Rebuttal of the myth that Catholics can fully embrace either political conservatism or liberalism, by a Franciscan University of Steubenville professo

[Swiss_Guy]

I think the problem is that it is extremely easy for westerners to have a materialist, Enlightenment view. As another poster points out, both US liberalism and US conservatism are based on the so-called Enlightenment and thus any relation to Catholic thinking is coincidental.

For example, US liberals as they are now look for equality of outcome and a pragmatic maximization of happiness in society under their all-knowing guidance. They give the wrong kind of help to the poor (one *huge *disaster was to give welfare to women who were not married, thus forcing families in need to split up in order to receive benefits); they disregard the spiritual aspect of man and advocate social acceptance or even support of sin; and they seek to centralize everything so that everyone ends up the same.

US conservatives are no longer what would have been recognized as conservative a few decades ago, but even back then, conservatism had a strong “Enlightenment” base. Conservatism as it stands now is somewhat closer to Christian/Catholic principles as it does realize the bad effect, at least on society, of the breakdown of the family. There was tension between the libertarian ideal and the social-stability ideal, tho, and they have actually allowed the family to break down a lot before trying to put on the brakes.

The strongly conservative want to dismantle the social safety net because they do not understand that it *is *incumbent on society to watch out for the poor. This is a jumbled-up problem in that the safety-net was provided, before the Protestant Revolt, by the Church through monasteries, etc. When the Protestant rulers took the Church’s property, they took the safety net, so since then we have looked to the government to provide this, which in a multi-religion society is about the only institution we have that can deliver that, but it is not at all an ideal situation.

The reality is that in order to look at how our society works in a *truly *Catholic way, we must get away from “Enlightenment” thinking altogether. We must think as Christians rather than as materialists who want to act independently of the rules God has set forth. While the liberal may look Christian in their desire to help the poor, and the conservatives in their desire to maintain social stability, the underlying foundation of their thinking is wrong and so they tend to make a lot of mistakes in the implementation.

It will continue if compassionate conservatism starts becoming more popular.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The fact of the matter is that neither of the two major political parties reflects, overall, Catholic values. Each is seriously, seriously wanting in some prominent aspects of those values, both officially (platforms, positions, candidates) and unofficially or indirectly (approaches to problems, likely consequences of those approaches, to society).

Both parties embrace, in sometimes different ways, a kind of corporate materialism (replacing the older ‘military-industrial complex’ with a Wall Street-Government complex). The dominance of the profit motive can have a drastic affect on the individual, depending on the individual and his or her trade, function, and personal resources. And naturally that makes possible and even probable inhumane consequences which violate social justice.

The conscientious voter has a lot of discernment to consider, however – regardless of how both parties appear so similar, on the surface, in how they operate and with whom they ally themselves. Styles and methods of solving social problems & needs do matter, and can lead to different outcomes, so those different approaches (or “philosophies”) are necessary to consider in the discernment process.

The real problem, not just for the conscientious Catholic, but for the sincerely searching voter, is the increasingly monolithic flavor of each of the 2 major parties. it used to be that there were several true “wings” of each party: Conservative, Moderate, Liberal.
A party’s stand on moral values has wider impact for society, in terms of stability, than some voters may realize. Also, a party’s approach to economics has indirect impact on societal structures which tend to enable or disable a country’s stability.

So any lecturer or candidate who selects particular issues without looking at the complexity of the whole picture, and then decides who is “more Catholic” based on such cherry-picking, should be taken with a grain of salt. Ditto for “less conservative” and “more conservative,” “less liberal” and “more liberal.” Not to mention, defining these sometimes-shifting terms is problematic. Also remember that the college in question is a Franciscan University. Franciscans put a high priority on social justice issues – higher than any other order I have personally encountered and known well.

 

[St_Francis]

Liberal Catholics helped elect this current immoral regime which never hid its pro-abortion position and which now threatens everyone’s freedom.

At what point does willful political naivete become criminal negligence?

What of the hypocrisy of an organization that spits on patriotism time and again, yet now that their money is threatened, desperately waves the flag at us?

Liberal policies fail to help the poor. ** Conservatism is in no way at odds with Catholicism** and I am not only tired of the lies told about conservatism but would never have knowingly joined any Marxist organization.

This particular blogger nails it.

