You might remember I wrote about President Obama yesterday and how he, like the socialists Leo XIII warned about, undermined Church doctrine on issues like abortion and same-sex unions in favor of eliminating poverty.
Obama’s Alinskyist rhetoric is not surprising to a Church that has lived for almost 2,000 years and has survived every persecution since then, has read Scriptures and looked to Tradition and formalized the Canon of Scriptures. Jesus did not eleviate poverty, though He talked about giving to the poor; funny how He even told the rich man to give away all his belongings and follow Him — now if Jesus taught eliminating poverty were an obligation, then telling the rich man to give up all his possessions would be counter-active. Many others did the same when they entered the monastic life as they imitated the lifestyle of the early Christians who shared their goods “according as every one had need” (cf. Acts 2:45); yet this was not through a federal government intervention, but through the free will of Christians and Saint Paul emphasized, “I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary” (Philemon 1:14).
Apart from both being Democrats, both Barack Obama and Saul Alinsky were community organizers and from Chicago. Obama did study Alinsky when he read his writings while in Chicago. Alinsky apparently opened his book Rules for Radicals by praising Satan or Lucifer for creating his own kingdom and devotes his book to the idea of “people committed to change.” Alinsky sought financial support from the Catholic Church for his campaign, while harboring feelings of hatred towards the Church as seen in his comments about monks being “bastards” for living in monasteries and not eliminating poverty, and some local Church leaders such as Msr. Samuel Stritch worked with him.
If social welfare was as good as so many Democrats say it does, then why do the homeless still not have homes, clean clothes or enough food and water? Why is it that we hear about so many people on welfare abusing the system by spending thousands of dollars on things they don’t need rather than on things they need? Why is it those lower class people with jobs get precedence to get welfare money over lower class people who have no jobs? These are questions the Democrats at large have not raised. Quite frankly, I get the feeling they don’t care. If it wins them elections and donations, what does it matter to them?
I liken the Democratic Party (U.S.A.) to the Social Democratic Parties of Europe and Latin America. I wouldn’t compare their policies to Soviet politics, but their center-left socialist policies are clear. Like the Social Democrats, the Democrats obsess over political correctness and eliminating what they view as oppression such as Muslims allegedly receiving Islamophobic treatment in secular and religious institutions. Like the Social Democrats, the Democrats are devoted to gradual tax increase and not just for the rich but for everyone contrary to what they say. Like the Social Democrats, the Democrats reject the radical socialist or communist notion of violent takeover and elimination of private property. For those not familiar with the Social Democrats, their movement was founded during the late 19th century after they dissented from radical Marxist theory of private property and revolution: as such social democracy was founded upon progressive theory of social reform and working through capitalism. While the Church also agrees that both socialism and pure capitalism are false (rf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2425), the social democratic movement is far from being friendly to the Church as it incessantly seeks to repress evangelization and public expressions of faith: it seeks to penalize Christians with fines and incarceration or at least the threat thereof and control even private mom & pop businesses on moral issues like same-sex unions, something the communists also do; it seeks to silence anybody who dares criticize Islam as being violent or being a distortion of truth. The Democrats in the U.S. are the same.
The political correctness doctrine is itself a product of Marxism. It was founded by socialist professors at the Frankfurt University and is espoused by what many today call cultural Marxism due to Marx’s doctrine of social and economic equality being comparable to the universalist and relativist belief that all cultures and religions are equally true or good and therefore to speak critically of one is offensive and must be censored by whatever means necessary.
Did I mention Social Democrats, U.S.A. publicly endorsed Barack Obama? You can find the article here.
The Social Democrats, U.S.A.’s website also states that Rev. Norman Thomas is part of “a true American tradition” which is Social Democracy. Rev. Norman Thomas was a Presbyterian minister and influential member of the Social Gospel movement which emphasized concern about economic inequality, poverty, child labor, racism and alcoholism; while to a certain extent the Church agrees these are issues, the Social Gospel movement took a progressive approach to these problems. The Presbyterian minister ran for president six times as a candidate for the Socialist Party of America; he was known to be a liberal or socialist anti-Catholic, accusing the Church of hypocrisy for teaching against contraception and yet for the Latin Church’s canonical discipline of clerical discipline.
This would explain why so many American Christians, even clergy, are liberal or socialist. With this comes liberation theology which was accredited to having been founded by Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P., after he wrote his 1971 book A Theology of Liberation. The Church reacted in criticism. Later, Benedict XVI as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that its “inversion of morality and structures is steeped in a materialist anthropology which is incompatible with the dignity of mankind” (cf. Instruction on Certain Aspects on “Theology of Liberation”, no. 8). Because it contains “concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought” (Ibid, no. 1), it has been rejected by the Church. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, is a self-described proponent of liberation theology. It is not surprising that Obama is influenced largely by his former pastor. Here is an interview.
The part of liberation theology which speaks strongly in regards to what progressive politicians like Obama is that liberation theology believers “seem to put liberation from sin in second place” (Ibid, no. 1). Obama does that by placing a state of being such as poverty over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. If Jesus preached liberation theology, then He would have freed Judaea from Roman occupation, but He did not and this angered many Jews who longed for a political liberation from foreign occupation. Instead He taught a faith about Sacraments like Baptism (rf. John 3:5), Confession (rf. John 20:23), Eucharist (rf. John 6:54-47), Matrimony (rf. Matthew 19:4-10), Confirmation (rf. John 14:26), Holy Orders (rf. Matthew 26:26-28, John 20:22-23) and Extreme Unction (rf. Mark 6:7-13), or morality and that that which comes from within is what defiles (rf. Mark 7:15).