|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 22, 2015 6:36:36 GMT -7
He has continually come out more and more political, and its mainly been antithetical against capitalism and Western society. Now he is down encouraging illegal immigration. How are the devout handling this?
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Aug 25, 2015 10:49:21 GMT -7
I think he's getting a bad rap with a press delighted to paint a picture of him as one who is making radical changes (read: liberal changes) in the Church. The press tells you he's against capitalism, but you can't seem to locate that exact sentiment anywhere in the text of what he actually says.
As regards capitalism, what Francis I has said is that he's against the kind of capitalism that is fueled by a desire for greed and control. Well think about that, isn't that what our own anti-trust laws are all about? Isn't that why some large corporations in our history have been broken up, because doing so removed the opportunity for them to own a particular market and charge whatever they wanted? Francis I is railing against the same thing. It's not mere capitalism that's the issue; it's greed and lust for power that causes a reduction in the dignity of the human person that is the issue.
He got a lot of positive press when he was asked about the issue of homosexuality and answered "who am I to judge?" Some of the more liberal types read this as the Pope rethinking the Church's stance on homosexuality, or at least taking a large step in that direction. But it was never that, it was only how the press interpreted what he said. He was speaking in the context of being a good pastor to the flock and emphasizing the same thing the Church has always taught; that every individual has worth and there should not be any category that is a "less-than." That was the context of his remarks... that homosexuals should never be viewed as having some lower worth. Who am I to judge is not saying God approves an ACT because the person's worth remains undiminished, and that is the mistake the media makes when trying to frame what he actually says. Many of them simply don't understand the Church's teachings to begin with, so it's not a surprise they offer his remarks as some sort of opposition to existing teaching. They aren't in opposition, and more to the point, the Pope doesn't have the authority to change any teachings, but he does have the authority to clarify new issues in light of those existing teachings.
Another example is the Pope's most recent encyclical, Laudato Si’. It was presented as the Pope turns tree-hugger and global warming enthusiast. But have you read it? I have, and I don't get that sentiment from it. Yes, he speaks of taking care of the planet, but once again it's a rehash of previously established points. Being careful with resources, taking care of resources such as waterways that provide drinking water to populations. How are doing either of those things the equivalent of a Sierra Club membership? They aren't. He's urging world leaders to consider things like where people get their water from when making decisions about commerce or commercial activities that potentially damage or diminish the quality of those sources. And he advocates for that consideration to be given more in favor of the people (who are often poor) than the almighty buck.
Last year the Bishops held a meeting at the behest of the Holy Father in order to examine better ways to minister to people. One such hard spot was those who divorce, because no divorce is recognized by the Church. Marriage isn't viewed as a commitment between man and wife, but instead is a covenant relationship between man, wife, and God. The wording in the Rite of Marriage is familiar to most: "What God has joined, let no man put asunder." It means exactly that. No man or woman may back out of that oath, and nothing on earth, no government, no court, can strip away that oath. The only thing that can undo a marriage is an examination of the facts surrounding the marriage and that examination finding a fault in the union itself. That's called an annulment, and what a decree of annulment says is that there was never any marriage in the first place because one party or the other entered into it with some degree of false pretense. Only the Church can grant an anullment, and it's not an easy process.
An example would be a person who was sterile and did not disclose that fact prior to the marriage. Another would be a person who marries and has no intention of honoring the part about being faithful to their spouse. They have, in effect, scammed the process, and thus render the entire thing invalid. A person with an annulment is not viewed by the Church as "divorced," they are viewed as having never legitimately married in the first place, even though it may be years after the wedding and they may have children.
Because a Catholic gets a civil divorce does not make them a sinner per se in the eyes of the Church. Only if they take up with another person or marry that other person are they considered to have separated themselves from the Church by nature of those actions. This means they cannot receive communion, and if they can't do that, many won't bother having anything to do with the Church at all. So one of the things Pope Francis asked the Bishops was to explore some ways that the Church can better minister to those folks. The press read it as the Pope asking them to come up with some way to make divorce okay, but it was never that. They are not free to change the teachings of the Church, so they can't even if that option was proposed.
The Church does not consider itself an interpreter of the laws given to it by God. It's more like being a mailman, where your job is deliver what's in the envelopes, not interpret them or alter them if you don't like them.
In conclusion, I'd say what Pope Francis is doing is trying a new, or different kind of outreach. That's why many of his early remarks were about being mindful of mercy and charity and bring those into the forefront in the everyday interactions between shepherd and flock. When I was teaching this stuff, I used to tell the kids that the Church doesn't hate homosexuals any more than they hate bank robbers or axe murderers. The consider the ACTIONS of each to be sinful, but they don't lower the value of the person to some kind of untouchable status because of their actions. The goal is, after all, to dialogue with people and get them to see how their actions fly in the face of what God wanted for all of us. That can't be done unless there is dialogue, and you can't have dialogue if people feel unwanted or hated. So what I hear Francis saying is stop emphasizing (note: not teaching) the bad stuff first because it is so off-putting. That makes sense to me. It's criticizing how to best be a shepherd rather than how to pummel the sheep when they stray.