I think the main problem with your comment I bolded is that conservatism covers too many different ideas. One might call me a conservative, because I am against abc, abortion, no-fault divorce, etc. Right? And yet I will argue with the free market libertarians, who also are considered to be under the conservative umbrella. I will not argue for the liberal policies which break up the family structure by giving aid only to women with children and no husbands, but I will argue against the rugged individualist notion that everyone should make their own way regardless of any extenuating cicumstances.

So I think the problem is more in which ideas are considered conservative in the US these days, because there is a wide range!

 

[pnewton]

Yes, yes. Many of us have been saying this for years.

But notice how nobody listens. Frustrating, isn’t it?

I don’t find anything new in this blog, but I guess it does help those who feel isolated by those who put politics over Christianity. I do not think it applies to many here though. True, many conservatives dissent from the Catholic Church on some social issues. There is nothing wrong with this in the context it is done, that of judgement and application. I only object when the dissent is denies. On the other hand, all these social issues together that conservative dissent from are paltry compared to abortion, assuming that abortion can be addressed politically. There is the rub. Personally, I will never give up the abortion front in voting for the sake of other social issues, but I will not dissent from the Catholic teaching on immigration and poverty, for I agree with the reasoning behind it.

 

[pnewton]

Liberal Catholics helped elect this current immoral regime which never hid its pro-abortion position and which now threatens everyone’s freedom.

At what point does willful political naivete become criminal negligence?

Never. The idea of political naivete is only a disagreement of prudence. No layperson has authority to dictate prudence for another.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

It is a horribly sad situation when there are some who would use this piece to bash conservatives over the head and call us dissenters. In fact, it is a rather disgusting situation to consider. Krason’s critique, when one actually reads it, is of liberalism as a reaction to socialism. (Unfortunately, many who self-identify as “conservatives” are actually “liberals”)

Krason does bring up some interesting points, but he misses the fundamental point in his piece. For example, he states, Encyclicals such as Laborem Exercens even say that government, in conjunction with the private sector, should undertake overall economic planning. LE does not actually go so far as to say that. JPII did say the following (paragraph 18):

In order to meet the danger of unemployment and to ensure employment for all, the agents defined here as “indirect employer” must make provision for overall planning with regard to the different kinds of work by which not only the economic life but also the cultural life of a given society is shaped; they must also give attention to organizing that work in a correct and rational way. In the final analysis this overall concern weighs on the shoulders of the State, but it cannot mean onesided centralization by the public authorities. Instead, what is in question is a just and rational coordination, within the framework of which the initiative of individuals, free groups and local work centres and complexes must be safeguarded, keeping in mind what has been said above with regard to the subject character of human labour.

(NB: the italics are in the original)

JPII makes clear the extent and the limits of where the State’s involvement should exist.

There is most certainly a role for the State in economic planning, as described by JPII above. For example, when the textile industry left upstate South Carolina, the State (South Carolina) took initiative to attract other industry to the area. Through providing correctly tuned educational resources, a favorable tax system, and support of the necessary infrastructure, they were able to attract a significant amount of industry to the area (to include Michelin and BMW). As a result, their economy (and the employment situation in general) has been booming…particularly when viewed in comparison to other areas in the country.

I, frankly, don’t know of any conservative who would argue that the above example was improper according to conservative economic theory. I would shudder to think that any Catholic would argue that the actions violate Catholic Social Doctrine. (Sadly, experience tells me that there are many who would)

On the other hand, there are some provisions in Laborem Exercens that are patently illegal per US labor law. For example, paragraph 19 advocates the following:

This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.

(NB: Italics in original)

How many left-wingers who would use this article as an excuse to bash conservatives would advocate for US labor law to be changed to accommodate the above concept? Or would it be ((shudder)) discrimination??? Particularly when, as we all realize, JPII was not talking about situations with unmarried heterosexual couples or (pseudo “married” or unmarried) homosexual couples.

The problem that Krason does not address head-on with this piece is the problem of materialism. Materialism infects both the socialist and the liberal, both rich and poor. The dangers should be fairly apparent with the liberal and the wealthy, but this is also a major concern with the socialist and the poor, as well. John XXIII stated, in Mater et Magistra, Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. (bolding mine)

This materialism, referenced in John XXIII, is something continually neglected by those who advocate government programs as an answer to the question “but what about the poor”. The socialist advocates long-term transfers that will keep them dependent. The liberal advocates them fending for themselves. The conservative wants to help them to have the economic capacity so that they will no longer be poor.

