Has Pope Francis
alienated people just as capable and
worthy of redemption as
any other of God's children?
The Pope's Un-Christian Rejection of the Wealthy (Die Welt,
Germany)
"The church does not praise all to the same degree; but has
contempt for no one. With the exception of bankers, it appears. ... It often
seems as if, in the midst of Christian charity, there has been a stubborn
deafness in the church, and a contempt from the pulpit that comes out of
cowardice of instead of respect for the poor. Poverty is not a consistent symbol
for strength of character, nor is wealth always synonymous with
hard-heartedness."
Time Magazine's 2014 man of the year: Francis, the first Jesuit pope in history, has challenged much of what people have come to identify with his church, and has made a point of criticizing capitalism in its current form - particularly, 'trickle down economics.'
The church doesn't
tolerate hatred or scorn, because we're all equal before God? If only! Pope
Francis is full of anger and contempt as he speaks of the wealthy.
The
luminous message of Jesus can be summed up in a single sentence: There are no first
and second class citizens before God.
That
is why Jesus graciously devoted himself to those in the Roman Empire who were
hated and despised as second-class citizens: the prostitutes, the single
parents, the poor, the beggars, the slaves, and those plunged into hardship
through no fault of their own.
That
is still Christianity's answer for those who are hated and despised today, or were
until recently: ethnic minorities, the poor, the beggars, some immigrants, and those
who choose the path of crime. And in some countries, still homosexuals.
The
church does not abandon such people. On the Day of Judgment, God
will judge all people, each as an individual, taking their entire lives into account.
People are not all role models in equal measure. In this respect, the Bible,
too, sets priorities.
The
Pope speaks of a 'system' that is evil
But
Jesus also said: "I
was hungry … I was thirsty … I was naked; I was sick and in prison" and
"inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did
it to Me."
The
church does not praise all to the same degree; but has contempt for no one.
With
the exception of bankers, it appears. The wealthy. Aren't they now "the
least, the despised, the outcasts?" Francis finds harsh words for them in his
"Evangelii
Gaudium." According to Francis, social injustice is "crystallized
evil."
It
stems, Francis says, from a "system" in which the poor are silenced
or stunted [for lack of opportunity]. ... The "earnings of a minority are
growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the
prosperity enjoyed by those happy few."
A fiendish few
deify the market
The
system is faceless, and its advocates are not people, but an impersonal "few"
who "idolize" the market. The "system" is evil on Earth. If
this is the case, are the "happy few" just a small fiendish group
incapable of any understanding or compassion?
This
choice of words irritates not only because it reduces all happiness to material
prosperity. What is especially irritating is the contempt with which the Bishop
of Rome speaks of those, who, like all fallible people, have hearts that Jesus
wants to reach.
A
church so narrowly focused on the material definition of happiness and
unhappiness, of wealth and poverty, runs the risk of being perceived as a "kitsch"
church that during Christmas ritually celebrates material deprivation as the
highest value - as a pretext and an end in itself rather than a model and basis
for the benevolent education of the heart.
The
"least" in Jesus' day were the poor, but the Bible doesn't condemn
property in every form. In the parable of the wise and foolish virgins [aka/The Parable of the
Ten Virgins], women are wise to preserve oil for their lamps so as not
to be out searching for replacement oil when the Lord arrives. When the foolish
virgins then want to benefit from their oil, the wise say, "Since there
will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for
yourselves."
But
wait: millionaires create endowments, billionaires give to charity!
Intelligent
preparation is not the same as the oft cited "to everyone who has will more be
given," and an overwhelmingly large part of democratic entrepreneurs
behave much like the wise virgins.
We
live in an era in which millionaires create endowments and billionaires give to
charity. Yet it sometimes appears as if no matter what the democratic wealthy do,
the church during Christmas and Easter throws them into the same pot as corrupt
oligarchs and greedy bankers.
