Has your Diocesan Newspaper become the Heretic monthly? (Vanity)

Self | 10/12/2004 | Self

[conservonator]

Recently I have noticed a disturbing trend in my Archdiocese newspaper The Witness regarding the amount of thinly veiled pro-Kerry editorial, "news" and letters to the editors published in the last few issues. Some of the most troubling pieces were written as letters to the editors form "priests". Most of the material begins with the recognition that the Church is pro-life (duh) but then what typically follows is a lengthy rationalization for weighing other social justice issues like: the war, death penalty, living wage, etc. on an equal or, by preponderance of sheer volume, superior weight in deterring one’s vote.

Is anyone else seeing the same thing in their diocesan newspaper?

I’ve been pondering how to react to this. On the one hand I want to call them and ask them to cancel my subscription and take the $ my parish sends on my behalf (each family is subscribed upon joining the parish) and sending that $ to Priests for Life or EWTN with an explanation as to reasoning behind my request. Or should I bombard them with letters outlining the true teaching of Christ and His Church on these issues in hopes that one might get published so other likeminded people will speak up. I’m torn.

I appreciate your thoughts.

[conservonator]

I'm not looking for a political endorse for Bush but it would be refreshing to see an accurate presentation of Church teaching :(

[2banana]

A letter I sent to my minister:

The sermon was centered on two passages:

2 Samuel 23

The Last Words of David

2 "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me;
his word was on my tongue.
3 The God of Israel spoke,
the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness,
when he rules in the fear of God,
4 he is like the light of morning at sunrise
on a cloudless morning,
like the brightness after rain
that brings the grass from the earth.'

AND

Psalm 72

Of Solomon.

1 Endow the king with your justice, O God,
the royal son with your righteousness.
2 He will [1] judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.
3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.
4 He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
he will crush the oppressor.

To sum it up (the sermon's conclusion and it was pretty vague in some/many respects):

Republican - Good because pro-life
Democrats - Good because they help people

My responds is below. I do know that Pastor xxxxx favorite TV show is "West Wing!"

---

Dear Pastor xxxxx:

I am writing this note as a response to your most recent sermon on xxxxxx on the subject of “Shouldn’t we keep religion out of politics?”

I am writing this email only to bring up some points and for no other reason.

1. President Clinton.

President Clinton’s “personal life” was not the reason he “failed” in his presidency. He was the second president of the United States that was impeached. He was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. It was not about having sex with an intern or cheating on his wife. It was about undermining the justice system of this country and defining if people with power are above the law or not.

2. What makes a good Christian when it comes to choosing a ruler or can government do the work of God?

What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts. Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of “Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit.”

Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government “aid” to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.

These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do “God’s Work.”

If a government takes a portion of a man’s wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman’s property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people’s tax money and does “God Work” with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an “Ungodly” man?

Today, the US government takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person’s paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God’s work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the “right things?”

Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outline in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.

In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the “Great Society” programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to “help families and children” or “buy votes” depending on your political viewpoint.

At the beginning of the 1960’s, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970’s there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).

Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.

Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though “poor” by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.

The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.

The “Great Society” programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world result are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.

I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the “Great Society” programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the “Works of God” that the government has done or is trying to do.

I have visited many countries in which the government “guarantees” that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave “government help” for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The “worker’s paradises” of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do “God’s Work.”

The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is “Who should help those in need?” I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort.

Very Sincerely,

2banana

[M007]

I see the same stuff in the letters to the editor in my diocesan newspaper. It is totally bewildering and baffling.

At least Card Egan did not let sKerry get lavished upon at the AL Smith Dinner. I give the Card credit for that.

[Aquinasfan]

Our paper ran a story with a headline like, "Most theologians do not regard abortion as a decisive election issue."

The intent is obvious.

[kellynla]

What diocese do you live in?

[nevergore]

The Vatican has now "endorsed" the action in Iraq....kinda kicks the legs out from underneath some liberal priests....

