Food Stamps
#21
(11-24-2012, 05:10 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: How true! Before my heart attacks, I ate 'conveniently', KD (mac'n'cheese), ramen noodles and hotdogs and cheap lunch meat. When I had to start paying close attention to my diet, I had no choice but to start eating 'quality'. I'm still a very careful shopper but my food budget just about quadrupled. Luckily, I could afford it. Lots of people can't.

Organic and natural food is the healthiest for you. Personally I think the powers-that-be create this junk food cheap on purpose while making the good food expensive.
Reply
#22
(11-27-2012, 03:20 AM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(11-24-2012, 03:11 PM)Deidre Wrote: I've known people who work full time, but make so little that they qualify for (and need) food stamps.  sad( It should be criminal to pay people so little for their work that they can't even feed their families.

I support a living wage. That is a part of a moral society.

I totally agree and until we build a moral, i.e. Catholic society it ain't gonna happen. The powers that be, as you call them, would much rather force you and I to pay taxes for programs like food stamps and hot lunches for school children than to pay, out of their profits, a living wage.
Reply
#23
Tax-supported programs like public education are some of the biggest financial burdens we are facing. But even I've had to go on the bridge card a couple times. I think these programs would not be much of a problem without the Fed and its immoral currency.
Reply
#24
Also a living wage is not necessary a just wage. But even just wages mean nothing if we do not have a just currency and just banks not to mention just companies.
Reply
#25
(11-27-2012, 03:56 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Also a living wage is not necessary a just wage.

Also quite true, according to Catholic Social Teaching going back to, at least, Pope Leo XIII, but until we get a living wage, there's no chance of a just wage, either.
Reply
#26
(11-27-2012, 03:49 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Tax-supported programs like public education are some of the biggest financial burdens we are facing. But even I've had to go on the bridge card a couple times. I think these programs would not be much of a problem without the Fed and its immoral currency.

Public education is not a bad thing, it depends on what is taught in them.
Reply
#27
(11-27-2012, 03:32 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: I totally agree and until we build a moral, i.e. Catholic society it ain't gonna happen. The powers that be, as you call them, would much rather force you and I to pay taxes for programs like food stamps and hot lunches for school children than to pay, out of their profits, a living wage.

The lack of a living wage, caused by greedy finance capital, is also a reason why there is an improbability for early marriage and the lack of large families, along with the fact that women being hired over men is why there is a lack of jobs for men.
Reply
#28
(11-28-2012, 12:26 AM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(11-27-2012, 03:32 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: I totally agree and until we build a moral, i.e. Catholic society it ain't gonna happen. The powers that be, as you call them, would much rather force you and I to pay taxes for programs like food stamps and hot lunches for school children than to pay, out of their profits, a living wage.

The lack of a living wage, caused by greedy finance capital, is also a reason why there is an improbability for early marriage and the lack of large families, along with the fact that women being hired over men is why there is a lack of jobs for men.

Robber Barons?
Reply
#29
(11-28-2012, 12:22 AM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(11-27-2012, 03:49 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Tax-supported programs like public education are some of the biggest financial burdens we are facing. But even I've had to go on the bridge card a couple times. I think these programs would not be much of a problem without the Fed and its immoral currency.

Public education is not a bad thing, it depends on what is taught in them.

The Church cannot approve schools which exclude religion from the curriculum, both because religion is the most important subject in education, and because she contends that even secular education is not possible in its best form unless religion be made the central, vitalizing, and co-ordinating factor in the life of the child. The Church, sometimes, tolerates schools in which religion is not taught, and permits Catholic children to attend them, when the circumstances are such as to leave no alternative, and when due precautions are taken to supply by other means the religious training which such schools do not give. She reserves the right to judge whether this be the case, and, if her judgment is unfavourable, claims the right to forbid attendance" (Letter of Gregory XVI to Irish Bishops, 1831).

"First, Catholics should not choose mixed schools but have their own schools especially for children. They should choose excellent and reputable teachers for them. For an education in which religion is altered or non-existent is a very dangerous education" Militantis Ecclesiae, Pope Leo XIII, 1897

"Duty of Attending Only Catholic Schools. Catholic children may not attend non-Catholic, neutral, or mixed-schools, that is, those which are open also to non-Catholics, and it pertains exclusively to the Ordinary of the place to decide, in accordance with instructions of the Holy See, under what circumstances and with what precautions against the danger of perversion, attendance at such schools may be tolerated (Canon 1374).
"1. Neutral schools are those which exclude religion by p rescinding from it, such as the public schools in the United States. Mixed schools are those which admit pupils of any or no religion. Catholic schools, however, even though they admit some non-Catholic pupils, do not come under this classification.
"2. Does the provision of canon 1374 apply only to elementary and high schools, or also the colleges and universities?
"a. The natural law itself forbids Catholics to attend schools, whatever their grade, if they are dangerous to faith or morals. Both common experience and many documents of the Holy See prove that this danger may exist not only in the elementary and high school but in college and university as well. (As to elementary and high schools, especially the public schools in the U.S., see Instruction of the Holy Office, 24 Nov., 1875. As to colleges and universities, see S.C. Prop. Fid., 7 Apr. 1860; Fontes, n. 4649, Vol. VII, p. 381, and earlier documents there cited; also S.C. Prop. Fid., 6 Aug. 1867; Fontes, n. 4868, Vol. VII, p. 405.) 'It is almost if not quite impossible for those circumstances to exist which would render attendance at non-Catholic universities free from sin.' (S.C. Prop. Fid., 6 Aug. 1867; Fontes, n. 4868, Vol. VII, p. 405.) It was in regard to universities that the Holy See declared: 'The unformed and unstable characters of young people, the erroneous teaching which is inhaled as it were with the very atmosphere in those institutions without being offset by the antidote of solid doctrine, the great power exerted over the young by human respect and the fear of ridicule on the part of their fellows--all these things produce such a present and proximate danger of falling away, that in general no sufficient reason can be conceived for entrusting for entrusting Catholic young people to non-Catholic universities.' (Encyclical of the S.C. Prop. Fid., to the Bishops of England, 6 Aug. 1867; Fontes, n. 4868, Vol. VII pg. 405.)
"b. The only thing which this canon adds to the obligation of the natural law is the provision that it is for the Ordinary of the place to decide in accordance with the instructions of the Holy See, under what circumstances and with what precautions against the danger of perversion, such attendance may be permitted... Does it apply equally to colleges and universities? We think that no such strict canonical requirement can be proved... In the absence of such legislation, parents and young people are bound by the natural law to remove effectively the danger of perversion by employing safeguards which are really sufficient. It is prudent and advisable, not strictly obligatory, to consult the Ordinary on the sufficiency of these precautions." From Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, by Bouscaren and Ellis (1951, pgs. 762-4)

And first, as regards family life, it is of the highest importance that the offspring of Christian marriages should be thoroughly instructed in the precepts of religion; and that the various studies by which youth is fitted for the world should be joined with that of religion. To divorce these is to wish that youth should be neutral as regards its duties to God; a system of education in itself fallacious, and particularly fatal in tender years, for it opens the door to atheism, and closes it on religion" ON THE RELIGIOUS QUESTION IN FRANCE, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on February 8, 1884

You are wrong, Traditional Guy.
Reply
#30
(11-28-2012, 01:25 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: You are wrong, Traditional Guy.

Excellent post, but it does depend on where you're talking about, since in many Western countries and several provinces of Canada, Catholic schools are tax supported. Of course, I don't think Their Holinesses would approve of the 'religion' taught in most Catholic schools today whether tax supported or not. Smile
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)