Using the Poor
#1
Something jumped at me in the article Vox retweeted (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/amazon...olic-faith). The article suggests that some folks used the plight of the poor to advance their own agenda as if this is the first time in history this has happened.

The Democrats have been doing this for the past 7 or 8 decades. This is what gave rise to the SJWs and the clergy to be honest got the ball rolling. Without a doubt, we should follow Christ's example and help those in need. The question though is who is the "we" and what is it that will really "help." The Democrats (and lefties) think "we" means the government. That is where the perversion comes in because for the godless the government is "the Church."

When Christ ministered He never instructed people to go to Cesar and ask for better social safety nets, and then head to the spa. He charged His followers with doing their part, and rolling up their sleeves. He didn't expect them to accomplish more than He did either (i.e. Christ did not solve physical world hunger, etc).

While I agree with CST that we should give preference to the poor so that they can live, I think many clergy have gone so far as to turn the plight of the poor into a false god to do it worship. Charity comes from the spirit, not the other way around. Thoughts?
Local anti-feminist.....if you think women deserve special treatment without any accountability for their actions expect to hear from me!
[-] The following 7 users Like divinesilence80's post:
  • 19405, antiquarian, Augustinian, Eric F, MiserereMeiDeus, newenglandsun, ServusDei
Reply
#2
I agree. And so often people point to the miracle of the loaves as some sort of proof to Christ's desire to feed the world in this temporal life. But as we know, He meant it as a means to portray the Eucharist and the spiritual bread that is Himself. We are to feed the poor with the words of the Gospel and the Eucharist, not just to fill their bellies. People are given their state in life by God as a means to sanctification, and while this state may get better or worse through our obedience to God's will and the temptations of sin, ultimately the feeding of the soul is far more important than the mere physical health of the body.

Now, I am not saying we shouldn't feed the poor, but just feeding their bodies while allowing their souls to remain in death ultimately helps no one. That was the Catholic mission for centuries, and still is in places like Africa; to help the body and the soul to inspire people to follow the Holy Spirit.

We will not attain eternity in the City of Man, only in the City of God.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#3
Wasn't the ultimate goal of Karl Marx to bring about equality by making all the world poor?

And so in due course making a universal wage necessary so as to make the world so unruly the select wealthy will be needed to rule the world, (from Jerusalem?), because all the former Christian capitols will be in ruin(?)


Smart as the Devil that Karl Marx...




...Disclaimer: the above may be conjecture, disinformation and outright lies and meant for entertainment purposes only.
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply
#4
(02-15-2020, 11:42 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: While I agree with CST that we should give preference to the poor so that they can live, I think many clergy have gone so far as to turn the plight of the poor into a false god to do it worship. Charity comes from the spirit, not the other way around. Thoughts?

I think you're right, and it goes with the man-centred version of the Church that's been so popular since Vatican II. It turns the Church into just another NGO, as though solving world hunger is her main goal rather than salvation. And I've noticed it about a lot of recent saints, too. All that's talked about is about how he or she cared for the poor. If you read the lessons in the traditional Breviary, there are plenty of saints who cared for the poor, but you never get the impression that that's all it was about. It's a completely different tone to what you hear about modern saints.

Just handing out more free stuff doesn't work. It keeps people dependent (which is what politicians want), but it doesn't really solve anything. And because the government has to have rules (otherwise people complain about getting treated unequally and turns into an even bigger mess), it's inflexible, and cuts people off if they try to work, rather than continuing welfare for a time so they can get jobs. And since you get more money if dad's not around, dad goes away, and you have huge numbers of fatherless families. I strongly suspect this is a feature, not a bug - the Democrats that set this up knew exactly what they were doing.
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • antiquarian, HailGilbert, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#5
(02-16-2020, 09:11 PM)Paul Wrote:
(02-15-2020, 11:42 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: While I agree with CST that we should give preference to the poor so that they can live, I think many clergy have gone so far as to turn the plight of the poor into a false god to do it worship. Charity comes from the spirit, not the other way around. Thoughts?

I think you're right, and it goes with the man-centred version of the Church that's been so popular since Vatican II. It turns the Church into just another NGO, as though solving world hunger is her main goal rather than salvation. And I've noticed it about a lot of recent saints, too. All that's talked about is about how he or she cared for the poor. If you read the lessons in the traditional Breviary, there are plenty of saints who cared for the poor, but you never get the impression that that's all it was about. It's a completely different tone to what you hear about modern saints.

You're onto something here. My guess is that the the saints in the traditional breviary were focused on both the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. However the current institutional church has abandoned the spiritual works of mercy because they seem to go against their agenda of turning the church into an one world NGO.
"There is nothing more pleasing to God, than to see a soul who patiently and serenely bears whatever crosses it is sent; this is how love is made, by putting lover and loved one on the same level. . . A soul who loves Jesus Christ desires to be treated the way Christ was treated-desires to be poor, despised and humiliated."

St Alphonsus Ligouri
[-] The following 1 user Likes CopiosaApudEumRedemptio's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#6
I'm sure that some in the clergy do have the agenda of turning the Church into a one world NGO, but I think there's a deeper issue: the religion that is secular humanism has taken over Western culture. Almost everyone born in the West in the last 70 years has grown up immersed in secular humanism the same way a fish grows up immersed in water. As a result, a lot of people who are raised in the faith or adopt it later end up putting it on top of secular humanism as another layer. Whenever there is a conflict between the two, secular humanism generally wins.
Reply
#7
(02-15-2020, 11:42 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: The question though is who is the "we" and what is it that will really "help." The Democrats (and lefties) think "we" means the government. That is where the perversion comes in because for the godless the government is "the Church."

This reminded me of a quote from The Social Contract by Rousseau I saw recently.

Quote:https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/so...pter-viii/

The second [a religion of civil or positive divine right or law] is good in that it unites the divine cult with love of the laws, and, making country the object of the citizens' adoration, teaches them that service done to the State is service done to its tutelary god. It is a form of theocracy, in which there can be no pontiff save the prince, and no priests save the magistrates. To die for one's country then becomes martyrdom; violation of its laws, impiety; and to subject one who is guilty to public execration is to condemn him to the anger of the gods: [i]Sacer estod[/i]....


https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/20...he-outset/
While the civil profession of faith (in the civil authority) can compel no one to believe them, it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing at need his life to his duty.  If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law....

The dogmas of civil religion ought to be few, simple, and exactly worded, without explanation or commentary……..Its negative dogmas I confine to one, intolerance, which is a part of the cults we have rejected……Now that there can be no longer an exclusive national religion, tolerance should be given to all religions that tolerate others, so long as their dogmas contain nothing contrary to the duties of citizenship. But whoever dares to say: “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” ought to be driven from the State, unless the State is the Church, and the prince the pontiff.

You are correct.  The poor are merely a stepping stone to the acquisition of power.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)