Brutally Honest

"By suggesting he is uncomfortable with the moral dimensions of capitalism, Pope Francis has created a mini-furor..."

Via Frank Weathers, I learn that the Pope has ruffled the feathers at Forbes with the following tweet:

My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) May 2, 2013

Here's a portion of what was written by Jens F. Laurson and George Pieler:

By suggesting he is uncomfortable with the moral dimensions of capitalism, Pope Francis has created a mini-furor among both free market types who are offended, and neo-socialists seeking support from the most powerful spiritual leader in Christianity. But would it be better, if popes refrained from interceding on such highly-charged secular matters?

No, but perhaps they should better explain what they mean. Admittedly it’s hard to avoid ambiguity in Twitter’s 140 characters. Even so, the short-hand version of the Pope’s critique suggesting, as it did, that profit-seeking drives unemployment, is at best a caricature of the zero-sum anti-capitalist creed. It boils down to: profit-driven companies make more money if they have fewer workers and thus lower labor costs (our spin, not the Pope’s). The implication is that the drive for profits must be tempered by social concerns like the well-being of workers, communities, and nations. Make a little less money in profits, give someone a ‘living wage’ that keeps them out of poverty and ensures social peace.

Part of this is just a truism (no one lives by profits alone, and modern corporations spend lots of cash persuading the public how much they are ‘giving back’ in terms of charitable works, philanthropic donations, and public-spirited workplace practices (recycling, childcare, low carbon emissions, and so forth). That same cash, of course, could be deployed to creating more jobs as the Pope suggests. But we digress.

Wholly missing from the papal argument is the fact that business expansion, and the attraction of investment therein, is based on profits. Greater profits don’t necessarily guarantee more jobs in existing business and businesses of the future, but you can’t expect those jobs to materializeabsent profit.  Profit isn’t what drives poverty, profit is what overcomes poverty. The argument is easier to make where profits are invested in medical advances that can save lives and increased productivity that will make further inroads in steadily decreasing world hunger. Or where investment and experimentation made possible entire new fields of human endeavor we can’t possibly foresee (personal computing, remote health monitoring…). But the argument holds just the same if profits were to go to seemingly frivolous smart phone apps or dividends. The short of the matter is that capitalism is the engine of the general betterment of the human condition and profits its essential tool.

...

Most recently Pope Francis has returned to tweeting on core religious issues. “I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance, says Jesus.  This is where true wealth is found, not in material things!” This is not an issue of economics, but a matter of the soul. A topic squarely in the realm of Francis’ expertise.

Actually Misters Lauerson and Pieler, Pope Francis speaks within the realm of of his expertise, with matters of the soul and, to your apparent chagrin, with matters of mammon.

From the Catechism comes that which clearly buttresses, supports and gives credence to the Pope's tweet:

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.²¹⁸ They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.²¹⁹ For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.²²⁰

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.²²¹ In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."²²² Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.

Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.²²³

I don't know whether the Forbes fellers are Catholic and if they are not, then they have an excuse but if they are, the sooner they each understand that the Catholic faith, and her doctrines and dogmas, cannot be compartmentalized and held in isolation, the better off they'll be and the more thoughtful perhaps they'll become.

I've come to learn, and am still learning, that Catholic thinking encompasses all that makes up life... and living that life well and with purpose.

It is why I'm striving to embrace Catholicism fully, even... and in fact especially, when it appears to rub up against some thought or process or idea I've long held as gospel.

It's that which I've come to believe makes a catholic Catholic.

Carry on.

Just when we become cynical about humanity

Far too often, we're shown examples of or see for ourselves that which leaves us shaking our heads.   Here's something that might just leave you dabbing your eyes with tissue.

Via Gerard Vanderleun, proof that good abounds:

Excellent stuff.

Pass it on.

I guarantee there's someone out there who really needs to see this and who knows, perhaps it'll inspire more of it.

“I’m sorry sir, we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.” (UPDATE)

Hats off to the pizza shop owners in New York who gave Mayor Bloomberg a little of his own medicine:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was denied a second slice of pizza today at an Italian eatery in Brooklyn.

The owners of Collegno's Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg's proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.

Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.

"Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?" Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.

"I'm sorry sir," he replied, "we can't do that. You've reached your personal slice limit."

Mayor Bloomberg, not accustomed to being challenged, assumed that the owner was joking.

"OK, that's funny," he remarked, "because of the soda thing ... No come on. I'm not kidding. I haven't eaten all morning, just send over another pepperoni."

"I'm sorry sir. We're serious," Benito insisted. "We've decided that eating more than one piece isn't healthy for you, and so we're forbidding you from doing it."

"Look jack**s," Bloomberg retorted, his anger boiling, "I f****ng skipped breakfast this morning just so I could eat four slices of your pizza. Don't be a schmuck, just get back to the kitchen and bring out some f****ng pizza, okay."