TKC
NeverGore :^)

[APFel]

Bravo!

APf

[Okies love Dubya 2]

The OKC Sooner Catholic printed Archbishop Burke's 'Our Civic Responsiblity for the Common Good' in the latest issue, which we received Saturday. I thought that was a decent move.

[conservonator]

Very nice letter. I, like you tend to see support for the policies of the Democratic Party as a near abrogation of individual responsibility to live the Gospel. Far too many Catholics would rather "help" others through the welfare state than they would by volunteering time or donating resources to the various local and international agencies that are specifically designed to help the least among us, be they the poor, disabled, sick or imprisoned.

The blunt instrument of government is the wrong tool for the wrong job at the wrong time in regard to many social justice issues.

[conservonator]

Dubuque

[animoveritas]

"The Record" - Archdiocese of Louisville is doing the same thing. After my letters to the editor started being replied with downright nasty comments, I was able to get through to the editor. He said he would check into it...we have staff that compiles letters for review, maybe their fault...etc. Haven't heard back, don't expect it. Meanwhile same anti-Catholic call-to-action garbarge shows up each week. I've not had much success engaging the Archdiocese staff, so I have been working at the parish level.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

My diocesean paper and diocese (Philadelphia) is all but openly against Kerry.

We will have voter guides distributed soon by the diocese in the Parishes instructing the faithful that Bush is the person who supports positions closest to the Church.

There will be no open endorsement, of course.

[Capt. Tom]

Keep putting the pressure on the left drifting Catholic Church.

Last June I sent the folowing e- mail, and another followup e- mail after I made a telephone call, and never got an answer to my question from the Boston Archdiocese:

Hi Gerry I was referred to you, since I could not get a definitive answer to my question from the person answering the phone.

I read Archbishop O'Malleys statement on the death penalty,where he ends up saying " "We must join our voices with that of our Holy Father in calling for an abolition of the death penalty. We want our country to be characterized by justice, not revenge; by safety, not violence; by life, not death."

This makes me ask the following question. Has this pope , or has any other pope acting "ex cathedra" determined as a matter of "Faith and Morals" (.where the pope would be infallible), that the death penalty is morally wrong. If so, where is that encyclical?

Or is this just their personal opinions? In which case Catholics who support the death penalty should be free to tell O'Malley and Wojtyla to butt out of American politics. -Tom

[conservonator]

Can you ping your lists please?

I'm really interested in what's happening in the various dioceses around the country and what, if anything, people are doing to confront the misrepresentation of Church teaching in "official" news papers. Thanks!

[MasonGal]

I agree - I receive "The Record", as well. (I live in southern IN - but go to church in downtown Louisville. I also receive "The Criterion" - the Archdiocese of Indianapolis' newspaper.

I'm sure that I've your letters, as I read that section of "The Record" every week.

[caisson71]

I remember selling subscriptions to our diocese paper when I was in high school. I stopped read it years ago and don't even know if it's published anymore. I certainly don't hear anyone even talking about it anymore.

[italianquaker]

No the tablet and the weekly circular do a fine job of showing how wrong jk is for Catholics without endorsing anyone because we know that only certain churches get scrutinized.
w2004
ciao

[conservonator]

We will have voter guides distributed soon by the diocese in the Parishes instructing the faithful that Bush is the person who supports positions closest to the Church.

Who's supplying the voter guides? Were they developed "in-house" or are they the one's from Catholic Answers?

There will be no open endorsement, of course.

None is needed for an informed, practicing Catholic :)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

In house. The Catholic Answers material may have gone out in the newspaper. We carry Keating's column.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

a lengthy rationalization for weighing other social justice issues like: the war, death penalty, living wage, etc. on an equal or, by preponderance of sheer volume, superior weight in deterring one’s vote.

As long as the Kerry voters are deterred, we have nothing to worry about ;-)