It is becoming clearer that while Nancy made an agreement with Catholic bishops to take abortion out of the healthcare bill, her liberal friends thought she intended to break that deal later....
We now know there were actually bishops in Pelosi's office and she was on the phone to Rome before agreeing to the pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment to the House healthcare bill. That was a serious handshake.
A Wall Street Journal piece today indicates Nancy Pelosi has a very real mess on her hands:
The last thing Democrats need right now is a fight over health care with a powerful group that ought to be an ally in the struggle to pass a bill.
Yet that's exactly what may be taking shape with the nation's Catholic bishops. The reason: The party's liberal wing is trying to force a retreat from a deal struck in the House to ensure that federal funds aren't used for abortions under a health-care overhaul. It's an argument nobody seems to really want, over a subject almost everybody would like to avoid, yet it hangs overhead like a cloud that won't quite go away:
This is an ironic twist, because just a few days ago it appeared that, almost miraculously, the House had succeeded in taking abortion out of the health debate, while also winning the votes of a crucial bloc of moderate Democrats and turning the bishops into one of the most potent groups of cheerleaders for getting a new plan into law....
From the point of view of the amendment's authors, and the Catholic bishops who were part of the conversation, the effort was simply to retain a two-decade-old position widely accepted as the status quo:
If that seemed too good to be true, it probably was....
The Stupak amendment passed, with the votes of 64 Democrats. That cleared the way for some wavering moderates to vote for the broader bill, in turn allowing it to win final passage, 220-215....
Almost immediately, though, the Democrats' progressive wing and abortion-rights groups began pressuring party leaders and the White House to roll back the abortion plank as the bill moves to the Senate....
Rep. Lynn Woolsey of CA, the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, went so far as to post a commentary on the Politico Web site attacking the bishops for their role in advancing the Stupak amendment.... She even suggested that the government remove the tax-exempt status of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Other lawmakers said, in effect, that they voted for the Stupak amendment but didn't really mean it, because they expected the amendment to be stripped out later, either in the Senate or in a conference committee.
As a result, Democratic leaders are in some danger of having the worst of both worlds: letting a compromise pass, thereby angering their liberal wing, while appearing cynical in suggesting that they now intend to drive it out of the bill, thereby angering the party's moderates and the bishops. That's a problem with consequences: The simple math in the House suggests the health bill wouldn't have passed without the votes of the moderates who came to the "yes" side after the Stupak amendment....
The trick for Democratic leaders now is to find a way to convince all sides that the arrangement can survive the biggest health-care legislation in memory.
This is an easy one. Pelosi is a political creature with great political instincts, and she also wants to remain speaker.
She will use the Bishops as much as she can to push the bill forward until she has to dump them. She's used to ignoring the Church, this won't be any different.
The Bishop's will end up eating this one, for sure. They will never formally oppose the bill, no matter what is included, and in the end they will have "cheerleaded" strongly for a bill that will most likely have the abortion coverage put back in.
Pelosi and Obama will get their victories and the Bishop's will again be relegated to the back room where they will fuss and moan, but secretly many of them will be happy universal health care has passed.
I don't like Pelosi at all, she's a terrifying woman actually. But she is smart as hell and knows the system inside and out.Posted by: Andrew at November 13, 2009 8:47 AM
The problem is the bishops didn't put Pelosi in power, her constituents did. They are the only ones who can give her the boot and that isn't likely.
I don't care if Pelosi was on the phone to Heaven and spoke with Jesus Christ Himself, she will do the politically expedient. She wanted that bill passed and if she isn't throwing one group of people under the bus to do it, she'll throw another. Why should Pelosi care anything more about the bishops than she does her own PA supporters?
If this amendment is stripped from the bill she can simply throw up her hands and proclaim her profound innocence. Sorry guys, I tried.