"I'm sorry sir, there's nothing I can do," the owner repeated. "Maybe you could go to several restaurants and get one slice at each. At least that way you're walking. You know, burning calories."

Witnesses say a fuming Bloomberg and a bemused Liu did indeed walk down the street to a rival pizzeria , ordered another slice and finished their meeting.

I so hope this is true.

And I hope Bloomberg learned something... though I doubt it.

H/T to Mr. Shea who adds with glee, "He has cast down the mighty in their arrogance and lifted up the lowly."

UPDATE:  Doh!  I've been snookered.  Ron points it out in the comments.  

I should've known it was too good to be true.

"No matter what people think about me, I know I'm a human person"

Watch it... through to the end... just do it.

Thanks Matt.

"If I let it rule me, I will go to hell"

Can I get a show of hands if at any time since the Boston bombings Monday you were thirsty for some serious revenge and retribution for those responsible?

More than likely, if I had the ability, I'd see a slew of hands.  I can openly confess that mine would be amongst them.

I think it to be a 'normal' response, a very human response.  Yet as a Catholic Christian, it's something I need to be able to control, something I need not so much to suppress but to not allow it to control and/or motivate me to do things I know to be problematic.

Why you might be asking?

In my mind, it boils down to something dramatically simple yet profoundly meaningful and impacting.

Mark Shea was able to summarize in a couple of paragraphs and he speaks for me:

People often get mad at me for vocally opposing the death penalty and torture.  They seem to think I regard myself as a stainless saint.  What people don’t get is that these things are–particularly at moments like this–massively tempting for me.  It is easy to fantasize about what I would do to these sons of bitches if I was the man whose wife was brain-damaged, whose son was dead, whose daughter had her legs blown off.  I have sufficient imagination to devise punishments of such cruelty and exquisite slowness that your blood would freeze.  Part of me wants very much to see men like this beg for death to relieve their agonies–and then to very slowly and with relish give it to them.

But that part of me has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and if I let it rule me, I will go to hell.  So I reassert the Church’s teaching here loudly, because I want to go to heaven.

Of course there will be critics who find things here to pick apart and ridicule but I remind you that I called it a summary, meaning that of course, there's much more to it.  

The teaching of the Church, through which Christ is revealed and made manifest, goes far deeper than two short paragraphs but should we take them seriously, we'll find ourselves mirroring the life, the character, the person of Jesus Christ.

Would He want us seeking revenge and retribution?  Would He want us fantasizing about what we would do to the sons of bitches responsible for the deaths of innocents?  Would He want us devising cruel punishments and ways to put them to death slowly and painfully?

I don't think so.  

Actually, I pretty much know so.

Mark is right.  We can't let that sentiment rule us, or we will go to hell, where Christ is not.

"Babe, more and more, I realize that love is a climb, not a fall."

Dr. Greg finds something I think every couple ought to read but particularly those in a budding relationship:

“I think I’m falling in love with someone else,” I told Moses, my then boyfriend, over the phone.

“I can’t talk to you right now,” he said with a trembling voice. Then he hung up.

It was one week before our first dating anniversary.

It had been a draining year for us. I was a full-time college student in Manhattan and worked 30+ hours per week. Moses was a first-year teacher in Queens, whose schedule was eaten up by never-ending lesson planning. We talked on the phone as often as we could, but we carved out very little time to see each other in person. The few times we did meet up lacked the depth, intensity and excitement of earlier days.

Hungry for companionship, I found myself confiding in another man. I knew it was wrong, but I was lonely, and I missed being needed. Upon hearing Moses say that he couldn’t talk to me, I braced myself for our inevitable break-up.

With swollen eyes, I woke up early the next morning to write an email.

Moses, I’ve made promises to be a committed and loyal girlfriend and I haven’t kept it. I have not given my best to you; I’ve only given you the leftovers. I’m sorry.

As I hit SEND, I realized that an email from Moses was already waiting in my inbox.

Marilette,

I didn’t expect to feel all the pain I felt last night. I felt that I was immune from it, but man, last night was tough. As much as I say I’m strong and secure and could be okay without a relationship, it is impossible for me to think like that anymore. I’m weak for you. I need you. And I want to be with you, struggling together, rejoicing together, honoring God together.

Babe, more and more, I realize that love is a climb, not a fall. I want to continue climbing with you. I wasn’t a good steward of this relationship, and ultimately, I’ve failed God in this. My personal failure has caused hurt and pain to myself, as well as to you. From this moment forward, I want to be a better boyfriend for you.

I know thoughts have entered your mind these past couple of days, thoughts of “What if things were like this? What if things were like that?” Babe, let me erase those thoughts from your mind. I want to be that person you always wanted. I may not be perfect, but when I say I am committed to you, I mean ‘committed.’

