tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post3390779216406777606..comments2009-09-18T15:00:21.757-04:00John Nortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01252665097539551066jnorton@osv.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-54191808347185954362009-09-18T15:00:21.757-04:002009-09-18T15:00:21.757-04:00

The answer to the first question is: it is our responsibility. We have to remember, however, that no matter what solution we devise, it will fall short of its goal. It is also our responsibility to devise a response that respects life in all of its aspects, is fiscally sustainable, promotes subsidiarity and solidarity, and is otherwise consistent with Christ's teaching.

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-75000445025786356782009-09-18T14:55:00.529-04:002009-09-18T14:55:00.529-04:00

I&#39;m not sure how long these posts are allowed to be so I&#39;ll answer the second question first while I think about the first.<br /><br />Let&#39;s start with what &quot;subsidiarity&quot; is. CST, especially as discussed by the Holy Father and John Paul II, arises from the recognition of each person&#39;s dignity. One threat to human dignity comes from unrestrained individual choices in

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-23996842874885493282009-09-18T08:31:14.012-04:002009-09-18T08:31:14.012-04:00

Two questions:<br /><br />1. A person/family cannot afford health care or they might have a pre-existing condition that their health care will not cover. They might have too little income to pay the premiums. Whose responsibility is it to help them? Should their neighbors, or the local Churches, the city, the county, the state, the federal government help them? They might need a physical,

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-8502658838947485042009-09-16T16:40:53.086-04:002009-09-16T16:40:53.086-04:00

The end dose NOT justify the means! When will the bishops get this? Allow abortions at least we will have the concious clause. Making deals is not the way to defend the faith!!!<br />Theresa

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-12122321253748699142009-09-16T15:12:51.945-04:002009-09-16T15:12:51.945-04:00

I believe that they are trying to manufacture a commitment in the hope that Obama won&#39;t violate it. Big Pharma has already been rolled; I think we will be too.<br /><br />As to the first post, there is nothing wrong with supporting a bill with qualifications unless as a matter of subsidiarity and solidarity the federal government shouldn&#39;t be doing this. If you agree that the government

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-47960330773976952902009-09-15T12:50:59.018-04:002009-09-15T12:50:59.018-04:00

&quot;No federal funds for abortion&quot; is a shifty dodge.<br /><br />Check out the following link:<br /><br />http://www.rosariesforlife.com/wordpress/?p=162

Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13955573460484576394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-9963652081643800612009-09-14T19:19:27.466-04:002009-09-14T19:19:27.466-04:00

My fear is that the president is being calm and conciliatory in order to allow abortion supporters in Congress to add or preserve the controversial aspects of health care reform.<br /><br />That way, he can claim to be a moderate who must regrettably defer to Congress on the abortion funding issue.

Kevin Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06907423156155669252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349257421667969689.post-71533754278200512452009-09-14T13:41:23.781-04:002009-09-14T13:41:23.781-04:00

There is nothing wrong with supporting a bill with certain qualifications.

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com