Last week District 4 House candidate Fred Deutsch posted this Facebook message about his campaign:
The first thing I did after announcing I'm a candidate was to form a prayer team, asking for God's guidance in the campaign and that He would keep me and my family safe. I invite you to please join us [Fred Deutsch, Facebook status, 2012.05.26 09:20 CDT].
RCJ reporter Kevin Woster responded thus:
I see Fred Deutsch established a prayer team for his legislative campaign. With that for a guide, I'm working on my own personal-angst team.
— Kevin Woster (@rcjWoster) May 26, 2012
I don't suffer Mr. Woster's angst (must be all that professional journalism; Woster clearly needs to get outside more). But I also don't share the worldview that motivates Mr. Deutsch to prioritize forming a prayer team, not to mention publicizing that pious act, as essential campaign strategy.
However, let me restrain my snark and ask two honest questions:
- What value can a prayer team add to a political campaign that a typical secular group of advisors can not?
- (Perhaps just reformulating the first question): If you form a campaign prayer team, how do you distinguish the political "guidance" you think God is giving you from the good ideas (or for that matter, the bad ideas) that pop into your and your advisors' heads as a result of their own earthly cogitation?
I welcome the civil responses of believers and non-believers alike.
I'll go first for Team NB!
1) The obvious benefit of forming a prayer team is that, South Dakotans being as religious as they are, you instantly endear yourself to the religious majority (or at least a very large, very religious minority) by declaring, essentially, that God comes first for you, that you have faith in God's guidance, and that you are a religious person.
As for how it helps advice to be better, I would think that the type who join a prayer group, as opposed to a group of political advisers, are more likely to hurt than help, unless they also happen to have strong political minds.
2) I don't think it matters. My experience with religious people (especially the ones who would put "Campaign prayer group" or even "Believes in God and prayer" as the number one priority in a political campaign) is that essentially all good things (days, luck, ideas, etc.) are all inspired or directly granted by God. Bad ideas, days, etc., usually either mean the person didn't pray hard enough (God's a busy guy, I suppose), or God has some other plan for you (namely, not winning in your election, or at least not proving yourself to be capable in front of your peers).
There's probably more answers, but I see those as the main ones.
One person's prayer team is another person's set of drinking buddies. We all gain solidarity and support on an emotional level from different things. If you take out the God part and the need to assemble a team to carry this out, it's really not too different from a generic wish that things go well.
Then again, this might be due to Stockholm Syndrome from being an atheist surrounded by uber-religious people for a really long time.
As for the God part, it depends whether or not they're truly represenatives for some mystical other-worldly force. George W. Bush wasn't it. This guy probably isn't it either.
There are those of us who take our religious beliefs very seriously. Prayer helps us accept what we cannot change in others.
1. My parish has a prayer chain. You call one person on it and before the day is out, hundreds of people have prayed for you. For believers, there isn't too many places where prayer is used. Too few.
2. I think you are missing the purpose of the prayer team. It isn't about "getting advice on strategy" but to bring God into the midst of all that is happening, keep Fred grounded, and the such. Non-believers too often mistake people acting/pursuing God's will and saying "they are running based on Divine revelation" as ordination of a result. I pray often that what I do serves His purpose while accepting His ways are not my ways. Carters and Christ's comment belie this lack understanding. They probably should get to know a real prayer warrior.
Bottom line: Fred is a man of prayer. It is more a disconnect he wouldn't want those involved in his campaign to pray for him and the campaign than the alternative.
Does having a bunch of people praying as a group improve reception? Is God hard of hearing?
Troy, you may be missing the point of my questions. I know Fred is a believer. I know that means he sees things (well, at least one fundamental thing) differently from how I see them. But how does a publicized prayer team keep him (or you) grounded any more than quiet reflection behind your closed door, or even a pleasant study of Scripture with a couple friends?
And will praying for a partisan political campaign improve the campaign's chances of winning? I'm willing to bet all four House candidates in District 4—Dems Tyler and Peterson, GOPers Gilkerson and Deutsch—are Christian. This God character appears to be an Independent.
Contributors to the Catholic Church are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism.
How does a prayer team keep him grounded?: If you believe in the power of prayer, it will help. Why do you think believers ask others to pray for them, even if they are also praying? Same concept.
Will it help them win? It can if it is God's will. Part of the mystery is how God desires our cooperation. If we aren't praying to better follow him, we will miss the mark. But, I suspect for Fred, there is something more important than winning and that is doing God's will.
By the way, God is the ultimate "independent" as He is the Alpha and Omega. :)
God is a dry line that clears the prairie of invasive species.
Cory I don't think it is a matter of "reception" with God, I think it is more a matter of the uniqueness that we all have in prayer. If you were to begin a new endeavor , you might ask your father for guidance out of love and respect and and the knowledge that he just might have some wisdom to contribute.If you had siblings you might appreciate it if they were to talk to your father about your endeavor as well, because the uniqueness of their relationship with him may bring even more wisdom to the endeavor. Prayer is a way to tap into a powerful relationship, publicizing it is just a matter of advertising that the relationship is important to him.
Barry summed up why both Troy and Cory are correct.
If Deutsch believes that God watches and numbers the sparrows and counts the hairs on one's head. If he believes that God joins wherever two or three are gathered and that anyone who lacks wisdom should ask and will receive, then knowing a small group of people are praying for him will keep him "grounded."
As Barry said, announcing that he has formed this team is advertising. He's telling every religious conservative that he's one of them. I'm assuming that religious conservatives know Randians won't vote for liberals so they can risk offending them.
Cory may be expressing then idea that announcing the prayer team is akin to the hubristic public prayer that Jesus warned about. I can't speak for Deutsch or Troy, but I'm guessing that as long as the prayer is not a prayer for victory but for safety or God's will to be done, then the announcement does not violate the public prayer prohibition.
It is far more realistic to vote god out of the political process then any supernatural effort to effect the inverse.
If time=money and god=time, god=money.
Troy: you had better start praying for President Hollande not to call for the freezing of the Church's assets.
If anyone holds shares of stock with ties to the Church: sell them now.
Troy, you say the prayer team can help them win if a win is God's will. If a Deutsch victory is God's will, does praying for that victory change God's will? Can Kathy Tyler pray really hard and change God's will to pick her and Peterson instead?
His will is His will. But, it can guide Fred to follow and accept his will.
Cory, I don't know how prayer works in total. All I know is I have a better relationship with my wife if we talk. Same with God. In the end, if all Fred's prayer team does is have a better relationship with God, it is a good thing.
All I know is God tells us to petition Him and bring all things to Him. So, we are to pray. What God does with it is His exclusive perogative.
O Merciful God:
Command the Yellowstone supervolcano to spare blue states and dump ash only on South Dakota.
Hear me O Lord and grant me peace.
The best prayers of course are those that just say thank you.
Otherwise, as one posters said (I believe it was here) you are asking God to violate the laws of the universe for your personal convenience.
