Posted on 01/12/2014 8:09:14 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
In 2005 I was invited to Rome by the BBC to provide commentary for the events surrounding the death of Pope John Paul II and the subsequent conclave that would elect Joseph Ratzinger as Benedict XVI. On the day the cardinals entered the conclave, I was on camera with the veteran BBC correspondent Brian Hanrahan (who died in 2010) and who seemed incredulous that the College of Cardinals might elect Ratzinger who had just given a memorable homily to the cardinals in which he decried the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Could so narrow-minded a man, I was in effect asked, become pope?
I argued that Ratzinger was well-known to each of the cardinals and that, he more than any other, had the best chance of being elected. I allowed, however, that perhaps “a friendlier version” of Ratzinger could be elected, and speculated that perhaps this might be “Bergoglio of Argentina.” I was about eight years off.
So, on a rainy March evening in Rome last year, finding myself unexpectedly once again present for a conclave, I was familiar with the man who would walk on to the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica. Nonetheless, this pope of many firsts (the first to take the name Francis, the first Jesuit, the first from the Americas) was ready with a number of surprises of his own. For those of us who follow the papacy, Pope Francis provides a constant stream of material for reflection.
For commentators accustomed over the past 30 years of explaining the meaning of dense theological and philosophical magisterial texts which were the norm prior to this pontificate, the simplicity and spontaneity of Pope Francis’ style can be confusing and somewhat deceptive.
Whereas his predecessor had largely taught in very precise words and nuanced argument, Francis speaks boldly through effective and moving gestures. One tender and manifestly genuine embrace of a deformed man is worth an entire encyclical on love. And in the age of the Internet, it is more instantly accessible to millions of people.
It is no surprise that the man who took as his model and name the model of il poverello of Assisi would place the poor as a central concern of his pontificate: their dignity, their rights and their sustenance. Yet, the spontaneous gestures and the impromptu manner in which they are displayed ought not to beguile us into thinking this pope is offering a superficial dichotomy between left and right; between capitalism and socialism. To think that any pope, but especially this pope, is animated in his concern for the poor and vulnerable by a particular political ideology is to miss him completely.
While renouncing the notion that the market alone is sufficient to meet all human needs, Francis is also prepared to denounce a “welfare mentality” that creates a dependency on the part of the poor and reduces the Church to the role of being just another bureaucratic NGO. The complexity of his thought surprises some, on both the Right (some of whom worry, needlessly, that he is a liberation theologian) and the Left (who are already using his words to foment a political “Francis Revolution” in his name). Such tendencies reveal a rather anemic understanding of this man but also of Catholicism, which has historically been comfortable balancing the tensions of apparent paradoxes (Divine/human; Virgin/Mother; etc.). It is too facile a temptation to collapse 2,000 years of tradition, commentary and lived experience into four or five politically-correct hot button sound bites that are the priority, not of the Church, but of propagandists with an agenda.
If one wants to understand Francis’ thinking about the poor, it would be good to look objectively at his much talked about, but little-read Apostolic Exhortation, “The Joy of the Gospel.” It soon becomes apparent that much of this Exhortation is an extension of a keen insight that Jorge Bergoglio had when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires:
"We cannot respond with truth to the challenge of eradicating exclusion and poverty if the poor continue to be objects, targets of the action of the state and other organizations in a paternalistic and aid-based sense, instead of subjects, where the state and society create social conditions that promote and safeguard their rights and allow them to be builders of their own destiny." -- Abp Bergoglio, 2009
As one who has promoted a free economy as a normative way to assisting people out of poverty, I find two innovative challenges in these words which could go a long way to depoliticizing the debate about wealth and poverty.
Imagine if all of those presently engaged in the debate on these matters began to ask questions such as, “What excludes the poor from the process of prosperity?” or “What would a society look like that no longer considers the poor as objects of paternalistic aid but rather as potential shapers of their own destiny?”
The particular details of policy prescriptions are not the heart and soul of Francis’ incredible attraction on the part of people throughout the world. It is not his political motivation that moves us as we witness his embrace by — and of — frail human life.
In a monumental and unanticipated way Pope Francis is changing the tired conversations of the past and inviting us to engage in a process of healing so desperately needed in our world today. Almost single-handedly he is changing the way in which people view Catholicism, not by changing Catholicism, but by retrieving many of its own treasured traditions and putting them out front.
His strategy comes from his view of the Church and it is not secret. It is simple, and he stated himself clearly. He sees the Church as a field hospital after a battle.
“The thing the Church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful,” he said. “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds.”
Heal the wounds, yes. And then awaken society to the greatest resource of all: the human person. That is the path out of poverty.
Ping
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." Solzhenitsyn
In America, the current President, at a National Prayer Breakfast, attempted to tie his policy of forced "sharing," to Jesus's appeal for voluntary individual charity, seeming to appropriate the words of Jesus for his Administration's "redistributionist" policies.
