Pope Francis under fire

Pope Francis revelation has him under fire for covering up church scandal and protecting clergy who were apparently involved in scandalous behavior.

Marxism and the Pope

Bitter clingers?

The Pope says he's not a Marxist, but he's defending his criticism of capitalism according to The Guardian.  Great. I would contend that the Pope wasn't asked the right question.  

Pope Francis has rejected accusations from rightwing Americans that his teaching is Marxist, defending his criticisms of the capitalist system and urging more attention be given to the poor in a wide-ranging interview.

In remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa, the Argentinian pontiff said the views he had espoused in his first apostolic exhortation last month – which the rightwing US radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked as "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong" – were simply those of the church's social doctrine. Limbaugh described the pope's economics as "pure Marxism".

"The ideology of Marxism is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don't feel offended," Francis was quoted as saying. Defending his criticism of the "trickle-down" theory of economics, he added: "There was the promise that once the glass had become full it would overflow and the poor would benefit. But what happens is that when it's full to the brim, the glass magically grows, and thus nothing ever comes out for the poor ... I repeat: I did not talk as a specialist but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean being a Marxist."

He's not a Marxist, Marx decried religion so that would make no sense.  The Pope should have been asked if he was a  socialist.  If he has a political worldview that is informing his political views rather than the reverse, people should know about that.  

The Pope wants to reform the Catholic church.  That can be good and bad.  His focus on the poor is not a bad thing.  That focus would certainly help attract new people to the church.  But there is a difference between recognizing a problem and the prescription applied to it as a cure.  The Pope has decried capitalism but it has often been applied in a way that is as twisted as Marxists claim communism was applied in Soviet Russia.  In other words, capitalism has seen many flawed applications and it has still managed to lift millions of people out of poverty.  Perhaps what the Pope might be seeking is socialism.  Perhaps tempered capitalism.  He has been less than clear.

The danger for the church, particularly in the United States is that if he is taking a socialist approach, he risks turning off a lot of people.  While he may gain converts to Catholicism around the world, he could certainly lose the passion or even the faith of followers in America (and elsewhere). It's not clear if the Pope believes that to be the case and is taking a calculated risk, or doesn't know, or doesn't care.  The Catholic church  has a big pulpit.  If the pontifications coming from that pulpit espouse increased government control, the church may have lost its rudder.

Obama slaps Catholic Church (again)

Why?

The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy.

The new offices will be in a separate building on the property, Breitbart reported.

And while U.S. officials are touting the relocation as a security measure that’s a cautionary reaction to last year’s attacks on America's facility in Benghazi, several former American envoys are raising the red flag.

It’s a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties,” said former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson in the National Catholic Reporter. “It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and … [it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican.”

I'm not sure why he would do that.  Oh, wait.  There was this thing once...

Progressive Pope Redux

Quite a while back (well, in April) a said I had an issue with the new Pope - he was a socialist, progressive.  While he might attract a new crowd to the church, he is still pursuing a progressivist (i.e. socially liberal, anti-capitalist) agenda.  It looks like the Washington Post has caught up to the fact that conservative Catholics are catching up to the Papal political predilections.

Rattled by Pope Francis’s admonishment to Catholics not to be “obsessed” by doctrine, his stated reluctance to judge gay people and his apparent willingness to engage just about anyone — including atheists — many conservative Catholics are doing what only recently seemed unthinkable:

They are openly questioning the pope.

But what the Washington Post regards as liberal, isn't in synch with what the Pope is actually propagating. In fact, the WaPo misses what is at the root of the question, entirely.  Nevertheless, they forge ahead with the premise.

During the previous three decades, popes John Paul II and Benedict shared a focus: Make orthodox teachings crystal clear so Catholics don’t get lost in an increasingly messy, relativistic world.

Catholics also became accustomed to popes who were largely speaking to “the Church,” rather than the public. These men often communicated in the language of Catholic theology, and through books, not through long, freewheeling interviews, like Pope Francis.

 

So the Pope is trying to get converts to Catholicism by talking to non-Catholics rather preaching to the choir, so to speak? That's not so radical. But that's not all the Pope is doing.  In addition to what I blogged about, a lot has been made about the Pope's comments on the world financial system: not that money is the root of all evil, but that preventing governments from doing good was a problem of capitalism.  That is highly debatable - what about corruption, and governmental inefficiency and despotic governments to name a few other causes.

