Tag: ideology

  • Reading Pope Francis

    Reading Pope Francis

    Recently a friend of mine sent me a link to an Associated Press article about Pope Francis’ recent message for Lent.  The link is here and the article is on a relative basis not bad for something written about Pope Francis.  However, I then read Pope Francis’ own words and was reminded again of the inadvisability of reading about Pope Francis when it is so easy to read Pope Francis!

    The problem with reading about Pope Francis in the press lies in the reality that everything written there is presented through an ideological political left-right prism. This prism through which we tend to view almost every event and circumstance in America (and the West) can only warp the words of our Holy Father who calls each of us to re-examine the way we live our lives both as individuals and as members of society.

    As an example, the AP article states that “Francis has riled some conservative Americans for his denunciation of capitalism and trickle-down economic theory…”

     

    Before “conservative Americans” allow themselves to get too riled and before everyone else spends too much time basking in the warm fuzziness of the general absolution granted by the Associated Press, let us keep in mind that our Holy Father challenges ALL of us to use whatever economic clout we have to combat poverty and to promote justice.  So let none of us give himself a pass but rather let each of us engage in an economic examination of conscience:

    Do I spend each dollar thoughtfully, with the full realization that one dollar spent well is very possibly more effective than my vote in a national election?

     

    ·         To the greatest extent possible do I spend my dollars at businesses that seek to operate on a human scale with justice and moderation:

     

    o   Businesses run by folks who work hard, expect their employees to work hard and seek to treat all their constituents (managers, owners or shareholders, suppliers, employees, customers) with a balanced fairness.

     

    o   Businesses whose practices demonstrate their recognition of the equal dignity of all participants in the economy (and of those at the margins of or largely excluded from the economy).

     

    o   Businesses whose focus is to serve society by providing quality goods and services.

     

    o   Businesses that avoid the temptation to amass economic power.

     

    o   Business who let their work be their work and do not seek to use their economic power to bring about various social changes, particularly those detrimental to society (i.e. donations and other influence peddling aimed at destruction of life, destruction of marriage, destruction of freedom).

     

    o   Businesses willing to take an economic hit in order to better care for their employees.

     

    o   Businesses willing to take an economic hit in order to employ more employees (perhaps at the cost of “efficiency”).

     

    o   Businesses that seek to understand and minimize any detrimental impact their work may have on the environment.

     

    ·         Do I realize that until I am willing to “vote” with my dollars in support of this kind of business then no political vote will relieve me of this responsibility and no political top-down solution will effect positive change?

     

    o   Do I embrace BOTH this economic freedom and this economic responsibility that God has given me?

     

    o   Do I reject the temptation to embrace my freedom while delegating my responsibility to others or (worse) to some corporate or government authority.

     

    ·         Am I willing when necessary to give my dollars away freely to those whose needs are immediate and real?

     

    o   Do I understand that no government program can free me of my responsibility to love and care for my brother?

     

    ·         Am I willing to consume less because “voting” with my dollars will almost certainly mean that my well-spent dollars will not go as far as my dollars do when I simply seek to maximize my buying power?

     

    ·         Do I seek economic power in order that I might do good with it or, rather, do I seek to do good by not accumulating economic power, by embracing poverty?  The second is the way of Christ who “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.”

     

    o   Do I express my frustration toward the cult of the big and powerful by seeking to become big and powerful?

     

    ·         Is financial security a driving force in my economic life?

     

    o   Do I seek to save/plan for MY future needs and MY family’s future (illness, job loss, retirement, children’s education) to the exclusion of generously and sacrificially helping the poor with their imminent needs?

     

                   

     

    While I am grateful the press has taken such a fancy to Pope Francis, I regret their continued attempts to relieve the great majority of us of our individual responsibility to embrace the challenges our good Pope continues to provide to us.  The Pope’s words are meaningless if we view them as being directed to some corporate body rather than being directed to us as individuals (and as individual participants in those same corporate bodies).

  • Pass the Restorative

    Pass the Restorative

    I have concluded that I am not a “conserve”ative. I am a “restore”ative. I do not desire to conserve the new healthcare plan, the degradation to our Constitution that has occurred over the last 150 years, the culture of licentiousness and abortion that characterizes our country… I wish to restore our Constitution to its original clarity. I wish to restore the culture of life that led our founders to write the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I wish to restore a citizenry that values freedom and responsibility…

    The problem with the moniker “conservative” is the very root of the word. How can the act of conserving define my belief? It cannot! What defines my belief is that which I desire to conserve and that which I desire to cast onto the dung heap… If it is the business of “conservatism” to maintain the status quo, then, as G.K. Chesterton said, “The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

    In a nutshell, I am fed up with the labels “conservative” and “liberal”. The labels are practically meaningless. The fact is that as a rule “conservatives” are more liberal than “liberals”. That is, “conservatives” are more likely to live liberality, to practice gratuitous giving and humbly embrace gratuitous receiving. “Conservatives” are more likely, as a group, to value liberty while their counterparts seek to create government bureaucracies and regulations designed to restrict liberty. “Conservatives” are more likely to trust their fellow citizens and to allow them the freedom to choose Good while their counterparts seek to coerce the populace into living according to the restrictive standards set by a plutocracy of social engineers.

