Christian leaders call for "Circle of Protection" in budget talks
The budget resolution—and its effects on the poor—has the potential to be the defining moral mark of the Obama administration. The question is: Will they pay attention to the most vulnerable among us while attempting to solve this crisis?
Coming from a background in volunteerism and social justice, I have developed friendships with many of the people likely to be affected by cuts to social services and other programs aimed at reducing poverty. I was pleased to find that Christian leaders from across the nation met with President Obama Wednesday to ask for a “Circle of Protection” surrounding programs that serve the poor and vulnerable in the face of the ongoing budget crisis. A broad spectrum of religious leaders, such as the National Association of Evangelicals, the National African American Clergy Network, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, provided a clear message to the president in the face of polarizing discussions in Washington: There exists a fundamental moral principle to protect the vulnerable in the budget.
One member present at the meeting with President Obama was Bishop Ricardo Ramirez of Las Cruces, New Mexico, there representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop Ramirez, along with his fellow religious leaders, stressed the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: What you have done for the least of us, you have done for me. Ramirez and the other representatives were not there to advance any personal or organizational agenda, but rather to make sure the administration focuses on the essential moral principle of placing the poor first.
“We are not interested in which party ‘wins’ [in the budget talks],” Ramirez said, “but rather on who is most likely to lose.”
The hungry, the jobless, the hopeless—these are the people who need a voice in Washington, stressed Ramirez. This era of recession has created a new face of poverty, as college graduates and lifelong middle class workers join the lengthening ranks of unemployed in our nation.
Washington has little political motivation to pay attention to the poor. People without an income or who struggle to pay rent or put food on the table won’t be contributing campaign dollars. Many people lack the access or resources to vote, especially in the face of new voter identification laws. As Ramirez and the other leaders sought to remind the administration: We must pay attention to the poor, for they are the face of Christ.
It always cracks me up when I
By Rebecca (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011It always cracks me up when I see so-called Catholics promoting government programs for the poor. This requires three basic horrors to accomplish:
1-Stealing from others: Do I need to explain here?
2- Abdicating free will to government dictate: it is the individual through an act of free will who is called to give if they can...one is not to render to Caesar that which is of God.
3- Cannibalism: the fact is most liberals, particularly those in government positions, from social workers to elected officials, need the poor to stay poor in order to keep their jobs and stay fat. They are very literally consumers of the poor. Cannibals!!!
It is time for a total laissez-faire, free market, no government regulation society...it is the only way for the poor to get out of poverty and the rest of us to regain our freedom. And THAT is true Christianity! You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free!!!
Is it true you've never read
By Seeker (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011Is it true you've never read a history book?
Never really thought about what your idolatry causes - except of course if you benefit from it?
And whether you're so-called "true" Christianity is nothing more than muddled self-deception masking as "truth"?
And speaking of cannibalism perhaps read Jonathan Swifts essay of the 19th century suggesting the rich should eat the poor - if not - enlighten yourself.
Seeker, that was a nice,
By Rebecca (not verified) on Sunday, July 24, 2011Seeker, that was a nice, emotional rant but you said nothing.
If you disagree with a single point I made, then please address one with a counter argument.
Oh, and by the way, I am quite educated. I have read many a history book as well as theology, sociology, anthropology and political science among others.
If liberals really cared about the poor, their philosophy for the past 60 years would have been about lifting people out of poverty to prosperity. But according to some Catholics here, prosperity is a sin. Better to have 'em stay poor, quiet and obedient! Keeps the polticians and the priests nice and fat and living a very comfortable life! God forbid the poor should be set free from the trap of poverty...what would the modus operandi of the Church be then?
Perfectly said
By Seeker Supporter (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011Thanks, Seeker. I have rarely seen such a pristine example of right-wing-media-bias spewed forth so expertly - and so without benefit of fact or knowledge of history. Rebecca - I won't bother to argue with you since there is obviously no point. I just want to chime in with support for Seeker. We can't let such nonsense go without pointing it out. That's how such idiotic propaganda spreads. This is such a ridiculous post that I have to wonder if her point is to inflame and incite rather than actually present and argument.
It's rediculous but common
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011My uber Catholic "orthodox" relatives who go to daily mass, rosary, adoration etc then listen to Rush Limbaugh and other right wing blabbermouths all day feel exactly the same. They don't think the government should do ANYTHING to help individuals. They think all charity should be completely voluntary but they don't give anything to charity themselves because they think there is no excuse to be poor in America. They feel exactly as Rebecca and think they are great Catholics. It's easy to see why the make that mistake. Very rarely are they corrected by the clergy who know they are their strongest supporters. Unfortunately many of the clergy especially the new uber conservative Young Fogies feel the same.
Charity v.s. government subsidy
By Kris (not verified) on Friday, July 22, 2011I would have to say, thanks to the bishops who have become confused as to what charity is vs giving the government the role of brokers of others money. The bishops forget that it is not the governments place to distribute huge amounts of money to agencies that have first been collected from all the people who have any income, no matter how little that is to pay for individuals who are in need. How many bishops will give up their lifestyles to give more to the poor and thus be part of what the role of charity is all about in the first place. Giving the government to role to brokers takes the bishops out of the loop and their lifestyles do not have to change. Their responsablilty is given over to someone else. And it is not working.
As a liberal I'm sure we don't agree on much
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, July 22, 2011But I agree with you that the pope, cardinals and bishops would never give up their regal lifestyle to give more to the poor.
How do you know? Are you a
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011How do you know? Are you a pope, cardinal, or bishop? Are you personal friends of one?
No, but I'm basing my opinon on observation
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, July 23, 2011Can you give me an example of a pope, cardinal or bishop who gave it up? I'm not aware of any.
Try Again Please
By JohnF (not verified) on Friday, July 22, 2011"Washington has little political motivation to pay attention to the poor. People without an income or who struggle to pay rent or put food on the table won’t be contributing campaign dollars."
So we've poured literally trillions of dollars into welfare of one kind or another, so that Washington has almost literally paid for many people to live, but Washington still has no motivation to help.
If you believe you haven't given enough yet, you're always welcome to contribute more of your own money to the IRS. Funny, but I've never seen anyone actually volunteer to try.
"Many people lack the access or resources to vote, especially in the face of new voter identification laws."
Frankly, ma'am, this strikes me as one of THE most dishonest appraisals I've read.
Voting does not require one to drive, does not require one to contribute to any campaign. Voting requires only that you care enough to register to vote on time, that you understand the issues involved, and that you make appropriate arrangements to enable yourself to get to a voting booth at when there's an election at hand.
Voting requirements are so absurdly simple, I'd say you're bordering on criminal neglect if you can't fulfill these requirements without government help.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.