This whole bill is an anti life disaster. The bishops may have unwittingly better enabled its passage.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 8:48 AM
Hi Andrew 8:47am
An excellent post. It couldn't have been said any better.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 8:51 AM
The key thing to remember about Pelosi is that she thinks politically, not morally.
She knew she would piss off all the pro-aborts by allowing the Stupak vote to pass, but she also knows she will be the victor in the end when the whole bill passes. This will assure her re-election.
The Bishop's, for the most part, think morally, not politically. They have been accused of political ignorance and I think that in this situation it's true.
That being said, I do think the Stupak vote was as close as we are going to get to having abortion funding removed. Small victory indeed.Posted by: Andrew at November 13, 2009 8:59 AM
Your comment makes me think of an old Sylvester Stallone movie, "Nighthawks", which involved the hunt and capture of a terrorist.
The terrorism expert, fed up with Stallone's naivete and indifference to how dangerous this terrorist was finally said in exasperation, and I paraphrase, "dammit get inside the man's head"!
"think like he does"!
Excellent advice for our side to follow when dealing with Pelosi and Obama.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 9:29 AM
The Stupak Amendment is a "victory" for us like the Munich Agreement was a "victory" for world peace.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 9:34 AM
Yes, Health Care In Our Time!Posted by: Andrew at November 13, 2009 9:37 AM
Another scary question I don't even want to contemplate.. What did the Bishop's promise Pelosi in her office??Posted by: Andrew at November 13, 2009 9:39 AM
I don't think they promised anything as much as "threatened", if that's the appropriate term.
Perhaps they communicated something along the lines that it was catholics that put Obama over the top, and it will be catholics that they will galvanize in the Sunday bulletin should Pelosi try to double-cross them.
Or maybe they appealed to what little is left of her moral sensibilites.Posted by: carder at November 13, 2009 10:23 AM
I think Andrew hit the nail on the head. The bishops think morally, Pelosi thinks political strategy.
At Munich Chamberlain saw Hitler as a man to be reasoned with, who wanted world peace.
Hitler saw Chamberlain as a "worm" to be manipulated and conned into aiding Hitler in his quest for world domination.
As the terrorism expert in the Stallone movie said:
"Dammit get inside the man's head!"
"Think like he does!"
In this case obviously its "her" head.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 10:32 AM
what you guys are saying hopefully will not happen, the Bishops shouldn't budge one inch on this. If Pelosi touchs the Stupak amendment at all, she should excommunicated immediatly.Posted by: Jasper at November 13, 2009 11:01 AM
She should have been excommunicated long before now. I'm sorry to say I doubt the bishops have Nancy shaking in her boots.
Get inside the woman's head Jasper, think like she does.Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 11:03 AM
I wonder if Nancy saw Stupak's youtube video where he admitted he probably couldn't vote against the Health Care Bill without his ammendment. He said he just wanted the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Afterwards, he threatened that if his ammendment was scrubbed in committee, "there would be Hell to pay."
Reps. Diana DeGette and Louise Slaughter led the group of Democrats in writing to Nancy threatening to withhold support for the final bill if it strictly prohibits federal funding for abortion services.
But then they gave themselves a little wiggle room: “We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law,” reads a draft of the letter.
Does the Stupak Ammendment represent greater abortion restrictions than current law? I don't think so.
I'm very concerned that what we have now is a bunch of political posturing, playing a role for the benefit their largest campaign contributers.
In the end, I'm afraid one side or the other will cave to sign the bill.
I think our best hope is that the bill gets killed in the Senate.Posted by: Ed at November 13, 2009 11:43 AM
"Does the Stupak Ammendment represent greater abortion restrictions than current law? I don't think so."
I'm confused about this. Some say it does.
"I wonder if Nancy saw Stupak's youtube video where he admitted he probably couldn't vote against the Health Care Bill without his ammendment. He said he just wanted the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote."
"Afterwards, he threatened that if his ammendment was scrubbed in committee, "there would be Hell to pay."
