Boehner at CUA
House Speaker John Boehner is giving the commencement address at Catholic University of America this Saturday, and the contrast between the reaction (or lack thereof) to his appearance and that of Barack Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame two years ago is notable.
Some will of course say that Obama is pro-choice (or other, ahem, labels) and Boehner is “pro-life,” or at least against abortion rights. But Boehner is also a Catholic, CUA is the bishops’ university, and Boehner’s budget proposals have been anything but pro-life. Indeed, the GOP plans would tend to reward the wealthy while cutting programs for the most vulnerable in ways that will lead to unnecessary suffering by the most vulenrable.
The bishops themselves set out their criteria for the “moral measure” of the budget debate in a letter to Congress last week.
Now more than 70 Catholic theologians, scholars, priests, sisters and social justice leaders have signed a letter pointing out Boehner’s variance with church teachings and plan to deliver the letter to Boehner’s office on Thursday morning along with a copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Michael Sean Winters has a copy of the letter at NCR, and an initial analysis here. Notable about the letter is that the Catholic leaders do not demand that CUA cancel the invitation nor do they engage in any of the ugly hectoring and personal attacks that were deployed against Notre Dame and Obama:
“We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching. We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they relate to governance.”
A vain hope?
UPDATE: From the New York Times story:
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, responded by e-mail: “The Speaker will be delivering a personal, non-political message at the Catholic University of America that he hopes will speak to all members of the graduating class, regardless of their backgrounds or affiliations. He is deeply honored to have been invited by CUA to address the school’s graduating class, and is looking forward to receiving an honorary degree from the only Catholic college in our country that is chartered by Catholic bishops.”
Odd that you’d invite the third-ranking elected official in the country, and the second-most senior Catholic after Joe Biden, and he wouldn’t talk about the very reason he was invited, which is being a Catholic in public life. It would be a shame, in my view, if things had reached the point that Catholics cannot discuss important issues at a Catholic university. That doesn’t seem like the idea of a university, Catholic or not.
PS: The Times story also includes a link to a student newspaper editorial that brags on the choice, though apparently not so much because it is Boehner but because the university, now under new leadership, is allowing speakers with different points of view to address students:
Many times students have been denied the opportunity to hear government leaders right in their own student center or in classrooms because of an arcane speaker policy. As students in the most powerful city in the nation, in reaching distance of policy makers and national leaders, we should be offered the opportunity to experience ideas on each side of the political spectrum. A good university would offer this chance, and then guide us, and have faith, that their students will make the right decision and choices.
Snagging the third most powerful person in the American government is no small feat for our campus. It is a great accomplishment, one that every student, not only the class of 2011, should be proud of. We hope the choice for Boehner as the commencement speaker will open doors for students to hear from other powerful leaders in government, no matter what the party affiliation. Let this be the beginning of a new era for speakers on campus and for more DC only experiences to come to the University.
Well put. And interesting that Boehner should seem to be benefiting from an open approach that allowed Obama to speak at Notre Dame.
Quite a distinguished group of signatories, including many from CU itself. I kept looking for some of the distinguished academicians here -but?
I think it’s a vain hope because politics rules much of the theological divide today.
Catholic Social Teaching has always been a problematic area for Republicans, and the Speaker of the House is no exception – so far. In other news, the sun rose in the East today.
In this respect, the House budget may be something of a target rich environment. But it is incongruous, if not Orwellian, to hear Mr. Winters call Boehner’s proposed cut of Maternal and Child Health grants to (among others) Planned Parenthood (though both he and the letter academics are oddly cagey about not mentioning PP by name) “anti-life.” Providing more pre-natal help to poor women is certainly a laudable idea, and one wishes that Boehner had found a way to direct more of this money to organizations devoted solely to this end rather than cut it deeply. But funds given to PP are fungible, simply freeing up resources for abortions by America’s largest abortion provider.
It would have been helpful to see some recognition of this long overdue rectification of a great evil in the federal budget amidst the more troubling proposals, rather than a condemnation of it. But I am starting to wonder whether Mr. Winters really sees anything wrong with funding Planned Parenthood.
A bunch of academics (only 2 of whom seem to be actual economists) objecting to the policies of a middle class Republican. I’m shocked.
And I guess single-handedly saving a scholarship program for poor black kids in DC scrapped by the Democrats (at the bidding of the esteemed teachers unions) doesn’t count as “social justice” in their eyes.
R.M. Leader
The USCCB has already put forwardobjections to the budget cuts:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-046.shtml
Oh, and I wonder if your health insurance (you have some) also has abortion funding… if it does, would you be willing to cut yourself off such insurance? Or is it ok for you to have something and do, directly, what you complain about others doing for helping the poor?
They’re not going to raise any money for anybody with an approach like that!
Maybe, just maybe, Mr Boehner thinks that there are better ways of helping the poor than taking $100 of tax money, churning it through a massive federal bureacracy and dispensing $45 worth of benefits. Maybe, just maybe, he looks at the fact that spending on many programs has doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled in the last quarter centrury with virtualy no beneficial result and that it just might make sense to do something different. Maybe he thinks that destroying the mechanisms that make social welfare programs even possible itsn’t such a good way to take care of people in the long run.
I suppose these academics and theologians are the same kind that will condemn others for their narrow-mindedness and judgmentalism, while they have no problem suggesting that someone is ignorant or evil because he disagrees with their nostrums.
Hi Henry,
Oh, and I wonder if your health insurance (you have some) also has abortion funding… if it does, would you be willing to cut yourself off such insurance?
It does not, and if it did, I would.
Thank you for mentioning the USCCB letter. I will note that it, unlike the letter of the academics or M.S. Winters, lauds the cuts to abortion funding while strongly criticizing many other aspects of the budget. (“I strongly support provisions that retain
all appropriations riders against abortion funding, and that restore a consistent ban on such
funding in the budget of the District of Columbia.”) As a result, it seems more balanced to me.
R.M. Lender
Are you sure that it does not? Your policy might not, but does the company in any of their policies do so? If you research, you will find, most do.
In the latest OSV, Russell Shaw wonders if the current crisis wouldn’t offer an opportunity for “social justice” and “social issues” Catholics to come together:
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7885/Needed-A-creative-Catholic-voice-in-budget-debate.aspx
What Henry said.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2009/07/22/index.html
Hello Henry,
Your concern is appreciated but unnecessary; but you do raise a very important point. Many insurance companies will fund abortion, to the extent that state law permits; and Catholics owe it to themselves to make sure that their provider is not one of them. And, where necessary, to bring pressure on these companies to cease doing so.
Unfortunately, we do not have the right to opt our tax dollars out of federal funding.
Well, here’s to the authors and signers of that letter. It’s a fine example (in my view) of a broad, inclusive and faithful Catholicism.
One of the nuances lost in the partisan-infused din of previous elections has been the distinction between a moral issue (e.g. the actual act of abortion) and a legislative response, the latter of which falls requires prudential analysis. For example, I may be absolutely morally opposed to abortion and wish to see its annual incidence reduced to zero in the United States of America, and yet I may disagree that the most efficacious policy recourse is to lobby for the overturning of Roe.
