Posted on 03/24/2008 1:08:24 PM PDT by tcg
God has called each one of us into this real world, a world which he fashioned, and given to us the capacity to exercise our human freedom for the good. We make our choices and in those choices we change ourselves, as well as the world around us, for better or for worse. One of our choices is how we choose to govern ourselves and whether we will do so for the common good.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
What an uncharitable comment. I hope we can all do better than that. Kmiec is a true scholar, and accomplished man, who has made a mistake.Fournier is trying to help. What are you trying to do?
Thanks for clarifying. ONLY through intelligent discourse will we keep this guy out of the White House. the word “LIBERAL” is also being used for theological reasons. You are saying Fournier is a faithful Catholic but you do not agree with some of his political views?
I am trashing him, as his ridiculous "endorsement" deserves. I guess he is not as "accomplished" as you thought.
I think he’s a bit too swept away by “social justice.” The problem is that some Catholics seem to believe that social justice can be accomplished through government welfare. I happen to think that if the government didn’t tax us all so heavily, we could do better through charitable donations.
In other words, I believe in social justice but think that government redistribution of wealth is all too often a bad way of accomplishing it.
The right to life is quite another matter. There are no opinions there. It’s just plain wrong to kill babies.
But that’s a difference of opinion, not a matter of faith.
I hope you’re not saying we can’t or shouldn’t offer help if we want to offer help. I don’t want to turn this into a religious argument, and though I’ve read some of Rand I’m not an expert on her pov.
She has said a lot I respect, but if she believed charity out of one’s heart (as opposed to “charity” conscripted by the government) was anathema, then I must say she was wrong.
True Christianity does not endorse government welfare programs. Instead, it encourages individuals—on a spiritual, not a governmental basis, to care for their neighbors. When central governments try to do that, responsibility and accountability are essentially erased—something decidedly anti-Christian. The family deteriorates and people aren’t able to stand on their own.
I hope we can find common ground on that. :)
RD
Your friend is either one confused dude, or he has been offered some sort of plum position in an Obama Administration in exchange for his endorsement.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he is merely confused and has just been hanging around or reading too much leftist, Marxist claptrap put out by Jim Wallis (Sojourners) which he is now parroting.
Here is how he can get his head back on straight:
He needs to answer the question, "Is God a racist Marxist?"
After he honestly answers that, he will no doubt want to withdraw his endorsement, since Obama has belonged to a church for over 20 years whose leadership and affiliations are racist and Marxist to the core. What does he think "Black Liberation Theology" is all about? Is he that naive?
And it's quite easy to determine which of the two viable political parties has __a base__ comprised of racists, sexists, & Marxists.
If he doesn't think so, send him the following:
Hillary Clinton supporter, Reverend James David Manning says: Obama is a problem because he has a white mother and grandmother. VIDEO
Barack Obama supporter, Reverend Jeremiah Wright: White people are the problem (especially "rich" white people). VIDEO
The common denominator between the two 'RAT supporting Reverends: "The problem is white people". ~ Rush Limbaugh Wednesday 3/19/2008
Their solution? Bigger government ([headed up only by the good people, ie: "real" blacks - (not "fake" ones like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell). ]).
Theologies of Liberation ~ Pope Benedict XVI
"..But the "theologies of liberation".. go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx."
[...]
"..Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons. Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity. ...
[...]
"..We are facing, therefore, a real system, even if some hesitate to follow the logic to its conclusion. As such, this system is a perversion of the Christian message as God entrusted it to His Church. This message in its entirety finds itself then called into question by the "theologies of liberation."
[...]
"...As a result, participation in the class struggle is presented as a requirement of charity itself. The desire to love everyone here and now, despite his class, and to go out to meet him with the non-violent means of dialogue and persuasion, is denounced as counterproductive and opposed to love.
If one holds that a person should not be the object of hate, it is claimed nevertheless that, if he belongs to the objective class of the rich, he is primarily a class enemy to be fought. Thus the universality of love of neighbor and brotherhood become an eschatological principle, which will only have meaning for the "new man", who arises out of the victorious revolution. ...
[...]
"..But the "theologies of liberation", which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx.
In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the Church of the poor signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy. ...
