Nadine Dorries is right – poverty is the biggest issue facing us

Poverty is not the most pressing problem…..legalised abortion is. Unlike poverty, it is a pre-medidated, willed moral evil of the most heinous and unatural kind.  Also it drains the life-blood of any nation….leading to an ageing, economically and demographically unsustainable society.  Yet we pretend there are no adverse effects from abortion on wider society. So is it any wonder our ageing society is now experiencing economic pain which is only going to get worse.
 
Poverty is not willed and the economy is influenced by many things that are not under our control.  Affluence can lead to moral decay and a turning away from God, so is not always the highest good.  We cannot solve our problems of poverty unless we get society back on a sure moral and Faith footing.  Spiritual poverty is a more deathly disease than material poverty.  Ask any fatherless child on one of our depressing and dangerous, godless sink estates.

“Finally, we must be worried by the morally corrosive effect that a lifetime of poverty will have on human beings. Being poor wears down the human spirit. Lives lived in poverty are often tragic, wasted lives.”

I totally agree with that paragraph.

It might be comforting to think that there might be an after-life in which misfortune is balanced out (or to have some alternative idea that offers equivalent hope), but not only do we have no evidence to support these ideas; we find that all those who seriously advance them are, at least, intellectually fraudulent. Current knowledge does not support an after-life, reincarnation, etc. so we should accept that this life may be the only one we have, and it is indeed a tragedy to waste it.

There is no natural law against poverty, but humans have the intelligence required to be able to alleviate it. Greed exacerbates it, but alleviation requires more than just a lack of greed. Aid can result in temporary local alleviation and can result in greater problems later if the aid is not well directed. Long-term solutions are required. By long-term, I don’t just mean solutions that last a lifetime, but ones that will benefit many generations. Ignoring the consequences for future generations is a form of collective greed, as is ignoring the consequences for other countries. It is irresponsible to assume that some imaginary all-powerful being will suddenly decide to look after the poor.

Praying for the poor only serves to waste your own time. If you want to feel that you have contributed to the alleviation of poverty, then do something effective, and preferably something that will have lasting results. There are many directions such efforts can take. One is towards education. A decent education facilitates self-help and the helping of others. A decent education does not inculcate superstitious ideas such as that God will provide. It is quite clear that, in parts of the world, God does not provide. It is also blindingly obvious that in a world of limited resources, population must be limited. Why, then, does the Roman Catholic Church do its utmost to frustrate attempts to control population and thereby create more poverty?

If poverty is a big issue, then so is population. Yet the subject is almost taboo. Could that be because to show concern would be to oppose Catholic doctrine? Cameron says he does not regard the population in the UK to be a problem, backs ‘faith’ schools, and says that the Pope gives an incredibly important message. To me, that shows that he does not care about Britain.

One might think France’s Phillips just wrote a pro abortion article.

I know you want to sound uba catholic and everything, and that’s fine but can I ask you, where is the contradiction between alleviating material poverty and reducing abortion? Youve just gave great defence of banning abortion and that commendable, but how does that negate francis’ point? It like saying we shouldnt worry about having a bath, because its more imprtant we eat healthily.It’s both/and, (and jesus and pretty much every saint can attest to that) and furthermore they both compliment each other! As a “fatherless child [to be fair im 22]on one of our depressing and dangerous, godless sink estates” I can tall you that when I was growing up I had far more spiritual nourishment that the majority of middle class people. Material help was however very short coming.

I’m just saying that legalised abortion and not poverty is the biggest issue facing us…..as it is the greater evil and unlike poverty, it is willful.  And yes we must try to end both abortion and poverty.  Also societies will survive poverty, but will not survive legalised abortion.  (And as I pointed out….legalised abortion leads to poverty) 

I think today all of society is in deep spiritual poverty that only Catholicism can eliminate.  God Willing. 

Just to add – most of the (relative) poverty in the UK today is among the young, not the old.  This is very different from, say, 20+ years ago, and many people have not yet come to terms with this.

Poverty can take many forms although we associate the word with a state of having insufficient material means to maintain an equitable standard of life in terms of , food, heating or shelter. People can be materially rich and yet deeply impoverished in regards to things of the “Spirit”.  Real charity begins at home and the Christian ethos animates a gratuitous giving which does not demand anything reciprocal in return.  