Do you suppose he was warning her about the afterlife?Posted by: Janet at November 13, 2009 12:01 PM
You guys made excellent points. We're talking about World Class politicians here. When it comes to scheming and planning and appearing to appease one group and then reversing to appease another, they are the best of the best.
I wouldn't be surprised if while Pelosi was negotiating with the Bishops, she was already thinking that she'd appease the pro-death crowd by promising to get the ammendment scrubbed in committee. In fact, she probably helped orchestrate the letter of protest from the far left Reps. to satisfy the pro-aborts.
We've got to get this thing killed in the Senate.Posted by: Ed at November 13, 2009 12:04 PM
Do you suppose he was warning her about the afterlife?
Posted by: Janet at November 13, 2009 12:01 PM
LOL!!!Posted by: Ed at November 13, 2009 12:06 PM
I guess I'd have to read the ammendment to be sure but I remember Stupak's address to the House where he said he wasn't introducing anything new. For decades the federal goverment has refused to pay for abortions and this ammendment simply codifies it in the new Health Care Bill.Posted by: Ed at November 13, 2009 12:11 PM
Who do I believe on this -- Nancy or the Bishops? I'll take the Bishops. I don't think they were even involved with this -- at least not the way the AP or Nancy is revealing. She knew that she had to justify her evil actions and get her way, so she concocted a story for the press. The woman is wicked!
Watch the Laura Ingraham clip at http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2009/11/laura-ingraham-raymond-arroyo-discuss.htmlPosted by: Jean at November 13, 2009 1:30 PM
Nancy Pelosi needs prayers. One way or another, the woman will meet her maker one day and on that day, may He have mercy on her soul.
As far as the Bishops threatening her with anti-Democrat votes in the next election, I'm not so sure they have that to promise. After all, look at what happened in '08. Even some Catholics who call themselves Pro-Life voted for Obama. To quote a "Pro-Life" friend of mine, "No abortion story you tell me can make me vote for another Republican." This was her response after I told her Jill Stanek's story. Imagine my incredible disappointment especially since she is my child's Godmother.Posted by: MEsMama at November 13, 2009 3:32 PM
It's nice to see St. Frances Xavier Cabrini's story at your website.
How appropriate that she is the patron of hospitals, immigrants, and orphans; her feast day is today; and she is the first US citizen to be canonized!
* * * *
I'm praying for all politicians and will say a special prayer for your friend's change of heart. Maybe you could convince her to vote for a conservative who most closely mirrors her own values (and ignore political party designations).
"Lie down with dogs, for sure fleas will follow".
The Bishops should stop toying with Ms. Pelosi . .as stated she should have been excommunicated long ago. She merely plays the Bishops as simpletons; and at times, not too far wrong.
The Stupak amendment was a toy that Ms. Pelosi threw into the baby crib . .liberals will fight to get it out of the bill and probably win.
It all has become a sad indictment on our political system.
But no one has answered the question, "What did the Bishop's offer Pelosi?" There has to be an answer.
I don't think they "scared" her into allowing the Stupak vote based on the threat of ex-communication or the loss of Catholic voters in '10. 1) They don't have the ability to deliver a solid Catholic vote one way or another and 2) she knows a threat to a public excommunication has no teeth because she has very boldly disregarded Church teaching in the past and no Bishop has ever called her on it.
So what did they offer her?Posted by: Andrew at November 13, 2009 4:09 PM
Stupak-Pitts was brought about because of the Capps amendment's transparency. Had Stupak not provided a rallying point for pro-lifers, House leadership would have twisted the arms of fence straddlers and convinced them that Capps would cover their concerns. Then we would have been left with a bill that passed with really nothing at all to give us a fighting chance to keep abortion out of the final legislation. At least we have something at this point.