Just as they request an appropriately charitable interpretation of their motives on a matter such as abortion, “social justice types,” should be willing to concede the very same to their fiscally conservative Catholic peers with respect to the current debate. The budget is unquestionably a moral document, inasmuch as it affects moral issues (like staggering deficiencies in basic justice to poor, urban children). It is not, however, a merely moral matter; prudence plays an enormous role in one’s evaluation of legislation. I may be vigorously opposed to the fact that there are children graduating from 8th grade in the District of Columbia who are functionally illiterate and continue to oppose more federal funding of public education. Too, I may decry as wholly immoral the fact that there are 4 year olds in South Texas who die of preventable diseases for lack of adequate access to basic health resources, and it does not make me hypocritical to oppose an extension of sChip.
We may identically assess the morality of a particular phenomenon and sincerely disagree with respect to the best policy for addressing it. I know earnest conservatives who believe that Bill Gates and Eli Broad offer a superior response to the inadequacies of public education and deficiencies in public health than any government program. (Disclaimer: I happen to believe that they are wrong.)
The unexamined first premise of the theologians is that the Church’s exhortation to care for the poor requires there to be a federal government response to (every) moral matter. (In my estimation…) Every bit as insidious to the well-being of most Americans as their frequently self-destructive personal health habits is their behavior in relationships. Is it also the federal government’s job to establish a Department of Human Relationships that will help manage their social and romantic decisions? If not, why not? If we take as obvious that it is a “right” of every citizen to be enrolled in a managed care program for their physical health, on what grounds would we reject as comical or unserious the suggestion that every citizen should also have a right to be enrolled in a managed care program of another sort? Is my high blood pressure more a matter of social concern than my abject lack of self-worth that leads me to engage in risky relationship behaviors?
Morally, I assess it as indisputable that every human person ought to have access to basic medical resources. Prudentially, I believe that a combination of private plans and public programs, such as the one envisioned by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, offers one of the best legislative responses to that moral matter. But I respect those who (sincerely) disagree and believe that there is another, superior way to address the same moral phenomenon. I think it unfair and dishonest to evaluate such a person as at variance with Catholic Social Teaching or the Gospel, simply because s/he wishes to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid.
I am sorry to see so many people from my alma mater, CUA, have signed this letter of blatant political hackery. Well, at least they now have come out of the closet as politcal hacks who have allowed their politics to form their conception of Catholic teaching, rather than the other way around.
I appreciate the Catholic Bishops speaking out for the poor and vulnerable in this budget debate.
And lets be honest enough to say that there are no “cuts” being advocated. All levels of government in the United States are spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than they did in 2008. If the proposals of Boehner and others are implemented, we would still be spending significantly more than we did just three years ago.
All that is being considered is bursting the reckless spending bubble that we have engaged in the last couple of years, spending money that we do not have, spending money that does not even exist.
And it is this spending and taxing, which takes money from people to give to the wealthiest and greediest entity ever in the history of the world, the U.S. government, which is causing, and will cause in the future, more and more misery, harming the poor and middle class far more than whether some rich guy has the money to buy things (from companies who employ people to make those things) or to invest (which provides capital to businesses which employ people).
Besides, appealing to the envy and jealously of people who have less money than some others is not a virtue, and neither is advocating policies of forcibly taking someone else’s money.
Paragraph 353 of the Compendium, which the letter specifically urges be read, talks of an efficient use of taxes that will encourage employment growth and sustain business, could have been written by Arthur Laffer himself. I wonder how many signers of this letter actually bothered to read it, or the Compendium.
“It’s a fine example (in my view) of a broad, inclusive and faithful Catholicism.”
Yeah, if you’re an academic or a Democrat (I realize that’s a redundancy). Because I sure missed their letter to then-Speaker Pelosi when she and other Democrats pulled the plug on a pro-life, pro-social justice education program for poor kids of color in DC. And what about the time Pelosi explained her theological views on when life begins, something more squarely within their collective expertise?
So I’m skeptical of how far their “inclusiveness” extends.
I’m pleased to see critical engagement with the Catholic moral and theological tradition beyond perpetuating the fallacy that American Catholics are supposed to be a “single-issue demographic.” There is much more to the Catholic moral tradition than abortion and it’s about time to broaden that discussion. Beyond the budgetary critique, might Catholics raise concerns about Rep. Boehner’s leadership in a party that oftentimes espouses views on war and torture that are also in conflict with Catholic teaching?
http://datinggod.org/2011/05/11/catholic-scholars-challenge-rep-john-boehner-on-church-teaching-before-cua-commencement/
That’s right, Mark. The people who signed this letter didn’t even bother to read it. Whatever happened to your vaunted hermeneutic of charity?
“And lets be honest enough to say …”
… that the American people, except for the conservative elites, really care little for deficit spending. We endured it under the last three GOP presidents.
What many of us are interested in is seeing employers start coughing up jobs. Ten to fifteen million of ‘em. And that those jobs pay people a decent and fair wage.
Having re-loaded the page and seen my previous block of text, I recognize it was most likely a TL;DR type of post… Oops.
I wish that more attention was paid to the distinction between the moral and the prudential with respect to legislation. Indisputably, it is a moral matter whether a pregnant young woman has access to adequate education, health resources, and employment opportunities, but the question of whether it is the job of the federal government to allocate public money either for pregnancy crisis centers or Planned Parenthood, is surely a prudential one.
Mr. Lender,
But you DO have the right to opt out of your current health insurance plan and probably should do so ASAP. Your employer’s contributions and your premiums (assuming this is the type of insurance you have) go into the pool of monies that help pay for abortions, sterilizations, artificial contraception, the use of abortifacients rather than surgery to treat ectopic pregnancy, and other medical treatments and procedures that your Catholic position opposes. Step on up and opt out now. That is a concrete action you can take with your money right away, this week, if the goal is about reducing the amount of money available for reproductive services that are opposed to Catholic teaching. Can you confirm when you’ll be changing your insurance carrier?
Mollie is right. It’s not exactly an invitation to talk, is it?
The bishops have already written a fine letter. Better, istm, to just sign on to that one.
A rule of thumb I’ve heard is that any use of an equation in a presentation reduces the audience by half. I believe a similar rule can be formulated for Catholic petitions — Any mention of the Catholic view of abortion will reduce the number of progressive Catholic signers by half. Any mention of other social conservative views in the same document works the same way. Mention abortion and, say, same-sex marriage and the signers are reduced to one quarter the original, with three items one-eighth the original, etc. As the devil shrinks from holy water our progressive friends flee from what they perceive as medieval prejudices.
However I was impressed by the ultramontane sentiments of the document. The authors present themselves as pious souls merely trying to faithfully follow Vatican directives and ever eager to enlighten those like Boehner who might be unaware of Rome’s declarations or, horriblile dictu, tempted to dissent. Imagine that, a dissenting Catholic! They must be horrified at the prospect.
Some will observe that the fewer the references to cultural war issues the more citations to Vatican documents. It would be helpful if the good petitioners would issue a new Syllabus of Republican Errors so that the rest of us can follow the way of the non-dissenting enlightened few, even if that, on the face of it, doesn’t seem to make any sense to the rest of us. Our intentions would be pure and what could be wrong with that?
