The "of course" suggests that perhaps we do not really know. Of all the folks you might listen to today, as we are surrounded by secular madness and the drive to socialism, Beck is one of the moral ones.
My suspicion is that he achieved his sobriety through his conversion to Mormonism, and if that is a correct assumption, I would be surprised to see him reconsider. But I shall pray for his conversion.
Beck suffers from "grandiosity," which is frequently found in recovering addicts.
"Grandiosity" refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.
He is also a paranoid conspiracy theorist, couching the truth (the pope is battling evil) in his grandiose fantasies.
"I had meetings at the Vatican" he says. With whom I wonder.
"I had a chance to meet several cardinals..." he said. So did thousands of other well-wishers following the Consistory.
The Vatican is involved in a "high stakes game that I don't understand," he says, then goes on to tell us that he understands what this means.
Of ALL the people who might have something worthwhile to say about "Spiritual Warfare," Beck the culture warrior is hardly worth listening to.
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Pater Ignotus's psychoanalysis of Glenn Beck is quite sad and at the same time laughable. Maybe it takes one to know one. Based on PI's posts on this blog over the last three years, you could substitute his name for Beck's and draw the same conclusions, save maybe the 'apostate' label. (I would probably use the h-word for PI, but only the dear Lord can truly judge or 'psychoanalyze' him.) One who is not of the 'progressive' bent like PI could probably substitute Barack Obama for Glenn Beck and come to the same conclusions.
I'm still waiting and praying for Pater Ignotus to get off his grandiose, high horse and let us know, with a simple yes or no, if he will allow the TLM at his parish.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh is not to be taken seriously unless he is in persona Christi. He should be countered and corrected on this Blog for the benefit of the ignorant, confused Catholics, and others seeking to return to traditional Catholic identity. Now, about Beck. I have only listened to him a couple of times. Although I can agree with his conservative values, there are much better representatives of conservatism out there. Beck is a sensationalist, a conspiracy theorist (although that does not mean there is not a conspiracy), and an intellectual lightweight. His Mormonism is a big problem for me, which is also why I have trouble with Romney (aside from his phony conservatism). Mormonism is just so weird and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were such case studies in paranoid schizophrenia that anyone who follows that stuff is immediately suspect. I would certainly seek better sources for commentary on Church politics and Catholic life.
On balance, Beck has been right about alot of his "conspiracy" theories - from Van Jones being a bona fide Communist to the many Soros's connections, to detailing the history of the Progressive movements. He's also entertaining and self-depreciating if you actually listen. He's admitted (regularly) to being an alcoholic and needing help. He's also raised millions for charity when others sit on their hands blaming the rich or wait around for "the government" to do something. So there's much to admire even if you don't share his politics or theology. As for gradiosity - well, if he were the local talk show host, then I'd grant you, it would be crazy talk. But he's has genuinely built up a media empire that provides jobs to over 100 people, his Washington DC event drew over 100,000 people, and so in his shoes, I think it's objective that he actually has accomplished "grand" things. He's not just a guy behind a radio. He's a successful author, speaker, and media personality. That he has feet of clay like the rest of us isn't a deal breaker. But note how folks "on the left" can't just disagree with someone, they must find personal ad hominem digs to toss in the mix. It's never "well, you simply disagree with me". It's always "you must be a hater" or "you must be crazy" or "you must be some sort of evil doer to disagree".
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
And lest we forget, contrast Beck's whacked view of social justice with what the Church teaches:
Beck: "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1929. "SOCIAL JUSTICE can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt."
Benedict 16, October 2011: "“As believers, setting out from our respect convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society, the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice."
And Paul VI in Ocotgesima Adveniens: " In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others."
And Adlai, if you think I have taught heresy, I invite you to document the charge and send it to Bishop Hartmayer. A copy to me would be nice.
[Unlike Fr. McDonald I am not clairvoyant. But I will tell you here and now that no such charges will be presented to the bishop, because they are not supportable by the facts.]
