They are spiritual, theological, philosophical and political. As a Christian, are there aspects of your life not subject to Christ’s teachings? Do you think Christ came to simply teach us how to pray, and not how to live our lives?What do you mean? What else are they, you think?
The teachings of Christ transcend both the spiritual and the political, as well as the philosophical and the theological. To try to limit Christ’s teachings to any one of those areas is to wholly miss the point of His message, IMHO. He encompasses and surpasses each and all of them.
Yes, but Christ’s teachings are not merely spiritual.
I don’t understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Do you not know the difference between the temporal world of time, space, change and becoming and spirituality?They are spiritual, theological, philosophical and political. As a Christian, are there aspects of your life not subject to Christ’s teachings? Do you think Christ came to simply teach us how to pray, and not how to live our lives?
Did you read the comment?Are you equating “subjective” (ie. whatever the individual person decides
is right or wrong is fine ) with “personal” ?
Everyone has some kind of personal standard of morality. John Paul did as well –
consistent, and grounded in his religious beliefs and philosophy. (not some subjective
code of morality that he dreamed up, wily-nily).
John Paul reflected the teachings of Christ and the Church as closely as any human
being can reflect them, IMO.
Here are a couple of good articles about his role in the fall of Communism :
catholicregister.org/features/archives/papal-canonizations/item/18031-john-paul-ii-s-influence-key-to-fall-of-communism
catholicstraightanswers.com/pope-john-paul-iis-role-fall-soviet-union/
John Paul’s opposition to totalitarianism grew out of his devotion to the idea of God-given human rights.
‘It cannot happen that one group of men, one social group — however well-deserving — should impose on the whole people an ideology, an opinion contrary to the will of the majority,’ he said in a 1976 homily.
…he also publicly championed independent “trade unions as a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice”
“Everything that happened in Eastern Europe in these last years,” Gorbachev wrote in 1992, “would have been impossible without the presence of this pope and without the important role — including the political role — that he played on the world stage.”
No, not simply “personal”. I am not sure what is meant by only this one word at the end of your question. However, I would equate ‘subjective’ with a solely personal standard. I think that could suffice as a definition. But I also said that John Paul II’s having a truly subjective standard of morality was “virtually inconceivable”.Are you equating “subjective” (ie. whatever the individual person decides is right or wrong is fine ) with “personal” ?
I did not say otherwise. In fact, I said essentially the same thing. So, I have a question: What is the real point here? Is it that conservative politics are a legitimate element of Catholic teaching?Everyone has some kind of personal standard of morality. John Paul did as well –
consistent, and grounded in his religious beliefs and philosophy. (not some subjective
code of morality that he dreamed up, wily-nily).
Yes, Pope John II is a Catholic Saint. Nobody has questioned this. Again, what is your point?John Paul reflected the teachings of Christ and the Church as closely as any human being can reflect them, IMO.
Yes, John Paul II’s opposition to totalitarianism is very well known. So is the teaching of God-given human rights. These things are Catholic social teaching. What is your point? Is it that conservative political ideology is therefore part of Catholic teaching? With all due respect, I would disagree. But if this the belief, then just say so.Here are a couple of good articles about his role in the fall of Communism :
John Paul’s opposition to totalitarianism grew out of his devotion to the idea of God-given human rights.
Fine, I will send you a list of candidates that you will vote for at my choice and discretion. Since you are devoid of politics, you won’t mind. I’ll also give you your opinion that you are to hold on all political issues including taxation levels, govt spending, etc.I feel insulted by this comment. it is also totally untrue thankfully.
Yes, it has a political component. Christianity is a monarchy. And Christianity absolutely forbids abortion, condemns socialism, favors subsidiarity, and prefers societal peace to upheaval if it can be tolerated, among many other things. Those have definite political components.Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political? Or is it that some understand it this way?
I don’t know how you could possibly get that from what I wrote. I am saying that Christ’s teaching apply to both the temporal world and the spiritual. Are you saying that His teachings do not apply to the temporal world, and/or that Christians are not to look to Christ’s teachings to guide their actions?I don’t understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Do you not know the difference between the temporal world of time, space, change and becoming and spirituality?
The preferential option for the poor that the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted in 1968, as a teaching they believed needed emphasis as a result of widespread poverty in Latin America, is Catholic social teaching. It both preceded the development of the liberation theology of Latin America in the 1970’s that was rejected by the Church and remained a Catholic social teaching afterwards. This focus on the poor was supported by Pope John Paul II. He approved the appointment of the future Pope Francis as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and subsequently appointed him a Cardinal. Later, there was the full support of Pope Benedict XVI. These are facts.My original post indicated that Pope Francis seems to have a political position, which I believe tends toward liberation theology.
I have certainly not said that “popes shouldn’t stoop to politics”. What I question is the notion that Pope John Paul II was guided by a political ideology rather than Catholicism. The same would apply to Pope Francis.I brought up Pope John Paul as an example of a pope with a clear political ideology because you seem to think popes shouldn’t stoop to politics -
that it would somehow taint their spirituality to delve into politics.
(unless I am misunderstanding your arguments)
Yes, and what should be understood is that this is not questioned. What is questioned is that this was the result of political ideology rather than the teachings of Christ. That it was serves neither Saint Pope John Paul II nor the Church. And it does not serve Pope Francis either.I was using John Paul as an example of a pope whose spiritual belief formed his moral conscience, which guided his actions in the world - including
the political world.
