Saturday, March 20, 2010

URGENT: Call these guys NOW!!!

It looks like the health care legislation will not have language prohibiting tax dollars from funding abortion.

This is despicable. When Democrats themselves are divided on this you know this is not just about partisan politics. The administration has gone over the line here and has decided to allow the far left of the party control the whole agenda. This is not centrist legislation. What ever happened to the pledge of a post-partisan president?

In fact, the AP is now running a story--hardly a right-wing outfit!--detailing the many broken promises made by the president this legislation represents.

It was a bold response to skyrocketing health insurance premiums. President Barack Obama would give federal authorities the power to block unreasonable rate hikes.

Yet when Democrats unveiled the final, incarnation of their health care bill this week, the proposal was nowhere to be found.

Ditto with several Republican ideas that Obama had said he wanted to include after a televised bipartisan summit last month, including a plan by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to send investigators disguised as patients to hospitals in search of waste, fraud and abuse.

And those "special deals" that Obama railed against and said he wanted to eliminate? With the exception of two of the most notorious — extra Medicaid money for Nebraska and a carve-out for Florida seniors faced with losing certain extra Medicare benefits — they are all still there.

For the White House, these were the latest unfulfilled commitments related to Obama's health care proposal, starting with his campaign promise to let C-SPAN cameras film negotiations over the bill. Obama also backed down with little apparent regret on his support for a new government-run insurance plan as part of the legislation, a liberal priority.

Berry (202) 225-4076

Cueller 202-225-1640

Kaptur(202) 225-4146

Rahall (202) 225-3452


Michael Pigg said...


I hate to say this, but this will likely pass at some point and the Church is going to learn the hard way, that when you lay in bed with the devil (secular government), you will get burned. I have no idea why the Church throws its support behind any bill coming out of congress. They did it this last time when the House passed its version with no monetary support for abortions. My pastor was glowing at the time. I told him he would be sadly mistaken when the Senate got a hold of it. Now look where we are. A bill that was originally supported by the Church will now become one of the biggest atrocities against life as you and I know it. Turning to the devil on your left to counter the one on your right is not a wise move. By all means, the Church was used but they should have known better.

I think the social justice teachings of the Church have changed drastically since their conception, and not for the better. I am in RCIA right now and just had a class on Social Justice. I asked the deacon if the Church approved of methods that allowed property (money/time for doctors) to be taken against the owners will and given to someone else for no other reason than "social justice". He said yes. His argument was Matthew 22:21. This is a huge problem. I guess now we should surrender God given free will and liberty to a secular government. I guess subsidiarity and charity means nothing anymore, either. The Church has allowed its desire of providing health care to all people to blind itself to the side effects of crawling in bed with Satan himself. I understand that as good Catholics you (and soon me) are to submit to government since God put those people in power over us, but for crying out loud, the church should not aid them. If I remember correctly, the last time God's chosen people partnered with a secular/pagan government, many of the people (Jews) were done away with by the same government (Roman) they partnered with to kill our dear Lord, Jesus Christ.

It will be a sad day for sure. And to here Nancy say she prayed to St. Joseph for this to pass is a disgrace. They won't stop until it is passed; they are very persistent. If Nancy receives the Eucharist after this, then the Church has a bigger problem than even I thought.

I pray that I find myself eating these words. I really do.

In Christ,

Michael Barber said...


I actually teach a course in Catholic Social Teaching--it's very beautiful. I really don't think your statement about CST changing is correct. I'd highly recommend you read Pope Benedict's new encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate, which highlights the need to read CST according to a hermeneutic of continuity, not discontinuity, with previous Church teaching.

In fact, the idea that the State can intervene and force one member of society to give from his excess riches to another who is in dire need of basic necessities, has long been supported by Church teaching. You'll find it in Aquinas and other doctors of the Church. If I'm in my house enjoying excess amounts of food and people are literally starving right outside my door--and I know it--that is a serious sin.

Now how that should be exactly applied is of course debated, especially given the way the world has become a much smaller place, but the principle is sound.

I should emphasize that Pope Benedict explains that while we must give to another what they are owed in justice (injustice is a sin!), the demands of charity cannot be enforced--charity goes beyond justice.

Michael Pigg said...

Michael, you are teaching that we should play God and decide for ourselves who should have what and who shouldn't? If so, can you not see where that would lead? I believe in charity and I believe we should give to the needy but don't take something from me under the disguise of being Godly. That is not only coveting but also stealing if your judgment is wrong. Who are you or anyone else to say that I won't need certain things? Do you know all the mitigating circumstances? Can you see all things at all times? I don't think so. People that horde their things while others suffer will get their due, like the rich man with Lazarus, but that judgment is not yours to make. The problem with your argument is that you think a secular government will use its power justly. Who will decide what "excess" is? You are wrong and I can give you a few examples. (USSR, N. Korea, Germany, Rome (BC)) Every person or country that thinks they can do it better is simply showing their pride.

Give me one example of a "state" like one that the Church proposes, that has ever helped people more than the US of A or at all. And when were we ever a socialist state? Dependency removes the life from people. It drains personal drive and strips you of your God given dignity or close to it. You seem to think that we can solve this problem, but I don't see it as a problem that we need to completely fix. Even Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. People are God's instruments and we are a community of believers. We need the poor and the sick so that we can live our faith. If I have something taken from me for someone else's good, then I will likely not be as charitable with my other money. Glory is given to God when we freely give ourselves or our goods to someone in need, not by the state taking it to fill their coffers to buy a new voting block.

Where is it in Catholic doctrine, that specifically supports your statement that the Church supports a State when forcing members of society to render its property to others in need? I don't want any Church Father quotes unless it has been adopted as doctrine. I have read a good bit on this topic but surely not as much as you, and I don't remember reading anything that says specifically what you are stating. If you can show me that, then I will have to pray for conformity. I will read Caritas in Veritate; it is quite long. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are beautiful for sure. Charity rooted in Truth is the answer. I surely will not argue with that.


Anonymous said...

So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7).

If and when I give, it is because I desire to give, not because I am forced to give. How can I be held responsible for my own actions, for good or for evil, if I lose my freedom to act voluntarily.