T
Tbrightson
Guest
thats it in a nutshell. How it is evil and communism is christ- like according to the pope is beyond me
Pope speaks on priestly celibacy, populism in new interview [CWN]
- Status
B
billsannie
Guest
Out of curiosity, what do you consider “satanic globalism”?
B
billsannie
Guest
I’ll take a stab at this. Communism in theory, especially in its earliest form, and as practised in the Soviet Union were often different things. In theory, Communism was supposed to protect the workers, who were the majority, from exploitation by upper classes who profited from their work while producing little or nothing themselves. (Please note: I emphasize IN THEORY. I am not a Communist nor do I wish to promote it.) This theory of Communism is in itself populist, at least in the sense of favoring “the little guy”.
I think perhaps the sort of populism the Pope has in mind might be the “tyranny of the majority” that often hurts the poor and the powerless.
T
Tbrightson
Guest
Globalism is the effort to erase the nation-states by having them surrender their sovereignty to global authorities. Proponents of globalism would like nothing better than to impose their evil views on those who they can control.
T
Tbrightson
Guest
Yes, Communism could be seen as extreme populism in a way. Communism is tyranny of the majority in the worse way. Yet the Pope applauds communism (Tyranny of the Majority) saying they think “like Christians” yet garden variety populists (tyranny of the majority) are evil.
I don’t know if this Pope is coming or going.
B
billsannie
Guest
If one speaks of Communism as a theory, a philosophy, as opposed to the ways it’s been practiced, it is like Christianity in its concern for the poor.
T
Tbrightson
Guest
By a very thin strand. Its the means that condemns it.
R
RomanoAmerio
Guest
“Mater Si, Magistra No”…things have not changed much in fifty years. It is depressing. 
T
Thomas_White
Guest
‘Populism’ is a movement by the rank and file (the common person) against an established order. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were populist candidates. The Tea Party would be an example of a populist movement.
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
The populism the Holy Father is talking about is the type of messiah like figure people uncritically support and follow, and not simply a popular movement by the masses. it’s the anthisis of solidarity.
R
RomanoAmerio
Guest
You, my friend Tony, get it.
Unfortunately, most Popes get treated as Aunt Sallies the moment they speak on social or economic positions. This has been going on for two centuries, and it’s not getting much better. I may have my differences with good Pope Francis, but this is not one of them.
J
JPUSC
Guest
POPULIST POPE PROVES IRRESISTIBLE
Pope Francis is the perfect pontiff for our age, a truly populist pope.
Catholic League
catholicleague.org/populist-pope-proves-irresistible-2
Clash of the Populists
This resemblance begins, as Matthew Schmitz pointed out in The Washington Post, with their status as “outsiders bent on shaking up their establishments,” which they (and many others) deem sclerotic and corrupt. When Trump attacks Republican elites and breaks with party orthodoxy on trade or foreign policy or campaign finance, Schmitz notes, he’s mirroring the way that Francis “challenges a hidebound Vatican bureaucracy and flirts with revising settled Catholic doctrine.” Both messages appeal to the same exhaustion with institutions, the same desire to somehow “make a mess” (as Francis likes to put it) and start anew.
This mirroring extends to their rhetoric, where both men have a fondness for, well, name-calling that’s rare among presidential candidates and popes. The insults differ: Trump calls people “low energy,” “liar” and “loser,” while Francis prefers “Pharisee” and “self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagian” (though he’s not above “whiner” and “sourpuss” as well). But their pungent language reflects a shared mastery of the contemporary media environment, in which controversy and unpredictability are the great currencies, and having people constantly asking Did he really just say that? is the surest ticket to the world’s attention.
The public style that produces these “say what?” moments can get them both into a kind of trouble. But the billionaire and the pontiff both seem to believe — on some evidence — that a little troublemaking is the best way to make the disaffected pay attention.
And by reaching people who usually tune out churchmen and politicians, they have become leading populists in our increasingly populist moment. The popular constituencies they speak for are very different, of course. Trump is a nationalist, speaking on behalf of the unhappy Western working class, while Francis is a Latin American and a globalist, speaking for the developing world’s poor — which is why immigration policy naturally puts them at loggerheads.
But they nonetheless share a common enemy: Not just specific guardians of business as usual, whether Catholic or Republican, but the wider Western ruling class. Whether it’s the Donald attacking “the very, very stupid people” making policy in the United States, or Francis deploring the greed and self-interest of rich nations and wealthy corporations, the pope and the mogul are now leading critics of the neoliberalism that has governed the West for a generation or more.