Perhaps Lender should do something quixotic like decline health insurance. For that matter, maybe the rest of y’all should stop funding our nuclear weapons, and China’s too, by paying your income taxes every year. But what his insurance company does or doesn’t do is immaterial to the question of whether our government funds Planned Parenthood. If we can defund abortion providers, why *wouldn’t* we do so?
The comparison of Boehner to Obama is improper, because Boehner (so far as I can tell) is not being HONORED with an honorary degree, as was Obama by Notre Dame. That was in fact a possible “common ground”, to allow Obama to give the commencement address but not award him the honorary degree in violation of the USSCB’s “Catholics in Political Life“:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
Unfortunately, the pro-Obama administration refused to accept this compromise, in fact have gone so far as to persecute anti-Obama protesters until this very week:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/notre-dame-drops-charges-against-obama-protesters/
P Flanagan
He is being given an honorary degree:
http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/releases/2011/CommencementSpeakerEarlyRel.cfm
“CUA will award Boehner an honorary Doctor of Laws at Commencement.”
PFlan, I’m not sure what Boehner is getting or not, but I think it is safe the characterize the CUA commencement address as “a platform,” no?
Patrick Molloy, why the sneering nastiness? You hold yourself above others as a better Catholic and yet you act like this. I’m not sure I understand your approach to being a Christian.
Thanks, Henry. So PFlan, there goes that talking point.
Mollie is right. It’s not exactly an invitation to talk, is it?
I think I’m right too (I usually do!). But what I meant was, saying “Welcome to the Catholic University…but we don’t agree with you” (Stephen F. Schneck’s paraphrase of the letter in today’s NYT article) just won’t inspire anyone to the kind of blind outrage that results in donations to the Cardinal Newman Society or anything else. It probably won’t even provoke people into denouncing CUA as a cesspool of dissoluteness. It’s almost like they WANT people to actually have a discussion about the issues they raise.
Is it a good idea, though, to tell a politician to vote according to the dictates of his religion? I would actually prefer, as a voter, that he legislate according to priorities of his constituents.
“So PFlan, there goes that talking point.”
Okay. Plan B! The budget is a matter of prudential judgment (even in light of the USCCB letter, which does not at all unequivocally or specifically condemn Boehner’s bill) whereas Obama’s fervent support of abortion is intrinsically evil.
But if progressives want to change their mind and condemn Obama’s honorary degree along with Boehner’s that’s fine with me.
I think Mary’s point above is spot on. Most of us pay premiums or have them paid for us as part of our benefits package that involve commingled funds that pay for abortion and contraceptive practices at odds with Catholic social teaching.
Does anyone here have private health insurance that specifically excludes abortion, especially? If so, perhaps they could tell us how we might obtain it. Does anyone know if government employees such as Speaker Boehner can belong to plans that avoid commingling of funds? Thanks in advance.
William F: In fact, congressional reps like Boehner and all federal employees have a government health insurance plan that explicitly prohibits abortion funding — I believe — and I believe as well that in fact that was a model that the USCCB’s pro-life office was championing for national health care.
PFlan: Plan B and C are often my only options!
_The budget is a matter of prudential judgment (even in light of the USCCB letter, which does not at all unequivocally or specifically condemn Boehner’s bill) whereas Obama’s fervent support of abortion is intrinsically evil_
1) “fervent support?” – Please explain. He’s kept it legal, maintaining a status quo that has endured under each of the previous GOP Administrations. In what sense has he demonstrated, politically, “fervent support of abortion”–he’s also done nothing to change Amtrak or the deregulation of the US Rail Industry that took place right around the same time as Roe. Does that make him a “fervent supporter” of that, too?
2) All policy positions involve prudence, not just economic ones.
3) No one is condemning Speaker Boehner’s invitation nor suggesting the honorary degree be rescinded; a group of theologians is using the opportunity to engage his policy positions. It is not analogous to what occurred at Notre Dame.
The letter is certainly driven by the professors at CU as most of the signers are from CU. This is significant at the “bishop’s university.” It does not seem that all Catholic professors were contacted. More like people who knew about it or talk to each other. That should explain why no one from Notre Dame was on the list. It is all very intriguing. But you can expect the Cardinal Newman Society to galvanize against those professors at CU. It will be a source of funding because the CNS will not read the document the right way. Nice to see Catholic professors stand up for the downtrodden. They might have to pay the crucified price for it.
Tangent: Andrew Sullivan has fantastic art to go alongside Ezra Klein’s incisive analysis of Speaker Boehner’s proposed $2 trillion spending cuts. He points out that extending the Bush tax cuts for another 10 years will cost $4 trillion–DOUBLE what Speaker Boehner wants to see cut–over the same period.
Link: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/boehners-demands-ctd.html
Kathryn Jean Lopez says the letter writers shouldn’t “insult” the Speaker:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=16977
(She seems to be okay with insulting the Prez. Go figure.)
Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute finds the letter writers (and by extension the episcopacy, though he doesn’t mention them by name) “reactionary.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267005/boehner-s-catholic-critics-rush-protect-welfare-state-fr-robert-sirico
Cool.
Someone let me know when the Commonweal and America and NCR crowd think a Catholic Republican actually does something laudable (actually when they think its acceptable to use the word “Catholic” and “Republican” together). Or when they think a Catholic Democrat has actually crossed the line.
Mollie, as usual, you’ve written more clearly than I’ve read! You’re right about the Newman Society et al.
I thought it was laudable when pro-life Catholic Republican Congressman Cao supported Health Care Reform.
This line, from the letter, istm, fell somewhat short of the charitable ideal:”It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.”
That, coupled with the enclosure of the book(!), trebled with the publication of the letter, suggests that whatever this is about, it’s not a serious attempt to persuade the Speaker to rethink anything.
“I thought it was laudable when pro-life Catholic Republican Congressman Cao supported Health Care Reform.”
He voted against final passage.
Because of the abortion provisions.
@Michael Bayer: “maintaining a status quo”
False. Obama unilaterally reinstated funding for overseas abortion by executive order, as he had promised to do during the campaign:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1
And Obama did this in his FIRST WEEK in office. “Fervent” enough for you?
“He voted against final passage.”. Yes, but his support for health care reform was still laudable AND Republican. Now it’s your turn to say something nice about Catholic democrats.
“Many times students have been denied the opportunity to hear government leaders right in their own student center or in classrooms because of an arcane speaker policy.”
It did not seem apparent from the editorial if the speaker policy has therefore been amended or circumvented. In either event it would be interesting to see the analysis which went into the decision. I would have thought it was precisely that policy would have been one of the reasons CUA, unlike it peers, has escaped the perception of being involved in partisan political advocacy. It would be interesting to look at the work product on it to see the University’s thought process.
“Now it’s your turn to say something nice about Catholic democrats.”
I haven’t met one yet.
j/k – I appreciate some of their efforts to protect immigrant families from being broken up via deportation.
