Liberalism and Catholicism Don't Mix Pt. 2

First I would like to point out I missed a great quote from scripture on the penalty for idleness in my last post. In 2nd Thess. 3:10 St. Paul admonishes his charges in Thessalonica, if a man will not work, he gets no share of the food.

Now on to today's point:

It seems to me that to be a good liberal, you must consent to the wholesale slaughter of innocent life at the hands of the Supreme Court's disastrous Roe vs. Wade ruling. Roe was perhaps the most insidious, harmful, destructive, piece of judicial activism ever in this nation's history, I'm not even sure Dred Scott was a worse decision.

Somehow the Court found a right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, securing legalized abortion. Mind you I think even if the Court had ruled in what should have been the correct way, send it to the states' and say you make your decisions, most states would have legalized abortions. Now I am not saying as I just pointed out that I think without the ruling we got in Roe that abortion doesn't happen here; merely that Roe turned what should have been a state-by-state issue into a big national issue.

Because it became a national issue it has become a rallying cry for feminists, and many other groups. Groups which think that their right to decide how to treat their own bodies overrides all else. Including whether a child created out of their decisions has a right to live.

And let us not talk falsely now, that "clump of cells," is a baby, a human life, period and nothing else. Those cells aren't going to morph into a banana plant, or a file cabinet. It is a human life.

To be fair there are liberals who don't believe in the senseless killing of unborn babies; just as there are supposed conservatives who do. There are even some who masquerade as Catholics and believe in the legality of abortion, a certain wild-eyed former Speaker of the House, comes prominently to mind.

As I mentioned awhile back the liberals seem intent on doing whatever they can to protect this right, that is to them sacrosanct. The conservatives in the House should use this to their advantage in all spending bills for the next two years. But they won't, Boehner, doesn't seem to have the stomach to stand up for his faith or principles.

I am growing less and less surprised that Holy Mother Church doesn't forbid Communion for these politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, but deny it by their voting record. After all it seems to me that they are as the rules say notorious public sinners and should be denied Communion until they are ready to hold and profess all that they are supposed to.

Canon 915 states the following: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Now to be sure some arguments can be made about just what it means to obstinately persist in grave sin, but I think if Ms. Pelosi, were to be denied the Sacrament a time or two she just might understand the seriousness with which her faith disagrees with her political view. Personally I was surprised when the Holy Father had an audience with her and she didn't come out excommunicated.

I feel like it is these cafeteria Catholics in positions of power that do far more harm to the perceptions of the faith then nearly all of the other issues we face combined.

Liberalism and Catholicism Don't Mix

I am continually struck by the number of people in this country who continue to try and be liberal and Catholic. It just flies in the face of any sort of common sense. You can not be both. The liberal agenda in this country is so far away from the values one should hold as a Catholic.

Yet liberals love to try and co-opt Jesus, love to try and cite him as the patron saint of liberalism. Yeah, not so much. Perhaps they need to go back to their Bibles and reread the Gospels. I have to give credit for today's post to Rush (Limbaugh, not the rock band) listening to him on Monday really brought home the idea.

Liberals love to mock Jesus and Christians, except when they think they can use Him to push their agenda. As Limbaugh pointed out, Christiane Amanpour opened her Sunday news show with the popular question, What Would Jesus Do? But she had bastardized the question so badly it becomes almost mockery even as she tries to use it seriously:

"As Christians around the world celebrate Easter, we ask some of America's most influential pastors.  In these turbulent times, has America lost its way?  Taxes and budget cuts.  What would Jesus do? Amanpour, This Week aired 4-24-11"

Clearly she is using the question to distort Jesus' social welfare message. Which the left always abuses into the idea that we need to somehow use the government to create a dependent class.

Rush answered her quite well:

"You talk about what would Jesus do? Would Jesus approve of politicians spending money we don't have on programs we don't need?  Jesus warned against sloth and self-bondage.  Would he approve of the Democrats creating an entire underclass dependent on government?  They think so.  That's how they define compassion.  Would Jesus approve of people wasting their lives sitting around blaming all their problems on everybody but themselves?"

Jesus was all for helping the poor and the downtrodden, to be sure, but he wanted the help to come from fellow men not from a monolithic, confiscatory government structure. Hence the whole discourse on doing to the least in Matthew 25:35-46.

I know that there are some out there saying but what about (Matt. 22:21, Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:25). Look I am not saying we shouldn't pay our tax burdens, of course we should. Just that our tax burdens shouldn't be used to create dependence on government in order to live.

Even the chief architect of the American Welfare state Franklin Roosevelt knew that dependence on government was a terrible evil. Little consolation considering the damage that has been done by his New Deal policies but still...let's look back at a quote from his 1935 State of the Union address:

"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.

To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Well here we are 76 years on and the Federal Government has only done more to grow "this business of relief." And people wonder why this country is on the wrong track. We were warned at the start, by the man to blame, that this would happen.

Instead the government continues to ensure more and more future generations will be reliant on the government to keep their lights on, and food in the fridge, and pay their bills. Sure, that sounds like "When I was naked, did you clothe me; hungry did you feed me?" In reality, I don't think it's quite what the Lord meant.

This is just a look at the social justice/welfare differences between Jesus and liberals, I plan to look in depth at the other areas where they differ as well. Consider this part one of a multi-part series