A Good Thing About Pope Francis

[Tacenda]

I would love it - dump the white shirts!

 

Not sure I could picture Pres Monson dressed like that, but President Packer in blue jeans and a "wife beater" t-shirt, maybe some scuffed motorcycle boots -- yeah I can picture that.

http://www.followtheprophet.net/2012/07/14/president-monson-relaxes-in-idaho/

 

President Monson enjoying a Lime Freeze in casual clothes! 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Tacenda I love that picture of President Monson! Shows he is a normal man just like us and down to earth. I love it.

[Garden Girl]

What if the t-shirts were white?

 

Reminds me of the time on I believe it was "The Price is Right" when one of the contestants was called to "come on down" and he was with this group of about a dozen young men all wearing white tee shirts with black ties painted on them... they were from the cast of The Book of Mormon production...

 

GG

[why me]

Tacenda I love that picture of President Monson! Shows he is a normal man just like us and down to earth. I love it.

We need to remember that these men are fathers and grandfathers. Not much time to wear white shirts when one is at a baseball game, circus, at the beach etc. The problem is that the media is really not interested in the lds church and its leadership to follow them around snapping pictures. We also need to remember that the catholic church has a PR department just as the lds church does. Photos can be staged for public consumption. I can say without hesitation that if president monson was being photographed kissing babies, holding the hands of the sick, etc, the critics would call it PR work.

 

In other words, the photos that make the press are professionally done...I see very little iphone photos but I do see professionally done photos making the papers of the pope doing wonderful acts with the poor and disadvantaged. A professional photographer whether independent or not is usually there. And there is nothing wrong in that. Good PR is important for the work of increasing faith in people etc. We live in a very media imaging age. 

Edited September 25, 2014 by why me

[saemo]

You're confusing me a little. What Franciscan background are you referring to? He is a Jesuit. Not that he doesn't hold the values of the Franciscans, but he doesn't have a Franciscan background.

Right. I read his homilies, translated to English, and they are very Franciscan in nature. St. Ignatius of Loyola was also influenced by St. Francis. The Jesuit Pope with a Franciscan heart. A good combination, IMO.

[why me]

You're welcome.

The Catholic,Church has always focused on the poor.

This is not exactly true. It seems that catholic hospitals are making huge profits:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor

 

All of these numbers suggest that as Catholic hospitals have merged and expanded into a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they've moved far beyond their religious mission and become like any other large corporation. Given those trends, and the hospitals' reliance on public funding, it's hard to see how they can continue to justify their mixing of Catholic doctrine with health care, especially when it disproportionately violates standards of care for women.

 

I think that the problem is with your use of the word 'always'. Your statement can definitely be debated as this article above would do.

[saemo]

This is not exactly true. It seems that catholic hospitals are making huge profits:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/catholic-hospitals-arent-doing-much-poor

All of these numbers suggest that as Catholic hospitals have merged and expanded into a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they've moved far beyond their religious mission and become like any other large corporation. Given those trends, and the hospitals' reliance on public funding, it's hard to see how they can continue to justify their mixing of Catholic doctrine with health care, especially when it disproportionately violates standards of care for women.

I think that the problem is with your use of the word 'always'. Your statement can definitely be debated as this article above would do.

Unbiased reporting is not found at motherjones. It is notoriously anti-catholic. The same rag that blames the Catholic Church for AIDS.

Even then, a hospital is not the Catholic Church. Maybe you should site a Catholic Church teaching from anytime, that encourages material wealth over helping the poor. I await your reference.

While you're at it, report on the charitable outlay of Catholic hospitals for the poor who can't pay. You'll find it is the billions of dollars. The mother jones article is a biased rant, against the Catholic Church stance on the HHS contraceptive mandate. Revenues of a nonprofit organization does not mean the poor are being ignored.

If you want to support that kind of thing, fine, but at least get all the facts.

Edited September 26, 2014 by saemo

[Stone holm]

Of all the great things that can be said about Pope Francis, we choose to discuss his attire? Are we so attached to the business world that somehow adopting the attire of business executives is now considered humility?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is not exactly true. It seems that catholic hospitals are making huge profits:

I would point out that this is mostly irrelevant even if it were true. A church run hospital could make a profit and still be caring towards the poor.

 

I think if you wanted to show that the Catholic church didn't care for the poor you would need a better example.

[why me]

I would point out that this is mostly irrelevant even if it were true. A church run hospital could make a profit and still be caring towards the poor.

 

I think if you wanted to show that the Catholic church didn't care for the poor you would need a better example.

