Pope Francis wants Church to be poor, and for the poor

  • Thread starter Thread starter liturgyluver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Harvard is a secular institution that has no obligation to set a moral example.
Click to expand...
Harvard began as a training center for clergy. It’s original mission statement was “Truth for Christ and the Church”. It’s seminary is part of the Boston Theological Institute (referred to locally as BTI) forum.bostontheological.org/. No doubt Harvard has tried to distance itself from it’s historic religous convictions but it’s not quite as secular as some would have you believe. By the way, the next time any of you folks are strolling through Harvard yard stop in at the chapel. It’s an impressive New England style house of worship.

As for secular institutions have no obligation to set a moral example; I think this is a highly questionable assumption for a University that educates/graduates clergy, doctors, psychiatrists, business leaders, political leaders, lawyers, etc.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There are many issues he could speak on that would ‘disenchant’ those that hold to either political view. I don’t believe he will speak politically though.
Click to expand...
If he does not, nothing will change. A lack of explicit language has allowed poeople to remain Catholic and violate their faith for centuries, while also leading others away from God.

The Church on earth cannot be apolitical, since it ministers to inherently political entities. If he preaches in vague terms, his message will be twisted and held against him until he relentsa and clarifies the message. It is always this way, and has been since Jesus preached to the Pharisees.

Besides, giving vague moral guidance is what allows for Catholics to justify voting for any candidate they want, and continue the attacks on the Church and the poor. If educated Catholics can justify their vote for a guy like Obama, there is literally no man in history they could not vote for.
 
Corki said:
Just wait until they realize that Popes Benedict and John Paul (I and II) didn’t mention those topics in their first five days either. Nor for that matter did their much villified (for penning HV) Pope Paul VI. Do people really think if a topic wasn’t in today’s homily, it’s not on the Pope’s agenda?
Click to expand...
Watching liberals and enemies of the Church (who claim to not put any stock in what the Church says) get excited every time we have a new leader, thinking maybe unchangeable teaching will change, is like watching Sisyphus push a boulder up the mountain over and over. It is somehwat amusing.

The Church doesn’t speak for them and is irrelevant, unless of course it agrees with them, and suddenly, it becomes credible again.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I think that is a strange assessment considering the fact that the Vatican owns vast amounts of commercial and residential properties in Italy, most of which don’t serve any Church function, valued at between $9-14 billion in addition to 15% of all stock in the Italian market valued at $1.6 billion. The Vatican has a TON of assets so its wealth isn’t really a myth even though it may be comparatively cash-poor. These assets are probably what Pope Francis would target if he does such a thing at all.
Click to expand...
If you liquidate current Church assets for a one-time payout to the impoverished, you barely dent global poverty and you leave nothing for the future poor of the world. What does that accomplish? I do not see Pope Francis unilaterally disposing of Vatican assets.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
Watching liberals and enemies of the Church (who claim to not put any stock in what the Church says) get excited every time we have a new leader, thinking maybe unchangeable teaching will change, is like watching Sisyphus push a boulder up the mountain over and over. It is somehwat amusing.

The Church doesn’t speak for them and is irrelevant, unless of course it agrees with them, and suddenly, it becomes credible again.
Click to expand...
The world is shocked. The pope is indeed Catholic.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
If you liquidate current Church assets for a one-time payout to the impoverished, you barely dent global poverty and you leave nothing for the future poor of the world. What does that accomplish? I do not see Pope Francis unilaterally disposing of Vatican assets.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

You do not solve poverty by making everyone poor.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
If you liquidate current Church assets for a one-time payout to the impoverished, you barely dent global poverty and you leave nothing for the future poor of the world. What does that accomplish? I do not see Pope Francis unilaterally disposing of Vatican assets.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is a lesson that even many secular non-profits fail to come to terms with, continually. One-time gifts to the poor are never “bad”; they are in themselves good, just very limited and short-sighted. It’s why I’m in favor of institutional cooperation (religion + gov’ts + businesses where applicable) to address structures of perennial poverty, on a planned and progressive basis, and yet while I think individuals (all of us) have a role to play in one-time gifts to individuals, to local charities & communitiies, etc.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
If he does not, nothing will change. A lack of explicit language has allowed poeople to remain Catholic and violate their faith for centuries, while also leading others away from God.

