We need not fear those new movements in the Catholic Church, who in their enthusiasm and founding years have experimented with the Liturgy and made it more "horizontal and meal like" but at the same time uphold orthodox Catholic faith and morals and obedience to the legitimate authority of the Magisterium of the Church and the Holy Father. Time will purify their "liturgical renewal style." But the leaven they bring to the Church from within and to the world outside is a public witness to their pure Catholic faith and acceptance of the moral teachings of the Church and fidelity to the Magisterium in the areas of faith, morals and Church Law. These new movements embrace Vatican II and Pope Paul VI in two ways that the left and the right in the Church tend to vilify. The left vilifies Humanae Vitae and thus natural law and thus divine law and the right vilifies the renewal of the liturgy and the experimentation that Holy Church allowed in the 1960's and 70's. In vilifying either, these groups vilify the authority of the Church and her Magisterium and thus strive to diminish assent to that authority from within. The two groups are cut from the same cloth. They diminish the true Faith of the Catholic Church and produce for her a "profound crisis."
Year of Faith is Pope's response to 'profound crisis'
Vatican City, Jan 27, 2012 / 01:48 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The upcoming 2012-2013 “Year of Faith” seeks to awaken humanity at a critical moment, Pope Benedict XVI said as he addressed the Church's highest doctrinal office on Jan. 27.
“In vast areas of the earth the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel,” the Pope told assembled members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who met in a plenary session on Friday.
“We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of a religious sense which represents one of the greatest challenges for the Church today.”
Pope Benedict hopes the Year of Faith, which will run from Oct. 11, 2012 to Nov. 24, 2013, will contribute “to restoring God's presence in this world, and to giving man access to the faith, enabling him to entrust himself to the God who, in Jesus Christ, loved us to the end.”
“The renewal of faith,” the Pope announced, “must, then, be a priority for the entire Church in our time.”
His remarks to the doctrinal congregation came two days after the feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, the final day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
The Pope spoke about the quest to reunite all Christians, as he acknowledged that ecumenical efforts had not always served to strengthen believers' faith.
Along with the “many good fruits that have emerged from ecumenical dialogue,” there are also “risks of indifference and of false irenicism” – which give the appearance of unity, without regard for truth.
In today's world, the Pope observed, there is an “increasingly widespread” perception “that truth is not accessible to man, and that, therefore, we must limit ourselves to finding rules to improve this world.”
“In this scenario,” he noted, “faith comes to be replaced by a shallow-rooted moralism,” which can cause the dialogue between Christian groups to become superficial.
“By contrast, the core of true ecumenism is faith, in which man encounters the truth revealed in the Word of God.”
Pope Benedict told officials of the doctrine congregation, the office he led before his election to the papacy, that controversial issues cannot be downplayed or ignored in talks between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches and communities.
Matters of faith and morals, he said, “must be faced courageously, while always maintaining a spirit of fraternity and mutual respect … In our dialogues we cannot overlook the great moral questions about human life, the family, sexuality, bioethics, freedom, justice and peace.”
By defending the Church's authentic tradition, he observed, “we defend man and we defend the creation.”
YOU MAY WISH TO READ FATHER GEORGE RUTLER'S LETTER TO HIS PARISHIONERS CONCERNING THE ANTI-CHRIST BY PRESSING HERE--IT'S ALL TIED TOGETHER.
45 comments:
Re: Obama's "socialistic agenda." Where do you get this notion?
Father I agree with you, all of Holy Mother Church must support the Holy Father. However I reject your position that right wing Catholics water down Catholic Identity by disobedience to the Magesterium of the Church by opposition to Vatican II. Right Wing Catholics, as you define us, oppose not Vatican II, which changed nothing in the Magesterium, but the "spirit of Vatican II, which from my viewpoint is more akin to the spirit of Hell, but that's another story. Your headline can only be true if you hold the viewpoint that V2 was a break from the past, which I know you do not hold.
