Pope Francis presents a peculiar problem for the modern world. He's neither...

[Michie]

...conservative nor liberal

At the root of the problem is the unfortunate and unfortunately common practice of politicizing religion. Traditionally, a Catholic was faithful or not faithful, orthodox or heretical, devout or lukewarm. These categories are intrinsic to Catholicism itself. Concerning the dignity of the person...

Pope Francis presents a peculiar problem for the modern world. He's neither conservative nor liberal...

 

[Michie]

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]I am continually amused by the attempts to cast this or that pope in terms of political categories. It just goes to show that the papacy is an enigma for the world, and often for many Catholics. Popes are not liberal or conservative: they are Catholic. Sure, every pope has a different personality, a different way of governing, and different aspects of the Church that he wishes to emphasize. In other words, there’s not just one way to be pope. And yet, from a perspective that extends beyond the finite, there is just one way to be pope: to serve as the Vicar of Christ.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]I ran across a most interesting piece yesterday, and I thought it would be entertaining to give some excerpts and have the reader guess who authored the text. My only hint is that every quote is from just one document, and therefore just one pontiff. Forgive the length, but the document is simply packed full of good material.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
Will the Liberal Pope Please Identify Himself?

 

[Genersis]

I personally think he's moderately conservative.
Socially conservative, economically moderate.

It's nice to say the Pope and the Church isn't political, but I don't think either of these things ring true.

 

[Catherineanne]

It is not possible to have an apolitical Pope. The Catholic Church is far too embroiled in political issues for him not to have a view on those issues.

The theory of the Papacy as a spiritual office has been found wanting many times in history by just about every government; ultimately issues of politics intrude, and ultimately just about every government decides that the Papacy has to be secondary to its own decisions. The Catholic Church does not like this, and would prefer to rule governments as well as people, but it simply can't. This would be impractical and indeed dangerous.

Our present Pope will inevitably have views on political issues, express those views, and make enemies among those he happens to disagree with. His politics are unlikely to divide nicely along US political lines, any more than along any other country's political lines, but this is not the same as saying he is neither conservative nor liberal. Chances are he is mostly conservative, but with some socially liberal views which are acceptable in Catholicism, such as preferring people not to starve of hunger, on the whole.

 

[Fantine]

Prominent political figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden fail to extend their professed Catholicism to everyone. They direct their concern to the class of the poor while ignoring the needs of the child in the womb, who often is the poorest of the poor.

Prominent political figures such as Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan fail to extend their professed Catholicism to everyone. They direct their concern to the needs of the child in the womb while ignoring the class of the poor--because having concern for the class of the poor would require physical and financial commitments.

Yes, I am tired of slanted, one-sided articles that tell me that "traditionally" Catholics have been divided into sheep and goats (whereas that's a myth perpetuated by old goats like the author...)

 

[QuantaCura]

At least in American politics, the two parties' platforms represent basically an arbitrary, and sometimes even internally contradictory, division of positions on various issues.

It's not so much that the Church doesn't have a role to play in politics (as a public institution, it does--which is why the rationalists of the 19th century pushed a lnon-institutional form of religion), or even that there aren't intra-ecclesiastical politics (as the Church is a true society, there certainly are), it's that the Church's positions don't really fit neatly into either of thetwo arbitrary platforms.

Regarding Catholic social teaching, at least from what I can tell, the Pope before his ascension to the Chair had the same positions as his two predecessors, who all basically just repeated, developed, and applied what was taught by Leo XIII when he provided the first authoritative synthesis of Catholic doctrine in this area.

Unfortunately, for may people, they adhere to political platforms's with a kind of dogmatic faith, while treating their Creed as the more flexible thing. The horror of heresy has been transferred to animosity towards political adversaries.

If heretics no longer horrify us today, as they once did our forefathers, is it certain that it is because there is more charity in our hearts? Or would it not too often be, perhaps, without our daring to say so, because the bone of contention, that is to say, the very substance of our faith, no longer interests us? Men of too familiar and too passive a faith, perhaps for us dogmas are no longer the Mystery on which we live, the Mystery which is to be accomplished in us. Consequently then, heresy no longer shocks us; at least, it no longer convulses us like something trying to tear the soul of our souls away from us.... And that is why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them.

In reality, bias against heretics is felt today just as it used to be. Many give way to it as much as their forefathers used to do. Only, they have turned it against political adversaries. Those are the only ones with whom they refuse to mix. Sectarianism has only changed its object and taken other forms, because the vital interest has shifted. Should we dare to say that this shifting is progress?