 1. Here (in PDF form) is a UN report that describes global difficulties, but while mentioning the rising population as a contributory factor, avoids any suggestion that it might be a good idea to control population. Why?

2. I am all in favour of a fair market system. To ensure that enough people are aware of the problems of trade and the way in which ethical solutions can be developed, a decent education is required (free from commercial bias). That such an education might be misused by a few is no reason to deny it to all.

3. You can’t possibly know whether people with a strong prayer life are always more self-sufficient and happier than they would have been without it. Anyway, I said “praying for the poor” – that is, trying to use prayer for remote effect. Scientific experiments show zero remote effect, whatever the effect might be on the happiness and self-sufficiency of the person praying.

 Athiests who give to charity don’t even expect the reward of going to heaven.

Poverty in it’s material sense we agree is a lamentable failure by society to grant  access to those effected by it, because of the immoral domination of resources by a tiny number of families in certain countries.  The Church has contributed immeasurably to the debate concerning social justice over the last 150 years or so with a number of papal ground-breaking encyclicals and teachings e.g “Rerum Novarum” authored by Pope Leo X111 in 1891.  Throwing contraceptives at these problems, is a short-sighted and spiritually impoverished alternative that shortchanges the populations that it is aimed at, on many levels.
In regards, to Faith-school intake, your implication that this type of school discriminates on grounds of selection is misleading, as e.g Catholic schools are more inclined to accept children from non-Catholic/non-religious and poor backgrounds than their secular counterparts and produce better outcomes for them.

 Based on this report, I accept that Catholic schools more likely to have more pupils from a poor background than Anglican schools, but considering Voluntary Aided schools of a religious nature overall, comparable community schools are likely to have about 50% more free school meal children. However, this deviates from my original point because I was criticising faith schools on the basis that they are more likely to promote the counter-productive beliefs that I mentioned. In principle, a community school is just as capable of encouraging compassion as a faith school is, but the faith school is more likely to encourage the idea that a deity is in control, thereby promoting complacency.

Promoting complacency?  Quite the opposite!  A recent report from the Charities Aid Foundation showed that religious doners give on average more than double to charity than non-religious doners.  This is only to be expected, because religious people are, in my view, more likely to adhere to their moral principles than non-religious, who do not have the divine sanction to back them up.  (Note: I am NOT saying that non-religious people never stick to their principles, just that they have more reason to let them lapse.)

 An example of the sort of complacency that I am referring to is demonstrated by the Illinois politician John Shimkus here. The notion that God is looking after us (and all the evidence to the contrary is just something we should not expect to be able to understand), or the notion that we need not worry too much about climate change because if that is what God wants, then who are we to interfere, or similar notions, are less prominent in the UK because, despite having an established church (or perhaps because of it), the UK is less religious. (About half are nominally Christian, but the percentage who hold such complacent notions is lower.) But we share an atmosphere with the US, so there is no room for complacency about complacency.

It is interesting that those of religious faith give much more to charity than the non-religious (per person). I wonder why that is – your suggestion is one of a number of hypoyheses that could be offered. What is clear is that being religious is not a necessary condition for giving to charity. I don’t think that the amounts given are an indicator of relative complacency. The ratio of numbers giving to certain charities might be.

 ’Materialism’ in the philosophical sense does not negate the worth of human beings, but neither does it elevate them above other animals by more than is rationally justifiable. For some purposes, thoughts and social interactions can be considered in terms of physics, but that does not mean that they cannot also be considered at a higher level of abstraction for other purposes, and I would be extremely surprised if any community schools did not do so, and I would expect them to promote consideration for the poor to some extent. I am not so sure about materialism in the sense of greed for material things. It seems that a selfish form of capitalism pervades society. Schools cannot isolate their pupils from this, and it would not surprise me if there was a lack of encouragement to question it (especially considering the business interest in alumni) and so, perhaps, an insufficient consideration for the poor.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “multi-cultural PC classes“, but it is possible that I agree with you. Cultures can comprise good and bad aspects, and the bad should not be ‘respected’. But merit should be determined rationally, not on the basis that if it is close to ‘our’ culture, then it must be good.

Your characterisation of faith schools does not match my observations. I think the recent attempt by Catholic schools to get pupils to sign a political petition is despicable. There are also practices in Church of England schools and Islamic schools (and probably other faith schools) which reflect doctrine and encourage divisiveness. The prejudices are in the scriptures and contradict claims of compassion.