The Pope isn't worrying about support from the strong, though small, right arm of the Church in his fight to restore Catholic Identity. He is worried about the large, bloated left arm, which hasn't the moral fortitude to join the fight, and the trunk of the body of Christ, comprising many of the laity and clergy of the Church who want to follow the Pope but are paralyzed by fear or indecision.
Socialized medicine, health care and mandatory health insurance to cover "artificial contraceptive care" and "abortion" and forcing religious institutions to violate their Freedom of Conscience and Religious Liberty--socialism the likes of which we've only seen in distant foreign lands, like Venezuela.
Good God in Heaven, and by all that is Holy on Heaven and Earth, how can you not see Socialism in Obama's agenda? You're scandalous Ignotus.
Templar it is one thing to prefer the EF Mass from the point of taste and personal preference but another thing altogether to deny that Vatican II called for a reform of the Mass, which it did, and which using his legitimate authority Pope Paul VI carried out and promulgated. You may not like that Mass celebrated according the GIRM and rubrics and not in the "spirit of Vatican II as you describe some of its celebration" but this is the Liturgy of the Church pure and simple. Respect to our bishops in the areas of faith, moral, church law and liturgical law is part of being a Catholic--to reject their authority is very grave and contributes to the malaise I describe but from the "right" not the "left" and thus both are cut from the same cloth but only in different directions.
I do not deny that V3 called for a reform, and I'm hoping one day to see it myself. I think MR65 was a good first attempt at the called for reforms, and then I think MR70 was created from the ground up by a committee whose motives were not pure, and that HH Pope Paul VI, not a Liturgist in any sense of the word, was trapped. What MR70 was not, was reform, it was creation. Is it valid? It must be. Is it what V2 called for? Any objective assessment must conclude no.
How does holding that position undermine the authority of the Church? If being a mindless automaton to everything the Church teaches that is not infallible dogma is how we must define a good Catholic, I guess I should pack my bags as that sounds too cultist for me.
Outside of Dogma, men of good will, and good intention, can disagree. Don't you agree?
Pa-Ig, please. You are too intelligent to deny this. The most annoying part of this situation is the dishonesty of it. The presidential race in 2000 was about being a socialist country or not, but few would admit it openly. The Socialists know this is distasteful and it is core to Socialist and Communist Doctrine to lie about their motives because the results are, in their estimation, for the greater good. This nation has been struggling with socialism since the 1890s. In 2008, they won based on a national desire to buy our way out of guilt and debt.
In this situation the Government is once again asking us to turn our heads and pretend something is not what it is. An honest choice for forced abortion has the at least the single virtue of honesty.
We delude ourselves that we are actually choosing ANYTHING when the entire nation supports the use of your body for recreation and chips in as a group to end any disease or pregnancy. The social pressure is merely a sophisticated tool used to manage the human livestock we have become. It is easier for the farmer if the livestock walk on their own power to the slaughter.
Remember that the tastiest sheep are led to slaughter, not pushed. Be honest with yourself, in the face of their lies. Own your choice, it already owns you.
rcg
I agree with all popes in the areas of faith and morals and that they are the sovernign pope and supreme pastor and legislator of the Church in the areas of faith, morals, canon law (liturgical law). Thus I accept their authority even when that authority is not exercised to my liking. I love the reformed Mass when it is celebrated as it should be including all the options that are allowed for it, but even if I didn't love it that way, I respect the Church and the Holy Father who have promulgated it. I respect Pope Benedict for highlighting that the reform of the Mass must be organic and thus the fact that on the authority of this pope and future popes, Vatican II's reform will continue. Sometimes we have to tell our children to shut up and do as I say as legitimate authority over our children, no?
"False ecuminism and left wing secularism" are so massive and pervasive in the Church as to constitute its greatest challenge.
"Disobedience to the magisterium of the Church by right wing Catholics opposed to Vatican II" is so miniscule and isolated as to be of little significance in the Church as a whole.
To equate them logically or syntactically therefore makes no sense. This kind of flaccidity of thought and expression betrays our lack of Catholic identity, and is symptomatic of the Church's inability to confront effectively the world of today.
