Perhaps Cdl. Tim Dolan would like to be a cheerleader for the Communist-in-Chief's plots, usurpations, and redistributionist economic schemes.
That's up to him. But he can speak for himself, thankyouverymuch.
Let's put it this way: when the Cardinal can cite a Catholic doctrine or dogma which mandates Government to take property from citizens for the benefit of others, I'll fall into line. But he'll have a problem: there IS no such doctrine or dogma.
The Cardinal, like a lot of other left-inclined folk, confuses the Christian (Catholic, really) mandate of personal charity with Gummint "good works." It's his privilege to be confused. But it's not his privilege (nor munus) to make Catholics into "cheerleaders" for what is, essentially, a Socialist (or Communist) protocol.
No thanks, Your Eminence.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Leave it to Dad29 to wrongly frame the issue in order to draw the "right" conclusion. The truth of the matter is that Cardinal Dolan is absolutely correct in his position. He is simply following the Vatican's lead, which supports Resolution WHA64.9, a measure urging countries to "plan the transition of their health systems to universal coverage." The Vatican strenuously believes that fundamental values such as equity, human rights and social justice ought to become (read: moral imperative) explicit policy objectives.
Benedict XVI had emphasized the importance of establishing distributive justice which, on the basis of objective needs, guarantees adequate care to all, that (his words) "more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard."
Umnhh...nope. UN Resolutions are not "doctrine" nor "dogma", and neither Timmy Dolan nor B-16 can create a "distributive justice" doctrine or dogma.
I framed the issue correctly. Propagandists--no matter their title--frame it wrongly.
I framed the issue correctly”.
In your warped mind, sure. In reality, not even close.
The RCC has evolved its thinking about social and distribute justice as the basis for its critique in capitalism. While Leo XIII correctly defends the right to private property, he made it clearly known his right ought to be extended so all people reap in its benefits, particularly the working class (Rerum Novarum, #65). He was appalled by the extreme inequality whereby wealth and resources were concentrated into the hands of a few, imposing `a yoke of slavery’ on the masses (#6). The state has a moral duty to intervene to ensure that the rights of workers were especially protected (#54).
Pope John Paul II, in Centesimus Annus, reiterated that capitalism ran afoul of church doctrine when it excluded those people from genuine ownership (#6). Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied’ (#35). The free market must be subject to `public control which upholds the principle of the common destination of material goods’ (#19).
Economics belongs within the moral framework of virtue, and such virtue can be instilled through social institutions.
Maybe English is your second language.
"....doctrine or dogma which mandates Government to take property from citizens for the benefit of others, I'll fall into line. But he'll have a problem: there IS no such doctrine or dogma.
Your gloss of CA#6 is absolutely inaccurate when you assert that there is a "Church doctrine" matter.
You may also know (or not) that the US and its subsidiary States already have labor laws which protect workers. Look it up sometime.
It would be accurate (but inconvenient for you) to state that the balance between labor and capital requires carefully studied adjustments, as both Popes clearly indicate.
Rather than "anonymous" you could use "high dudgeon" when posting. "Not-really-accurate dudgeon" would be better, though.
"You may also know (or not) that the US and its subsidiary States already have labor laws which protect workers. Look it up sometime."
And one of those rights is universal health care. Pope Benedict had made that correct assertion.
HIS WORDS--"The care of man, his transcendent dignity and his inalienable rights"..."Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care"...
Read more to get with the program.
guaranteed universal access
Still having problems reading, eh?
Use your ObozoCare card to get new glasses. That way, you'll notice that everyone in the US (citizen or not) has "access."
That was the case long before ObozoCare.
“That way, you'll notice that everyone in the US (citizen or not) has "access."
Doubling down on stupid, Dad29. As I had correctly stated earlier on another blog since you are historically inept, the black death rate for TB was three to four times that of whites in South Carolina in the early twentieth century, it took five years before the state TB sanitarium even admitted blacks, and it was not until the 1950's that blacks were admitted to the hospital on a par with whites. And, of course, up until the early 1900's, factory workers who were severely injured were simply fired. I am certain they had the financial resources to get fixed up after being scalded by molten iron.
Today, a number of state and federal laws include provisions known as “refusals,” which permit a broad range of individuals and institutions – including hospitals, hospital employees, health-care providers, pharmacists, employers, and insurance companies – to refuse to provide, pay for, counsel for, or even refer patients for medical treatment that these entities oppose. Here is a specific case.
So the hearing aid must not be turned up for Dad29. The Vatican states unequivocally that it is a moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay. Clearly, and decisively, access means absolute opportunity to receive.
As a so-called "man of faith", why does Dad29 take positions diametrically opposed to the Pope's calling?
Ooooooooooooooo! The 1900's!!
Not only challenged by reading comprehension, but innumeracy!
Don't waste my time with your inane cites any more. You don't make the upper 3/4 of trolls.
I'll pray for your soul.
"Don't waste my time with your inane cites any more."
Especially when they make you foolish, huh.
The truth will set you free, Dad29--The Vatican states unequivocally that it is a moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.
Take it up with the papacy your "concerns".
I've followed this discussion and I read your last cite, "Mitchell."
It has nothing to do with Daddio's contention. Could you provide some actual evidence of your claims regarding both 1) Church dogma and 2) 'denial' of health care in the US?
I didn't think so.....
The anony "white knight" comes to aid the damsel in distress. How noble.
It's right in front of you. I can't help that you have difficulties comprehending.
I'll leave your posts out there, allowing you to prove that you are a complete idiot.
Won't take down the n---- references from the deranged anonys? Mmmm.
Regardless, attend church on Sunday and pray for forgiveness.
Because an individual’s health is a “precious asset” to society as well as to himself, governments and other agencies should seek to protect it by “dedicating the equipment, resources and energy so that the greatest number of people can have access.”--Pope Benedict XVI, 2010
It must really chafe you to be proven absolutely wrong on this matter.
I apologize. I haven't proven a thing.
Dad29 is right, and I am an idiot.
I see my deranged doppleganger is at it again. Of course Dad29 is wrong.
But after sobering up, I realize Dad29 is, and always was correct.
I sobered up. Dad29 is right, always was right.
I see my deranged doppleganger is at it again. Of course Dad29 is wrong.
Post a Comment