Obama meets the Pope.
Posted on 07/18/2009 5:55:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
ROME -- Some things are beyond parody. In announcing that Barack Obama is more Catholic than the pope, Newsweek takes the cake.
The piece, written by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for the magazine's Web site, in anticipation of last week's presidential-papal meeting, asserts: "(The pope and the president) politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's."
Townsend, like many a commentator, misses something essential: There is a truth to which the pope subscribes. The whims American Catholics confess to pollsters are another thing entirely.
Townsend argues that the pope needs to bend his ear to the poll results, and to ditch his Christian hope for Obama's brand of faith. Townsend ultimately wants to remake the Catholic Church so that it reflects her more liberal political agenda. In this regard, she is not unlike other American-Catholic politicians. (Townsend ran for governor of Maryland in 2002.) But in doing so, she puts aside the Church's commitment to truth.
Here, Townsend joins an Obama work already in progress. When Obama spoke at Notre Dame's commencement he declared, "The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen." It was his reworking of Hebrews 11:1, which reads, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith isn't a belief. It's a substance. It's evidence, as the words of Scripture say. As one priest wrote, after the speech, in his diocesan paper: "Faith leads not to doubt, nor merely to subjective conviction, but to objective truth discoverable through revelation and grace."
So when Catholics latch onto the Obama gospel, they're doing not only their Church but also themselves a disservice. If they're projecting their own personal and political wants onto the Church, they're rejecting their own integrity.
Townsend was far from alone in missing the point of the Obama-Benedict meeting and the new papal encyclical. The papal document "Charity in Truth" was released just days before Obama's visit and was widely described as the pope's embrace of global government. But his political guidance was not the heart of the matter -- and that's not me trying to make the encyclical mesh with my political philosophy. Taken in its entirety, "Charity in Truth" offers a view of today's world that is challenging for people of all political persuasions.
An honest reading of the encyclical is hard for right and left alike. I'm not comfortable with increasing foreign aid, redistributing wealth, and anything having to do with the United Nations. But if you went to National Review Online after the encyclical's release, you would have seen writers wrestling with the issues, reading and trying to understand the thinking behind this serious moral guide. And while we dealt with the text, the more mainstream headlines merely focused on what's "bad" for conservatives in it and suppressed what is challenging for the left. Newspapers everywhere ignored the pope's condemnation of the far too many international organizations that contribute to a culture of death (such as promoting contraception), as only one example.
As Kishore Jayabalan of the Roman office of the Acton Institute said, shortly after the Vatican press conference announcing the new encyclical: "Neither side . . . seems ready to take Benedict's theology -- his own field of expertise -- seriously. Part of this is a result of our habitual, liberal-democratic tendency to separate Church and State and not let theological arguments influence our politics. This tendency invariably blinds us to the pope's combination of respect for life with the demands of social justice. ... Reading 'Charity in Truth' for partisan purposes can yield moments of agony and ecstasy for left and right alike."
Newsweek will continue to find Catholics who will put a partisan spin on the pope and his teachings. The pope, meanwhile, will continue to provoke all of us -- and yes, sometimes even make us uncomfortable -- in the interest of truth.
Townsend, like many a commentator, misses something essential: There is a truth to which the pope subscribes. The whims American Catholics confess to pollsters are another thing entirely.
Townsend argues that the pope needs to bend his ear to the poll results, and to ditch his Christian hope for Obama's brand of faith. Townsend ultimately wants to remake the Catholic Church so that it reflects her more liberal political agenda. In this regard, she is not unlike other American-Catholic politicians. (Townsend ran for governor of Maryland in 2002.) But in doing so, she puts aside the Church's commitment to truth.
Here, Townsend joins an Obama work already in progress. When Obama spoke at Notre Dame's commencement he declared, "The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen." It was his reworking of Hebrews 11:1, which reads, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith isn't a belief. It's a substance. It's evidence, as the words of Scripture say. As one priest wrote, after the speech, in his diocesan paper: "Faith leads not to doubt, nor merely to subjective conviction, but to objective truth discoverable through revelation and grace."
So when Catholics latch onto the Obama gospel, they're doing not only their Church but also themselves a disservice. If they're projecting their own personal and political wants onto the Church, they're rejecting their own integrity.
Townsend was far from alone in missing the point of the Obama-Benedict meeting and the new papal encyclical. The papal document "Charity in Truth" was released just days before Obama's visit and was widely described as the pope's embrace of global government. But his political guidance was not the heart of the matter -- and that's not me trying to make the encyclical mesh with my political philosophy. Taken in its entirety, "Charity in Truth" offers a view of today's world that is challenging for people of all political persuasions.
An honest reading of the encyclical is hard for right and left alike. I'm not comfortable with increasing foreign aid, redistributing wealth, and anything having to do with the United Nations. But if you went to National Review Online after the encyclical's release, you would have seen writers wrestling with the issues, reading and trying to understand the thinking behind this serious moral guide. And while we dealt with the text, the more mainstream headlines merely focused on what's "bad" for conservatives in it and suppressed what is challenging for the left. Newspapers everywhere ignored the pope's condemnation of the far too many international organizations that contribute to a culture of death (such as promoting contraception), as only one example.
As Kishore Jayabalan of the Roman office of the Acton Institute said, shortly after the Vatican press conference announcing the new encyclical: "Neither side . . . seems ready to take Benedict's theology -- his own field of expertise -- seriously. Part of this is a result of our habitual, liberal-democratic tendency to separate Church and State and not let theological arguments influence our politics. This tendency invariably blinds us to the pope's combination of respect for life with the demands of social justice. ... Reading 'Charity in Truth' for partisan purposes can yield moments of agony and ecstasy for left and right alike."