All that said, I love books that explain things, and my current read is perhaps the best I've read to date on the power of myth, art and transcendental thought.
I'm only half way through, but ready to recommend the read if you want to know where all this communal energy in support of the supernatural comes from. I especially recommend it to you science guys and athiest types if for no other reason than to give context to a perhaps otherwise incomprehensible mindset.
The book is "Deadly Powers" by Paul Trout.
Namaste brothers and sisters.
I'll add this Conor Williams post as a way to look at different views of faith and politics.
Bill,
While gratitude is a great prayer, I personally think adoration/worship of God's infinite traits is "best," followed by contrition, then thanks, and finally supplication. But, at the same time, God knows where we should be at any particular time.
...anything to get the ego out of it, Troy. ;^)
Good essay, LK. Trout's book is more anthropological and objective, but one could draw similar conclusions from it.
Best line of the day is Cory's: "Does having a bunch of people praying as a group improve reception? Is God hard of hearing?"
Whether intentionally funny or not, I laughed.
I still haven't seen the link between Bachmann, Perry, et al saying God told them to run for POTUS and they then failed miserably and withdrew.
God changed his mind? They heard incorrectly before they filed? They heard incorrectly when they withdrew?
Did they give the remaining campaign money to God, because he told them to run? Did they send him the bill for expenses?
Hmm, what's all this I wake up to about someone winning if it's God's will? What about my will? And Cory's will? And Troy's will? And Bill's will?
What if God wills Fred to win, but the voters don't? Does God change the ballots? I don't understand this concept that we have no choice in who wins and who loses. It all sounds like the old Divine Right of Kings that we people fought so hard against.
What's the point of voting if God's going to change the vote, or tell you who to vote for, or whatever? Why have political debates? If God's will is for Fred to win, who are we to question him? Whatever he says has the approval of God. If he loses God's favor, God will just pick someone new to put in place.
What happened to free will?
Also, why does God care? Does he have nothing else to do than influence tiny, entirely unimportant elections? I humbly point him in the direction of Africa. I'm not God, but I'm fairly sure the fact that thousands of babies are dying is slightly more important than the District 20 elections of South Dakota.
I prefer Bill's reasoning. If there's a God, thanking him is probably best. Asking him to do things for you is rather selfish, when there are clearly many larger problems in world than your little basketball game, or race, or election, or whatever. When someone starts murdering your family or the Yellowstone volcano erupts and the ashes are burying the Black Hills, I'm sure that problem puts you right up there with the Africans et. al., but otherwise, it seems to me that people should just deal with their own stuff.
p.s. Troy, to me, thanks and praise are the same thing, the former being less potentially ostentacious and more readily comprehensible than the latter.
Humble attitude of gratitude and appreciation. The way we love one another. I'm not going to flip out over how great you are Troy. That won't do you or me or anyone else any good.
Thus, I can't believe God needs ego strokes any more than you or I do.
it's good to see that more blog commenters have disabled auto-correct on their iPads: very humbling indeed.
Carter I get it when your talking about praying for certain outcomes. I once had a friend who would play the lottery and pray each week that she would win. she of course never did win so I asked her if she she thought that God was ignoring her prayers. She answered that she believed she was having to compete with everyone else who was also praying to win. at which point I asked her how she could explain then when a non- believer won , she just became angry.
I think that praying for particular outcomes can many times lead to selfishness.
I understand that it all boils down to belief and faith, if a person has neither than this is all so much nonsense. I as a believer however want God's Will to be fulfilled. Like Troy I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about prayer and how it works, but I have enough personal experience with it to know that it is very powerful. Like Taunia my BS meter always spikes when I hear someone say that through prayer they have discovered the mind of God.
Troy, I agree that how it works plumbs a whole 'nother level of mystery. My question prior to that is simply does it work? And does it work demonstrably better than any of a number of other actions a candidate might to take to improve his or her vote total? As Taunia hindsightfully notes, prayer seemed to bring a lot failed GOP Presidential candidates garbled messages. That ties to my second question above: how do I distinguish God's guidance from the other fallible voices in my head?
A couple of comments. Maybe together it will make some sense.
1) 'If you, being evil, know how to give what is good to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him!' (Matt 7:11). I think this tells us God wants us to ask, which is a "verbalization" of our desires. This opens a dialogue with God to help us discern what he wants for us, according to His plan. I have no problem asking for His aid to help me have a good meeting and even play golf well. And, someone who won't ask God for victory in an election probably makes me wonder why they are willing to ask me for their vote.
If I get what I ask, I'm grateful. If I don't, I examine where my desires might be disordered. I think it also teaches me humility for nothing I have comes from myself but is a gift from God.
2) People often break prayer into two groups (meditative and intercessory) when in reality they are both but sometimes have a different emphasis. I can't help but meditate when I'm asking and I can't help but ask God for something when I'm meditating.
3) I don't disagree with Bill regarding praise and thanks being essentially the same thing (see distinction between meditative and intercessory). However, they do have a particular different focus. With praise/adoration we are meditating on His "omnis and alls" (eg. omniscience and all good), while with thanks we are being more specific to a particular gift. But, Bill is right. God doesn't need our praise but He desires our humility and nothing is more humbling that adoration.
In other words: a movable fundraising Ouija board spells doom for the other guy.
LOL, Cory. Great question. I remember one spiritual counsellor who suggested that when you're listening to your conscience (internal dialogue) the Ego is always the first voice out and the loudest and most obnoxious. It's also usually a shameless liar. If you can practice waiting for that one to pass, refusing to attach to it, and listening carefully, there is a second, quiet, knowing voice there. Subtle. Quieter than a whisper. Makes sense. God wouldn't have to shout, would he?
CH,
Ahhh yes. The challenge of discerning what is from God.
First, one should pray for discernment. Too little, I say this prayer when I think I need to say something to another (eg fraternal correction): "Dear Lord, help me to say the right thing, at the right time for the right reason." We should also have other prayers of discernment.
Second, after we begin praying about a matter, we should engage people we trust and of a good heart and mind. God can speak through them.
Third, be quiet and listen.
Four, act on what we have discerned. God doesn't want us to be passive.
Fifth, observe the fruits that came from our action. If it all good, thank God for His guidance. If it is a mixed bag, examine what we might have missed or what by our imperfections we impaired the result God set us on a mission to accomplish. If it is bad, we probably missed the message.
So to answer your question, we become better at discerning God's will the more we practice. :)
I have a question.
Why are good ideas a sign that God helped us, and bad ideas are a sign that we missed God's advice?
Why can't a bad outcome mean that God didn't want you to succeed (someone else prayed first, for an opposite outcome, or whatever)? He surely can't answer two competing prayers with the knowledge to succeed, otherwise I guess a wormhole would open or something.
Why can't good ideas just be the person having a good idea? If the voices in my head tell me "Go. Hunt. Kill." and I do, then credit goes to me, but if the voices tell me "Help that old woman from being hit by the bus!" or even "You'll succeed at getting that job if you answer the interviewer's question like this...!" it must be God, and not just me having a good idea?