Coercive "taking" power, when wielded against the citizenry by either the government alone (taxing), or in combination with another power (unions or special interests), is destructive of individual liberty and prosperity.
Thomas Jefferson, that former President the Left loves to quote when they try to exclude references to "God" from the public square, wrote extensively about the superiority of the philosophy of Jesus, but we never hear about that from the Left.
The same Jefferson who penned our Declaration of Independence wrote that Jesus "preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence," that "a system of morals is presented to us [by Jesus], which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man."
He wrote, "His moral doctrines...were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers...and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants, and common aids" which, Jefferson said, "will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."
Comparing the Hebrew code which, according to Jefferson, "laid hold of actions only," "He [Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."
That Jefferson cut out the statements which could be directly attributable to Jesus, pasted them into a little book which he kept by his bed and read from them daily, attests to the fact that his political philosphy may have been influenced by what he considered to be the superiority of the "philosophy" of Jesus.
His devotion to liberty and to the ideas essential to liberty were based on simple principles, some of which, undoubtedly, came from his understanding of the basic law underlying all valid human law: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As Jefferson stated it, "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
Jefferson seemed to understand that the philosophy capsulated in those ideas has the power to make people in a society more benevolent, more loving, more caring, and more willing to take care of each other voluntarily.
As you may know, historic Christianity has long considered the "Four Sins That Cry Out to Heaven" to be--- based on Scripture ---
It seems to me that this "defrauding workers" is not just a sin of a rapacious employer, but also of a coercive government agency, Union, or other entity which uses force or the threat of force to steal the honest wages of a working person.
In other words, excessive taxation, confiscatory fines for dicey reasons (e.g. dubious eEPA violations) and coerced payments for stuff like Union dues or Obamacare--- are all examples of "defrauding workers of their just wages." They are injustices that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
.
Well, if I considered the Pope to be merely a holy person, and having no particular claim to infallibility, I could easier dismiss his grasp for an alternative to communism during the 1930s as simply an error. Many good people make mistakes. So, faced with the choice of fascism versus communism, the Pope went with fascism. Then, the alliance of the fascists and communists under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact must have been quite scary to those who thought the choice was fascism or communism. As who would have given the Democratic countries of the world a chance? And, then there was all that untidiness of genocide and aggressive war perpetrated by the fascists. Not that the Pope endorses those things. He wanted the good kind of fascism.
The Catholics, yes, have been having a hard time these past couple hundred years. During the 19th century, it was the twin evils of liberalism and socialism. Between these two evils, the Catholics choose monarchy. (We, in the U.S., chose liberalism.) Then, during early part of the 20th century, it was choosing between fascism and communism, between which they choose fascism (and we chose to be the arsenal of democracy).
During the late part of the 20th century, it seemed as though the Catholics passed through Democracy (without concern for Constitutional safeguards, since if we presume that people have good intentions we can dismiss the law of unintended consequences) to Liberal, Democratic Capitalism. Then, it was back to Democracy. And, then came a recession (due to the rapaciousness of Wall Street, so we are told, because we know the government could not have been guaranteeing zero-down, no paperwork mortgages) and, well, some people are unable to remain faithful through the hard times. So, now the Catholics seem to be back to defining their position as in-between liberalism and socialism.
There have always been liberals in the Catholic Church. Erasmus and Lord Acton come immediately to mind. During Vatican II, the American Catholic Michael Novak was quite influential. And, of course, John Paul II, John Paul the Great. I think Cardinal Dolan put it well when he said that of the current and past two Popes, we see three honored traditions with the Catholic Church: Aquinas (JPII), Augustine (BXVI) and St. Francis of Assisi. But, if were all to follow St. Francis in his way, we would soon die for lack of bread. Not that it would be a bad thing, were we all to die, starving to death, while loving each other. But, then where would the government get all the stuff that Pope Francis says are supposed to be everybody’s right?
Whoever told you the Pope claimed to be infallible on the subject of economics?
Where did you get that impression?
The Pope is claiming to be writing on matters of faith and morals.
The way you ask the question is disrespectful to the Pope. The way you ask the question implies that the Pope is not infallible about economics but simply doesn’t know the difference between economics and matters of faith and morals when he issues statements that are infallible. Certainly, the Holy Spirit is not going to have the Pope play the fool by not knowing the limits of his authority and leaving it for the faithful to discern the infallible part from the not infallible part in his teachings.
The Bible describes various forms of greed, one of which is rapaciousness. There is greed that involves wanting stuff without working for it. Simple laziness (sloth). But, this is mostly a self-victim crime. For this to work, you’d need an enabler. The State can be an enabler. And this would be wrong.
Then there’s a more pro-active form of greed, which is rapaciousness. This leads to lying, cheating, and stealing. You give the example of paying workers less than the agreed-upon wage. This is an other-victim crime and is a proper concern of the state. The Pope seems to think this is controversial. As though there are some people who are o.k. with dog-eat-dog style capitalism. I don’t know any capitalist who describes dog-eat-dog capitalism to be capitalism. We call that anarchy. It is a bogeyman concept employed by critics of capitalism.
