Special Commentary: How the Religious Right lost its ‘Religion’, lost its way and went wrong

[rlg94086]

He makes a lot of good points…especially about the fact that Christians can be on both sides of some issues (e.g. pro-gun or anti-gun). I only had a couple of problems with his article. First, note how he treats the two candidates:

The soon to be nominee of the Democratic Party is an inspiring orator. He is also prone to speak of thoughtful notions such as an “epidemic of violence” and an “empathy deficit”. However, he has stopped his ears to the cry of those whom Mother Teresa rightly called the “poorest of the poor”, children in the womb. If he becomes the nominee, I will do all I can to engage him on this very issue. I will encourage him to expand his message of hope to include giving the hope of birth to our littlest neighbors.

The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party fares a little bit better on this vital issue, at least recognizing the right to life for these little ones who are our neighbors. However, he endorses deadly research on human embryonic life. He attempts to justify this barbarism with reference to the human embryos who will inevitably die in this unethical research as being “spare embryos”. When human persons become objects to be disposed of for parts, we have simply embraced a new form of slavery where an entire class of persons has become less than human.

Is it just me, or does he gloss over the fact that the pro-choice Democrat is also pro-embryonic stem cell research, then go on to chastize the pro-life Republican for being pro-embryonic stem cell research? He wants to “encourage” the Democrat to “expand his message of hope…”, but has nothing but words of “barbarism” for the Republican. Balance? I think not.

The other section I take exception to is this…

For example, some Catholic Christians who got involved with the religious right ended up trying to dress up conservative political positions with the social teachings of the Catholic Church. It was a mistaken effort, even if well intended. It sometimes ended up confusing both those who listened and those who tried to make it work.

The author seems to equate the social teachings of the Catholic Church with a pro-big government, socialistic approach to supporting the poor. Our call to community does not require that. Catholics can also come down on both sides of that issue.

So, his article is a noble try, but flopped IMO. The myth that Catholics should be unified in their economic approach is what needs to die. I have no problem with big-government Catholics, but their’s is not the only valid Catholic approach.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The author seems to equate the social teachings of the Catholic Church with a pro-big government, socialistic approach to supporting the poor. Our call to community does not require that. Catholics can also come down on both sides of that issue.

There are many Catholics who would agree with him – to the point of supporting politicians who would promote the killing of even more unborn, through taxpayer subsidies, in order to adavance those government programs.

 

[rlg94086]

There are many Catholics who would agree with him – to the point of supporting politicians who would promote the killing of even more unborn, through taxpayer subsidies, in order to adavance those government programs.

Yep…it is sad. If both of the major parties become pro-life (I pray for the day), I would’t have a problem with Catholics supporting big government.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yep…it is sad. If both of the major parties become pro-life (I pray for the day), I would’t have a problem with Catholics supporting big government.

That would certainly be an acceptable and morally defensible choice.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Is ‘love’ the value you are talking about here? If so, I agree with you. We do indeed need to involve more charity within political discourse, but charity/love RIGHTLY understood. Love/charity is often confused with a counterfeit version, a blanket acceptance of whatever anyone wants to do as opposed to
works of mercy such as ‘admonishing the sinner’.

Good grief. Your idea of works of mercy is “admonishing the sinner.?” Poor Jesus, his lessons are so ignored. I guess poverty, war, peace, justice, health, none of these are important. Just more judgment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good grief. Your idea of works of mercy is “admonishing the sinner.?” Poor Jesus, his lessons are so ignored. I guess poverty, war, peace, justice, health, none of these are important. Just more judgment.

Give the guy a break – remember, you’re so much holier than the rest of us that he can’t live up to your ideals.

 

[rlg94086]

Good grief. Your idea of works of mercy is “admonishing the sinner.?” Poor Jesus, his lessons are so ignored. I guess poverty, war, peace, justice, health, none of these are important. Just more judgment.

Good grief. Apparently, you aren’t familiar with the “works of mercy.” They aren’t EsclavoDeChristo’s ideas. One of them is indeed to “admonish the sinner,” the others do include other teachings of Jesus:

newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm

Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy

Mercy as it is here contemplated is said to be a virtue influencing one’s will to have compassion for, and, if possible, to alleviate another’s misfortune. It is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that although mercy is as it were the spontaneous product of charity, yet it is to be reckoned a special virtue adequately distinguishable from this latter. In fact the Scholastics in cataloguing it consider it to be referable to the quality of justice mainly because, like justice, it controls relations between distinct persons. It is as they say ad alterum. Its motive is the misery which one discerns in another, particularly in so far as this condition is deemed to be, in some sense at least, involuntary. Obviously the necessity which is to be succoured can be either of body or soul. Hence it is customary to enumerate both corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The traditional enumeration of the corporal works of mercy is as follows:

• To feed the hungry;
• To give drink to the thirsty;
• To clothe the naked;
• To harbour the harbourless;
• To visit the sick;
• To ransom the captive;
• To bury the dead.