I'm just a bit confused by that concept, is all.
WÃpazuka Wasté Win – Moon of the June Berries.
Like Bill says, as told in 1 Kings, God wasn't in the earthquake, wind, or fire but was heard in a whisper. There is a saying, "in the silence, God speaks." The idea in the saying is we have to quiet our heart and ego similar to the way we quit talking at a piano concert so the music can be fully heard and appreciated. We don't text or visit with the music in the background and expect to fully grasp the music. Same with conversation with God.
Carter, we can clear that up pretty easy in a side conversation, at least as far as I'm concerned.
But for now, suffice it to say that I think the spirit if this thread (at least as far as my energy is concerned) is to honor others' belief systems as much as possible. (i.e. as with movies, drama, art, myth, etc, ....a willing suspension of disbelief.)
Because when you get right down to it, the answer is "who knows?"
Carter,
If one is truly praying for God's will, we can't consider losing an election a "bad result." It might be that God has a different plan for us or that it was running that served his purpose.
Regarding your comment about you having a good idea and just getting the credit, this is an attitude of ego contrary to the call to humility. All good comes from God. And, in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "The virtue of humility consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior."
Let me ask you a few questions: You have a good trait, characterization, or skill. Is it yours or was it taught to you by another (ala your parent) either directly or through the other matters the taught you? Should you take credit yourself or give it to the person who was your teacher? And, if you believe in God, isn't He the Greatest Teacher?
Pride is a deadly sin while humility is a virtue, often called the universal virtue because the other virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance) flow from it.
Troy. Exactly. Quiet. Stillness.
Okay, Troy. I'll give you that one. But then does that not also mean every bad idea I have is someone else's fault? If all my good ideas and good habits are the result of other people teaching me good ideas and habits, then are all my bad ideas and bad habits not the result of other people teaching me bad ideas and bad habits?
And if God is the Greatest Teacher, then is he not responsible for the bad as well as the good?
My point is, it's always good to give credit where credit is due, but it strikes me as slightly ridiculous to credit others (including God) for all your good thoughts and traits and habits, but to blame only yourself for your bad thoughts and traits and habits.
I realize that that's kind of the humble, socially acceptable way to do it, but it seems like it should go both ways. If you can't take credit for the good you do, how can you take credit for the bad?
I am intrigued, but I'm not surprised that you ask from your (I assume) unbelief, as to why Fred Deutsch would have a prayer team and what the advantage would be of having someone pray for you in such an undertaking as running for public office. Your questions lead me to assume that you must not believe in a personal God, namely Christ who died for your sins.
First of all, the 'advantage' may never be obvious nor made clear. It is about seeking God's will, then trusting, not gaining the favor of any one group or manipulating anything, especially God.
A mature Christian knows God is not a genie to be rubbed from the bottle of prayer, but a wise Creator who wishes the best for us. I may be erring in my assumption that those who question his motives do not believe in divine Will or intervention, but surely I would turn the questions back to those who ask why he would do this. I would ask why you doubt the benefits of asking God for His favor?
Easy, Marilyn: this isn't a question about who's the most mature Christian in the room. Don't try to claim special status for your insight into God's will and dismiss questions from others as signs of inferiority. The question most certainly isn't about me. The question is about winning elections with practical action... and whether prayer offers any demonstrable practical action.
Carter, before anyone can answer your (good) questions you and they would first have to establish (and agree on) what we mean when we say 'I', 'me', and 'mine', right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er6EJJ53Z6Q
Cory, I think Troy had it right when he noted that God is the ultimate independent. We could probably have all stopped right there. LOL.
Carter,
You are asking good questions that can't be answered in this forum. Entire libraries can be filled with the answer. It goes to the question of how good and evil exists.
Freedom is the ability to choose good and that which is from God and reject what is evil or bad. We have free will, a great gift from God, which allows us to choose what He wrote on our heart at conception or reject it. If we follow what He wrote (our hearts are made to seek what is Good, Beautiful, and Just), we have placed ourselves under His Holy Mission (submit)-the Good, Beautiful and Just. If we reject it, we have to take responsibility for our choice.
Bill, it seems to me that "I", "me", and "mine" can be a variable in this social equation. It doesn't matter what exactly they are, because the issue is treating the good "mine" and the bad "mine" equally or not.
I would say, realistically, that people (including you, Troy, and myself) are all 100% capable of developing our own ideas based on other people's teaching and advice, but not necessarily just copying them. Many of my ideas (political, social, and otherwise) I developed without hearing the ideas from others (that's not to say no one else ever had the idea, just that I didn't get the idea originally from them). I happily credit other peoples' contributions, but I also claim credit.
For bad things, I certainly am to blame for my bad actions and ideas, but they too came from somewhere. I can run with them, or combined ideas incorrectly, or just combined two bad things that society has taught me are fine, but are actually bad. I am at fault, but others are, too, for teaching me those things in the first place.
Also, a question for Troy, mostly: As someone with differing political opinions from myself, I assume you think your ideas are "right" or at least "more right" than mine. Does that mean that you believe you're interpreting God more correctly? Does that mean I'm interpreting him less correctly? If so, is it not arrogant to believe you are more qualified at understanding God than I am? If not, are your ideas not "good" because they don't come from God? I'm beginning to realize I really don't under this whole God Speaks to Us concept Christians have!
To Cory: I think the problem both you and I will have with this whole thing is the lack faith. We want a logical reason that says why things will be better with God's help, but if there was proof, it wouldn't be faith, would it? It would be science. Maybe it's better just to let those with faith have their faith, and let those without it not have it. Neither side will ever quite understand the other, I think.
Troy, I can see the point, from your side of the worldview fence, that you might question why a candidate is asking for your vote when he won't ask for God's help in victory. My wiseguy response is that God isn't registered to vote; you are.
But I think I can respond even if I cloak myself in Christian garb. Were I a believer, I think I could still argue, consistently with Scripture, that God doesn't care if I win the election or if you play golf well. Your response to Carter about the difficulty of identifying "bad results" reinforces my concern that, even if God does prefer a certain outcome in either endeavor, prayer does not seem capable of producing the results we want or even of piercing the veil of uncertainty between our understanding and God's will. I just can't believe that winning District 4 will come down to which Christian prays hard enough.
Okay Carter, but like Troy says, what you and Cory are talking about is classically identified (in Philosophy) as the "mind/body problem" (as per Descarte, 'I think therefore I am.')
And it's no small matter, especially in a conversation like this one.
In fact, it goes to the nub of the whole conversation, and the reasons people's opinions differ on the matter. It's not just that we don't really know who God is, I submit that most of us even know who we ourselves are.
Hence, as per Troy the topic suddenly balloons beyond the scope of what this format can support. '
Perhaps better to just let people pray or not pray as they please and not try to embrace their understanding (or lack of it) ourselves.
i.e. Let It Be.
