Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the

[birdog1960]

"when the earnings of a minority is growing exponentially

 

some wish to interpret the Pontiff's words as strictly a rebuke of "the Rich" and capitalism,

 

 

the earnings of the minority could just as certainly apply to a "political/ruling class" of an oppressive government.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Pope Francis and Poverty

 

 

If there is anyone in the world today who embodies the joy of the Christian Gospel, it is Jorge Mario Bergoglio. And the happiness offered by embracing and living true faith in Christ and His Church (rather than the vapid sentimentalism that often passes for love these days) permeates Pope Francis’s new (and rather long) “apostolic exhortation,” Evangelii Gaudium, from beginning to end. Reading the text, one does experience a profound sense of just how life-transforming belief in Christ should be.

 

Evangelii Gaudium is in many ways a beautiful document. The emphasis upon the Trinity’s most neglected member — the Holy Spirit — in the Church’s life is especially inspiring. Then there are the practical insights about how to breathe life into aspects of the Church’s evangelical outreach that have long been moribund (as in the content-free homilies routinely endured by many Catholics in Western countries). Also helpful for theological reflection, as well as an outline for an agenda of internal reform, are Francis’s comments on how to develop greater collegiality between Rome and what Catholics call the local churches.

 

{snip}

 

My critique is by no means intended to imply that all of Pope Francis’s observations about economic life are naïve or simply mistaken. As it happens, he says several things that will resonate with those who favor free enterprise and markets. The pope states, for instance, that welfare projects should be seen as “temporary responses” (202) and warns against the “welfare mentality” (204). Evangelii Gaudium extols “free” and “creative” work (192). Francis also affirms that business “is a noble vocation” that serves “the common good by striving to increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all” (203).

 

 

 

 

.

for a jesuit, he couldn't be more plain in his writing. if others need to spin his words to rationalize what he says, then so be it.

 

Does this mean all liberals will now accept Christ as their savior, or are they all just accepting the one little bit from a man of Christ because it fits your ideology?

"liberals" come in all shapes, sizes and beliefs. many are christians and are actually opposed to abortion and some even to contraception. interestingly, this pope has commissioned a poll of catholics on social and especially sexual issues. that's a paradigm shift and an implicit recognition, i believe, that you can be part of the church and not agree with all doctrine.

[4merper4mer]

I'm curious about the Pope's interpretation.

 

Christ himself, based on the Christian belief system, was all-powerful and capable of creating miracles. Yet even with his devine powers did not force other men to his will. He simply instructed others that it was his desire that they should give; without compelling them by force.

 

Given the gift of free will by God, men are allowed to please or displease Him as they see fit.

 

Given that Christ himself did not compell men by force to do his bidding, what makes any man think that this is God's desire for them?

 

I think you're probably actually more curious about the interpretation of the Pope's interpretation than you are about the Pope's actual interpretation.

[Joe Miner]

So when did Jesus talk about the best economic policy for a government to follow?

[4merper4mer]

for a jesuit, he couldn't be more plain in his writing. if others need to spin his words to rationalize what he says, then so be it.

 

 

"liberals" come in all shapes, sizes and beliefs. many are christians and are actually opposed to abortion and some even to contraception. interestingly, this pope has commissioned a poll of catholics on social and especially sexual issues. that's a paradigm shift and an implicit recognition, i believe, that you can be part of the church and not agree with all doctrine.

 

That may be the way the church works but it ain't the way commies work. Commies would be more than happy to let the Pope help them get their ridiculous economic system in place. Once that happened and they had control, how tolerant do you think they would be about listening to the Pope on anything else?

 

Trick question; they would have already killed him and banned religion.

 

The doofus reporter from Slate couldn't even get through the first two sentences of his poorly written article without pointing out his underlying disdain for religion. Two sentences. The Pope is generally tasked with being a pretty smart guy on many topics, but topic #1 is Jesus; economic systems are somewhere down the list. The Slate know-it-all says the Pope doesn't know crap about Jesus, but................he is almost as smart as Jack Krugman when it comes to Economics.

 

The Pope said:

 

consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

 

He clearly pointed out his perceived risk of the powerful rich holding to many of the cards and effectively controlling government. He also displayed a fear that too much power in too few hands would result in corruption and greed. Where in any of his writing did he say that if that excess of power was given to government overlords, rather than corporate overloads, that the results would be better?

 

I'll save you some reading. He didn't.

 

The doofus from Slate interpreted it that way and wrote his own belief set into his crappy article.

[birdog1960]

So when did Jesus talk about the best economic policy for a government to follow?

any thoughts on why the church, throughout most of history, has been known as the second estate?

That may be the way the church works but it ain't the way commies work. Commies would be more than happy to let the Pope help them get their ridiculous economic system in place. Once that happened and they had control, how tolerant do you think they would be about listening to the Pope on anything else?

 

Trick question; they would have already killed him and banned religion.