Neoliberalism needs critics, as the Republican Party needs reinvention and the Catholic Church needs reform. At the same time, as Schmitz notes, what both Trump and Francis promise — deliverance “from inconvenient and unresponsive institutions, with all their strictures and corruptions” — downplays the value of rules, customs, and traditions in protecting people from the rule of novelty and whim.
This is always populism’s peril: That it relies too much on the power of charisma, and tears down too much in the quest to make America or Catholic Christianity great again.
Of course neither Francis nor Trump have broken anything yet. The populist pope may be remembered as a great reformer, and the populist billionaire as the unlikely catalyst for the Republican Party’s long-delayed reform.
But for now, the last thing they have in common in this: Everything that makes them interesting makes them dangerous as well.
New York Times
nytimes.com/2016/02/21/opinion/sunday/clash-of-the-populists.html
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Oh that’s rich. Not sure how accurate it is but an interesting find for this thread…
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Pope Francis talks
News Media freaks
People think.
Nothing bad here. Thinking is good. Why is anyone surprised that a Jesuit Pope is interested in educating people whether they want it or not?
News Media freaks
People think.
Nothing bad here. Thinking is good. Why is anyone surprised that a Jesuit Pope is interested in educating people whether they want it or not?
C
commenter
Guest
Populism?
1.) Historically there were people preoccupied with finding the truth on its own merits, truth not defined or influenced by popular opinion or social movements of the moment, or what’s trending now. If anything, “momentum” was regarded with caution. Don’t follow the crowd, but share the truth with as many individuals as possible. Some individuals are called by God to a special role - vocation. That calling filled seminaries and convents at one time.
2.) Other people said that there is no one, permanent truth for everyone. Each had to define their own truth. The crowd identifies which truth is relevant now. The momentum of the crowd pushes certain “issues” to the forefront. If the media does polls that disprove Humanae Vitae, then abandon that and support International Women’s Day, which the media commands us to do. This empties seminaries and convents, at present.
Paragraph 1.) helped vocations. But paragraph 2.) is what we have now in the media dominated Western world - i. e. “populism”. Vocations are strong in areas where dogmas and the supernatural are still taught, such as Poland, parts of Africa and Asia, or in pockets of the US, where subgroups of families emphasize Catholic tradition and catechesis. Vocations are weakest where there is rejection of dogmas.
In my former parish, there was a hostility towards the “priest” as being different, or indispensable. The priest was considered a social worker, job to make everyone feel at home, and build community", glued to social concerns in the media. The Eucharist was taught only as a sign of unity, a community builder. In this populist environment, vocations were discouraged.
“Populism” is evident when priests support whatever the media declares to be important this week. The solution to populism, and part of the solution to the vocations shortage, is teaching doctrine.
1.) Historically there were people preoccupied with finding the truth on its own merits, truth not defined or influenced by popular opinion or social movements of the moment, or what’s trending now. If anything, “momentum” was regarded with caution. Don’t follow the crowd, but share the truth with as many individuals as possible. Some individuals are called by God to a special role - vocation. That calling filled seminaries and convents at one time.
2.) Other people said that there is no one, permanent truth for everyone. Each had to define their own truth. The crowd identifies which truth is relevant now. The momentum of the crowd pushes certain “issues” to the forefront. If the media does polls that disprove Humanae Vitae, then abandon that and support International Women’s Day, which the media commands us to do. This empties seminaries and convents, at present.
Paragraph 1.) helped vocations. But paragraph 2.) is what we have now in the media dominated Western world - i. e. “populism”. Vocations are strong in areas where dogmas and the supernatural are still taught, such as Poland, parts of Africa and Asia, or in pockets of the US, where subgroups of families emphasize Catholic tradition and catechesis. Vocations are weakest where there is rejection of dogmas.
In my former parish, there was a hostility towards the “priest” as being different, or indispensable. The priest was considered a social worker, job to make everyone feel at home, and build community", glued to social concerns in the media. The Eucharist was taught only as a sign of unity, a community builder. In this populist environment, vocations were discouraged.
“Populism” is evident when priests support whatever the media declares to be important this week. The solution to populism, and part of the solution to the vocations shortage, is teaching doctrine.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I’ve definitely been doing a lot of thinking lately…
That might not be a good thing.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Same here.
C
commenter
Guest
I tend to over - analyze things, and under pray.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
You’re not alone, I’m often guilty of that as well.
G
Ginny89
Guest
Ok, so you demonstrate that it is a discipline right before denying that it is a discipline. I am confused
Also, the church has always had a celibate AND married priesthood. What changed was that in the Latin branch, the church introduced the discipline of NOT ordaining married men any more.
Your post makes it sound like celibacy itself arose suddenly in the clergy sometime in the 2nd millenium. That can be misleading.
- Status