…and, welcome to one of the biggest reasons I recently dumped the Catholic Church, Dolan, you fleabag!Don't let Dolan's ways destroy [for you] what is good and without flaw. The Eucharist will always be perfect.
♥
Posted on 12/03/2013 12:41:03 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press with David Gregory, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said that the Catholic Church ideally would have backed Obamacare but for President Obama’s attempt to cram down violations of the First Amendment on Obamacare’s back. “We bishops have been really kind of in a tough place because we’re for universal, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare,” Dolan said, emphasizing that church support for universal government healthcare dated back to 1919 in the United States. “So we’re not Johnny-come-latelies. We’ve been asking for reform in healthcare for a long time.”
Dolan added, however, that the Obamacare mandate which stifled the religious expression of Catholic businessowners had sunk Catholic support for Obamacare. “Where we started bristling and saying, ‘Uh-oh, first of all this isn’t comprehensive, because it’s excluding immigrant and it’s excluding the unborn baby,’ so we began to bristle at that.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I guess it’s OK to trample everything and everyone with one exception.
I wonder what he meant by, “...church support for universal government healthcare dated back to 1919 in the United States.”
That’s a quote from Brietbart.com, not the Cardinal. So I’m wondering what happened in 1919, and why (apparently) the Cardinal believes this is when the Church in America stated to support reform of healthcare.
I don’t think there were even any insurance companies back then, were there?
I wonder what that date refers to; is it some bishop’s conference or what? If I can ever find the time, I should look into that.
Catholic clergy live in an ivory tower like intellectuals. They have no concept of what ordinary people go through every day. They harp on taking care of the poor, but they don’t understand that just because a person has a job or a home doesn’t mean he has gobs of money to give.
My aunt is still a practicing Catholic. Her diocese assesses a certain amount of money each household must give yearly to the diocese over and above the weekly collection. My aunt told her assessment next year has risen to around a thousand dollars. My aunt is 82, a widow, living on a fixed income. She told the pastor she doesn’t know if she can meet that figure, even though payment can be spread out monthly. The pastor has tried to make her feel guilty for not meeting her obligation. I told my aunt she should give what she can afford, and if her pastor or the bishop don’t like it, they can kiss her backside.
The Church has moved away from its mission. It’s now an extortion racket.
Anyhow, when Christians meet to discuss things, they do help encourage, guide, and warn one another. It’s the meeting that matters. With modern technology now it can happen over internet as well as face to face.
That sure twists the biblical concept of “cheerful giving.” And shouldn’t service count too?
I strongly believe in ‘social justice’, and I think most of us here do. The problem is how you define ‘social justice’, and what you think the best way to work for it is.
Personally, I believe that the future success of the Republican party, and a broader base for conservatism depends heavily on making this case and embracing the type of approach to social justice that is truly ‘just’. We have let the left characterize themselves as the champions of social justice - the defenders of ‘Tiny Tim’, and characterize conservatives as ‘Scrooges’, but this is not even close to reality, and we cannot let it stand any longer.
From a Catholic perspective, if this requires debating and challenging the clergy about the human spirit, and freedom, and about how Catholics and other religions have been treated under communism and other totalitarian regimes who gained power by claiming they were for ‘social justice’, so be it.
When inner city youth are brought up in gang-infested neighborhoods, don't finish school, don't get the kinds of education that helps them to be proud productive successful members of society, and don't have father's in the household etc., it is not ‘social justice’ to perpetuate this by just giving government money without attempting to address the greater spiritual issues, decline of the family, and moral decay that is actually robbing whole generations of a truly happy and productive life.
It is not social justice when someone like Hugo Chavez uses class envy and class warfare to gain the power to confiscate property and wealth from those who have worked hard for it, and who have the capacity to contribute to social justice by providing jobs, upward mobility, and to be beacon of hope for those who believe if they work hard they can also achieve these things.
Marxism, socialism, communism, are all antithetical to true social justice. All of them.
