, in which the politician is a broker who supplies constituency groups with the fruits of the state’s extractive capacity in return for the fruits of the constituencies’ fundraising, labor, and brand-loyalty. You could call it crony capitalism, but the beneficiaries are not merely favored business sectors but also the social work industry and the public sector unions and provincial and municipal politicians. Call it crony capitalism, crony philanthropy, crony syndicalism, and patronage.

    That’s unfortunate. Are you sure you know what they stand for?

    Joe, it is somewhat disconcerting that ‘TEA’ is an acronym for ‘Taxed Enough Already’. The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed. Once you have come to an understanding of the appropriate boundary of the public sector, the tax rate is implicit. Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture. One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits. The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.

  • Thank you for the interesting comments.

    What I mean by center-left in the economic area is that we do believe in a necessary and appropriate level of government regulation of the “free market” to avoid situations of abuse such, as for example, the financial disaster that we still have not gotten out of. And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.

    The fact that there is so much cronyism, lobbying, corruption etc. in the political system is somehting that we clearly have to tackle with, but hopefully, with a more just society, these things might also become more repugnant and begin to change.

  • Art,

    Give the people a break.

    “The focus should be on the ways in which the public sector might be circumscribed.”

    There is plenty of focus on that. If you don’t know it, you haven’t interacted with the people in the movement.

    “Complaints about taxation per se enhance the stupidity of the political culture.”

    No they don’t. Statements like this just reveal the extent to which you aren’t affected by taxes. You realize that over half of the tea party is made up of one of the most unjustly-taxed brackets of income earners in America, right? We’re talking people who make somewhere between 50 and 100 thousand or so a year. They pay through the nose.

    “One can address complaints about tax rates by reducing them, but without a willingness to circumscribe the public sector, you just get deficits.”

    Why would you assume this willingness isn’t there? It is.

    “The federal government’s statement of income was in far more parlous shape when Mr. Obama took office than was the case when Mr. Reagan took office, so we no longer have the margin for an extended game of let’s pretend.”

    Again, if you don’t think the tea party acknowledges and address this, you’re really quite out of the loop. Fiscal responsibility, dealing with the debt, stopping the spending and related issues are probably more important to it than the tax rates, I would say.

  • And, yes, we are for more progressive taxation — meaning taxing the really reach -not the middle class, certainly not the poor- to further the common good.

    Um, if, by ‘the rich’, you mean a class of rentiers or latent rentiers (along with senior corporation executives), I think you will find on inspection that you are speaking of around 2.5% of the population who corral about 15% of the nation’s personal income.

    If, by the poor, you mean individuals whose wage and private pension income (w/ salaries or proprietor’s income or annuities in some few cases) is below the cost of a basket of staple commodities as calculated by federal statistical agencies, that would be perhaps 20-25% of the population who corral about 4% or so of personal income.

    The ‘middle class’ (salaried employees and small proprietors) corral north of 45% of personal income and the more prosperous wage earners corral the balance of roughly 35%. You are not going to tax any of these people? Do you plan to finance the state with lotteries?

  • My comments were not derived from my personal fiscal situation (which does include considerable tax liability, though that is none of your business).

    Federal and state income tax codes are so rococo that it is simply impossible (with any degree of thoroughness) to say from descriptive statistics which strata are being ‘unjustly taxed’ and which are not.

    I did not name the ‘Tea Party’. I am not sure to whom the moniker is attributable. It does make me anxious, however.

    I am pleased if you can find a generous slice from among the miscellany of people who are protesting who are thinking seriously about the ways in which the public sector can and should be circumscribed. Any movement has quite a mix as regards its degree of sophistication and seriousness.

    I was a witness to the political discourse engaged in by Mr. Reagan and his acolytes during the period running from about 1978 to 1989. It is not a happy precedent and is one I hope the Republic can avoid. In general, it has not been my observation that an understanding of the relative size of the public sector and the distribution of expenditures between various categories thereof is (in schematic outline) well understood even among the quarter or so of the population who follow public affairs. If there are many counter-examples in the Tea Party, that is all to the good.

  • Tim –

    I’ve also thought about a party based on Catholic Social Teaching principles that could go by the name “The Common Good Party” – which has the great benefit of being shortened simply to the Good Party, with a membership of Good People.

    I’m not nearly as politically astute or experienced as you (or Oscar) though, and very much look forward to your thoughts on how practically to develop such a political force.

    If you want/need any help from the Pacific Northwest, do let me know, and I’ll do what I can!

One Percent/End the Fed (Nader-Paul, Paul-Nader American Presidency!)

Sunday, May 16, AD 2010
I just watched the documentary “One Percent” with my wife and I have been reading Ron Paul’s book – End the Fed. Very interesting points of contact and dissonance between the two viewpoints.
Continue reading...

3 Responses to One Percent/End the Fed (Nader-Paul, Paul-Nader American Presidency!)

  • The little guy is getting shafted by the World Bank?

    Today’s little guy will usually be the least prepared to weather economic changes. Tomorrow’s little guy has the most to gain but he doesn’t know it yet. Thus, the appeal of protectionism. It’s better to aid the adversely affected than to shield them.

    Lots of little guys depend on big banks and multinationals.

    Both Nader and Paul are experts at proposing the wrong solutions to the right problems. I was swept up in the Ron Paul Revolution in 2008 but I’ve recovered. My biggest issue with him is that, to my knowledge, he’s never articulated how he expects to pay for anything.

  • So the very wealthy investor class member has found a way to get government to print up money to cover the biggest of losses, and enough extra money is spread around giving people some unemployment bail out monies, dubious temporary stimulus paychecks, and other little social service type funds- so that no one wants to completely overturn the current establishment.

    For the record, the folks receiving ‘bailouts’ thus far are as follows:

    1. The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

    2. Citigroup and the Bank of America.

    3. Chrysler and General Motors

    4. The American International Group.

    5. Miscellaneous finance and insurance companies who received access to the soft loan windows opened by the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve.

    The last were ancillary beneficiaries. The shareholders of the American International Group saw their stake in the company diluted to the tune of 80%. It was the creditors of AIG who were bailed out. That would be institutions like Citigroup who bought credit default swaps from Mr. Cassano’s outfit, and miscellaneous others.

    The shareholders of Citigroup saw the value of their holdings fall by more than 90%, and those of Bank of America more than 60%. Who got paid in full were the owners of bank bonds. Bank bonds are owned by insurance companies and pension funds, whose clientele may be affluent as a rule, but far from ‘very wealthy’.

    The shareholders and owners of mortgage backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac likely are an affluent crew, maybe even ‘very wealthy’. Commercial banks held about a quarter of the outstanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt, and commercial banks have depositors. Sovereign wealth funds held another large bloc, so defaulting would likely create a political problem with the Far East. Please recall that these are leftover New Deal programs and that efforts by the Bush Administration to reform their accounting practices and increase their capital cushions were sabotaged by Barney Frank, whose boy toy was a Fannie Mae official. Frank ‘cares’ about housing, dont’cha know.

    The Chrysler and General Motors deals were a gift bestowed upon the United Auto Workers, whose clientele are certainly better off than the average American, but not ‘very wealthy’.

    The folks who were bailed out were those whose defaults might generate systemic problems and those who had connections. The latter are not the generically wealthy, ‘very’ or not.

    They are both very good at identifying the wastefulness of most of the wars that now seem to be perpetual,

    Identify for me a bloc of years prior to 1940 when there was not armed conflict in progress somewhere on the globe.

    If you are speaking about the United States in particular, we have not been subject to a general mobilization since 1945. In the intervening 64 years, we were at war for 3 years in Korea, 8 years in Indo-China, < 1 year over Kuwait, and 8 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be about a third of the time, which falls short of 'perpetual'. The wars in Korea, Kuwait, and Afghanistan were initiatives of the other party without qualification and none of our opponents in any of these wars were of the character of the Hapsburg or Hohenzollern empires.

    and they both see that the little guys in this country and around the world are basically getting shafted by the global econom

    Yeah, they are being shafted by reductions in excise taxes on imports.

  • I certainly agree with both men in the video. Both parties are owned by the same people behind the scenes. It is easy for us to fall in lockstep with that idea because we hear that American Electorate process is so civil and gives the people real choices.

    The more I learn what it means to be Catholic, the more I reject our broken political process. I really can’t believe my choices last year were John McCain and Obama just like people were forced to choose between Bush and Gore. Believe what you will, but they are all the same people. They are basically owned.

Pope Speaks About Economics Again, "It's the Natural Law, Stupid"

Monday, May 3, AD 2010

After calling for Catholics to be liberated from their pet ideologies, Pope Benedict is helping flesh out a moral economic vision that puts the standard Left- socialism/Right- Free Markets debate into the dust bin for faithful Catholics.  The bottom-line seems obvious to me- you can’t demonize government and you can’t demonize business- both bring difficulties into play- over-regulation can harm economic development, but lack of regulation can lead to corporate dominance which is a problem when one considers that corporations typically are upfront about being in existence to pad their investor’s bank accounts, not being much concerned with the universal common good. Our Pope clarifies the inherent morality(read Natural Law) in the economy in this article from one of my favorite web sites Zenit.org:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Pope Speaks About Economics Again, "It's the Natural Law, Stupid"

  • I love the Holy Father.

  • The Austrian and Chicago school economists heads will explode.

  • I’m glad you posted this, Eric! Er… Tim. 🙂

    Sorry, this morning I saw Eric’s comment, and mistakenly typed his name, Tim. 🙂

  • I don’t think so, Jim. Both Austrian and Chicago school economists understand the limits of markets self-regulating. In particular they admit that the capacity for perfect self-regulation is inevitably inhibited by (i) imperfect information and (ii) imperfect rational behavior. As such the risk of errors and even so-called “bubbles” caused by deceit and simple mistakes is very real and in requires some government regulation. How much is a prudential question given that government regulation is also inherently very imperfect and one must recognize the reality that such regulation often makes things worse either by exacerbating a problem or creating new ones.
    The heads that would explode would be the Ayn Randians who view market theory as a dogma for how to live one’s life rather than simply a useful explanation of how resources are efficiently allocated. To be sure Randians are often greatly influenced by classical economic theories, but overall they represent a small subset of economists and thinkers who generally regard themselves as so-called Chicagoans or Austrians.

  • Here is Shaw’s ‘theology’ of the money: “You can’t take it with you. It will burn.”

    As St. Augistine wrote in The City of God: ” . . . the possession of those temporal goods which virtuous and blameless men may lawfully enjoy; still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.”

  • Tim posted this Chris. I’d be wrong to take credit.

  • I’m not sure why someone edited the title from It’s the Natural Law, – Stupid- to -Gomer- I was playing off the famous expression It’s the Economy, Stupid- I wasn’t calling folks out as being stupid if they didn’t agree with the Pope’s commentary- anyone know about this editing?