I suspect that none of us really appreciates our Faith being “manipulated,” or sometimes even “misrepresented,” for political purposes by pundits or politicians of any political persuasion. We should try to safeguard our independence of thought – our independence of Catholic thought – whenever we suspect such manipulation or misrepresentation is being attempted. Thus, just as we should resist misrepresentations of the development of Catholic teaching on abortion and birth control by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, so also we should resist manipulations of our Catholic commitments by the likes of Glenn Beck and, dare I say it, Rick Santorum. However much I might admire how Glenn Beck has battled his own personal demons, I often question his judgment, and however much I might admire Rick Santorum’s courage in defending the Church’s first amendment freedoms and his integrity in facing crises in his own family decisions, I find it very difficult to square his apparent positions on, for example, matters such as capital punishment, economic regulation, worker’s rights, immigration, creation care, a preferential option for the poor, and the use of force in international affairs with what I understand to be Catholic social teaching on such matters. Regarding the Obama State Department concern over Vatican finances specifically, I have not researched the issue in depth but have done enough to know that there are more widely shared concerns at least over a lack of transparency. The position taken by the Obama Administration may not therefore be unreasonable. Better, perhaps, to investigate the issue more thoroughly than jump to immediate conclusions by buying into a persecution narrative perpetrated by such as Glenn Beck.
We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who would make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service. There should, so far as possible, be equal of opportunity to render service; but just so long as there is inequality of service there should and must be inequality of reward. We may be sorry for the general, the painter, the artists, the worker in any profession or of any kind, whose misfortune rather than whose fault it is that he does his work ill. But the reward must go to the man who does his work well; for any other course is to create a new kind of privilege, the privilege of folly and weakness; and special privilege is injustice, whatever form it takes.
To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are far-sighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.
Pater, do you think there is a tendency in some Catholic circles to co-opt the phrase "social justice" in an effort to espouse what would better be characterized as "socialistic" views? That is, do you think there is movement afoot to justify universal healthcare or wealth redistribution under the guise of Catholic doctrine?
I don't know anything about Glenn Beck (and I don't care to) because I don't have cable and I don't listen to the radio. But, I wonder if he is saying that churches (actually I think he means ecclesial communities) are using the phrase social justice to promote what would be commonly understood as a liberal political agenda...? There also seems to be a movement amongst some Catholics to minimize individual sin and culpability by focusing on the macro level of society - the end result of which is to undermine the Sacrament of Confession. Obviously, Beck wouldn't care about that, but I think that is why some of us react stronly against the typical usage of the phrase "social justice" in Catholic circles.
Pater, what makes you think that the 'h-word' stands for 'heretic'? There are other words in the English language that can describe your position. If I were to write a letter to His Excellency, Bishop Hartmayer, I wouldn't waste my time on that. However, I would address your disobedience regarding allowing the TLM at your parish and your lack of charity toward those faithful who have every right to request it. IMO, a letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, would be much more effective. But then again you've never really revealed your true identity on this blog, so it would be rather comical writing a letter to either His Excellency or His Holiness complaining about 'Pater Ignotus'. Perhaps you can clue them both in so that if and when they receive any complaint letters about you in the future they'll know who they are about.
Templar, I agree with your last post completely. It seems that basically you are referring to our Lord's call to increase the talents entrusted to us; all the while helping others too.
I think: Tithing takes care of 'wealth distribution' in a proper way. Government imposed forms of 'tithing' restrict Free Will.
Personally, I work very hard, spending myself daily, to utilize the talents I've been given, and I get frustrated with those who want to reap the benefits of my dogged work without doing their equivalent version of utilizing their own talents. That's an injustice upon me. "Thou shall not steal"!
Those whose use of talents results in an increase in 'financial talents' should be allowed to reap the fruits of their labors, and also are morally obligated to contribute to the care of others in some fashion. THAT is Social Justice....INMHO... which seems consistent with the Catechism. Correct me if I may be wrong, please. ~SqueekerLamb P. S. Glenn Beck does indeed display Grandiosity...common to chemical addicts...and is fallen away from the One True Church...such a person I cannot defend, and certainly not follow, even if he has done some good works. It may not be a sin to suffer from the mind altering effects of chemical addiction, but once delivered from the addiction it seems sinful to me for a person to willfully attact or even resist the One True Church...especially if one was raised in it and knows better!
Marc - When I write about the Church's social doctrine I always quote the Church's official teaching. That gives me two things: 1) the certainty that I am teaching what the Church teaches; and 2) protection from those who, not wanting to hear the Church's social doctrine, choose to label me a "heretic" or "socialist" or "modernist" or etc.
Univesal healthcare is supported by the Church, officially. This is not part of a "liberal agenda," but a part of the Church's agenda. I am perfectly comfortable teaching what the Church teaches.
"Some Catholics" may choose to minimize individual sin - I am not one of them.
Adlai, I am Fr. Michael Kavanaugh, and I again invite you to write to Bishop Hartmayer, documenting the "heresies" you think I espouse. I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving a copy of your letter.