If this is a ploy by the wicked witch in the west to steer this legislation to final approval she may have out-smarted herself. Consider the mine fields being thrown out there by scornful pro-aborts. 40 of them will not vote for a bill that has Stupak in it. But there are 50 or more reps who will not vote for a bill that doesn't include Stupak. I am not a math wizard, but it does present a problem for Nancy.
No, I do not under-estimate the cunning and duplicity of the back stabbers, but this IS still a representative democracy and our communications on this issue was simply overwhelming. The reps and senators who are in contested districts know very well that their careers hang in the balance. In the end, IF Obamacare does pass, it will not have publicly funded abortions as part of it. Having said that, this bill in its entirety is a flaming disaster.Posted by: Jerry at November 13, 2009 4:50 PM
When a "deal is struck", it requires both sides to get something in return. I can't help but wonder what the Catholic bishops may have gotten out of the "deal" with Pelosi.Posted by: Marie at November 13, 2009 9:27 PM
Who to take to the dance? Who to take to the dance? Oh what is a poor liberal girl to do!Posted by: Sydney M. at November 13, 2009 10:25 PM
The Bishops want universal health care. If you are looking for what "they gotten out of the deal" you do not have to look further than that.
It pains me as a Catholic that our Bishops support this piece of trash. While they were right in insisting on the Stupak amendment, they are terribly misled if they think the bill as a whole is good for our country.Posted by: Jerry at November 13, 2009 10:30 PM
Obama wanted a bill and Nancy had to produce one. Whoever had to be lied to, played for a chump or thrown under the bus, the bill had to get through and did.
The Stupak Amendment may well be removed. This fight isn't over yet. However, like Pontius Pilate Nancy can wash her hands. She did her duty.
I am not Catholic but am disappointed the bishops support this bill. Just where do the bishops suppose the money for this monstrosity will come from, heaven?? It is anti-life, will cause burdensome taxes, and economic hardships. It will result in rationed care. The gov't is already screwing up and rationing the H1N1 flu vaccine distribution. Keep in mind the same people who ran the "cash for clunkers" program and the flu vaccine distribution want to manage your health care.
That should make us all sleep well at night.
Can we be sure Nancy abhors losing a standing in the Church more than the Bishops abhor their tax exempt status? When one dances with the devil the devil will demand his dues.Posted by: Peggy at November 14, 2009 7:40 AM
Andrew makes some really good points. But let's stop evaluating what is going to happen and come up with a strategy to KILL THE BILL! Any brilliant ideas? I don't think we can rely on the BISHOPS who seem to be buying Nancy's crap and promises. Stupak isn't really even going to stick by his own ammendment...AND we shouldn't sit back and scream VICTORY because of them throwing us a bone....HOW DO WE KILL THE BILL? WHAT CAN WE DO NOW? not thinking the letters and emails are working...Posted by: Deanna at November 14, 2009 8:09 AM
The Bishops want universal health care. If you are looking for what "they gotten out of the deal" you do not have to look further than that.
It pains me as a Catholic that our Bishops support this piece of trash. While they were right in insisting on the Stupak amendment, they are terribly misled if they think the bill as a whole is good for our country.
Posted by: Jerry at November 13, 2009 10:30 PM
Of course they think it's good for the country. Their "orders" come from Rome where there is a push by your pope for a one-world order, promotion of labor unions and wealth redistribution (from his papal encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" #'s 25 & 67.)
Why do you think Pelosi got a "call from Rome", and who do you think was on the other end?
Do you believe that Obama wants to push the above as well? If so, as many have stated on this site before, do you think there was actually a "deal", or were they guiding Pelosi back on the path of one-world government that she was falling off of?
So I earnestly ask you, why does this pain you? It's what your church is promoting, right?Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 8:55 AM
Not to mention "free" health care and amnesty for illegal aliens. Does the Pope think we are made of money? I certainly respect the church and the people who are members of it, which includes my mother, but I have an issue with being charitable with other people's money and resources.
The only thing "free" means is someone else is footing the bill.