From the general tone of discussions here, I suspect that I have more experience with traditional Catholics than anyone who comments here, and I have know precious few who deny the authority of pope, bishops, and magisterium--truly a miniscule number compared to the huge number of ordinary parish Catholics I've known who have largely lost the faith of our fathers. To conflate two opposites--those who have retained the faith and those who have not--is to fall into straw-man argumentation.
Henry please excuse my hyperbole because in fact I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. I see the EF movement as a part of new movements because I have found those who attend the EF Mass on fire for the Church. At the same time, the Catholic Church is a mixed bag of treasure and trash as in the parable of the drag net that the Lord will have to sort out in this life and in the life to come, but nonetheless the Church has to be that dragnet.
God Bless you Father. I know you to be of good will and best of intention, and will respectfully agree to disagree.
Father, I have only one thing to say..."You tell 'em!" Well, two things...also "Thanks for naming names here. It's time to call out names!!!"
Pater Ignotus, despite my recent agreement with on a topic, on the whole, and especially regardling this particular issue,..."Get your head out of that mirror-lined box."
Hopefully we'll soon see a retraction and apology for your 'lost my mind' moment here.
...Think I'll take a deep breath and try to remember that body needs all its members...
~SqueekerLamb
Templar, you can "agree to disagree", but as an outsider I don't see that much actual disagreement between your statements in this thread and Fr. McDonald"s. For the simple reason that I basically agree with both of you. That, for instance, Vatican II called for genuine renewal that has not yet occurred generally because of the mistakes that were made following the Council, that we love any Mass celebrated in that continuity with tradition that Pope Benedict calls for--which surely would include both an exemplary EF and an exemplary OF Mass as celebrated by the pope himself. And that we all look forward with him to a faithful implementation of the Council. As O'Reilly says, where am I going wrong?
Squeeker, "a mirror lined box" is not where Ignotus' head is...
Pater Ignotus, I have never addressed you before either in print or in person (though I often wanted to)--I didn't trust myself in charity.
I, like the Lamb, "supported" a comment of yours this past week, albeit indirectly (on the subject of sin)--a very unusual place to find myself. I received a harsh response from a member for my effort. I actually thought about posting a warning to a few "warriors" on this blog that they might want to use caution in how they address you, as one never knows what duly ordained person will appear at one's bedside to administer Extreme Unction and Viaticum!
Hence I am trying to use extreme caution here in addressing you, but with God’s grace, here goes: With respect, Pater, and for the good of all, face the truth PLEASE before the time YOU face Extreme Unction.
One would be blind indeed to doubt your socialist views and the political consequences; that doesn’t make you a bad person, but it most certainly affects your ministry and colors your vision of all issues religious, political, etc. Also very obvious is your lack of fraternal respect for the author of this blogsite—that issue is none of my business except when it appears in print. You have done immeasurable damage to yourself, your calling and your people by taking the agenda stances you have over the years (both here, in Diocesan publications, etc.) and then denying the truth and consequences. I'm not talking about liturgical vestment preferences here, but important issues that affect the sometimes fragile religious and faith lives of folks who desperately need the encouragement and witness of good, strong, faithful priests. One need only follow your pastoral trail to see the divisive misery promulgated. With respect, I ask (plead) that you concentrate on leading your people to the Truth of Christ without your personal agendas taking precedence.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, God help me, and say to Pater and to ALL priests: PLEASE take the courageous, albeit sometimes lonely high road--it is your holy calling and so important to us laity. We depend on you.
I thank God for your vocation and may He grant you many years.
--Snipping Wife
First, that a government places requirements on its citizens is not an example of "socialism." We are required to pay taxes, to register our cars, to avoid polluting streams with toxic chemicals. Requirements imposed by a government do not equal socialism.
Second, universal health care for is a goal the Church ardently supports:
"Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.
Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the "inalienable rights" of man.
The pope's message was read by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, to participants at the 25th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry at the Vatican Nov. 18-19."