Social justice is, indeed, a code word for socialism and secular humanist programs. It is unfortunate that the Church uses the term, even if the Church does not mean the same thing by it that the secularists mean. However, I think it is true that progressives in the Church know exactly what they are doing and use the term in the same way secularists use it. Lightweights like Ignotus/Kavanaugh run to the term because they think it shields them from all the bad words they like to call traditionalists such as "racist," "homophobe," and "jingoist." It may...but it does not shield them from such words as moron, moon calf, or half-wit.
FYI - go to Blaze.com if you wish to confirm that he spent time at the Vatican - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-meets-with-catholic-clergy-international-tea-party-leaders-in-rome-heres-why/
Also, your "social justice" quote is short on details. Beck has pointed out the difference between orthodox Catholic social teaching (including social justice etc), and the ala liberation theology Marxist types who use the phrase "social justice" in religious circles to mean their own political agenda. - Metro
The Blaze article says, "... Beck flew from Miami to Rome, where he had meetings with prominent Catholic Church leaders."
The photo shows him in a public reception with Cardinal Dolan.
The Blaze article says, "During his dialogue with Cardinals, Monsignors, Archbishops and other Catholic leaders,..."
That's who you chat up in public receptions following a Consistory.
The Blaze article says, "These meetings with Catholic leaders are the latest in a series of discussions that Beck has had with numerous faith leaders, including evangelical pastors and rabbis, among others."
Yes, he met with Catholic leaders in public receptions.
Is there anything to support Beck's grandiose claim that he is engaged in substantial, personal dialogues with Church leaders about anything?
Beck's self-description: "At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. “I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.” (New York Times, 29 March 2009)
Let's play a game. Here's the Mission Statement From a Catholic Church, try to guess if the Pastor that would approve this is a Liberal Hack.
The Mission of ______ Catholic Church is to demonstrate and share God's teachings and unconditional love by developing community service, promoting the sanctity of all life, and nurturing a spirit-filled environment of truth and worship.
It's Mission isn't to save souls, no no no, it's mission is to share God's unconditional love; which of course can only learned through Community Service....and a "spirit filled" environment, whatever the hell that is.
And becasue truth is stanger than fiction, the verification word for the post is likesoB...how fitting.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You like to quote Church Dogma and cite various encyclicals, etc., but I always get the impression that you are doing so toungue-in-cheek...sort of like you are tossing them in our faces with a "see!! see!!" nanananabooboo attitude. You know, anyone can quote Scripture or Dogma, even the Devil. You are a bit like a Baptist "proof-texting, that is, for any given discussion or argument they run to find (or quote from memory) a Scripture verse to support their view or counter what the opponent is saying. Given the history of your posts and attitude on this blog, such bevavior is confusing to those who are not thoroughly familiar with the various ways in which a male bovine defecates...
Marc - I have already quoted it in previous posts. You're welcome!
Pin - So if I have misquoted, please correct me. And I am happy - quite happy - to acknowledge that I am thoroughly unfamiliar with barnyard bowel movements, which seem to be of particular interest to you.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You see, you are doing it again...deliberately misunderstandimng what I said. I said nothing about you misquoting anything. In fact, your quotes are all quite accurate. I said that you are disingenuous.
Secondly, I said nothing about "barnyard bowel movements." Male bovines are not kept in the barnyard where the chickens and other domestic fowl, dogs, cats, children, farm wives, and visiting Priests are to be found. Male bovines are kept in the pasture so their unpredictably ill tempers will not do harm. My interest in bovine excreta was only piqued when I discovered such an inordinate volume of the same issuing from a single source, namely you. This led me to examine it more carefully...call it science...LOL!
Pin - So you don't like the Church's Social Doctrine. That's your choice.
I, on the other hand, welcome the Church's instruction, knowing that the Church's teaching, not my own personal preferences, is the way to a just society and to the building up of the Reign of God.
Ignotus, When did I say anything in my recent posts about the Church's social doctrine? I was discussing your disingenuous comments. I said absolutely nothing about liking or disliking the Church's social doctrine. Are we reading the same Blog?
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, Isn't it interesting that so many others "read" the same things in you posts that I do? No one is "reading into" anything.
Re: Social doctrine. Why does the Church even need to use such a political, social engineering sounding term? You want to discuss the Church's social doctrine? Ok: "Go ye, therefore, into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." There. That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything.
