Bishop Blaire not able to get two-thirds vote from U.S. bishops on poverty document

blaireThe following comes from a December 24 story on

Presiding over the Diocese of Stockton, one of the poorest areas of the country, Catholic Bishop Stephen Blaire sees the human costs of poverty every day. Long lines at food banks. Homeless folks on the streets. Recently, as he does before Christmas every year, Blaire blessed thousands of food baskets to be given to needy local families.

But translating the church’s outreach to the poor into a political statement on poverty has proven more difficult. As Congress ponders cuts in safety-net programs from food stamps to Medicare to help balance the budget and avoid the “fiscal cliff,” the politically influential U.S. Conference of Bishops has been unable to reach agreement on a statement representing one of its core values: caring for the poor.

Such statements usually pass easily, and the bishops use them as a political cudgel to highlight the moral authority of the nation’s largest denomination.

“I was disappointed that we couldn’t produce that document,” said Blaire, who has become the bishops’ point person on poverty issues in his role as chairman of its Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. “But our committee is going to take a different approach” and create smaller statements on poverty issues over the next few months, he said….

“The bishops are very divided right now,” said the Rev. Gerald Coleman, an adjunct professor of ethics at Santa Clara University who has advised California’s Catholic bishops on ethical matters.

“Some are very focused on same-sex marriage, some are very focused on the contraception issue,” Coleman said.

To read entire story, click here.


  1. The Church’s “core value” is witness to Jesus Christ, not running a franchise of the welfare state. This draft document seemed like a solid and rousing challenge to the Obama administration’s wicked polices on abortion, contraception and marriage and an insistence that the 21st century Church will not have its silence bought for a mess of subsidized pottage. Unfortunately, some of the bishops still like the taste of pottage.

  2. John Feeney says:

    Once more, WE as Catholics are supposed to help the poor, not ask the Government to do it.

    • All insistences of the Popes to the contrary are to be disregarded, John? Where do you get such a notion?

      • John Feeney says:

        Brian: It’s in the Bible.

      • After holiness is attained by the bishops, as per the Pope’s request in light of the command of Jesus, then some voluntary charity is called for. Until the holiness is attained, the bishops have no meaning, no reason for being. “Seek first the kingdom of God and then all else shall be added thereunto”. The authority to consecrate Sacraments that a bishop has does not make such a bishop holy. Without holiness, the bishop and his agents cannot fulfill Jesus’ “Not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.

        • Moreover, in that receiving the Blessed Sacrament while in mortal sin means condemnation, so perhaps a bishop consecrating the Blessed Sacrament while he is in mortal sin would condemn him also … I’ll have to check this out, but it may be the case. I wonder if the CCC spells out any condemnations a bishop can bring on his own head, especially by being unholy, or even not holy.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Brian S the real questions is where did you get your notion? What I find so hard to to believe is the denial people have about the existent condition of our government programs and how there are many who feel entitled and the fact that many people are truly sucking the system, using it to condone their laziness.

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      Thank God for the 1/3rd of the bishops who seem to actually have a moral compass!

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

  3. Bishop Blaire needs to get back to the teachings of the Church and preach: SUBSIDIARITY, SOLIDARITY, and COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE.

    Socialism and Communism are not appropriate.
    He must be against government waste, and government over-spending.
    And he must stop insisting that government be the answer to everything.
    He needs to remember that he is a Bishop, and therefore should stay out of the prudential judgement issues of the Laity. He forgets his own role.

    Bishop Blaire needs to be replaced on USCCB Committees.

    • Bishop Blaire needs to concentrate on SAVING SOULS in his own Diocese.

      • Paul, you’re an optimist.

        The spiritual situation in Stockton is so poor that Bishop Blair needs to concentrate on saving the souls of his clergy in his own diocese. Only then will he be in a position of saving souls of the laity through their ministry.

        Of course, by then he’ll be long retired and his successor will be left to pick up the mess Mahony and he have left and Bishop Montrose was unable to reverse.