(cue Beatles track)
Left a word out "...most of us DON'T even know who we ourselves are."
https://madvilletimes.com/2012/05/wingnuts-say-daugaard-endorses-baby-killers/#comment-58763
CH,
I don't think Marilyn is claiming anything. She is addressing a common problem where people too often think God is at their bidding (a genie) as opposed to the opposite. The term "mature" is often used in this context to distinquish one who's faith and understanding is less developed.
Above I mentioned the four cardinal virtues (prudence or often called wisdom, justice, fortitude, temperance). Virtues are habits or dispositions to do good developed over time by living in Christ. Think of James' admonition "Faith without works is dead." Through years of working at following Christ (works), we develop these habits/virtues. And, this is what makes a mature Christian vs. a neophyte.
There is the famous story of the person carrying a violin case in New York who asked a policeman, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall." The policemen responded, "Practice, practice, practice." So it is with the "mature" Christian vs. the neophyte, after years of practice discerning (see my above steps), they will day-in and day-out better discern than the neophyte. As I said above, virtues are habits developed over hardwork.
Sidenote: This goes to so many miscommunications. Christians often develop "short speak" like "mature Christian" which too often is misheard by one not in the fold. We often have the same miscommunication between different Christian communities. I don't know how many times I've had to explain a particular Catholic phrase only to have the Evangelical say "Oh, you mean ______."
I do think God wants people to win elections (and lose). We just don't always know His will and the rationale. I also think God sometimes wants me to play golf well (if He wants me to play golf just as we should sing well, learn, and use all of our gifts from Him) and other times He wants me to learn humility (which happens too often in my mind. What's up with that?).
Carter,
Let me answer your questions directly and then put the answers in context.
Does that mean that you believe you’re interpreting God more correctly? No. I can only discern what I am hearing and I might even misinterpret the fruits of my action/view.
Does that mean I’m interpreting him less correctly? I don't know what God is saying to you.
If so, is it not arrogant to believe you are more qualified at understanding God than I am? I can't see into your heart and the relationship you have with God. I'm not making a statement on your qualifications or mine. I'm only using my experience, reason, and what I hear trying to do the best I can to follow.
If not, are your ideas not “good†because they don’t come from God? I'm not sure how to answer this. Maybe you will withdraw it after you see my above answers. :)
So much of the arguing about God is we differently discern His Revelation (private and Scriptural) without recognizing we do so with imperfect eyes, ears and heart. One of my dearest friends is a holy person who has a liberal view toward Social Justice which she believes is consistent with the Christian message based on the Bible. We obviously disagree on policy.
But our conversations are never about who is "right" or "wrong" for we recognize we share the same mission-build the Kingdom here on earth. For even in our imperfect attempt, we just go forward doing the best we can taking solace in the end of Mathew: "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.†(I actually get tears in my eyes when I read these words).
...and for extra credit: http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf
"Together with the imagery of the Tree of Life the project incorporates the use of color and sound, through the newly rediscovered 4.32 Hertz frequency. This number sequence 432 is associated with many ancient sacred sites."
http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/6/prweb9567561.htm
Talking about God's will and who does or does not know it, is one of the trickiest topics. What God is responsible for is even more so.
The theology that whatever is good is from God, and whatever is bad is from us, is quite old and largely discredited. Part of that is emphasis on pride as sinful. Both are related and served political expediency is maintaning subservience of the masses and their "need" for a top-heavy clerical apparatus.
If you can keep people believing that they are absolutely hopeless and worthless without God, and you (RCC hierarchy) are the one and only conduit of God, then you have a massive dose of power and control. That scheme is one of the backbone elements of the Reformation in the mid 1500s.
Troy will hotly dispute this and probably call me a liar. The thing is, Troy is very faithful to the RCC and their teachings. Good for him. I have no complaint with that or his faith. But . . .
Roman Catholicism is not the final word. There are lots of holes in that belief system. Like any sytem that is based on "belief", rather than provable facts, it's truly in the eye of the beholder.
The work of God is something that I don't understand, and I'm pretty sure it is impossible to write a coherent and cohesive theology of it. Too many unanswerable questions, as Carter has shown.
I do agree that prayer, especially in groups, can be a powerfully effective form of meditation. I also think that in some strange and unknown way, a psychic sense of a Mysterious Power (called god or ?) can have a very positive effect on the individuals in the group and on the group as a whole. I've seen it frequently in my ministry.
Perhaps it is simply a search for comfort and order, but I find the sense that there is a great and powerful force for good very hopeful. I also find it comforting that I can honestly make very few claims about that power, since it is so massive and omnipresent.
I have created an image of God based on the Bible. She is an old, incredibly wrinkled, incredibly wonderful old woman whose love for me is boundless. But on the whole, whatever this presence I sense is, it helps me on so many levels.
D.E.,
The Catholic Church does not preach that their hierarchy are a conduit to God much less the only conduit to God.
We Catholics understand that we have personal relationships with God with no one nor thing between us and God.
I find the best, most useful prayer is to understand God's will for me. When I follow God's will things work out better than when I follow my self-will. I've never believed God's will to be anything not covered in the command that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
*checked swing*
DE,
In case you didn't notice, this thread was essentially about learning what is going through a particular candidates mind in creating a prayer group. I applaud Carter and Cory wanting to understand so they can be tolerant with knowledge of something they don't agree with.
Your visceral reaction to anything which you deem Catholic belies a deep bigotry. You might want to get some help. This discussion is about prayer. My view is pretty universal among those who believe God is a loving, active, Alpha and Omega. However, since you seem to think prayer is similar to Yoga providing meditative and psychic paramormal peace of a "Mysterious Power" which you posit MIGHT be "god" puts you outside the breadth of Christian ideas about prayer, which is fine.
But, it isn't Fred's view which was the question making most of your rambling (which was harder to discern than I get in prayer) pretty irrelevant.
D.E., if it's just a matter of seeking comfort, might I as a campaign manager do as much good for my people by assuring them that we're not on a mission from God, that the campaign is a practical, earthly endeavor that has no bearing on our salvation?
Yeah, DE: just use prayer to ease the guilt of counseling people to invest in earth killing oil stocks, banking, and pharmaceuticals.
Zip down to the Cathedral in Sioux Falls, DE, and kneel before the local representative of an infallible empire surrounded by the glitz that transformed at least four generations of indigenous people into victims.
Oh, and btw: the business networking opportunities are unsurpassed.
thank your for clarifying for me. i kinda thought this might come down to Catholic bashing.. pretty much the only socially acceptable form of prejudice allowed in our 'enlightened' world these days. I still say, no harm done when a candidate wants to ask for the prayer of others. surely none of us expect to sit back and do nothing while God does all the work. That is how many of the most prestigious organizations and charities in this country were founded by Christians, namely Catholics.
excuse me.... edit... "that is NOT how " is what i meant to type. I guess God expects me to proof read :)
Troy, you responded as I expected with a personal attack. I did not write the comment to tweak you, but to show that there are a great many variances in faith. Lots of people believe as you do - that's what I said. And lots of people don't. That was the point about prayer and what people believe regarding its efficacy. I wish you could be less defensive and threatened when I say things you disagree with.