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The redemption wrought by Christ and entrusted to the saving mission of the Church is certainly of the supernatural order. This dimension (the Church's social doctrine) is not a delimitation of salvation but rather an integral expression of it." (Evnagelii Nuntiandi, 9)
[NOTE: "not a delimitation of salvation"]
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The Church's social doctrine 'is itself a valid instrument of evangelization' (Evangelii Nunitandi, 31) and is born of the always new meeting of the Gospel message and social life."
[NOTE: "a valid instrument of evangelization" The purpose of evangelization is the saving of souls.]
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "Social doctrine too, insofar as it is knowledge applied to the circumstantial and historical aspects of praxis, brings 'fides et ratio' (Fides et Ratio, AAS 91)together and is an eloquent expression of that rich relationship."
"The object of the Church's social doctrine is essentially the same that constitutes the reason for its existence: the human person, called to salvation, and as such entrusted by Christ to the Church's care and responsibility." (Centesimus Annus, 53)
[NOTE: The object of the Church's social doctrine is the salvation of souls.]
Lastly, for now, Pin Sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The intent of the Church's social doctrine is of the religious and moral order." (Quadragesimo Anno, AAS 23)
Why does the Church use the term "social doctrine"? The term "social doctrine" goes back to Pope Pius XI and is used since that time. (Cf Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Menti Nostrae (1950), Mater et Magistra (1961), Pacem in Terris (1963), etc.
I think the reason people don't like the Church's social doctrine is simply because they don't know it.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You are either being deliberately dense or you are far less intelligent than you appear. The fact that the primary purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls does not preclude a social ministry. But, the salvation of souls is primary, a sort of theological first principle. Get it?
I suspect that what you mean when you say social doctrine and what the Church means are rather different. Once again, the phrase "social doctrine" is an unfortunate one.
Pin - I have no trouble with the Church's mission. What I do not accept is your overly narrow , and therefore incorrect, understanding of 1) that mission and 2) the place of the Church's Social Doctrine in serving that mission.
My view is not overly narrow, it is simply a statement of a Biblical and theological truth: The Church's primary mission is the salvation of souls. I said nothing about what follows from that because that isn't the issue.
Social work may or may not serve that mission, but it certainly is subordinated to it. The secular/humanist faction in the Church makes it de facto primary and would like to make it theologically primary. Once again, which is better...for the "poor" to be fat, warm, and happy without Christ or hungry and cold but saved? No, I am not setting up an either/or. I am making a theological point. Christ saved many people without changing their social condition at all, and he did it all without DFCS or the Welfare Office and certainly without the help of Caesar.
Matthew 25 is pretty clear about the criteria upon which we will be judged worthy (or not) of salvation.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
You mistakenly separate the two - salvation of souls and feeding/clothing/dressing/housing/welcoming, etc.
I just told you in my previous post that I was not suggesting a dichotomy, an either/or. You have a problem with reading comprehension. Notice that in Matt. 26, Jesus is speaking to his disciples, those who already believe in Him. His words are an exhortation to the Christian life to His followers. Now, if you will review Scripture a bit further, you will notice that the primacy of belief (faith)is emphasized everywhere: Jn 3:16, of course; Jn 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life...whosoever believeth in me..." etc. Hebrews 11:6: "without faith, it is impossible to please Him;" The primacy of belief is the hallmark of Paul's writings, and John's Gospel may be considered the earliest example of a systematic theology in which belief and justification by faith are the first principles of Christian doctrine. So, take a "works" break once in a while and re-visit theology 101.
42 comments:
You are aware that Glenn Beck grew up as a Catholic, no?
The "of course" suggests that perhaps we do not really know. Of all the folks you might listen to today, as we are surrounded by secular madness and the drive to socialism, Beck is one of the moral ones.
I was aware of that and wondering if by God's grace he might be reconsidering the Catholic Church.
My suspicion is that he achieved his sobriety through his conversion to Mormonism, and if that is a correct assumption, I would be surprised to see him reconsider. But I shall pray for his conversion.
Beck suffers from "grandiosity," which is frequently found in recovering addicts.
"Grandiosity" refers to an unrealistic sense of superiority, a sustained view of oneself as better than others that causes the narcissist to view others with disdain or as inferior. It also refers to a sense of uniqueness, the belief that few others have anything in common with oneself and that one can only be understood by a few or very special people.
He is also a paranoid conspiracy theorist, couching the truth (the pope is battling evil) in his grandiose fantasies.
"I had meetings at the Vatican" he says. With whom I wonder.
