Posted on 01/07/2014 11:51:33 AM PST by justiceseeker93
“Let us leave a spare place at our table: a place for those who lack the basics, who are alone.” - Pope Francis via Twitter January 7, 2014
In three short phrases, Pope Francis has once again taken the lead in advocating for economic justice and fairness. Where not long ago a battle raged over the growing and disproportionate wealth of the so-called “one percent,” the new 77-year old leader of the Catholic church has gained more support in nine months than the Occupy Wall Street movement or Fast Food Forward have in five years.
This new found papal popularity is not going unnoticed, especially in Washington, where lawmakers - particularly Democrats - are eager to to find fresh support for their core causes but also to counter their own lofty disapproval ratings. As my colleague Jeff Macke and I discuss in the attached video, the politicization of the Pope is real and cannot be ignored.
“It is not a surprise that the left and the right are now seeking openly to affiliate with this Pope,” Macke says, fresh from his own eye-opening trip to the Vatican.
In fact, a recent New York Times article quotes Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as saying “We have a strong ally on our side,” in reference to a raft of policy efforts in the works that coincide with the writings and teachings Pope Francis espouses.
Of course, his Holiness has numerous advantages over his elected counterparts when it comes to addressing issues such as income inequality or raising the minimum wage. Some would argue that as a foreign head of state representing a billion people (90% of which are not American), the Pope should not intercede in the U.S. political process. And yet, when the Pope includes the following four sub-titles in his most recent Exhortation, few dared to criticize his stance:
No to an economy of exclusion No to the idolatry of money No to a financial system that rules rather than serves No to the inequality which spawns violence
Even mainstream theories have been addressed in his short Papacy where he blasts “trickle-down economics” as being a factually unconfirmed belief. “This opinion,” the Pope writes, “expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power,” adding that “the excluded are still waiting.”
It’s important to note that all of this is happening at the exact time that the country is being forced to reconcile the fact that the original “War on Poverty” declared by President Johnson in 1964, is turning fifty, but that there’s still a lot more work to do. The White House has already tagged job creation and better wages as key areas of focus for the mid-term, and will surely give both prominent play in the upcoming State of the Union address.
To be sure, Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” is clearly popular and politicians of all persuasions are as eager to side with him as they are reluctant to stand against him, but it has yet to be seen if his message results in any actual legislative action.
Well put. The phrase "social justice" originated with Marx. The Biblical notion of justice is righteous justice.
Actually, taken by themselves those three short phrases could just as easily be interpreted to be advocating for Christian charity away from government influence.
The problem with this Pope is that he doesn't seem to come out and say that. He does, however, appear to side with left-liberal interpretations of charity, which is worrisome to conservative Catholics and conservatives as a whole.
Too often we hear how the Pope is mistranslated. I'd rather hear him come out and remind us all, in whatever languages necessary, that in John 21 Jesus is not talking to Pilate but rather to Peter, an admonition that the Christian is responsible for aid to the poor, not government.
That being the case, the Catholic spin on this ought to be that (ironically) the Pope himself is responsible for aid to the poor. Jesus did not say to Peter "please tell the others to feed My sheep"!
Corporate indemnification is the root problem. Get rid of that, or at least minimize it as much as possible, and economics will balance itself. And I mean both private and government incorporation.
The wealthiest areas in the country surround Washington, DC.
That would be true if the Rock upon which the Church was built was, in fact, Peter. But it wasn’t. The Rock is Christ, the Chief Cornerstone. Jesus was speaking to Peter as a follower, not as a leader.
I heartily concur!
What does that have to do with John 21?
Well now, that is so true! Good thinking. Thanks.
Maybe not exactly the wealthiest areas, but it's obvious that the economy of the DC area has shown much more growth than the country in general. We all know that the obvious reason for this is the growth of the federal bureaucracy and the tax dollars that support it.