Papal infallibility may be a difficult mental hurdle for some to overcome but not all Catholics just swallow Papal statements as pardon the expression, gospel.

Speaking to newly accredited ambassadors to the Vatican, Pope Francis attacked the ‘‘dictatorship’’ of the global financial system, and warned that the ‘‘cult of money’’ was making life a misery for millions.

He blamed “ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and “thus deny the right of control to states”, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.”

He further blamed inadequate regulation which has resulted in “a new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny … one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules.”

He said, “Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life,” he said, quoting St. John Chrysostom. “It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs.”

Again, I'm not Catholic though I was baptized Catholic.  So my opinion may not resonate with devout Catholics.  But it seems to me that "Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them ..." is again a simplification.  Doesn't it make more sense to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish?  In the end, the former choice is actually more compassionate.  You can feed a man for life if you teach him to catch the fish himself.  To do otherwise is to short change the man by giving him one fish instead of thousands.  Alternately you could give the man a fish every day but then he becomes dependent on you.  That might serve your own sense of moral goodness (falsely) but it takes away the mans self-sufficiency, and sense of self and his own moral obligation to try, and to work.  That to me, is really robbing the poor.

 

It's okay to help, but if it becomes a crutch, it serves no one well.  I'm no Pope but that is my opinion.

In case you thought the war on religion was a hoax, read this.

Those who think the administration's recent war on religion is just a right wing conspiracy theory should read this via Gateway Pundit:

Last week Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan lashed out at the Obama Administration for forcing religious organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. The rule would force Christian organizations to provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion drugs to workers even though this violates Catholic Church teaching. The new rules are so strict that most Catholic institutions will not qualify for an exemption.

Even Pope Benedict warned of the “grave threat” to religious freedom in United States before the Obama Administration approved the new rules.

Now the Obama Administration is forbidding Catholic chaplains from reading a letter from the leader of the US bishops. 

Business Insider reported:

The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.

The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.

All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church “cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law.”

Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.

But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.

Having alienated Jewish people over his disrespect of Israel, it seems Catholicism is next on the Obama radar. Along the way, the Constitution, the First Amendment all seem to have lost any relevance.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi has either sold her soul to the devil or else lost her marbles;

“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.”

I think what she meant to say was this:

I am going to flout my Catholic beliefs in supporting the administration on this.  I think it was a very secular decision that they made and I support it.

There. Fixed it for you Nancy.

Catholic? Happy with this?

Via WSJ:

The White House said Thursday it has no plans to reverse course on its decision to require that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans, despite a wave of criticism from Republicans and Catholic leaders.

After a bruising week for health officials on the issue, the White House arranged a conference call with reporters to address what it called “confusion” over the policy. It also put up a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, director of the House Domestic Policy Council, pointing out that “no individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception” and “no individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”

And White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said.

Especially in light of this;

The world's leading breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, struggled on Thursday to defuse a growing crisis over its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services.

The sudden rift between the two top U.S. women's health advocacy groups triggered a furious debate on social media sites between supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Democratic lawmakers called on Komen to reconsider its move as the organization was thrust into the center of an intractable dispute that some say will hamper its work for years to come.

And much more importantly, the ridiculous hypocrisy of this;

This morning, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama cited Scripture as justification for his policy agenda — from reforming health care to ensuring that financial institutions play by fair rules to taxing the rich.

Catholic?  Vote liberal?  Time for a re-think of either your vote or your religion.  You can't do both. 

Shocker: Devout Pelosi doesn't get Catholicism

Best Pelosi pic ever.

I've got an interesting religious background.  My father's family is Catholic, my mother's family is Protestant.  My father himself was, or is rather, an atheist.  My mom is, from what I have observed at least, agnostic.  My grandmother on my mother's side was very religious and I absorbed my belief inclinations from her.  As a result of that mix perhaps, I've always been open-minded about religion.  

That seems to differ from radically Nancy Pelosi, who is apparently a mix of Catholic and Nosferatu.