  • Should there be negative consequences for stupid decisions? Or should the market be regulated to make sure no one can make a stupid decision?

    I can’t tell from this teaching. What is the governments legitimate power, specifically? Isn’t that detail kind of important?

Pope Benedict Warns Against Marxist Liberation Theology

Monday, December 7, AD 2009

17 Responses to Pope Benedict Warns Against Marxist Liberation Theology

  • Leftist Catholics rightly identify Christ as the savior of human beings, body and soul alike. What they fail to understand is the consequences of Original Sin for the body, and the limitations on human life imposed by sin and finitude. They wrongly think that if everyone on Earth was a Saint, there would be no more suffering. Leftist Catholics think that there are no limits to human progress, which is to say they are very modern.

  • Some Leftist Catholics remind me of the Zealots who thought to bring about the Kingdom of God through the sword. A communist dictatorship though is a funny sort of Kingdom of God.

  • Such words for the “Catholic Left.” Then what is wrong with the “Catholic Right,” I wonder? Or does the “Right” comprise of the Catholics who “get it?”

  • Selective interpretation of the social teaching of the Church… which ultimately stems from liberalism as Leo XIII and Pius XI understood it.

  • In regard to the Catholic Right Eric, I can’t think of a comparable attempt by Catholic conservatives to trojan horse a body of doctrine completely inimical to Catholicism into the Church as has been the ongoing effort of some Catholics on the Left to baptize Marx. The nearest parallel I can think of predates the French Revolution with the unfortunate throne and altar doctrine of many clerics, although at least they could make the argument that the states they sought to wed the Church with were not anti-Catholic. In the case of Marxism, its overwhelming anti-Christian praxis should have innoculated Catholics from it without the necessity of papal intervention, but such was not the case.

  • Tito,

    No. 🙂

  • I think there’s a pretty strong throne and altar doctrine on the Catholic Right today, at least in the U.S., where the throne takes the form of military power.

    A case could also be made for a “‘Shut up, your Excellencies,’ he explained” doctrine, which denigrates the role of the bishops, individually and especially collectively, in developing social policies.

  • I read the Pope’s document carefully.

    Now I’m perplexed:

    1. Exactly what is objectionable in what he said?

    2. Has the Pope not condemned, in this very document, the arms buildup and the disgrace of military solutions? He only appears as a right winger if you’re looking from the vantage point of an extreme left wing ideologue.

    Maybe a few here ought to put down their Che Guevara coffee mugs read it again. The Holy Father is spot on.

    It is simply a fact of history that collectivist movements have enslaved the very people they promised to liberate.

    I am frankly a little more than concerned at the prideful inability of many leftists to acknowledge this fact of history, nay, the desire to whitewash this disgrace from history.

  • Who here is attacking the Pope?

  • MI,

    They participated and got deeply involved with Marxist governments. Dissidents such as Jesuit “Father” Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua who was involved with the Communist government then.

  • I’m always amused when people, especially conservatives who decry the tactic in others, appoint themselves the experts of All Things Liberal.

    I don’t think that Acts 4:32 is a bad things for which to strive. Certainly better than cuddling up to Pinochet or Cheney.

  • I’d rather cuddle up to Cheney than Karl Marx or Joseph Stalin any day of the week.

  • The early Christians quickly abandoned common ownership as completely unworkable Todd. Outside of monasteries and convents it has only been revived by Christians for short periods, usually with dire results. The Pilgrims tried it, and almost starved to death. William Bradford, the governor of the colony relates what happened next:

    “All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

    The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

  • Michael I.,

    Donald will delete it at his leisure.

    For the time being I’m just amusing myself by reading your comments, thanks!

43 Responses to Common Good, Common Sense Economics

  • Is it possible that the frequency and destructiveness of hurricanes hitting Florida and the propensity for Floridians to build their houses “upon the sand” is a factor in the high cost of house insurance there?

    Just a thought.

  • ps. is house insurance REALLY a “necessity”??? Is living in Hurricane ravaged Florida when you can’t afford insurance or to rebuild out of pocket a “necessity”? Lot’s of low cost housing and jobs in Texas, come on over.

  • Unrestrained markets work really well when it comes to most products and services — if a restaurant is too pricey, you can just drive past it.

    But it’s different when we’re dealing with the things that all people must have to pursue their personal happiness in community with others.

    Those include infrastructure, healthy air, food and water….

    Don’t restaurants serve food?

  • Matt:

    You probably should get smacked for those comments. A few points:

    I’m pretty sure Texas suffers natural disasters (tornadoes, droughts, hurricanes, etc.) that you guys are quite thrilled to have the federal government and insurance companies come in and pay for. If insurance companies started preventing you from having insurance, so that you’re a disaster away from having nothing, I’m pretty sure you’d be a little upset.

    “Just move?” You say that so casually. Moving away from your home, culture, and family isn’t a joyful thing. It’s not a conservative thing either, unless you’re just pretending about all the stuff about community and family and tradition, etc.

    Every community has its dangers, but every person is born into that community. Whether it’s the blizzards in the north, earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and texas, or hurricanes in the south people should be able to purchase insurance for their homes and possessions at a reasonable rate and have those companies treat them fairly.

    Telling them to move or live without insurance shows a lack of understanding and charity.

  • Michael Denton,

    You probably should get smacked for those comments. A few points

    just like a lefty, resorting to such behaviour when arguments fail.

    I’m pretty sure Texas suffers natural disasters (tornadoes, droughts, hurricanes, etc.) that you guys are quite thrilled to have the federal government and insurance companies come in and pay for.

    Well personally I’m generally opposed to FEMA, but I’m in favor of insurance companies paying out to those insured who have suffered losses. While we do have natural disasters, the overwhelming majority of Texans do not live in areas which are regularly inundated. Those that do wish to live upon the sand, should pay for insurance based on their risk, or pay for their own repairs.

    If insurance companies started preventing you from having insurance, so that you’re a disaster away from having nothing, I’m pretty sure you’d be a little upset.

    Insurance companies aren’t preventing anyone from doing anything. They are simply not offering services. DO you think every business should offer services to everyone regardless of the cost of doing so??? That’s absurd.

    “Just move?” You say that so casually. Moving away from your home, culture, and family isn’t a joyful thing. It’s not a conservative thing either, unless you’re just pretending about all the stuff about community and family and tradition, etc.

    I didn’t say it casually, but it must be said. If you can’t find work, or afford to live where you have been living, you MUST move to support your family, that is a MORAL obligation. It’s not the governments responsibility to make every region affordable so that you can live where you chose regardless of ability to pay. That IS conservative.

    Every community has its dangers, but every person is born into that community. Whether it’s the blizzards in the north, earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and texas, or hurricanes in the south people should be able to purchase insurance for their homes and possessions at a reasonable rate and have those companies treat them fairly.

    Of course the companies must treat people fairly, but why do you think hurricane insurance is so expensive in Florida, and less so elsewhere? What is a “reasonable rate” for insurance? It’s the risk of loss * the amount of losses, simple as that, higher risk (such as hurricane’s in florida) means higher rates. Are you saying that people who live in the Mid-West should subsidize Floridians to be insured for losses in a hurricane?

    Telling them to move or live without insurance shows a lack of understanding and charity.

    Not in the slightest, it’s just common sense.

    ps. I’m not suggesting there aren’t legitimate gripes with how insurance companies deal with people, it’s the nature of the demands being made above that are erroneous.

  • Home insurance is essential if you want a state/nation of home owners according to how our mortgage system is set up- this is so that if catastrophe hits you don’t decimate whole neighborhoods by having destroyed homes left abandoned and rotting next door I suppose- if someone has a better idea for continuity for home owners then that might be worthy to hear about. But this post is really meant to connect up with the Pope’s encyclical, so try and keep your proposed solutions based upon something from that authoritative source.

    The exact list of what is essential to live a decent life here in America may vary- but what about the main points here?

  • Just move? You say that so casually.

    To be fair, there are those territories below sea level that most assuredly will suffer repeat disasters, where homes should never have been built in the first place.

    Is it really reasonable that billions of dollars be devoted to the rebuilding of homes, etc. in areas that will simply end up experiencing the same disasters all over again the following years?

  • just like a lefty, resorting to such behaviour when arguments fail.

    Did you just call me a lefty? If so, I am certainly not. I am proud son of the state of Louisiana, which is why i took offense to your ignorance and indifference. As it is attitudes like yours that have left many of my neighbors destitute, the adjoining neighborhoods abandoned, and the city of New Orleans struggling, allow me the indulgence of being upset.

    Well personally I’m generally opposed to FEMA, but I’m in favor of insurance companies paying out to those insured who have suffered losses. While we do have natural disasters, the overwhelming majority of Texans do not live in areas which are regularly inundated. Those that do wish to live upon the sand, should pay for insurance based on their risk, or pay for their own repairs.

    Without trying to wade into the mess of what “personally I’m generally opposed” is supposed to mean, the assertion that Texas is a utopian place immune to nature is laughable. Even not considering Houston, Galveston, and Corpus Christi which suffer from hurricane danger, Texas routinely suffers tragedy from nature.

    Insurance companies aren’t preventing anyone from doing anything. They are simply not offering services. DO you think every business should offer services to everyone regardless of the cost of doing so??? That’s absurd.

    Nonsense. You need insurance to get a mortgage; you need a mortgage to buy a house. No insurance=no mortgage=no house. If the insurance companies gouge prices, then they are most certainly forcing people to move.

    As for them offering services regardless of the cost, I’d think you’d be hard pressed to find that the insurance companies are really charging appropriate prices. After all, in the year following Rita & Katrina, the insurance companies made billions. They’re not hurting and they’re certainly making enough money to not have to raise prices they way they did.

    I didn’t say it casually, but it must be said. If you can’t find work, or afford to live where you have been living, you MUST move to support your family, that is a MORAL obligation. It’s not the governments responsibility to make every region affordable so that you can live where you chose regardless of ability to pay. That IS conservative.

    No, you sound so upset and heartbroken that families have to be torn apart and communities abandoned. Indeed, it is clear that you feel our pain.

    It is most certainly the obligation of government to preserve the community when it threatened by companies gouging prices. It is NOT conservative or Catholic to allow big corporations to become the arbiters of what is moral and to allow them free reign. It is is a legitimate use of governmental authority to step in and ensure that the insurance companies are charging appropriate rates.

    Of course the companies must treat people fairly, but why do you think hurricane insurance is so expensive in Florida, and less so elsewhere? What is a “reasonable rate” for insurance? It’s the risk of loss * the amount of losses, simple as that, higher risk (such as hurricane’s in florida) means higher rates. Are you saying that people who live in the Mid-West should subsidize Floridians to be insured for losses in a hurricane?