His major ideas are not at all compatible with class warfare, Marxism and statism. He said --- to cook it down to its essentials --- that society is not an "atomized" collection of individuals, but a complex of various levels of voluntary sub-societies, with individuals being members of these. These voluntary sub-societies (he called them "consortia") include, most importantly, families, then neighborhoods, parishes, municipalities, also guilds, trades and professions, social and benevolent societies.
Taparelli said each level of society has both rights and duties which should be recognized and supported. All levels of society should cooperate rationally and not resort to enmities and conflict.
His major ideas revolve around sociality and subsidiarity. Sociality (some say "solidarity") in a just society, each person finds some area of society in which he can make a productive, constructive contribution, and share in the fruits of nature and of labor. Subsidiarity means that all responsibilities should be assumed by the smallest or most local unit possible: individuals, heads of families, churches, partnerships, enterprises, guilds. Only when a task was too great for local efforts should larger organizations (the city, the state) assume the responsibility.
This is the sense (Taparelli's sense) in which the Catholic Church in its official documents usually uses the term "social justice." This is often misunderstood because the Marxists also took over the term "social justice" to mean, perversely, the opposite: class conflict, abolition of private initiative, and the takeover of everything by the centralized State.
We shouldn't let the Marxists take over the language.
Just an aside, in my entire lifetime the only Americans politicians I have ever heard using the all-important word "subsidiarity," were Bob Dornan and Paul Ryan. As for Ryan, it's been over a year since I heard him say it!
Proper method.
In which case, that’s two more politicians than bishops who have ever used the word “subsidiarity.”
I kid.
But if the bureaucracy of the USCCB has ever belched forth a statement on federal policy or spending that upheld the principle of subsidiarity, I am unaware of it.
Some months ago, my brother counted about 130 policy positions on the USCCB website. The only ones about which a Catholic is not free to disagree flatly are those dealing directly with abortion, euthanasia, cloning, fetal research, and the like. Every other position is dictated by a knee-jerk bias toward more federal spending and more federal power—and therefore wrong.
The USCCB has been, on the whole, for almost 100 years, a gigantic and monstrously expensive exercise in the abuse of episcopal authority (and prestige, if that is still possible) in the service of the Democratic Party. The only thing good that can be said about it is that its influence is minimal and growing more so. The mindless Leftism and the staggering spending go on.
AND of course these progressives will listen to the pope when it comes to abortion and homosexuality.
That’s true. But when the Church in the U.S. was officially anti-Communist, so was the Democratic Party (though, like the Church, riddled with Reds).
And when the Democratic Party in the U.S. became Communist, so did the bureaucracy of most dioceses. The apparatchiks of the bishops’ conference and most dioceses campaigned tirelessly in support of Communists throughout Central and South America and every propaganda initiative of the Soviet Union.
If the most Catholic U.S. President in our history (Reagan) had paid any attention to the recommendations of the Catholic bishops, the Soviet Union would still exist, and we might not.
When a local Catholic woman documented the numerous Kerry (i.e., baby-killer) bumper stickers in the employees’ parking lot of the USCCB, the bishops took decisive action. They posted a guard at the gate of the parking lot.
If Jesus intended to refer to Himself, and NOT Simon, as the “Rock,” why did He change Simon’s name to “Rock”?
But in the US the Catholic church has historically been solidly in the corner of whatever rat is running. Only Reagan was able to break through that barrier.
Only the laity supported Reagan. The bureaucratic Church, and many, many bishops, have always supported the Democrat.
Archbishop Roach of Mpls-St. Paul hugged baby-killer Mondale in 1984, declaring, “This is the real pro-life candidate. He’s against nuclear war.”
Around the world, bishops and bishops conferences are spouting Statism, and have been for most of the past century. In such a world, every time the Pope mentions the poor, hungry, etc., and FAILS to SPECIFY that he is not urging the growth of the State, he is urging the growth of the State. This is precisely what this thread is about. The Abortion Party is snuggling up the Pope, and he is not swatting them away.
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.