And I think Cao’s support had more to do with trying to win re-election in his Democrat-leaning district. But a cynical, cold-hearted Republican.
@PFlanagan,
For starters, the locution “unilaterally reinstated… by executive order” is redundant. There are no Presidential Executive Orders by committee. Employing this vocabulary, he also “unilaterally” prohibited any federal funding of abortion in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
He maintained the status quo (since 1984) of Republican Presidents instating the Mexico City Policy, and Democrats rescinding it. If I were to rank his legislative priorities since taking office, I’d list healthcare, economic stimulus packages, banking reform, immigration, and foreign policy (including military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan). During the one moment that abortion came up as a legitimate policy divide, i.e. the healthcare debate, he chose to PROHIBIT any federal money being used to cover abortions by way of Executive Order–the very same type of Executive Order used by President Bush in 2001 banning the use of federal dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.
So, no, that’s not “fervent enough” for me. Sister Mary Scullion’s efforts on behalf of Philadelphia’s homeless… that’s what fervor looks like.
Grant–
You are, of course, welcome to a different point of view, but I don’t think snarky comments directed at patrons of the website help make your case.
In this instance, your premise is not even accurate. It would be an expression of charity, given the readily apparent flaws in the letter, to assume the signers were too busy grading finals to have read it closely, and were simply guilty of negligent entrustment.
PF’s Plan B gets to the heart of the matter. I am surprised that observation wasn’t raised in the letter in the first place. It would have evinced a more serious, more nuanced, more…well, scholarly, consideration of the issue.
My congratulations to the ND88, and my thanks for the suffering they had to endure for the pro-life cause.
You know, Mark, it’s interesting. When I criticize our liberal subscribers, they never complain about being persecuted patrons. You tried this once before on my thread about the conservative smear campaign against Bishop Kicanas. It didn’t wash then and it doesn’t wash now.
But please, by all means, keep digging into your nasty little hole. You want to criticize the letter, go for it. The document isn’t flawless. But you don’t have a clue about the signers’ schedules, or the attention they gave to the letter they signed. Why not assume they read it? Wouldn’t you? I know, you don’t actually believe that. You just want to score rhetorical points. Congratulations?
The Dish (with nifty graphic) points to Ezra Klein’s analysis of Boehner’s plan to get finances under control by penalizing the poor and middle class and helping the wealthy — deficits as far the eye can see. Who knew?!
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/boehners-demands-ctd.html
Irene: “Now it’s your turn to say something nice about Catholic democrats.”
Jeff: “I haven’t met one yet.”
Even when you suspect they think “Catholic Democrat” is an oxymoron, it never ceases to hurt, really HURT, when they actually say it.
On the other hand, it absolves you from taking much else they have to say seriously.
So there’s that.
Hans Kung was invited to speak at Catholic U. in the late 60s. The administration wouldn’t allow him to. The whole university (except the education faculty) went on strike, led by the theology faculty and followed by philosophy. They lost.
I”ll believe that students at Catholic U. are given a balanced education when Kung is allowed to speak there.
Jean, I share your sentiments.
And I’ve always been very surprised to hear of Catholic Republicans.
Hello Mary,
Can you confirm when you’ll be changing your insurance carrier?
I work for a Catholic institution that pays attention to such things – but again, I appreciate the concern exhibited by posters here.
But let us cut to the (troll concern) chase, shall we? The underlying argument here seems to be: Either people like me are hypocrites for getting bent out of shape over federal funding of Planned Parenthood when many private insurers will fund abortions, or it’s pretty well pointless to get bent out of shape since it’s so difficult to avoid to somehow fund abortions in some fungible way, and anyway there are more important things to get worked up about…
It’s distressing that so many private insurers will pay for abortions, and that not enough Catholics do not put their money where their mouth is. But the reality remains that they (we/I/you) have the right and ability to do so. There’s no such option with tax dollars – not unless you want to go to jail.
I can’t believe the twisted logic you use to condemn Mr. Boehner and republicans. I guess you would not have been an abolishtionist since there were poor people in the streets of New York in the 1860′s who were being neglected. Money spent on ending slavery could have been spent on the poor. Now where have I heard that before?? you can’t be any poorer the dead. Which is why stopping abortion is the single most important ‘life’ issue. Just ask the 50 million children who never got to be born.
Could CUA being turning a corner an becoming a real Catholic Univeristy? well except the the signees of that document.
Grant–
Who said anything about being persecuted? I’m just trying to keep you, without much success, focused on the substance of the issue. This is a textbook case of prudential judgments versus intrinsic evil. Can you explain why you think it’s anything other than that?
David said: Patrick Molloy, why the sneering nastiness? You hold yourself above others as a better Catholic and yet you act like this. I’m not sure I understand your approach to being a Christian
As for sneering nastiness, you, Mollie, Cathy, and especially Grant supply boatloads of it when a commenter disagrees with your positions. I’m sure I’m guilty of it myself, just to preempt any tu quoques.
Maybe we all could occasionally step back and think about whether our online interactions are in comportment with how we treat people in person.
“Sister Mary Scullion’s efforts on behalf of Philadelphia’s homeless… that’s what fervor looks like.”
That would have been a very interesting choice for commencement speaker. Indeed, given that the student editorial mentions the word “powerful” three times I reckon it would have made for wonderful argumentation about priorities and worldly power for those who wanted to follow the speech including, first and foremost, the students.
“If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him?”
1 John 3:17
Where is the room for prudential judgment?
I haven’t seen many PR experts opine on the rhetoric of the letter. Usually whenever there’s a Vatican document a great number of wizards suggest improvements – - Certain topics shouldn’t be discussed on the same page, it’s far better to try to influence rather than judge others, etc., etc.
To remedy this deficiency I will recommend to the authors of the letter a technique that the ancients were familiar with: captatio benevolentiae, i.e., the attempt to win someone’s sympathy or support by showing respect. Here I merely point out that the following is not what either the ancients or even a modern PR expert would approve as an example of captatio benevolentiae,
“It is good for Catholic universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures, even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching. . . Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress.”
I have great faith that our authors, if they truly stretch their collective mind to its limit and plumb the depths of their capacity for sympathy, can just possibly imagine how someone outside their circle can come to the seemingly outrageous conclusion, based however on solid empirical and prudential grounds and not out of ignorance or dissent, that the conventional wisdom of a narrow and limited group of experts is simply mistaken, and of course not for the first time.
In saying this I fear that I may provoke David Gibson yet again to wonder about the state of my soul, but I knowingly take that risk.
I think it would be fine for Catholic social justice activists to hold a prayer vigil at the CUA commencement, praying that Boehner and the rest of our electeds pass a budget that reflects what Jesus teaches us about our obligation to the poor.
I don’t think, however, it would be appropriate (at least for anyone not a member of the Catholic Univ community) to try and prevent Boehner from being the Commencement Speaker. I thought that was over the top when a fringe tried to do that with the President at Notre Dame. But I don’t think that is happening here, is it? No outsiders are trying to prevent Boehner from speaking, or are they?