 

The doofus reporter from Slate couldn't even get through the first two sentences of his poorly written article without pointing out his underlying disdain for religion. Two sentences. The Pope is generally tasked with being a pretty smart guy on many topics, but topic #1 is Jesus; economic systems are somewhere down the list. The Slate know-it-all says the Pope doesn't know crap about Jesus, but................he is almost as smart as Jack Krugman when it comes to Economics.

 

The Pope said:

 

 

 

He clearly pointed out his perceived risk of the powerful rich holding to many of the cards and effectively controlling government. He also displayed a fear that too much power in too few hands would result in corruption and greed. Where in any of his writing did he say that if that excess of power was given to government overlords, rather than corporate overloads, that the results would be better?

 

I'll save you some reading. He didn't.

 

The doofus from Slate interpreted it that way and wrote his own belief set into his crappy article.

do you think the writer from "slate" has considered theological and spiritual questions more or less frequently since this papacy began? how bout people in general? from the churches perspective, that alone is a good thing and Francis has already acheived a measure of success. as far as govt vs corporate, i'm not sure it can be said more concisely than it was in the mentioned piece.

[Joe Miner]

any thoughts on why the church, throughout most of history, has been known as the second estate?

 

So can we just cut to the chase and you admit that he never did?

[4merper4mer]

 

do you think the writer from "slate" has considered theological and spiritual questions more or less frequently since this papacy began? how bout people in general? from the churches perspective, that alone is a good thing and Francis has already acheived a measure of success. as far as govt vs corporate, i'm not sure it can be said more concisely than it was in the mentioned piece.

 

Doesn't sound like Slate boy is thinking too much about spiritual questions now either. He is dismissing them and borderline mocking them. He is making sure he does this within the first 2 sentences of the article when it is not even remotely associated with the topic of the article. This is like have an article about Carlton Fisk's famous home run, including in its second sentence that Fisk is not a good bowler. He is doing this because he is far smarter than the Pope in the Pope's #1 area and needs to reassure his readers that he has not lost his way and begun to tolerate religion. This bolsters his credibility. He is willing to acknowledge the Pope's brilliance in economics, as long as he is allowed to misinterpret it, because when misinterpreted it matches his ill conceived assessment of reality.

 

How was government vs. corporate concisely stated in the piece? There was a quote from the Pope which I read to mean that it would be dangerous for the rich to wield total control over government. Slate boy implied this was license for the government to wield control over the rich instead. That displays poor interpretation skills.

[birdog1960]

So can we just cut to the chase and you admit that he never did?

oops, first estate...the point is that the church has had influence on gov'ts worldwide for many centuries. no, Jesus never gave worldly governing advice that i'm aware of. He did define the ideal, however. much as Francis is.

[birdog1960]

So can we just cut to the chase and you admit that he never did?

oops, first estate...the point is that the church has had influence on gov'ts worldwide for many centuries. no, Jesus never gave worldly governing advice that i'm aware of. He did define the ideal, however. much as Francis is.

Doesn't sound like Slate boy is thinking too much about spiritual questions now either. He is dismissing them and borderline mocking them. He is making sure he does this within the first 2 sentences of the article when it is not even remotely associated with the topic of the article. This is like have an article about Carlton Fisk's famous home run, including in its second sentence that Fisk is not a good bowler. He is doing this because he is far smarter than the Pope in the Pope's #1 area and needs to reassure his readers that he has not lost his way and begun to tolerate religion. This bolsters his credibility. He is willing to acknowledge the Pope's brilliance in economics, as long as he is allowed to misinterpret it, because when misinterpreted it matches his ill conceived assessment of reality.

 

How was government vs. corporate concisely stated in the piece? There was a quote from the Pope which I read to mean that it would be dangerous for the rich to wield total control over government. Slate boy implied this was license for the government to wield control over the rich instead. That displays poor interpretation skills.

no, it appears the author has not been converted. yes, he's cherry picking. but i'll bet more thoughts about spiritual questions have entered his consciousness. even if dismissed, they've likely been more often considered. maybe not....could be completely wrong here but reading comments after his public response to an athiest writer, it's certainly been true for some nonbelievres.

Edited November 27, 2013 by birdog1960

[Keukasmallies]

the more i read, the more i like: http://www.slate.com..._economics.html. "when the earnings of a minority is growing exponentially, so is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by the happy few. this imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute asutonomy of the marketplace and financial growth. consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. a new tyranny is thus born, invisiblle and often virtual, which unilateraly imposes its own rules."

 

not much wiggle room for interpretation there.

 

Sounds a bit like Karl and Fred's dialectical materialism where thesis gives rise to antithesis resulting in a synthesis which then becomes the current thesis....

 

Gee, that ain't 'zackly the way it's s'posed to be is it, POTUS?

 

Oh, I forgot, MERRY CHRISTMAS to y'all. I don't give a flying reindeer if you like that or not.

[Koko78]

Oh, I forgot, MERRY CHRISTMAS to y'all. I don't give a flying reindeer if you like that or not.