Aldo, same thing. I have no problem with your personal understanding of your faith. I appreciate that you disagree with me. No problem. I used to receive spiritual direction from an old and wise nun of a conservative order. She was always encouraging me to try some of her iconic resources as a focus for prayer. She wanted me to pray to Mary. I never did because it felt odd to me, but it worked for her. She was a wonderful, deeply faithful, deeply orthodox woman who died about 10 years ago.
(I keep telling you guys my comments are not about you, just like they are not about Sr. Helen. They are about the boys in the Vatican and the rest of the hierarchy. NOT YOU. NOT YOUR LOCAL CHURCH. NOT YOUR PRIEST.)
Marilyn, do you get the difference I'm talking about? I do. To me the difference between you and the boys in Rome is clear as a bell. You are not being bashed at all.
BTW Marilyn, I think LBTGs, people of color, and lots of other folks really wish that "Catholic bashing" was "pretty much the only socially acceptable form of prejudice."
Cory, yeah, that might work for some people.
Perhaps folks in the Roman Catholic Church are just a bit defensive, hearing things that aren't there. I admit I just don't get that reaction.
People can complain about my denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and I'm not going to become reactionary, defensive, leap to conclusions. We have faults. ELCA pastors have abused children. I don't get it.
My faith is not in the ELCA. The ELCA is a collection of flawed human beings doing their best to worship God and live in the ways they feel called by God to do. And we fail much more often than we succeed. That includes our leaders.
Pretty much any ELCA member would say the same. So do most members of the UMC, UCC, PCUSA, ECUSA, etc. That's reality in the life of a church.
What is it with you RCCs? Is it the doctrine that the pope is the vicar of Christ? That the RCC is the only "real" Christian church? I'm open to explanations.
D E Bishop, I guess we have much in common, a faith that only Jesus Christ saves. Our churches are far more similar than different. Both have a hierarchy. So, I'm not sure you meant to but you just showed a huge contradiction in your judgement. Remember, Luther died a Catholic Bishop. Not sure why you interjected the issue of homosexuality. It is not only Catholics and other Christians that disagree with the ELCA on that. Back to the point....BOTH churches are made up of flawed humans. Everything I have ever studied in scripture tells me that every person God has ever used is flawed. Many deeply...David sending a man to the front lines to die so he could take his wife.... Abraham's lie about Sarah not being his wife. The list goes on throughout the Old and New Testament. I think it is more important that we agree on our sole reliance on Christ as Savior, do you not agree? So what is the issue? I really don't think God is going to be sorting us all out by denomination.
This Forum needs a "Like" button... just sayin.
Yes, Marilyn, we are in agreement about Jesus' saving grace.
The problem the RCC has is that the boys in the Vatican are not accountable to anyone, and that they have out-sized national and world-wide influence. Therefore, what they say has a massive influence on policy.
If Lutheran bishops had protested Obama's birth control policy, how much press and attention would that have garnered? When Lutherans, and now Methodists, support LBTG people, the ripples are insignificant compared to the RCC's opposition.
So even though I am not a member of the RCC, that hierarchy has influence over my life.
The top office holder in the ELCA is the church-wide bishop, who is elected for 6 years. When their term is finished, they go back to being a pastor with no special privileges. We are very wary of vesting too much power in anyone. Nearly all Protestant denominations are like that. Oh, except Episcopalians. They are awfully top-heavy too, and members of that hierarchy hold their positions for life, just like the RCCs.
Lutherans have two layers of hierarchy - synod (geographical area) and churchwide bishops. Both are elected and must stand for re-election. They are also term-limited to 12 years max.
I don't even know how many layers the RCC has. Priests, deacons, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, pope, etc. All are ordained into their positions and the laity has no control over them.
Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.
Thank you for the civil conversation.
DE,
I didn't relate my personal understanding of Catholicism. The Catholic Catechism is a clear and knowable thing. You made false statements about the Catholic faith and I posted the facts about Catholicism.
The facts are:
The Catholic Church does not preach that their hierarchy are a conduit to God much less the only conduit to God.
We Catholics understand that we have personal relationships with God with no one nor thing between us and God.
The Catholic Church is not a product of its hierarchy. Rather, Catholic clergy are a product of the Catholic faith and exist to serve the faithful.
If you want to really understand the Catholic faith, forget about the hierarchy and focus on these two commandments which are the essence of Catholicism: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind; and Love your neighbor as yourself.
I won't say anything about how the Catholic Church is supposed to be, because I don't know, and I don't much care. But I do know that D.E. is right when she (I think?) says that the Catholic hierarchy has a huge amount of power. Regardless of what the "official" rules are, the Catholic hierarchy is much more important to world politics and policies than any other Christian church, maybe any other church period. Maybe all of them combined.
The Lutheran Church has scandals. Just recently, a church in the town I grew up in split from the ELCA (I think the ELCA? I'm not sure on any of the names) because they decided to accept homosexual pastors, and the church didn't like that, so they left and hired some mail-order pastor to pastorize them. Anybody hear about it? I doubt it, because no one outside the area cares.
And yet when a group of nuns says something slightly less-than-Catholic about birth control, it makes international headlines because it's so important. When some butler leaks a few documents, it makes international headlines because it's so important.
It may not be in the official rules, Aldo, but when the Pope or the Catholic hierarchy says something, it affects national and international politics in a major, major way.
The problems with the Catholic Church hierarchy are very real, and very big. Just because you don't technically have to listen to them doesn't mean that a lot of people don't. And by "a lot" I mean "enough to have a profound impact on the world at large."
Aldo, at peril of triggering a separate fight (or perhaps just a semantic diversion), how do those two commandments differentiate Catholicism from any other Christian denomination? I would think the "essence" of Catholicism would have to include such differentiation... unless the difference is that Catholicism is just that, while Lutherans et al. slather on a bunch of other stuff.
Apparently even less knowable than clear:
"Cardinal Oscar RodrÃguez Maradiaga was asked about a finding in an Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI survey, published on Tuesday, which showed that just 26 per cent of Irish Catholics believed that bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of Christ at consecration in the Mass." Irish Times.
No one has to rely on myth to live an honorable existence: the pursuit of happiness is about identifying and meeting ones own needs leads to more effective leadership then surviving to pass those traits more successfully into the gene pool.
"First of all, human altruists usually prosper. People who help others gain allies, benefitting themselves, or they improve their reputations. People who act selfishly are punished with public shame..." Source.
Cory,
Catholicism doesn't have a monopoly on those ideals. And, I should have added that, at the very heart of Catholicism, is a truth that is really the first principal of Catholicism – God is love.