It is not me who wanted to show that the catholic church hasn't always helped the poor but it was mother jones magazine. Of course, we can go into history and see the power relations between kings, queens, and princes and the catholic church. Not to mention the religious wars in europe that killed many people, including the poor. The point is simple: we cannot say always with a smile as saemo did.

 

 

The Catholic Church was the only formalised church in Europe during the Middle Ages and it was an extremely rich and powerful institution. Bishops were allowed to be a part of the king's council and they held influential positions within the government. Bishops were typically independently wealthy and they usually came from noble families.

 

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/theory_history/Medieval_Period.htm

 

The church was very much involved in keeping the power relations intact regardless of the poor in their midst and the wealth of the church. This is just history. The lds are constantly having to defend their history on this board. We must keep the playing field honest.

 

Get back on topic please.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Stone holm, yes I do believe we are so attached to the business world and attire.

[saemo]

It is not me who wanted to show that the catholic church hasn't always helped the poor but it was mother jones magazine. Of course, we can go into history and see the power relations between kings, queens, and princes and the catholic church. Not to mention the religious wars in europe that killed many people, including the poor. The point is simple: we cannot say always with a smile as saemo did.

 

 

The Catholic Church was the only formalised church in Europe during the Middle Ages and it was an extremely rich and powerful institution. Bishops were allowed to be a part of the king's council and they held influential positions within the government. Bishops were typically independently wealthy and they usually came from noble families.

 

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/theory_history/Medieval_Period.htm

 

The church was very much involved in keeping the power relations intact regardless of the poor in their midst and the wealth of the church. This is just history. The lds are constantly having to defend their history on this board. We must keep the playing field honest.

You confuse secular going-ons with the Catholic Church. A Catholic monarch is not the Catholic Church. A Catholic monarch who declares a state religion and makes war on his/her own subjects, is not the Catholic Church. An independently wealthy Bishop, is not the Catholic Church. His wealth is his own, and does not belong to the Catholic Church.

 

No one denies there is good and bad in all people. The Church is Christ and Christ is the Church. Thus, the Church is always on the side of the poor. Humans act against the Church, including at times those in the hierarchy of the Church. Catholic understanding of Church has a supernatural element that none of your arguments address. The Church can never not be on the side of the poor. It just isn't possible, unless you believe Christ Himself has forsaken the poor.

 

Perfect love of neighbor, charity towards all, especially the poor and disenfranchised is the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church. People are imperfect and act against their own beliefs, some quite deliberately, others more passively.

Edited September 26, 2014 by saemo

[why me]

Unbiased reporting is not found at motherjones. It is notoriously anti-catholic. The same rag that blames the Catholic Church for AIDS.

Even then, a hospital is not the Catholic Church. Maybe you should site a Catholic Church teaching from anytime, that encourages material wealth over helping the poor. I await your reference.

While you're at it, report on the charitable outlay of Catholic hospitals for the poor who can't pay. You'll find it is the billions of dollars. The mother jones article is a biased rant, against the Catholic Church stance on the HHS contraceptive mandate. Revenues of a nonprofit organization does not mean the poor are being ignored.

If you want to support that kind of thing, fine, but at least get all the facts.

Mother Jones made a point about helping the poor. One can agree or disagree with it. Your premise that the catholic has always helped the poor would not be true when we consider European history and the role of the church in  it in the middle ages etc. I suppose that we can ask the question about how to help the poor and how well did the christian faith do in general in helping the poor.  To help the poor we would need to ask a simple question: ask not how we can help the poor but ask why is there poor. And I take this from oscar romero (even though he didn't actually say it), the murdered bishop because he dared to follow such a question and attempted to put it into action.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/20/oscar-romero-anniversary-catholic

 

Today, there are many who say that rather than walking hand in hand with the oppressed, the hierarchy of the Catholic church is too disengaged from the plight of the vulnerable and marginalised. In principle, the church is with the poor. Take this, for example, from a statement by the Catholic bishops' conference just weeks before a general election: "Development requires that people are rescued from every form of poverty, from hunger to illiteracy … "

But, as Romero himself said, "things can't just be written on paper". His prophetic message is that it is our duty as Christians to bring these values to life. We have to act to put our principles into practice.

 

Romero went unrecognized by the catholic church for years after his murder because of his vocal social activism and his criticism of his country's power structure.

 

And here is a conversation on the catholic forum, a forum that you also participate on:

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=884071&page=5

 

Many agree with me.