  4. Why do the bishops need to craft a political statement on poverty? They need to spend less time with political issues and more time on keeping the faithful out of hell. The political arena is where the clergy have struggled to present a united front. There was a time when Catholics did not need the bishops to issue official statements regarding the care of the poor. They just did what the Lord commanded and gave to the poor without expecting government involvement. Once you rely on the princes of the world, then you have to dance to their tune.

  5. Father Karl says:

    The Catholic Church, the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, is in big trouble because she has not been teaching as Our Lord taught. By abandoning tradition, she has fallen in love with worldly ideas, and is off track in many areas. Because of this, her flock is scattering, joining other churches. Until bishops like this one retire,and good ones are installed, this diabolical disorientation will continue, and the faithful will follow false moral and doctrinal ideas. Christ will not abandon His Church, but He will permit Her to suffer the agony She is presently experiencing.

    • People sense basic commandments of God, and go where best they perceive they can live out what God wills … Another reason people are leaving the Catholic pews and searching for God elsewhere. Even Islam promotes strongly the siring and raising of children, namely God’s first command to mankind, which the Catholic Church typically has abandoned. Why seek God in dioceses and parishes which defame the Sacraments, instead of some more honest organization?

  6. California Teacher says:

    Solving the poverty issue is complex and it’s not entirely about government aid. The church itself is deficient in getting at one of the root causes of poverty which is single mother households. I haven’t heard a sermon on divorce or cohabitation ever. Not one in my whole lifetime! There are too many pronunciamentos on what goverment must do, but not enough sermons, articles, social justice efforts aimed at reducing/eliminating divorce and cohabitation.

    • Bullseye!!!

    • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

      California Teacher,

      You are obviously not attending a Traditional parish. If you were, you would hear plenty about the sins of Divorce and remarriage, and cohabitation.

      God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
      Kenneth M. Fisher

  7. From the article: “But the failure to get a two-thirds agreement on a poverty statement “makes the church look like any other interest group,” Jelen said. “It reminds people of the divisions among Catholic voters in general.” The article then recounts the extrordinary popularity of Obama among Latinos.
    One wonders just what statement Blaire was attempting to pass that would cause some of his brother bishops to balk and run to the hills. Since the article doesn’t say one can only speculate, but I suspect it was an endoresement of Obama’s redistribution policies as a safety net for the huge numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, in California. How else could Bishop Blaire represent his flock but to push for just such legislation? Is there any way we could obtain a copy of the proposal which failed to pass muster among the bishops, for clarity’s sake?

  8. St. Christopher says:

    All of these guys need to be fired! Bishops are not intended to be politicians. It sounds like they believe that they are doing legitimate work for their calling. Instead, they have become what Obama wanted them to be, a pack of sycophants, longing to be relevant to the world and to those with power in it. How in the world does the Vatican tolerate such mediocrity? No, wait, wrong word, such hypocrisy among those who are called and appointed to defend the Faith and to lead us all to salvation. The made-up “Office of Bishops” should immediately disband, or at least return to the Church, leaving the issuance of these “papers” to “Caesar”. Catholic institutions that served the poor over the centuries are well chronicled; although now many have lost their way, or are simply vanishing, along with the institutional Church. Satan is having an enormous laugh, and feast, given the fretting over issues that bishops need not collectively address. Individual bishops can certainly address issues of poverty within their jurisdictions, and Catholic institutions should continue to provide services to the poor. Instead of investigating the hapless “nuns” (many of whom are not Catholic anyway), the Vatican should investigate its bishops. Of course, bishops in Germany–Austria have so little regard for the Pope that they regularly weigh in on female ordination, married priests, and the like, notwithstanding the discipline of the Church, with little sanction from the Pope. In fact, the outright disobedience of these same bishops makes the SSPX look pretty good, n’est-ce pas? Yup, trying to pray as all the saints up to Vatican II prayed (yes, I know, there are some minor differences), makes one an outsider these days. Stop, stop giving these guys money. Instead, give directly to good Catholic charities. Why let Cardinal Dolan and all the other bishops, go to all these resorts and spend their time on self-important duties, which have no bearing at all on being shepherds, their true calling.