Archbishop Dolan, writing on behalf of the Bishops of the United States, echoed this in his letter to Congress of 14 January 2011: "The Catholic Bishops of the United States have worked for nearly a century to assure health care for all, insisting that access to health care is a basic human right and a requirement of human dignity. Basic health care for all is a moral imperative, not yet completely achieved. We remain committed to our three moral criteria: 1) Ensure access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all;…"
Promoting universal access to health care does not equate to socialism.
We can and do have a right to protest what we consider to be immoral conditions in government regulations. But universal health care remains a priority for the Church.
Snipe - You can depend on me to tell you what the Church tells me.
I am not a socialist. When speaking or writing about the Church's Social Doctrine, I have always referenced the Church's documents, sometimes quoting them at length. Some have become highly agitated, but none, not one, has ever shown that what I have quoted is either fabricated, misquoted, or in error.
I respect Good Father McDonald, but I "obviously" disagree with him on some things. You confuse the two.
There is a lot that I'd like to say here, but there just is not enough space so I'll keep it simple.
It is true that V2 called for reform, but that is not what we got. The left ran away with it and gave us upheaval.
If it were not for the traditional right arm of the Church, we would have collapsed into the same disintegration that the Anglicans are now experiencing.
Satan is using the inner feud between the left and right to distract us from attacks from without- such as the Obama administration's socialistic agenda and attacks on Catholic morals.
The left voted for Obama.
The right voted against him.
I'm happily on the right. I prefer the EF, and accept the OF when prayed and done properly without the "spirit of V2" stuff thrown in. I love and pray for our Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Religious. When I see a Catholic who calls himself pro-choice, I say, "So make your choice- are you Catholic are pro-abortion, because you can't be both."
The strong Catholic identity crumbled when the left abused V2. I became a Catholic in the 90's, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone older saying, "I didn't think we still beleived in that; I thought they got rid of that with V2."
It is time we got our strong Catholic identity back and I hope this YEAR OF FAITH will help to acheive that. In the meantime, we need to stand up against the Obama administration's bully tactics and let him know in no uncertain terms that 'WE AINT GONNA TAKE NO MORE!'
To the SnippingWife-
GOD BLESS YOU!
Jenny, with the benefit of not knowing any of the people behind the pseudonyms here, let me commend you for a difficult and obviously heart-felt statement made in evident Christian charity, not merely pro forma respect.
"And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."(1 Cor 13:2)
There's a great 2009 book by Russell Shaw entitled "Nothing to Hide", published by Ignatius Press. It addresses the problem of clerical secrecy in the Church, secrecy which prevents constructive criticism by the laity of hierarchical decisions.
Like Henry, I, too, see little evidence of an equal and opposite counterpart to the "watered-down Catholicism" crowd, certainly not in terms of proportion.
But the post-Vatican II use of secrecy in preparing liturgical reforms has so badly damaged the good proposals of the Council that it is hard to see a way to implement them now. The Council assumed a well-formed laity and a well-established liturgy, neither one of which we have today outside the traditional Mass crowd.
I would go so far to argue that it will only be once the traditionally minded Catholics of the Latin Rite are in the majority, or a significant minority, in the Latin Church, that it will be possible to try applying Vatican II again. But this time, without secrecy.
Pater Ignotus gave quotes to support his statement that the Church states access to health care is an inalienable right.
Well, if the Church says so, then I'll be obedient and trust her and go along with that statement.
However, our government is not using the Church's teaching or principles to guide it in how to properly create such a system.
The US government may agree with the Church on the fact that universal access to health care for all is an unalienable right, but it certainly differs on the means to bring it about.
The government is using socialist tactics to bring to fuition an idea that is not in itself a socialist idea.
Swelching the rights of others in order to bring about 'universal health care' is not the Church's way.
The Church also taught me that the end does not justify the means.
The recent HHS requirement is only a very recent and public expample and one that finally hits the Church, so the Church is fighting back.