    I’m not saying the rates in Florida should be the same as in everywhere else. You live on the beach you have higher rates, just like if you drive more recklessly you have high rates. that’s understandable. The problem is when insurance companies are pricing out entire cities and communities. Not everyone “lives on the sand” as you fancifully put it.

    I think they should be reasonable and affordable. As far as what those rates are, I’m not an insurance adjuster, but I can tell you that a 100% hike is probably not justified, which is usually what happens after a storm. If it is, then the government should step in and make sure that they can subsidize those rates. After all, the people in Louisiana and Florida often live so close “to the sand” in order to provide oil for Texan Suburbans and shipping portals for Midwestern farmers. Louisiana gladly subsidizes other states when they have an emergency and it’s not unreasonable to expect the same kindness.

    So don’t give me this nonsense about your indignity about helping people pay for insurance or with the government making sure the prices charged are fair.

    I’m not suggesting there aren’t legitimate gripes with how insurance companies deal with people, it’s the nature of the demands being made above that are erroneous.

    Mention State farm or Allstate in any gathering space in the state of Louisiana, and you’ll understand “legitimate gripes.” For example, the insurance companies changed their mind about how high they wanted certain houses raised, so that all of sudden some people houses which originally met minimum requirements were now 2 inches too tall and were denied coverage.

    Communities and their heritage and families are more important than the profit-margins of insurance companies.

  • On the issue of home insurance, my question would be this: Tim says in his editorial that “the big insurance providers don’t truly compete against one another on price.” If this is true (and it would be interesting to hear how he knows this) the obvious question is why not? After all, presumably people would prefer to pay less on home insurance rather than more. Why doesn’t some insurance company reduce their prices and take all their competitors’ business?

    I used to live in Florida and in fact the area in which I lived was hit by a major hurricane while I was there. It was a gorgeous area and there were many beautiful houses right up against the beach. It was a nice way to live, but building so close to the water meant that the chances were greater you were going to get flooded or your house would be destroyed in a storm. If you are willing to pay for that in the form of higher premiums, I have no problem with that (and if you can’t afford to, then I’m sorry but owning beachfront property is not a human right). The problem comes when people expect others to subsidize their repairs and/or restrict the ability of insurance companies to charge them higher premiums based on their higher risk. At that point you create a situation where people in less desirable neighborhoods are effectively paying extra so that folks in good neighborhoods can keep their nice houses, which is not only unfair but also encourages more risky building.

  • “the big insurance providers don’t truly compete against one another on price.”

    I’ll only add that my actuary friends would be fascinated by this line of argument – and unemployed if it were accurate. A complaint about high housing insurance premiums is basically an argument that other people should be paying more to subsidize your residential choices; it’s nice when other people pay for stuff for you obviously, but it’s often unfair to them.

  • To be fair, there are those territories below sea level that most assuredly will suffer repeat disasters, where homes should never have been built in the first place.

    Those homes are not all the homes of the wealthy who want an ocean view, as view and Blackadder seem to suggest. Most of the homes affected are the homes of the poorer who are trying to be closer to the resources (fishing & oil) which the rest of the country depends upon.

    Is it really reasonable that billions of dollars be devoted to the rebuilding of homes, etc. in areas that will simply end up experiencing the same disasters all over again the following years?

    Unless you’d be happy to have the price of oil, fish, etc. factor in the increased cost of transportation for workers, then yes, it is. People rebuild in Tornado Alley all the time; the city of San Francisco and Los Angeles are begging to be destroyed by an earthquake, yet people only complain about New Orleans and Florida residents being selfish for wanting protection for insurance gouging.

  • Michael,

    I just don’t see the logic in committing billions of dollars to rebuilding efforts for homes built in territories below sea level since most assuredly (by nature) they’ll simply suffer the same catastrophes all over again the following year, with not only disasters wreaked on homes but lost of lives as well.

  • Unless you’d be happy to have the price of oil, fish, etc. factor in the increased cost of transportation for workers, then yes, it is…

    Is there any reason why these costs shouldn’t be factored in?

    People rebuild in Tornado Alley all the time; the city of San Francisco and Los Angeles are begging to be destroyed by an earthquake, yet people only complain about New Orleans and Florida residents being selfish for wanting protection for insurance gouging.

    So, are you suggesting that private insurance companies are acting irrationally? In other words, that they are either taking risks they shouldn’t be taking in San Francisco/LA/Tornado Alley or that they are irrationally conservative in protecting themselves from exposure in N.O. or FL? If so, it’s odd that you think you are better at predicting these things than the actuaries/etc. who do this full time. Maybe the difference is related to the actual risks involved…why do you think it isn’t?

  • With respect, earthquakes, while they do happen in places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, do not happen with such assured frequency as do those disasters wreaked in places located in territories below sea level which seem to occur almost annually, if not every other year.

  • People rebuild in Tornado Alley all the time.

    True enough. And as I said before, if people are willing to accept the costs of doing this is the form of increased premiums, I have no problem. That goes for people in Kansas and California and Texas and Florida and Louisiana and anywhere else.

  • I want to build a house on the edge of a live volcano that is currently covered with snow; I plan to build right beneath an enormous snow flurry that would turn into the world’s largest known avalanche upon the slightest disturbance. This is a very delicate operation. Unfortunately, insurance companies are so mean that they want me to pay higher rates. I demand that someone else subsidize my insurance. It’s only fair.

  • The bit about how the big home insurers don’t really compete on pricing was something that was concluded during the Florida Today sponsered forum with experts- it was the conclusion drawn by the chief investigative reporter and no one challenged it- so I used that line in my column to see if there was any denial from other sources from within the industry or elsewhere- no one wrote in or blogged in to dispute it- so I don’t know- I’m not privy to the insides of the big insurance companies any more than I am with Big Oil- but it certainly has been the case in Florida that all the majors that were here had similar rate hikes and also made a lot of money even after the hurricanes hit- and I compare this to oil companies who seem to arrive at similar prices and then also set record profits- it would seem that with all the profit margins someone would take a big price dip to gather in more customers- but it hasn’t happened- it is very hard to prove monopoly abuses, but certainly there can be many unspoken agreements to keep all the big players extremely profitable while the average consumer is left with little of no choice. In Florida we have had Citizens insurance which is the place of last resort, but the rules were drawn up that Citizens could NOT be priced lower than the private companies.

    Now I am not claiming that all areas should be developed for homes- there can certainly be discretion when deciding whether permits should be granted in the first place- or second place when homes are repeatedly hit by violent storms predictably.

    Wow- this whole blog has turned into an insurance deal- I’d like to see some application of the pope’s encyclical for my own edification- I want to reflect an authentic Catholic worldview that is my goal- so let’s not bog down into a single issue complaint that has more to do with Florida living and politics than with the bigger picture perhaps. Though I do think I hit on an issue that has many people upset and looking for the right solutions- all of us who are homeowners anyway.

  • it certainly has been the case in Florida that all the majors that were here had similar rate hikes and also made a lot of money even after the hurricanes hit- and I compare this to oil companies who seem to arrive at similar prices and then also set record profits- it would seem that with all the profit margins someone would take a big price dip to gather in more customers- but it hasn’t happened

    I don’t know much about how insurance companies operate in Florida, but the average profit on a gallon of gas is less than $.10. You’d think that if oil companies were colluding together to set prices they would set it higher than that (an alternate explanation for the similarity in prices is that there is very little to differentiate gasoline other than price, and comparing prices is fairly easy).

  • Tim:

    Sorry to have helped hijack the post; I do think what you said has a lot in common with the pope’s encyclical.

    S.B.

    You’re embarrassing yourself. Your example has nothing in common with the situation of a functioning and productive community that has existed for hundreds of years. Moving on.

    Blackadder

    True enough. And as I said before, if people are willing to accept the costs of doing this is the form of increased premiums, I have no problem. That goes for people in Kansas and California and Texas and Florida and Louisiana and anywhere else.

    Yes, but just b/c we should have increased premiums does not mean all increases are justified and all levels are justified. If tornado or earthquake rates got to the point or pricing out large sections of Tornado Alley or Los Angeles, I’d have a problem and would like to see the government step in.

    e.

    With respect, earthquakes, while they do happen in places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, do not happen with such assured frequency as do those disasters wreaked in places located in territories below sea level which seem to occur almost annually, if not every other year.

    I don’t think the frequency conceptions you have are accurate. New Orleans has been devastated by a hurricane so badly I think 3 times since 1900 (Katrina, Betsy, and what I think is the Labor Day hurricane in the 20s). That’s hardly “frequent.”

    One might argue that if global warming is created by human action, then the frequency is not the fault of location as the higher temperatures have led to higher hurricane numbers. One could also argue that the damage done has been increased the negligence of the farmers up north who allow the toxins in the fertilizer to drift down here and destroy our wetlands, which for centuries were natural barriers that minimized hurricane damages. These argues could say that the location has been made less suitable not due to the stupidity of the people of New Orleans but the actions of others.

    In short, I don’t think it’s terribly unfair for New Orleans to ask for help against price gouging from insurance hurricanes just b/c of their location.

    So, are you suggesting that private insurance companies are acting irrationally? In other words, that they are either taking risks they shouldn’t be taking in San Francisco/LA/Tornado Alley or that they are irrationally conservative in protecting themselves from exposure in N.O. or FL? If so, it’s odd that you think you are better at predicting these things than the actuaries/etc. who do this full time. Maybe the difference is related to the actual risks involved…why do you think it isn’t?

    Do I believe insurance companies are human and therefore can act irrationally and dare I say greedily? Let me think…YES!

    I mean, perhaps your actuaries are above sin but if they can figure out they can charge a much higher price and get away with it, even if it’s mostly just to increase their own wealth, then yes, I think they’ll do it.

    Companies acting greedily and needing regulation…it’s almost like I read that somewhere yesterday…something about Caritas in the title…

  • Michael — it’s just a reductio ad absurdum. The principle is the same, though, as the notion that people who choose to live in high-risk areas should have their insurance subsidized by folks elsewhere.

    For those of you calling for regulation: Are you aware of the existence of state insurance departments that already regulate rates and services quite thoroughly? For Florida, see http://www.floir.com/pcfr/is_pcpr_index.aspx and http://www.floir.com/pc/oir_pcfo_index.aspx

  • Do I believe insurance companies are human and therefore can act irrationally and dare I say greedily? Let me think…YES!

    I mean, perhaps your actuaries are above sin but if they can figure out they can charge a much higher price and get away with it, even if it’s mostly just to increase their own wealth, then yes, I think they’ll do it.