    • Our American bishops are in good company. Catholic World News reports that

      “The Vatican newspaper has given what appears to be a clear signal of support for Mario Monti in his effort to form a new coalition government for Italy.

      “L’Osservatore Romano said that Monti’s campaign was “an appeal to restore the highest and most noble sense of politics.” His government would emphasize “care for the common good,” the newspaper said.

    • Collegiality

      “Someone—perhaps one of you will remember who it was—famously made the remark at Vatican II, when collegiality was being discussed, that holy writ only mentions one example of collegial decision making, when it records of the apostles: ‘and they all ran away’.
      One Cardinal Ratzinger first raised doubts about the theological underpinning of the priniciple in The Ratzinger Report, an interview with a journalist, Victor Messori, in the 1980s.
      Looking at the way bishops govern their dioceses these days, one has a certain sympathy for his point of view. The point is, surely, that a bishop does belong to a college, but it is not primarily that of his brother bishops, but of his brother priests; those who belong to his diocese. It is them ‘with whom he shares his priestly ministry’, as the ordination rite puts it; it is to the care of this college that the people of the diocese are entrusted.
      To jointly govern a country, rather than a diocese, risks all sorts of things; for instance (and not least) neglecting the very important Catholic principle of subsidiarity; it creates a system where one size fits all and, most crucially, it takes the bishop away from, precisely, the forum that he has been ordained/consecrated to serve.
      A bishop’s secretary of my acquaintance used to lament the huge sheaves of paperwork his master was expected to digest before every bishops’ meeting. Paper generated by a new expensive civil service whose job it is to provide this stuff to justify their salaries. A priest friend observed that his diocese was employing (at full salaries) all sorts of people doing very little, but who had to nag or bombard already over-pressed parish clergy with paperwork, or demands for this or that, simply to have something to do.
      Somehow, I think we need a simplification. Of course it is a good thing for bishops to meet, but it shouldn’t be the principal legislative unit of the Church in this country.
      As the Holy Father said all those years ago; bishops are of divine institution. Bishops’ Conferences are not” Father Justin

      • Catherine, you have given the best explanation with the problem of the existence of the USCCB that I have ever read or heard. Thank you so much!

      • Anonymous says:

        The bishop’s conference does not jointly govern the country or even the Catholic Church in a country. It is not a legislative unit of the Church. How silly and ignorant!

  9. At some point you run out of other peoples money. The federal government is growing and they just signed in raises for themselves. There are billions of new taxes expected with Obama care. California voters just voted in millions of new taxes. We may lose tax breaks for charity, for house payments, and going over the fiscal cliff will ensure taxes go up on all. The amount for families with child tax deductions will decrease Poor is relative. The poorest person in America is still better than anyone in the third world. Bishop Stephen is entrenched in a poor diocese, but he also needs to be concerned about those who are currently able to make weekly donations. The charitable money may run out for the average parishioner.

    • I keep intending to not put money in the collection basket, but somehow manage to do so anyway, and more than maybe I ought … These money handlers in the chanceries best be doing with it what God intends. But we know that much of what they do is not what God intends … so it’s their heads with the millstones and not the pew givers, hopefully.

  10. The notion that Bishops are to leave economics to politicians and their corporate overlords is not a new one, and one that was addressed directly by Leo XIII in Rerum Noverum and by his successors, most obviously in the encyclicals issued in Rerum Noverum anniversary years.

    One simply cannot claim orthodoxy while denying it in favor of the machinations of capitalists and politicians. To insist that our Church ignore the world is to favor Quakerism or similar self-involved sectarian belief system over Catholicism.

