"It never addresses sin as the root cause of poverty, which means it never addresses Christ as a rem

[LiberalArkie]

I have finally realized why the conservatives do not care about the poor. It seems some see the reason people are poor is because of their sin.

I really hope I am reading this article incorrectly, If I am please feel free to straighten me out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/bishops-play-defense-on-a_n_781212.html


(RNS) For four decades, the U.S. Catholic bishops have maintained a nationwide program designed to help the poor lift themselves out of poverty. And for just as long, fierce critics have tried to kill it.

snip


"It never addresses sin as the root cause of poverty, which means it never addresses Christ as a remedy," he said.

snip

[luvspeas]

1. If poverty is a result of sin...

then one is elevating money to the power of God, no? What happens when money becomes the pieces of paper and flecks of metal it really is?

[Dappleganger]

2. Jesus was poor...

so I guess he was sinful, eh?

[w8liftinglady]

3. and he advocated the rich sacrificing for the poor-he was a socialist

[COLGATE4]

4. The Roman Catholic bishopry - steaming valiantly into

the 19th Century.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. This is standard in calvinism as well as catholicism

It's the use of religion to justify greed and avarice and war. It's Gott Mit Uns of the nazis. It the divine right of kings. It's Dei Gratie Elizabeth II Regina. It's God Bless America.

It never addresses sin? Whose sin? The "original" sin of being born into poverty and not having any way to get out?

It's always about "helping the poor to help themselves," but it's never about how the rich gained their riches on the backs of the poor.

It's not about the bishops living in palaces and doing nothing for themselves but taking the tithes and offerings and blackmail payments from the poor.

Original sin -- the whole adam and eve thing -- is so convenient in terms of keeping the poor in their place. Fuck that.



Tansy Gold

[LiberalArkie]

8. Thank you... So another case anti-christ

I always looked at anti-christ not as a person, but as people who professed to be Christians but not not do what he said. Hence anti-christ.

[raouldukelives]

25. I agree

It's easy to preach the Gospel. It's much harder to live it. I'd imagine somewhere around 5% of the Christians in the USA live as the Bible instructs them. If that many.
Most of them seem to profess belief and then turn around and head back to work denying health insurance claims, building tanks, foreclosing on homes or arresting homeless people looking for help.

[fifthoffive]

17. It's the old

"visible signs of grace." There are some who are born with the "grace of God" and some who are not. It was (and still is, apparently) used to justify elevation of the wealthy over the poor in every facet of society, from church membership to access to the justice system to slavery.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. +++1

[XemaSab]

33. Calvinism is making a comeback

:(

[Tansy_Gold]

34. Never really went away

Odin2005 downthread points out that calvinism is at the root of American fundamentalism, and that's absolutely correct. The basic doctrine was brought here by the English protestant colonists and persisted into the Revolution, then the Civil War, and into 20th C power politics. Kevin Phillips' "The Cousins' Wars" explores the mix of politics and religion as they developed through generations of American history.

The basic notion is that wealth is an outward sign of God's favor, because logically (??) God wouldn't heap riches on someone He didn't approve of. The flip side of that, of course, is that a rich person, being already favored by God, can do no wrong, because God's chosen wouldn't sin. Nice tautology if you can get it. This plays into the authoritarian double standard, too: the rich not only are different, but they are treated differently.

'Nuff said? I thought so.



Tansy Gold

[LiberalArkie]

6. I am just wondering if this is the viewpoint of the conservative wealthy,

as to why they demonize the poor, and resent doing anything for those who do not have. Do they consider those of us in the middle class (me, lower end of it) as poor so therefore sinful and not deserving.

[ejpoeta]

7. how can that be true. i see rich folks sinning all the time and they are still rich.

and the preachers.... they sin and seem rich too. so that is horseshit. that's just an excuse people use so that they can ignore the poor and treat them like crap and still believe they are 'christians'.

[Jim__]

9. That's not the way I read the article.

The quote you cite is from one person fighting against the CCHD. Nothing in the article indicates his view carries any strength. The real fight seems to be how CCHD funds programs:

Proponents of the Catholic Campaign on Human Development (CCHD) say it exemplifies Jesus' preference for the poor and downtrodden; opponents, including several bishops, say it funds left-wing activists, some of whom undermine church doctrine on homosexuality and abortion.

My reading of the article is that the fight is really centered on that issue - the claim that CCHD is funding programs that directly oppose catholic doctrine - not the anti-poverty programs.

[RainDog]

15. the fascist wing of catholicism is making the statement

they don't want to fund people who help those in poverty if they deem the groups are liberal and want to promote human rights for others - you know, people who don't think homosexuals should be viewed as second-class citizens. or people who don't think it's okay for the church to shield pedophiles and blame children for the adults who abuse them.

stupid, sick fuckers. they make me want to puke.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. They have no problem funding their pay outs for pedophiles

so one has to assumet that child abuse is acceptable Catholic doctrain, if your logic is to be applied. We all saw them universally pay the piper, and none of them raised a ruckus, save to say that priests should be allowed to remain unprosceuted by secular law.
That level of hypocrisy makes the entire Chruch look villianous.