Am I right in thinking that Speaker Boehner has not been, for example, a vocal advocate for “compassionate conservatism”? I ask because the letter makes what seems to me an unexceptional point: that looking at the totality of Boehner’s public record, he hasn’t shown much concern (in his votes or in his words as a member of Congress, party leader, and Speaker) for the poor.
(Note: I’m not even saying this to criticize Boehner. I’m just making an observation.)
Let’s have a reality check. If the U.S. goes under, “the poor” will get nothing. You can’t “give” (or take through unjust taxation) what doesn’t exist. A bunch of “professors” making how much a year off the Catholic Church (money that should go to the widows and orphans (the poor)) who have spent their life licking Democrat “elected” officials’ boots for money (they say they want money for “the poor”, but the money goes right into CRS, CUA, CHA’s aka their own professor pocket” (what is their average income – what’s the federal poverty level?): it’s for another government grant to fund a college seminar, conference or “study” or that goes to fund their sabbatical, trip to Africa, new job with the administration (think Kmiec’s “ambassadorship” to Malta), house in NW/Montgomery County, SUV, vacations, and kids’ college educations). Democrats have driven the country to bankruptcy. We’re all paupers now; we just don’t know it. Just like “Catholic” professors who profess (and teach) hypocritical Phariseeism (i.e. Herod & Rome worship) to the destruction of themselves, their students, the City of God, and the nation.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Hi Jean- I think I agree with Jeff; so many politicians that claim to be Catholic Democrats don’t really act like Democrats at all.
“Even when you suspect they think “Catholic Democrat” is an oxymoron, it never ceases to hurt, really HURT, when they actually say it.
On the other hand, it absolves you from taking much else they have to say seriously.”
Lighten up; it was a joke. Hence the “j/k” immediately following.
“Am I right in thinking that Speaker Boehner has not been, for example, a vocal advocate for “compassionate conservatism”? I ask because the letter makes what seems to me an unexceptional point: that looking at the totality of Boehner’s public record, he hasn’t shown much concern (in his votes or in his words as a member of Congress, party leader, and Speaker) for the poor.”
This quote evidences the absolute crux of the issue for me. Luke Hill, reflecting the letter, says that Boehner hasn’t shown concern for the poor. Yet the “measure” for this seems to me to be unclear. What is the basis for such a conclusion? That he favors lower marginal tax rates and less over-regulation of enterprise, things which in his view hamper economic dynamism and foster economic well-being (I realize that’s a contentious point, but let’s leave aside that argument for the moment as it is not my point)? At the same time, this “measure” seems to largely ignore two things: first, his actual life experience growing up as low-income Catholic, and second, his (to my mind) satisfying record on education, which includes DIRECT ACTION TO BENEFIT POOR CHILDREN IN DC (as I have mentioned ad nauseum). It should be clear that education policy is the single most important anti-povery, social justice program we have going, and I submit that Mr. Boehner’s role in shaping a different direction for education (in concent, I should, with social justice folks like Teddy Kennedy, Arne Duncand and, yes, Pres. Obama) DOES evidence concern for the poor. I should further add that it seems that on education policy, the Democratic Party remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Teachers’ unions and resistant to any change in policy (hence their vicious opposition to the DC voucher program, and their Kafkesque commitment to keeping poor kids of color trapped on, as George Will so incisively puts it, “plantations of failure”. I’d like to say more about how liberals tend to give Pelosi a pass on abortion when she starts talking about her life experience, so perhaps we should give Boehner an equal hearing, but I’ve taken too much space.
In short, it seems to me any “measure” of Boehner’s compassion for the poor which ignores some of these factors risks reducing that measure simply to the political agenda of a single political party in this country, and which of course exactly where the Church shouldn’t be. As I said previously, if I had seen some of these same academics writing letters to Speaker Pelosi, or working with Republicans like Boehner to SAVE poor kids from failing schools, I’d be more inclined to view this letter as more meaningful.
@Bill…
“If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him?”
1 John 3:17
Where is the room for prudential judgment?”
Because nowhere does that specify what constitutes “compassion.” First century Mediterraneans had no concept of a modern constitutional democracy providing welfare programs to care systematically for the health or education of its citizens. So it’s a mistake to try and superimpose post Enlightenment political philosophies on Jesus and his contemporaries.
In the case of any moral issue, there are myriad policy/legislative responses, including a determination that it’s not properly the role of government (local, state, federal) to respond at all. That it is, in fact, the job of the government merely to create the social conditions necessary for individual moral agents/citizens to respond.
For instance, there is the moral matter of an earthquake in Haiti or flood in Pakistan that results in unspeakable suffering. What is the most appropriate response of a Christian? Is it to write individual checks to charities like the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, or Caritas? Or is it to elect politicians that will increase the amount of the money in the federal budget for foreign aid (presumably by raising taxes) so that a multi million dollar US aid package can be sent to the region? Which of those two scenarios better epitomizes the “compassion” of your exhortation above?
I’m not arguing that one is the “right” moral response of a Christian. I am trying to demonstrate that it is a prudential judgment whether to expand or eliminate US foreign aid, and one’s conclusion is premised upon one’s prevenient political philosophies re: the proper role of government.
Jeff, I have lightened. I’m old and don’t always pick up on the “textese.” That, and one’s eyesight is sometimes selective. I beg your pardon.
Guess I’m in the mood for self-examination since reading Peter Steinfels wonderful parsing of Weigel’s essay on the “Bernardin Era” in the latest issue. Rather than leaving me with more ammo to resent Weigel with, I felt the piece was an invitation to think about how we push our own agendas through manipulation of language and events.
A few scales have fallen, not that they won’t grow back quick enough.
Reading the piece might be a useful exercise for us here as we look at what the letter about Speaker Boehner mght mean.
I think Jean’s reference of Mr. Steinfels’ article is most appropriate – we recently talked about civility on the blog, but it strikes me that discourse is civil when it’s intellectually honest and doesn’t use mantra or claims of special wisdom (what do those profesors know about economics that I the expert know?)
@Jeff Landry (10:05 am) Hi Jeff, thanks for your response.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Boehner’s DC school voucher bill is an example of him demonstrating an option for the poor. There’s still some distance from that one example to “the totality of Boehner’s public record”, which was the (intended) focus of my comment.
Here’s an example by way of contrast. Ted Kennedy worked with Sam Brownback to pass a law to provide for “accurate, up-to-date information and support for parents who receive a diagnosis of Down syndrome or other disabilities such as spina bifida or cystic fibrosis either prenatally or up to a year after the birth of their child”.
Although that’s an example of “pro-life” legislation that Kennedy was instrumental in passing, I would not (and do not) expect opponents of legalized abortion to consider Kennedy a “pro-life” politician.
Similarly, I would not consider Boehner a politician who has regularly and consistently expressed an “option for the poor”, despite individual examples you (or I, or anyone) could find. He seems—despite his childhood—to be a pretty typical country club, pro-business conservative politician; that’s all I was saying.
