To all: Interesting and, I think, fruitful feedback, in the main. To those who seemed to ‘focus on’ the Dem / Repub (or even primarily the political) labels as the key, it was my interpretation that the essay was making the opposite point…i.e. the social teaching of the Church may, in our times, have become inherently ‘liberal’ in a not so good sense of the word and, because of the way we now operate, becomes in the minds of so many, automatically
“Democratic” (party). The author’s point, I felt, (illustrated by the blurb about the Holy Father) was that the authentic social teaching of the Church has and always needs to rise above and transcend that. The prima facia bit that the libs throw out there simply indicates their desire to ‘own’ this social teaching (which, of course, they do not)
Whoever reminded us that ‘liberal’ is a label is correct - but the liberals have ‘labeled’ it (the social teaching) as such as part of their claim on it.
I think it’s ‘prima facia’ (to steal their phrase viz this issue) that by hijacking, in so many ways, the social teaching of the Church (as the author was trying to point out), they also, “prima facia” associate it with and claim it teaches all manner of other ‘liberal’ agendas (as a poster pointed out - i.e. feminism, gay rights, etc., etc.) One other part they weave into the social teaching of the Church, which it really does not support, is the ‘seamless garment’ idea - i.e. that you cannot be pro-life unless you are also in favor of all kinds of other ‘social issues’ (of the lib’s definition and choosing) that make relativity the name of the game. For the libs, the Church’s social teaching contains no intrinsic evils, no hierarchy of rights or issues, and so does not recognize the right to life as primary and essential to all other rights…
Also, I think the liberal agenda (be it Democratic or whatever else) considers just about anything/everything they ‘desire’ to be a
civil right which really gums up the works.
The Church’s social teaching is based on the Gospel and the word/command of Jesus - primary among which is charity, love of God, love of others for the sake of love of Him. These are ‘virtues’ and transcendant concepts which should motivate our care for the poor and those less fortunate; they are not political agendas or political motivators.
Love of God, charity towards our fellows and a holy preference for the poor, per our Saviour’s example and command, can never include helping women obtain abortions, encouraging the use of conctraception, legtimizing the conjugal union of homosexuals, or expecting the federal Gov’t to take over those acts and actions of charity that Jesus assigned to (and expects of)
us.
In an interesting fantasy, I imagine the final reality of the Gospel story, foretelling the judgment in the story of the sheep and the goats…I can’t imagine our Lord telling us to enter into the Father’s kingdom because the federal government visited Him in prison, gave Him water when He was thirsty,fed Him when He was hungry or clothed Him when He was naked - and you can take the health care issue and use Jesus’ lesson of the Good Samaritan. However we want to tweak that story for our modern times, I believe the key ingredient of Jesus’ lesson was still that WE care for each other…not that we find some way to ‘institutionalize’ the care of the poor, beaten man so our personal involvement is nil.
We sure don’t all have to be Mother Teresa, but, on the other hand, what benefit is it to our souls and our purification if we don’t, ourselves, somehow enter into the care and love of the poor?