    Michael, that’s a silly distortion of my question. You are alleging insurance companies are acting irrationally: you’ve provided no evidence for this assertion, and, as far as I can tell, have no basis from which to make this determination other than you feel the premiums are too high. There are three interpretations of the fact of high premiums: 1) the insurance companies are right and you are wrong about the risk profile of the properties; 2) You are right, and they are mistaken – that N.O. is actually a wonderful haven of profit opportunity for a smart insurer who correctly evaluates the risk and prices out their competitors; 3) You are right, and the insurance companies know it; they are breaking the law, engaging in collusion, and overlooking a great opportunity for profit out of pure spite. You’ve selected option 3. Is there any particular reason why?

  • Why ascribe something to sin that might more readily be explained by probability? Just asking.

  • Michael,

    Trying not to focus on the insurance aspect here, but I wonder what you think of this. First let me say that I’m a big proponent of family and community, and of the common man being able to go about living his life. And not to seem cold hearted about the plight of those from New Orleans, but is it not a valid consideration that N.O. was an experiment that failed, that this is one part of nature that man shouldn’t try overcoming? I mean, do the people of Chernobyl have the right to demand that the region be scraped down 10 feet, the soil hauled out, and the city rebuilt? I don’t think there’s much difference, really. N.O. belongs just as much to the sea as it does the land. Perhaps society would have been better off letting her go.

    I have mixed thoughts on the matter, but i think it’s a valid consideration and if so, to what extent does the rest of society have an obligation to support it?

  • John Henry,

    Well said.

    Doesn’t option 3 seem highly unlikely given the scrutiny that state regulators place on insurance companies? If there is evidence of collusion, where is it? That’s a serious charge that requires more than “I just feel that premiums are too high.”

  • If tornado or earthquake rates got to the point or pricing out large sections of Tornado Alley or Los Angeles, I’d have a problem and would like to see the government step in.

    I’m not sure I get the logic here. Presumably you agree that there are some areas in which people just shouldn’t live because the costs of disasters that will befall people living there are too high. I would think that if the cost of insuring against such disaster in a particular place becomes prohibitively expensive for most people, that might be an indication that that place is in one of those areas.

    Do I believe insurance companies are human and therefore can act irrationally and dare I say greedily? Let me think…YES!

    There’s a difference between acting irrationally and acting greedily. Greed can’t explain why insurance companies would be undercharging people in California.

    To put it another way, my understanding is that while home insurance in Florida costs more than the national average, the cost of car insurance is not much higher than usual. Not only that, but in some cases it is the same companies selling the car and house insurance. It could be that these insurance companies are really greedy whenever they deal with house insurance but inexplicably become non-greedy when the subject turns to cars. But that seems unlikely. Another possibility is that the costs of insuring houses in Florida are just higher than average, and the higher insurance premiums are a reflection of that.

  • John Henry:

    You have no reason to assume that they are acting rationally yet you seem incredulous that I could postulate such a theory, so it’s not a distortion.

    Yet you assume that they are quite reasonable. I see I’ll have to go back and look up some numbers, but the fact is that insurance companies had lower rates and were making plenty of money in New Orleans long before Katrina. It’s the same city; the protections are even better than before. Heck, until Monday when the levee broke New Orleans was in the clear. The risk is the same, yet the prices are now sky high or inaccessible. I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to think that the insurance companies saw an excuse to do a price hike that isn’t entirely justified by need or risk.

    SB:

    It’s not a reduction ad absurdum, it’s a false analogy. As for the insurance departments, I’m well aware of them. Louisiana has a long history of commissioner department being bribed by the rational and innocent insurance companies and going to jail for it.

    Rick:

    While I appreciate your effort at being kind, there really isn’t a way to not be cold-hearted when telling someone their city should be in the sea. But I do appreciate the effort, so I’ll answer your question.

    There’s a MR-GO canal, a federal project pushed by shipping interests that ended up providing a canal right for the water to flow into New Orleans East. That is an example of man not respecting nature, as is some of the projects that have damaged the wetlands. So man’s arrogance plays a part, but that does not mean NO is a failed experiment. NO has survived the British, fires, and hurricanes before. Other cities have been rebuilt before. They have been rebuilt

    1) b/c lessons were learned to help ward off the impact of future disasters. This is true in this case. The MR-GO is being closed and filled, more effort is trying to put into wetland conservation (LA had negotiate hard to get money from LA oil revenue that the feds were taking to pay for it, speaking of things that are not LA’s fault, but that’s another issue), the levees were rebuilt, homes in flood-prone areas are being raised. The levees have been restored and we’re looking into ways to further improve them.

    2) A city, especially New Orleans, cannot be replaced. It would be a great loss to the US if New Orleans is lost. Not only does it represent a different culture from anywhere in the US (part of why it’s maltreated as opposed to say Miami, which is in an even dumber spot), it represents a valuable culture. Especially for Catholics: how many other cities point to a cathedral as its main monument? Sure, Mardi gras has gotten out of hand but there is a rich Catholic culture here, one that preserves many things that ought to be preserved. Whether it’s London, Chicago, or Los Angeles, losing a city means losing a lot. Of course, I haven’t even begun to discuss the impacts on the economy losing NO would have. From the oil fields largely serviced by headquarters in NO to the shipping from the Mississippi, etc. NO is a valuable asset. Thomas Jefferson seemed to think so, at least.

    So yeah, I don’t think it’s a given that NO belongs to the sea.

  • Blackadder:

    You’re putting me in false position. I’m not arguing that NO rates shouldn’t be higher than other places; I’m saying that they’re too high.

    As far as insurance departments, 1) we have Republicans in office who is they want higher office try to look good big-business and 2) insurance companies threaten to leave the state, in which case LA has to take over insurance coverage. Maybe I’m not conservative enough for most of you, but I’d rather State Farm than the state of Louisiana be my insurance provider.

    In all, I don’t think many of you quite comprehend the scope of what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about some beachfront homes here; look up a map of New Orleans and see how large it is. 500,000 people before Katrina in new Orleans alone; 1.3 in the metro area I believe. Moving does not mean moving a mile or two to higher ground; moving means an hour away if you’re lucky. That you guys can’t understand or even try to sympathize that is amazing for a group of so-called Catholics who claim to practice charity.

  • So the regulators are not to be trusted, then. Therefore what we need is… more regulation?

  • P.S. to Blackadder:

    There’s a difference between acting irrationally and acting greedily.

    To sin is irrational according to Catholic conceptions of reason, therefore greed is irrational and in fact in long-term situations undermines the economic good. See Caritas in Veritate for details.

  • j. christian:

    we need stronger ethics codes which oh by the way Bobby Jindal got done last year while Palin was out looking at Russia from her house.

    Besides, I didn’t ask for another layer of bureaucracy; I’m not a liberal. I just want the people to do the jobs they have now.

  • Michael,

    A couple of points.

    First, if you want people’s sympathy, I’m not sure calling them “so-called Catholics” is a good strategy.

    Second, all greed may be irrational but not all irrationality is greed. In particular, if an insurance company is undercharging people in California, that may be irrational, but it’s hard to argue it’s motivated by greed.

    Third, you say that you’re fine with people being charged higher premiums based on risk but that the rates in New Orleans are too high. Okay. But so far as I’ve seen, you’ve offered no reason for thinking that this is so. Personally I have no idea how high a premium for a house in New Orleans should be. I know nothing about the costs, probabilities, or other factors that are involved. I do know, however, that the insurance companies employ people who do know about such things, and whose job it is to calculate how much a given policy is expected to cost. I also know that, if the calculations turn out to be wrong, the insurance companies stand to lose a whole lot of money. I’m therefore inclined to think that the market rate for insurance is about what it should be absent some reason to think otherwise (greed, you’ll note, is not a reason as it should make a company more desirous of getting the calculations right, not less).

  • The insurance rates on New Orelans are a issue. Sadly too many people see the area of New Orelans as the French Quarter and notheing more. It is a major port and is large part the start of the working Coast that stretches across Louisiana. When I say working Coast I am talking the fact that much of MAerica Seafoold inhustry, transport, and oli and gas needs are met by people that have to live on it. Itr can’t be done by robots.

    Louisina folks including those in New Orleans contribute much to the Economic and National Security of the United States. I hope this problem is dealt with

  • “I just don’t see the logic in committing billions of dollars to rebuilding efforts for homes built in territories below sea level since most assuredly (by nature) they’ll simply suffer the same catastrophes all over again the following year, with not only disasters wreaked on homes but lost of lives as well.”

    Most people do not relaize this but a nice boit of New Orelans is not belwo sea level. That being said this a working Coast

    THe consern should be immediate massive intervention to save the Coast which if not is going to be a huge econolic and ecological disaster for the nation

  • Blackadder:

    First, so called Catholics is a fairly gentle term for what was going through my mind, but I shouldn’t have said it. Regardless, I do not think it is a stretch to say that the indifference towards mass amounts of people having to uproot themselves does not show a strong Catholic example

    Second, allright, let’s give you a number. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/closetohome/2007-10-29-new-orleans-housing_N.htm

    For a $175,000 home, a buyer will have to shell out $4,200 to $4,800 a year for insurance, says Lisa Heindel, an agent at Latter & Blum Realtors. Before the hurricane, the cost was about $1,200 annually.

    I believe Texas was around 1,000 for insurance.

    Maybe I’m crazy, but did the risk really triple or quadruple after the storm? Is is possible, just possible that the insurance companies took advantage of situation to make money?

    One course, one could ask if the rate changed so much and they’re right now, how they could screw up so badly before the storm? Maybe in fact, the market forces don’t quite work out all the time.

  • “After all, the people in Louisiana and Florida often live so close “to the sand” in order to provide oil for Texan Suburbans and shipping portals for Midwestern farmers. Louisiana gladly subsidizes other states when they have an emergency and it’s not unreasonable to expect the same kindness. ”

    Michael he hit ot right on the nose. FOr all the talk of environemnt Louisiana is rarely mentioned. And don’t get me started on the idiotic Corp of Engineers that drives me insane.

    Much of the flooding we can lay right at their feet. The Nation is served by things like the Intracoastal Canal which has a had side effect of tearing up the wetlands which has increased flooding. But the nations shipping sinterest still go through it while people go why do yall folks live down there

  • I’ll confess to not having followed this whole thread in detail, this having been a busy day, but the following two thoughts might be useful in regards to the discussion of homeowners insurance:

    – Speaking as a Los Angeles native: After the Northridge quake in the mid 90s, a lot of homeowners insurance companies operating in California dropped nearly all earthquake coverage and offer separate earthquake coverage at additional cost (if they offer it at all.) This means that many Californians are sitting on a potential economic time bomb.

    – As someone who deals with statistics at work all the time: the fact of the matter is that we are not nearly as good at predicting infrequent events as we think we are. Even now, with three data points in the last century, the fact of the matter is that insurance companies do not have a very good idea whether they are over or under charging for homeowners insurance in LA. They took a major bath with Katrina, and they’re hoping that they have it right now, but they really don’t know.

