The Left Has Its Pope.

[Sgt Staples]

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.

There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, “The Last Hurrah.”

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things – none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/the-left-has-its-pope/

 

[as seen on tv]

modern popes have managed to place themselves on the wrong side of history an alarming number of times.

• during the holocaust, pope pius the 12th was horrifically silent as millions of jews were sent to the gas chamber
• pope paul the 6th (1960's) condemned users of contraceptive pills to hell
• pope pius the 10th (early 20th century) issued a stinging encyclical against "modernism"

 

[RickWA]

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.

There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, “The Last Hurrah.”

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things – none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/the-left-has-its-pope/

Without picking on Catholics (because Catholics are my Christian brothers and sisters), I will state my unsolicited preference for Pope-selection:

If fidelity to Scripture and Christian tenets is a core desirable trait in a pope, such leaders should be carefully chosen from traditions NOT tainted by "synchronism" and liberation theology. The brand of Catholicism incubated in much of Central and South America was corrupted by statist communist incursions into those local churches - just as some Catholicism in the Carribean regions were tainted by mergers with Voodoo, paganism, and Santeria ritual.

Again, I'm an outsider - and I adhere to evangelical Protestantism as church tradition...but I love what I see for the most part in Catholic clergy in much of Africa. Vigorous, vibrant faith - tethered and committed solidly to Scripture and proper missional focus.

Just my unsolicited, outsider, well-meaning two bits...

 

[Arkady]

The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left

The rise of generalized prosperity in the US coincides with the move away from a more strictly market-based economy, and towards a hybrid economy that mixes elements of capitalism and socialism. I'm unaware of any major country that has ever achieved generalized prosperity without first accommodating a large portion of the "ideology of the left." The US did so with labor protections, trust-busting, industrial and banking regulation, programs like Social Security and Medicare, universal state-financed primary education, desegregation, programs like subsidized student loans and the GI Bill, etc. The combination of the Progressive-era reforms, New Deal regulatory frameworks, and Great Society programs gave us the generalized prosperity we see today. Nobody has shown you can get there, in the real world, without a significant helping of both capitalism and socialism.

Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

When, exactly, was Argentina among the leading economies of the world? Give me a date.

 

[Arkady]

Without picking on Catholics (because Catholics are my Christian brothers and sisters), I will state my unsolicited preference for Pope-selection:

If fidelity to Scripture and Christian tenets is a core desirable trait in a pope, such leaders should be carefully chosen from traditions NOT tainted by "synchronism" and liberation theology. The brand of Catholicism incubated in much of Central and South America was corrupted by statist communist incursions into those local churches - just as some Catholicism in the Carribean regions were tainted by mergers with Voodoo, paganism, and Santeria ritual.

Again, I'm an outsider - and I adhere to evangelical Protestantism as church tradition...but I love what I see for the most part in Catholic clergy in much of Africa. Vigorous, vibrant faith - tethered and committed solidly to Scripture and proper missional focus.

Just my unsolicited, outsider, well-meaning two bits...

I'm no fan of Catholicism or religion in general, but liberation theology is uncommonly moral and uncommonly close to the teachings of Jesus. It's too bad the Catholic Church worked so hard to stamp it out, to return to a more corrupt form of the faith.

 

[RickWA]

I'm no fan of Catholicism or religion in general, but liberation theology is uncommonly moral and uncommonly close to the teachings of Jesus. It's too bad the Catholic Church worked so hard to stamp it out, to return to a more corrupt form of the faith.

False. Whether or not the impulse toward collectivism aligns with your preferences, blending governance functions with the church is not biblical.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.

There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, “The Last Hurrah.”

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things – none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/the-left-has-its-pope/

So repub/cons have decided to bash Pope Francis.
God love ya.

LOL

 

[Charcat]

So repub/cons have decided to bash Pope Francis.
God love ya.

LOL

Who is bashing the Pope?

 

[Arkady]

False. Whether or not the impulse toward collectivism aligns with your preferences, blending governance functions with the church is not biblical.

Of course blending government functions with the church is biblical. The Old Testament is full of figures who effectively acted as both secular and religious leaders, and the various commandments cover everything from orders about how to worship (e.g., what kinds of animals are OK to burn for your deity), to regulation of commerce (e.g., rules about pricing for slaves and planting of fields). During the time of Jesus, when the Romans had a very solid handle on governance and didn't tolerate interference, the religious leaders stuck more to church matters, but that doesn't mean mixing government functions and the church isn't biblical. There's a reason that throughout the whole history of Christianity, a line between church and state is a relative novelty, only introduced in the last few centuries in a couple countries, and only after the Enlightenment made those areas increasingly secular.

But, regardless, I'm not talking about mixing governance functions with the church. I'm talking about whether the religion's teachings should inform the goals and functions of government. For example, should Jesus' enthusiastic interest in helping the poor be mirrored by politicians who want to wrap themselves in the Christian tradition? Or ought those politicians, instead, idolize new deities like Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Grover Norquist, Hayek, von Mises, and Adam Smith, and focus on increasing wealth (notwithstanding Jesus' assurance that hardly any wealthy person will get into Heaven)? Liberation theology took and honest an consistent approach to Christian teachings on economic questions, and so liberation theologians had to be brutally put in line by the representatives of the aristocracy. They prefer their theologians to preach the Gospel of the wealthy, even though that requires inventing a whole new religion.