Because the fact that the fundamental root cause was neglected in his piece, I tend to believe that Krason “missed it” with his article.

Please don’t waste anybody’s time by re-asserting that the individual making the claims is a ***professor ***at Steubenville. I don’t think anybody here is foolish enough to fall for an “Ipse dixit” fallacy. If you would like to discuss the merits of his argument, that’s one thing. But asserting that the argument is correct just because a ***professor ***at Steubenville made those arguments is fallacious…unless you can substantiate that he is infallible. I would doubt that he, himself, would assert that he was elected to fill the chair of Peter.

In the great “Star Wars” fictional saga, both the Sith and the Jedi use the Force, and both are very powerful and impressive advocates for their respective Causes, and both have very cogent reasoning and justifications for their actions. Both have a coherent, comprehensive philosophy. Yet, what a difference!

 

[manualman]

The essay really amounts to a reminder that catholics should base their moral and prudential judgements on a properly formed catholic conscience rather than neglecting that responsibility and allowing either Rush Limbaugh OR Bobby Rush do their thinking for them.

As catholics, it is 100% true that we cannot allow ourselves to be simply absorbed by any secular political movement and our values manipulated by that movement’s leaders. We are to be formed by revelation as interpreted by the bishops.

That said there is an equal and opposite blunder to equating catholicism and conservatism. That blunder is to declare all philosophical and moral errors of equal importance and fail to prioritize moral issues for public action.

This latter blunder is the horrific error of many American catholics who seem to come to the conclusion that unfair immigration policies and inadequate health care for the poor somehow morally justify voting for politicians that have enabled and advanced the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent children.

The reality of the moral situation today is that one party has clearly staked out positions that make it an abomination before God (it’s really obvious which one that is). The other is sinful and self serving too, but guilty of lesser crimes. Politics is about the art of the possible. What we must do is prioritize the moral issues that confront us, unify to use our political influence and construct temporary political alliances to correct the worst moral wrongs first, and THEN move on to the next most pressing issues. Pretending all issues are the same just makes us cancel each other out and smaller, but more organized groups end up setting national policy.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

That blunder is to declare all philosophical and moral errors of equal importance and fail to prioritize moral issues for public action.

This latter blunder is the horrific error of many American catholics who seem to come to the conclusion that unfair immigration policies and inadequate health care for the poor somehow morally justify voting for politicians that have enabled and advanced the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent children.

Well, yes, but the problem, as I see it, is that the leaders and ideology-shapers of political Conservative Movement don’t just want VOTERS, they want TRUE BELIEVERS. They want capture the MINDS and SOULS of Catholics and other Americans so that Catholics and other Americans will PRAISE and ENDORSE and PROMOTE absolutely EVERYTHING that the leaders of the political Conservative Movement do.

They scare us, and manipulate us, just conservative political did in Europe in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. YES, COMMUNISM was REAL and TERRIBLE danger in Europe in that period. But just because that was true did not mean that entire agenda of the political Conservative parties in Europe in the 20s, 30s, and 40s was flawless and deserving of endorsement and approval by Catholics and others.

The matter of which candidate or party to VOTE for is, to me, a completely different matter about what to BELIEVE regarding social policy. For social policy, we Catholics have Catholic Social Doctrine. Any ideology or movement that proposes values and truths that conflict with what the pope and bishops teach in Catholic Social Doctrine is an ideology or movement that a Catholic cannot not accept or endorse in a “blank check” fashion.

We Catholics have BRAINS, and we are meant to USE THEM.

We are meant to JUDGE political leaders, parties and movements by the STANDARDS of CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE.

We are NOT meant to be Cafeteria Catholics of the Liberal persuasion or of the Conservative persuasion and so limit our acceptance of Catholic Social Doctrine or Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine to whatever a political party or movement accepts and approvals of.

As I see it, the current political situation in the USA leaves us with no political party or movement to fully support or embrace. There is no Catholic party.

Instead, there is Party X, which demands that we WORSHIP (or approve of the worship of) the GOLDEN CALF (gay marriage; pornography; abortion; etc.).