    • Brian S., the Church is not ignoring the world, but many bishops are decorating the world with fly spots.

    • Brian, who on this board is recommending Quakerism or sectarianism or even laissez-faire capitalism? I think we’re wondering how characteristically leftist was this abortive statement by Bishop Blaire that would cause his fellow bishops to torpedo it.

      • Clinton R – to whom I was directly responding – asked “Why do the bishops need to craft a political statement on poverty? They need to spend less time with political issues…”

        That notion asserts that any quest for economic justice is to be left to politicians. I characterized it as Quakerism or sectarianism, because it denies the role of our Church in society. Those who disagree can argue with the Popes – as they have in the past.

        As for laissez-faire capitalism, I did not mention it at all. It is clear enough that the current system of corporatism depends heavily upon governmental favor and subsidy.

        • Kenneth M. Fisher says:

          Brian S.,

          If my memory serves me correctly, you have publicly disagreed on this Site with the Magisterium’s infallible teachings on the matters of sexual concern, so who are you to lecture anyone on arguing with the Popes?

          God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
          Kenneth M. Fisher

          • Cite a single location where I have expressed such disagreement.

            I have not, and your repetitions to the contrary are a disgrace.

    • I’ll buy that Brian when the USSCB climbs out of bed with the democrat party and the welfare state. Believe me the Bishops do not represent or speak for me when comes to me paying confiscatory taxes that support shiftless, lazy and irresponsible people. But then again in your “progressive” view of the world the small business owner is evil and the welfare cheat the saint….Maybe you will understand this notion when one day when we in the productive class say NO MORE pack up leave, hopefully the whole rotting system will come crumbling down…

      • The Bishops are not here to represent you.

        • Hmm they seem to have no problem represent the welfare scammers and call them “the poor”

          • Abeca Christian says:

            That is true Canisius….I think because of the crooked welfare system there is much fraud and dishonesty. It could be that people are poor in holiness and spirituality, they lack it more today because many feel entitled to receive.

            There are the real poor which we should always reach out to but there are the lazy and crooked ones whom sure know how to suck the system.

    • Stockton is legally going bankrupt.
      When did Bishop Blaire ever write to Stockton officials, and ask them not to spend more than their income,
      and to pay attention to what they were promising public employees in salaries and benefits?

      The Bishop needs to be involved only in his own Diocese, since he clearly does not understand economics.
      Now he wants the entire Country to pay for the over-spending and waste of government within his own Diocese -which he neglected.
      He had his chance and blew it.

      The US Government is over $16 TRILLION in debt. Money does not grow on trees. The Bishop wants to continue spending and spending without any recommendations for cutting waste and over-spending.

      Fix the source of the problem. If you want money from the Feds, tell them exactly what other areas of the budget can be cut and for exactly how much $$$$$$$ to allow for a balanced budget.

      Push for private sector job creation – unrelated to government contracts.
      All abled bodied persons should be able to find work of some kind.
      Otherwise the Bishop merely becomes part of the problem.

      Of course he could be concerned about the government hand-outs to the USCCB (which is inappropriate anyway).

    • Brian:
      There are plenty of things the bishops can address in the spirit of Leo XIII and his successors. How about a rousing condemnation of usurious credit card rates or the payday loan industry? How about a demand that stagnant minimum wages be adjusted at least for inflation? Let them address economic issues, by all means, but in a CATHOLIC way according to CATHOLIC teachings, not the “gospel” of Robert Reich or Saul Alinsky.
      And let them address the mindless consumerism by which the working class and poor sometimes victimize themselves, by trying to ape the fashions and gadget collections of people who have money they don’t. How about some admonitions against envy, drunkenness and drug use, fornication and gang membership, and in favor of thrift, sobriety, strong family discipline and hard work in school? The Cure of Ars loved his poor people, but wasn’t afraid to “let them have it” when they needed it.

      • Well said Tom! Only the truth will set you free!