    So I’m more inclined to favor those who call themselves “conservatives” than those identified as “liberals” but if you want to call me something, call me a restorative – and on that note, I think I’ll go have one…

  • “Social Justice” Ideology Opposed to Moral Living

    “Social Justice” Ideology Opposed to Moral Living

    Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote, “What our Lord says to Judas, he says to the world today: You seemingly are very interested in social justice. Why are you not concerned about individual justice? You love your neighbor, why do you not love God? This is the attitude of the world today. We have swung away from a period in which we were concerned with individual sanctification to the neglect of the social order. Now we have gone to the extreme of being immersed with social justice, civil rights, and so forth, and we are not the least bit concerned about individual justice and the duty of paying honor and glory to God. If you march with a banner, if you protest, then your individual life may be impure, alcoholic, anything you please. That does not matter. Judas is the patron saint of those who divide that universal law of God: Love God and love neighbor.”

    “Social justice” has taken on the status of an ideology in our culture. Adherence to this ideology allows us to commit (or participate in) any number of attrocities while remaining untroubled by our consciences. We participate in sin through: counsel, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, partaking, silence and the defense of the ill done. We can stand by and witness the taking of innocent life on a massive scale, turn a blind eye to the degredation of morality in our culture, watch the destruction of marriage, see our religious (and many other) freedoms restricted day by day but these things do not trouble some of us so long as we continue to support the ideology of social justice.

    Of course, the greatest manifestation of this phenomenon can be seen in the participation of many in the public square. These well-meaning but ill-formed voters think they are doing good by supporting political candidates who conform to the social justice ideology while actively seeking the destruction of marriage, the destruction of innocent human life and the limitation of human freedom (including religious freedom).

    Here at A Sensible Life, we work to explore authentic justice. Authentic justice, the distributive justice contained within the Catholic Church’s social teaching, grows from a root of gratuitousness, that is a free giving. This justice then is characterized by freedom and is opposed to the idea of imposing “social justice” by taxing some in order to aid others.

    We must seek truth in all our public and private activities. And, of course, in order to seek truth in sincerity we must be prepared to love and live the fruits of our seeking. This preparedness we call FREEDOM. The pursuit of freedom itself entails some effort on our part. We must actively seek to free ourselves from attachments that restrict our ability to embrace truth – attachments to sin, to certain ways of life, to certain ways of thinking, to ourselves and our own thoughts and, particularly in this current culture, to ideologies. On December 19, Pope Benedict XVI wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times entitled “A time for Christians to engage with the world.” In it, he spoke of this importance of remaining authentically free: “Let Christians render to Caesar only what belongs to Caesar, not what belongs to God. Christians have at times throughout history been unable to comply with demands made by Caesar. From the emperor cult of ancient Rome to the totalitarian regimes of the past century, Caesar has tried to take the place of God. When Christians refuse to bow down before the false gods proposed today, it is not because of an antiquated worldview. Rather, it is because they are free from the constraints of ideology and inspired by such a noble vision of human destiny that they cannot collude with anything that undermines it.”

  • Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    I recently heard on the Mike Gallagher show an interview with Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. I usually agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg has to say. In this particular interview (June 5), however, I took strong exception to one of his points. Mr. Goldberg made the statement that it is only liberals who indicate a desire to stop using labels to identify political positions. They do this, he said, because they are opposed to taking a principled stand on any issue.

    I think Mr. Goldberg is only about half correct. While it is true that much of the political discourse in this country avoids (intentionally or unintentionally) any principled stand on a particular issue, it is not true that only individuals of one political persuasion tire of the use of labels in our conversations in the public square.

    Mr. Goldberg may also be correct in his assessment of certain individuals’ tendency to hide behind labels in their desire to avoid substantive debate. I think it more likely, however, that many of us in our interactions in the public square use labels out of laziness. We find it easier in the brevity of our communications to use a word or two to describe ourselves or our opponents than to truly describe our own position or their position.

    The reality is that we frequently don’t know what the “one-worders” mean! Really, what is a liberal? What is a conservative? Let’s define our positions! What are we interested in? What is our hope for our economy? Our country? Our culture? Perhaps we’ll find that our positions are not that far apart. Certainly we will find that there are issues about which we strongly disagree but at least then we can have a conversation about the merits of the various positions on those particular issues.

    Chesterton said in What’s Wrong with the World that , “I suppose most conservatives are conserving the traditions of the last revolt.” Chesterton would not have defined himself as a conservative and had some not so complimentary things to say about those who did so this quote should be understood in that context. What I believe he rightly points out here, though, is the truth that conservatism itself is subject to a definition that rests on a shifting foundation. What is it that conservatism purports to conserve? Let the conservative define his position, define what it is he wants to conserve. Let the liberal define his liberality. As I see it, the problem with the liberal “movement” is that it is not liberal.

    I’ll save my definition of terms for another day. Until then, I resolve to speak in full sentences. If I use a label for someone or some ideology, I will make sure folks know what I mean by it…