You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The pope writes an oped for The New York Times. "... We cannot return to the false securities of the political and economic systems we had before the
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
humilityseeker
Guest
This is behind a pay wall.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Yes, it’s behind a pay wall.
D
Donkey
Guest
Ommission of The Name of Jesus Christ…
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son , and to the Holy Spirit , as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son , and to the Holy Spirit , as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
It’s a good opinion piece.
These are moments in life that can be ripe for change and conversion. Each of us has had our own “stoppage,” or if we haven’t yet, we will someday: illness, the failure of a marriage or a business, some great disappointment or betrayal. As in the Covid-19 lockdown, those moments generate a tension, a crisis that reveals what is in our hearts.
In every personal “Covid,” so to speak, in every “stoppage,” what is revealed is what needs to change: our lack of internal freedom, the idols we have been serving, the ideologies we have tried to live by, the relationships we have neglected.
…
This theme of helping others has stayed with me these past months. In lockdown I’ve often gone in prayer to those who sought all means to save the lives of others. So many of the nurses, doctors and caregivers paid that price of love, together with priests, and religious and ordinary people whose vocations were service. We return their love by grieving for them and honoring them.
Whether or not they were conscious of it, their choice testified to a belief: that it is better to live a shorter life serving others than a longer one resisting that call. That’s why, in many countries, people stood at their windows or on their doorsteps to applaud them in gratitude and awe. They are the saints next door, who have awakened something important in our hearts, making credible once more what we desire to instill by our preaching.
They are the antibodies to the virus of indifference. They remind us that our lives are a gift and we grow by giving of ourselves, not preserving ourselves but losing ourselves in service.
These are moments in life that can be ripe for change and conversion. Each of us has had our own “stoppage,” or if we haven’t yet, we will someday: illness, the failure of a marriage or a business, some great disappointment or betrayal. As in the Covid-19 lockdown, those moments generate a tension, a crisis that reveals what is in our hearts.
In every personal “Covid,” so to speak, in every “stoppage,” what is revealed is what needs to change: our lack of internal freedom, the idols we have been serving, the ideologies we have tried to live by, the relationships we have neglected.
…
This theme of helping others has stayed with me these past months. In lockdown I’ve often gone in prayer to those who sought all means to save the lives of others. So many of the nurses, doctors and caregivers paid that price of love, together with priests, and religious and ordinary people whose vocations were service. We return their love by grieving for them and honoring them.
Whether or not they were conscious of it, their choice testified to a belief: that it is better to live a shorter life serving others than a longer one resisting that call. That’s why, in many countries, people stood at their windows or on their doorsteps to applaud them in gratitude and awe. They are the saints next door, who have awakened something important in our hearts, making credible once more what we desire to instill by our preaching.
They are the antibodies to the virus of indifference. They remind us that our lives are a gift and we grow by giving of ourselves, not preserving ourselves but losing ourselves in service.
D
Donkey
Guest
Per ipsum et cum ipso, et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum.
Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.
Only ‘In him we live and move and have our being" Acts 7:28
Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.
Always in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.All others must be loved for Jesus’ sake, but Jesus for Himself alone. Jesus Christ must be loved exclusively, for He alone is proved good and faithful above all other friends. For Him and in Him you must love friends and foes alike, praying to Him for them, that all may come to know and love Him. Imitation of Christ Book 2 Chapter 8
Only ‘In him we live and move and have our being" Acts 7:28
Last edited:
M
mjm076
Guest
This is completely inappropriate for the Pope to be doing! The “New York Times” is NOT friends with the Catholic Church and this article is completely secular! Shame on the Pope for writing this!
P
Polak
Guest
I for one I am deeply troubled by the Pope writing an article for the NYT. I agree with the poster above, they are a highly ideological left-wing rag and very much against the Catholic Church. He shouldn’t be giving them interviews, let alone be writing an op-ed for them.
S
sallybutler
Guest
You can not reach others unless you go to them. Jesus was also criticized for associating with those not considered proper.
P
Polak
Guest
Are you suggesting the Pope wrote this in the NYT because he knows their views and most probably those of their readers, are very far from what the Catholic Church, and he wanted to point a few souls in the right direction?
S
sallybutler
Guest
It is a possibility. Have you read it? It is a very thoughtful letter. He talks about his own experience with almost dying in 1957 from a similar type of flu. He talks about the wonderful work of the nurses who treated him with compassion. He talks about how we all have a chance to put others well-being and safety before our own wants. He states that we need to care for all, from the un-born to the elderly.
Is it the message you have a problem with or the platform?
Here are the last 2 paragraphs
The pandemic has exposed the paradox that while we are more connected, we are also more divided. Feverish consumerism breaks the bonds of belonging. It causes us to focus on our self-preservation and makes us anxious. Our fears are exacerbated and exploited by a certain kind of populist politics that seeks power over society. It is hard to build a culture of encounter, in which we meet as people with a shared dignity, within a throwaway culture that regards the well-being of the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled and the unborn as peripheral to our own well-being.