Edited September 26, 2014 by why me

[saemo]

Mother Jones made a point about helping the poor. One can agree or disagree with it. Your premise that the catholic has always helped the poor would not be true when we consider European history and the role of the church in  it in the middle ages etc. I suppose that we can ask the question about how to help the poor and how well did the christian faith do in general in helping the poor.  To help the poor we would need to ask a simple question: ask not how we can help the poor but ask why is there poor. And I take this from oscar romero, the murdered bishop because he dared to ask such a question and attempted to put it into action.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/20/oscar-romero-anniversary-catholic

 

Today, there are many who say that rather than walking hand in hand with the oppressed, the hierarchy of the Catholic church is too disengaged from the plight of the vulnerable and marginalised. In principle, the church is with the poor. Take this, for example, from a statement by the Catholic bishops' conference just weeks before a general election: "Development requires that people are rescued from every form of poverty, from hunger to illiteracy … "

But, as Romero himself said, "things can't just be written on paper". His prophetic message is that it is our duty as Christians to bring these values to life. We have to act to put our principles into practice.

 

Romero went unrecognized by the catholic church for years after his murder because of his vocal social activism and his criticism of his country's power structure.

 

And here is a conversation on the catholic forum, a forum that you also participate on:

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=884071&page=5

 

Many agree with me.

And your point is?

 

The Church is ALWAYS on the side of the poor. Individuals act against the Church.

 

Oscar Romero is a hotbed political topic. But also, he is someone who I have admired and is a prime example of the Church's orientation towards the poor. 

 

You want to point at Bishops who do something you don't like, but Oscar Romero was an archbishop of the very same Church. It is your belief he was acting against Church teaching? I know a couple from El Salvador who tear up when speaking of ArchBp Romero, and their fleeing their home for the U.S. But you'd rather politicize everything, and present nothing but political arguments. Catholics who were there know ArchBp Romero, and love him still to the point of tears, and don't need the political approval of anyone to know they have been touched by a disciple of Christ. In time, he will be canonized. Saints most often come because of the people who follow them.

 

(Your anti-Catholicism shows more sometimes than at others.)

Edited September 26, 2014 by saemo

[VideoGameJunkie]

The LDS church member's chance for helping the poor is with the sections of our tithing slips. We have options for fast offering and a section for humanitarian aid which I've started to add both to my tithing slips.

[why me]

 

Oscar Romero is a hotbed political topic.

 

This is true but it is because he was actively attempting to help the poor through social justice activism. And he was abandoned by the church.

 

You want to point at Bishops who do something you don't like, but Oscar Romero was an archbishop of the very same Church. It is your belief he was acting against Church teaching? I know a couple from El Salvador who tear up when speaking of ArchBp Romero, and their fleeing their home for the U.S. But you'd rather politicize everything, and present nothing but political arguments. Catholics who were there know ArchBp Romero, and love him still to the point of tears, and don't need the political approval of anyone to know they have been touched by a disciple of Christ. In time, he will be canonized. Saints most often come because of the people who follow them.

 

Oscar was abandoned by the catholic church because of his politics. Liberation  theology was not very popular with pope john paul II. And that was my point. Helping the poor is a political problem as Oscar knew very well.

 

(Your anti-Catholicism shows more sometimes than at others.)

 

When people critique the lds church on this board they are not labelled antimormon. I disagreed with your statement and proved that it is not exactly true. That is not anticatholic. Being a fan of liberation theology like I was when I was young gives me a different take on what it means to help the poor and political arguments are important for stating a position.

 

I also showed that catholics were also critiqueing the catholic church and its help for the poor on the catholic forum. Are they also anticatholic? We should not label people in such a way. I like pope francis. I hope that he will engage in social activism to help the poor rhrough being actiively engaged in social change. I am also a fan  ot the catholic worker movement and dorothy day.

 

http://www.catholicworker.org/

 

They are actively helping the poor through charity and political change. Lets hope that the pope will make dorothy day a saint.

Edited September 26, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

 An independently wealthy Bishop, is not the Catholic Church. His wealth is his own, and does not belong to the Catholic Church.

I thought when one received the priesthood (became a priest) or whatever is the correct term in the Catholic faith one gave all one's property to the Church.  Or is that only for orders that commit to poverty?

[3DOP]

I thought when one received the priesthood (became a priest) or whatever is the correct term in the Catholic faith one gave all one's property to the Church.  Or is that only for orders that commit to poverty?

 

There is no requirement of a vow of poverty for secular/diocesan priests. Ordinarily it is not practical for persons in the world, even if they are priests, to do this. The practicality of the renunciation of private property is part of the attraction to a monastery or convent. 