Again, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. [That's a different discussion. :-) ]
“Again, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that. [That's a different discussion. :-) ]”
But you see, Luke, to my reading you are doing this PRECISELY, and that IS the problem. Your example actually reinforces it for me. I have no problem with accepting the proposition that, with the noted exception of abortion, Ted Kennedy (whom I would descibe as a country club limousine liberal) could believe with all his soul that the bigger the government, the higher the tax rates, and the more spending we have is the best way to achieve the most just society and still be a good Catholic (I think he’s wrong, both philosophically and as an empirical matter, but I wouldn’t attribute those beliefs negatively to his Catholicism). But I don’t think you seem to accept the statement that John Boehner can believe with all his soul that a less-regulated economy with lower marginal tax rates, and a radically different educational policy is the best way to achieve social justice. And THAT is the rub because such a view, to me, reduces the whole of Catholic Social Teaching to the Democratic Party Platform, and as such, represents a perversion of that teaching, or at least makes me a lot less inclined to accept the interpretation of that teaching forwarded by the signatories to that letter.
Plus, as a political matter (which is probably the most important, yet less analyzed angle in this debate), I would think John Boehner represents the last target Catholic liberals concerned about some of these issues should be going after, given the fact of his (considerable) deal-making ability and some of the much scarier folks waiting in the wings.
“A country club limosuine liberal.” boy we love labels.
I also think Jeab was righ tabout the Steinfels article which indicates how close the hierachy and many Catholics have been drawn to the GOP, despit ewhat Rep. Boehner beleives in his heart of hearts.
Finally, I don’t think the argumen tthat things could be worse is a very good statemen tfor how they sit in the House of represnattives led by Mr. Boehner.
Frankly, The american cathoics ascribe too central a postion on helping the ‘poor’ as being central to the Gospel. Jesus spent very little time speaking about the poor. He talked about holiness and sin far greater. He talked about the ‘poor in spirit’ which as Mother Theresa pointed out often times is in our own families and neighborhood. The social gospel is an easy gospel. No sin, no sacraments, no authority just help the poor. No need for the Cross or the Holy Spirit or even the Church. In fact even atheist give live this gospel. Don’t quote Mt. 25. How many of you have ‘visited the prisioner, clothed the naked, given drink to the thirsty? Oh, that 10 dollars you give every month to the ‘poor’!What an easy gospel. No fighting temptation, not need for Spritiual direction or the dark night of the soul, a few saturdays at the soup kitchen will get you to heaven. I don’t think so. I think Matthew like Jesus is referring to the more common prisioner to sin, oppression, sickness, fear etc. and the naked of dignity and those thirsty for love. Read Mother Theresa she worked with THE poor but never pointed that that as what God was calling the rest of us to do. Worship God and seek Holiness. You are not saved by your works.
p.s. maybe the Speaker is thinking like the other kennedy catholics that he can’t bring his religion to bear on his politics. Can”t have it both ways. Kennedy and Pelosi didn’t have to voted against abortion because its a ‘religious or personal’ issue’ but they must do an must help the ‘poor’ becuase that’s what the gospel is calling them to do as catholics!
“Worship God and seek Holiness.”
Don’t forget brunch afterwards!
That is about the most sanitary, non-involved, “My Jesus and Me” version of otherworldly Catholicism that I have heard in a long time.
And just because YOU may not be doing those things that you seem to demean above doesn’t mean that the rest of us are not! You presume to know way to much about what you do not know at all.
I wondered what expertise alex has of the New Testament.
Sounds like the right wing apologetic for how we deal with the poor is complex with different approaches.
Sweet! Adopting Alex’s criterion of “Jesus spent [X amount] of time speaking about [Z]” pretty much settles that whole gay marriage issue. Thanks, Alex!
Alex,
I am sure that even conservatives are embarrassed by your post. I guess you disagree with Mary that the hungry will be filled with good things and the rich will go away empty. You are right that we are not saved by our works because it is the grace of God which justifies. But we cannot be saved without good works.
“.Jesus spent very little time speaking about the poor.”
What? He sure fooled me.
I have three questions for the conservative Cathoics”
1) If a person who was skin and bones, dressed in rags, and trembling appeared at your door and asked for food, would you give him some?
2) If many persons who live across town who are skin and bones, dressed in rags, and trembling asked your City Council for food, would you pay taxes for the food?
3) If (as I expect) you would feed the first man, but would not pay taxes for the others who live across town, why not?
(If your answer to 1) is No, I will pray for you. Your are no doubt in very big trouble.)
I still believe, as the Anglicans taught me, that we are saved by faith alone. But that faith without works is dead.
Perhaps this is a good time to review the works of corporal and spiritual mercy that the Church identifies as the hallmarks of holiness. It seems to me that the poor figure there prominently, but not exclusively:
To feed the hungry: “For I was hungry and you gave me to eat.” Mt. 25:35
To give drink to the thirsty: “…I was thirsty and you gave me to drink…” Mt. 25:35
To clothe the naked: “I was…naked and you clothed me…” Mt. 25:36
To visit the imprisoned: “I was in prison and you came to me.” Mt. 25:36
To shelter the homeless: “…I was a stranger and you took me in…” Mt. 25:35
To visit the sick: “…I was sick and you cared for me…” Mt. 25:36
To bury the dead: “Amen, I say to you, insofar as you did it for one of these least of my brothers, you did it for me.” Mt. 25:40
To admonish the sinner: “…there will be more joy in Heaven at the repentance of one sinner than at ninety-nine of the righteous who had no need of repentance.” Lk. 15:7
To instruct the ignorant: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the good news to all creation.” Mk. 16:15
To counsel the doubtful: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you…Let not your hearts be troubled…” Jn. 14:27
To comfort the sorrowful: “Come to me, all you grown weary and burdened, and I will refresh you.” Mt. 11:28
To bear wrongs patiently: “…Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you.” Lk. 6:27-28
To forgive all injuries: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” Mt. 6:12
To pray for the living and the dead: “Father, I desire that they, too, may be with me where I am…” Jn. 17:24
“1) If a person who was skin and bones, dressed in rags, and trembling appeared at your door and asked for food, would you give him some?”
Sure, I’d give him all my brussels sprouts.
@Jeff Landry (1:14 pm) Jeff, I’m sorry I’m not making myself clear. Here’s another attempt at clarifying my point.
Ted Kennedy was a “social justice” liberal. “Social justice” activists generally supported him; “pro-life” activists generally opposed him. (I use quotation marks here to indicate I’m aware that I’m generalizing; not to indicate any sarcasm or doubt about the intentions of the people I describe.) Although he supported and co-authored legislation such as the law described above with Sen. Brownback, Kennedy was generally considered a “pro-choice” politician, not a “pro-life” one. Fair enough, in my view.
Similarly, John Boehner, I think it’s fair to say, is a “pro-business” economic conservative. He has not made a career as a “social justice” politician. I say that merely as a matter of description, not as a matter of judgment or criticism. I say it in full awareness of Boehner’s work on the DC school voucher issue, and his pride in working on education reform by playing a major role in passing No Child Left Behind.