To come out of this crisis better, we have to recover the knowledge that as a people we have a shared destination. The pandemic has reminded us that no one is saved alone. What ties us to one another is what we commonly call solidarity. Solidarity is more than acts of generosity, important as they are; it is the call to embrace the reality that we are bound by bonds of reciprocity. On this solid foundation we can build a better, different, human future.
Is it the message you have a problem with or the platform?
Here are the last 2 paragraphs
The pandemic has exposed the paradox that while we are more connected, we are also more divided. Feverish consumerism breaks the bonds of belonging. It causes us to focus on our self-preservation and makes us anxious. Our fears are exacerbated and exploited by a certain kind of populist politics that seeks power over society. It is hard to build a culture of encounter, in which we meet as people with a shared dignity, within a throwaway culture that regards the well-being of the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled and the unborn as peripheral to our own well-being.
To come out of this crisis better, we have to recover the knowledge that as a people we have a shared destination. The pandemic has reminded us that no one is saved alone. What ties us to one another is what we commonly call solidarity. Solidarity is more than acts of generosity, important as they are; it is the call to embrace the reality that we are bound by bonds of reciprocity. On this solid foundation we can build a better, different, human future.
P
Polak
Guest
Obviously the platform. I’m sure the message is good. I can give it a read later. Writing for the platform though, gives the idea that he is politically partisan, and a Pope should not be.Is it the message you have a problem with or the platform?
I wonder how leftists here would be reacting if he penned an op-ed in say, the Daily Caller or National Review, to ‘reach out’ to people?
S
StudentMI
Guest
I know of only a few actual leftists here. I doubt they’d care.I wonder how leftists here would be reacting if he penned an op-ed in say, the Daily Caller or National Review, to ‘reach out’ to people?
S
sallybutler
Guest
Since many consider me left, I would be happy that he was trying to reach those readers also. And I’d get to read it three times since I also have those on my favorites bar under a tab called “Good reading”.
P
Polak
Guest
You should revisit some of the debates that have taken place on this forum. Some of them got very heated, and there seemed to be quite a few users arguing on both sides. There were certainly more than just a few leftists in those I can assure you.
B
billsherman
Guest
A lot of American conservatives confuse moderates with leftists.There were certainly more than just a few leftists in those I can assure you.
For example, Joe Biden is a moderate (left of center, but still mostly center), yet many here think he is a raging leftist. He simply is not.
P
Polak
Guest
To be fair though many people also call moderate right of centre or conservative people ‘far-right’ too, so it works both ways.
S
stpurl
Guest
He is not a ‘raging leftist’ and I am sure he is considered a moderate judging by the current 2020 political position.
The fact is that the politics of the Democratic Party have themselves moved so far ‘left’ of the center of the party as it was in 1970 that indeed Mr. Biden is a ‘moderate’. However that moderate position ‘now’ would have been, until the last 30 years or so, considered incredibly ‘far left’ and the current far left is beyond extreme.
To be fair, while the Republican party’s policies have not moved ‘right’ to the same degree overall, there are indeed fringe ‘far’ right positions which would also have been considered extreme 50 years ago. However, the ‘center’ Republican position 50 years ago is more or less the ‘center’ Republican position today. The ‘moderate’ position has moved somewhat to the left but not markedly so.
It is all subjective because moderate means to most people ‘what I personally believe’ and one judges ‘left or right’ on that basis, which of course differs from person to person.
It would be interesting though to bring up from the archives the Republican Party platforms from 1970 and the Democratic Party platforms from 1970, and then contrast the party platforms from 2020, and see exactly what changes there were. No ‘left’ or ‘right’ but simply show the platform then and the platform now.
If there are any people with the time and talent to bring up (and document and footnote) the above, before the end of the year, it might be extremely illuminating.
The fact is that the politics of the Democratic Party have themselves moved so far ‘left’ of the center of the party as it was in 1970 that indeed Mr. Biden is a ‘moderate’. However that moderate position ‘now’ would have been, until the last 30 years or so, considered incredibly ‘far left’ and the current far left is beyond extreme.
To be fair, while the Republican party’s policies have not moved ‘right’ to the same degree overall, there are indeed fringe ‘far’ right positions which would also have been considered extreme 50 years ago. However, the ‘center’ Republican position 50 years ago is more or less the ‘center’ Republican position today. The ‘moderate’ position has moved somewhat to the left but not markedly so.
It is all subjective because moderate means to most people ‘what I personally believe’ and one judges ‘left or right’ on that basis, which of course differs from person to person.
It would be interesting though to bring up from the archives the Republican Party platforms from 1970 and the Democratic Party platforms from 1970, and then contrast the party platforms from 2020, and see exactly what changes there were. No ‘left’ or ‘right’ but simply show the platform then and the platform now.
If there are any people with the time and talent to bring up (and document and footnote) the above, before the end of the year, it might be extremely illuminating.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.