"I had a chance to meet several cardinals..." he said. So did thousands of other well-wishers following the Consistory.
The Vatican is involved in a "high stakes game that I don't understand," he says, then goes on to tell us that he understands what this means.
Of ALL the people who might have something worthwhile to say about "Spiritual Warfare," Beck the culture warrior is hardly worth listening to.
He is an apostate, to boot, as Anonymous said.
OMG....PI is right. ;-)
~SqueekerLamb
Seems to me...
Grandiosity and becoming (or rebecoming)a Catholic can't mix.
Much humility is required to truly be a Catholic.
But then again, just check in to the hospital and let the Divine Physician start "fixin' what ails ya'", Mr. Beck.
~SL
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Pater Ignotus's psychoanalysis of Glenn Beck is quite sad and at the same time laughable. Maybe it takes one to know one. Based on PI's posts on this blog over the last three years, you could substitute his name for Beck's and draw the same conclusions, save maybe the 'apostate' label. (I would probably use the h-word for PI, but only the dear Lord can truly judge or 'psychoanalyze' him.) One who is not of the 'progressive' bent like PI could probably substitute Barack Obama for Glenn Beck and come to the same conclusions.
I'm still waiting and praying for Pater Ignotus to get off his grandiose, high horse and let us know, with a simple yes or no, if he will allow the TLM at his parish.
Adlai
Ignotus/Kavanaugh is not to be taken seriously unless he is in persona Christi. He should be countered and corrected on this Blog for the benefit of the ignorant, confused Catholics, and others seeking to return to traditional Catholic identity.
Now, about Beck. I have only listened to him a couple of times. Although I can agree with his conservative values, there are much better representatives of conservatism out there. Beck is a sensationalist, a conspiracy theorist (although that does not mean there is not a conspiracy), and an intellectual lightweight. His Mormonism is a big problem for me, which is also why I have trouble with Romney (aside from his phony conservatism). Mormonism is just so weird and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were such case studies in paranoid schizophrenia that anyone who follows that stuff is immediately suspect. I would certainly seek better sources for commentary on Church politics and Catholic life.
On balance, Beck has been right about alot of his "conspiracy" theories - from Van Jones being a bona fide Communist to the many Soros's connections, to detailing the history of the Progressive movements. He's also entertaining and self-depreciating if you actually listen. He's admitted (regularly) to being an alcoholic and needing help. He's also raised millions for charity when others sit on their hands blaming the rich or wait around for "the government" to do something. So there's much to admire even if you don't share his politics or theology. As for gradiosity - well, if he were the local talk show host, then I'd grant you, it would be crazy talk. But he's has genuinely built up a media empire that provides jobs to over 100 people, his Washington DC event drew over 100,000 people, and so in his shoes, I think it's objective that he actually has accomplished "grand" things. He's not just a guy behind a radio. He's a successful author, speaker, and media personality. That he has feet of clay like the rest of us isn't a deal breaker. But note how folks "on the left" can't just disagree with someone, they must find personal ad hominem digs to toss in the mix. It's never "well, you simply disagree with me". It's always "you must be a hater" or "you must be crazy" or "you must be some sort of evil doer to disagree".
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
And lest we forget, contrast Beck's whacked view of social justice with what the Church teaches:
Beck: "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1929. "SOCIAL JUSTICE can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him: What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt."
Benedict 16, October 2011: "“As believers, setting out from our respect convictions, we can offer an important witness in many key areas of life in society, the protection of the family based on marriage, respect for life in every phase of its natural course or the promotion of greater social justice."
And Paul VI in Ocotgesima Adveniens: "
In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others."
And Adlai, if you think I have taught heresy, I invite you to document the charge and send it to Bishop Hartmayer. A copy to me would be nice.
[Unlike Fr. McDonald I am not clairvoyant. But I will tell you here and now that no such charges will be presented to the bishop, because they are not supportable by the facts.]
I suspect that none of us really appreciates our Faith being “manipulated,” or sometimes even “misrepresented,” for political purposes by pundits or politicians of any political persuasion. We should try to safeguard our independence of thought – our independence of Catholic thought – whenever we suspect such manipulation or misrepresentation is being attempted. Thus, just as we should resist misrepresentations of the development of Catholic teaching on abortion and birth control by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, so also we should resist manipulations of our Catholic commitments by the likes of Glenn Beck and, dare I say it, Rick Santorum. However much I might admire how Glenn Beck has battled his own personal demons, I often question his judgment, and however much I might admire Rick Santorum’s courage in defending the Church’s first amendment freedoms and his integrity in facing crises in his own family decisions, I find it very difficult to square his apparent positions on, for example, matters such as capital punishment, economic regulation, worker’s rights, immigration, creation care, a preferential option for the poor, and the use of force in international affairs with what I understand to be Catholic social teaching on such matters.