I heard a good analogy once. If you took someone who didn't know anything about baseball and you wanted to share with them your love of the game and hoped they too, one day, would have a great love for the sport, you probably wouldn't do it by beginning with the infield fly rule. Sure, that's part of the game, but the game is much bigger than that. Start by watching the great plays, by going to a game in person rather than watching it on TV. In other words, show the beauty of the game and get that across before delving into the specifics of rare and particular circumstantial play rules. That makes a lot of sense to me too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Aug 25, 2015 16:54:13 GMT -7
So its lost in translation basically.  |
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Aug 26, 2015 13:17:45 GMT -7
Yes that's a good way to put it. It's precisely the same thing we see when some local news station decides to do segment on the dangers of the evil, black assault rifles. They end up making ridiculous claims and asserting qualities to the EBR as if they are present only in that particular format/shape and not present in any other. They'll tell you how evil the AR is while assuring everyone that a mini-14 is perfectly fine because it has a valid use "on a ranch." They'll never tell you they use the same round and always show you the wooden stock version of the Ruger, never the "tactical" versions.
The cause of the confusion is a lack of understanding on the part of the people doing the reporting. That's why we never see someone with a background in firearms making those kinds of claims in the media, and likewise, we never see anyone with a background in Catholic church teachings making the same claims as some CNN reporter. They both report on what they think they know rather than from a perspective of real understanding. It's a lot easier to say the Pope is "against capitalism" than to actually read the document and make a few calls asking people who DO know what this or that means. In fact, with Laudato Si' you really don't have to do much more than read it; it doesn't take a theology degree to recognize the target is greed and lust versus earning a profit.
Some things in life are just wrong. If a person started up a business selling child porn, he could make the same claim as the fellow who set up an eyeglass shop... that he's just trying to earn a living and put food on his family's table. Well there's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with the means used to earn those dollars. Expanding the same thought to larger scale businesses, when a large corporation does legitimate manufacturing but then dumps its wastewater on the sly in an effort to save money (while potentially poisoning or causing illness to local populations), then it's wrong. That crosses the line of putting love of money above human dignity. The Pope would have issue with them. If they disposed of their waste carefully though it hit their bottom line, he wouldn't have a problem with them.
Those of a more liberal bend really don't want that kind of clarity just as the anti-gunners don't want anyone to know how easy it is to change magazines when they're trying to limit capacity to 10 or 5 or whatever. Those who already don't like corporations just because they're big and powerful want to use the Pope's message (as misinterpreted and simplified) to back ideas like McDonalds ought to pay entry level positions $15/hr. So it's best from their position to not explain the details, just let people who aren't going to intellectualize what they hear or read to go along believing the Pope is all for it too.
There are two issues and only two issues that liberals in and out of the Catholic church are uncomfortable with. First is contraception/abortion and the other is homosexual acts. Liberals in society have already embraced those things and generally hold the opinion that the Catholic church is stuck in some past century and would be okay if they'd just throw out these medieval rules and such. What they either fail to understand or fail to accept is that the church has no power to do that. They hold the false idea that the church is like a corporation with the Pope as the CEO and the Bishops are VPs or general managers, and as with a corporation, they are free to change the rules. But the Church is not like that. Their teachings don't come from the minutes of some board meeting, they come from the teachings of Christ himself and those few that were his close followers.
While unsure of the exact date, most scholars agree that the Didache dates to the middle to late 1st century. People were still alive who lived during the events of Christ's life. The Didache (greek meaning: teaching) is a collection of teachings directly from the Apostles who spent every day for three years with Christ. Here is one sentence from it:
There it is in black and white, right from the 1st century, about not killing a child born or unborn. So how exactly is the Church supposed to change their view on killing the unborn when for two thousand years they have believed it to be a sinful act? Are they supposed to suddenly reject some Apostolic teachings while embracing others? And if they did that, what would that make them other than hypocrites? Do they really expect Francis I to issue some kind of decree saying abortion is suddenly okay and that the Apostles who walked with Jesus had it all wrong? Really?
The modern liberals cannot deny this teaching shown above. The document is authentic. The teaching is what it is. So they'll leave this stuff to one side and not talk about it, taking the tact of using Old Testament teachings and punishments from the book of Leviticus as the fulcrum upon which the issue is balanced. That's why they'll ask a Republican candidate if he agrees adulterers ought to be stoned to death as Leviticus proscribes instead of asking them if an adulterer ought to repent and seek forgiveness as the Didache would teach. It's a lot easier to sell their ideas using BS instead of the truth.
|
|