    – If you think about what insurance is, it’s a promise to replace a home and its contents. So insuring a 175k home is a promise to replace up to 200k in total value of house and possessions. So if it’s being priced at 4k per year, that means that the insurance company is betting they’d have to pay out roughly once every fifty years on average.

  • Somewhere out there is my lost posting! I do think this insurance discussion is a good one- it shows that there are many things to consider- the business end, the homeowner’s ability to pay for insurance, the profits of companies, the role of regulators, the development question in areas where nature is often very destructive, and the overall morality for all of those involved in these sorts of transactions, with the common good the ultimate focal point for Catholics and all people of good will.

  • “After all, the people in Louisiana and Florida often live so close “to the sand” in order to provide oil for Texan Suburbans

    What world do you live in? There is no oil or gas pipelines that flow into Texas from NO. We have plenty of oil and gas here thank you very much. Our workers live close to the cost, but mostly not on Galveston Island.

    Louisiana gladly subsidizes other states when they have an emergency and it’s not unreasonable to expect the same kindness. ”

    Yes, and, you may or may not recall it, but those Texans you’re dissin sent more of it then just about anyone else. We took the homeless in with deep generosity.

    The problem with New Orleans (and Louisiana) go way beyond being a bowl that wants to fill with water. It is deeply corrupt (though much improved of late). That’s the real reason that so many died, and so much was lost. Your mayor failed to act in evacuating his people, and so many were stranded, and all the buses destroyed. The governor failed to call in the necessary resources and grant authority to bring in the federal resources being offered. Many policeman deserted, some became looters, and not a few turned out to be not real at all, just a way for some corrupt individual to collect their paycheck.

    Before you respond. None of the corruption is by the hard workers in the oil, shipping and fishery industries, but they take some blame for continuing to put up with the problem.

    ps. who was that congressmen who had a freezer full of cash, and STILL got re-elected in LA?

  • t is deeply corrupt (though much improved of late). That’s the real reason that so many died, and so much was lost. Your mayor failed to act in evacuating his people, and so many were stranded, and all the buses destroyed. The governor failed to call in the necessary resources and grant authority to bring in the federal resources being offered. Many policeman deserted, some became looters, and not a few turned out to be not real at all, just a way for some corrupt individual to collect their paycheck.

    I would differ with you on the state of the police force (most did stay, there were a few who committed suicide, sadly). I think being abandoned in the middle of a natural disaster zone with precious few resources is a tremendously tall order, and while there were lessons learned I think most New Orleanians came away with a better view of the force overall.

    On the government side, while the buses was a terrible decision, just think about how much experience people have with evacuating entire cities. Something is bound to go wrong. Additionally, a lot of people just don’t leave. They don’t want to. They’d rather wait it out, despite warnings.

    The government should have been better, I’d agree.

    To your ps: William Jefferson, who was re-elected primarily b/c all the Republicans voted for him instead of his rabidly pro-abortion opponent. Of course, he was ousted in 2008 for Catholic Congressman Cao and his trial is happening right now I believe.

  • most did stay

    granted, and good for those who did! That, nor anything else you said disagrees with what I said.

  • For a $175,000 home, a buyer will have to shell out $4,200 to $4,800 a year for insurance, says Lisa Heindel, an agent at Latter & Blum Realtors. Before the hurricane, the cost was about $1,200 annually.

    Maybe I’m crazy, but did the risk really triple or quadruple after the storm? Is is possible, just possible that the insurance companies took advantage of situation to make money?

    Why is it hard to believe that would have gone up this much? Katrina, after all, was a fairly major event.

    Insurance companies are in the business of making money. If they aren’t constrained by things like competition or supply and demand in setting their rates, then why weren’t they charging four grand for a policy before the storm? If an insurance company could make money selling policies at a rate most people are willing and able to pay, why would they set rates at a level most people are unwilling and unable to pay? Why, in fact, would companies be refusing to write new policies in certain areas at all, regardless of price? If there motive is making money, then that doesn’t make much sense. You don’t make money by pricing all your customers out of the market. The idea that all the insurance companies would do this, and that no company would step in and offer lower rates to get these potential customers, is just implausible. Saying that the insurance companies are greedy and only care about making money makes it more implausible, not less.

  • the insurance company is betting they’d have to pay out roughly once every fifty years

    Thanks for the von Neumann-Morgenstern napkin calculation, Darwin. Very good point; this would be the “actuarially fair” zero profit premium, of course. And how many hurricanes have hit New Orleans in recorded memory? Three or four since the Louisiana purchase? Sounds like the new rates are probably closer to reality.

  • I have some differing views on the matter I suppose.

    I need food, water, and access to shelter. eating beens drinking well water and living in a shanty is sufficient to meet all of my needs. i don’t “need” electricity or a vehicle, unless I live real far from my job. and if my shanty gets blown over by a hurricane I can rebuild it out of my own pocket probably.

Catholic View of the Political Community (part 4)

Sunday, June 28, AD 2009

We continue the test of our Catholic worldview on the subject of the role of the Political Community- drawing upon Chapter 8 in the authoritative Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. We have looked at the Old Testament (#377-378) and Jesus’ interaction with political authorities #379) to see the development of doctrine relating to how we are to regard the political community. Now we turn to “The early Christian communities”.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Catholic View of the Political Community (part 4)

  • Criticism of rulers is not necessarily being anti-government. Criticism of govt. that one prudently believes violates subsidiarity is also legitimate. While the govt. does look after the common good, as you read the Compendium you will find that all persons are responsible for the common good even if they are not directly involved in legislation. Thus subsidiarity. Nor do I believe most people here think govts. only role is a strong military. Poor strawman argument.

  • Rulers are singled out for special prayers in Christian circles for good reason- just like political leaders getting opportunities to have private meetings with the popes- it is because there is an implicit recognition that these people have a special role to play in securing the common good- even though we all have some role in the mix.

    And my own criticism is directed I suppose more generally at the harsher critiques of governing authority as a necessary agent for establishing societal rule based upon natural law- I don’t know who reads American Catholic, I don’t write as if I know everyone who is going to come across these posts- I know that there are many Grover Norquist fans out and about- with his talk about having government shrunk down to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub ( thanks for that reminder Joe!). That definitely sounds like it is out-of-bounds for Catholics to believe such a thing.

    I find it interesting that even a post that is written as a general instruction like this one, somehow finds a way to be viewed as a personal attack on some here at American Catholic. I am too busy to keep up with who’s who even around here- I have an impression from many things I read and see, and from people I know and argue with in my daily life- I know that people exist who really and truly hate pretty much all government “interference” and believe that taxes are theft, and see government’s role as being military and police almost exclusively- these aren’t straw men, these are people I know, people I consider friends to some degree even, some are Cathlic- maybe these people aren’t you- but they exist- and they aren’t limiting themselves to simple criticism of rulers.

    I think there is a danger in that streak of anti-authoritarianism that many Americans attribute to our Revolutionary beginnings- but my central thesis is that authority is necessary and good as all authority ultimately derives from God- and we mustn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater- we shouldn’t undermine the true nature and role of the political community as taught by the official Church by denying the fact that those in authority have a special responsibility to ensure the common good by applying the natural law according to the virtue of prudence.

  • Fair enough. It seems we agree that govt. itself is a good. At the same time there is a small group that sees all govt. as evil, there are also those (probably larger group) that sees govt. as the solution to all problems. Thus the authoritative teaching that subsidiarity must be observed and the govt. to intervene only when more immediate bodies cannot address the problem.

    This is because the political community is not govt. Govt. is part of the political community but the political community is broader, encompassing social, cultural, professional communities etc. These communities, through the human persons involving them, have a profound role in shapine the community as a whole.

  • To correct. The political community does not exhaust the community as a whole. The community as a whole comprises other human societies which the political is obliged to respect. Thus the role of subsidiarity.

  • I have often wondered why Catholic conservatives don’t call more attention to the principle of subsidarity, which is urgently needed as a balance between nanny-state big-government liberalism and the rigid anti-government philosophies like Objectivism or libertarianism.

    Subsidarity, properly understood, does NOT leave the poor or disadvantaged out in the cold, or treat all government as evil or all taxation as theft. It simply assigns responsibility for meeting the needs of the vulnerable to the lowest level of societal organization that is capable of meeting those needs.

    As I see it the individual is the lowest rung on this ladder, followed by the family, the religious/cultural community to which the family belongs, larger voluntary organizations (i.e. private charities, fraternal or social organizations), then up the ladder of government from the smallest unit (town, city, school district) through state and finally federal govt.

    The next highest level of organization steps in when the one below it cannot meet the need, and ONLY then. Now there will be times when this balance shifts or changes due to economic or social conditions — i.e. families or private charities can’t handle taking care of the poor so government steps in. However, the goal should always be to get needs met at the lowest possible level and to shift that responsibility back down to the local level when and if conditions allow.

    Now I haven’t done an extensive study of the concept of subsidarity so if I’m getting off base here feel free to correct me. Subsidarity doesn’t regard any layer of society (private or government) as superfluous or evil or unneccessary, it just insists that they keep their proper place in the scheme of things. It also recognizes that all these spheres are interdependent upon one another to some extent, and don’t function in a vaccuum.

    I think some of the debate going about about how to deal with state budget crises and social services would be a lot more sensible if people had a proper grasp of this concept.

    Instead of pitting private sector workers against government employees, or the family struggling to pay rising income/property taxes against the family with a disabled child who relies upon tax-funded programs to pay for the child’s care, in some kind of imagined fight to the death which one must win and the other lose, maybe EVERYONE would realize that we are all ultimately in the same boat. And instead of being at each other’s throats or insisting that someone else must do without so that I can have more, we might be willing to work together for a truly responsible government, which benefits everyone. Well, at least I can dream about that.

  • The complexity in dealing with subsidiarity right now is that we have all of these global forces in operation- multinational banks and corporations- they aren’t shy about exerting pressure on local, state, and federal governments- if one level holds strong they seem to be able to go over their heads- and I’m troubled by the legal person status given to corporations in this country- that can’t be good when you start treating a corporation as a minority with human rights in a community of real persons who don’t want that corporation to be or to stop doing something that is harming the community in some way.

    So- subsidiarity must be seen in the context of the universal common good, and global solidarity- we are one human family because we have One Father in Heaven, and His Son our Christ the King has commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and that has to have political implications when you have political and economic systems setting the conditions of life for children and families everywhere. And if we are Americans, we know that our collective influence is quite profound globally. We have to make sure we are being guided by natural law and not imperial drive- that is the great challenge for all of us- of course we have differing levels of personal power, so we are to be judged only by what we do with what we have. Like in the talents parable.

    We will see in the next part what happens when government (good) is being run by bad person (s) doing very bad things- when you subvert something that God intends to be a Good for society, then beware- like C.S. Lewis wrote- “the higher, the more in danger”.

