Now, Sarah Palin is a politician, and... there is probably not a great deal about her politics and mine that match.Read Father Tim's full op-ed at Irish Central.
Or that matter.
Life and love do matter, though — more than anything. For they are gifts from Our Loving Father. Politics, while it occupies an important place in this strange world we have created as a poor substitute for God’s Perfect World, is built from human perception. God does not perceive anything; He knows.
This is why God does not see “defects” in His Own Perfect Creations. When we see as He does — or if we simply try to see as He does — our lives move closer to the peace and love that is our birthright from Him.
And it is quite clear that Sarah Palin — whatever one may think of her politics — has shared the Thoughts of God by letting Him bring Trig into the world when she might have done otherwise. And by loving him as God loves His Dear Children: without condition.
[...]
I do not know whether her doctors made any suggestion to the Palins that the early diagnosis of Down Syndrome should make them consider an “alternative” — but I know that others do. The same conversations hover near the “terminally ill,” and the slippery slope gets ever more slippery.
But for Sarah Palin and her family, at least, there was no attempt to out-think God — truly a fool’s errand. Instead, they embraced His changeless and unchangeable Love.
They are worlds richer for it. And for that, Sarah Palin, you are a hero.
- JP
One thing I do not understand from the left....what
ReplyDeletedo they mean by "I (we) disagree with her politics"? They disagree with smaller government, less spending, deficit reduction,
strong defense, etc.?
Don't you think its time we knew exactly what
all these people are disagreeing with?
Perhaps this phrase is a much overworked
and means very little (except to the very far
left who favor the opposite). Could it be "they"
just attach that phrase to all commentary so their friends won't
think they are "traitors to the liberal cause" by saying something nice about Palin?
Jesuits are notoriously liberal, Amanda. I'm just pleased whenever I see a liberal who refrains from attacking her character and calling her every name in the book except a child of God.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, for the Left, it's progress when one of them simply disagree with her politics and leaves it at that. For a pro-life liberal to call her a "hero" is beyond my wildest expectations for the other side. Of course, most libs aren't Catholic priests...
- JP
- JP
Amanda, a large portion of the Catholic Church hierarchy (and membership) has long been in bed, if you will, with unions and complex government welfare programs as part of the duty it feels toward the plight of the poor and defenseless in society--a very Christian, Gospel-oriented "duty," to be certain.
ReplyDeleteAs a Catholic Christian, I can tell you that there are those in the Church who do indeed have a more leftist view of the "option for the poor," a more centrist view, and even a conservative view. Those with an ostensibly Marxist view in this regard have been chastised by the Church, which condemns Marxism in no uncertain terms (remember "liberation theology"?).
Too, it is important to realize that the Catholic Church did indeed wield its influence at a point when, historically, American workers had appalling "rights" and when there were not even the most basic benefits for the poor/unemployed/disabled in many jurisdictions. In this manner, at these times, the Church was a champion of people who wanted the government to be "on their side" in merely basic ways. Then, most Catholics were indeed Democrat and the hierarchy leaned that way as well, politically speaking.
But those old scenarios have all radically changed. This was before some very distinct ideological changes in the Democrat party, particularly concering abortion. Moreover, this was before unions became so indelibly politicized and before government welfare programs proliferated to the point of insanity.
Democrat politicians do indeed continue to court Catholic prelates, priests, and congregations with the ol' "we're going to really make sure that the poor are not forgotten" song and dance. The Church cannot publicly endorse candidates, but everyone is aware of who's going to Mass where, etc., and what the implications are for the poor, in terms of politicians side-by-side with us in pews.
It's a conundrum for the Church, because priests like the one who rightfully championed Sarah for her pro-life stance exemplify that "caught between" mentality in the Church, i.e. we cannot give unilateral support to every Democrat agenda, but we fear that the poor will be forgotten if funding is cut.
But the pendulum has swung and there is no need for the Church, in my opinion as a Catholic, to continue clinging to any obvious preference for one political movement over another. There ought to be just as many Roick Santorums as there are Joe Bidens (excuse me, MORE Santorums than Bidens). In fact, the democraphic is indeed beginning to shift. A great many Catholics are appalled at outrageous government spending (me, for just one), etc.
The priests, however, have this eternal fretting about the poor stuck in their heads, which is a good thing, in part. But there is a problem when many of them--quite unreasonably--feel compelled to assume that conservative politics is incompatible with the Catholic Faith. It's just not true. Most Catholic priests are very socially/culturally conservative in terms of values, but remain moderate-to-liberal when it comes to making sure the poor are cared-for. I can tell you that a great deal of this mindset comes from their sheltered university lives. Surprise surprise. Priests are not in favor of the burden of gross taxation, and clearly against abortion...but the specter of the poor is ever on their radar.
Many are afraid to "disassociate" with Democrat politics for this reason alone, even in the face of the obvious theological incompatibilities. They have not yet figured-out that the problem of the poor in this nation has actually been worsened, in most cases, by the proliferation of government programs and vile over-taxation of small business owners, for example. The hierarchy is still stuck in the 1895-1950 era in this respect, in this American version of the "option for the poor."
I am a Catholic so I know very well what you
ReplyDeleteare saying. I think this game of stating one
is liberal because one cares about and funds social programs in some way is very one sided thinking.
However, my point is that many people on the
left and right give Palin a half hearted or
even whole hearted compliment, then either
preface or tag on the end "I disagree with her politics". I wish they would detail exactly
what they disagree with.
I would like to be enlightened.
Do they disagree with:
1. smaller government
2. balanced budget
3. reduced deficit
4. reduced spending
5. less crooks in our government
6. strong defense
7. energy independence
etc. etc. etc.
What is it?