My point concerning materialism is that it has a limited and limiting effect on our concept of ourselves in relation to the true value of each one.  The insight of Faith instills a transcendence that overcomes those shortcomings and points to an ultimate spiritual source for the goodness that is in the world.  I do not doubt that state or community schools inculcate in their pupils the value of rendering service to people in need etc.  But religious instruction, as in the Catholic perspective, looks beyond the idea of doing good for it’s own sake and puts it in a metaphysical context.  This in turn links up with the whole raison d’etre for our existence in this world and the philosophical questions which surround it.
My reference to “multi cultural PC” teachings in state schools, was in the context of pupils being encouraged to have a general tolerance for all beliefs and none, without setting out to offend anyone.  I think that non-judgmentalism can only take one so far and because of it’s subjective nature can leave societies open to many negative influences if people have no objective moral standards to adhere to. 

You characterize Faith schools in a very narrow and distorted fashion, as being “divisive”, when the opposite is very much the case.  Why do you think people of non-Catholic or non-religious background are queuing up to get their children enrolled in Catholic schools, besides the decent academic education that they offer?  It is because they provide a safe and secure haven for children to learn, where moral values are emphasized  If that is “divisive”, then you will have to re-evaluate your understanding of the term?

Yes , I do agree with you Father,but what is worrying  most are the number of people who have been damaged in childhood by violence , substance abuse  and a lack of love. If you know you are loved you are when you grow up less likely to drop out of education , sleep around , get involved in an abusive relationship , use drugs/alcohol to deaden emotions.  This has always occured – Victorian times were dreadful although there was a quite strict morality in society as a whole. Individuals did so much to help the poor. We need to return to personal charity in the Church and become involved with local projects – if we can.
         As for putting things back on the shelf in supermarkets – lots of mums have had to do that . In itself it doesn’t describe poverty. Being exhausted and depressed , bringing up your children in a violent neighbourhood , living on bread and marge so that the children can have a dinner is more an indication of poverty.

In my last point I mean’t ^inculcate into their students a respect and love for people who are non-Catholic/non-religious/atheistic”

The fact remains that Catholic teaching does not require any intoxicating substances to make it attractive to it’s listeners, once presented in a clear and attractive way. 
There is no equivalence between the human sacrifice of human victims to appease whimsical false gods and the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God to leave open a path of salvation to humankind.  Death on a cross would normally be regarded as an ignoble end to anyone’s life.  But in this case, God the Creator(whoseexistence you do not accept) gave up His only Son as the ultimate sign of His love for humanity.  You disparage the doctrine of transubstantiation but the theological, spiritual reality behind the material accidents of bread and wine generally escapes those who are limited to materialist explanations for our environment.
There is no conflict between reason and religious belief. One purifies the other.  Indeed Catholic Christianity has adopted the logical approach to reality inherent in Greek philosophy and has used it to purge Christian belief of unnecessary superstitious hangovers. The Good Doctor, Thomas Aquinas introduced this approach to Latin Christianity in the high Middle ages.
The Natural order of things describes how humans interact with eachother and their environment. e.g. complementariness between men and women on a social,sexual and psychological level.
You cite N. Ireland as an example of conflict caused by separate schooling, but the political conflict in that part of Ireland predates the founding of Faith schools by many centuries and are falsely used as by some as favorite whipping boys to blame the conflict on.  The fact remains that where Faith schools exist, societies have not experienced communal religious disturbances 
because of them.
The pope did not mean to compare all atheists to the tyrannous criminal nazi regime, but was making the observation that the zealous nature of that regimes opposition to the presence of Christianity has some resonance concerning the  anti-religious opposition of certain atheists in western nations.  Perhaps he was unwise to use the nazis as an example, but his point still stands.

I absolutely agree with GFFM, that the dehumanization and demoralization of the human person in almost every dimension of life has, tragically, become the experience of most of us. In the workplace, in the polling booth, in the legal system, in the education system people are becoming slaves, they are serving a totalitarian economic, political and cultural system that irrationally serves the dictatorship of money and power, and nobody has been able to stop this neo-liberal tyranny which has poisoned the world.
Unless we, like our European friends are prepared to confront this modern evil now then we will be
faced with a new Nazism with horrors for all and scapegoats aplenty in future years!.