Both Kennedy and Boehner can be contrasted not just with each other, but with someone like Marcy Kaptur. Rep. Kaptur is known as a “social justice liberal” on economic issues and a “pro-life conservative” on abortion and related issues. Again, just describing here, not judging. Again, I’m aware that these are (almost of necessity) overly broad generalizations, and that it’s possible to identify individual issues, or votes, or statements in Kaptur’s public career that complicate, or even contradict, these general descriptions. (The same is true for Kennedy and Boehner, and almost any other public figure.)
Do I think it’s appropriate for Catholics who labor in the “pro-life” part of the Lord’s vineyard to engage with public figures like Ted Kennedy and call him to account? Yes.
Do I think it’s appropriate for Catholics who labor in the “social justice” part of the Lord’s vineyard to engage with public figures like John Boehner and call him to account? Yes.
Do I think the Church’s teaching on all these issues is deeper and more profound than the platform of any political party? Yes.
“Do I think the Church’s teaching on all these issues is deeper and more profound than the platform of any political party? Yes.”
You and I may say this, and solemnly nod or heads and furrow our brows, but I’m afraid that at the end of the day, the tail is wagging the dog. By that I mean that, as this latest row shows, at the end of the day our politics are going to color how we interpret these types of things. So a liberal is going to look at (the more thoughtful, insightful) objections to the Obama/ND (or insert any pro-choice Catholic if you prefer), and see a dangerous move to simplify Catholic Social Teaching to a single issue and ignore the complicated moral nuances of abortion, etc. etc. And on the flip side, a conservative (like myself) will see a letter written by a group of (yes, liberal) academics as a naive attempt at trying to “even” the moral debate between tax policies and abortion, etc. etc. etc.
Unfortunately it seems, despite my hard-hearted and stubborn conservatism, I keep waiting for the day when our Catholicism “leavens” these political debates in such a way that the vitriolic recriminations on both sides are lessened and true progress can be made (because I think both sides have valuable insights and contributions to the fiscal mess we’re in). But then again, because I AM a conservative, my faith in human nature is such that I’m not holding my breath for that.
Hi, Ann, I’ll play. :-)
“1) If a person who was skin and bones, dressed in rags, and trembling appeared at your door and asked for food, would you give him some?”
A conservative Catholic would feed him.
A liberal Catholic would, amidst copious expressions of patronizing sympathy and sputterings of rage at the injustice of our economic system, direct him to the local public aid office so he could fill out forms to apply for food stamps.
“2) If many persons who live across town who are skin and bones, dressed in rags, and trembling asked your City Council for food, would you pay taxes for the food?”
Yes, because conservative Catholics pay their taxes.
Conservative Catholics are also likely to support local public-private partnerships to provide social services. (Yes, conservative Catholics do support social services). So they might also volunteer at a Catholic Charities food bank or soup kitchen.
Liberal Catholics would oppose the local city council program on two counts: (1) it is their view that programs to feed, house and provide health care for the poor should be funded by the federal government. The proper function of state and local government is to fund lavish retirements for unionized public employees. (2) It is morally wrong for liberal Catholics to pay taxes to fund social service programs. Only the rich are expected to fund these programs.
“It is morally wrong for liberal Catholics to pay taxes to fund social service programs. Only the rich are expected to fund these programs.”
I can’t resist – most liberals ARE “rich”. And they tend not to pay their taxes, i.e. Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, etc. I think of the top 10 richest members of Congress, something like 7 out of 10 are all Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi (whose husband owns/runs a hedge fund). I’ve never read of any of them voluntary writing a BIGGER check to the IRS; indeed while Pres. Obama criticizes “the rich” for not paying their fair share, he took every single deduction he could this past year on his tax return. Leading by example I guess.
I think my answer to #2 would depend on HOW the government program is structured and how many OTHER such programs are being funded. Most conservative Catholics I know are not opposed to government assistance per se; some of us are concerned about the knee-jerk “federal government response” to every single problem or issue. Thus, from my conversations with fellow Catholic conservatives, its not a matter of WHETHER or SHOULD government assist the poor, its more a question of HOW. We prefer, for example, programs that incentivize rehabilitation and long-term sustainability over open-ended benefits programs. But the howls of protest coming from liberal Catholics are nothing new: they were raised when Reagan was president, when Clinton passed welfare reform, EVERYTHING related to Bush, etc.
Wow. “Most liberals” “tend not to pay their taxes.” There went any credibility you ever had whinging to the editors about how unfairly those poor Conservatives are stereotyped on cw.
Much of the question really is the responsibility of government.
I think most Catholics would perosnally try to help in a desperate situation for an INDIVIDUAL.
But if we only depend on personal charity, is that sufficient? Is that what the social encyclicals taught us?
In the past week, I’ve been at two board meetings about the diminishing support for human services at several governmen tlevels COUPLED with the declining contribution issues to local charities (Interestingly, United Way -losing funds through past scandals of administrative costs – is trying to broaden the scope of where donations go rather than the tradition of serving the areas in which they seek funds.)
I need to say I found Jeff’s last post as anecdotal, unsubstantiated, predjudiced and unhelpful.
How the Gospel gets translated today is way too polticized in the postings here and I find that trying to solve service of the poor problenms on a macro scale to be harder and harder in our polarization!
“I think most Catholics would perosnally try to help in a desperate situation for an INDIVIDUAL. But if we only depend on personal charity, is that sufficient? Is that what the social encyclicals taught us?”
Yep, I agree. We have large government social programs because all of the alternatives were worse – too many holes in the safety net.
“In the past week, I’ve been at two board meetings about the diminishing support for human services at several governmen tlevels COUPLED with the declining contribution issues to local charities”
Yep, I was at one, too, and it was the same story.
There is ideology, and there is reality. The reality is that our existing social services programs, all of which could be improved but all of which are critically necessary, are massively dependent on government funding, either directly or via grants.
“I need to say I found Jeff’s last post as anecdotal, unsubstantiated, predjudiced and unhelpful.
How the Gospel gets translated today is way too polticized in the postings here and I find that trying to solve service of the poor problenms on a macro scale to be harder and harder in our polarization!”
Well, now you know how some of us feel in these “dialogues”. And I just said I fear things are too polarized to make much headway. Much of what I said about taxes above is tongue-in-cheek. And I agree, again as I said, that for most conservatives, the question is not so much whether we have government assistance for the poor, but HOW it is structured.
And I agree, again as I said, that for most conservatives, the question is not so much whether we have government assistance for the poor, but HOW it is structured.
Jeff –
My quetions were not about the FEELINGS of middle class folks like us, especially not about how we feel about those ideologically opposed to us.
My questions are about who will feed the hungry Americans, including dependent children, the sick elderly, and jobless. IF Boehner et al have their way the children, sick, elderly and jobless will not have enough to eat. THAT is the issue I’m raising, not how you feel about liberals and vice versa. Please stick to the subject.
So are you willing to pay to feed them or not? And I don’t mean next year after you’ve restructured the welfare system. They’re hungry now. What will you do, if anything, about it? And I don’t mean just the people near you, though if you’re from South Louisiana you’ll probably be called on to help the victims o the Morganza flooding. (I hope you’ll not yourself be mongst them.) I’m talking aboutf our fellow citizens who are helpless now.
