Posted on 07/18/2009 5:55:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
ROME -- Some things are beyond parody. In announcing that Barack Obama is more Catholic than the pope, Newsweek takes the cake.
The piece, written by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for the magazine's Web site, in anticipation of last week's presidential-papal meeting, asserts: "(The pope and the president) politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's."
Townsend, like many a commentator, misses something essential: There is a truth to which the pope subscribes. The whims American Catholics confess to pollsters are another thing entirely.
Townsend argues that the pope needs to bend his ear to the poll results, and to ditch his Christian hope for Obama's brand of faith. Townsend ultimately wants to remake the Catholic Church so that it reflects her more liberal political agenda. In this regard, she is not unlike other American-Catholic politicians. (Townsend ran for governor of Maryland in 2002.) But in doing so, she puts aside the Church's commitment to truth.
Here, Townsend joins an Obama work already in progress. When Obama spoke at Notre Dame's commencement he declared, "The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen." It was his reworking of Hebrews 11:1, which reads, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith isn't a belief. It's a substance. It's evidence, as the words of Scripture say. As one priest wrote, after the speech, in his diocesan paper: "Faith leads not to doubt, nor merely to subjective conviction, but to objective truth discoverable through revelation and grace."
So when Catholics latch onto the Obama gospel, they're doing not only their Church but also themselves a disservice. If they're projecting their own personal and political wants onto the Church, they're rejecting their own integrity.
Townsend was far from alone in missing the point of the Obama-Benedict meeting and the new papal encyclical. The papal document "Charity in Truth" was released just days before Obama's visit and was widely described as the pope's embrace of global government. But his political guidance was not the heart of the matter -- and that's not me trying to make the encyclical mesh with my political philosophy. Taken in its entirety, "Charity in Truth" offers a view of today's world that is challenging for people of all political persuasions.
An honest reading of the encyclical is hard for right and left alike. I'm not comfortable with increasing foreign aid, redistributing wealth, and anything having to do with the United Nations. But if you went to National Review Online after the encyclical's release, you would have seen writers wrestling with the issues, reading and trying to understand the thinking behind this serious moral guide. And while we dealt with the text, the more mainstream headlines merely focused on what's "bad" for conservatives in it and suppressed what is challenging for the left. Newspapers everywhere ignored the pope's condemnation of the far too many international organizations that contribute to a culture of death (such as promoting contraception), as only one example.
As Kishore Jayabalan of the Roman office of the Acton Institute said, shortly after the Vatican press conference announcing the new encyclical: "Neither side . . . seems ready to take Benedict's theology -- his own field of expertise -- seriously. Part of this is a result of our habitual, liberal-democratic tendency to separate Church and State and not let theological arguments influence our politics. This tendency invariably blinds us to the pope's combination of respect for life with the demands of social justice. ... Reading 'Charity in Truth' for partisan purposes can yield moments of agony and ecstasy for left and right alike."
Newsweek will continue to find Catholics who will put a partisan spin on the pope and his teachings. The pope, meanwhile, will continue to provoke all of us -- and yes, sometimes even make us uncomfortable -- in the interest of truth.
Townsend, like many a commentator, misses something essential: There is a truth to which the pope subscribes. The whims American Catholics confess to pollsters are another thing entirely.
Townsend argues that the pope needs to bend his ear to the poll results, and to ditch his Christian hope for Obama's brand of faith. Townsend ultimately wants to remake the Catholic Church so that it reflects her more liberal political agenda. In this regard, she is not unlike other American-Catholic politicians. (Townsend ran for governor of Maryland in 2002.) But in doing so, she puts aside the Church's commitment to truth.
Here, Townsend joins an Obama work already in progress. When Obama spoke at Notre Dame's commencement he declared, "The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen." It was his reworking of Hebrews 11:1, which reads, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith isn't a belief. It's a substance. It's evidence, as the words of Scripture say. As one priest wrote, after the speech, in his diocesan paper: "Faith leads not to doubt, nor merely to subjective conviction, but to objective truth discoverable through revelation and grace."
So when Catholics latch onto the Obama gospel, they're doing not only their Church but also themselves a disservice. If they're projecting their own personal and political wants onto the Church, they're rejecting their own integrity.
Townsend was far from alone in missing the point of the Obama-Benedict meeting and the new papal encyclical. The papal document "Charity in Truth" was released just days before Obama's visit and was widely described as the pope's embrace of global government. But his political guidance was not the heart of the matter -- and that's not me trying to make the encyclical mesh with my political philosophy. Taken in its entirety, "Charity in Truth" offers a view of today's world that is challenging for people of all political persuasions.
An honest reading of the encyclical is hard for right and left alike. I'm not comfortable with increasing foreign aid, redistributing wealth, and anything having to do with the United Nations. But if you went to National Review Online after the encyclical's release, you would have seen writers wrestling with the issues, reading and trying to understand the thinking behind this serious moral guide. And while we dealt with the text, the more mainstream headlines merely focused on what's "bad" for conservatives in it and suppressed what is challenging for the left. Newspapers everywhere ignored the pope's condemnation of the far too many international organizations that contribute to a culture of death (such as promoting contraception), as only one example.