[RainDog]

20. apparently pedophilia isn't a sin - it's a job perk

if you're a right winger.

[elehhhhna]

28. So it's Christ vs. Church Doctrine?

Geez, pick one already. Not a hard decision, imo.

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. You're reading it right.

They think christians can declare "victory" over poverty (or any problem for that matter). If you don't have "victory", then God doesn't like you for some reason - you don't pray right, or harbor some secret sin, etc. It's just a way of keeping their consciences from activating at all.

If some problem comes into your life, that's evidence that you aren't a good christian. Conversely, having no problems is a sign of being "blessed". It reminds me of the old adage about being born on third base and thinking they hit a triple. Being fortunate enough to be free of hardships doesn't necessitate gratitude or thankfulness, it's owed them (they think). There's no more "there but for the grace of God go I" anymore, it's all different now. They're self-made and blessed now. And if they aren't, they pretend to be and don't admit to having any problems.

Kenneth Copeland started the victory thing back in the 1970s. That was just about the time the church (especially charismatics/pentecostals) went political and RW in a big way. This was all very well planned by an "intelligentsia" at the top - both the philosophy and the politics.

[LiberalArkie]

23. I was into the Pentecostals/AOG etc.. Something never seemed right.

I knew too many of them well enough to always have my hand on my wallet when around them.

It never seemed to jive with how I KNEW Jesus from the gospels.

Thank you

[markbark]

11. Matthew 19:16-28 (n/t)

....of course the "christians" never bother to read the book they so mightily thump.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. Another (of many): Matthew 25:34-46

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=25&t=KJV#45

[Odin2005]

12. Calvinism is at the root of American Fundamentalism.

[mrs_p]

13. are you trying to imply this is what the church believes?

from the article:

Michael Hichborn, a spokesman for Reform the CCHD Now, called the anti-poverty program "philosophically flawed right from the outset." "It never addresses sin as the root cause of poverty, which means it never addresses Christ as a remedy," he said

Hichborn is against the church giving money to anti-poverty programs. The article also quotes Deal Hudson, another disgusting conservative, as well as a former professor of mine and the biggest hypocrite I have ever known (the things I could tell you would make your skin crawl). These men are part of a movement to exclude any and all people who do not embrace a fundamentalist view from the church.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. I saw Deal Hudson's name, too . . .

And his career needs to be highlighted here, so folks can know who the go-to guy for "conservative" opposition to helping the poor really IS. In short, he's a disgusting sexual predator, among other things.

As such, rather than chime in myself on this monster's past, I think it would be far more appropriate that you do so. I encourage you so to do.

[LiberalArkie]

24. It is a new concept to me, that the poor should not be helped because they sinned.

It just ran against everything I was ever taught by my parents and the gospels.

But at the same time, seemed to make sense how the wealthy Christians could justify not caring about the poor.

[WinkyDink]

19. AVARICE is the sin, not poverty.

Greed impoverishes the greed-head's VICTIMS.

[me b zola]

32. ^^This

:thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. You can believe that poverty is the result of the sin of the poor person ONLY

if you ignore the teachings of Jesus as well as large portions of the Hebrew scriptures. Far from the clichés about the "nasty Old Testament God" (mostly in the earlier books from an earlier stage of the development of the Jewish religion), the writings of the later prophets are scathing social critiques, some of which could be written today.

[L0oniX]

22. Poverty IS the result of sin! ...the sins of the rich!

[mulsh]

26. My 12 years of Catholic education never taught that sin is a root of

poverty. As other poster have pointed out that is a Calvinistic idea. Calvinism was reviled by my religious instructors in high school. The idea that god love those with the greatest wealth the most, is central to Calvinism not Catholicism.

[ipaint]

27. Tha majority of the middle class, liberal or conservative religious or not, thinks

poverty is an "individual" problem and the result of some human failing in individual poor people.

The problem isn't poverty, it's wealth hoarding. It's billionaires and their phony tax evading "charitable" foundations, it's wall street, it's criminal banksters run amok, it's shareholders with investments in companies that think cutting jobs, hours and pay is a good $return$ on investment. It's millionaire politicians that slash and burn social programs for the money needed to fund war and more tax cuts for the rich, It's every politician that refuses to adequately fund housing for the homeless and low income.

And it's the middle class that protects them all for crumbs.

[dembotoz]

30. boy that Mother Theresa must have been a real whore.

[ClassWarrior]

31. That's EXACTLY what they think. Read up on the "Strict Father" vs. "Nurturant Parent" worldviews...

...described by the distinguished scholar, Prof. George Lakoff:

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

NGU.

[Michael Hichborn]

35. It is an incomplete quote

I spent a long time discussing with the reporter what is meant by that statement, and unfortunately, everything I said was reduced to that phrase.