The key to these kinds of responses is consistency. If Obama spoke at CUA would there be a similar response against his pro-choice position? Probably not. It is no secret that the vast majority of professors at CUA or almost any other university are Democrats. So they will only criticize Republicans and not fellow Democrats.
Which means these types of things are usually partisan, and this is not missed by the public. While I agree that these kinds of cuts just play to the tea party crowd and hurt the poorest of the poor, essentially these types of letters come off as politically motivated, and as such they lose their impact.
What we needed is a consistent willingness to confront any speaker who is in violation of any tenet of Church morality, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. This will maintain the Church’s reputation as being a arbiter for the good, regardless of the party of the speaker who is corrected. But right now everyone just chocks these kinds of things up to the normal working of liberal academia – in this case the liberal Catholic academia. So while the letter signers are right on this one, noone will care.
“IF Boehner et al have their way the children, sick, elderly and jobless will not have enough to eat. THAT is the issue I’m raising, not how you feel about liberals and vice versa. Please stick to the subject.”
This is a false choice, I believe often referred to as “Hobbesian Choice”. If you understand the current fiscal crisis, you understand that the soon-budget-busting health care costs will eat up more dollars that could be going to other programs. With respect, the issue is a great deal more complicated than the dichotomy you’ve presented. As such, your question cannot adequately be answered.
And I live less than 30 miles from the Morganza spill way, so thanks for your concern.
Jeff –
You are saying that we need not complain about cutting off funds for food for the poor because at some later time the health care legislation will bankrupt the country. Major economists and the Congressional Budget OFfice disagree with that last contention. And if the very rich paid their fair shre of taxes, there would be plenty of money for the other needs of the country. So the problem remains: is it right to cut off food for the hungry, including children, the aged, sick and jobless NoW? Make no mistake. That is what the Republican sponsored legislation will do. Millions of Americans will go hungry. I call that a disgrace. not to mention immoral.
You and the rest of our badly battered State are in my prayers. And I’ll gladly pay more taxes to reimpurse those of you whose homes and businesses are being sacrified for the sake of the rest of us. We’re in this together.
“So the problem remains: is it right to cut off food for the hungry, including children, the aged, sick and jobless NoW? Make no mistake. That is what the Republican sponsored legislation will do. Millions of Americans will go hungry.”
Care to provide an actual source for this estimate?
“So the problem remains: is it right to cut off food for the hungry, including children, the aged, sick and jobless NoW?”
By the way, the budget proposed by Paul Ryan would not take effect until FY 2012; most of the cuts would be phased in much later than that. No one currently on Medicare or close to being on Medicare would be affected under his plan NOW. So the question is really not at all a matter of, as you say, starving people “NOW”. So with respect, you are mistaken; the Republican sponsored legislation will NOT do what you suggest it will.
This is why we will never have a serious discussion about budget and entitlement reform until we really do have people starving and can’t afford to do anything.
People who say the proposed budgets will starve people need to show how this is possible when per person spending on welfare programs has more than doubled in the last 25 years (so where were all the starving babies when Bill Clinton was president?), and when one in 3 adults and 1 in 4 children are overweight or obese, and when the obesity problem is disproportionatey a problem of the poor?
Jeff –
You mean that because the legislation goes into effect later that the hungry won’t be hungry?
By the way, I didn’t talk about “starving” people and legislation, I talked about hungry ones.
Sean –
C’mon. Budgeting money has to change as the prices of things change. Leading up to 2008 the cost of both houses and rent went way up. That left the poor with relatively less for food.
I couldn’t find statistics for hunger in the U. S., only for poverty. However, I did find this 2010 release from the office of Rep. Chambliss (R, GA) who was on the House Agriculture Committee. He proudly announced the allocation of 3 billion dollars for a school meals program which would both help alleviate hunger and encourage choice of healthy foods. So has the economic situation of the poor become so much better in the last year that we can cut out old, necessary food programs? I can’t see how that could be so.
http://216.40.253.202/~usscanf/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2116&Itemid=2
You should know that one of the reasons poor kids are often overweight is because carbohydrates (pasta, potatoes, sugar, etc.) are very cheap, and are therefore disproportionately found in poor people’s diets.
Sean, are you taking the position that we don’t have really poor people in America? I’m having a hard time following this.
Ann- According to the USDA, 17. 4 million households (50.2 million people) in the US were classified as food insecure in 2009; they could not afford an adequate supply of food. 1 in 8 families here in NYS are too poor to afford enough food. Demand at soup kitchen increased about 30% here in NYC the past couple of years, and more than half of our soup kitchens were not able to feed everyone that came to them.
I want to hear Sean when he’s straving!
One out of 7 kids goes to bed hungry every night -obesity BTW does no tequal non-starvation.
I urge all t oread Fr. Kavangh in the new America on Ayn rand (and, of course, individualism.) Very easy to say. let em starve first.
Thanks for the figure, Irene. I didn’t realize it was so awful. 50 million!! If it were 5 million we, “the greatest nation on earth”, would have cause to be ashamed of ourselves. Christian nation indeed!
And now it’s over – a soppy, teary non-controversial speech , minimal protest and maybe next yearthey can invite Ryan to exegete Rand as a moralist
Irene,
I am taking the position that the proposed Ryan budget will not “starve” hundreds of thousands of people. Certainly there are poor people, but do you really think that everyone who is affected faces hunger. I never heard about the Clinton budgets – which were substantially less that what Ryan proposes – starving women and children.
I have a newsflash for you. Take it from a government bureaucrat, the USDA can define “food insecure” however it wants. It’s a nonsense number that they use to justify themselves. Please, tell me exactly what “food insecure” means, and better yet explain how it is possible that children in homes below the poverty level are almost three times more likely to have obese children than homes with incomes in the top 25% and adults almost twice as likely?
Bob,
Yes, I have heard the ridiculous idea that obesity and starvation are not exclusive. And the baseless statistic that one in seven children go to bed hungry (sometimes it’s one in three, so I guess the left realized even they could go too far with this nonsense). Where’s the “beef” on that stat anyway.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand there are poor people and people who need help. I just don’t think it’s nearly half the population. I also don’t think that the way we are “helping” them now is very effective. If we are ever going to get a handle on our government and our economy this kind of hyperbolic nonsense has to stop. We have to look at the real problems and the real situation and come up with real solutions, not just what makes us feel good.
Sean-
I think the problem with statistics is that we can choose to dismiss them no matter how compelling they might be. But the demand for safety net programs has spiked in these extremely difficult times, no one actually working in these programs has any doubt that there has been a very large increase in people in serious need.
I think it is extremely foolish policy to cut food and fuel subsidies during this recession. My own work doing foreclosure counseling was zeroed out entirely in this budget. People will still face foreclosure, of course, they just won’t have programs like mine to help them any more.
What is most frustrating is that these programs, which are being sacrificed on the altar of tax cuts, are such a miniscule part of the federal budget. The elimination of all of the programs like the one I work with will not even give you back $1, Sean, in your taxes.
That’s my frustration; rather than cutting the programs to the poor disproportionately- with little net tax savings- how about we look to some meaningful savings by reforming the tax code and cutting back on the big ticket spending lines.