Yet, it has been going on for quite sometime with regards to requirements of medical professionals, supporting medical insurance companies that take away patient's free choice and the doctor's ability run his own business.
Don't get me started here!..this is a hot topic for me that I happen to know a thing or two about. But this is not my blog.
Suffice it say, I am glad the Bishops are rolling up their sleeves and donning their boxing gloves on this HHS mandate and I'll do what I can to support them.
Note to Pater Ignotus, once you previously mentioned that you have an affinity for care of the poor and pwerless. That is a noble sentiment and we all need to cultivate it more! Just one reqest: in your personal interactions perhaps you can see that the poor and powerless actually come in a forms and ecoomic strata. I know you were actually referring to the financially poor people, yet helping them should not render the others financially poor nor take away anything from them. There is plenty to go aruond, and then some! No need to support Robin Hood tactics (I don't know that YOU do).
If we take away free choice or the ability to increase one's own talents...that's like socialism and/or communism.
~SqueekerLamb
Allowed themselves to be duped?
Hardly. These two characters knew perfectly well the type of scoundrel that Obama was and is. To imply that they were duped strains credulity.
Just came from a Pre-Lenten parish mission in our TLM parish. The homily was simple: Truth. The engaging young priest simply said that he served the Truth. No equivocation, no apologies, no comparisons. Just simple, 'the Truth". There was a lot of other interesting and inspiring things in his talk, but I actually felt as if a weight was lifted to hear this.
Pa-Ig, If one concedes that there are multiple ways to celebrate Mass within the Universal Church, then surely there must be multiple ways to provide universal health care within the Church's goal. In fact, the secular goal should have as many different methods of serving that goal as possible to avoid a single point of failure, which, by the way, is exactly what we have here. Socialism is so much more than taking property, it takes the human spirit by assuming choices and thereby robbing us of the single unique feature of humanity.
rcg
Thanks, Carole and Henry!
That was very difficult to write, but cathartic--took two hours and a couple of tears shed..
Pater, I'm sure, is much beloved by God and most certainly by His Mother.
He just doesn't understand the dangers and pitfalls of the social justice agendas so prevalent in days gone by--agendas that tend to be ironically promulgated by the self-absorbed in the name of "others". I KNOW because I fell into the trap myself in my youth listening to social gospel priests and squandered some precious time (I nearly became a Maryknoll Mission nun, enough said!). Believe me, my heart still lives with the poor and disenfrancised. But I have lived long enough to know that God is much bigger than any one social agenda, or even any one liturgical preference (I too prefer the EF, but it is not available in our deanery and we have given up the struggle with obstinate priests, Pater included!).
Nor does Pater understand the wrong-headed enabling he fosters that can be SO very divisive in our beloved Church particularly strong right now. We have witnessed this locally--it is heart-breaking and, for some parishioners, faith-shattering.
It is way past time to heal the divisions and TOGETHER face real evil head-on...
And, Pater, with respect, the proper noun for "snipping" is "Snip", not "Snipe"...
Just sayin'
Henry: By way of explanation, the only part I am in disagreement with Father on is that the right wing of the Church contributes to any disunity if it disagrees with the Pope. Father is an Ultramontanist but I am not. The Popes make too many contradictory statements for me to pledge to hang on their every word as if it directly from God.
Every subject's service is the King's, but every subject's soul is his own, for we purpose not our souls when we purpose our service. Meaning, obedience will not wipe from us the sin of following unlawful orders. We must use conscience and free will in all things, even in matters of obedience, otherwise the obedience is meaningless.
Pater Ignotus,
Abortion and contaception is not health care, it is execution. The Didache says in The Way of Life number 2, "Practise no magic, sorcery, abortion, or infanticide."
This Church document is from 80-90 AD. It is clear that the Chuch has been against abortion and contraception from the very beginning. We are not going to let anyone force us to pay for something that we have stood against for 2,000 years!
A may have deleted by accident from my iPhone someone's comment, so if you miss it, send it again--can't find it on my iPhone.