  • Subsidiarity is a fundamental principle as is the common good and solidarity. The lowest body capable of taking care of such issues must. If that is through an international body, so be it. But that is an argument to be made and not self-evident from the current economic crisis per se. And that is consistent with love and charity in Christ. As the Church authoritatively teaches.

  • I am anxiously awaiting Pope Benedict’s take on the situation as it stands today with the Encyclical to be released in the next week or so- I am sure it will reflect the same worldview as previous social encyclical, but it will have the most direct application of that worldview to our current socio-economic conditions. It should be an excellent starting point for dialogue among the orthodoxy and with all those of goodwill.

  • As I’ve noted before on this blog, I don’t like paying taxes any more than anyone else, and there does come a point when the burdens of taxation outweigh the benefits, leading to economic stagnation or collapse as businesses and families stop spending money or move elsewhere. Tax hikes should be a last resort only when all other means have failed.

    However, I also have little if any sympathy for rabid anti-tax folks like Norquist who display indifference at best and contempt at worst for the real human beings who rely upon government services or who work for the government. I agree with Tim that his “drowning government in the bathtub” analogy is pretty disturbing when you think about it.

    Arguing against tax hikes on reasonable grounds such as their potential effect on future business/employment growth, or the need to foster self-sufficiency and personal responsibility at a lower level of society, is good. However, to insist that society can be neatly divided between parasitical “tax eaters” and long-suffering “tax payers,” as if the two groups have no interests in common and never overlap, is in my opinion a gross distortion or oversimplification of the issues involved.

Grassroots Push for Democrats for Life

Sunday, June 21, AD 2009

Here is a blog I wrote for fladems4life.org- this is the website for Florida Democrats for Life organization- If you are a Democrat and pro-life you should seriously consider joining the National and State chapters for Democrats for Life. There is a lot of freedom for you to bring your ideals and ideas into these growing organizations. I believe it is mostly a waste of time trying to turn Democrats into Republicans or vice versa- there is a philosophy of governance that pulls deeper than individual issues- even big issues like abortion.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Grassroots Push for Democrats for Life

  • Tim,

    As always, we are in agreement. Though lately I have been wondering if perhpas, as well, conservatives might be won over to the Catholic economic and political perspective.

    Perhaps we need a movement on both sides of the spectrum – one which encourages Democrats to accept pro-life, pro-family values, and one which encourages Republicans to embrace new and better economic ideas. Then we might meet in the middle and shift the whole center of gravity, away from liberalism in its economic and cultural forms, and towards a truly communitarian vision in which the state plays a supporting role (as opposed to no role at all, or too great a role).

  • I somehow found my way here after reading an article about another Christian pro-test about something irrelevant to the mainstream. My instinct is to not waste my time on this, but here it is…STOP MAKING DEMOCRATS OUT TO BE ANTI-FAMILY…just some of us believe that government has NO PLACE IN A WOMAN’S UTERUS…and certainly some middle aged, middle income white MAN has no business pushing for legislation that effect women…pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. Everyone wants less abortions happening. Only the Catholics also want no birth control, no sex education…gosh, that will work well for preventing unwanted pregnancies…and “family values?”…look at the personal lives of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley, Gingrich, the list goes on…hypocrites on ‘family values.’ I teach Sunday school, I pray and I am curious about my faith…but I will be damned to allow the religious right to continue to make abortion a political issue. Keep the church out of my government and I will keep the government out of my church. The Catholic church (and many Catholics) scare me more then any other religious group. So please, do not try to patronize Democrats with this issue. We know the truth…Republicans use it to get single issue voters…it is highly effective. Let the Democrats keep fighting for urgent things that effect the already living…things like energy efficiency, global warming, poverty, urban plight, labor, and health care…

  • Pro-Family Democrat,

    You have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do as Catholics we have freedom of speech.

    You confuse establishing the Church as the official church of the United States to Catholics speaking up about their values. Just as you speak up about your right to kill children in the womb.

  • Tito…

    Again, this time slower for you…no one here is pro “killing children in the womb”….(but those are choice emotional words, well done)…I am not pro-abortion…a concept that seems to be void to most ‘pro-lifers’…if you all would slightly bend to include PREVENTION into your cause we could probably work for a common good…but you are limited in your fight.

    Again…keep your church out of my government and I will keep the government out of your church…you can’t have to both ways. You should be very scared to continue to blur the lines…church-led government like Iran…or Government led church, like Hitler’s Germany and cold war Eastern Europe…are you really wanting to be like that?

  • Joe,

    Yea- it’s strange fighting against sexual liberalism and economic neo-liberalism simultaneously- it puts you on the ‘outs’ with both major political forces in this country anyway. I was being a little polemical about how it is easier to convert to pro-life than to change party affiliation- it did work that way for me though. Even though I hold firm to being a Democrat and working within that party, I don’t vote for the party so much as the candidate- though there are times when I haven’t done the necessary homework and all I have facing me in the ballot box is a name and a party affiliation- for local elections the abortion issue is pretty moot. But philosophically, I can see the Democratic Party taking abortion out at the national level if it gets it’s act together, and combine that natural law legal move with the necessary social program and safety net investments to make sure women are not going to face undue hardships in seeing their children through to birth at minimum.

    One other side note- I agree with Ralph Nadar about how the Dems have in many ways embraced the Republican neo-liberal economics- though both parties have gone in for dubious massive bail-outs for the large investor class- see Jeff Faux’s book The Global Class War- for info on how Clinton began the sell-out of prior Democratic party inclinations on economics. Just because I see a major role for government in such things as directing economic outcomes- I don’t go in for all of the Greenspan/Bush/Obama bail-outs of dubious banking and investment interests- economics is not a zero-sum game, you don’t just print money up to bail out the big boys- you do have to get resources moving with fixed currency exchanges and investments like the Marshall plan and/or Manhattan Projects for morally positive outcomes. I will post my campaign column on “Common good, Common-sense Economics” at a later time.

  • Baby Killing Democrat,

    Your argument sounds like I’m against slavery but I don’t want to push my views of being anti-slavery on others.

    Also I have a right to speak my values, so keep your anti-Catholic views out of the public forum.

    Islam and Catholicism are different. It’s also a straw man argument. You, like many democrats, dwell in relativism and think all religions are the same.

    Just as Hitler came to power pushing socialism, Obama is very similar. Just as Hitler, Obama is a great public speaker. Just like Hitler’s thugs, ACORN rigged the votes in strategic states. Just like the Brownshirts (who were militant homosexuals) the Black Panthers intimidated voterr. (two can play the “Hitler-card”).

    When you start drawing analogies such as you have, you know you’re losing the argument.

    If you want to prevent the killing of innocent children in the womb, then outlaw it.

  • Tito,

    your last rant is what makes me think you all are loony…just more proof…so cool, thanks…

    and when you put Acorn, Obama, Hitler and what have into your analogy…your not just losing an argument…your losing your mind.

    My guess is..it’s been awhile since you have been laid…homophobic AND a conspiracy theorist…mix in neo-nazi pro-lifer…been awhile since you had a date I bet.

    You keep on that crusade of yours…good luck. hahaha…

    I need to go wake my baby from his nap…and go meet my family at the pool for some family time…that crazy thing that us anti family Democrats writhe from…hahahaha

    you see, freak? I didn’t “kill my babies”….I just waited to have them when I was ready…thanks to being educated and informed about how babies are made…

    may the Dear Lord forgive you for being such an intolerant and bigoted ass…

  • oh one more thing Tito

    “If you want to prevent the killing of innocent children in the womb, then outlaw it”

    you are so sadly misinformed and ignorant…wow.

    We should do this with so many things…let’s start with murder. That should be illegal…then it would finally not be a problem…drunk driving, that’s another one…mmmm….we are on to something here, Tito!…how about drug use? Excellent…that IS a pesky problem. And while we are at it, how about robbery, home invasion…man, if we just made them illegal…gosh, we should have done this years ago!!!

    Excellent thought process Einstein…

  • While I may not agree with precisely the way Tito addressed you, you did say…

    “just some of us believe that government has NO PLACE IN A WOMAN’S UTERUS”

    And some of us believe that every human being, regardless of his or her location, has a right to exist. It is that simple.

    If I believed that it wasn’t a human life inside a woman’s uterus, I wouldn’t care about it. If the unborn human being has no value, then abortion should be legal.

    If the unborn human being does have value, then nothing can justify abortion. It is really that simple. The government has every right to protect human life. Seeing as how 99% of pro-lifers don’t care about the 99% of medical procedures that don’t involve killing a human being, it is simply false to make this a women’s issue.

    Even moreso in that I think men should be held accountable as well. Please don’t make us out to be misogynistic. This is about parental obligation, not women’s rights. No one has a right to neglect, abuse, or murder their child, man or woman.

  • Baby Killing Democrat,

    Odd that you bring up Hitler then mock me for mocking you.

    Again, it is God that you are angry at, you’re just a troll throwing vitriol at anyone that doesn’t adhere to your disordered view on life.

    I’ll pray for you.

  • I have found myself in the Lion’s Den…so I ask you. You middle aged men who fight for the unborn…what have you done to help the BORN? Have you adopted an unwanted child? Do you want to raise a minority child born to a drug addicted mother? Please do, it would make your argument credible. Do you volunteer at county hospitals to rock the newborn, who has been abandoned while it detoxes from meth? Do you work in the foster care system to give those children an equal chance in the world? Do you support social systems that provide a family with the LIFE LONG support they will need? Not short term…”here are some bottles, diapers and a winter coat…good luck.” WHAT DO YOU DO to help those children? Those children born, here and now…breathing, living, suffering, hurting, hungry and unwanted. Do you help them? I’m betting on ‘NO’

    And again I say to you…prevention is the key. Stop thinking abstinence. Get out of the box. I am NOT a sexual libertarian…or whatever you called Democrats…the most offensive, sexually degrading shows I have seen are on FOX…the “values channel.” Republicans, Catholics, Christians, pro-lifers…you do not have the moral authority. I am not a “baby killer” because I want to see prevented pregnancies for women that do not want to yet be mothers.

    You must separate the radical pro-life movement and include prevention and education.

    But if abortion were to be illegal…the Republicans will lose too much of their base…they know it. It will never change. Bush didn’t change a thing…why? Because you all came back and voted for him again.

    Patronizing your vote.

    good luck in your fight to get Dems on board. Single issue voters are pathetic. If they would give up all the important issues we are working on, so they can go hold up a sign and shout at young girls…good riddance…

    I hear the pitter patter of my son’s feet…he wants to join his siblings at the pool…

    Namaste

  • Does pro family include the prenatal?