Regarding the Obama State Department concern over Vatican finances specifically, I have not researched the issue in depth but have done enough to know that there are more widely shared concerns at least over a lack of transparency. The position taken by the Obama Administration may not therefore be unreasonable. Better, perhaps, to investigate the issue more thoroughly than jump to immediate conclusions by buying into a persecution narrative perpetrated by such as Glenn Beck.
We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who would make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service. There should, so far as possible, be equal of opportunity to render service; but just so long as there is inequality of service there should and must be inequality of reward. We may be sorry for the general, the painter, the artists, the worker in any profession or of any kind, whose misfortune rather than whose fault it is that he does his work ill. But the reward must go to the man who does his work well; for any other course is to create a new kind of privilege, the privilege of folly and weakness; and special privilege is injustice, whatever form it takes.
To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are far-sighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.
Pater, do you think there is a tendency in some Catholic circles to co-opt the phrase "social justice" in an effort to espouse what would better be characterized as "socialistic" views? That is, do you think there is movement afoot to justify universal healthcare or wealth redistribution under the guise of Catholic doctrine?
I don't know anything about Glenn Beck (and I don't care to) because I don't have cable and I don't listen to the radio. But, I wonder if he is saying that churches (actually I think he means ecclesial communities) are using the phrase social justice to promote what would be commonly understood as a liberal political agenda...? There also seems to be a movement amongst some Catholics to minimize individual sin and culpability by focusing on the macro level of society - the end result of which is to undermine the Sacrament of Confession. Obviously, Beck wouldn't care about that, but I think that is why some of us react stronly against the typical usage of the phrase "social justice" in Catholic circles.
Pater, what makes you think that the 'h-word' stands for 'heretic'? There are other words in the English language that can describe your position. If I were to write a letter to His Excellency, Bishop Hartmayer, I wouldn't waste my time on that. However, I would address your disobedience regarding allowing the TLM at your parish and your lack of charity toward those faithful who have every right to request it. IMO, a letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, would be much more effective. But then again you've never really revealed your true identity on this blog, so it would be rather comical writing a letter to either His Excellency or His Holiness complaining about 'Pater Ignotus'. Perhaps you can clue them both in so that if and when they receive any complaint letters about you in the future they'll know who they are about.
I'm still praying and waiting.
Adlai
Templar,
I agree with your last post completely.
It seems that basically you are referring to our Lord's call to increase the talents entrusted to us; all the while helping others too.
I think:
Tithing takes care of 'wealth distribution' in a proper way.
Government imposed forms of 'tithing' restrict Free Will.
Personally, I work very hard, spending myself daily, to utilize the talents
I've been given, and I get frustrated with those who want to reap the benefits of my dogged work without doing their equivalent version of utilizing their own talents. That's an injustice upon me.
"Thou shall not steal"!
Those whose use of talents results in an increase in 'financial talents' should be allowed to reap the fruits of their labors, and also are morally obligated to contribute to the care of others in some fashion. THAT is Social Justice....INMHO...
which seems consistent with the Catechism.
Correct me if I may be wrong, please.
~SqueekerLamb
P. S. Glenn Beck does indeed display Grandiosity...common to chemical addicts...and is fallen away from the One True Church...such a person I cannot defend, and certainly not follow, even if he has done some good works. It may not be a sin to suffer from the mind altering effects of chemical addiction, but once delivered from the addiction it seems sinful to me for a person to willfully attact or even resist the One True Church...especially if one was raised in it and knows better!
Marc - When I write about the Church's social doctrine I always quote the Church's official teaching. That gives me two things: 1) the certainty that I am teaching what the Church teaches; and 2) protection from those who, not wanting to hear the Church's social doctrine, choose to label me a "heretic" or "socialist" or "modernist" or etc.
Univesal healthcare is supported by the Church, officially. This is not part of a "liberal agenda," but a part of the Church's agenda. I am perfectly comfortable teaching what the Church teaches.
"Some Catholics" may choose to minimize individual sin - I am not one of them.
Adlai, I am Fr. Michael Kavanaugh, and I again invite you to write to Bishop Hartmayer, documenting the "heresies" you think I espouse. I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving a copy of your letter.