Snipe - The Social Justice agenda is the Church's agenda.
The Church "teaches the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 2419)
Nothing that concerns the community of men and women - situations and problems regarding justice, freedom, development, relations between people, peace - is foreign to evangelization, and evangelization would be incomplete if it did not take into account the mutual demands continually made by the Gospel and by the concrete, personal and social life of man. - Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntiandi, no 25
With her social doctrine, the Church aims "at helping man on the path of salvation." - Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, no 54.
The Social Justice agenda is the Church's agenda.
That the Gospel, of which the Church's own teaching on Social Justice is an integral part, should be divisive is nothing new.
The argument against the Church's teaching on Social Justice is not with me, but with, it seems, the Church itself.
Why this tilting at windmills? With repetitive quotations that absolutely no one here disagrees with. So far as I can see, no one here has expressed any disagreement with any of the Church's social teaching. Though perhaps some may think it obvious that some current governmental policies are threat not only to the Church's social agenda, but to Church and Faith themselves in this country.
Pacem in Terris
48. Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good. And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings. Authority is before all else a moral force. For this reason the appeal of rulers should be to the individual conscience, to the duty which every man has of voluntarily contributing to the common good. But since all men are equal in natural dignity, no man has the capacity to force internal compliance on another. Only God can do that, for He alone scrutinizes and judges the secret counsels of the heart.
49. Hence, representatives of the State have no power to bind men in conscience, unless their own authority is tied to God's authority, and is a participation in it.
51. Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men ".
I'm glad the Pope has an opinion on Universal Health Care, did he declare this opinion to be infallible dogma of the Church? No? Didn't think so. I've got an opinion on the subject too, just as good as the Pope's I dare say.
While I have no disagreement with Catholic Charity, and the idea of Social Justice being part of the Church's mission, I do take exception to a SOCIALIST medical plan that requires some to get for free what others must pay for. Should every one have access to health care? Yes!! Should it be for free? Hell no!! Not from the government, and not paid for with tax revenues against people's will. Catholic Hospitals, supported by donations from Catholics, offering free medical care is a GREAT example of Catholic Charity and the Church fulfilling it's mission. The Government STEALING from people against their will and redistributing that money, in cash or services, is socialism pure and simple.
It is unfortunate that the term "social justice" is used by both the Church and the secular Left, but with different (presumably) meanings and objectives. I will offer one caveat, and that is that the Church, being primarily European in history and world view, is a bit too comfortable with socialistic and Communistic political philosophies.
Now, in the US, social justice is almost a redundancy. I mean, talk about a straw man. The so-called "oppressed" in this country have rights and representation ad nauseam, and the much vaunted "poor" in this country have a standard of living that the poor of other countries envy. Our poor have wide screen tv's, video games, computers, cell phones, Ipods, and most have automobiles. Besides, if you are really poor and starving you do not have the energy to get out in the street and protest or form flash mobs and pillage Wal Mart.
No, "social justice," as used by the Left in this country is a code word for communist, ant-capitalist agenda. Destroy the wealthy by taking their money, eliminate middle class values with relativistic morality and egalitarian programs, control education and schools (propaganda factories), and discourage individualism exceptionalism (I am not talking about the euphemismn for retarded that is another lie of public education), and do it all in the name of helping the "poor" and minorities.
Presumably, this is not what the Church means by "social justice," but sometimes it is hard to tell...
What is wrong with just "justice?" That's for everybody...rich, poor, white, black, whoever..."social justice" is for a very special class of mythic "poor" who are being used as a foil for social-ism.
Pin, the Church has never been comfortable with socialism or communism, just individual people (who were wrong) within the Church. Leo XIII has a great encyclical on socialism that everyone in today's America should read. To facilitate that, I will now quote it at length! (Note that we can ascertain the Church's traditional teaching on healthcare by careful study of the last portion I will quote below).