Then there is Party Y, which demands that we WORSHIP (or approve of the worship of) MAMMON (accept that getting rich is glorious, is the point of life, and is the measure of “winning” and “losing” in life; no taxation for big corporations; no regulation for big corporation; allowing the super rich to control Congress and the Presidency via campaign donations and endless lobbying; repealing of all income redistribution laws; repeal of all economic safety net laws; repeal of all anti-monopoly laws; repeal of all banking regulation laws; elimination of all laws that support labor unions; repeal of all minimum wage laws repeal of Social Security; repeal of Medicare for the elderly; repeal of all environmental laws that Big Business doesn’t want; etc.).

We Catholics are meant to WORSHIP CHRIST ONLY!!!

In the end, a Catholic must hold his or her nose and vote for the least smelly candidate.
I see no way around that, in the current situation.

But the PROBLEM I see is that millions of Catholics are being seduced out of complete fidelity to the Catholic Faith as they are being turned into TRUE BELIEVERS in the ideology of political Conservatism or political Progressivism.

This is exactly what happened in Europe in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, and we all know what a catastrophe that turned to be for everyone!

These politcos of the Right and the Left are after our IMMORTAL SOULS!!! These political movements function like rival religions to the one, truth Faith.

The only things we Catholic are supposed to be true, whole-hearted believers in are GOD, JESUS CHRIST, and the CATHOLIC FAITH. Everything else we must accept conditionally and partially and provisionally.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

As catholics, it is 100% true that we cannot allow ourselves to be simply absorbed by any secular political movement and our values manipulated by that movement’s leaders. We are to be formed by revelation as interpreted by the bishops.

Well stated! That is the problem I see, that many Catholics are being ABSORBED into the political Conservative Movement and in that process reject many teachings of the Holy Catholic Faith that are not approved of by the leaders of the political Conservative Movement.

Yet, unlike Catholics who get absorbed into the political Progressive Movement, these Catholics who call themselves “Conservatives” in the political sense, continue to fiercely assert that they are faithful, loyal Catholics, despite the many points of Catholic Social Doctrine that they FLATLY reject.

They fiercely dispute that they are dissenters. I guess their logic is this: “We Conservatives are at least Pro-Life. We stand against the horrendous abortion holocaust.” Well, true. But a dissenter is still a dissenter. A dissenter is someone who thinks they are no obliged to accept the teachings of the pope and the bishops.

If a Catholic says that labor unions have no right to exist, and that under no circumstances should there ever be a minimum wage set by government, and that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and so must be repealed and that the federal government cannot and should not ever legislate any such programs, then that Catholic is “off the reservation,” is passing judgment on and rejecting the authority and teaching of the pope and the bishops.

My basis premise is that nothing will get better until we Catholics accept and practice the WHOLE of the Faith of Christ. I think this what the pope and bishops are calling us too.

 

[markomalley]

In the great “Star Wars” fictional saga, both the Sith and the Jedi use the Force, and both are very powerful and impressive advocates for their respective Causes, and both have very cogent reasoning and justifications for their actions. Both have a coherent, comprehensive philosophy. Yet, what a difference!

Not being familiar with Star Wars, perhaps you could actually address the situation of liberals, socialists, and materialism.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Not being familiar with Star Wars, perhaps you could actually address the situation of liberals, socialists, and materialism.

Sorry about that.

I believe this follow article from the National Catholic Register (owned and run by EWTN) shows that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with the view of Catholic Social Doctrine expressed by Franciscan University of Steubenville professor Stephen M. Krason in his essay “The Conservative Weakness and the Solution: Catholic Social Teaching.”

Here’s the article:

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-renounce-culture-that-disguises-falsehood-as-truth

Pope: Renounce Culture That Disguises Falsehood as Truth

by Edward Pentin

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

*The Vatican today published extracts of unscripted remarks Pope Benedict XVI made on Monday in which he warned against a culture which “uses morality as a mask to confuse and destroy” and disguises falsehood “as truth and information.”

As is often the case, Benedict XVI’s most pithy and lucid comments are made when he speaks off-the-cuff, when he can once again return to the role of a professor, and this was no exception.

Speaking in the basilica of St. John Lateran, where he inaugurated a Rome diocesan congress dedicated to the sacrament of baptism, the Holy Father first of all addressed the second of three baptismal renunciations: “Do you renounce the lure of evil?”