The spiritual works of mercy are:

• To instruct the ignorant;
• To counsel the doubtful;
• To admonish sinners;
• To bear wrongs patiently;
• To forgive offences willingly;
• To comfort the afflicted;
• To pray for the living and the dead.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

Good grief. Your idea of works of mercy is “admonishing the sinner.?” Poor Jesus, his lessons are so ignored. I guess poverty, war, peace, justice, health, none of these are important. Just more judgment.

rlg94086 Thanks for Clarifying my words and for listing the works of mercy.

**Poverty, war, peace, justice, & health **are important, I’m sorry that you are reading your own baggage into my words, I never said they were not important. I do indeed believe that they are. Did you read the article? That is sort of the point, that the ‘religious right’ is forgetting the social issues and had begun to adopt the politically conservative movement talking points.

However, povery, war, peace, justice, health do not trump personal responsibility (as many in the left would say) to know, learn and love the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Being poor does not abdicate the responsibility to avoid sin as many liberation ‘theologians’ would have us believe.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good grief. Apparently, you aren’t familiar with the “works of mercy.” They aren’t EsclavoDeChristo’s ideas. One of them is indeed to “admonish the sinner,” the others do include other teachings of Jesus:

newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm

Good grief, I certainly am, but he singled that one out as the only one worth mentioning. I would find the acts of mercy much more compelling. Surely feeding the hungry and housing the homeless might be a tad more attention at least at first?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

rlg94086 Thanks for Clarifying my words and for listing the works of mercy.

**Poverty, war, peace, justice, & health **are important, I’m sorry that you are reading your own baggage into my words, I never said they were not important. I do indeed believe that they are. Did you read the article? That is sort of the point, that the ‘religious right’ is forgetting the social issues and had begun to adopt the politically conservative movement talking points.

However, povery, war, peace, justice, health do not trump personal responsibility (as many in the left would say) to know, learn and love the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Being poor does not abdicate the responsibility to avoid sin as many liberation ‘theologians’ would have us believe.

I don’t understand why you think anyone would disagree. You are the one who listed only admonish the sinner not me. No one claimed that other issues obviate the need for personal moral responsibility. The article points out a number of good ideas. There is a new movement among the regular evangelicals to pull away from the dissident position of hard core ultra right evangelicals whose only two issues are abortion and gay rights. The mainstream evangelicals are no doubt embarassed by the illogic and intellectual bereft position of that group. They are urging their members to engage in a full range of issues including poverty, health care, peace and justice, war, environment. All these are to one degree or another ignored by the far right. Mostly because the far right tends to be in the that strange warped land of YEC and no evolution. When you decry science it’s hard to find it okay in other respects. Which is in some part why hard core right wingers are against environmental action. They don’t want to admit the science. It screws with their claim of bogus science re: astronomy and biology. Course they never do explain why they buy DNA research when it has to do with curing their diseases. This has become a singular embarassment to the true evangelical.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Good grief, I certainly am, but he singled that one out as the only one worth mentioning. I would find the acts of mercy much more compelling. Surely feeding the hungry and housing the homeless might be a tad more attention at least at first?

I find it hard to believe that you are serious.

Must someone address all the corporal works of mercy when performing one or two of those works? Do we have to feed the hungry and bury the dead simultaneously?

 

[Dale_M]

SpiritMeadow:

Good grief, I certainly am, but he singled that one out as the only one worth mentioning. I would find the acts of mercy much more compelling. Surely feeding the hungry and housing the homeless might be a tad more attention at least at first?

I find it hard to believe that you are serious.

Must someone address all the corporal works of mercy when performing one or two of those works? Do we have to feed the hungry and bury the dead simultaneously?

Vern, I think she is saying that the corporal acts of mercy should get precedence over the spiritual acts of mercy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I think she is saying that the corporal acts of mercy should get precedence over the spiritual acts of mercy.

Plus you have to say or do them all simultaneously.

Like maybe admonish a sinner as you bury him? (Shades of John S. Ford)

 

[rlg94086]

Good grief, I certainly am, but he singled that one out as the only one worth mentioning. I would find the acts of mercy much more compelling. Surely feeding the hungry and housing the homeless might be a tad more attention at least at first?

You are kidding right? I thought you were an attorney. When you argued your cases, did you feel compelled to bring up all case law, or would one suffice in order to make your point?

Mentioning one of the acts of mercy does not mean the poster felt that it is the most important act of mercy. In fact, the point the poster made had nothing to do with the other acts of mercy, because he was contrasting the erroneous belief that love means accepting everything another person does with the reality that we are also to admonish the sinner.