From Quod Apostolici Muneris (1878):
Their (the socialists') habit, as we have intimated, is always to maintain that nature has made all men equal, and that, therefore, neither honor nor respect is due to majesty, nor obedience to laws, unless, perhaps, to those sanctioned by their own good pleasure. But, on the contrary, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel, the equality of men consists in this: that all, having inherited the same nature, are called to the same most high dignity of the sons of God, and that, as one and the same end is set before all, each one is to be judged by the same law and will receive punishment or reward according to his deserts. The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, "from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."
... the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.
In fine, [the Church] does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, "who being rich became poor for our sake, or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. But who does not see that this is the best method of arranging the old struggle between the rich and poor? For, as the very evidence of facts and events shows, if this method is rejected or disregarded, one of two things must occur: either the greater portion of the human race will fall back into the vile condition of slavery which so long prevailed among the pagan nations, or human society must continue to be disturbed by constant eruptions, to be disgraced by rapine and strife, as we have had sad witness even in recent times.
Marc
Marc, Indeed so. A very good post and comments. Leftists do not believe in any "eternal bliss" for anyone, so their frantic hope is to create some truly mythical utopia on earth through mandated government "salvation." It is called "humanism."
What does the Church pray for regarding social justice?
"O God, who gave one origin to all peoples and willed to gather from them one family for yourself, fill all hearts, we pray, with the fire of your love and kindle in them a desire for the just advancement of their neighbor, that, through the good things which you richly bestow upon all, each human person may be brought to perfection, every division may be removed, and equity and justice may be established in human society. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,..."
Lex orandi...
Yes, most of what you say I discovered fairly early-on as a Catholic maiden in the turbulent 70's; but, unfortunately, not before experiencing some serious sequelae from the early "social justice" mentality.
The hidden pitfalls of that mentality are huge.
Let's just call justice "justice". God IS just.
The Church calls it Social Justice, so I, for one, will use that term.
Pater, This Too:
Concede nobis, Domine Deus noster,
ut te tota mente veneremur,
et omnes homines *rationabili* diligamus affectu.
rcg
I cite a papal encyclical and Pater cites a collect for the Votive Mass for the Progress of Peoples.
Anyway, you cited a Collect supporting the teaching on solidarity. surely the Church's principle of subsidiarity comes into play here as well. Can health care be handled at a lower level than the national government?
Lex credendi...
Marc
The Votive Mass for the Progress of Peoples? Where is that found, in Mao's Little Red Book?
Pin, the 1948 Missal of the PRC.
j/k!!!
rcg
Gee, what an unfortunate choice of names for a Mass...How about "Power to the People Mass" or, if you like something more current and in the Vat II spirit, "The Votive Mass for Occupy Wall Street?"
The Prayer is from a Red Book, which is neither little nor Maoist. It is found in the Roman Missal and is the collect from the mass "For the Progress of Peoples."
The prayer is a distillation of the principles which the Church teaches in this regard, principles found in a number of encyclicals and other authoritative magisterial documents.
Our "one origin" - that we are made by God in God's image gives us an inherent dignity. That dignity is the basis for the Church's Social Doctrine, including our opposition to killing innocent humans.
It is God's will that we recognize that our human family excludes no one - that all humans share equal dignity.
We are to desire "the just advancement of our neighbors" as a means to improving the Common Good.
Advancing the Common Good is a fundamental teaching of the Church.
The "good things richly bestowed upon all" speaks to the proper end of God's material creation. They are bestowed "upon all," not only upon a few.
We aim to be perfected by grace. Our progress toward that end in this life is impeded by the divisions that cause strife within the human family.
Equity and justice are the goals which the Church proclaims to be revealed by God, and we are encouraged to share in this part of the Church's mission.
These are not "pie in the sky when you die" goals. As the Church prays, our expectation and hope is that they will be accomplished "in human society."
It is a particularly rich prayer theologically, if a bit wordy. But it can be difficult to say a lot with just a few words.
Amen
Pater, good post!
(My commendation of Pater for one of his posts is assuredly a sign of the end times: So I don't think we're going to have time to reach our goal of justice for all peoples in this lifetime.)
Post a Comment