Who you lookin’ at? Don’t mess with me, boy.

So the Republican-controlled House of Representatives — with the help of a couple of Democrats — has voted to defund ObamaCare. In response, President Obama, declaring that the Republicans are “trying to mess with me,” has accused the House of trying to shut down the government.

But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk. The House budget funds everything except for implementation of the Affordable Care Act better known as ObamaCare. In truth, by refusing even to negotiate with the House leadership and threatening to veto a budget that doesn’t fit his own specifications, it is Obama, not the House of Representatives, who is putting the country at risk of a government shutdown.

Adds the writer, Glenn H. Reynolds of Instapundit fame: “It’s also sadly typical that Obama sees this debate as being all about him.” The “mess with me” part, yes.

Where would we be without them?

In this helpful item, Marty features a Boston College professor’s comments in the Wall St. Journal about the Pope’s broadening U.S. bishops’ agenda, not “cutting it out.”

Marty speaks of changing “triads” of hot issues for Christian leaders, from the Trinity to “Liberté, égalité, and fraternité” to today’s “sex, sex, sex” — more specifically abortion, birth control, and gaiety — with

understandably giddy responses from one set of Catholics, understandably cautious responses from another, and understandably complex responses from the majority. All with good reasons.

Fair enough, but in each case it was in response to the spirit of the world Christians lived in. All with good reasons for the latest triad, to which we must also add “violence” in all its forms.

As commenter Margaret put it,

Catholics would not be focusing on abortion and homosexuality except that they are being shoved down our throats by a hostile culture; neither issue was much discussed — except in private confessions — until abortion was legalized and until homosexual “rights” were introduced into public consciousness. Most decent people would prefer never to have to think about either topic.

She adds a zinger:

The Pope is old enough to know this so his response is disingenuous.

Ouch or touche to that. I had this other thought: Talking to Jesuits, he let his hair down even more than usual, which I like in him. But if he’s going to be relaxed about it, then his flock will be also. Fine. The bully pulpit suits him, and it’s better that than incomprehensible church talk.

This guy is on to something:

. . . what came to mind while I was reading Pope Francis’ interview with Antonio Spadaro, S.J.. I would suggest that the critical passage to understanding . . . Pope Francis’ papal style more broadly, is right here [he quotes]:

“The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus.

We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.

Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognise the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

This stands is sharp contrast [to] the media spin. For example, the Associated Press story claimed:

U.S. bishops were also behind Benedict’s crackdown on American nuns, who were accused of letting doctrine take a backseat to their social justice work caring for the poor — precisely the priority that Francis is endorsing.

But that’s just patently false. Francis isn’t saying that moral issues favored by Republicans need to take a backseat to moral issues favored by Democrats. That’s a complete misreading, and suggests that the media obsession with viewing everything through the lens of politics obstructs their ability to grasp this. What Francis is saying instead is that all moral issues (even ones involving life and death) properly flow from a relationship with Christ. Morality that doesn’t flow from, or towards, Jesus Christ is simply incoherent.

Joe Heschmeyer is his name, by the way. He has a very interesting, professionally organized blog here.

Elsewhere, he is introduced:

About Joe Heschmeyer

Until May 2012, Joe Heschmeyer was an attorney in Washington, D.C., specializing in litigation. These days, he is a seminarian for the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas, and can use all the prayers he can get. Follow Joe through his blog, Shameless Popery or contact him at joseph.heschmeyer@gmail.com.

On philosophy and theology as way to understand Jesuit mystique:

The Society of Jesus can be described only in narrative form. Only in narrative form do you discern, not in a philosophical or theological explanation, which allows you rather to discuss. The style of the Society is not shaped by discussion, but by discernment, which of course presupposes discussion as part of the process. The mystical dimension of discernment never defines its edges and does not complete the thought. The Jesuit must be a person whose thought is incomplete, in the sense of open-ended thinking.

Deep stuff here. Discussion not the ticket, but it’s presupposed. Mystical dimension, open-ended thinking? Where’s he going with this? Ignatius was rather matter-of-fact about decision-making, as in “rules for eating” and the like. This? I don’t know.

