I was watching a panel on fox news last night when the name of Pope Francis came up.Along with the term social justice.The liberal guest said that the right should not wrap itself in selective quotes from scripture. Infuriated I mulled this over all night including the liberal acceptance(more or less)of Pope Francis because he appears-to them-to be more 'tolerant.'
First of all,am Catholic and have some knowledge of Church teaching,history and maybe even theology.Second of all, not seeing a cafeteria here would like to set the record straight. Pope Francis is neither Republican or Democrat,liberal or conservative.He's Catholic. PERIOD.
He is not going to change doctrine one iota.Tolerant,yes,meaning tolerant of people with all our flaws,sins and shortcomings.Nothing new under the sun.The Church has welcomed those from the beginning.Tolerant of evil? NEVER. The Church also has teachings on social justice but nowhere does it bless socialism or marxism. Pope Francis didn't condemn capitalism per se. The Church condemns any economic system that is utilitarian in its objectives-the Church is clear that economic and social systems MUST respect the dignity of the human person.The Catechism states:
"2536 The tenth commandment forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods: (2445)"Consider what the same section from the Catechism states:
"2539 Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin: (1866)
So the liberals who think the state has a right under the term social justice to take what is rightly earned by another person from another person-even the wealthy-they've missed the boat. Envy of what other people have and the theft of same is also a sin. Further the Catechism clearly draws a line when it comes to the state:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49 (1903, 2313, 450, 1901)
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well–founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. (2309)
Pope Francis has not tossed any of this out the window. The Catechism is the teaching of the Church. He's here to protect and defend it.He can certainly change the emphasis but he cannot and will not toss it out the window. What's happened here is the liberals have taken a few words and a couple of interviews and read something into them that isn't there. Suggestion:Dig deeper and understand.
He's not accepting same sex marriage or relations. He's not accepting abortion and immorality. We don't have to 'wrap ourselves' around scripture. We just need to do the same with scripture as we do with the catechism.Take it in toto. Yes,Jesus associated with sinners.That's all of us and that's what He came for.He also called sinners to repentance,conversion;a change of heart.
NOWHERE did Jesus ever say go and sin some more.Suggestion: be careful. If you accept the part of Jesus teachings where He commanded us to love neighbor as well as self,He also commanded us to love God. If you accept the part of the gospel where Jesus associates with sinners you also have to accept that He called all of those sinners to be saints, to be holy and to give up their sinful past.
We accept ALL of Jesus teachings not just the ones that suit an agenda,cherry pick and then twist His words to rationalize unacceptable behavior. If i remember correctly-and i know i do-the name of God was booed at the DNC convention. I'm not sure how any person who was Catholic who could even think of voting for a person supported by such a convention;especially when their candidate(OBAMA)attacked everything the Catholic Church has stood for. In fact,attacked the Church herself.
Finally I heard a Catholic commentator on Fox today and i couldn't believe my ears. He praised the charity of capitalism over the charity of the Catholic Church. I was thinking the moment i heard this,you must be kidding me. A Catholic-not outraged at him. Disappointed. I think we need to do an extra blog post this week and set the record straight.
I'm also going to put up a whole post on Church teaching re subsidiary. I've mentioned it before. We can delve into it again.
What are the current values of our secular culture?