Posted on 06/10/2014 10:24:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
My parents moved 900 miles away to get away from all of us.
This turned out to be a not very good idea, as after my mother died and my father's Parkinson's with dementia got worse, it eventually became necessary for him to move into my house for the last months of his life.
The last few years that he lived on his own were pretty nasty for him. I was grateful that he had a little time with us where he was properly-fed, bathed, groomed, was able to make all his doctors' appointments and get proper medical care, got a little bit of exercise, lose some weight, become generally ambulatory again, wasn't getting cheated by folks who cheat old people, and got tucked into bed by his family every night.
Things would have been better if my parents hadn't had this big hang-up about becoming dependent on their children. Taking care of one's parents when they get old and need the help is part of the Commandment.
sitetest
My father is in a comfortable Alheimers Care home, and my mother, who lives in an “Independent Living” building just up the road, sees him almost every day. It’s a lot of work for her, but more manageable than having him in the apartment with her 24/7.
Staffing in care facilities is a big problem, and only going to get worse. My #3 daughter likes being with old people, and I’ve suggested she get Certified Nursing Assistant training as soon as she’s 16, for guaranteed work at better than average pay. Why be camp staff for sub-minimum wage, when you can work at the rehab center two miles away?
I imagine that my older children, in their successful later years, will contribute monetarily, while Mr. Clingy lets me hang around his house doing needlepoint until liver failure gets me.
I have no problem with an obligation to remind the rich (and in America that covers a lot of territory) of their moral obligation to help the poor (tho in America that doesn’t actually cover much territory at all).But if you "remind” the “poor” (especially if broadly defined) of the obligation of the rich to help them, you are in class warfare, “community organizer" territory. And “community organizer” seems to be a pretty lucrative trade - but a trade in envy, which is not commended by the bible.
The state won't be able to do it either. Depending on the state instead of your own children means depending on other people's children. If they're not having children either, that leaves nobody for the state to tax.
What you've said is very interesting, and I'd like to explore it a little more.
In manner that somewhat perplexes me, the Holy Scripture --- both OT and NT --- relies a lot of the rhetoric of "the rich" vs "the poor". (If you are not convinced that this is quite true, please go to BibleGateway or similar and do a keyword search. Roughly 200 references, each, to "rich" and "poor," depending of course on the translation, and almost half of them remind everyone who can read it that the rich have an obligation to come to poor peoples' assistance.)
Tis failure to come to poor people's assistance is even grouped with unnatural lust, as in the case of Sodom: (Ezekiel 16:49) "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
It makes me uncomfortable: I feel (I confess) as if it's something that needs to be finessed, or even explained away.
Jesus goes even further, and says --- for instance, in the parable about the rich man and Lazarus, and in the account of the Last Judgment, Matthew 25 ---that if the rich neglect the needs of the poor, they will be damned to hell.
Note that in these passages, he's not condemning the more prosperous for any crime or fraud or aggression against the poor: just omission, indifference, "mere" neglect.
Mary's understanding of this "rich vs poor" thing makes most uncomfortable reading for me (Luke 1:52-53). It most resembles that class-conscious, community organizers' attitude you alluded to.
The more I dig into it, the more I find it disturbing.
This is not, of course, endorsing envy and resentment on the part of the poor, much less state socialism and so forth, which history has shown makes things much worse. But the uncomfortable implications of "rich" and "poor" are all there in the Bible to see --- and to be proclaimed to all nations!
Do you disregard these instances where the calling to celibacy is endorsed by Our Lord and by St. Paul?
Eunuchs were never permitted in the Ekklesia ! Have you ever read Deuteronomy 23 specially verse one.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
But according to Jesus, they’re permitted in the Kingdom of God!
‘Never called him a Marxist as that would entail atheism. I claimed he’s a socialist, and a wealth redistributionist whereby his upholding of the Commandments I mentioned is highly questionable.
I stand by what I wrote.
Thanks.
I live in L.A.
The archbishop for our diocese is Jose Gomez.
But it takes Eisgesis to read it that way.
That is one way to read it.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's
If the WORD of YHvH condemned it in
womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;
and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to
accept this, let him accept it."
Deuteronomy does it not remain true ?
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.