The statement regarding the flawed philosophy of the CCHD was set in the larger context of the mission of the Catholic Church, which is the salvation of souls. ALL souls. However, by funding secular and humanist organizations which address only material concerns, the CCHD divorces itself from this larger mission of salvation. The CCHD states that its mission is to address the root causes of poverty, however it does not address that sin is the root cause and Christ is the remedy. This is not to say that the poor are poor because they are sinful and the rich are wealthy because they are virtuous (this would counter not only the senses but reason), but to say that there is poverty because there is sin in the world. There are sinful business owners who do not pay a just wage. There are sinful misers who do not perform the works of mercy; feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, visiting the imprisoned, tending the sick and dying, and so forth. At the same token, there are those poor who are so because of their own addictions, laziness, self righteousness and self centeredness. We are ALL sinners, and the Church's concern is the salvation of souls ... not to merely be a philanthropic organization to fill people's bellies.

While Mother Theresa of Calcutta was pulling the sick and the dying off the streets, she would ask them if they wanted to know about Our Blessed Lord. They would ask her if He is anything like her, to which she would answer, "No, but I try very much to be like Him." And so they would say, "then I should like to be a Christian, too."

The point is that there can be no "social justice" without the Just Judge, which is Christ. Granting money to organizations which do not share the Church's evangelistic mission removes the Just Judge, and places a secular, mundane judge in His place.

So, as you can see, my statement that, "It never addresses sin as the root cause of poverty, which means it never addresses Christ as a remedy," carries with it a much larger meaning that was left out (primarily due to space) from the article. I hope this explanation clarifies my meaning, and I am sorry for the unfortunate confusion that statement seems to have caused.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. welcome to DU

Your view seems to be "In a perfect world there would be no sin and therefore no poverty" because things like greed and gluttony are sins and without them we could all share and share alike.


That is a grotesque over simplification and I apologize for that but the core seems to be accurate.

My question to you is, what good is addressing sin as the cause of poverty to the poor? They are not the greedy or glutinous. Preach that to the wealthy who would rather spend millions on TV ads to lie about politicians than have their taxes raised.

I tend to agree with your philosophy but it in not practical when people are in need of clean water or medical attention.

I also agree that the incomplete quote unfairly distorts your view but there are some who hold that view and it is easy to incorrectly include you in that group.

[Michael Hichborn]

37. Hi Johnny,

I can see how my commentary seems to be a reflection of your summary, but if you truly understand the teachings of the Catholic Church, it’s much deeper than that. We were never called to rely on each other to build a “more perfect world” as it were, but to rely on God for all things, even unto death. No one gets out of this life alive, and as Jesus said, “Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it.” The Christian life ONLY makes sense when we consider that life does not end with death. What happens to us in life makes no difference. All that matters is how we respond to the toils and trials we encounter and endure.

When one REALLY reads the Gospels, what becomes clear is that it is the rejection of the Cross that leads to perdition, which is to say that it is the rejection of ones willingness to accept a suffering Christ and a desire to be crucified with Him so that we may rise with Him as well. There has to be a Good Friday before there can be an Easter Sunday. If we are to TRULY enjoy the feast, it must be preceded by a fast (who can enjoy a feast with a full stomach?). Shortly after his profession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus rebuked Peter as “Satan” for rejecting the suffering and death Jesus was to endure. Peter … personally … is Satan for rejecting the suffering of the Cross.

The deeper meaning that I am attempting to bring out in my statement is that the Church is interested in the salvation of individuals. There is no salvation of “mankind,” or “the poor,” or “the oppressed,” unless the individuals that make up those groups unite in prayer and offer their sufferings in union with the Passion of Our Blessed Lord. The wealthy unite themselves with Christ’s sufferings by working to alleviate the sufferings of others, living virtuously, and loving God above all else. The poor unite themselves with Christ’s sufferings by identifying their own suffering with that of Christ’s and praying for the conversion of sinners, including the oppressors and the miserly. The Cross is the only path to salvation, and we are all called in some capacity or other to make our lives into a sacrificial offering to God.

So, as I speak about sin being the root cause of poverty, it is the refusal of the wealthy to play their role in the salvation of the poor, just as it is the refusal of poor to play their role in the salvation of the rich with perpetuates the cycle of poverty. And this perpetual cycle will only persist as Christ is ignored and “society” and “government” and “economics” are propped up as the real solution. The words of psalm 146 perfectly explain what my poor words cannot:

“Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save. When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing. Happy those whose help is Jacob's God, whose hope is in the LORD, their God, The maker of heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them, Who keeps faith forever, secures justice for the oppressed, gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free; the LORD gives sight to the blind. The LORD raises up those who are bowed down; the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD protects the stranger, sustains the orphan and the widow, but thwarts the way of the wicked. The LORD shall reign forever, your God, Zion, through all generations! Hallelujah!”

[riderinthestorm]

38. Welcome to DU.

Thanks for a thoughtful response but I take issue that the only remedy is through Christ.

There are many organizations and individuals of other faiths, and no faith, who would necessarily fall under your "society, government or economics" rubric - outside of the church - who you appear to be discounting, if not outright dismissing as potential aids in fighting poverty. The Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontieres, Bon Jovi, hell even atheistic Cuba takes better care of all of it's citizens collectively, as a government agency, than the church ever has. These groups are agnostic at best.

How do you fit them into your theory?