Skip to comments.Pope Francis takes veiled swipe at ‘progressive’ Democrats
Posted on 11/26/2013 11:22:48 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
Pope Francis said Tuesday in his first apostolic exhortation that no matter how progressive-minded the world turns, the Catholic Church can never compromise on its no abortion rule its a matter of human dignity.
I want to be completely honest in this regard, he said, Catholic News Service reported. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or modernizations. It is not progressive to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.
The statement comes in sharp contrast to some in the political world, of mostly liberal and left-of-center progressive mind, who claim loyalty to the Catholic faith, yet refuse to denounce abortion as a matter of policy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, one of the most visible examples of such politicos, has advocated for years for the rights of women to abort to the point of even raising the hackles of one Catholic cardinal in September, who said the Democrat should quit taking Communion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
veiled? sounds pretty direct to me.
The Pope nails one out of the park!
God Bless Pope Francis!
Jesus revealed the nature of human dignity.
Abortion (and all that leads up to it, I venture) is against human dignity.
Considering the well known malfeasance of the leftists in Big Media ... that may very well be a “manufactured swipe” at conservative Republicans.
I think I’ll read what the man wrote; that should be more interesting that what a bunch of mediots wrote about what he wrote.
Unbridled capitalism is not capitalism. It’s capitalism with no morals.
The Church is not political and it does not operate in sound bites and headlines. It presumes that people will use judgment.
the preceding pope wrote Veritas in Caritas, a letter, Truth in Charity, wherein he explains the Church’s teaching on capitalism - that it is neither inherently good nor evil, but that it depends on moral behavior.
Surely you are not for cheating, lying and or stealing that some out of control business people partake in
Thank you for correcting the misconception that many will be operating under.
Metaphor mix of the week!
Nor is it "progressive" to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America from a place of individual freedom into one where imperfect persons in government rule over "the People," whose Constitution is "the People's law to restrain those very "transformers."
In fact, that "fundamental transformation" puts the U. S. back into the same or worse "old world" philosophy from which its brave Founders had escaped!
So-called "progressives" have turned upside down the philosophy of America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution, documents whose unique idea was a revolutionary governmental arrangement of Creator over People over Government--a concept which changed the world and resulted in a place where oppressed people from all the world sought refuge and opportunity.
Deliberately, and over decades totaling more than a Century, so-called "progressives," substituting their own arrogance for wisdom, are now turning the great American experiment into a Government over People, substituting themselves for the "Creator," and leaving what the Declaration of Independence called "Divine Providence" and "the Supreme judge of the world" out of the picture entirely.
Now, America can return to the heap of failed civilizations who did the same.
Unbridled capitalism is a liberal project. Which side are you on — and do you even know?
Maybe the new Pope IS still Catholic.
In the course of his research for "Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile" (Harper Collins), Joseph Pearch traveled to Moscow to interview the writer. The excerpt below is from that interview:
Solzhenitsyn: "In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion. Communist propaganda would sometimes include statements such as "we include almost all the commandments of the Gospel in our ideology". The difference is that the Gospel asks all this to be achieved through love, through self-limitation, but socialism only uses coercion. This is one point.Given the beliefs of America's Founders and the freedom of individual enterprise philosophy of their founding documents, the resulting society, in their view, would enjoy "ordered liberty"--not unrestrained by a sense of virtue and morality among the people, as is documented in their writings and speeches.
"Untouched by the breath of God, unrestricted by human conscience, both capitalism and socialism are repulsive."
Just a thought. . . .
The pope is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative. Same as a blue dog democrat.
Such a mix always results in more socialism.
The Pope hits one out of the woods?
If the church is not political why did the US bishops lobby for universal healthcare.
What was he doing in the woods? Determining what the bear was up to?
The Pope hits one from under the bus!
And there was a sister following him with a bad habit.
This defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.
Concerning capitalism, it is a Marxist word and construct, that we have incorrectly fallen into using, just like 'progressive' and 'liberal'. The Catholic Church has also succumbed to socialism's linguistic blitzkrieg. Only Marxists want to 'bridle' 'capitalism'. What they decry as capitalism is merely the natural order of things to the rest of us.
Short answer: they are not acting within the rules of the Church when they do so.
Because the USCCB allows themselves to act politically.
I have actually written to them on occasion requesting that they read the Catechism and other documents of the Church, and to quit acting outside of what the Church teaches.
They don’t listen to me.
