In fighting over economic issues within the Catholic Church here during a time of Papal transition. Story at Reuters here.
In a letter to supporters this week, the head of the ultra- traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) asked whether the new pontiff's focus on serving people could be only "man-centred philanthropy" rather than true religious leadership.
Bishop Bernard Fellay's sharp criticisms of the Vatican attracted attention during Benedict's papacy because the now retired head of the Roman Catholic Church wanted to reintegrate the once-excommunicated group fully into the Roman fold.
Francis, the former Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, has upset many Catholic traditionalists by eschewing Vatican pomp, presenting himself as a humble servant of the poor and showing little interest in returning to centuries-old traditions.
In his letter, Fellay urged Francis "not to allow souls to perish because they no longer learn sound doctrine", by which he meant the ultra-traditionalist views the SSPX advocates.
"What good is it to devote oneself to serving people if it hides from them what is essential?" asked Fellay, whose group claims 500 priests and a million followers around the world.
Aiding the poor has always been a concern for the Church, he said, "but if it becomes merely man-centred philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out its mission".I might share this rebel priest's concerns, but looks like for probably different reasons.
It looks like both sides in this intra RCC squabble are missing the mark to a great extent. On one side you have Pope Francis with seemingly a narrow focus on "helping the poor" that I cannot help but look at as Fellay does; as a slippery slope into a never ending "man-centered philanthropy".
On the other side you have this SSPX splinter group headed by Fellay that, although cautious towards a failed policy of permanent philanthropy, only seems cautious as it may detract from the church's also "man-centered" sectarian dogmas, pomp and ceremony.
Neither faction in this squabble has a correct view of what is really going on today within our economic related institutions of government. I think it safe to assume that neither of these factions has an accurate view of monetary systems and how they relate to our economic outcomes. So all they can argue about is a choice between blind church views that won't really change anything for either "the poor" or for the church in the end.
The reality is this is a knife-edge issue.
On the one side, if we down-play "charity" or philanthropy, we risk being seen as perhaps "uncaring" or missing a sympathetic view towards the plight of those made "the poor" among us.
While on the other side, if we become continuously content and self-righteous in works to aid "the poor" among us, how can we ever address the causal economic policies that are directly resulting in the poverty and other forms of economic injustice, i.e. the mal-distribution of the great surpluses we humans are routinely provided these days.
One thing that is probably needed as a logical first step is a correct view within the church of the monetary aspects of our economic system.
3 comments:
He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:8 New American Standard Bible (NASB) [bold added]
A government-backed credit cartel, the banking system, which dilutes the purchasing power of the poor and other non or less "credit-worthies" can in no way be called "just."
The RCC once opposed honest usury (in accord with Deuteronomy 243:19-20) but where is the RCC wrt to usury for stolen purchasing power, our existing system?
make that Deuteronomy 23:19-20, please.
F,
No doubts current policy is unjust, but an approach where the govt uses a fiscal agent of some sort doesnt have to be unjust by definition...
It depends on what the policy is...
"14 For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves,
15 who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them," Romans 2
We're not under the law here in the nations... the law was Israel's (it didn't work, etc..) ... we can do this any way we want to as long as the results are successful, but metal-love is blinding many right now.
Agree we can look to the law as far as the economic outcomes it would deliver, but if the law didnt work for Israel, what would make us think it will for us?
rsp,
Post a Comment