Especially, the state is to protect the vulnerable among us from the liars, cheats, frauds, thieves and other criminals. I’m not sure “the vulnerable” should be synonymous with “the poor.” By “the vulnerable,” I mean children, those enfeebled by old age or disability, those of limited intelligence, of poor habits, and having other human frailties.
Perhaps most people can take care of themselves in the rough and tumble of the marketplace, but I don’t think anybody thinks everybody can. There are roles, then, for the State, the family, and for the church and other fraternal and charitable associations in a free society. In contrast, with socialism, we are atomized, and without need of family, church or other forms of free association.
Re-read the text I quoted, the author states the right think he’s a liberation theologist and the left are “using his words to foment a political “Francis revolution” in his name”. All the leftists I know (and I know a lot, living in New Jersey) think Francis is a real lefty, which they love. I hope the post you pointed to is right and he’s going to surprise them all someday soon.
I like it. I’ve already said I don’t think Pope Francis is coming at this ideogically, definitely not in the context of our domestic politics. It’s encouraging to know Father Sirico is on the same wavelength.
As part of the RCIA program, we’ve been encouraged to read Evangelii Gaudium. I’m a good way through it, and it’s interesting to note how small a part of the whole thing the controversial parts actually are. The economic discussion is very much secondary to, and intended to be at the service of, the matter of how we get the Gospel out to the world.
According to Canon law (says Cardinal Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura --- equivalent of Chief Justice of the Catholic Supreme Court) --- an "Apostolic Exhortation" is not part of the Papal Magisterium. In simpler terms, nothing in Pope Francis' recent Evangelii Gaudium is infallible, nor is claimed to be, nor is intended to be.
I don't think you'll fins any Catholic anywhere who would consider the 55,000 words of Evangelii Gaudium to be infallible. This is simply not the format in which ex cathedra statements are made.
Hope this is helpful. I'll be back later this morning.
It is as important to know why I believe as to know what I believe. This involves the virtue of humility, realizing that I just might be wrong.
John 18:36
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
These are hard words. His Apostles could not understand them. Peter proved that when he fought in the garden when they came to arrest Him.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
It is easy for me to see the foolishness of others. It is hard for me to see my own.
Yes, there are degrees of infallibility and short of the Pope and the Bishops speaking in unison and when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, there is room for disagreement. See the first three lines of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium
As you say, when the Pope speaks on his own, without the bishops, other than when he is speaking ex cathedra, he is not infallible; nevertheless, it is authoritative and while Catholics do not have to accept it, they do have to submit to it. See the fourth line.
Father Z gives a listing that includes Apostolic Exhortations in its proper order with regard to degree of authority:
http://communio.stblogs.org/index.php/2013/11/what-is-an-apostolic-exhortation/
I believe all this is consistent with what you say, and adds that Papal statements that are not the highest level of infallible are nevertheless authoritative.
Clearly, aside from the highest levels of statements, the English language understanding of “infallible” is inappropriate. I sometimes use the expressions “degrees of authority” and “degrees of presumption,” as opposed to degrees of infallibility.
Yes, some humility is being tested of us American Catholics, by our Holy Father. Absolutely. Read where he has even been called a “scold”. LOL.
Certainly, I am being tested, but happy to report that I see Jesus of Old in the Holy Father’s gestures and actions, not the Jesus of milquetoast and endless tolerance for scandal as so often represented through many/some among the USCCB, for example.
It may be that the Pope’s interviews and certain pronouncements, to the American ear, ring some confusion and nervousness perhaps because we are presently under siege in these times, on guard against Marxists in our own country and most institutions. In some other decade, would his words as Pope have fallen on such sensitive ears?
We are being stretched in a good way by our Holy Father to see what is true, and simple. I give him time to bring me along too, and reshape my unease with some of his words that have seemingly given the Marxists such comfort and perplexed many others.
Perhaps we are seeing, in Francis, the pattern of Paul at work here. Being “all things to all men...”, in order to reach the lost and the cynical, that their ears might be opened.
Meanwhile, and regardless, I remain immovable from the great Ark, humbly at the Mercy of God come whatever may, left saying, “Lord, to whom shall I go?”. :) Rita.
Yes, I’d say if anyone has NOT been blindsided by the Leftists’ manipulative “narrative,” it’s Sirico.
Yes, I’d say if anyone has NOT been blindsided by the Leftists’ manipulative “narrative,” it’s Sirico.
I pray for Pope Francis every day. I expect the good.
Absolutely. Think of that Ark. Full of squalling, squealing, howling, chattering animals and knee-deep in, mmm, solid deposits: the ark of our salvation!
Thank you. While I admire Pope Benedict XVI, I must say it is a good thing to have a Latin Pope. I myself had a German father and an Italian mother.
I love Benedict and think Francis is complementary in wonderful ways. I know he has some people worried, but I think he’ll come through brilliantly for Our Lord.
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.