I learned three things about love from that whole ordeal...

Go read the rest... pass it on.

There's a deep and abiding lesson to be found.

We may soon be losing Pope Benedict XVI

Shedding even more light on his surprise resignation:

I think all of us were distressed by the fragility of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when we saw him greet his successor, Pope Francis. The footage was almost too painful to watch. Now, according to the excellent Fr Ray Blake, a Spanish newspaper says he is suffering from something "very severe", and that "we won't have us with him for very much longer". His condition has apparently continued to decline. I thought twice about repeating this, but I'm sure Catholics and others would wish to pray for the man many of us regard as the most inspiring pope of modern times. 

I hate to think of the bile that will spew from the delusional when the man passes.

God bless, rest and keep him.

Christ is risen, Chavez... not so much

Despite Google's in your face attempt to make this day about something else, the fact remains that this is the day commemorating the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the promise of life that resurrection brings to those who believe.

It's not about Chavez, despite the best efforts of the idiots at Google.  It's not about coloring eggs and certainly not about the bunny.  It's about, as today's Collect relays, Him who conquers death and Who unlocks for us the path to eternity.

Alleluia!  He is risen, He is risen indeed.

"This widespread change of heart is built on a reflexive but misplaced sense of compassion..."

Charles Lehardy is going against the tide:

A relationship between any two people, whether they are hetero- or homosexual, having as its purpose the mutual expression of love and affection can take many forms and does not require any legal framework whatsoever for its support and encouragement. To any extent two individuals desire, they may formalize their relationship with binding legal agreements that include the combining and sharing of their wealth and assets. Or, as so many who cohabit well know, couples without such agreements are free to leave everything as loose and whimsical as their hearts desire. Love and the expression of love does not need the social institution of marriage to thrive.

But marriage is not principally about love, though love is unquestionably crucial to its success. The institution of marriage is society's way of demonstrating its commitment to future generations by creating a safehouse for procreation and child rearing.

This is why marriage includes public vows of commitment, in which the couple and those who witness the ceremony pledge to support and safeguard this relationship for life. This is also why marriage has historically been established and sanctioned by the church, where a commitment is made before God to faithfulness and sexual fruitfulness, just as the first couple, Adam and Eve, were joined together by God to love and support each other, and to enjoy sexual intimacy aimed at producing children to populate God's earth.

The fact that not all marriages produce children only underlines and highlights the fact that children are the normal and expected result of every marriage. That same-sex "marriage" is a non-sequitur can be shown quite simply: if everyone married someone of the same sex, life on earth would quickly die out. Same-sex marriage is a corruption of a long-held societal norm and a distortion of the fundamental design and intent of the marital commitment.

Americans have generous hearts. The shift in opinion in light of the gay rights media blitz of the past decades is proof of the generous, but entirely emotional (read: irrational), response to the heartfelt pleas of those who have chosen to embrace their homosexual desires in very public ways. This widespread change of heart is built on a reflexive but misplaced sense of compassion among heterosexuals for a very vocal homosexual minority. It represents a complete failure to consider the damage that will result from changing marriage into something it was never meant to be.

Liberalized divorce laws have already done terrible harm to children and the stable, nurturing environment that the two-parent family was intended to provide. Study after study confirms that children of single-parent families do worse on a wide range of metrics than their peers in two-parent, heterosexual families.

Our societal understanding of marriage has already been damaged by high levels of divorce and children born to unmarried, cohabiting couples. If we further erode the cultural understanding of marriage's procreative roots by including a non-procreative set of relationships under the same umbrella, marriage will ultimately cease to mean anything at all. Same-sex marriage will be one more cultural message to young men and women that we are not really serious about creating and parenting the next generation.

Read the whole thing and walk away a better person.

If Mr. Lehardy is not a regular stop on your tour of the blogosphere, he needs to become one.

It's really that simple.

‘Which Parent Do I Not Need: Mom or Dad?’

And a child will lead them... them who have ears:

Minnesota state legislators considering a same-sex marriage bill for the state did not have an answer to an 11-year-old girl’s question on which parent is not needed.

“Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Grace Evans, 11, said before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law last week. “I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”

She paused for eight seconds as the legislators on the committee sat silent.

Evans then said, “I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?” She paused again, this time for 13 seconds of silence from state lawmakers.

Evans concluded, saying, “I hope that you can see that every child needs a mom and a dad. Please don’t change your law on marriage to say otherwise.”

Nevertheless, the House committee voted in favor of the gay marriage bill and sent it to the full House. A similar bill is also before the state Senate.

There's video of the young gal's speech at the link.

It's poignantly cutting.

Pray for her for you know she will be pilloried by the self-described tolerant and open-minded.