As Kishore Jayabalan of the Roman office of the Acton Institute said, shortly after the Vatican press conference announcing the new encyclical: "Neither side . . . seems ready to take Benedict's theology -- his own field of expertise -- seriously. Part of this is a result of our habitual, liberal-democratic tendency to separate Church and State and not let theological arguments influence our politics. This tendency invariably blinds us to the pope's combination of respect for life with the demands of social justice. ... Reading 'Charity in Truth' for partisan purposes can yield moments of agony and ecstasy for left and right alike."
Newsweek will continue to find Catholics who will put a partisan spin on the pope and his teachings. The pope, meanwhile, will continue to provoke all of us -- and yes, sometimes even make us uncomfortable -- in the interest of truth.
A pro abort adulteress decides who is more catholic???
Excuse me while I puke.
Next year, each person shall be asked to indicate a choice on their Federal Income Tax return.
Do you want your wealth redistributed?
If you answer "yes" then you owe the taxes indicated.
If you answer "no" then you owe no taxes.
So, I wonder how many Democrats/liberals would answer "yes."
Why these people get newsprint facetime as “Catholics” simply confirm the profound levels of editorial ignorance today.
Their public confessions of their belief deny their Catholicism...something only an ignorant or malevolent editor could deny.
“A pro abort adulteress decides who is more catholic?”
Yeah, I had some problems with this as well. This is just my own observation - and I am not RC: The Catholics who I know that attend Mass on a regular basis, and try to follow the teachings of the Church tend to be very socially conservative. I would hate for someone of my denomination, who never attends service, and outwardly rejects the doctrines which we hold true, be held up as example of what we all believe. I’m not trying to start a theological argument- just trying to be fair.-—JM
So if Obama is for you, who can be against you? Oh wait, that's not how it goes...
You got that right.
Fairness duly noted!
No, I don’t think you’re starting an argument there. As a Catholic, I take the very same position. I attend Mass. I believe. I take the Eucharist. I ignore the politics and sometimes I have to avoid other Catholics who want to discuss that sort of thing. It would suit me for the Church to more publicly and pointedly disavow people like the Kennedys who are, at least in my opinion, simply “political Catholics” for the sake of seeking the so-called “Catholic vote”. They succeed in doing so more on more on ethnic and traditional allegiances than on teachings or doctrines. So, no, I think you’re being fair.
Or anyone who professes Jesus Christ and also abortion are lying about one or the other, be they Protestant or Catholic.
I know very little about Judaism but would guess that Jews too are lying if they claim Judaism and think it's OK to murder babies.
JM ... you’re absolutely correct. I AM a Catholic and find it very hard to believe that someone would presume to publically speak for “American Catholics”. The liberals have infiltrated our Church in this country and are trying to twist scripture to fit their liberal beliefs. We had people like Susan Sarandon telling us during the election that Jesus was a “community organizer”. These Liberal Catholics aren’t the ones we’re seeing in the pews for daily (or even weekly or monthly) Mass.
Thank you, JM.
My heart just sinks when, in conversation, I hear some of my fellow Catholics talk about Obama. I realize I am talking to someone who is poorly educated about our faith and I become so discouraged by the fact that they think they are being so socially just (all the while they are actually doing wrong by supporting leftist policies). Where do you start?
I have found that many friends and acquaintances will turn their backs on you when they find out you are pro life.
In my opinion, so many women have had abortions now that a majority of people feel guilty when we talk about pro life issues. We are probably speaking to someone who has had an abortion or knows someone who did. This creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in their minds. We must remember this when we speak about abortion— we may be speaking to someone who had one and is trying to avoid the guilt.
For the people I really care about, I spell it out: you can’t be Catholic and pro abortion— or vote for anyone who is.
We are having the same trouble in our church. I don’t have a problem with someones political views - but I would suggest if you can’t abide by our interpretation of scripture or our doctrines - then perhaps you belong somewhere else. It is true enough I have a lot of questions, but my faith requires that I submit to scripture. I believe therein lies the rub - a lot of the “liberals” (not all) don’t want to submit. Christianity is not about us, it is about Christ - and our submission to him. To me personally, being a Christian is about worshiping the Risen Christ and being a servant to Him. It isn’t about me or my political agenda. This is just my view, I hope it hasn’t offended you or your faith in any way.-—JM
bookmark
Not being Catholic I make no claim to know what is or is not a “real” Catholic. But these people aren’t even Christians let alone Catholic or Protestant. Their belief systems seem to align more closely with the old pagan religions where there was a god for everything and you could pick and choose according to your personal preference. So you could practice according to the particular cult you ascribed to and claim the mantle of piety even if the practice was some perversion or degeneracy.
Liberals would have a BIG problem with John 3:30 - “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
You haven’t offended me or, I would say, any other true Catholics on here. You’re stating our common faith.
“you can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion...”
I don’t understand how anyone, regardless of denomination, can claim to Love and follow Jesus Christ and be pro abortion. Forgive me if that sounds harsh, but that is how I see it. If Christ is our example, can you imagine a situation where he would find abortion “acceptable”? If the scriptures are correct, and I believe they are, then we are created in the image of God. Doesn’t that make all life a gift from God? Are God’s gifts not sacred? I don’t know if you agree with my theology or reasoning - that is just how I view it.-—JM
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.