[...]
"..The new hermeneutic inherent in the "theologies of liberation" leads to an essentially political re-reading of the Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event inasmuch as it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political reading of the "Magnificat" is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads to a reductionist reading of the Bible.
Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history.
In giving such priority to the political dimension, one is led to deny the radical newness of the New Testament and above all to misunderstand the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, and thus the specific character of the salvation he gave us, that is above all liberation from sin, which is the source of all evils. ..
[...]
"...Faith in the Incarnate Word, dead and risen for all men, and whom "God made Lord and Christ" is denied. In its place is substituted a figure of Jesus who is a kind of symbol who sums up in Himself the requirements of the struggle of the oppressed.
An exclusively political interpretation is thus given to the death of Christ. In this way, its value for salvation and the whole economy of redemption is denied. ...
[...]
"..For them, the struggle of the classes is the way to unity.
The Eucharist thus becomes the Eucharist of the class. At the same time, they deny the triumphant force of the love of God which has been given to us.
[...]
"...the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man.
For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.
The inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind.
[...]
".. the overthrow by means of revolutionary violence of structures which generate violence is not ipso facto the beginning of a just regime. A major fact of our time ought to evoke the reflection of all those who would sincerely work for the true liberation of their brothers: millions of our own contemporaries legitimately yearn to recover those basic freedoms of which they were deprived by totalitarian and atheistic regimes which came to power by violent and revolutionary means, precisely in the name of the liberation of the people.
This shame of our time cannot be ignored: while claiming to bring them freedom, these regimes keep whole nations in conditions of servitude which are unworthy of mankind. Those who, perhaps inadvertently, make themselves accomplices of similar enslavements betray the very poor they mean to help.
The class struggle as a road toward a classless society is a myth which slows reform and aggravates poverty and injustice.
Those who allow themselves to be caught up in fascination with this myth should reflect on the bitter examples history has to offer about where it leads.
They would then understand that we are not talking here about abandoning an effective means of struggle on behalf of the poor for an ideal which has no practical effects. On the contrary, we are talking about freeing oneself from a delusion in order to base oneself squarely on the Gospel and its power of realization. ...
[...]
~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (nka Pope Benedict XVI) August 6, 1984
“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.” ~ Pope Benedict XVI
“...After all, every normal person wants to help the poor and needy, but helping them at the end of a gun, as the left always want us to do, renders any spiritual benefit inoperative for both parties. .... What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates, even ‘hope you can believe in’ performers like Obama. When Michelle Obama claims she is only newly proud of her country, she does not exaggerate. In her world as in Obama’s, they believe we are a mess, a land filled with the ignorant and unenlightened, filled with despair” ..." (Fairchok). bttt
Nice to you quoting a papist with such apparent comfort. :o)
I do it all the time. You won’t find me quoting the bad soteriology, etc., though. :)
Agreed.
If I choose to support a charity I do so on my own volition.
Furthermore, I do so anonymously.
My problem is the way the OP worded his statement, as if its a duty or requirement and throwing the classic Catholic guilt trip in there, hehehe.
I also take issue with Rome’s theories of just wars. If you know, (or even suspect), someone’s a threat and is planning something, you hit first and destroy their ability to hurt you. What’s unjust about that?
Why should the United States allow them to strike first? According to Holy Mother Church’s bass-ackward doctrine, only then we’re justified in retaliating.
That’s unacceptable to me. Regardless of what il Papa says.
What you said! bttt
He’s hoping for a SCOTUS appointment.
Supreme Court ambitions is my guess.
If McCainiac wins in '08, the 'RATs on the SCOTUS who have been told not to retire yet, but to hang in there until after the election, will either immediately announce their retirement, or keel over on the spot.
We may have 3-4 opportunities to get more strict constructions on the court if McCainiac follows through on his promise to nominate only those sorts for the bench. (Getting them approved will either depend on us gaining majorities in both houses, or McCainiac cutting deals with the usual suspects.)
The fact that McCainiac has also made some other promises to us -- (even though I want them in a blood-oath written contract to have more confidence in them) -- and if he picks a VP running mate we can get excited about, will be the only reason I would even consider voting in the general for that RINO.
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.