The Church on earth cannot be apolitical, since it ministers to inherently political entities. If he preaches in vague terms, his message will be twisted and held against him until he relentsa and clarifies the message. It is always this way, and has been since Jesus preached to the Pharisees.

Besides, giving vague moral guidance is what allows for Catholics to justify voting for any candidate they want, and continue the attacks on the Church and the poor. If educated Catholics can justify their vote for a guy like Obama, there is literally no man in history they could not vote for.
Click to expand...
He will address issues of faith and morals that also have political implications. That won’t change the fact that they are the Gospel message.

Clarity would be great, but his teachings will be dissected, parsed, and spun to fit political ideologies; or considered ‘prudential judgments.’ The lack of any expressed instruction will be used as ‘fill in the blank,’ whether he intended it to be left up to individual consciences or not; all to advance political views.

God does not have a political party. His is a monarchy, and He is King. Political parties are creations of men.
 
The best way to help the poor is to give them a job.

In Latin America it’s common for families to hire help to do house chores, they hire maids, drivers, gardeners, etc., while many people from other parts of the world criticize latinamericans for that. On the positive side, at least these people have an income that gives them far more money than what they would get by begging or waiting for Catholic charity to reach them. Most of these people didn’t finish elementary nor high school and can’t find a job at your regular business, whether it’s a small of big business. What’s left for them to do? Beg? And for those fortunate enough to have a college degree that allows them to get a job that let’s them hire these people, what else is there for them to do? Put some money in an envelope at mass each Sunday hoping it will reach the poor? Whether you like it or not, this is one way to help the poor, this is what those fortunate Catholics do in Latin America. From the other side of the coin, a person that is hired to do these jobs is seen as a blessing to their families.

Brendan_64 is saying that the Cardinals don’t need drivers, so he’s saying that they should fire their drivers. In doing that, each Cardinal will be sending someone who is probably the head of a family to the unemployment ranks. Is that a Christian thing to do, to take away the food from the children of those drivers just to make some Catholics feel better because a Cardinal will not be driven around? Come on, look at the things you’re saying from all angles, put yourself in the shoes of that driver and tell us you’ll be a happy Catholic because the Cardinal will have to drive himself, while your kids suffer at the table.

In reality not just the Cardinals have drivers, most of the Bishops in most countries do, think the harm it would be inflicted on thousands of families worldwide if those drivers are fired. What for? False humility? And if the cook, the cleaning lady, the gardener doing those chores for the Bishops are also fired, will that make us a better Church?
 
LisaA said:
You ignore them and express your opinion once more. It’s no more compelling the third or fourth time.

OK you don’t think the Cardinals deserve to have a car and driver. So noted.

Lisa
Click to expand...
And you are likewise guilty of repeatedly expressing your opposing opinion on the matter.

OK so you think Cardinals ought to be transported in chauffeur driven cars. Your point is also duly noted.
 
This debate reminds me of arguing with my brother over who was my mother’s “favorite” child.

Why do we have to limit Pope Francis to confirm our own views?

No matter which direction Pope Francis moves, I believe the Holy Spirit chose him, and I’m 100% on board.
 
Why do some CA members want the Church to be ‘poor’ or project the public image of a ‘poor Church’. If our local Fairfax County Fire Chief is entitled to a car and driver, why not a Cardinal? Our Church has 1.2 billion members with but a few hundred Cardinals at the very top of Church hierarchy. They are equivalent to senior executives for large international corporations, so I expect them to to maintain their offices in dignity. I want the Catholic Church to appear strong, vibrant, powerful, significant and appealing to people from all stations in life. Should priests, nuns and monks have cars and drivers? No. Should Cardinals and Bishops have dignified offices and commensurate staff? Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top