Correct me if I am wrong, but where and when did Christ demand charity and welfare programs from the Roman gov't? I recall He instructed that we as indivuals help those in need, not that we petition the gov't for "free" services.
For centuries the Catholic Church did that, establishing schools, orphanages, hospitals, etc.
I hope they are not losing their way as Marie suggests.
Jerry, if you get the opportunity, you might find it interesting to watch the latest episode of the World Over Live on EWTN. Raymond Arroyo interviews Bishop Morlino about the health care bill.
I am not Catholic but am disappointed the bishops support this bill.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2009 10:58 PM
Mary, the USCCB supported a vote on the Stupak amendment. They have not come out in support of the entire bill and their statement indicates that they remain concerned about various aspects of the bill.
That they are supportive of universal health care doesn't mean they necessarily support a top-down government control of health care. I think we'll hear more about subsidiarity in the coming weeks, but only if and after their more high priority concerns about life issues and conscience rights have been addressed.Posted by: Fed Up at November 14, 2009 9:38 AM
Look at the big pictue. Read my post November 14, 2009 8:55 AM.
Do you think what Rome (pope) wants is going to happen overnight? They want something and are in the planning stages of getting it. Step by step, they are attempting to achieve their goal. Don't be deceived.
Mary & Fed Up,
What makes me shiver is that Benedict's papal encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" mirrors many of Obama's agendas. That's scary.
Question: Maybe I'm not understanding the Stupak ammendment fully. From what I understand, it doesn't allow any federal funding for abortions, kindof like the Hyde ammendment. However, I have heard of many women who have abortions because of economic reasons, but I haven't heard of any (yet) that cannot get an abortion due to economic reasons. Granted, the Stupak ammendment will not increase the number of abortions (if that's at all possible - women who want abortions will get them, women who don't will not), but it will not decrease them either. Are we any better off?
Maybe I'm missing something.
Don't fall for the crap the liberal Catholics spew who cherry pick phrases like "one world order" ripping them out of context to support their agenda from the Pope's latest encyclical. There are all sorts of writings refuting that stupidity. I'll see if I can find some.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 14, 2009 10:01 AM
The encyclical needs to be carefully sat down and read in its whole context, not just skimmed for buzz words and phrases to either show why the Catholic Church agrees with your side or to show why the Catholic Church is evil.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 14, 2009 10:05 AM
Please give me more credit than that. I can read.
Here: Please begin explaining to me what he meant (without distorting his OWN WORDS) from #67 of his papal encyclical "Caritas in Veritate" (emphasis mine):
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
Let's just start with this one, then we can move to #67 later.
Thanks, Bobby.Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 10:19 AM
Well move along to #25 later, not #67 which I'd like to address first. Sorry for that error.
And regarding your comment from November 14, 2009 10:05 AM, if I were to write something similar regarding, let's say, the rights of the unborn, and made a few statements in my writing that inferred that it was somehow justifiable to say, kill only an unborn Jewish baby, would you just ignore the Jewish baby part and look at the rest of the writing as "good"? I don't wait for the "slap in the face", I look for the open hand raised first.Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 10:26 AM
Fedup, Marie, and Bobby,
Thank you for your input. I have however heard the Church or Pope call for "free" health care for illegal aliens, that it is the "humane" thing to do, which I find very distressing. This has put a huge financial burden on hospitals and the taxpayer.
Lest anyone think we are not "humane", other countries shoot you for crossing their borders illegally and Mexico has very stringent immigration rules.
Also spare me any sympathy for illegals when two of them kidnapped, raped, and set afire a woman in our community. The woman is physically and emotionally scarred for life. They will sit in a comfortable jail cell and likely live better than they ever would have otherwise. The best I hope for is that convicts with some standards get their hands on them.
As I said, I never recall Christ demanding "free" anything.Posted by: Mary at November 14, 2009 10:28 AM
As I said, I never recall Christ demanding "free" anything.