The Catholic faith in action, through the seven sacraments, the role of the clergy, and the role of the laity is an expression of that truth and those ideals – God's love for us and our obligation to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
There are elements of Catholicism that are unique and are expressions of God's love for us – the Holy Trinity, transubstantiation, the sacrament of reconciliation, Mary's immaculate conception and freedom from sin. There are practices such as priestly vows of celibacy and poverty which are unique to a degree and are expressions of our love for God and for one another which have their own blessings.
Catholicism is these things. It is God's love for us and our attempt to practice the ideals of love of God and love of our neighbors.
Catholicism is not the sum of the sins of the Catholic clergy. You wonder above about God's will. It's safe to say that sins of the clergy and the laity are instances where we have ignored God's will and followed our own destructive and selfish will.
Aldo's understanding of Catholic teaching is fundamentally the same as mine, and theoretically the same as all other Christians, Cory. He's quoting what Christ said about what Gods most important commandments are. The Cathholic Church is different from the other Christian churches first by having 1500 years (or so) of history. But you could easily argue that the Catholic faith is not the only religion promoting what I call the ethic of reciprocity, and Indeed I do argue that. So, I suspect would Aldo, although I'll not presume to speak for him on that. He does a far better Aldo impression than I do. ;^)
...well, there you see? He already did it. Far better than I did too, as I suspected he would.
larry,
A failure of a percentage of Catholics to believe an element of Catholic doctrine is not evidence that the doctrine in question is not clear or knowable. There's no disputing that the miracle of transubstantiation is part of Catholic doctrine.
It requires faith to believe in that doctrine and the poll shows a lack of faith, not a lack of clarity.
Aldo, forgive me if I seem rude, but isn't transubstantiation kind of like (incoming double negative) not not weird? Maybe I just don't understand the whole "eating Jesus" thing. But Lutherans believe in eating wafers and drinking cheap wine (Night Train?), but it stays wafers and cheap wine. Transforming wafers and wine into Jesus strikes me as creepy.
Also, I believe Larry was saying that those parts of Catholicism are on the wane not because they're not clear, but because they're rather supernatural in nature (supernature?), and people are shying away from it.
Carter,
Doesn't strike me as creepy. Strikes me as manifestation of God's grace and God's love for us.
Not sure what Larry's point was. But, as he noted, he was making his point in a failed attempt to rebut my assertion that Catholic doctrine is knowable and clear.
As to the political power of Catholic clergy, that has nothing to do with their role in the practice of the Catholic faith.
Carter, "transubstantiation" is... well... transcendental. Suprarational. Which by definition means you can't "figure it out." But there are, of late, clues in science, particularly in quantum theory which point to an understanding of cosmic unity in rational (or at least mathematical) terms.
Beyond that, if you're interested, I've been recommending a new book entitled "Deadly Powers" by Paul Trout that explains the territory in a fairly straightforward way. Suffice it to say it deals with how we human beings learned to come to grips with our deepest and extremely rational fears and manage them in such a way as to mystically appropriate the awesome power and savagery of nature.
These days, spiritual transcendence and suprarational thinking is optional. But there was a time in our eveloution where it was absolutely mandatory. And had it not occured, we wouldn't be here typing on our computers and talking about it.
What a nice way to say that faith equals mental illness, Bill...i had neither the temerity nor the lingual limberness to say that last night to a new commenter at Cory's blog.
Yet another prayer group headed for indictment:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120607/NEWS01/206070305
I agree with Bill and Aldo's comment on Doctrine.
Carter,
You are correct the Catholic Church has great influence. It is not a function of some control over members but because Catholics believe it has a special commission by Christ in the world. How does that result in influence? I'll tell you my story (which I think is common to differing degrees among the faithful).
I aspire to be aware of most everything said by the Pope, US Conference of Catholic Bishops and my own Bishop. In addition to their pronouncements on world, national and local affairs, I monitor their prayer intentions.
Sometimes the prayer intention is related to faith matters (eg this month is to focus our intention on the Holy Eucharist and that Europe regains its faith) and other times it is about matters like hunger in Africa. In addition to the prayer intentions, I try to discern the greater message to their policy positions.
Then through prayer, contemplation, and action, try to incorporate this focus into my life.
Now this doesn't mean I always accept their policy pronouncement but I do almost always accept and understand their stated goal. For instance, they might advocate a particular policy with regard to the poor or military intervention. But, because of my own experience, education, and discernment, I come to a different conclusion.
Is my conclusion wrong? Not necessesarily. The Church (Pope or Bishop) has full authority to excercise their prudential judgment about a matter and I'm to take that very seriously. But, if through my formation, I believe the Holy Spirit has given me a different insight, I'm called to follow that so long as my motive, intention etc. is grounded in prayer.
My point in all this is: They do have great influence. It is the reality that this American citizen is formed by and within this Church. I have the right to express my formation as a citizen and failure to do so is a abdication of my responsibility.
Aldo, Bill and I disagree alot (specifically on the Ryan Plan). I accept that. They can and should, through prayer follow where called to go. I will too. And, in the end, the Lord's will will be done.
related: ray bradbury dead.
Larry, quoting one of my favorite sages, the certoon character 'The Tick':
"Sanity is a one-trick pony. You only get one thing, rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, whoa-ho... the sky's the limit!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_wisdom
larry,
Hater's gonna hate.
Troy,
That trick of labeling a factual or doctrinal matter personal opinion doesn't work when DE does it nor when you do it.
I didn't reach my position on Ryan's budget through prayer. I reached my position by reading the newspapers. Your disagreement on the Ryan plan isn't with me. It's with the USCCB who have determined and stated publicly that Ryan's budget proposal is contrary to Catholic doctrine and is immoral.
Right, the sanctity of the asylum becomes ever so familiar after everyone else is being discharged ahead of you.
There's a saying in poker: if you look around the table and can't figure out which one of the other players is the mark, it's you.
The only difference between schizophrenia and creativity, Larry, is a positive attitude. ;^)
Oremus.
Now yer talkin' Larry. See guys? You can even get Kurtz to pray with you if you use the right incantations. LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oremus
:)
Someday Larry, I'm not going to have to look up everytime you use Latin but I sure enjoy when you do.
Confessio et pulchritudo in conspectu eius sanctimonia et magnificentia in sanctificatione eiu. (Psalm 95-6)
Another mystery is Camp Columbus up on the Nemo Road; it's got a big-ass Pax Domini emblem out front. Bill, Murph: clear it up for me?
Bill,
Thought you might find this quote I ran across appropriate:
I would maintain that thanks are the highest form of thought; and that gratitude is happiness doubled by wonder. ~G.K. Chesterton
Aldo,
I believe the consequences of not adopting the Ryan Plan or something similar has long-term adverse consequences to the poor and Social Justice. My view is formed by my faith, reason, knowledge and experience. And, with all do respect to your view on this issue, the Church has never and will never ask one to submit his reason. Only his will.