It is not always charity, alas, which has grown greater, or which has become more enlightened: it is often faith, the taste for the things of eternity, which has grown less.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Unfortunately, for may people, they adhere to political platforms's with a kind of dogmatic faith, while treating their Creed as the more flexible thing. The horror of heresy has been transferred to animosity towards political adversaries.

True true.

We are supposed to go with the gravity [and i wish some had understanding] of the teachings.

For instance - the most important issue is life. One cannot worry about the poverty of the child if they are opting that the child dies.
Of course this extends to euthanasia. And all other important life issues that destroy the dignity of the human - and where there is absolutely no love for others when we vote for their deaths.
From age 'womb' to elderly.

Secondly, the hugest misunderstanding of what we are 'taught' to do for the poor - and i have tried emphatically and continuously tried bending over backwards and then forwards to make this quite understood - is...

We do not help the poor become welfare career lifers.
Welfare in itself becomes a grave sin if it is abused for the purpose to 'be slothful.'

I gave examples of what actual sisters in poor countries 'do' to help the poor. What the Church teaches on what we do for the poor.

We educate them, and we assist them in 'working' jobs to have a livelihood. The only persons in society who should remain on any benefits are those physically disabled. However; the liberals have no qualms with them being euthanised - because it is troubling to see imperfections in society.

Welfare is good for time - but not for all time.
It can and does in fact lead to greater sins.
Fornications, fraud, drug use, and other disorders of the seven greatest sins. Mainly due to idle hands.

However; the conservative side of politics tries to bring in measures that replicate the Church teachings - giving the poor an education and assisting them working...and they are called rotten.

So i see the conservatives best for social issues - regardless of when folks feel sloth is just fine. No - it's not fine. And the Church teaches it is not fine.

So Catholicism - when we earmark what it truly teaches - is conservative.
This is why progressives either dont wish to know the teachings, ignore them or simply twist them to fit into their idealism of what they 'think' the Church teaches.

I think many would be quite surprised how conservative the Church is.
And due to that - i changed my preference in politics on how i vote.


Liberals hold onto the idea they follow the social teachings somehow - but are from even comprehending the teachings - since it directly opposes what politicians are pushing.

Social teaching - no communism - no socialism.
No long term welfare - but education and work p[which is where humans gain dignity]

Even the priest in another Church who goes to Panama [i believe] and 'buys' families cows and such with any offerings - because rather than give them money to spend for a day - they must use the cow to work it to eat and so forth.

Nuns teach poor hungry women to work in the Church as part of their 'task' to 'earn' the food or money they need.

In the Church - there arent free rides. On some occasion - there could be some - but overall human dignity only comes from working for exchange.
Abusing welfare causes an entire country to suffer and St Paul said not to eat another man's bread - but to work for it.

 

[BlackSepulcher]

The Church's political agenda is Roman Catholicism™

 

[Fantine]

I heard something on the radio yesterday--a comment that the goal of pro-lifers is to end "safe" abortions, because abortions will continue regardless of whether they are legal or not.

I don't agree with that. I think that pro-lifers want to end all abortions, but that they think the best way to do it is by passing some law (well, it's certainly a lot cheaper than ending poverty, breaking the cycle of abuse, etc. and a lot of pro-lifers sure like to do things on the cheap).

Liberals think a more wholistic approach--attacking the root cause--is more effective. What's wrong with that?

In my "Bread for the World" newsletter, an article talked about immigration. And yes, those lib'rul anti-hunger folks said the same thing about immigration.

Despite spending $18 billion securing our borders between 1990 and today, we have four times as many undocumented immigrants. Hungry people (the ones conservatives call 'lawbreakers') will do what they have to do to eat. We would have had less immigration spending that $18 billion on overseas anti-hunger efforts.

Similarly, women who are desperate enough to have abortions will take a bus to another state or have dangerous DIY abortions.

Criminalizing things may make us feel all better and self-righteous...but it might not be the most effective way (but if it soothes our personal discomfort, who cares???)

 

[BlackSepulcher]

I heard something on the radio yesterday--a comment that the goal of pro-lifers is to end "safe" abortions, because abortions will continue regardless of whether they are legal or not.

I don't agree with that.

There would be a fringe of people who would heinously kill their fetus, sure. That is the most ridiculous defense by pro-abortionists I have heard yet.

Before abortion was legal and readily available, there were hardly any abortions at all. It's easy for people to go and get a clinical sabotage, it's not see easy to have to be the one to actually do it. It's a real eye opener of what one is actually doing when they get an abortion.