      • Credit card interest, payday loans, and the increase and inflation-adjustment of the minimum wage? These are all great topics for the bishops to address. I concur with all of the topic recommendations you make.

        I note that minimum wage has been discussed many times in these pages, and the same insistence – that the Bishoips should not dabble in politics – is loudly repeated.

        As for Saul Alinsky, we are all responding to news of a draft statement for which no link was provided. How do you know that the draft was written in a non-Catholic way, or was otherwise at odds with Catholic teaching?

        • The govt fiat money helps distribute goods and services which have no present scarcity but rather are so easily made that they tend to stockpile up while people suffer poverty in many corners of the world. The USA has an effective unemployment rate of maybe 20% or so, and still it produces way more primary goods than anyone in the States can consume. But there are countless starving people worldwide, 4000 of whom die each day from mal nutrition; so, why not simply make the distribution happen by creating money and doling it out in the impoverished sectors?

          • The flip side of fiat money used in times of massive production is the end of massive production. When the goods have saturated society, then demand drops leaving a surplus of money instead of goods. Production then drops, and people begin to pay more simply because they have more to pay with. The prices rise. The real challenge will be where the resurge of economy begins in the next round … in the USA, Europe, China, Russia, Latin American, India, etc? How much chrome can you put on a car before you realize it can’t look any better, or last any longer? The concept is not difficult in itself, but is only complicated. The difficulty comes with addictions to various economic theories, believing them to be moral precepts. Set them aside and look at what actually happens globally with goods and services. The Church has a hand in configuring the distribution of goods throughout the world, and does so with a bias towards the poor and developing regions. But when Jesus multiplied the loaves, He taught the will of God; the problem is that the bishops too often ignore the Will of God and presume that Sacraments without the World of God suffice. But Jesus’ first major lesson after His baptism was that “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.

    • St. Christopher says:

      “Brian S”: you mix up too much here. The Church can certainly speak to economic and social issues, as Leo XIII did (although a foundational element of Rerum Novarum was its defense of private property as part of natural law). Central to this, however, is who is speaking, and for what purpose? The Pope is the spokesman for the Church, and for Christ, on Earth, not Bishop Blaire or the make-believe “Office of Bishops”. The bishops are entirely acting in political ways, seeking to supplant the Pope (yes, they are) by puffing up their role within the hierarchy of the Church. Also, Leo was concerned with socialism and with its redefinition of the proper relationship of Man to the State (and, by implication, religion). The Pope needed to place these relationships into their proper perspective, rather than let any one (labor, capitalism and the like) move to its inexorable, and excessive, limits. The Church needed to be removed from being aligned with money and power, and be seen as a refuge of the working poor (while not rejecting the proper uses of private capital and wealth). The Holy Fathers that spoke on this issue sought a middle ground, which became wrapped up in the concept of subsidiarity. Yet, that same concept is always cited by bishops as giving them authority to speak on a wide variety of “economic” issues (and which, of course, led the USCCB to virtually shout-out its support of Obama, the enabler of abortionists and homosexual activists).

      • My objection is to the repeated claims by many here that the Bishops are not to discuss economic matters. I have never asserted – and neither has Bishop Blaire – that private ownership and control of property, within reasonable limits, is anything other than part of the natural law.

        As for the Bishops, they are responsible for the teaching of the faith within their diocese. They are not merely bureaucratic conduits to be used by the Pope, although nothing Bishop Blaire has written has been at odds with him.

        Sadly, most politically conservative Catholics just ignore those portions of the encyclicals they find inconvienent – or worse. You may wish to review George Wiegel’s easily available and breathtakingly rude dismissal of Benedict’s “Caritas in Veritate”, as an example of this practice, a practice which is duplicated with less artifice, here.

        • Catholic progressives completely dismiss the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, in fact most openly defy it.

          • Yeah, pretty much each group of cafeteria catholics ignore the parts of the teaching they find difficult. You find comfort in that?