They are the first to say they can’t preach from the pulpit on matters of politics, whom to vote for, and no anti abortion talk, certainly no anti birth control rhetoric.
So they pick and choose.
and they’ll have to answer for it.
Same as McConnell will have to explain why he didn’t protect and defend the Constitution, working to preserve this country for God, after swearing on a Bible to God that he WOULD do so.
The pope is a fiscal liberal?
From what source do you get your information?
It sounds like from a variation of school bus philosophy mixed with generational ignorant hatred.
Crack a book on the subject if you wish to opine.
pure bigotry, I assume.
Try stating a source for the information on the pope’s economic ideas, in his own words.
“Caritas in veritate” - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness
Some traditional habits are very bad if you’re out in the woods trying to find a bear ... or avoid one ... or avoid what he left behind.
Well, you are mistaken. The classical definition of liberal economics always included minimal regulation of free markets. This was understood as a more progressive, efficient, and scientific approach. The traditional conservative view was that established economic interests should be protected, to promote social stability. Most people calling themselves economic conservatives today would have found themselves solidly in the liberal camp 100 years ago. If heavily regulated markets seem unamerican, it’s mostly because America has always been a liberal project, with rare exceptions.
I agree. My observation was that the term "capitalist" is a Marxist concept. Classic liberals did not consider themselves "capitalists". Yes, today we would call classic liberals conservatives. Socialists stole the words "progressive" prior to WWI and "liberal" in the thirties as aphoristic fig leaves for their base intentions. When the Catholic church refers to "unbridled capitalism", "unfettered capitalism" and "progressivism", they demonstrate their need for a history lesson.
The term capitalism, in its modern sense, is often attributed to Karl Marx. In his magnum opus Capital, Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" and revealed its laws of functioning using a method of understanding today known as Marxism. However, Marx rarely used the term "capitalism", although it was used twice in the more political interpretations of his work, which were primarily authored by his collaborator Friedrich Engels.
I crack lots of books and I'll opine when I want to, thanks.
The pope is a fiscal liberal? From what source do you get your information?
The source is his own mouth. He called for guaranteed health care...a socialist position.
He also railed against the "autonomy of the markets". Our markets are highly regulated and NOT automonous. If the Pope really cared for the poor, he would be calling for more capitalism, not less.
The Catholic Church has seen ideologies come and go. She doesn’t need history lessons from Whigs and neocons.
Parochialism. Applying American MSM invented categories and euphemisms to the Pope is, besides playing the MSM's propaganda game, like applying the same buzzwords to some Amazonian tribe.
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world, he wrote. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.
He's speaking of Reaganesque lower tax rates. I see lower tax rates as bringing greater justice, the alternative is slavery. The pope doesn't see it that way. He has the liberal view on it.
I read the Pope's own words. He often mentions capitalism in a negative sense.
His recent statement did it again; he mentioned "the absolute autonomy of markets" as a cause for poverty.
Well, the markets are today highly regulated by socialist governments. They are in no way "autonomous" as the Pope claims. Why not decry the burdensome regulation as something which is blocking help for the poor? That would be a big help for those who are struggling.
Man, that is so blatant.
will inevitably bring about justice... outside of the US, as being too much to hope for.
That makes him economically liberal?
“He called for guaranteed health care...a socialist position.
He also railed against the “autonomy of the markets”. Our markets are highly regulated and NOT automonous. If the Pope really cared for the poor, he would be calling for more capitalism, not less.”
Any chance we could get a source and date on that?
Any chance we could get a source and date on that?
This explains nothing regarding your claim.
It certainly doesn’t answer my request for citation.
He chooses to decry "autonomy" rather than the heavy hand of Gov't which is what is blocking prosperity for the poor.
The quote is from the newly released Papal statement, the same one in which he bashes "trickle down" economics.
Religion is not necessary for capitalism and that's not a slam at religion which I respect deeply. Socialism is a system designed by man. Capitalism is not -- it is simply that which exists when free men meet each other to make mutually beneficial exchanges of their property.
Nothing more; nothing less. The esteemed Solzhenitsyn notwithstanding.
It shows nothing without a citation.
What is "unbridled" capitalism and which liberals do you speak of -- the classical liberals or the modern-day socialists who call themselves liberals?
If it's the latter, I should love to hear your reasoning.
Which side are you on and do you even know?
Well, I do know that markets are not tyrannical. If they are true markets, they can't be.
What are you talking about.
I cited the source which is what you asked for.
The newly released papal statement? What is the name of it. I what publication is it found in its entirety, in context?