Isn’t this precisely the difficulty that is supposed to haunt Protestantism, deciding whether it’s merely my opinion, my party’s platform, of what the Bible requires?
We all need to ask ourselves: Do we start with our partisan political bias and then shape our religious views to fit it, or the other way round? Do we let Catholic social teaching challenge the partisan orthodoxies, and our own opinions, on political matters? Neither party is a good fit for Catholic social teaching: Do we expect the party to change or the church?
Wouldn’t it be great if that episcopal cure-all of the papacy (or even the bishops) would step up and sort our Mr. Winters’ opinions?
Old Life 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/21/3440075/pope-francis-if-we-destroy-creation-creation-will-destroy-us/
He has – but just like Jesus, he’s open for interpretation.
My interpretation of Bishop Frank’s above comments is that our future has the makings of a sub-par M. Night Shyamalan film.
LikeLike
You gotta give CtC credit… on at least one front they are utterly transparent.
Every time I click a link to their website, everything about the page tells me the article and comments will take me four hours to read, which is about right. Tiny, dense font, interminable paragraphs and comm box. Now that’s honest web formatting.
Close window, move on, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Brian, even there, the Reformed tradition is superior. http://www.swrb.com/
LikeLike
Looks like the audacity of pope didn’t stop the party:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/pope-francis-canonization-banquet_n_5380001.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Which goes back to the question I always have is that what good is it to impute infallibility to an institution when no one actually listens to the institution?
LikeLike
You accidentally hit the nail on the head, Darryl. Or your own thumb with your hammer.
The cure for the impotence of your “Two kingdoms” theology is right here in what you sneer at, in Catholic social teaching.
It’s a shame the only Catholic you seem able to hear is outlier Sean Michael Winters at the outlier National Catholic Reporter. It’s like you get all your news from MSNBC.
But Winters did get it right.
We all need to ask ourselves: Do we start with our partisan political bias and then shape our religious views to fit it, or the other way round? Do we let Catholic social teaching challenge the partisan orthodoxies, and our own opinions, on political matters? Neither party is a good fit for Catholic social teaching: Do we expect the party to change or the church?
And that’s where you get it backwards. The church should change the party–both parties—all parties. And challenge and protest them when it cannot. Damn right the church is not the state. That’s the whole point.
LikeLike
victor delta, tango, are you the Mo Ansar of the U.S.?
LikeLike
victor delta, tango, let me get this straight: the world would be better off without political parties? The world would be better off if only the church existed? (and you’re not a church member — or several layers of non-observant Roman Catholic headed for some level of Dante’s Inferno?)
LikeLike
don’t quote Dostoevsky, speak for your self:
“Oh, well, we have no mountains,” cried Father Iosif, and turning to the elder he continued: “Observe the answer he makes to the following ‘fundamental and essential’ propositions of his opponent, who is, you must note, an ecclesiastic. First, that ‘no social organisation can or ought to arrogate to itself power to dispose of the civic and political rights of its members.’ Secondly, that ‘criminal and civil jurisdiction ought not to belong to the Church, and is inconsistent with its nature, both as a divine institution and as an organisation of men for religious objects,’ and, finally, in the third place, ‘the Church is a kingdom not of this world.’
“A most unworthy play upon words for an ecclesiastic!” Father Paissy could not refrain from breaking in again. “I have read the book which you have answered,” he added, addressing Ivan, “and was astounded at the words ‘The Church is a kingdom not of this world. ‘If it is not of this world, then it cannot exist on earth at all. In the Gospel, the words ‘not of this world’ are not used in that sense. To play with such words is indefensible. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to set up the Church upon earth. The Kingdom of Heaven, of course, is not of this world, but in Heaven; but it is only entered through the Church which has been founded and established upon earth. And so a frivolous play upon words in such a connection is unpardonable and improper. The Church is, in truth, a kingdom and ordained to rule, and in the end must undoubtedly become the kingdom ruling over all the earth. For that we have the divine promise.”
He ceased speaking suddenly, as though checking himself. After listening attentively and respectfully Ivan went on, addressing the elder with perfect composure and as before with ready cordiality:
“The whole point of my article lies in the fact that during the first three centuries Christianity only existed on earth in the Church and was nothing but the Church. When the pagan Roman Empire desired to become Christian, it inevitably happened that, by becoming Christian, it included the Church but remained a pagan State in very many of its departments. In reality this was bound to happen. But Rome as a State retained too much of the pagan civilisation and culture, as, for example, in the very objects and fundamental principles of the State. The Christian Church entering into the State could, of course, surrender no part of its fundamental principles — the rock on which it stands — and could pursue no other aims than those which have been ordained and revealed by God Himself, and among them that of drawing the whole world, and therefore the ancient pagan State itself, into the Church. In that way (that is, with a view to the future) it is not the Church that should seek a definite position in the State, like ‘every social organisation,’ or as ‘an organisation of men for religious purposes’ (as my opponent calls the Church), but, on the contrary, every earthly State should be, in the end, completely transformed into the Church and should become nothing else but a Church, rejecting every purpose incongruous with the aims of the Church. All this will not degrade it in any way or take from its honour and glory as a great State, nor from the glory of its rulers, but only turns it from a false, still pagan, and mistaken path to the true and rightful path, which alone leads to the eternal goal. This is why the author of the book On the Foundations of Church Jurisdiction would have judged correctly if, in seeking and laying down those foundations, he bad looked upon them as a temporary compromise inevitable in our sinful and imperfect days. But as soon as the author ventures to declare that the foundations which he predicates now, part of which Father Iosif just enumerated, are the permanent, essential, and eternal foundations, he is going directly against the Church and its sacred and eternal vocation. That is the gist of my article.
LikeLike
What would Jesus do? Criticize capitalism:
LikeLike