 

I'm offended. It's not even Thanksgiving yet. Stop jumping the gun you bible thumping so-and-so.

[4merper4mer]

oops, first estate...the point is that the church has had influence on gov'ts worldwide for many centuries. no, Jesus never gave worldly governing advice that i'm aware of. He did define the ideal, however. much as Francis is.

The ideal individual or the ideal servant to the state?

Edited November 27, 2013 by 4merper4mer

[birdog1960]

I'm offended. It's not even Thanksgiving yet. Stop jumping the gun you bible thumping so-and-so.

the thread regards the pope. one would expect someone not interested in discussing religion would post elsewhere.

[Koko78]

the thread regards the pope. one would expect someone not interested in discussing religion would post elsewhere.

Oh shut up you colossal idiot.

[birdog1960]

Oh shut up you colossal idiot.

profound.

[Koko78]

profound.

 

At least 35% moreso than your posts.

[B-Man]

I’m delighted everyone seems to be interested in what this pope has to say.

 

 

On Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel Is Rooted in the Cross

by Katherine Jean Lopez

 

“We and Jesus have the same Mother!”

 

These were Pope Francis’s closing words to a gathering on the Church in the Americas at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe earlier this month in Mexico City.

 

 

{snip}

 

As with interviews of months past, reactions vary to Pope Francis’ first teaching document, the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), as you’ve no doubt noticed. It’s over 40,000 words in length, and we who comment — whether on op-ed pages or on Facebook or at the dinner table — each focus on different aspects. As with the America interview that appeared earlier this fall — and as with so many of his messages of God’s mercy, our responsibilities, a loving Father’s radical call for us to live selfless lives in transformative surrender to Him — we can too easily miss the heart of the matter amid a flurry of headlines that affirm or inflame our ideological comfort zones. When we do, we also miss much of the point of the Gospel — the joy, the exhortation, the call, the Christian difference. The point is that we must be challenged. The point is that we must encounter Christ, and daily, and if we do, we must be changed.

 

Pope Francis is clear on life and marriage. He is challenging on politics and economics without fighting against Republicans or Democrats specifically. His position is more transcendent and fundamental.

 

His ardent opposition is to a disposable culture that poisons all debates and is an assault on human dignity, piercing the very heart of God. It’s a culture of death and dismissal, of denial and destruction. It’s beneath us. It’s poisoning us.

 

http://www.catholicpulse.com/cp/en/columnists/lopez/112713.html

 

.

[birdog1960]

I’m delighted everyone seems to be interested in what this pope has to say.

 

 

 

 

http://www.catholicp...pez/112713.html

 

.

i'm delighted as well. the discussions he's already precipitated are important in their own right. i find little to disagree with in the piece. but i find it puzzling to find his stance on life and marriage described as "clear" (which it certainly is) and his statements on politics and economics described as "challenging" ( an entirely relative characterization). are these not similar labels to those of "republicans" and "democrats" that she derides later in the same sentence? i agree. his statements require no label or classification. they should be read and considered as the carefully chosen words and thoughts that they are. they're enough to contemplate independently. Edited November 28, 2013 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

Man, the Pope is making one hell of a case for the libertarians who say "let's kick all of the Bible thumpers out of the R party and back to the Ds, where they belong. They are all just single issue conservative, Big Government everything else people."

 

Or, perhaps there's some nuance here that the usual suspects are missing? Anybody wanna take that bet?

 

Remember: Whether you like it or not, the Pope is the Pope for All, including Gene Frenkle. That's what the word Catholic means. That's the job description he signed up for, and that's how it's defined. He's merely doing the job.

 

The Pope: means he has to take everybody's views into account, and not just say he "respects" them, but actually engage them all.

 

What if we had leaders...who understood that simple concept?

 

I don't recall a pope telling anyone, even gays or abortion docs, that there's "a bus" and that they have to sit in the back of it.

Considering his viewership and his book sales I'd say he has a pretty good right-wing following - unless it's just all libs wanting to laugh at/get pissed off at

O'Reilly has waaaay too many people that watch his show for them to all be right-wing. At leat 30% of his audience are Democrats. That large of group says that has to be true. And, let's understand: those are loyal viewers. The kind that advertisers can count on.

 

Reality: I do what you are talking about with MSNBC. Every so often, I want to watch an intellectually inferior clown sputtering around trying to make self-congratulation = grace, or, stumble through talking points that many here at PPP could have delivered better, and with more persuasion, because I'm a big fan of absurd humor. MSNBC is better than Monty Python some days, unintentionally. It's like they are trying to make fun of something...that they are actually trying to do. I do that once a month = not a "loyal" viewer.

 

The math doesn't support your argument ...lybob. You did OK that one time though....

Edited November 28, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[4merper4mer]

 

 

Remember: Whether you like it or not, the Pope is the Pope for All, including Gene Frenkle. That's what the word Catholic means.

 

 

Why single out bald people as those most likely to be rejected by the Pope? Yes, God rejected their hair, but not them.