Furthermore,
are greedy bankers the ultimate evil? Or are they the errant souls who might be
able to acknowledge the error of their ways? Is there not in each of them a
potential Paul - a Good Samaritan?
After all, for the church, this is the image of man.
Francis
devotes a large section of his apostolic letter to asking priests to listen, to
seek out dialog with everyone, without prejudice, as all are without exception the
people of God. Doesn't that apply to bankers as well?
The
rich are not happy per se because they are rich
Francis
laments the rampant spiritual inwardness that aspires to self-spiritual
perfection within a private cocoon rather than through taking an active role in
the world. Does the church understand where this inward focus comes from? Does
it feel the loneliness of people who have worked hard to earn their wealth?
Does
it have a sense of the alienation of people in societies where governments don't
believe in honest, hard-earned money, and after the tithes are paid, with a church
that appears to reject and criticize the wealthy?
Those
who assume that the rich are consistently happy and at peace with themselves
have a Manichean,
inaccurate image of man. No doubt about it: They, the repulsively egocentric
rich, do exist, especially outside of Europe. But the fact that Warren Buffet
and Bono are able to mobilize billions for the poor may yet leave its mark on
the church.
Entirely
apart from the world of souls, those who have had success, but are by no means eccentrically
prosperous, come to realize that new and never before imagined conflicts appear
in that kind of life.
Opposition
against anything that looks like money
It
is true: there has been an unbearable fraternization between the church and
emperors, dictators, and oligarchs. There are still vain and powerful priests
and wealthy Christians who seek only to strengthen their elite status with emphatic
religious rhetoric. For them, Francis has sharp words for them in his Evangelii Gaudium.
But
that goes hand in hand with ethical opposition against anything that looks like
money and prosperity. Should the rich go ahead and donate or give away their
money, if they suffer such criticism because of their wealth? This is a poor
response to the complicated emotional states brought about by the will to
achieve, being deprived of achievement, and the solitude achievement can bring.
The
responsibility that is success breeds, the envy, and the struggle for continued
success, the doubts, the restless nights - these are the states of mind that
send people to psychologists and comforters of souls in droves, because they have
long since lost their faith in a church that is wise and listens quietly.
Poverty
is not always a symbol of strength of character
A
church that would recognize, to some extent at least, the disappointments and
loneliness and how much unexpected misfortune can be found in boardrooms and mansions
- the construction of which began with idealism and faith in God - such a
church would find therein grateful listeners.
For
the unhappiness of the successful wealthy doesn't evaporate with the
renunciation of a life once led to achieve that success. The world isn't that
simple. God sees souls destroyed by money, but does the church want to see them?
Does
it want to offer them a path to understand that it was on the road to success
that so much of their humanity was lost, and that the road to success could also
lead to happiness rather than depression?
Posted By Worldmeets.US
It
often seems as if, in the midst of Christian charity, there has been a stubborn
deafness in the church, and a contempt from the pulpit that comes out of
cowardice of instead of respect for the poor. Poverty is not a consistent symbol
for strength of character, nor is wealth always synonymous with
hard-heartedness.
In
a church constricted by a definition of poverty as material in nature, there is
also the deification of the cheap
Jacob [salesperson of shoddy goods], not just the much-needed critique of dancing
around the golden calf.
The
wealthy are also people of God. They seek his word even if, trapped in their
egos, they do not intentionally appear to do so - like many others who pretend to
be good people of God but let his words go unnoticed.
As
long as he strives, man errs. But why does the church so often go on the attack
when it comes to the wealthy? Why does she talk herself and her faithful into
believing that finding a faithful, compassionate, actively charitable, and
therefore happy heart in the mansions of the world is impossible?
"I
was in prison," Jesus told the disciples. The church is not a repair shop
for the soul - that is probably true. Nor does it exist to sanction power
structures. But Jesus saw each of the "least" as an equal, without
exception; and he understood how many different ways a person could be
imprisoned.
Could
it be that a full bank account is the only hurdle that the church cannot
overcome in her mission of evangelization?