Posted by: Mary at November 14, 2009 10:28 AM
Nor did I.Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 10:37 AM
Marie, do you understand the concept of subsidiarity and how it applies to the excerpt you posted?
where and when did Christ demand charity and welfare programs from the Roman gov't?
Who said he did? Please scroll near the bottom of the link below and see the quotes by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict here:
Posted by: Fed Up
at November 14, 2009 10:59 AM
Hi FedUp 10:59am
I'm aware Christ never did, that's my point. He demanded that we as individuals care for our fellow man/woman in need. This was OUR responsibility, not the gov't's.
Throughout history the Catholic Church did just that, establishing schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. where they saw the need. These were established by religious orders. The Church did not wait for the gov't to help or request their help. It was personal initiative. Also, the Church took no gov't funds, they depended on the charity of people to maintain the institutions or on private tuitions.Posted by: Mary at November 14, 2009 11:08 AM
Marie, do you understand the concept of subsidiarity and how it applies to the excerpt you posted?
Posted by: Fed Up at November 14, 2009 10:59 AM
I hate to answer a question with a question, so I apologize in advance for this:
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”. In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully humane economy...
How do you interpret that?
Posted by: Marie
at November 14, 2009 11:52 AM
Sorry, I don't have time to finish all this right now. It's mt daughter's second birthday today. The encyclical must be read in the whole context of the Church's tradition. Do you know what Blessed John XXIII wrote which he is referring to in the part you quoted and underlined? Footnote 149 which is part of the other quote you underlined needs to be read as well to properly understand what he is saying. The pope can not write a book-length encyclical, and hence he needs to reference things which are INTEGRAL to the whole message of the encyclical. The footnotes don't tend to be simply "for further information" type notes, they are actual substantive readings which are integral to the understanding of the whole. Again, it can't be read and understood in isolation. World class theologians and scholars have read it over multiple times in the context of many other social encyclicals, and they still are struggling with it. Here are some general guidelines that are very helpful.
Sorry, I wish I could spend more time on this, but I have a sleeping child on one shoulder and have a birthday party at 3. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 14, 2009 12:02 PM
Happy Birthday to your little Bambina, Bobby!!Posted by: Janet at November 14, 2009 12:30 PM
Yes, I read it. Twice. (link for 149 is here: www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0223/__P7.HTM)
If that doesn't scream "one world government" and "redistribution of wealth" to you, I don't know what will.
The bible tells us that a one world government WILL happen. I'm not saying that the RCC is going to run it, not at all. However, their principles and statements surely support it. In reading the encyclicals, those parts read more like a step-by-step guideline on how to create one and what is needed for one and why.
Also, in reading "149", I read several statements to be hypocritical. I'd like to get other non-Catholic opinions on it as well, as well as catholic opinions.
Enjoy your party! I love "2"! What a fun age!Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 12:35 PM
I won't be responding because you have a habit of accusing me of calling you a liar. Catholics, beware.
How do you interpret that?
Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 11:52 AM
In your spirit of answering a question with a question, why not look at Benedict's take on that in CARITAS IN VERITATE?
37. "...Perhaps at one time it was conceivable that first the creation of wealth could be entrusted to the economy, and then the task of distributing it could be assigned to politics. Today that would be more difficult, given that economic activity is no longer circumscribed within territorial limits, while the authority of governments continues to be principally local. Hence the canons of justice must be respected from the outset, as the economic process unfolds, and not just afterwards or incidentally."
I have to run, but first let me point you to another section of CARITAS IN VERITATE. Given the inevitability of globalization, do you consider suggestions to manage/direct it part of a papal conspiracy?
57. "...Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."Posted by: Fed Up at November 14, 2009 12:51 PM
I know, that's what I'm trying to say here. Look at what he said (bolded in my November 14, 2009 11:52 AM post) and what you bolded above. My first thought is that these two statements are hypocritical.