The Pope stressed that this renunciation in the early Church referred to the rejection of “a certain kind of culture”, one that involved brutal killing as a form of entertainment. Baptism, therefore, fundamentally means “freeing oneself from that culture,” he said.

But he also stressed that today “we see cultures in which the truth does not count, in which all that counts is the spirit of calumny and destruction; a culture which does not seek goodness; a culture which uses its morality as a mask to confuse and destroy.

“To this culture, in which falsehood is disguised as truth and information, to this culture which seeks only material wealth and denies God, we say ‘no’", he said.

Referring to the first renunciation – “Do you renounce sin to live in the freedom of the children of God?” – the Pope said that today being Christian is viewed as “a kind of slavery and freedom is seen as emancipation from Christian faith, in the final analysis emancipation from God.”

“Yet God made Himself vulnerable … because He loves us,” the Pope said, adding that “our first concern” must not be “to destroy His love” because to do so is to “go against our own selves and our own freedom".

The Pope also addressed common charges made against the Church and infant baptism: that it is a form of imposing a religion on them, and that it would it be better for them to follow a catechumenal journey before baptism.

But the Holy Father said “the true question” is actually: “is it right to give life in this world without having received consent?”. He continued: “I would say that it is possible and right to do so only if, along with life, we also give the guarantee that life, despite all the problems of the world, is good [and] protected by God.”

“Only the anticipation of the meaning can justify the anticipation of life,” the Pope said. “Therefore baptism as a guarantee of God’s goodness, as an anticipation of meaning, as an anticipation of God’s ‘yes’ which protects this life, justifies the anticipation of life.”*

---

To me, it seems clear that Pope Benedict is mainly chastising political Conservatives here, since it is generally they who use moral arguments and claims of “truth” to justify their position and actions. Progressives, being relativists, really don’t argue in terms of objective morals or objective truths. Furthermore, it is political Conservatives who exalt economic competition and the accumulation of personal wealth, and in the above article the pope speaks of “this culture which seeks only material wealth.”

 

[markomalley]

Sorry about that.

I believe this follow article from the National Catholic Register (owned and run by EWTN) shows that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with the view of Catholic Social Doctrine expressed by Franciscan University of Steubenville professor Stephen M. Krason in his essay “The Conservative Weakness and the Solution: Catholic Social Teaching.”

Here’s the article:

(snip)

To me, it seems clear that Pope Benedict is mainly chastising political Conservatives here, since it is generally they who use moral arguments and claims of “truth” to justify their position and actions. Progressives, being relativists, really don’t argue in terms of objective morals or objective truths. Furthermore, it is political Conservatives who exalt economic competition and the accumulation of personal wealth, and in the above article the pope speaks of “this culture which seeks only material wealth.”

First of all, I have no argument with the Holy Father’s words here. But let’s take a look at the actual comments, since we have the ability to do so:

In English:

I now leave each one of you to reflect on this “pomp of the devil” on this culture to which we say “no”. In fact, being baptized means, essentially, being emancipated, being freed from this culture. Today too we know a type of culture in which truth does not count; even if apparently people wish to have the whole truth appear, only the sensation counts, and the spirit of calumny and destruction. It is a culture that does not seek goodness, whose moralism is in reality a mask to confuse people, to create confusion and destruction. We say “no” to this culture, in which falsehood is presented in the guise of truth and information, against this culture that seeks only well-being and denies God. Moreover, from so many Psalms we are familiar with this opposition of a culture which seems untouchable by all the evils of the world, puts self above everyone, above God, whereas it is in fact a culture of evil, a dominion of evil.

Thus the decision of Baptism, of this part of the catechumenal journey which lasts throughout our life, is precisely this “no”, said and acted upon again and again every day, even with sacrifices that are the price of opposing the culture prevalent in many places, even though it is imposed as if it were the world, this world. It is not true. And there are also many people who really desire the truth.

