Posted on 07/09/2009 6:45:02 AM PDT by steve-b
When President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow, there will be no right-wing Catholic demonstrators upbraiding the pontiff, as they did Notre Dame earlier this year, for conferring the church's legitimacy upon this liberal politician.
In fact, whether he is the beneficiary of providence or merely good luck, Obama will have his audience with Benedict just three days after the release of a papal encyclical on social justice that places the pope well to Obama's left on economics. What a delightful surprise it would be for a pope to tell our president that on some matters, he's just too conservative....
The Vatican's stance and the broadly positive response to Obama's Notre Dame speech have at least temporarily quelled the vocal opposition to the president among more conservative American bishops. Now, parts of the hierarchy are working closely with the administration on health-care reform, immigration and climate-change legislation.
Benedict's encyclical may provide the best perspective for understanding why a pope seen as a conservative views Obama more favorably than do most Catholic conservatives in the United States.
While American conservatives, including most Catholics in their ranks, see capitalism in an almost entirely positive light, Benedict--following a long tradition of church teaching--is more skeptical of a system rooted in materialist values. In that sense, he is to the left of his American flock.
Benedict's letter had some good things to say about the market system, but only if it is tempered by both "distributive justice and social justice." He thus spoke approvingly of "the redistribution of wealth"--not a phrase currently on many American lips--and caused free-market conservatives to blanch with his call for a "world political authority" to oversee the global economy in the name of "the common good."...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sorry.
Just plain evil.
666.
Let me put on my flame suit here...
I’ve been wondering of late whether religousness and conservatism aren’t mutually exlusive at some level.
This article touches on that.
The salient political point being that a conservative coalition including religuous conservatives might be doomed to “compassionate conservatism”.
‘conferring the church’s legitimacy upon this liberal politician’
‘liberal’? Thats a stretch, try neomarxist, Chicago thug.
I would say that compassion (conservative or religious) has its limit, that limit being the point where the object of compassion is held responsible for his/her actions. [Some, by the nature of their being, merit unlimited compassion, others, very little compassion.]
Compassion definitely has its place, but it should be doled out wisely. Otherwise, the compassionate allow themselves to be used.
If CINO E.J. Dionne Jr. tells you what time it is, get a second opinion.
I for one will not rely on EJ Dionne’s interpretation of the Pope’s encyclical to prop up President Obama. I’ll check out the original document.
Why is everyone trying to make hay over the Pope’s comments? Did we expect to fund Benedict is a supply-sider? The Vatican has been about centralized control of assets from day one. So what? Pope John Paul II fought Communism tooth and nail. Reagan and Thatcher didn’t need him to endorse tax cuts.
You're as full of s*** as Dionne is.
There may be something to that -- for example, I recall that the religious right faction was either AWOL or actually hostile to Bush's attempt to reform Social Security with private accounts....
I don't wonder....I'm convinced that at many levels, they are mutually exclusive. But then, I make a clear distinction between being religious and being spiritual. Religion, IMO, is big business....with stakeholders that are just as potentially corruptible as any other kind of business stakeholders. There is power available for the taking, and power always attracts corruptible people. Big religion is no different.
Spirituality, again IMO, is a fundamental state of being. Certainly religions need to have a spiritual base as part of their foundation, but as I think is quite obvious, there is at least the potential for some religious factions to “lose the way” and only do lip service to true spirituality.
Therein is the danger for organized religions....not much different than for the powerful CEO who, when asked, can't really remember at which point he sold his soul.... I believe that it would be quite different if there wasn't such inherent power available in our religious institutions for the taking. Jesus Christ wasn't in it for the personal power.....he was in it for the salvation of others. But there it is, and so there we are!
I do take issue with the saying that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely!”. Our Lord and Savior possessed absolute power, and yet was incorruptible. However, as weak and frail humans, many of us tend to be prone to the strong seductiveness of power. So, I'll go ahead and change the saying to: “Absolute power attracts the corruptible.” Power, in and of itself, is as innate as potential energy, or a gun that has no finger to pull the trigger.
Militant
Why are you attacking me? Do you deny that the Vatican's assets are controlled centrally? It isn't a swipe at the Pope. I greatly respect the Vatican and this Pope. I especially like the criticisms he has made against Islam. But people are delusional if they think he will endorse supply-side economics, or the death penalty, or cancelling for Western welfare programs. Social welfare is central to the Church, which has given rise to Liberation Theology extemists.
With apologies to my Catholic friends —
On this, the Pope is WRONG.
When President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI tomorrow, there will be no right-wing Catholic demonstrators upbraiding the pontiff, as they did Notre Dame earlier this year, for conferring the church's legitimacy upon this liberal politician.Unless B16 intends to award Zero with an honorary degree in canon law, the analogy with Notre Dame is inapt.
EJ Dionne is about as stupid as they come. Apparently he (and you, possibly) beleive the horsesh*t that the AP released regarding the Pope.
Benedict is a supply sider.
Viewed from another perspective, there may be a more fundamental similarity between organized religion and socialism. As Ayn Rand noted, both rely on the victim’s sanction.
In religion, this may be “original sin”, while in American politics these days it is some sense of guilt for being successful.
In either case, acceptance of that renders one subservient to anyone who can assuage it.
In that respect, for instance, selling carbon credits is exactly the same as selling indulgences.
From a psychological standpoint, people who feel “out of control” of all or some aspects of their lives trend towards an external vs. internal locus of control. In turn, those who wish to exert power and control over others, and who have the necessary message, charisma, or what have you to attract the needy, become the targeted “fix” for all ills.
I believe this is why empty suits like Barry Obama attract the followings that they do....not only will people willingly relinquish their personal control to someone that promises to take care of every aspect of their lives, they will also delude themselves to the point where they will make excuses for that “Messiah” when he/she fails to deliver.
People is funny critters!
Militant
I will put my flame suit on right with you. I couldn’t agree more. There was a reason the Contract with America contained no social issues but had limited government, less taxes, strong defense, and what the federal government is supposed to be involve. Social Issues belong in my home, my church, and my community and occasionally at the state level but not at the federal level. BTW I was hoping to never see the words ‘compassionate’ conservative again. :)
I am a state’s rights person and do not believe the federal government should be involved in social issues including health — let the free market dictate. I have really had it with the debate at the national level and think the SCOTUS should stay out of social issues and leave it up to each individual state. If Oklahomans don’t want to recognize gay marriage and have abortions performed in the State, then it should be our choice by a vote of the people and not to be told what to do by the people in DC.
Too many religious right want the Feds involved to dictate on something they want but then get upset when it goes against them. We should be fighting for State’s Rights to govern and not having the Feds involved. If you don’t like what your State does, MOVE!
What you have are the Reagan Conservatives versus some of the religious right that actually want to grow government as long as it is growing what they want. Reagan Conservatives want smaller government with less taxes and get them out of our daily lives. I have heard it right here in Oklahoma from people that shouldn’t really be in politics because the only thing they care about are the social issues and getting Congress to enact them. Mention states right and they glare at you.
But then I don’t believe the earth is only 5,000 years old or that I have to go to Church twice a week to be a Christian. I didn’t even believe I had to give ZERO a chance to govern before criticizing him. BTW, some of the religious right in OK voted for Obama as the first black President which floored me.
My rant is off!
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.