Social justice is, indeed, a code word for socialism and secular humanist programs. It is unfortunate that the Church uses the term, even if the Church does not mean the same thing by it that the secularists mean. However, I think it is true that progressives in the Church know exactly what they are doing and use the term in the same way secularists use it. Lightweights like Ignotus/Kavanaugh run to the term because they think it shields them from all the bad words they like to call traditionalists such as "racist," "homophobe," and "jingoist." It may...but it does not shield them from such words as moron, moon calf, or half-wit.
@ PI
FYI - go to Blaze.com if you wish to confirm that he spent time at the Vatican - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-meets-with-catholic-clergy-international-tea-party-leaders-in-rome-heres-why/
Also, your "social justice" quote is short on details. Beck has pointed out the difference between orthodox Catholic social teaching (including social justice etc), and the ala liberation theology Marxist types who use the phrase "social justice" in religious circles to mean their own political agenda.
- Metro
The Blaze article says, "... Beck flew from Miami to Rome, where he had meetings with prominent Catholic Church leaders."
The photo shows him in a public reception with Cardinal Dolan.
The Blaze article says, "During his dialogue with Cardinals, Monsignors, Archbishops and other Catholic leaders,..."
That's who you chat up in public receptions following a Consistory.
The Blaze article says, "These meetings with Catholic leaders are the latest in a series of discussions that Beck has had with numerous faith leaders, including evangelical pastors and rabbis, among others."
Yes, he met with Catholic leaders in public receptions.
Is there anything to support Beck's grandiose claim that he is engaged in substantial, personal dialogues with Church leaders about anything?
Beck's self-description: "At the same time, though, he says he is an entertainer. “I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.” (New York Times, 29 March 2009)
And a Rodeo Clown shall lead them....
Let's play a game. Here's the Mission Statement From a Catholic Church, try to guess if the Pastor that would approve this is a Liberal Hack.
The Mission of ______ Catholic Church is to demonstrate and share God's teachings and unconditional love
by developing community service, promoting the sanctity of all life, and nurturing a spirit-filled environment of truth and worship.
It's Mission isn't to save souls, no no no, it's mission is to share God's unconditional love; which of course can only learned through Community Service....and a "spirit filled" environment, whatever the hell that is.
And becasue truth is stanger than fiction, the verification word for the post is likesoB...how fitting.
Pater, will you please direct me to the official Church teaching on universal healthcare? Thank you!
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You like to quote Church Dogma and cite various encyclicals, etc., but I always get the impression that you are doing so toungue-in-cheek...sort of like you are tossing them in our faces with a "see!! see!!" nanananabooboo attitude. You know, anyone can quote Scripture or Dogma, even the Devil. You are a bit like a Baptist "proof-texting, that is, for any given discussion or argument they run to find (or quote from memory) a Scripture verse to support their view or counter what the opponent is saying. Given the history of your posts and attitude on this blog, such bevavior is confusing to those who are not thoroughly familiar with the various ways in which a male bovine defecates...
Marc - I have already quoted it in previous posts. You're welcome!
Pin - So if I have misquoted, please correct me. And I am happy - quite happy - to acknowledge that I am thoroughly unfamiliar with barnyard bowel movements, which seem to be of particular interest to you.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You see, you are doing it again...deliberately misunderstandimng what I said. I said nothing about you misquoting anything. In fact, your quotes are all quite accurate. I said that you are disingenuous.
Secondly, I said nothing about "barnyard bowel movements." Male bovines are not kept in the barnyard where the chickens and other domestic fowl, dogs, cats, children, farm wives, and visiting Priests are to be found. Male bovines are kept in the pasture so their unpredictably ill tempers will not do harm.
My interest in bovine excreta was only piqued when I discovered such an inordinate volume of the same issuing from a single source, namely you. This led me to examine it more carefully...call it science...LOL!
Pin - So you don't like the Church's Social Doctrine. That's your choice.
I, on the other hand, welcome the Church's instruction, knowing that the Church's teaching, not my own personal preferences, is the way to a just society and to the building up of the Reign of God.
You follow your path, I will follow the Church's.
Ignotus, When did I say anything in my recent posts about the Church's social doctrine? I was discussing your disingenuous comments. I said absolutely nothing about liking or disliking the Church's social doctrine. Are we reading the same Blog?
Pin - I am using your tactics against you. You "read into" my posts, so I "read into" yours! Capice?