Newsweek will continue to find Catholics who will put a partisan spin on the pope and his teachings. The pope, meanwhile, will continue to provoke all of us -- and yes, sometimes even make us uncomfortable -- in the interest of truth.
And the Kennedy’s wonder why they are cursed.
You sound a bit like me.
Born Catholic, married into Lutheran (assured they were almost the same).
Yeah. Lutherans are Catholics without the “red tape” ie, no hard and fast REAL guidelines. Kinda like the notion of the “living and breathing Constitution.”
I no more want a living and breathing Constitution, than I want an IRS code, an employment contract, a divorce decree, or an extended warranty to be “living and breathing.”
I prefer my documents “dead” if you know what I mean.
You address and acknowlege him as the Pope.
In my reply at #20, I seemed to have forgotten my humility and compassion. While I don’t believe Christ would ever condone abortion, he would certainly have compassion for those poor girls who have had one. In my haste and self righteous pride, I have forgotten that I was once in the muck of my own sin, and Christ in his Mercy and Love pulled me out. Please forgive my harshness. As a Christian, I am to speak truthfully - but I am also admonished to be Loving,Compassionate and Merciful. I failed in that regard, and I ask for forgiveness.-—JM
*********************
This is an exceptionally well written article, Kaslin. Thanks.
More than fair, Jubal.
Obama meets the Pope.
Your expereinces match mine to a T. Except for the fact that I am Catholic. The people I see every Sunday at church are the most socially conservative I know.
Adultress? Spill, please!!!! I thought she had gone away permanently - to continue burying her placentas from all her children - YUCK!!!!!!
I had a funny sense of deja vu reading this.
The Pope's view is closer to God's. Now...who exactly, is going to be judging everybody on Judgment Day???
God is separating the wheat from the chaff. The world hated Jesus, and they will hate us, too.
I believe in CHOICE.
Yes, the Right of the Foetus/Fetus to CHOOSE whether to be born alive or to die in utero of spontaneous abortion.
No one has the right to interfere with the Foetus’ right to choose.
And no Foetus is going to come out feet first with a sign on the nape of it’s neck that reads “puncture here and suck out my brains.”
LET THE FETUS (FOETUS) CHOOSE BETWEEN LIFE AND SPONTANEOUS ABORTION (MISCARRIAGE). FETAL CHOICE IS THE CORRECT CHOICE. TAKE THE GUILT AWAY FROM THE MOTHER-TO-BE, ALLOW THE BABY-TO-BE TO DECIDE LIFE OR NOT.
I guess you might call that an opinion from the "Lay-ity".
Count on the Kennedy’s to sneak attack bebe Cuomo as he runs for Gov. of NY
Sharpton has already claimed Cuomo is a racist for running against Patterson.
I don't wish to muzzle any individual Catholic's (even a Kennedy) opinion on matters. I just hope she carefully considers that the definition of sin is a revealed truth not a tracking poll. And that while no human (except Christ) can totally avoid sin, intentionally (mis)leading the faithful away from truth is a mega-sin.
In an analogous way, Obama is the source of the corruption of individual Christian souls in a more non-denominational way. A misguided portion of the whole Christian flock are being led to believe, in direct opposition to God's revealed truth, that somehow theft is now equal to Christian compassion. That if we just authorize someone in government to do the stealing on our behalf, then we can have the best of both worlds - no commandment breaking directly by us and yet we can claim Christian "charity" by giving via proxy to others what was never actually ours.
That is a lie. And one more subtly deceptive than even those whispered to Eve in the garden. Obama and his socialist compassion thieves take from us the blessings with which we could bless others of our own choosing and they spend it according to their morally decrepit desires. And do so while claiming an ethical high ground which, in reality, is built on sand. Those who fall victim to such thinking and support such evil are in very serious danger of losing their seat at the great and none too distant wedding between the faithful and the Messiah spoken of in parables not understandable to the weak in faith. Those folks will be, as prophesied by Christ, shocked and mortified when He slams the door in their collective face and proclaims "I never knew you."
Those who profess a faith in God would do well to remember that Satan does not often drag folks down with him by convincing them to do what they know to be evil. He does it by convincing them that what God defines as inherently evil is actually somehow good.
According to the Catholic Church, a Catholic must:
1) Be baptised
2) Have confirmed the baptisimal oaths in adulthood
3) Accept the totality of Church teachings, dogma and revelation
4) Go to confession regularly and as necessary
5) Attend Mass weekly & on Holy Days, where 2, 3, & 4 are reaffirmed, and a Catholic receives the Sacrament.
If any of these steps are not taken, a person ceases to be a Catholic, but may or may not call himself a "lapsed Catholic," if he chooses.
You either practice a religion, or you do not practice a religion, but if you are making up your own rules, then you are obviously practicing your own personal made-up religion.
I do agree with your reasoning. Anyone who really knows Christ cannot support abortion.
The problem is that so many people confuse the right to have an abortion with social justice issues. In their rush to support the poor and downtrodden, they hesitate to tell them how to live.
Some studies indicate that a surprisingly large number of women have had abortions. My point is that when we are having discussions with women on this subject, we should keep in mind that they may have made that sad choice and have very complex feelings about it. We have to change their minds and hearts in a way that can reach them. It is a very difficult thing to do- precisely because most do have guilt about what they did but don’t want to admit it. That’s not a very enlightened and modern reaction in today’s secular world!
I thank you for your well written and thoughtful comments.
“God is separating the wheat from the chaff.”
Very true. It is hard when some of those that hate us are our nearest and dearest; but I’m sure St. Paul and many of those who followed Christ also experienced it. That is some comfort.
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.