  • Pro-abort Troll, I have three kids, including an autistic son, so don’t rant to me about the demands of parenthood, my wife and I have lived them. I have been active in the pro-life movement since 1973. For the last decade I have been on the board of the crisis pregnancy center in my county that gives assistance to women dealing with problem pregnancies. I am currently president of the board. Many of these women we help eventually come back to volunteer with our organization to help other women. We also have an outreach to post-abortive women to help them heal from the bitter despair often engendered from a “safe, legal abortion.” In short I have done what I can to help women in bad situations as a result of pregnancy and abortion. Do I have all the answers to the complex social problem of unwanted pregnancies? I do not. But I do know that killing the child is not a solution, and that the law must protect unborn children as it does born children, if we are to have any pretense of being a civilized society that values human life.

  • Pro-Death Democrat,

    No one here made any claims to “Fox” being the values channel. Most of us don’t even watch tv for that matter. We like to read books mostly.

    I am a board member and a volunteer to a crisis pregnancy center and many more other post-natal care facilities. In addition I pray every day for the end of killing babies as well as praying in front of baby killing facilities such as Planned Parenthood.

    I am a young man in my thirties, but I am old relative to the movement since most of my colleagues are toddlers all the way up to college students who pray with me in front of abortion mills, volunteer with many pro-life organizations that helps pregnant moms and abstinence programs.

    I don’t believe in killing innocent unborn babies and will work until my dying days for the end to the mass slaughter of babies, which is the greatest civil rights challenge in our nations history.

  • Wow- I go out for ice cream and the playground with the family and look what happens to my father’s day blog entry!!

    Well all I can say is that while I am a middle-aged man, my chief pro-life teachers in life have been women. I didn’t just become Catholic and then receive my marching orders from the Pope to become anti-abortion. I had enough life experiences to teach me the true nature of abortion to lead me to oppose abortion with or without a religious conversion. As an update, my wife was one who helped me clear the final hurdles about abortion- she is the one who told me that the only women she can understand would still be pro-choice on abortion are women who have not had children. She is the one who has told me before the births of our children, she is the one who made me promise that no matter what goes down, if there comes a point where there is a choice to be made between her life or the baby she has only seen on ultrasound- go with the baby always! Now I know I am only a middle-aged male, but these kind of witnesses from my female wife have made a deep impact. Maybe the claim will be made that my wife is a self-loathing female- well that logic would follow anyone who opposes a U.S. war and speaks out negatively. Maybe only active duty service men and women should be able to participate in the political debates concerning whether the country should go to war or not.

    I’m not buying it. Now I agree with the need for investments in all kinds of pregnant women/children/family social helps, which is why I am pushing for the Pregnant Women Support Act, it deals with a lot of the root causes of abortion- so don’t paint the pro-lifers with too broad of a brush as being insensitive to women and children already born. We may have strong disagreements on the value of contraception, but there are a host of other ways to address many of the same root causes- shall we work together on those, or just continue to issue angry emails and look upon our opposites as pure bad guys. I personally disagree with many things that mainstream liberals and conservatives put forth, but I also find room for common ground, and I am willing to work on that, even as I keep on trucking with my full list of ideals, pushing the system as is my right to do in a free society.

    I’m not sure that non-religious persons would embrace my way of loving the women in my life- but I have a facebook cause entitled “Dads Protecting Daughters” which shows more of the politics of my heartfelt love and devotion to my female children- girls I would die a thousand painful deaths over to save- the content of my love may be in some ways mistaken, but do not mistake my intent- I love the women in my life, and I do not believe that supporting abortion rights is any way to say I love you to any woman. That’s my humble but strong opinion.

  • This guy gives us yet another opportunity to look at how the pro-choice movement makes a complete mockery out of logic.

    “You middle aged men who fight for the unborn…what have you done to help the BORN?”

    Why would this have any bearing on the argument? Something is either true or it is not. What the person proclaiming that truth does on their spare time has no relevance. The answer to the question may well be, ‘absolutely nothing’. So what? Go back to logic 101. 1+1 = 2 even if Hitler says so. The sky is blue even if Stalin says so. Truth claims have to be evaluated independently of the person making the claim.

    “Do you support social systems that provide a family with the LIFE LONG support they will need?”

    I can’t speak for the others, but I do, as a good in itself. But again it is irrelevant. With or without those systems, either abortion is murder or it isn’t. If it is, it is unjustifiable. If it isn’t, then who cares if there is a system in place?

    “And again I say to you…prevention is the key. Stop thinking abstinence. Get out of the box.”

    This is simply not about abstinence. There are plenty of married people having morally licit sexual relations who nonetheless seek out the services of the abortionist. This is about parental obligation. To make it all about sex reduces the unborn child to nothing else but a consequence of sex. It is that, but it is also more. It is a child of two parents and an independent human being.

    That said, birth control does not prevent abortion. It encourages abortion. It creates a mentality and a lifestyle of sex without consequences, but it only has to fail ONCE, people only have to forget to use it ONCE for that false reality to implode. Then people are left completely unprepared for the consequences, and the less prepared people are, the more likely they are to abort.

    “the most offensive, sexually degrading shows I have seen are on FOX…the “values channel.”

    True, but again, irrelevant.

    “I am not a “baby killer” because I want to see prevented pregnancies for women that do not want to yet be mothers.”

    We all know what a pregnancy is, and what you mean by ‘prevented’.

    A woman isn’t pregnant with a kidney or a spleen, but an unborn child, a unique individual with its own genetic code and potential in life. The only way to ‘prevent’ it from being born is to kill it. So, we have a child, and we have killing. Making it sound political or clinical doesn’t change what it is.

  • Tim, as a pro-life Democrat, I obviously agree.

    If I lived in Florida, I would strongly urge you to run for re-election and I would work for your campaign.

    Joe, this is yet another reason as to why we should run on the same ticket. I’d be willing to be the Vice President for 8 years. So that I can succeed you for another 8 and be in the White House for 16 years (diabolical laughter).

  • Normally liberal Democrats are all in favor of protecting groups of people who are seen as vulnerable, powerless, or discriminated against, particularly women and racial minorities. Wouldn’t it be perfectly logical for them to regard the unborn as an oppressed class deserving of protection as well?

    I realize, of course, that the main reason liberals seem to have a blind spot with regard to the unborn is their insistence upon absolute sexual freedom. However, most liberals don’t seem to have a problem restricting the “freedom” of an employer to sexually harass or intimidate workers, or the “freedom” of pedophiles to access child porn, so even they acknowledge that there are SOME limits on sexual freedom.

  • I think “Pro-family Democrat” is the reason many of us see making the Democratic party pro-life as a practical impossibility.

  • Phillip raises an excellent point. I have paid dues to Dems for Life, but even on the local level, pro-life voices are made VERY unwelcome at Democratic Party gatherings. The (God help us) “Pro-family Democrat” types treat respect for life as hate speech; it’s hard to imagine any common ground with them.

  • I am registered as an independent, but I would not have any qualms voting for a pro-life Democrat. I would even volunteer for a pro-life Democrat and actively participate for Democrats for Life.

    In fact I have done those three things in the past, but only at the local level.

    This is only the beginning, but we shouldn’t lose faith. Continue working within the Democratic Party to begin a dialogue and eventually a change from their pro-abortion platform.

    With God all things are possible.

  • Here’s the plan guys- I know that strong Republicans are pretty biased against the idea that Democrats can pull themselves together on Life issues because of the current establishment/activist hostility to traditionally religious worldviews- it is natural to suppose that an organization that you disagree with to the core could ever change on something that is nearest to your heart. But, I think that there is much more positive in the classic Democratic model as Elaine describes above- and also I don’t think that “Pro-Family Democrat” represents the mass of Democratic voters. This is KEY.

    I recommend Mark Stricherz’ book – Why The Democrats Are Blue- I plan on doing a brief sketch of the book for a blog entry in the future. The book depicts how secular liberalism came to dominate the upper reaches of the Party by way of legal strategies internal to the Party as the Party Boss system was challenged- there was enough to justify reform on the old boy network, but of course, the wrong type of folks took advantage and led the Party down the drain.

    I take it as a given that there is a very large untapped “market” among rank and file Dems- the type of people who vote Democratic for economic and other meat and potato reasons, but disagree with varying intensities to the social liberalism that comes with that package. As evidence, look at how many states voted as a majority for Obama but then also voted down gay marriage or voted for trad marriage definitions. And even though african-americans and hispanics voted strongly for obama, there are probable majorities among these folks who would love to support traditional morality candidates- but they haven’t had many opportunities.

    I would say that the strategy of Republican Catholics to just continue casting aspertions on minorities for voting Democratic- as if everyone should just fall in line and become overnight Republicans- that is beyond wishful thinking. The fact that many of us feel that the establishment Republican strategy of having an end game of sending abortion back to state legislatures- is not even a worthy pro-life strategy in the first place, is another point to consider.

    Instead of focusing a lot of energy trying to convert Dems over to Repubs, or Repubs over to Dems, I would rather spend time now building up a network of traditional religious voters within the Democratic fold- among those who are Democratic already for reasons I have spoken of many times before. This is why I am addressing myself primarily to fellow Democrats- it is not very helpful for Republicans to jump in with more negativism about how “hopeless” the Democratic Party is- I get it- but I think both major parties are “hopeless” on paper, but God trumps the paper, and I believe that there is a numbers game that is to the favor of transforming the Democratic and Republican parties to be much much more pro-life if only the sleeping giants of traditional religious folks awaken and assert themselves. My role is to try to help organize that within the Democratic fold. I would suggest that religious Republicans focus more on getting the Republican party to put abortion on a much higher shelf than it has in the past. For example if Bush/Cheney had spent half the energy they devoted to the case for invading Iraq on bully pulpiting and pushing the Republican Congress to educate the American people to the facts of Life beginning at Conception, with legislation being passed saying the same, putting the issue in front of the Supreme Court repeatedly- then I don’t think we would be sitting here looking at a very diminished Republican party today.

    But my job here is not to keep beating up on Republicans, I need to focus on my party, and since I believe only a strong two major party strategy against abortion will do the trick- I believe my mission is good, and not self-delusional. If or when I come to see that I am wrong, I would probably go with trying to form a Natural Law/Common Good Party rather than join a Republican Party where I disagree with their core assumptions about the nature of the role of the political community, which results in my even finding too many serious flaws in their approach to abortion that I couldn’t find any true enthusiasm- even though I do vote Republican sometimes- mostly at the national level where I have to admit that while establishment Republicans are lukewarm on abortion, Democrats have bacome ice cold. If we use an analogy from Scripture where the unborn are unconcerned- I see establishment Republicans as the Pontius Pilates’ trying to wash their hands of abortion by sounding like impartial, unemotional originalist judges, while the establishment Dems are more like the Chief Priests who are very actively stirring up the people against the rights of the unborn. Not a pretty choice to make- with few heroes out there in the mainstream.

  • I notice that Elaine Krewer is the only lady who’s commented here, so I figured I’d put my oar in just so PFD doesn’t get the notion this is entirely a hangout for middle-aged men.