Now, maybe you can understand why it is so utterly juvenile and useless to do so. If that is the case, let's talk about the Church's social doctrine.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, Isn't it interesting that so many others "read" the same things in you posts that I do? No one is "reading into" anything.
Re: Social doctrine. Why does the Church even need to use such a political, social engineering sounding term? You want to discuss the Church's social doctrine? Ok: "Go ye, therefore, into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." There. That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything.
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The redemption wrought by Christ and entrusted to the saving mission of the Church is certainly of the supernatural order. This dimension (the Church's social doctrine) is not a delimitation of salvation but rather an integral expression of it." (Evnagelii Nuntiandi, 9)
[NOTE: "not a delimitation of salvation"]
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The Church's social doctrine 'is itself a valid instrument of evangelization' (Evangelii Nunitandi, 31) and is born of the always new meeting of the Gospel message and social life."
[NOTE: "a valid instrument of evangelization" The purpose of evangelization is the saving of souls.]
Pin sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "Social doctrine too, insofar as it is knowledge applied to the circumstantial and historical aspects of praxis, brings 'fides et ratio' (Fides et Ratio, AAS 91)together and is an eloquent expression of that rich relationship."
"The object of the Church's social doctrine is essentially the same that constitutes the reason for its existence: the human person, called to salvation, and as such entrusted by Christ to the Church's care and responsibility." (Centesimus Annus, 53)
[NOTE: The object of the Church's social doctrine is the salvation of souls.]
Lastly, for now, Pin Sez: "That is the Church's primary purpose and goal, the saving of souls. Everything else is secondary...everything."
The Church sez: "The intent of the Church's social doctrine is of the religious and moral order." (Quadragesimo Anno, AAS 23)
Why does the Church use the term "social doctrine"? The term "social doctrine" goes back to Pope Pius XI and is used since that time. (Cf Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Menti Nostrae (1950), Mater et Magistra (1961), Pacem in Terris (1963), etc.
I think the reason people don't like the Church's social doctrine is simply because they don't know it.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, You are either being deliberately dense or you are far less intelligent than you appear. The fact that the primary purpose of the Church is the salvation of souls does not preclude a social ministry. But, the salvation of souls is primary, a sort of theological first principle. Get it?
I suspect that what you mean when you say social doctrine and what the Church means are rather different. Once again, the phrase "social doctrine" is an unfortunate one.
Pin - No, you are wrong. I mean what the Church means.
But, clearly, you have difficulty with the idea that the saving of souls is the primary mission of the Church. Interesting, that...
Pin - I have no trouble with the Church's mission. What I do not accept is your overly narrow , and therefore incorrect, understanding of 1) that mission and 2) the place of the Church's Social Doctrine in serving that mission.
My view is not overly narrow, it is simply a statement of a Biblical and theological truth: The Church's primary mission is the salvation of souls. I said nothing about what follows from that because that isn't the issue.
Social work may or may not serve that mission, but it certainly is subordinated to it. The secular/humanist faction in the Church makes it de facto primary and would like to make it theologically primary. Once again, which is better...for the "poor" to be fat, warm, and happy without Christ or hungry and cold but saved? No, I am not setting up an either/or. I am making a theological point. Christ saved many people without changing their social condition at all, and he did it all without DFCS or the Welfare Office and certainly without the help of Caesar.
Pin -
Matthew 25 is pretty clear about the criteria upon which we will be judged worthy (or not) of salvation.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
You mistakenly separate the two - salvation of souls and feeding/clothing/dressing/housing/welcoming, etc.
Your dichotmy - be fed or know Jesus - is false.
I just told you in my previous post that I was not suggesting a dichotomy, an either/or. You have a problem with reading comprehension. Notice that in Matt. 26, Jesus is speaking to his disciples, those who already believe in Him. His words are an exhortation to the Christian life to His followers.
Now, if you will review Scripture a bit further, you will notice that the primacy of belief (faith)is emphasized everywhere: Jn 3:16, of course; Jn 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life...whosoever believeth in me..." etc. Hebrews 11:6: "without faith, it is impossible to please Him;" The primacy of belief is the hallmark of Paul's writings, and John's Gospel may be considered the earliest example of a systematic theology in which belief and justification by faith are the first principles of Christian doctrine.
So, take a "works" break once in a while and re-visit theology 101.
Pin - You misunderstand what "to believe" in Jesus means. Faith without works is dead.
Ignotus/Kavanaugh, you do not listen and you cannot read. God help your parishioners...
Pin - I can do both in spades. And God does help them...and you!
Post a Comment