Posted on 03/15/2013 7:59:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The new Pope -- Francis not Francis I -- is a staunch supporter of the poor. This has led many liberals to lick their chops about how the new pope will condemn conservatives. They ignore the fact that it was Blessed Pope John Paul II who made popular the phrase "a preferential respect for the poor".
Aside from the fact that Pope Francis clearly declares that the holiest liberal sacrament, the untouchable third rail in liberal social circles, abortion, is a death sentence for the unborn, and that active homosexuality, another cornerstone of the liberal view of life, is a grave sin, the problem with the idea of Pope Francis championing liberalism is that he possess a completely different view of how poverty should be addressed.
Liberals view their charitable obligation as being fulfilled by supporting laws that take money from others and give that money to liberal politicians to redistribute as they wish; a concise definition of a liberal is someone who wants to be philanthropic with other people's money. Francis however believes in the obligation of everyone to voluntarily give of what is theirs to help the poor; that is Pope Francis believes we must be charitable with what is ours, not with what is our neighbors'.
While that certainly does not preclude the government taking a role in helping those in need, the Pope's position is worlds apart from the government centric and confiscatory perspective of liberals. When Argentina faced great economic problems, Pope
Francis did not present political solutions. Rather he and his brother bishops called the people to live by the teachings of Christ, to take individual responsibility for helping the poor. Working to change laws that discriminate against the poor or protect the rich can certainly be part of that responsibility,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exodus 23:
1“You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.2“You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice;3nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.
From the article:
When Argentina faced great economic problems, Pope Francis did not present political solutions. Rather he and his brother bishops called the people to live by the teachings of Christ, to take individual responsibility for helping the poor.
Working to change laws that discriminate against the poor or protect the rich can certainly be part of that responsibility, but laws are not the core of it.
Does everybody in the world have an opinion on our new pope?
I’m amazed at the interest in my church. Does a new head of any other denomination get such scrutiny from the public? I can’t imagine why anyone who isn’t Catholic is interested in what we do..........
He has strong influence over a huge voting bloc and many special-interest groups.
The non-catholic interest in the new Pope has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
Yeah, I like his views as presented in the article,
that he favors voluntary charity and not government redistribution to help the poor.
I found it odd, though, that Pope John Paul II would express a policy of preferential treatment of the poor when the Bible clearly states that this is wrong.
We should be interested in Roman Catholicism because over a billion people in this world are baptized Catholic.
The sheer size of that population makes what happens in the Vatican hard to ignore.
Liberals want the poor to remain poor, to use them politically. Conservatives want to eliminate the poor by having them move up to the middle class.
If people are hungry or homeless because of a natural disaster, then I am concerned. Especially for children. But if people are poor because of terrible personal habits, then I have little sympathy. I feel for families whose parents work hard but struggle to get things for their kids. However, to just give people things because others have more than they do is just as immoral as denying help to children who are suffering due to their awful parents.
“the holiest liberal sacrament, the untouchable third rail in liberal social circles, abortion”
Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. Consider teh following:
1. Welfare ‘mamas’ spawn huge numbers of ‘bachelor’s children’ with a cost to America of some one million dollars per bachelor’s child.
2. Every time an Urban Feral decides to abort, a million dollars is not billed to America’s taxpayers.
3. The abortion storm cloud has a silver lining - well, at least some redeeming social value.
It’s not like we all vote alike, or think the same on anything other than religion..........we are all individuals and don’t think a like on every subject, or vote alike or walk lock step in any situation but Canon law—and some, not even then.
Sickening.
My mind boggles to contemplate the evil behind that.
Jesus seemed very interested in the poor.
Read carefully - there is a difference between “interested in” vs “preferential deference”.
There was a book out a while back that said that the reduced crime rate in the 90’s was due to the abortion rates in the 70’s and 80’s.
Indeed, sickening.
And it all comes back to people controlling themselves sexually. No need for abortion if they do. Kids will be raised in two parent families because people keep sex in the context of marriage. Statistics show that these kids will NOT be criminals.
Liberals don’t view you that way. They see only voting blocks, flocks of sheep to be led to any various pen and kept there for the uses of the ruling class.
I believe you are misinterpreting that verse to make a point which is clearly at odds with the overall discussion of the poor in scripture.
The church is called to be preferential to the poor. Perhaps you are reading too much into the word “preferential.” It just means that we are to serve the poor and care for them. If it is not a priority of the church, the church isn’t following the gospel.
America's founding documents--had we not wandered so far away from their fundamental principles--were and are consistent with those teachings, confirming Creator-endowed rights to life and individual liberty, opportunity, and equality before the law.
Those principles, along with other "first principles" enable hundreds of millions of oppressed and "poor" individual from all the globe to exercise their "Creator-endowed" rights to achieve their own pathway to happiness.
The competing ideologies of today do not do so, but they require coercive exercise of power by charlatans who claim to "help the poor" while enslaving them.
“...abortion storm cloud has a sliver lining...”
That is why liberals love abortion and place the abortion mills in inner city often mostly black neighborhoods. Margaret Sanger was in favor of eugenics.
That is why the Church ALSO strongly supports marriage (between a man and a woman) so we aren’t faced with huge numbers of baby mamas and daddys supported by the taxpayer. The church is for the whole nondysfunctional type family and that is why it is socially conservative.
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.