 

Riches are a danger because as the Proverb says, "the rich man's wealth is his strong city". One can easily gain the habit of placing too much trust in material wealth, and to have an immoderate attachment to accumulating a "stronger city". Our Father in heaven knows our needs. He should be our strength and trust against the evil day. But the Church has always affirmed the right to private property and even to accumulate great wealth is not a sin in itself. The Church does not teach that it is the duty of the Christian to support political initiatives to alleviate poverty. (it would appear that the bishops conferences might be at odds with the perennial teaching of the Church in this matter) Many Catholics today, including bishops, have become enamored with the growing power of the secular state, and want to tap into its resources for the practical reason of how much wealth the state has it its command. I believe it is unwise for the reason that it interrupts our motives and freedom in our giving. It seems difficult to see how one gains more grace and merit for being taxed. It isn't like true charity.

 

We are supposed to see in the poor, our Saviour. Loving the poor in Jesus, we can give alms according to our means. Whether our means are modest or great, through almsgiving we participate in God's love and merit more grace. In Catholic theology, charity is a synonym for God's love. We say that it is therefore "supernatural". If we by God's grace are enabled to give from a pure heart that loves God, and our neighbour for His sake, it is as St. Peter says and, "charity covereth a multitude of sins". State welfare checks and taxation schemes aim at rearranging the economic balance. Could they succeed if given free rein? I doubt it. But even if a new "War on Poverty" had assured political success, I would be sorry for losing the focus on eternity that only individual alms giving may accommodate.

 

"A gift to the poor is a loan to God; it yields a hundredfold even in this world, in the joys which come to us from giving happiness to those around us. But above all it yields a hundredfold for heaven, where Christ, considering as given to Himself what we have bestowed upon the least of His children, will take care to give us imperishable goods in exchange for those we sacrificed for Him."    ---The Spiritual Life, Adolph Tanqueray, S.S., D.D., TAN Books and Publishers, 2000, p. 426

 

Fr. Tanqueray's work, finished in 1923, is considered a classic in Ascetical and Mystical Theology because of how it has synthesized the Church's Traditional teaching as it comes to us from Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers and on into the 20th Century. There are and were wealthy bishops. What should the Church do? Wealth is not a sin. Avarice is the sin which so easily follows the wealthy. When bishops are gravely avaricious and die in that state, guess what? Their memory is regarded with contempt and they get to go to Hell. Nobody prays to them and few pray for them. What are their names? I don't know. But I know of many saintly bishops who gave away everything they had for their flocks.The Church has never encouraged the accumulation of wealth. There are too many temptations with it and popes and kings and bishops are in as much danger from it as the rest of the faithful.

 

One may envy the poor, but if you live in the world, you are not permitted to give away all your wealth without a proper reckoning. Heads of families must live according to their state in life, and that means they do not have the luxury (spiritually speaking) of living a life of poverty. Does that mean that those who must maintain a certain amount of wealth and private property are doomed? Of course not. Jesus affirmed to everyone that "the poor in spirit are blessed, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". Avarice can slay the rich or the poor. It is opposition to the kingdom of heaven. To the man who would possess the kingdom of heaven, worldly wealth is only a necessary obstacle. But avarice makes one truly mad with desire for something that doesn't have much value. The poor man with avarice, who covets, is not poor in spirit, and the relatively rich among us who would be poor if they could, to get rid of the temptations that wealth brings, are "poor in spirit." This has been the constant teaching of the Church from the times of the Apostles. For every sinner, rich or poor, cleric or lay person, ignoring Catholic teaching to his own spiritual death, there is the teaching of the Church, and the perfection of the saints by their participation in poverty as their state in life and means permit. Those with good will, like you cal, can note the difference, and will carefully avoid implying that the Catholic Church ever promoted as an ideal that independently wealthy bishops should attach themselves to the courts of kings if they would gain eternal life.

 

Thanks for the inquiry. It is a grand subject and I am fully persuaded of the wisdom the Church has used in articulating a balanced view of poverty and riches with the wonderful blessings and grave dangers accompanying. Each of us must take care to apply this wisdom according to our own individual circumstances. As Our Saviour promised, we must be "poor in spirit" if we would gain true riches. The "poor in spirit" have understanding. They are not stricken mad like so much of the world about money. The "poor in spirit" yearn only for the kingdom of heaven, which is the inheritance of those who reckon its value according to God's coinage. Praised be God.

 

Rory

Edited September 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

I think I actually asked this before…hopefully it will stick this time.  Thanks for the detail.