In your haste to admonish him (apparently you think it is really important), you seem to have missed his point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can see the traffic court judge snoring on the bench, while he reads – verbatim – every state and federal court decision ever handed down.

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

I don’t understand why you think anyone would disagree. You are the one who listed only admonish the sinner not me. No one claimed that other issues obviate the need for personal moral responsibility. The article points out a number of good ideas. There is a new movement among the regular evangelicals to pull away from the dissident position of hard core ultra right evangelicals whose only two issues are abortion and gay rights. The mainstream evangelicals are no doubt embarassed by the illogic and intellectual bereft position of that group. They are urging their members to engage in a full range of issues including poverty, health care, peace and justice, war, environment. All these are to one degree or another ignored by the far right. Mostly because the far right tends to be in the that strange warped land of YEC and no evolution. When you decry science it’s hard to find it okay in other respects. **Which is in some part why hard core right wingers are against environmental action. They don’t want to admit the science. It screws with their claim of bogus science re: astronomy and biology. Course they never do explain why they buy DNA research when it has to do with curing their diseases. **This has become a singular embarassment to the true evangelical.

You have truly lost me. I guess I haven’t been around ‘hard core right wingers’ but I have never heard of anyone denying DNA?!?? IMHO it seems like you are going REALLY far out of your way to try and paint anyone whose morals agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion and homosexual acts as crazy extremists.

So what if super right people support the pro-life movement. That does not negate the value and worth of being pro-life any more than the wacked out Marxists protesting the war negates the very real objections that exist to the war.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Something we seem to be losing sight of here is that in all of this talk about charity and works of mercy, we’re really talking about coercion. That’s what governmental action is. The real question is what giving should we be coerced, and cause our neighbors to be coerced, by the might of the state, to do. That’s a totally different thing from being charitable or uncharitable.

If one reads the social encyclicals, it is plain that the Popes who have spoken on the subject maintain that the state should ensure the ability of the truly needy; those who cannot help themselves, to have a decent life. That’s it. They oppose governmental dependency beyond that.

When you unwrap all of this business of the state, you have to acknowledge that it’s based on the government’s ability to kill me. If I don’t pay my taxes, the government will imprison me. If I sufficiently resist that attempt to imprison me, the government will kill me. I think people fail to look this squarely in the eye when volunteering others for state coercion, and treat it far too lightly.

As to evangelical attrition to the left, I think the writer is pipe-dreaming. I live in a congressional district without whose support no Republican can win state office. In this district is located the world headquarters of the Assemblies of God, and their numbers are huge. There are also two Baptist bible colleges and more Southern Baptists than you can count. When the Republican governor supported an embryonic stem cell initiative, they turned against him, even though he was from this district. As a consequence, he didn’t even file for a second term. Perhaps he made the mistake of supposing that evangelicals and fundamentalists were trending leftward, and learned to his surprise and chagrin that they were not.

I will grant that the term “evangelical” is an imprecise term, and that some have always been very different from others. Some self-styled evangelicals are not fundamentalist, though most are.

In general, though, I agree with Flannery O’Connor, who opined that fundamentalists would be very surprised to learn that they have more in common with the Catholic Church than they do with Protestantism. I have a substantial degree of regard for them, because most actually do believe in God. As a prolife Catholic, I would welcome allies from nearly any quarter in the prolife cause. I could think of a lot worse allies than evangelicals. I am profoundly ashamed that the rather fundamental Methodist George Bush was more Catholic in his approach to the abortion issue than the Catholic John Kerry. Perhaps Rick Santorum was right in calling Bush “the first Catholic President”, at least in that one way. I was less ashamed when he chose two Catholics to try to get a prolife majority on the Supreme Court.

I think a lot of people are going to be confused this election year. The world is a tough place, and sometimes people feel they must resort to some desperate action to restore their sense of well being in the face of it. Such times very frequently cause them to back leaders who promise some kind of material “salvation”. People often forget that the angel with the sword of flame guards the gates of any terrestrial paradise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Something we seem to be losing sight of here is that in all of this talk about charity and works of mercy, we’re really talking about coercion. That’s what governmental action is. The real question is what giving should we be coerced, and cause our neighbors to be coerced, by the might of the state, to do. That’s a totally different thing from being charitable or uncharitable.

That is precisely the point, coersion. One who gives through coersion cannot be said to obtain grace and merit from his gift.

Nor does the couch potato who supported that act of coersion have any grounds to consider himself charitable.

Only those who give voluntarily, of themselves can claim to be charitable, and to receive merit and grace.

 

[scott1228]

American Catholics are also overwhelmingly under-catechized, and non-church going (except Christmas and Easter).

That the majority of these people think a certain way is certainly not a profound endorsement.


Scott