No. I would say Christ’s teachings are spiritual. What is the spiritual world? There is the temporal world of time, space, change and of a continual process of Becoming. There is no spiritual “world”. The word “world” is only a necessary concept of the limited human intellect. What is spiritual is outside of time and space and change. It is Being and is eternal–as in always was, is now, and ever shall BE. Being is not a Becoming. The teaching of Christ do not apply to a non-existent spiritual world. They are simply what IS spiritual. Reduce this to a noun or to any concept and the meaning is lost. There is a duality present in the temporal world, and it is also a part of language, e.g., in the concepts of reason and faith, science and religion, mind and body, perfect and imperfect, justice and mercy and so on that would not exist in the spirituality of Christ. I don’t believe this can be understood by reason alone. Many share this belief, and it does not mean that spirituality is not possible for man. Of course it is. It is open to everyone. I would put it this way: Spirituality is an experience and not an idea, an experience one might have by prayer, saying the Rosary or receiving holy communion.I don’t know how you could possibly get that from what I wrote. I am saying that Christ’s teaching apply to both the temporal world and the spiritual. Are you saying that His teachings do not apply to the temporal world, and/or that Christians are not to look to Christ’s teachings to guide their actions?
Note that Catholic America was settled before Protestant America. But by some quirk of fate, it is Catholic America that has experienced widespread poverty. It reminds me of the natural experiments that occurred between North and South Korea and East and West Germany.The preferential option for the poor that the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted in 1968, as a teaching they believed needed emphasis as a result of widespread poverty in Latin America, is Catholic social teaching.
I never said that John Paul was guided by a political ideology.I have certainly not said that “popes shouldn’t stoop to politics”. What I question is the notion that Pope John Paul II was guided by a political ideology rather than Catholicism.
Guided by a political ideology rather than by CatholicIsm.I never said that John Paul was guided by a political ideology.
As I’ve said before:
** John Paul’s Catholicism informed his political ideology**.
I never said that John Paul was guided by a political ideology.
As I’ve said before:
** John Paul’s Catholicism informed his political ideology**.
Do I think John Paul’s Catholicism lead him to support free, capitalist societies ?Guided by a political ideology rather than by CatholicIsm.
Is it that John Paul II’s CatholicIsm informed what you see as his conservative political ideology?
Now you are extending your thesis to Catholicism. The preferential option for the poor became a focus of the Latin American Church in 1968 as the result of poverty. Is it that Jesuit missionaries came from Spain to Latin America at an earlier time to introduce poverty?Note that Catholic America was settled before Protestant America. But by some quirk of fate, it is Catholic America that has experienced widespread poverty. It reminds me of the natural experiments that occurred between North and South Korea and East and West Germany.
I am noting a fact that begs for an investigation.Now you are extending your thesis to Catholicism. The preferential option for the poor became a focus of the Latin American Church in 1968 as the result of poverty. Is it that Jesuit missionaries came from Spain to Latin America at an earlier time to introduce poverty?
It would be better if you simply answered the question I posed rather than reformulate it.Do I think John Paul’s Catholicism lead him to support free, capitalist societies ?
Yes, I do.
That **must **be the case, because JP would never have acted against
his religious beliefs.
What you are saying here makes a lot of sense to me.Well, Francis is right, as usual. The refugee crisis is a direct result of U.S. wars and intervention in the MidEast, and all of our meddling relates directly to our bizarre form of economics. I may as well remind everyone that America is most definitely not a capitalist society. If it were capitalist it would not bail out criminal banks, and nothing would be “too big to fail.” I suppose “State Socialism” might be the best descriptor of the system were forced to live under - large corporations are handed trillions of dollars simply because they’re extremely large, and are therefore “too big to fail.” Anyway, whatever name we want to apply to America’s criminal economics, the whole monstrosity is driven by war. America will forever be waging massive wars until the day it finally collapses in upon itself. That in itself should tell us that the “God of Money” is purely Satanic.
War = Money, and War = Refugees. Francis is right.
I agree with this, at least mostly. I certainly agree that language (and man’s associated attempts to understand and categorize the temporal world) tends to impose a false duality upon the world. To the extent you are suggesting that the temporal and spiritual are separate, I do not think I agree.No. I would say Christ’s teachings are spiritual. What is the spiritual world? There is the temporal world of time, space, change and of a continual process of Becoming. There is no spiritual “world”. The word “world” is only a necessary concept of the limited human intellect. What is spiritual is outside of time and space and change. It is Being and is eternal–as in always was, is now, and ever shall BE. Being is not a Becoming. The teaching of Christ do not apply to a non-existent spiritual world. They are simply what IS spiritual. Reduce this to a noun or to any concept and the meaning is lost. There is a duality present in the temporal world, and it is also a part of language, e.g., in the concepts of reason and faith, science and religion, mind and body, perfect and imperfect, justice and mercy and so on that would not exist in the spirituality of Christ. I don’t believe this can be understood by reason alone. Many share this belief, and it does not mean that spirituality is not possible for man. Of course it is. It is open to everyone. I would put it this way: Spirituality is an experience and not an idea, an experience one might have by prayer, saying the Rosary or receiving holy communion.
I do not think I agree that God is separate from Creation, but there is nuance to that position so maybe we disagree less than it appears on that point. I am not sure what you mean by the rest of your comments in this paragraph, but I will not press you on those points as it seems you would rather not wade in those waters at this time.Catholic teaching is that God is separate from his Creation, but this is not to say Christ’s teachings do not apply to the temporal world, or that Christians are not to look to his teachings to guide their actions. That they should was the message of the historical Jesus that walked the earth. We all know it. Frankly, I say all this reluctantly and with trepidity and only as the result of finding myself this far into a discussion. There are those things (and things they really are not), that I believe are open to intuition. This is not the way of the modern world, a world where science and analysis are dominant and where knowledge becomes only empirical fact. In that sense there is the cultural and epistomological paradigm described in Laudato Si. There is too much and soon I will bail.