Or in the original Italian:

Lascio adesso ad ognuno di voi di riflettere su questa «pompa del diavolo», su questa cultura alla quale diciamo «no». Essere battezzati significa proprio sostanzialmente un emanciparsi, un liberarsi da questa cultura. Conosciamo anche oggi un tipo di cultura in cui non conta la verità; anche se apparentemente si vuol fare apparire tutta la verità, conta solo la sensazione e lo spirito di calunnia e di distruzione. Una cultura che non cerca il bene, il cui moralismo è, in realtà, una maschera per confondere, creare confusione e distruzione. Contro questa cultura, in cui la menzogna si presenta nella veste della verità e dell’informazione, contro questa cultura che cerca solo il benessere materiale e nega Dio, diciamo «no». Conosciamo bene anche da tanti Salmi questo contrasto di una cultura nella quale uno sembra intoccabile da tutti i mali del mondo, si pone sopra tutti, sopra Dio, mentre, in realtà, è una cultura del male, un dominio del male. E così, la decisione del Battesimo, questa parte del cammino catecumenale che dura per tutta la nostra vita, è proprio questo «no», detto e realizzato di nuovo ogni giorno, anche con i sacrifici che costa opporsi alla cultura in molte parti dominante, anche se si imponesse come se fosse il mondo, questo mondo: non è vero. E ci sono anche tanti che desiderano realmente la verità.

The Holy Father’s comments were, in fact,talking about a sole pursuit of material well-being…(benessere materiale). While wealth could be a subset of that, it also incorporates a whole lot more. Sure money is part of it, but so is a nice place to live, a TV, cell phone, nice clothes, good food etc. In fact, I don’t think it would go too far to include good looks, health, popularity, and so on. The rejection of all of these transient things as the object of our pursuits is integral to fully experiencing baptism (the subject of his talk). You should try to read the actual talk. It’s very illuminating.

Here’s the point: you can’t sub-optimize.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 6:24[/BIBLEDRB]

This verse applies to everybody.

 

[markomalley]

One other point: the economic system you are condemning as conservatism is actually liberalism. A theory that has been condemned since the days of Gregory XVI.

 

[Elizabeth502]

…and the Pope also denounces “killing as a form of entertainment,” etc.and denounced a culture which relies on falsehood to deliver its information. Falsehoods would include many of the Life issues for which Catholicism stands at its core – as much as it stands for the social gospel and a repudiation of raw, competitive materialism.

There is much more in the Pope’s address about baptism than there is about excessive materialism. Why are you carefully singling out particular references rather than understanding the larger thrust of the address, which discusses the aspect of anticipation, and what, in entirety, we should want a baptized person to anticipate?

Other Falsehoods Disguised as Truth:
~Calling homosexual unions “marriage”
~All the language surrounding the “necessity” of abortion, including allusions to “choice”
~The manufactured urgency about contraception for unmarried teenagers
~The insistence that more contraception availability will result in fewer abortions
~The assertion that embryonic stem cell research has provided, or will provide, cures for conditions and diseases
~The proposition that relligious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, have no legitimate voice in the U.S. public square, despite constitutional protections for that.
~The suggestion that government agencies alone are the best (a) providers of economic safety nets for poverty; (b) are better decision-makers regarding what morality is taught in public schools
~The illusion that recreational drugs are “harmless,” that people are “entitled” to them, and that they provide permanent effective escape for every inconvenience & distress.
~The implication that Atheism should be the default Religion of the U.S. gov’t, and that any conflict between atheism and belief should be “decided” by gov’t personnel in favor of atheism.

Shall I continue?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

First of all, I have no argument with the Holy Father’s words here. But let’s take a look at the actual comments, since we have the ability to do so… You should try to read the actual talk.

I will try to do better. Forgive me. In the future, I will try to read the actual thing.

Confíteor Deo omnipoténti et vobis, fratres,
quia peccávi nimis cogitatióne, verbo, ópere et omissióne:
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

Orate fratres.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Shall I continue?

You can continue if you want. But I get your point. Good points all.

My major concern is that while everyone (virtually) in these Forums can see that political Liberals are enemies of the Cause of Christ, what is not generally seen is the extent to which many leading political conservatives are also conscious, deliberate and fierce opponents of the Cause of Christ. How can I say that?

In this thread, I DIDN’T say it.

Rather, an esteemed professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville said it. It is back there on page 1 of this thread.

That professor pointed out clearly, I thought, that many or most political conservatives in the USA, even those who are professing Catholics, flatly reject or distort and limit many key points of Catholic Social Doctrine. Since they it seems that many of them do this not out of ignorance of Catholic Social Doctrine, but out of direct defiance to the Holy Church, it seems logical to view them as dissenters and as opponents of the Cause of Christ.

