Posted on 06/20/2015 6:52:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
With Republican politicians (or at least their staffs) busy reading, pondering, and strategizing about how to respond to Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment, I'd like to propose that pundits and political junkies play a little game to liven the mood.
The rules are simple. Every time a Republican who is a Catholic is asked for an opinion on the encyclical, place him into one of two categories: the Catholic Republicans or the Republican Catholics.
The difference between the categories depends on which term is doing the modifying. A Catholic Republican is a Republican whose Catholicism comes first, whose faith and devotion to the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the church takes precedence when a conflict or tension arises between it and loyalty to the party's ideology, policy platform, and electoral prospects. A Republican Catholic, on the other hand, is a Republican who puts his devotion to the party ahead of his faith — or at least adjusts what he takes to be the demands of his faith in such a way that the conflict or tension seems to lessen or disappear.
This isn't a game that would have worked nearly as well under the previous two popes. John Paul II and Benedict XVI emphasized social issues (defense of traditional marriage; opposition to abortion, pre-marital sex, and contraception) in their rhetoric and public statements. Meanwhile, theoconservative intellectuals in the United States worked overtime to highlight other signs of continuity, and downplay any points of discontinuity, between Catholic social teaching and the Republican Party platform.
The point of these efforts was to convince Catholic members of the American conservative movement that they didn't have to choose: a good Catholic could be a good Republican and a good Republican could be a good Catholic.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
My bride has Dem/Catholic family that ask her that often.
They are all pro gay, pro infanticide, and hate me for be pro life.
She has stopped attending mass.
Author observes the differences between Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis:
* Whereas John Paul liked to talk about the Republican-friendly concept of subsidiarity (having the most local possible public authority handle the administration of social services and welfare), Francis is quite comfortable endorsing state action to advance the common good and address significant social and economic problems.
* Whereas John Paul loudly denounced the “culture of death” (abortion, euthanasia) and Benedict railed against an incipient “dictatorship of relativism,” , Francis speaks more quietly and in a more nuanced way about social issues, while leading with issues on which the Catholic Church and the Republican Party have always been farthest apart — poverty, inequality, the damage wrought by free-market ideology, and now climate change and related environmental concerns.
If Francis is the Peter role in this church, who will take the Paul role to tell him to stop viewing and addressing the world through his old Communistic schooling?
Now you can be a gay polygamist abortionist pediophile Democrat and you still don’t get attacked as much as a heart felt believer of the Catholic Church when you are a Republican.
There is a fifth column infiltrating all of our institutions: family, church, school, etc.. This evil is very persistent.
The liberals are trying to halt the movement of Catholics into the Republican side of the aisle. I do not think it will work.
The encyclical that PF just released is getting lauds from liberals because of his environmental statements - but if and when (will the happen?) they read the entire encyclical, they will be amazed at PF’s emphatic statements regarding the issues of abortion, sexual immorality, gender-bending nonsense, and gay marriage.
He is still a Catholic after all, and still follows the time-honored tenets of the church regarding personal behavior in our sexual lives. Marriage is still between a man and a woman, and he states quite clearly that the differences between men and women ought to be celebrated. Femininity and masculinity are complementary, he says.
It was a bad decision for the Vatican to get involved in the issue of AGW. Despite what its adherents say, it is not settled science. Being pro-environment does not mean a person is anti-mining, for dirty water and air, etc.
Francis seems to forget that God is in control, not man.
Or maybe he never knew it.
What does matter is an understanding of this encyclical. The parts I have read make it nothing but an exceptionally long winded editorial. By zero means is it an ex cathedra statement in support of or altering any theological tenet.
I wonder if every translation of what I hear on pronouncements on Francis' utterings and mutterings have been literal, true and in context. If they have been the guy is more than an educated simpleton. If they are, Pope Francis is a nit wit.
The parts of this encyclical I have read make it a semi serious news piece or a script for Saturday Night Live.
Regardless, Pope Francis has said zip since he has moved to Rome that anyone needs to follow as gospel. He has said much, apparently, that folks capable of completing thoughts must argue against and oppose as moral beings.
I think Catholic Republicans AND Republican Catholics can be moral beings.
1. From what I’ve encountered on FR, my fellow Catholic FReepers and I are not Republicans; however, we are good Catholics and good conservatives.
2. To demonstrate how silly this article is: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright are Protestant. Can one be a good Protestant and a good conservative?
Consider the positive items in Pope Francis encyclical.
These are 11 good things in the encyclical… which is why you won’t hear about them in the MSM.
Each point of the following is explained in the piece with quotes gleaned directly from the encyclical. Here are the bullet points:
The official version of Pope Francis’ eco-encyclical Laudato Si was released this morning. While much of the media focus will be on the sections devoted to climate change and global warming, here are eleven things from the encyclical you probably won’t see in the headlines.
(1) Creation has a Creator, and is more than just “nature-plus-evolution”:
(2) Human ecology means recognizing and valuing the difference between masculinity and femininity:
(3) Jesus sanctifies human work:
(4) Look up from your phones and encounter each other:
(5) Save the baby humans:
(6) Helping the poor requires more than just handouts:
(7) Overpopulation is not the problem:
(8) True ecology requires true anthropology and respect for human dignity:
(9) Real change requires a change in culture, not just politics:
(10) The Church does not presume to settle scientific questions, and we need an honest and open debate:
(11) Stop with the cynicism, secularism and immorality:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3301756/posts
RE: To demonstrate how silly this article is: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeremiah Wright are Protestant. Can one be a good Protestant and a good conservative?
The main difference between that and Pope Francis is this -— CHURCH STRUCTURE or ECCLESIOLOGY.
Catholics consider the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and his words carry the weight of the Chair of the Apostle Peter.
Al’s, Jesse’s and Jeremiah’s don’t.
I’ve said it before. Too many Catholics think the religion is a buffet. Take what you like and leave the rest.
I am Catholic and I dont have to follow the climate change nonsense. It is not a religious issue.
PFL
It works pretty well so far.
Catholics have almost always voted democrat, and they preferred Clinton and Gore, and Obama.
Francis speaks for the majority of Catholic voters, that is why his disapproval among American Catholics, is only 4%.
Wow, those are just individuals, individuals who vote with the majority of Catholics, and they are the opposite of the majority of Protestants, who vote against the democrats.
The democrats have only won the Protestant vote in 1932, 1936, and 1964.
With the leftward movement of the church and the GOP, I don’t identify with either. But Damon Linker is not to be taken seriously.
A good Catholic should pray for the Pope and speak out against his many heresies.
A good Republican should do the same for his party leaders.
Both institutions have been completely corrupted to the point of being overthrown, so the question posed is basically unanswerable.
Depends. If one defines Catholicism and Republicanism as supporting leftist positions, which they increasingly do, then sure. Same people afterall. But if one wants to be a good christian, they sorta can’t back a liberal. People backing liberals, R or D or other, simply arent christian. They are liberals.
Yes, a Republican can be a good Catholic. It’s actually a stupid question. If people had a clue, they would realize much of what the pope espouses is merely prudential opinion and is not binding on any Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.