I have an obligation to follow the Church on matters of Faith and Morals. Failure to do so is sinful. However, I am fully free to follow what I discern, consistent with the Church's Teaching, is the best way to effect the clear teaching of a preferential option of the poor. In fact, I'm called to follow such discernment.
Troy, love it. Thanks!
Troy,
Discern as you choose.
But, be clear, the Catholic Church has very publicly deemed Ryan's budget to be immoral.
Ryan claimed his budget followed Catholic doctrine. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote, in two public letters, that Ryan's budget proposal was contrary to Catholic doctrine and that Ryan's budget proposal was immoral.
If, in the face of that clear determination by the Church, you discern that Ryan's budget is good for the poor or consistent with the teachings of Catholicism, then you're fooling yourself. But, that's okay. You're not rolling anyone else.
Aldo,
The Catholic Church has said no such thing.
Two Bishops who do not speak for the entire Church (Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace) said the Ryan Budget plan failed to meet the moral criteria of ""shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues," and criticized several specific cuts.
The only letter I can find which calls the budget "immoral" is a letter signed by 90 liberal professors from Georgetown who have no more standing than me at discerning morality.
And, speaking of Bishops, you seem to ignore these words said by Cardinal Dolan (who knows Ryan from when Dolan was Bishop in Milwaukee) and is the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to Ryan: attention to fiscal responsibility, the role of the family, the dignity of the person and human life and attention to the poor.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55349.html#ixzz1xD8k1HXa
Since you are willing to lecture, you might think about how you respresent what the Church says and doesn't. There is a distinction between what is said with regard to Teaching (Faith & Morals) and what it says via Pastoral Letters.
I fully support the Church's preferential option for the poor. I do not agree the poor is best served by a excessively large federal government. This is a matter of prudential judgment and you should not be so quick to claim the capacity to peer into another's soul and disregard their reason.
And, don't expect me to carte' blanche accept your personal view on a matter. You aren't the Pope. Our views our different. I accept that as your experience, knowledge and reason is different from mine. But I don't claim your views are "anti-Catholic." You might want to extend the same courtesy.
I find it never helps to compare notes with fellow Catholics on how "Catholic" one is compared to another if for no other reason than the contradictory nature of the topic. i.e. "Catholic" means "universal."
That implies inclusivity, and is the fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant Christians IMHO.
If the thief on the cross next to JC is in, we all are. LOL.
Thwack! Boff! Pow!
Ratzinger agrees with Troy; Benedict agrees with Murph. The office changes the man, boys: just ask Barry Obama.
Troy,
The USCCB is much greater than simply two bishops and is far more representative of the Catholic Church than Ryan, you, or me.
I was wrong about the two letters. There were five letters. They are here: http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm
Bishop Blair, in his letter to the Ag Committee chairs, was not writing on his personal behalf nor even on behalf of the USCCB committee he chairs. Rather, he wrote "On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops".
And, in that letter, on behalf of the entire USCCB, Bishop Blair wrote that earlier the USCCB had identified three moral criteria regarding human life and dignity, the hungry and the homeless, and workers. Then he wrote: "The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria." That is, he declared Ryan's budget proposal immoral.
The letter you cite is a year old and is superseded by the USCCB's more recent correspondence.
I don't presume to represent what the Church says and doesn't say. That's why I have always cited the Bishops' views as representing the Church's position.
I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm defending my church from Ryan's attempt to hijack it to his own personal ends.
As to large government, neither the bishops nor I advocate for large government. To suggest otherwise is false. I firmly believe we need to reduce the size of government. I've never stated otherwise. The USCCB acknowledge the need to cut spending at several points. In one letter they wrote "Our nation has an obligation to address the impact of future deficits on the health of the economy, to ensure stability and security for future generations, and to use limited resources efficiently and effectively."
The only personal view I have expressed is that I support the Bishop's position. I support my church.
I have never claimed your views nor Ryan's views are anti-Catholic. I don't imagine either you or Ryan hold views that are opposed to Catholicism. You might want to extend the courtesy of not misstating my positions.
As to authority and false claims of authority, the issue is Ryan's declaration that his budget proposal represents Catholic doctrine. As the USCCB have made clear, Ryan's claim is false and Ryan's budget proposal is actually contrary to Catholic doctrine.
It is Ryan who needs to stop playing Pope.
You'd make a fine lobbyist, Aldo.
Aldo
Ryan said he formed the budget based on his faith. Nothing more.
OK. You didn't say "anti-Catholic." You said immoral (which is more than failing to meet a moral criteria on some specifics) and you said against the Bishops. Sorry. I missed the distinction.
He said he formed the budget based on his "Catholic faith".
Nothing more needed to be said. That budget conforms to no Catholic faith.
As the USCCB have made clear, Ryan's budget is antithetical to the Catholic faith. They have demonstrated how Ryan's budget is immoral ("Contrary to established moral principles." American Heritage Dictionary (c) 2000).
And, I want to be clear - I presume to judge no one. I am utterly unqualified to judge any other person, or the quality or sincerity of their faith. It's all I can do to row my own boat.
But, when a politician declares a piece of legislation to be based in the Catholic faith, my ears prick up. And when the Catholic church's leaders declare that piece of legislation to be contrary to the tenets of the Catholic faith, that's fair to note in defense of my Catholic faith from the politician's misrepresentation.
"19% of the 212 religious advocacy groups in Washington are Catholic, according to a new study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In this instance, the Pew Forum selected the group’s ‘policy activity’ expenses (about $27 million)."
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12440
"But 60 percent of the Catholic Charities' organization's funding already comes from the government. Much of the other 40 percent comes from corporations with no religious affiliation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-somerville/cardinal-dolan-blackmail-for-jesus_b_1554485.html
Aldo,
Two Bishops said some components of the Plan (which is comprehensive in scope) did not meet the moral criteria in their eyes. They did not use the word "immoral." What you keep repeating is a lie.
And, your claim to be defending the Church using a lie, offends me.
Finally, if Ryan who has more economic understanding than those two Bishops, believes his program is better for the poor he called to pursue it.
7. Catholic voters should also take into account other important social issues which concern the common good, always seeking to properly inform their exercise of faithful citizenship with reference to the truths taught by the Catholic Church. In so doing, they should acknowledge that there is no single "Catholic" position on issues like immigration, taxes, education, and delivery of medical care, in the sense of a specific policy approach, which all Catholics must espouse. However, there are Catholic principles, such as the dignity of the human person and fundamental rights, which should always be considered. Those principles are set forth in the body of Church teaching referred to as the "Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.â€
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29332&wf=rsscol
Troy,
I've told no lies. Your false charge is not so much offensive (since it's so absurd on its face), as it is pitiful and betrays the paucity of your arguments.
As you know if you read my comment, those two bishops were not speaking merely for themselves. So, it is incomplete and thus false, with reference to that letter to write "two bishops said . . . "
The fact is, they were speaking, and I quote, “On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishopsâ€.