‘Universal Healthcare’, as routinely promoted by the left, is not ‘social justice’ - for many, many reasons. All who need treatment should receive it. No one who is ill should be turned away. Most physicians, nurses etc. that I know feel this way, and would volunteer their time to make this a reality. The things routinely proposed by the left will take away the ability to get treatment from many, define who gets what treatments, and will cost more and therefore absolutely require rationing - as decided by bureaucrats and not physicians. That's just for starters.
You can't elevate the human spirit and guide it towards greater compassion and charity by stealing away freedom and attempting to engineer societal behavior and calling it ‘social justice’.
Religion and politics never mix. This is merely another glaring example of that.
So Dolan is all for every other, non-birth control/abortion aspect of Obamacare, including millions of Americans’ loss of health care coverage, rationed care for the elderly and government control of treatment strategies.
This, along with that church’s strident support of amnesty, are poisonous for this country. I haven’t been a Catholic since the 1980s and am never going back.
It's been apparent for quite some time that Dolan gets "a tingle" from Barry. I guess he'd rather follow the antiCHRIST.
Related thread:
Vatican paper: US bishops speak for Catholic Church on health care reform
Hey, Cardinal...
How do you reconcile socialism with
“thou shall not covet, thou shall not steal”
???
I’m going to say a few words on behalf of the Cardinal Dolan and the Catholics (which is not to say I will defend the explicit attacks on the free market of Pope Francis):
The Catholics support a government that is medium-size. They cannot support big government. The opposition to big government is very clear. They generally do not support a government that is small. I myself do support a government that is small, and so I quit the Catholic Church a while back.
From time to time, they have attacked small government, but not in ways that are as clear as their attacks on big government. I think it is possible that the Catholics could encompass both the small and the medium-sized government-types, but the Catholic Church is generally not a comfortable place for small government-types.
Pope John Paul II is definitely my kind of Church leader. While he was Pope I resumed including certain institutions of the Catholic Church in my giving. I continued this through Pope Benedict XVI, but obviously now I will have to reconsider. Possibly a future Pope will return to John Paul II’s teachings and clarify this matter. But, as it is, the Catholics seem sold out for medium-sized government.
To defend Cardinal Dolan on Obamacare, it is unjust to condition charity on not working. Denying charity to poor people because they work is evil. So, once the government started to get into the charity business, and started to dispense goodies like cash benefits, food stamps, health insurance, housing vouchers, Pell Grants, and so forth, the problem of discrimination among the poor based on working became an issue.
In theory, we could have a flat tax/fair tax/negative income tax consisting of (A) a package of benefits, mostly non-cash, and including health insurance, for those at the very bottom, and (B) a tax system - let’s say 30 percent - where you start losing the benefits as you start to have income, eventually come to a break-even point, and then start paying taxes. With this kind of system, we would have a floor but no ceiling, and at every point people would have a good incentive to work.
While I would prefer a purely private charity system to even this, I think the system I described would be o.k. with most people who support small to medium-sized government, although maybe not all at either end of this range.
Here’s the problem for the Catholic Church: they cannot pretend to know what is the amount of the basic grant and what is the right mix of cash and non-cash benefits in that basic grant, and what is the right tax rate, to make the tax and welfare system work. That would be for government leaders, relying on economic advisors and their own good judgment.
My judgment, as an economist, is that the dollar value of Obamacare is way too high for it to be affordable by the taxpayer or by those at the lower end of the income distribution who are not being subsidized. Also, that the dollar value of the total package of welfare benefits - cash and non-cash benefits - is also too high (mostly because of the health insurance part of the package). And, that the effective tax rate on those at the low end of the income distribution is way too high, approximately 100 percent, so there is little incentive to work.
So, speaking as an economist, the particulars of Obamacare and of the tax system have to be addressed, but the principle that nobody should be treated more shabbily because they work implies that if welfare recipients get health insurance so too should poor working people.
The Catholic “Church” is steeped in centuries of intrigue and corruption—Don’t know why this most recent revelation should come as a surprise to anyone.
Charity is not socialism. Karl Marx was a Jew—but not the Christ.
…and, welcome to one of the biggest reasons I recently dumped the Catholic Church, Dolan, you fleabag!Don't let Dolan's ways destroy [for you] what is good and without flaw. The Eucharist will always be perfect.