But I know some will say, “But if we don’t stand with political conservatives then the politcal liberals will win!”

As I understand the Holy Faith, we will never have a Utopia on earth until Christ returns.

Moreover, as I understand the Holy Faith, what matters is not the triumph of the political conservative movement, but the triumph of Jesus Christ. Those are NOT the same thing.

As Mother Teresa always used to say: “God has not called me to be successful; He has called me to be faithful.”

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” That is from Blessed John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio.

Blessed John Paul also often said that the Catholic Church needed to be together just as a human body needs two lungs.

I would carry that metaphor into this matter by saying that our nation and our world and our souls need ALL of Catholic Social Doctrine, not just the parts that the political conservative movement approves of.

That is what the professor from the Franciscan University of Steubenville is saying in his brief essay on page 1 of this thread.

 

[markomalley]

I will try to do better. Forgive me. In the future, I will try to read the actual thing.

Confíteor Deo omnipoténti et vobis, fratres,
quia peccávi nimis cogitatióne, verbo, ópere et omissióne:
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

Orate fratres.

Nothing to forgive. The point being that the Holy Father’s address is very worthwhile reading and, fraternally, I highly recommend it.

 

[markomalley]

…and the Pope also denounces “killing as a form of entertainment,” etc.and denounced a culture which relies on falsehood to deliver its information. Falsehoods would include many of the Life issues for which Catholicism stands at its core – as much as it stands for the social gospel and a repudiation of raw, competitive materialism.

There is much more in the Pope’s address about baptism than there is about excessive materialism. Why are you carefully singling out particular references rather than understanding the larger thrust of the address, which discusses the aspect of anticipation, and what, in entirety, we should want a baptized person to anticipate?

Other Falsehoods Disguised as Truth:
~Calling homosexual unions “marriage”
~All the language surrounding the “necessity” of abortion, including allusions to “choice”
~The manufactured urgency about contraception for unmarried teenagers
~The insistence that more contraception availability will result in fewer abortions
~The assertion that embryonic stem cell research has provided, or will provide, cures for conditions and diseases
~The proposition that relligious organizations, including the Roman Catholic Church, have no legitimate voice in the U.S. public square, despite constitutional protections for that.
~The suggestion that government agencies alone are the best (a) providers of economic safety nets for poverty; (b) are better decision-makers regarding what morality is taught in public schools
~The illusion that recreational drugs are “harmless,” that people are “entitled” to them, and that they provide permanent effective escape for every inconvenience & distress.
~The implication that Atheism should be the default Religion of the U.S. gov’t, and that any conflict between atheism and belief should be “decided” by gov’t personnel in favor of atheism.

Shall I continue?

I, for one, am discussing it in the context of materialism because of the theme of the thread. The other points you raise are very valid. And, in fact, the general ideas **behind **what you mention were discussed in Mirari Vos.

 

[Elizabeth502]

YMy major concern is that while everyone (virtually) in these Forums can see that political Liberals are enemies of the Cause of Christ, what is not generally seen is the extent to which many leading political conservatives are also conscious, deliberate and fierce opponents of the Cause of Christ. How can I say that?

I’m not sure that you’re aware that it has been said. On CAF. On various threads. For example, the discussion of the Ryan budget proposal, the first time which (I believe) was in Social Justice, several months ago. Several of us remarked on the conundrum between voting for an anti-life party and an anti-social-justice party. (I’m simplifying, and not only that, I don’t think it’s that black-and-white; however, the emphasis of each party is there.)

There were discussions on at least one such thread of the many facets of Catholic social doctrine (including collective bargaining, including the aspect of corporate greed) as well as the unholy alliance between the government (any U.S. gov’t) and corporate welfare.

Then there were earlier discussions on these same topics when the most recent version of the bishop’s Faithful Citizenship document was issued. In those discussions there were debates about how to prioritize various voting issues, in accordance with all of Catholic teaching (social teaching and natural law and the common good, etc.)

In addition, there were lively debates surrounding the Wisconsin recall matter, and the underlying social-justice issues involved in that vote.

Etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I, for one, am discussing it in the context of materialism because of the theme of the thread. The other points you raise are very valid. And, in fact, the general ideas **behind **what you mention were discussed in Mirari Vos.

Mark, I was responding to the OP, not arguing with you. I thought that was clear. Sorry that it wasn’t.