On openness to same-sex-attracted people:

Tell me: When God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person? We must always consider the person, he said in an interview published Thursday. The church cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods.”

[The Monitor comments:] While Franciss comments do not represent a change in doctrine, they mark an important symbolic shift for the church that is likely to anger conservative factions more closely aligned to the views of Pope Benedict XVI, who railed against gay marriage and legalized abortion.

Very old stuff here, encapsulated in the dictum or motto or byword, Hate sin, love sinner. Church cannot insist only on abortion etc. Unimpeachable commentary.

And Benedict “railed”? How about that for loading one’s expression.

This, I submit, is bringing coals to Newcastle when announced to Chicago-area RC preachers:

Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis delivered a blunt message to the church: Stop obsessively preaching about the ills of abortion, contraception, and gay marriage.

As yourself, fellow Chicago archdiocese resident, when was the last time you heard about abortion, contraception, or gay marriage from the pulpit.

Coals to Newcastle? See here, blog reader.

====================

From percipient reader:

Yes, yes, yes!

A year ago I heard of the evangelical preacher jailed in Canada for talking against the sin of homosexuality, and the thought was “beware, this could happen in the USA.” [In UK, as here.]

My thought was — “maybe to an American evangelical” — I can’t remember a priest talking against ANY sin, unless it’s racism.

I have heard from friends in Italy and maybe read about it — that abortion is NOT a political issue in “Catholic” Italy. Couldn’t figure that one out with Benedict on the throne.

The U.S. Catholic Church has not done its PR right. The complete elimination of sin-talk doesn’t seem to have drawn “moderate” Catholics back to the church because they don’t know about the change.

So: How familiar is this Argentinian pope with the U.S.?

Can this be what Pope Francis has in mind when he calls for church as first-aid station? Director for Planned Parenthood for Master’s in Public Health degree-holders?

Hardly. His advice to church leaders and followers can’t mean that, can it?

This little piggy went virtual, but users and investors should beware, it seems.

Reactions, as from Archbp Dolan of NYC:

“As a priest and bishop, I particularly welcome his reminder that the clergy are primarily to serve as shepherds, to be with our people, to walk with them, to be pastors, not bureaucrats!

Rev. Thomas Reese, SJ:

“Reading this interview gave me greater insight into my Jesuit vocation and into our Jesuit pope,” he said. “What is clear is that he does not think like a classicist who sees the world in unchanging categories. He is a storyteller like Jesus, not a philosopher. He thinks in narrative, not philosophical principles. He thinks like a pastor understanding the history of the church but wanting to move with God’s people confidently into the future. He trusts that the spirit [sic: capitalized by Reese, not by LA Times piece,
unfortunately] is alive and well in the people of God.”

Kathryn Jean Lopez (at Fox News):

“Whatever your politics,” she concluded, “be careful what you read into this. He’s talking to you. He’s talking to me. He’s reminding himself. The news isn’t that he isn’t ‘a right-winger,’ as he tells us. It’s that he’s a pastor. He’s a priest, not a politician.’

Bill Donaghue of Catholic League:

“The pope is right that single-issue Catholics need to rise above their immediate concerns,” he wrote on his organization’s website. “He did not say we should not address abortion or homosexuality; he simply said we cannot be absorbed by these issues. Both the left and the right should heed his message.”

A major LGBT lobby:

The Human Rights Campaign, which supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, hailed the pope’s remarks, saying they should lead to “transformative change” throughout the Catholic Church.

Me: It’s a splendid bit of advice for pastors, capturing the spirit (small “s”) of Catholic preaching and mass-celebration in 95% of the churches and at the masses I attend. A nice corrective to overemphasis when it arises.

It flashes no red light for activists seeking to protect the church’s independence from hyperactive LGBT and other propagandists (promoters?) and legislators et al. who would impinge on it — such as this about compulsory sex-education at UCLA and the rights of conscientious objectors. I can see a bishop calling attention to such a matter as a function of his pastoral responsibilities. So can the Pope, I’m sure.

$50 million for doors etc.

Note, however, that it’s part of a $31 billion spending program signed into law by Gov. Quinn, a.k.a. Santa Claus, in July of ’09.