Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion

[opus101]

Jimmy Carter is wrong, though. While we may argue about the proper role of the government, those who favor a greater role in private charity or locals/state instead of federal shouldn’t be judged as being non-Christian. We can differ on our approach to care for the poor.

So some say.

But the Popes have always stressed that it is the responsibility of both (the state and private individuals). People have gone to great lengths to build a false edifice of “prudential judgement” to justify their own political agenda.

But how did we get to this? The thread isn’t about this at all. I think either a new one should be started, or we should return to the subject at hand.

 

[opus101]

The Pope is not saying gays and abortion shouldn’t be among the Catholic focus. Only that there needs to be a greater balance and the poor should be a greater part of the focus and discussion than has been the case.

Agreed. The Holy Father said that we should not focus only on those issues.

But personally, I don’t think that is the case at all in the U.S., but I do realize (from reading so many posts here on CAF) that the situation varies greatly diocese to diocese, and from parish to parish.

I think one reason why it is not wise to focus only on those issues (unless it is your particular call to service and your main job) is that it backfires - it ends up actually harming your mission. Why? Because it destroys your credibility.

A person who is pro-life needs to also have a deep concern for the poor, the imprisoned, the sick, the elderly and even the environment.Yes, I know that the taking of defenseless, innocent human life is in a moral class of its own, but that does not excuse anyone from ditching other concerns, or denying their importance.

The same goes for those who are so concerned about other social issues and animal rights, but have no concern for unborn human life!

Both groups of people come off as hypocrites, and all they do is deepen the chasm between themselves. They end up destroying their own credibility because it is only logical that , if one is supporting one of those causes, one would also support the others.

The result of supporting only one or a few of these legitimate concerns is the deep polarization of society and this eventually renders both sides ineffective.

Catholics are supposed to be bigger than this.

 

[SaintAugustine]

So some say.

But the Popes have always stressed that it is the responsibility of both (the state and private individuals). People have gone to great lengths to build a false edifice of “prudential judgement” to justify their own political agenda.

But how did we get to this? The thread isn’t about this at all. I think either a new one should be started, or we should return to the subject at hand.

Of course, State and individuals are required. That is very clear from the teaching of the Church. But, we can still differ a lot on how that is applied. For example, how much State versus individual charity? Clearly, the Church teachings against the Welfare State and over-dependency. Also, where should the State be helping? Locally? State level? Federally? Clearly, the Church teaches that we should have solidarity and subsidiarity, so a bloated federal bureaucracy seems to be the opposite of Church teaching.

I don’t think prudential reasoning is a “false edifice.” We are actually allowed to differ on the application of political/economic teachings. That is actually what the Church teaches. If you prefer not to use prudential reasoning though, that is fine. You can falsely believe that your interpretation of Church teaching is the only acceptable one, if you like.

As far as how we got to this? I don’t know…I didn’t do it.

 

[SaintAugustine]

The Pope is not saying gays and abortion shouldn’t be among the Catholic focus. Only that there needs to be a greater balance and the poor should be a greater part of the focus and discussion than has been the case. And he is right to fault the lack of balance. I know I was led to leave the Catholic faith because of this imbalance, including what I have observed on Catholic internet forums. And when I see as well many today objecting to nearly any government role to aid the poor and the sick in addition to their private contributions, I’m reminded of this quote which I’ve seen attributed to former President Jimmy Carter: “If you don’t want your tax dollars to help the poor- then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values, because you don’t.”

Jimmy Carter is wrong, though. While we may argue about the proper role of the government, those who favor a greater role in private charity or locals/state instead of federal shouldn’t be judged as being non-Christian. We can differ on our approach to care for the poor.

First world countries that can spend billions on wars should not require people to depend on charity for basic human needs.

What? That is a non sequitur. It is incredibly naive to think that spending on defense will be converted to charitable giving. Also, as I stated, we can differ in our approach to how extensive the State’s involvement should be and what level (I.e. Federal, state, local) is best.

Don’t want to get into a thread war, but
Definition of non sequitur:
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

I think my statement stands as a deducible. Proven by the fact you stated an argument against it.

You’re correct; Defence spending will never be diverted to social justice if people of goodwill don’t work for change.

On further review, you may be right. I think the fallacy you used is called a straw man, since I never stated that people should have to depend on charity for their needs. Thank you for correcting me.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

I am deeply grateful that you took the time and effort to read my earlier posts and reset our discussion.

And I am deeply grateful at your sincerity. Sorry I took long for a response.

People often look to history for solutions. Christ himself did not lead with theology, he led with miracles. Good luck with that. The early Church didn’t lead with theology, it led with modeling (charity, courage, and large families are among the examples cited by pagans for their admiration of the Christians). But, for the most part, modern atheists despise the Christian lifestyle and admire depravity.

I don’t have a solution yet, I’m still searching.

I also think it is important to take note that Jesus Christ also led with his Apostles. The sheer numbers of Christians who had their lives to lose, yet stood up for truth was what spread Christianity. The world needs a reason to live, and give meaning to death. It is by living as Christians that the world will see Jesus Christ.

I strongly hold to the idea of St. Thomas Aquinas that it is in action that we are like God. It is ironic, that with all the philosophy I teach my highschool students, they remember you for what you have done. They see you and if you don’t live your faith, they are quick to notice and quick to call you out. Today, at lunch, one of my students told me - as opposed to asked - that I needed to go to the chapel for midday prayer. He said the other students wanted to see me pray with them. Compared to the world, praying is a miracle. It is rebellious and not typical. If others see your faith, it is the start, just like with the apostles who led by their faith and commitment.

More than ever, our world needs to be pre-evangelized and then evangelized. They need to be prepped to see that life is bigger than them (and that there are many lies: science is everything and evolution disproves God), and then fill their life with God.

 

[evener]

As for state charity, F. Roosevelt was wise enough to give people jobs, and not a handout during the depression. He knew enough of human nature that he didn’t want to take away an able-bodied person’s self respect and dignity as a person. The current system seems to hold people down, it seems to me.
As for the church going touchy-feely on the great evils of abortion and homosexual “marriage,” if not the church, who will take over the job of loudly proclaiming the truth?

 

[Elizabeth502]

As for the church going touchy-feely on the great evils of abortion and homosexual “marriage,” if not the church, who will take over the job of loudly proclaiming the truth?

Indeed. (We can’t expect it from any of our charming corporate media giants.)

 

[Slaney]

The title of this thread is misleading, it left out, **" The Church is clear on it’s teachings " ** as is the other closed link by our Moderators…

Pope Francis“I see the church as a field hospital after battle,” Francis said.** “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.”**

This sort of rings a bell with me as one time at Mass 20+ years ago a Passionist Priest (deceased) said about missionary work.

" There is no use talking to these people about food for their souls, when they don’t have food for their bodies "

So it seems to me when Pope Francis speaks, the whole world is listening, is that good or bad ?