    Middle-aged woman, here. Mom of four. Doctrinally conservative Catholic with liturgically eclectic tendencies. Pro-life feminist in the tradition of the nineteenth-century suffragists. Have had a crisis pregnancy. Have volunteered with a Birthright center. Been volunteering with kids for a couple of decades. Make regular contributions to those less fortunate.

    I bear you no ill-will, PFD, but if you’re going to sashay into a combox and post a bunch of inflammatory accusations and rambling rants, you shouldn’t be too surprised if some of the gentlemen reading forget they’re gentlemen.

  • Dear readers-

    Good for you! We need to work hard to end abortion by election of more Pro-Life Democrats who will pass laws in this respect and Pray for those who want abortion and have back alley shops they call offices! God will do his thing!

    Respect,

    Robert L. Jones
    A Blue Dog Democrat
    http://www.democratsforlife.org

  • Is abortion wrong because abortion is anti family, against God’s law, and/or coercive?

  • Student,

    That is part of it. But mostly because it violates the Fifth Commandment of “You shall not kill”, ie, killing innocent babies.

  • This blog post and the comments are an excellent witness to both the Catholic faith and the “pro-life, whole life” doctrine it teaches. Pro-family Democrat, you are in my prayers. Kudos to everyone here who will doubtlessly be called “good and faithful servants” by our heavenly Father some day!

  • Thank you so much for this very interesting post. I am pro-life, but disagree with the Republican party about just about everything else. If anything, I am probably a bit more liberal than the Democratic party on many issues. I feel in such a crisis about this. I like what you wrote about “limited government” verses “limited responsibility” and the importance of the common good.

    I was just talking with my husband–actually in tears–because I have always been political and civic minded and voted since age 18, and yet I feel like I have no one to vote for.

    For the record, I am not Catholic, although I am Christian. And also for the record, I am a woman and a feminist and have been pro-life almost all of my life. But that is not what matters. Sadly, I do think that a lot of liberal men who otherwise might be pro-life are bullied by the more radical elements in the pro-choice movement–are told that they have no right to have an opinion about abortion because they are men, which is irrelevant if abortion is murder.

    Anyway. Sorry to crash your party, but I wanted to say that what you are doing is inspiring.

  • Should God’s laws influence (if not control) government’s laws?

  • From: Lila Cuajunco
    Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:03 AM
    Subject: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fw: OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA
    To: [email protected]

    On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lila Cuajunco wrote:
    Hi Georgia – Thanks for the Open Letter to Obama. I will send it to my
    congressman.

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Georgia Froncek
    Date: Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:47 PM
    Subject: Fwd: FW: Fwd: Fw: OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA

    This letter you are about to read was written by a 4th grade teacher
    recently. She even gave the world her telephone and fax numbers. She
    is a brave, bright, PATRIOT! We are in dire need of more true American
    citizens who are proud of OUR United States of America . WAKE UP
    AMERICA . . . Please . . . Before it is too late!

    April 27, 2009

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington , DC 20500

    Mr. Obama:

    I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on
    your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an
    adequate representative of the United States of America collectively
    or of me personally.

    You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world
    that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the
    United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the
    United States.

    You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
    I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the
    United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care
    about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First
    World War and the Second World War were all about if not the
    consideration of the peoples of Europe ? Are you brain dead ? What do
    you think the Marshall Plan was all about?

    Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century? Where
    do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does
    not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the
    Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ?
    This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles
    governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly
    from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

    Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all
    Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the
    king of S Audi Arabia. You don’t show Great Britain , our best and one
    of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the
    king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

    You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest
    generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time
    to visit a mosque in Turkey . You offended our dead and every veteran
    when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the
    German people from themselves. What’s the matter with you?

    I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have
    the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be
    ashamed of yourselves, all of you. You are so self-righteously
    offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers
    yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
    Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the
    Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I
    seriously doubt it.

    What about the US . House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses
    to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay
    raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House
    aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my
    employer.

    You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely
    didn’t! Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving
    $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45
    million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie
    executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who
    authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this
    group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right
    now.

    You can’t blame ANY of the above on George W. Bush. WHY are you so
    determined to give this country’s dwindling wealth to corrupt
    politicians and your corrupt friends?

    I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and
    not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are
    doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also
    want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do
    and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise
    you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to
    spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

    Sincerely,
    Every Real American

    P.S. I rarely ask that e-mails be ‘passed around’…………
    PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST……it’s past time for all
    Americans to wake up!

    Ms Kathleen Lyday
    Fourth Grade Teacher
    Grandview Elementary School
    11470 Hwy. C Hillsboro,
    MO 63050
    (636) 944-3291 Phone
    (636) 944-3870 Fax
    >
    >
    >

7 Responses to Basic Health Care and the Common Good, A Conservative Response

  • Good post.

    I’m part of a project in Madison, WI that is addressing this issue right now. It’s called Our Lady of Hope Clinic, and it will offer free basic healthcare to the uninsured.

    How will this be paid for? We are currently recruiting and signing up benefactors. These benefactors will pay a single annual fee to receive all of their primary care from the clinic. What’s in it for them?

    1. Their contribution serves the poor.
    2. They get high-end concierge-style care. In other words, instead of the average six-minute appointment, they are guaranteed 30-minute office visits so the provider gets a complete picture of their health and their needs. There is 24/7 access to a personal physician. This also allows for a focus on preventative medicine so health care doesn’t turn into “sick care.”
    3. Only 300 benefactors per physician–about 10% of the typical practice. This allows for the long appointment times and individualized attention. It also allows the doctors to spend slightly over half of their time treating the poor.
    4. 100% pro-life. Parents don’t have to worry about doctors pushing birth control pills on their teens.
    5. No billing or claims. The annual fee covers everything.
    6. There are tons of tax deduction opportunities, depending on one’s situation.
    7. Depending on their current coverage, many people can actually save money by becoming benefactors and switching to a high-deductable secondary coverage for their advanced care.

    Certainly the solution to American health care is not singular, but I believe this model will make some serious inroads. It’s a win-win for the poor and the benefactors.

    Additionally, it eases the burden on the system. When the uninsured can treat, for example, their diabetes early, it cuts down on ER visits that will never be paid for. This reduces the sunken costs of our hospitals and benefits the consumer.

  • Oh yeah, if you’re interested in learning more: http://ourladyofhopeclinic.com/

  • Sounds like a pretty good idea. It kind of reminds me of the stuff Wal-Mart is doing with its health clinics. My main concern is that if these sorts of things become too popular, the AMA will try to shut them down, ostensibly on grounds of safety but really as a form of protectionism for doctors.

  • How dare you question the motives of the AMA. What’s next, teacher’s unions? The ABA?

  • When I was fairly young our family got most of our care from a local clinic which worked on something like this model — it was I believe open to anyone who was a city, state or federal employee (my dad worked at a city college) and it was the local clinic at which young doctors did their internships.

    And yes, one of the major obstacles to this kind of thing is the AMA, which wants to make sure that the value of doctors (and thus cost of health care) remains high.

  • How dare you question the motives of the AMA. What’s next, teacher’s unions? The ABA?

    Ha!

  • Diagnosing standard diseases and infections, and treating them with anti-biotics. Standard inoculations. Basic screening tests. Treating basic injuries. X-rays. Standard ultrasounds and pre-natal care. Delivery in cases without complications. Well-child care.

    It is an interesting idea, although it may be difficult to distinguish in practice between ‘basic’ and advanced health care. To cite one example, during both of my wife’s pregnancies, either she or the child required more than ‘basic’ care; it is hard to assess pregnancy risks ex ante.

    I have had a couple acquaintances (both in their twenties) in the past five years who went to the doctor with fairly minor complaints (a persistent cold, a sore knee) that turned out to be cancerous, requiring prolonged medical treatment. It is possible that a regular nurse or less skilled personnel would have made the proper referrals for a timely diagnosis; but health care is a field where incremental differences in education can matter a great deal. At least, so it appears from the outside.

    Given the large number of people who cannot (or will not) pay for basic insurance now, the balance of harms may weigh heavily in favor of relaxed licensing requirements. Any change will have trade-offs, and this is an interesting suggestion. How feasible it is politically is another question entirely…..

12 Responses to Cardinal George's Official Statment on Abortion

  • The Catholic Anarchist and I agree! Probably not one of the signs of the Apocalypse, but close!

  • “This was bad law [I would say “this is bad law”].”

    Actually an attorney would use the phrase “this was bad law” which might indicate that the cardinal consulted with an attorney when drafting it. Heaven knows, however, that I would never set up my profession as models of good English usage.

  • Donald,

    Thanks. I was wondering about that, especially from such an important document such as this.

    I like the statement as well. I hope Cardinal George and President-elect Obama will be able to have a good dialogue on this and hopefully a fruitful outcome.

  • Decent stuff. Tito’s comments in red were welcome and clearly modelled on those by the esteemed Father Zeulsdorf on the most excellent What Up That Prayer Say. Almost bold or at least appears that way compared to the usual oatmeal served at the USCCB Restaurant. Time to find out if all those bold letters and statements they released in the past 12 weeks weren’t just vacant moosh. Could be tough times ahead for them and many practicing Catholics, particularly those in health care. Must pray for them to maintain the tungsten reinforcement in their vertebrae. And for us too.

  • Tito – Did you add more commentary since you originally posted this? Just to clarify, I think the statement itself is a good one. I have no comment whatsoever on your own commentary, other than to say I think you should have placed it at the end of their statement rather than mucking it up with your own interruptions.

  • The red is a little jarring to me, personally, but I like the statement. Thanks for posting it Tito.

    MI- approved your comment (not the second one, although I found it amusing). I feel your pain with the moderation; it’s happened to me occasionally with the auto-filters at VN and I know it’s off-putting.

  • Too bad the Catholic Church does not persecute the pedophiles and rapists within their very ranks with the same fervor they pursue the people’s elected representatives who do not kowtow the Catholic line.

    What about protecting the children that are already born? This is an organization that by it’s very actions basically condones child molestation!!!!!

  • M.I.,

    I was thinking the same thing. The red seems to scream out. I was puting in my commentary and saving the column after each paragraph, hence why you thought you saw double or something.

    I believe Fr. Z uses a slightly off-blue on the background to calm down the screaming red. I like your idea of puting the comments at the end though.

    I’ve been practicing on my personal blog with the red commentary a la Fr. Z and still haven’t figured out the right balance so as not to distract from the statement itself.

    It’s a work in progress and I also agree with you that the statement itself would have been sufficient, though what fun would that have been?

    😉

  • Zebediah,

    Could you present proof of the Church’s teaching on the condoning of said behavior?

    Here’s our catechism link so you can find it for us and post it on our website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • Pingback: Canonical Options For Dealing With FOCA « The American Catholic: Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective