Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

And I wholly understand, and agree, that there are collectivist activists within the Catholic Church who are more interested in advancing an agenda than they are in adhering to the teachings of the Catholic Church. That's what I said earlier, let's just acknowledge that in the Catholic Church, as well in every other segment within society, there are collectivist activists and leave it at that.

I know you want give more weight to what these activists say than you want to give to what Archbishop Aquila has to say, but just because an activist says something doesn't make what they say accurate. Ryan isn't "distorting Catholic teachings", the activists are, that's the simple truth of the matter. It has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church that it is the central government's responsibility to provide for the poor by redistributing the wealth that belongs to others or to provide for the poor via taxation. The proper Catholic teaching is that individuals have a responsibility to be their brother's keeper using their own resources, not by taking the resources of others for that purpose.

And I think you are missing the point these so-called "collectivist activists" as you label them are trying to make:

Nearly 60 prominent theologians, priests, nuns and national Catholic social justice leaders released a statement today refuting Rep. Paul Ryan’s claim that his GOP budget proposal reflects Catholic teaching on care for the poor, which he made in an interview earlier this week with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

In other words, it wasn't they who are trying to "distort" the teachings of the Catholic Church, but, rather, Paul Ryan when he made the claims his budget reflects the teachings of the Church.

And that claim is addressed by Archbishop Aquila in the missive he wrote, which I provided a link to earlier. Ryan's claim is correct, his budget is consistent with the tenets of Catholic teaching on caring for the poor. What Benjamin Franklin wrote nearly 250 years ago regarding poverty is more consistent with Catholic teaching that what these activists are alleging it is.

What Franklin said is that it was his experience that the more that was done for the poor, the less they did for themselves and, of course, became poorer as a result; and that leading them out of poverty had the opposite effect. Paraphrased to be be sure, but still more consistent with Catholic teachings on caring for the poor than an endless stream of individual subsidies using money taken from others via taxation to care for them is.

PrintSmith wrote: And that claim is addressed by Archbishop Aquila in the missive he wrote, which I provided a link to earlier. Ryan's claim is correct, his budget is consistent with the tenets of Catholic teaching on caring for the poor. What Benjamin Franklin wrote nearly 250 years ago regarding poverty is more consistent with Catholic teaching that what these activists are alleging it is.

What Franklin said is that it was his experience that the more that was done for the poor, the less they did for themselves and, of course, became poorer as a result; and that leading them out of poverty had the opposite effect. Paraphrased to be be sure, but still more consistent with Catholic teachings on caring for the poor than an endless stream of individual subsidies using money taken from others via taxation to care for them is.

Based on what you keep repeating over and over I must ask if you even read the letter these Catholic groups wrote?

And a correction on my part: the letter was written to Congressional leaders, not the Vatican as I originally indicated. My apologies.

Of course I read the letter Z, otherwise how would I know that they, and not Ryan, are trying to misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Edited to add: Did you read the entirety of the Archbishop's missive that I linked to earlier?

PrintSmith wrote: Of course I read the letter Z, otherwise how would I know that they, and not Ryan, are trying to misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Edited to add: Did you read the entirety of the Archbishop's missive that I linked to earlier?

Yes, I did read it in its entirety, and my take away from it doesn't appear to by what you seem to be taking away from it at all.

We should have a serious debate about whether Paul Ryan’s plans- and those of his political opponents- serve our national purpose. We should discuss seriously whether they utilize just means. But we should also discuss whether his plans, and those of his opponents, prudently steward the resources we have.

Paul Ryan is concerned that America will soon be bankrupt, and so we must make hard choices. If he is right, and we ignore the message because the consequences seem compassionless, our sentimental affections may cripple the ones our Lord loves the most- our children.

That quote, alone, tells me he isn't saying Paul Ryan is right, nor is he wrong. All he's suggesting, at least from my perspective, is that we need to have a serious debate on this issue. He doesn't go into any of what you have stated previously about the government taking from one group and re-distributing it collectively to another - unless I seriously missed something.

I also believe the group that composed the letter to Congress are saying almost the same thing in this regard.

Stewardship of the poor is admirable if the Church (all churches actually) could sustain that. I don't believe they can. If, as you suggest, the government getting out of the poverty equation actually happens, what do you suggest as a way of "leading" the poor out of their situation?

The way one leads one out of poverty is to require that the one receiving subsidy make progress in not needing that subsidy. You remember FDR's CCC? There was work beneficial to the public that was performed in exchange for the subsidy. That work instilled a work ethic and the understanding that there was no such thing as a free or reduced lunch. We have lots of work that needs to be done. There are highways that need to have trash picked up, graffiti that needs removing, public housing projects and other public buildings that need maintenance done to them, or janitorial services performed; the list could get very lengthy very quickly, but I think the point is made.

The way to lead one out of poverty is to require useful labor be performed for the subsidy, just as a wage is paid for useful labor performed on a job. Now, I think it might be a bit much to ask those being subsidized to put the gold leaf on the dome of the Capitol, but cleaning the toilets, emptying the trash and polishing the floors isn't out of the realm of possibility, is it?

PrintSmith wrote: The way one leads one out of poverty is to require that the one receiving subsidy make progress in not needing that subsidy. You remember FDR's CCC? There was work beneficial to the public that was performed in exchange for the subsidy. That work instilled a work ethic and the understanding that there was no such thing as a free or reduced lunch. We have lots of work that needs to be done. There are highways that need to have trash picked up, graffiti that needs removing, public housing projects and other public buildings that need maintenance done to them, or janitorial services performed; the list could get very lengthy very quickly, but I think the point is made.

The way to lead one out of poverty is to require useful labor be performed for the subsidy, just as a wage is paid for useful labor performed on a job. Now, I think it might be a bit much to ask those being subsidized to put the gold leaf on the dome of the Capitol, but cleaning the toilets, emptying the trash and polishing the floors isn't out of the realm of possibility, is it?

No, it isn't. But you never specified before this point in time exactly what you were advocating for that I can remember other than abolishing social welfare programs. So, on the work for pay programs, we can agree. I've never opposed work for pay programs. That being said, I'll put it out there (again, with no disrespect intended) that you've not given the impression you would support even that from what I remember. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize. What I do remember you advocating for is abolition of social programs that help the poor. The only potential problem I have with work for pay is with regard to the aged, the infirm, and the disabled. How would you address that?

Edited to add: One more thing with regard to the CCC - wouldn't something along these lines also be considered "socialism"? I do agree putting people back to work is an admirable thing. But the government doing so might be frowned upon by some, wouldn't it?

That is because you make the normal mistake made by the left. An opposition to federal individual subsidy is not an opposition to State or local individual subsidy, it is an opposition to federal individual subsidy. I have long and often said that I believe the welfare of the citizens of the State of Colorado is a State of Colorado concern, not a federal one. I have long and often said that I believe federal one size fits none programs do more to perpetuate the problems they are supposed to address than cure them. I have long and often said that I believe a return to the majority of tax dollars being levied and collected at the State and local level would be more appropriate and useful in addressing the issues of poverty, hunger, homelessness and elderly care than an ever increasing levy and collection of federal taxes has proven itself to be.

And that, Z, is why the left lies when they say that the right doesn't care for anyone but themselves. It isn't true now, it has never been true in the past, and it will never be true in the future. I want the care of Colorado's poor and elderly placed in the hands of the local and State governments in Colorado where I have a greater ability to watch what they are doing and a greater ability to hold them accountable for the manner in which they act. I want fewer representatives of California, New York, Texas or any other State deciding how the citizens of Colorado are to be governed or how they are to be treated. The people who know what will work the best for Colorado's poor and elderly are Coloradoans, not New Yorkers, not Californians, not Texans.

And how, specifically would the states and/or local governments "fund" those state or local individual subsidies? Work for pay means taxation on those who are not in the public employ in this context. If you, as a taxpayer, are willing to pay for those state or local individual subsidies, then have at it. Get them implemented, and get people back to work. Thus far, neither the Federal nor state governments have been "successful" in accomplishing this feat. I don't believe local governments even factor into that particular equation.

"Normal mistake made by the left"? I believe a "normal" mistake made by the right is to put most, if not all, their eggs into the "trickle down" theory of economics. That theory does nothing to actually lift the poor out of poverty, and (getting this thread back on topic) arguably flies in the face of Jesus Christ's progressive teachings.