Given the inevitability of globalization, do you consider suggestions to manage/direct it part of a papal conspiracy?
I don't think it's a "secret plan" of theirs, no. But being that it IS inevitable, I do feel as though that helping "pave the way" at least to the idea of it, also paves the way for the antichrist to run it. Which, is also inevitable. My concern is that if the popes are "ok" with this, will it also pave the way for millions (or billions) of followers to also "take the mark", not heed the warnings of Revelation 14:9-11, which is also inevitable?
Again, I don't believe that this is somethng that is going to happen overnight. Little by little it's creeping in and will someday be totally acceptable, even though we don't see it now.
And Fed Up, thank you so much for discussing this with me. I find all points of view interesting and take them all into consideration.Posted by: Marie at November 14, 2009 1:33 PM
Marie and Mary:
To do justice to Caritas in Veritate in this venue is next to impossible. I have read through it once and thought to myself there is a whole lot more here than a single reading can grasp. The references made to other writings and encyclicals that provide context cannot be overlooked either as they are integral to a better understanding of the missive. Some of those I read in the past, and clearly the pope is not trying to depart from the body of previous social encyclicals, which have as their basis the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
Benedict does give us alot to chew on. But before we go off thinking he wants a one world gov that will usher in anti-christ and that kind of reasoning, and also to set #'s 25 and 67 in perspective, please look at the intro (no. 9)i.e., "The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim to interfere in any way in the politics of States."
Benedict then goes to the primary thrust of the encyclical, the "search for truth" and the necessity of "fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom." Actually, contained in this preamble are the cornerstone principles of the Church's insistence on respect for the unborn. I think we can agree on the axiom that the "truth will set us free".
Lest we think that Rome is giving the Bishops marching orders, do not fret. Catholics in the U.S. have wondered for years why our Bishops DO NOT seem to pay much heed to Rome on many and varied issues. Most conservative Catholics would actually welcome a greater willingness of the part of our Bishops here to follow "Peter" a little more closely. Outsiders think we walk in lockstep with the Pope on everything, but in reality we are only obliged to do so in matters of faith and morals. Even then, as you can see by the sad example of so many of our CINO politicians that the message has not gotten through to them, even though opposition to abortion (except to save the life of the mother) is a clear moral teaching of the Church.
Please do not think that even we conservative Catholics understand C in V. There is alot of analysis going on in various Catholic circles, and one of the best I have seen is by a writer by the name of Brian McCall. If you are scratching your head on some of the things contained in it, know that you are not alone. Brian, who is no flaming liberal, opines: "As I read through the text I experienced the sensation of paradox and confusion." He then observes that he believes the encyclical is dominated by two themes: 1) an "extended discussion on Natural Law" and 2) an emphasis on uniting themes consistent with both pre and post-conciliar teachings.
And finally, the oft misunderstood call for an international authority has to do with genuine reform of the U.N., and an organizational ability to effectively counter international financiers and multinationals who have unjustly exploited labor and depleted resources in developing countries to the detriment of whole peoples.Posted by: Jerry at November 15, 2009 5:40 PM
Thank you for posting that. It would be nice, however, if the writings were clear. I also would think that writing in that "style" would be more beneficial to the pope's followers, especially those in authority over local flocks. What is the point of writing something that only the writer can understand? Either way, I guess time will tell...we'll see.
I also greatly appreciate your 4th paragraph. I am (obviously) not Catholic, but being involved in the pro-life movement among MANY Catholics, I've often wondered about that. I didn't ask the question, but am glad you wrote what you did.
Thanks again, Jerry, for all of the time and information you put into that post. It's much appreciated! I'm very inquisitive, if you can't tell!Posted by: Marie at November 15, 2009 7:44 PM
Thank you for your kind words. We pro-lifers I think are of one heart on most issues, and are certainly united in upholding the God given right to life of the unborn.Posted by: Jerry at November 16, 2009 8:06 PM