One small step for marriage as we know it, one giant leap?

I hope for this change.

As its Oct. 1 implementation date arrives, ObamaCare is the biggest bet that American liberalism has made in 80 years on its foundational beliefs. This thing called “ObamaCare” carries on its back all the justifications, hopes and dreams of the entitlement state. The chance is at hand to let its political underpinnings collapse, perhaps permanently.

A statement of how natural course can be on our side.

Is our new pope losing it?

You would think so, looking at the above-linked list of stories. Note, however, what one of them has, about free-market capitalsm:

Since taking over as head of the Roman Catholic Church in March, Pope Francis has made several stark comments on world economic issues: He’s cited the pitfalls of capitalism, decried global income inequality and equated low-wage labor to a form of “slavery.”

He’s even described the financial corruption in the church he leads as a “spiritual sickness.”

Analysts say Pope Francis—leader of some 1.2 billion Catholics—is not necessarily calling for the demise of free market theory. Instead, he’s issuing a very strong warning to economic leaders over its future.

Etc. This CNBC piece is well constructed. But the problem remains: Pope F. shoots from the hip at times, and what came across as fresh air in his early dispensing with paraphernalia and folderol is beginning to look like erratic behavior, leading to headlines like:

* Can savage capitalism be humanized?

* A blunt Pope Francis targets free market economics (excerpted above)

* Unbridled capitalism has taught people that money is more important than anything else . . .

[Please. People didn’t know that already?]

* Is Jorge Bergoglio, The New Pope Francis, A Capitalist?

In any case, the looser he is with his condemnations, the more easily is he disregarded. Finger-wagging is bad in dealing with gays and abortionists but not with captains of industry? or lieutenants or sergeants? For whom he has thunderbolts?

Plus, he might compare wealth creation and distribution in free-market vs. socialistic economies before condemning one of them. Wild talk will get him nowhere in his evangelical enterprises.

Reading Vatican 2 on the church and the world, “Gaudium et Spes” (Joy and hope), before hearing Rev. Robert Barron on that document at St. Procopius Monastery, Lisle, I am reminded of Jack Handy, who wrote “Deep Thoughts” (1992), “Fuzzy Memories” (1996), and other memorable spoofs.

I mean, consider this from G&S:

“Our era needs wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanised” (15).

“The future of humanity lies in the hands of those who are strong enough to provide coming generations with reasons for living and hoping” (31).

“The enormous progress of science and technology must be harmonised with a culture nourished by classical studies according to various traditions” (56).

“It remains each man’s duty to retain an understanding of the whole human person … a profound inquiry into the meaning of culture and science for the human person” (61).

What half-aware individual would contradict these deep thoughts?

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.?