 

[Drumcollie]

modern popes have managed to place themselves on the wrong side of history an alarming number of times.

• during the holocaust, pope pius the 12th was horrifically silent as millions of jews were sent to the gas chamber
• pope paul the 6th (1960's) condemned users of contraceptive pills to hell
• pope pius the 10th (early 20th century) issued a stinging encyclical against "modernism"

So don't be a pope with the last name beginning with "P"

 

[Drumcollie]

So repub/cons have decided to bash Pope Francis.
God love ya.

LOL

We can talk about that on Sunday after we leave Mass...are you going at 8:30, 9:00, 11:00 or 5pm?

 

[RickWA]

Of course blending government functions with the church is biblical. The Old Testament is full of figures who effectively acted as both secular and religious leaders, and the various commandments cover everything from orders about how to worship (e.g., what kinds of animals are OK to burn for your deity), to regulation of commerce (e.g., rules about pricing for slaves and planting of fields). During the time of Jesus, when the Romans had a very solid handle on governance and didn't tolerate interference, the religious leaders stuck more to church matters, but that doesn't mean mixing government functions and the church isn't biblical. There's a reason that throughout the whole history of Christianity, a line between church and state is a relative novelty, only introduced in the last few centuries in a couple countries, and only after the Enlightenment made those areas increasingly secular.

But, regardless, I'm not talking about mixing governance functions with the church. I'm talking about whether the religion's teachings should inform the goals and functions of government. For example, should Jesus' enthusiastic interest in helping the poor be mirrored by politicians who want to wrap themselves in the Christian tradition? Or ought those politicians, instead, idolize new deities like Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Grover Norquist, Hayek, von Mises, and Adam Smith, and focus on increasing wealth (notwithstanding Jesus' assurance that hardly any wealthy person will get into Heaven)? Liberation theology took and honest an consistent approach to Christian teachings on economic questions, and so liberation theologians had to be brutally put in line by the representatives of the aristocracy. They prefer their theologians to preach the Gospel of the wealthy, even though that requires inventing a whole new religion.

Fidelity to scripture and standards thereof are not properly compromised in favor of contemporary tastes, or perceived comforts. Likewise, making state order a priority is a non-starter. That's just not what we're about. Particularly that strain of economic determinism that you Marxists espouse. The Christian should be all about helping others as individuals and as a church body. Material emphasis - pro or con - is mission dilution. In fact, it's heretical.

 

[justoffal]

Who is bashing the Pope?

Well I guess I am for one ..... his foray into the world of global politics is a betrayal of his assigned duties.

JO

 

[Arkady]

Fidelity to scripture and standards thereof are not properly compromised in favor of contemporary tastes, or perceived comforts.

Well, clearly they are. In the US, contemporary tastes run to materialism, and people aren't comfortable with the more socialistic outlook of a teacher like Jesus. And so people choose not to be faithful to scripture, and instead invent a new religion that calls itself Christianity but would have been heresy in the eyes of the historical Jesus.

 

[Charcat]

Well I guess I am for one ..... his foray into the world of global politics is a betrayal of his assigned duties.

JO

What some call political are things the church and Christians have always believed. It's just that too many moral issues have been "made" political in recent years.

 

[RickWA]

Well, clearly they are. In the US, contemporary tastes run to materialism, and people aren't comfortable with the more socialistic outlook of a teacher like Jesus. And so people choose not to be faithful to scripture, and instead invent a new religion that calls itself Christianity but would have been heresy in the eyes of the historical Jesus.

Your constant attempts to conflate the personal with the public betrays your all-consuming statism. Not that it has ever been concealed in the least.

I guess we can consider you the board atheistic theocratic statist collectivist.

You twist every single thing you come across to service your lunatic state aims. Frankly, it's bloody psycho.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

What some call political are things the church and Christians have always believed. It's just that too many moral issues have been "made" political in recent years.

Republicans run on "family values."
is that moral or political?

 

[Charcat]

Republicans run on "family values."
is that moral or political?

A little more morality would result in a little less politics. Does that answer your question?

 

[JuliefromOhio]

A little more morality would result in a little less politics. Does that answer your question?

no, it doesn't.

 

[Charcat]

no, it doesn't.

Family values have been part of the Republican platform in the past. It is both moral and political. So.....do you agree or disagree with the following?

Families are the cornerstone of our culture-the building blocks of a strong society. In families, children learn values and ideals, as well as the basic lessons that get them started on a lifelong path of education. We believe that every child deserves the chance to be born and grow up in a loving family. We also believe that while families exist in many different forms, there are ideals to strive for. Evidence shows us that children have the best chance at success when raised by a mother and a father who love and respect each other as well as their children. We also know that family breakdown makes America less stable. To create a sturdy foundation for the strength and success of our citizens and our nation, Republicans support policies that promote strong families. We also support a government that makes it easier for parents to raise their children in a world that offers unprecedented opportunities and new challenges. We offer an approach based on our common values and our common hopes. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 81 , Sep 1, 2004