        • “within reasonable limits” is an interesting phrase, Comrade Brian S. Perhaps you could organize a comintern to determine “reasonable limits”, and then to regulate society according to your determinations. You could advise Bishop Blaire as well, so he could rubber stamp your intentions.

          • Perhaps you favor unreasonable limits, or none at all, Skai.

            I fear you do, but this puts you directly at odds with the Church. In Centimus Annus, John Paul addresses Church doctrine on private property directly:

            30. In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character of the right to private property, using various arguments against the socialism of his time.65 This right, which is fundamental for the autonomy and development of the person, has always been defended by the Church up to our own day. At the same time, the Church teaches that the possession of material goods is not an absolute right, and that its limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right.

            While the Pope proclaimed the right to private ownership, he affirmed with equal clarity that the “use” of goods, while marked by freedom, is subordinated to their original common destination as created goods, as well as to the will of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Gospel … ; and quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, he added: “But if the question be asked, how must one’s possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all…”, because “above the laws and judgments of men stands the law, the judgment of Christ”.66

            The Successors of Leo XIII have repeated this twofold affirmation: the necessity and therefore the legitimacy of private ownership, as well as the limits which are imposed on it.

  11. Why is it always some university or psychologogical association that “advises” the bishops? Maybe if the bishops would turn around in their saddles and face the direction the horse is going, they’d be able to advise the universities and shrinks, politicians and everyone else for a change.

  12. Focusing on issues of poverty is okay for the Bishops to approve…as long as they include poverty of the soul brought on by a lack of spreading the Divine Word of God on issues of immorality and moral decay within the Church.
    Spreading government tax money around as well as government approved psychological propaganda isn’t cleaning up the world’s problems.

  13. Paul Joseph says:

    Am I missing something? After reading this article and reading the original one in its entirety, I find no verbatim citation of the failed poverty statement itself. How can one have an informed opinion without being fully informed?

    • You are meeting a lot of folks on this site that do not believe that the Church should have a special emphasis on helping the poor, even though it is settled church teaching. What is really interesting, is that most, if not all, of the Bishops appointed in the last twenty years got their jobs because of their conservative bearing. If some think that Bishop Blair is a reactionary, imagine what it would be like if the Popes had appointed what they considered liberals. When we, myself included, reads and writes on this site it is always a good idea to remember that we represent the 1% of conservatives (I know, some would argue with me about my conservatism) that are interested in all of the things we “talk” about. Most Catholics in the pews don’t even know who their Bishop is, or care. Most Catholics don’t even know that there is a USCCB, or care. Most don’t know anything about the Latin mass, or care. The church for them is the parish that they attend, the people in it, its activities, its programs for youth. Most Catholics believe that if you live a good life, treat others well, go to church/Mass fairly regularly, etc. that you meet the definition of practicing Catholic. And yes, most are of the cafeteria variety for better or worse. But, none of us represent the majority of the faithful. The few who stand outside the LA Educational Conference each year are dwarfed by the thousands who attend from all over the world, including bishops and cardinals.

      • Bob one first off you are not a conservative but to continue with your thoughts, most Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament or care, most Catholics don’t know about the conditions of their souls or care, modernist have destroyed the Church from within. You and rest of the liberals are convinced that the main job of the Church is not the salvation of souls but social justice. I quote you “Most Catholics believe that if you live a good life, treat others well, go to church/Mass fairly regularly, etc. that you meet the definition of practicing Catholic” You are tragically correct. All the Catholics you refer to here are totally and completely wrong.

      • False, Bob One. There is no poster on this blog who ever has said they believe what you accuse them of which is that the Church should not help the poor.

    • I’m in favor of the bishops even multiplying the help for poor people, but their main mission is to convert souls to Christ, and this they hardly even deal with much. It’s the balance which is totally distorted … because they are slaves of the secular govt.

