Pope's Latest Encyclical Rooted In Moral Conservatism

For whatever reason a person decides to join the Catholic Church, one should not join because the political views of the Church aligns with ones own. It rarely happens completely. For the Catholic Church has been known to out-conservative the conservatives while simultaneously out-liberaling the liberals for many years. The latest encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), does just that, but not without referencing Catholic doctrine from hundreds of years of carefully thought out philosophy, ie., The Catechism.

Democrats, of course, have taken it upon themselves to crow what they consider to be an endorsement of their irresponsible plans to socialize our economy and create a total welfare state. But with every seeming endorsement comes the exception. For instance, in Chapter 5, section(?) 57, of the encylical, The Pope warns of the dangers of socialization by invoking the principle of subsidiarity, (from Catechism, paragraph #1883) "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions..." This, of course, gives one hope that the Pope sees liberty and freedom as means of achieving economic prosperity and social justice for all, rather than a formation of a total welfare state (something the Church fought against for most of the last century, ie., Communism).

For a letter, it is a rather lengthy read. But if you find the time you should read it in full. Mainly it would seem that Pope Benedict is trying to get us to look beyond our usual party affiliations and issue alliances in dealing with today's problems.

In an article in the New York Times, Ross Douthat points out the links the Pope makes between seemingly unlikely topics. Here's a snippet:

But Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

In other words, why should someone who is green on the environment necessarily be pro-death on abortion? etc...

Read the rest of his column by clicking HERE. And a big HAT TIP to Matt Kaufman who is now blogging for Focus On The Family in addition to his usual duties, for directing our attention to Douthat's column.

For a very in-depth look at the encyclical try clicking HERE for Roma Locuta Est.

See also THIS for clarification!

An Old Pro-Abortion Argument Gets A Make-Over

Barack Hussein Obama recently referred to having babies as a punishment. This would be consistent with other things he's said and done on reproductive issues. It would also seem to be consistent with the liberal, pro-choice (<--so called) position on abortion, which I believe is primarily based in fear, whether it's fear of loss of liberty, fear of failure, or fear of the loss of monetary prosperity due to the cost of raising children. How unfortunate that unborn babies are caught up in such desperate rationalizations, where they can be demonized and/or dehumanized for mere convenience's sake.

And with this in mind I'd like to direct your attention to Matt Kaufman's latest column called Intruder Alert, about some variant forms of some very horrid pro-abortion arguments so warped they become difficult to address...but not too difficult for Mr. Kaufman. Here are a couple of excerpts from the column-- the arguments in favor of abortion rights.

First the old one:

[McDonagh didn't bother to deny that a fetus is a person. Instead, she argued that a fetus is, in effect, a criminal — a "powerful intruder" guilty of "kidnapping" a woman and holding her hostage for nine months — and thus could be dispatched like any violent assailant. "The fetus is not innocent," she wrote, "but instead aggressively intrudes on a woman's body so massively that deadly force is justified to stop it."]

And then the newer argument:

[The argument is this: It doesn't matter at what point a fertilized egg becomes a zygote or a zygote a fetus or a fetus a baby. Personhood is irrelevant. The state simply does not have the right to require any citizen to use their body to keep another citizen alive, much less for nine months. The state can't force us to donate blood or organs. The state can't make us sign up for bone marrow registries. If we choose to do these things, it is noble and good, but we still would never tolerate, as a society, being forced to do so. How much less, then, should we tolerate the state forcing women to use their bodies to keep other people alive for nine full months, with all the risks and permanent changes in the body this entails? How is this permissible if women are fully functioning moral agents with all the rights of citizenship and not state-owned incubators?]

You will have to click on the link HERE to see his response to them.

Matt Kaufman writes for Boundless Webzine, a website of Focus On The Family.

Open Minded...Until They Disagree

Fellow University of Illinois alumnus, Matt Kaufman, has written another fine column, this time about an outrageous case of political correctness in Oakland, CA in which words like natural, marriage, and family values, have been declared hate speech.

An excerpt:

Then came the threat. An Oakland official, Deputy Executive Director Joyce Hicks, sent out a memo to city employees citing "fliers ... in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature" which "were determined to promote sexual orientation-based harassment." This, Hicks warned, could bring punishments "up to and including termination."

The GNEA ladies didn't get intimidated. Instead, they got attorneys. Aided by a sympathetic group, the Pro-Family Law Center, they turned up a bunch of evidence that their views had been singled out to be silenced. But judges sided with the city: A U.S. District Court for Northern California said marriage and family values had "anti-homosexual import." The next court up from there, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the city was merely pursuing its "legitimate administrative interests."

You must read the whole thing (click here), as it's really quite alarming...and could be on its way to your home town soon.

Also, just for fun, check out Michael Fumento's hate mail. He and Matt Kaufman were College Republicans together at the U of I.

I was a U of I student at the same time as they,...but I was too busy dating the Vice President of the College Democrats (I hate to admit). My enlightenment came later...