Posted on 04/11/2016 7:49:06 AM PDT by Salvation
The eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!
The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?
I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.
Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:
How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?
In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.
The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.
Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …
Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.
The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …
But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …
[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …
Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …
The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).
We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).
Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”
The Cardinal replies,
It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).
This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.
So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.
While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.
The word “arrogance” is derived from the Latin (a = not) + (rogare = to ask), which means “to not even bother asking.” We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.
We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.
Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).
I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.
See post #69. Complete with link. Have some read it to you
Good grief.
Apparently you are not reading the various posts. Go check the posts that were sent to ealgeone on the second Pope- Pope Linus in AD 67-76 and check out the line of succession. Of course, no one accepts you to consider this as proof even if a broad spectrum of distinguished historians, scholars, and theologians have done so including several such Protestants who converted to Catholicism.
What is apparent, is that many non-Catholics fish out of a pool of ant-Catholic diatribe written by folks, arm-chair internet theologians, whose works have never been peer evaluated for their historical authenticity but rather by stringing together disparate quotes and writings.
Even the early Church had discussions, disagreements and debates and these were finally settled by the doctrine of infallibility as given by Christ to Peter. This is a historical truth. To Elsie, this is all evidence of “confusion,” just as often as non-Catholics are hopelessly confused about the lives of individual popes with formal doctrine.
As Legatus doesn't want a wall of text I refer to the link.
Elsie has posted the comments from the ECFs that differ with catholicism on this issue.
If something were so clear as steelfish alludes to there wouldn't be this many disagreeing sources.
I'll say this. Keep your focus on Christ and you won't go wrong. Worship Him only. Rely upon Him only.
Then why do so many FR Catholics get away with "You are wrong" as their debating technique?
Really?
Assumption of Mary??
Mary was SINLESS?
It's not the wall, it's the lack of interaction. If we're just going to post links back and forth at each other there's no real point to being here. For instance I brought up the fact that the first signatures at Nicea after the emperor's theologian were the priest-representatives of the bishop of Rome: then everyone else (bishops and archbishops). Nobody at Nicea objected to this... and if there wasn't already SOME sort of Roman primacy you'd expect an objection.
The Church doesn't claim "it's always been the way it is today" because the Church (just like the mustard seed) had to "grow up" (as it were). Nicea had to be called because Arius and the Eusebian party were calling into question the Divinity of Our Lord (using Sacred Scripture as their warrant). Arianism, which was supposed to be put down at Nicea came back to bite the Church in the hindquarters for a long time to come, but I suppose that's a subject for another thread.
Nicea was called by the emperor who wasn't even baptised yet (because they even then believed baptism DID something) and signed off on by priests sent by the Bishop of Rome. What the objection, that a pagan emperor called the leaders of the Church together to iron out their conundrum?
Thank you for affirming that Rome has CLAIMED lots of stuff and the burden of PROOF is still on IT.
How do we KNOW it’s Peter in there?
Too bad the conversations that John had with angel; as recorded in Revelation chapters 1 thru 3; completely blow the 'infallibility' thing right out of the water!
And catholicism’s on encyclopedia admits there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. Yet Catholics continue to insist otherwise.
And catholicism’s on encyclopedia admits there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. Yet Catholics continue to insist otherwise.
Just because a council says it's ok doesn't mean it's ok. As a example the fifth Marian dogma is being pushed right now by some.
As measured against the Word it is a false teaching as are the other Marian dogmas.
I will have to read up on Nicea and all that happened there.
Right now I'm studying for My Old Testamemt Survey class.
This may be one of the most astounding sentences I've ever read on the RF, someone admitting that he doesn't know it all already. Kudos to you sir.
Oh and for goodness sake don't rely upon just one account, I recommend the wikipedia article on the council of Nicea as a good starting point. But don't stop there.
The Athanasian Creed
Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the CATHOLIC faith.
That just drives you nuts doesn't it?
That just drives you nuts doesn't it?
Probably because it's bogus.
Whoever wishes to be saved must have faith in Christ.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
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.