      • Paul Joseph says:

        Thanks to all who replied to my post. While our love must be biased in favor of the poor, the ways in which we put our love into action is a matter of prudential judgment. I’ve given money to house-less men only to see them spend it self-destructively on alcohol. How prudent of me was it to put my love into action that way? And, if we fail to evangelize, what good is it to send people to Hell with a full stomach?

  14. eILEEN tHERESE says:

    To California Teacher:

    Go to St. Peter Chanel Church in Hawaiian Gardens. The priests there do not mince words but faithfully follow the Magestarium.

  15. Kenneth M. Fisher says:

    Paul Joseph,

    Many of us know too well of Bishop Blaire’s political bent, so we don’t even need to read his document!

    God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
    Kenneth M. Fisher

    • Paul Joseph says:

      Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Although I strongly suspect that you are correct, it is still best to know one’s enemy. Reading the actual statement might help us know a likely enemy even better, which can only be to the good.

  16. “…the nation’s largest denomination.” — original article

    The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The protestant church has thousands upon thousands of denominations. This Church has none. She has various rites, but she is not a denomination among denominations. To say she is is an attempt to blur lines historically and put her on a par with all those who abandoned her.

  17. And when did Bp. Blaire ever criticise OBAMA, for higher gas and food prices which have gone up significantly since Obama took office ???

    Bp. Blaire just wants the US Government to print more and more money, to give what it does not have due to lousy management. Blaire never talks about the lousy management of government which is the root of poverty.
    ($16.4 TRILLION dollars in Debt.)

    He also wants the entire Country to pay for the financial sins of Stockton government and CA government.

    • There is a current Russian blogger whose blog has been picked up and published the former Pravda. This Russian warns the USA to never give in to gun control, because that is the first things the former Soviet Union did, and it accomplished that tyranical deed by deception. The rest is history, and it is a history of extreme subjugation of hundreds of millions of people in many different nations. Blessed John Paul led the charge joined by Thatcher and Reagan which overthrew the Soviet regime … The overthrow, led by this recent Pope, used both guns and butter. Note, that Blessed John Paul II led an international move that used extreme military firepower as part of the means of throwing off the yoke of that oppressive regime. Firepower is not opposed by the popes, never has been, and never will be. In the company of firepower is included the death penalty. The current crop of so called liberals, aka libtards, are trying to take away human rights of self defense by persuading us to end the death penalty first. If they can do this, then they’ll go to step two of their plan to disarm us from our only protection against their totalitarian plans. Amazing that a Russian was published by Pravda, the former spokespiece for the Soviet Union, warning Americans to never give up our guns. Sweet lips in high places are whispering the words to their flocks the same as Delilah whispered to Samson. We are on God’s side when we refuse to listen to these faithless men and women.

  18. If anyone becomes aware of the USCCB, any USCCB Committees, or any Diocese run charities that do NOT Evangelize, or provides money to ANY group that goes against Church teaching –

    Please report it to the: “Pontifical Council CORE UNUM” at the Vatican.
    Palazzo San Pio X
    Via della Conciliazione, 5
    Postal Address:
    Palazzo San Pio X
    V-00120 Vatican City State
    Telephone: +39-06-69889411
    Fax: +39-06-69887301 or +39-06-69887311

    You can find this on the Vatican web site – ” ON the SERVICE of CHARITY” – Motu Proprio.
    This went into effect Dec. 2012.

    Again – without Evangelizing – NO money.
    Going against teaching of the Catholic Church, such as abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc., – NO money.



    1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

    Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

    1906 By common good is to be understood “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

    1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

    1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

    1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to “provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families.”29

    1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: “The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around.”30 This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The statement’s drafting committee’s head was Bishop Vigneron of Detroit, not Bishop Blaire, although Bishop Blaire is the head of the Committee of Domestic Justice and Human Development. The vote on the document appears to have failed because some bishops wished it to be stronger and to include input from a economist. Some also felt that it was too long. Some felt that it neglected the long history of Catholic social doctrine.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.