What makes it seem complicated is that many Catholic apologists and Internet voices that had decried such a compromise based on the lesser of two evils, now seem quite open about how well that works in a vote for Bernie. Not that they will vote for him. But suddenly, that lesser of two evils, while not preferred, is not some horrible thing that should make a Catholic hang his head in shame.
In fact, in some quarters it is because of Bernie's socialism, that we can vote for Sanders, all other considerations be damned. Oh sure, he passionately supports abortion rights up through partial birth abortion, assisted suicide, oppressing religious liberties under the HHS mandate, but hey! He embraces a secular liberal democratic socialist vision! And apparently that is the teaching that is truly in line with the Catholic Church.
So here's what I've noticed. Pope Francis has made poverty and loneliness into the great evils of our age. They are the non-negotiables. Those things which appear to lead to those evils: greed, consumerism, capitalism run amuck - they are the powers of hell that must be defeated. But other sins, such as gay sex, abortion, LGBT rights, euthanasia, assisted suicide, compromising religious liberty - sure they're still wrong, but they are those issues over which we can agree to disagree.
And so what were once the non-negotiables of life: protecting it womb to tomb, are now set aside as still important issues, but not nearly so great as the foundational problems of poverty and loneliness. And more to the point, only one political and social approach to the problems can be condoned, the other traditional approach being the stuff of Satan. Even if it's not explicitly called evil, it is treated that way.
So a Catholic who chose to support Romney or Bush, despite issues related to not limiting abortion enough or using torture or waging war against terrorism, was a bad Catholic. A weak Catholic. A Catholic who chose the way to hell.
 |
| Looking on the changes with interest |
But now a Catholic who chooses to support Sanders, despite Sanders' passionate support for abortion, assisted suicide, and compromising religious liberties, can be quite the good Catholic after all. Why the change? Because the Church is lurching ever closer to a liberal framework through which to interpret its teachings. And in so doing, it has made those sins of the Left into the negotiables, the areas of prudential judgment, or at least respectful willingness to agree to disagree. And ideals and economic theories of traditional Western values are now the intrinsic evils that cannot be supported.
Sort of like the Left and sex. I've often said that the great coup of our age is that liberalism was able to change the way we deal with sex and religion. It convinced us to treat sex the way we used to treat religion, and religion the way we used to treat sex. So today, religion is something almost shameful that should be kept behind closed doors and only whispered about in dark places, while sex should be proclaimed from the rooftops, the basis of morality and moral law, and the very thing with which identify ourselves.
And so it is here. The grave and intrinsic evils of the Left which were once non-negotiable and the stopping point of all compromise are now those issues we can simply set aside for the greater good. And old theories and ideas and solutions that were once the stuff of debate and discussion between Catholics of good will are now the non-negotiables. They are the evils against which anyone can vote, even if it means supporting the passionate advancement of those sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Or at least those sins that used to cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
You had me right through the fourth paragraph. When you described the popular understanding of the agenda of Pope Francis (of whom I often think, "Oh Magoo, you've done it again!") my eyes rolled--and landed on the photo of the late Catholic actor Alec Guinness as Col. Nicholson. Aha! Then I knew you hadn't gone over to the Dark Side, Mr. Daffey.
ReplyDeleteOh well, we were never promised impeccable popes. We'd been blessed for 35 years (1978-2013) and now comes the reckoning during which we learn just how blessed with great popes we were. St. Peter pray for us and your present successor!
I wouldn't call it the dark side. :)
ReplyDeleteBut I keep hoping that somewhere, somehow the Church will turn around and return to the harbor. And yet, every day, there appears another story or talk or statement that simply reminds me of the old mainline Protestant denominations in the early to mid 1970s.
Don't worry Mr Griffey, the Church is still the Church, it is the men who say they represent it that are the problem. We need to look to the Jews of Jesus day to see a comparison. Throughout the Old Testament we read how the leaders of the Jews would lead their people into sin and destruction and finally God sends his only son to get things back to where they should be. It took almost 2000 years for the leaders of the Church to follow the same path as the Jews, perhaps it is time for Jesus to return and straighten things out again. But what does the Bible say about his second coming? It isn't a pleasant world we see before his second coming. It all fits together too well.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I loved this paragraph: Sort of like the Left and sex. I've often said that the great coup of our age is that liberalism was able to change the way we deal with sex and religion. It convinced us to treat sex the way we used to treat religion, and religion the way we used to treat sex. So today, religion is something almost shameful that should be kept behind closed doors and only whispered about it dark places, while sex should be proclaimed from the rooftops, the basis of morality and moral law, and the very thing with which identify ourselves.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right. I never thought of it that way. Good job.
That's something I noticed some time ago. And I've noticed the ability that liberalism has of seizing the debate and establishing its own rules before getting started.
ReplyDeleteMr sanders has every right to run for office...and,every right not to be intimidated by bigots...
ReplyDeleteOf course he has a right to run for office. Nobody says otherwise. But we have a right to disagree with him and refuse to support him based upon his policies and political platform.
ReplyDeletefrom Guy McClung, San Antonio TX
ReplyDeleteVoting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin: 1942
Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen.
So the argument has been made.
ReplyDelete