It is also false to suggest that the bishop's comments were restricted to "some components of the Plan . . . ". The bishop's comments referred to the budget resolution – not just some components.
In his letter, on behalf of the entire USCCB, Bishop Blair wrote that earlier the USCCB had identified three moral criteria regarding human life and dignity, the hungry and the homeless, and workers. Then he wrote: “The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.†Nothing there about components.
The bishops did not use the word "immoral". That's why I've never quoted them as saying so. But, as I noted, the word immoral means “Contrary to established moral principles.†per the American Heritage Dictionary © 2000. So it follows that a budget which fails to meet moral criteria is by definition, immoral.
As I am defending the position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops it is certainly true that I am defending my church as they represent my church in my country.
There's no reason to think that Ryan knows more about economics than the bishops. In fact, if you read their letters, you'll see the bishops do a solid job establishing their bona fides on the subjects at hand.
Ryan is called to pursue what he is called to pursue. But, that doesn't give him the right to call his budget proposal consistent with the Catholic faith since the bishops have determined that Ryan's budget proposal is contrary to the Catholic faith.
To take this a step further, I'm not saying I believe a Catholic legislator cannot vote for this budget nor that a Catholic voter cannot vote for a legislator who votes for this budget.
Because, from a Catholic perspective, this may well be the lesser of two evils when compared to the Democrat's budget.
But, merely being the lesser of two evils doesn't mean a piece of legislation is in keeping with the Catholic faith.
Related to Larry's comment from a few days ago.
I agree with Aldo's line of thinking: Ryan's budget plan doesn't have to be Catholic to deserve support. (But being a serious attempt at deficit reduction and not just an excuse to bash the poor would be nice.)
Similarly, Fred Deutsch's candidacy doesn't need the Lord's blessing to be successful. This Lord fellow you guys keep talking about might well bless Deutsch by handing him fourth place in the four-way race. Or he might just laugh at all these people praying for political victories.
Aldo,
In the end, you are intentionally over-stating what the Church has said, reaching conclusions beyond what the Bishops are saying, and claiming those who disagree with you are someone less Catholic.
1) Failing to meet a moral criteria in these bishops eyes does not make something immoral. And certainly not to the standard of something being "inherently evil."
2) Regarding components, the letter listed their specific objections.
3) What are those bona fides. They talk about their position and not an understanding of economics. But, that is not my point. Ryan is called to use his reason, experience, and knowledge to discern using his conscience what he believes will best exact social justice with a preferential option for the poor.
5) Ryan didn't claim this was the position of the church, it was dogma/doctrine or even a pastoral letter. He said:
Ryan said that the principle of subsidiarity — a notion, rooted in Catholic social teaching, that decisions are best made at most local level available — guided his thinking on budget planning.
“To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society … where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good,†Ryan said.
The Wisconsin Republican said that he also drew on Catholic teachings regarding concern for the poor, and his interpretation of how that translated into government policy.
“[T]he preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence,†said Ryan.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74990.html#ixzz1xEMy4rgm
Aldo, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. As Cardinal Dolan said, finding the right solution is for the politicians and it requires all to bring their best to the table. I believe the current policies with excessive reliance on the federal government to address the needs of the poor is counterproductive to improving their lot and serving social justice. You disagree. I respect that.
But, for you to claim your view is more righteous and then inaccurately accuse Ryan of doing is an offense against the truth, which is grave matter in violation of the 8th commandment.
Troy,
I'm overstating nothing. I'm quoting what the church said and using words as they are defined.
I conclude nothing beyond the bishop's conclusions.
I claim no one is any less Catholic. In fact, I stated quite clearly that "I presume to judge no one. I am utterly unqualified to judge any other person, or the quality or sincerity of their faith. It’s all I can do to row my own boat."
And don't quote me writing "inherently evil". I never wrote that.
The letter did list their specific objections. But, it didn't stop there. The letter also said “The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.†See? It referred to the entire budget resolution.
Read the letters. They listed their experience on economic matters and in dealing with the poor.
Ryan is called to discern the best option for the poor. That doesn't mean he has succeeded in that calling nor does it give him the right to claim his budget is in keeping with the Catholic faith.
Ryan can say what he likes about subsidiarity but, the budget he proposed is actually contrary to subsidiarity as it eliminates a program that was consistent with subsidiarity and, as the bishops made clear, Ryan's budget fails to meet the moral criteria set out by the bishops.
Troy, your argument isn't with me. It's with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are the ones who have determined Ryan's budget proposal fails to meet the moral tests of protecting human life and dignity; affecting the hungry and homeless; and promoting the common good of workers and families.
I too believe the current policies with excessive reliance on the federal government to address the needs of the poor is counterproductive to improving their lot and serving social justice. But, as the bishops note, simply pulling the rug out from under the needy as Ryan's budget would while providing no corresponding local assistance fails the several moral tests they describe and, as it allows for no local assistance to replace the federal assistance, fails to meet the definition of subsidiarity.
I certainly never claimed my view is more righteous than anyone's. Regarding Ryan I have merely noted the fact that, based on the bishop's evaluation of Ryan's budget, it is false for Ryan to claim his budget conforms to Catholic teaching. Thus I have been truthful and I have violated no commandment in this debate.
Your presumption in judging my behavior in terms of the 10 Commandments (even as you falsely describe my behavior) is laughable.
I don't believe I am more righteous than anyone. I don't believe I'm a better Catholic than anyone. I have no right to judge anyone else's sinfulness. I am merely following the teachings of my bishops and seeing with my eyes and my sense of reason that, when the bishops publicly declare a bill fails several moral tests it would be false for anyone to claim such a bill was drafted consistent with Catholic teaching.
I agree with the USCCB's analysis that Ryan's budget proposal fails to meet several critical moral tests and so does not conform to Catholic teaching. I believe, in light of the bishop's analysis, that Ryan's claim that his budget is consistent with Catholic teaching is false.
I'm not calling Ryan a liar. I don't know if his claim is from dishonesty or ignorance. I just know, based on the bishops' analysis, that the claim is false.
I can choose to follow the Bishop's analysis of what is consistent with Catholic teaching or I can follow your and Ryan's analysis. I'm sticking with the Bishops on this one.
PS - My local priest just called. He doesn't appreciate you trying to cut into his gig. He insisted that he will continue as my confessor. Which is good. Because, while I have committed no sin in this debate, I am by no means without sin.
"Another sister told me this about a decade ago: The hierarchy is like a dying dragon, breathing fire on those around it as it flails through its final collapse. But don’t worry, she said, it is dying and someday something else will resurrect."
http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/essay-power-dying-hierarchy-illusion#.T9NySLgDzxQ.twitter
Whistle-blowing Vatican banker fears for his life:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/10/vatican-banker-running-scared-gotti-tedeschi-could-turn-whistleblower.html
You could certainly see your enthusiasm in the paintings you write. The arena hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.