“We bishops have been really kind of in a tough place because we’re for universal, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare,” Dolan said, emphasizing that church support for universal government healthcare dated back to 1919 in the United States.”
These bishops should be confronted by the idea of government run “universal, comprehensive, life-affirming” *RELIGION*. That is, they would no longer work for the Catholic church, but join with other clergy as part of a government agency, run by bureaucrats, providing “equality” of religious care to everyone, whether or not they could afford it, wanted it, or deserved it.
They shouldn’t be opposed to that, because it is pretty much what they are proposing for “universal, comprehensive, life-affirming” health care.
And “state churches” have also long been the status quo in Europe, and now in China. So these bishops should be all in favor of just obeying regulations from Washington, D.C. instead of encyclicals from the Vatican.
They wouldn’t have to wear those funny looking robes and hats anymore, just a suit and tie. And instead of being bishops, they would be General Schedule(GS)-15s.
And because federal regulations now embrace homosexuality and diversity, there would be female and homosexual bishops as well as non-Catholics, even atheists, acting as bishops.
So what’s not to like? They are willing to inflict socialized medicine on us, so they should be all in favor of socialized religion.
Gag Alert?
I don’t think so — Read this ObamaFlowers analogy and weep. I got it in an email so pass it on until it is viral.
Obama Flowers - Have you ordered yours yet?
(Receptionist) Hello, Welcome to ObamaFlowers, My name is Trina. How can I help you?
(Customer) Hello, I received an email from Professional Flowers stating that my flower order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your website, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.
(Receptionist) Yes, I am sorry about the website. It should be fixed by the end of November – or maybe December. But I can help you.
(Customer) Thanks, I ordered a “Spring Bouquet” for our anniversary, and wanted it delivered to my wife.
(Receptionist Interrupting) Sir, “Spring Bouquets” do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with Red Roses.
(Customer) But I have always ordered “Spring Bouquets”, done it for years, my wife likes them.
(Receptionist) Roses are better, sir. I am sure your wife will love them.
(Customer) Well, how much are they?
(Receptionist) It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package.
(Customer) What’s the difference?
(Receptionist) 6, 12,18 or 24 Red Roses.
(Customer) The Silver package may be okay, how much is it?
(Receptionist) It depends sir, what is you monthly income?
(Customer) What does that have to do with anything?
(Receptionist) I need that to determine your government flower subsidy, then I can determine how much your out of pocket cost will be. But if your income is below our minimums for a subsidy, then I can refer you to our FlowerAid department.
(Customer) FlowerAid?
(Receptionist) Yes, Flowers are a Right, everyone has a right to flowers. So, if you can’t afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.
(Customer) Who said they were a Right?
(Receptionist) Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it Constitutional.
(Customer) Whoa.....I don’t remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding Flowers as a Right.
(Receptionist) It is not really a Right in the Constitution, but ObamaFlowers is Constitutional because the Supreme Court Ruled it a “Tax”. Taxes are Constitutional. But we feel it is a Right.
(Customer) I don’t believe this...
(Receptionist) It’s the law of the land sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is you monthly income sir?
(Customer) Forget it, I think I will forgo the flowers this year.
(Receptionist) In that case sir, I will still need your monthly income.
(Customer) Why?
(Receptionist) To determine what your ‘non-participation’ cost would be.
(Customer) WHAT? Your can’t charge me for NOT buying flowers!
(Receptionist) It’s the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It’s $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income.....
(Customer)interrupting) This is ridiculous, I’ll pay the $9.50..
(Receptionist) Sir, it is the $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.
(Customer) ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a ripoff!!
(Receptionist) Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.
(Customer) Look, I’m going to call my Congressman to find out what’s going on here. This is ridiculous. I’m not going to pay it.
(Receptionist) Sorry to hear that sir, that’s why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone your are using.
(Customer) Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?
(Receptionist) So they get your GPS coordinates sir
(Door Bell rings followed immediately by a loud knock on the door)
(Receptionist) That would be the IRS sir. Thanks for calling ObamaFlowers, have a nice day...and God Bless America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.