Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Center of "True Development"

More posts about "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth)
"Caritas in Veritate"
I've posted this before. A lot:
My Lord's answer to 'what is the greatest commandment' sounds may sound like the feel-good platitudes you sometimes see in greeting cards or self-help books. It's anything but, since we're expected to actually do something about loving God and our neighbor.

That, basically, seems to be what Benedict XVI's "Caritas in Veritate" is about: applying "love your neighbor" in today's world.

Human Beings are People

Judging by the way television advertising keeps airing pictures of ragged children with big, sad eyes, I figure that quite a few folks realize that human beings who are big and strong enough to at least sit up on their own are people. Even if their immediate ancestors clearly didn't come from northwestern Europe.

That's an improvement over all-too-common attitudes of the 19th century in the Western world. I've been over that before, too:
"...'...We blowed out a cylinder-head.'

" 'Good gracious! anybody hurt?''

"No'm. Killed a [redacted].'

"' Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt....'..."
(Mark Twain, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" Part 2 (1885), Chapter XXXII., via Project Gutenberg)
(from June 24, 2011)
That's progress, although it took American more than a century, and a major war, to go from "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Maybe we'll process some of today's ethical lapses faster, and more tidily.

Poverty, People, and the "Surplus Population"

Here's how today's section of "Caritas in Veritate" starts:
"One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways...."
("Caritas in Veritte," 28)
What we're talking about here is a high infant mortality rate. Sometimes the kids die because their parents and community are poor. Sometimes they die because someone kills them.

I'd like to believe that generations of "Christmas Carol" remakes on television, with Scrooge's pre-melted crack about the "surplus population," have had some effect. And that's almost another topic.

All Human Beings are People

Since I'm a practicing Catholic, I have to believe that human beings are people. All human beings: even those who get in my way, or are too young, old, weak, or sick, to fight back.

That's not what my native culture tells me: but I've learned that the millennia-spanning outfit I joined knows what it's talking about. More topics.

The reasons that I can't say it's okay to kill people who haven't done anything wrong are tied up in what the Catholic Church says about human beings and life:

'Helping the Natives,' Culling the Herd

I might have been shocked at this:
"...Some non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion, at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned. Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition...."
("Caritas in Veritte," 28)
As it is, I've known for years that 'civilized' countries have a 'spay and neuter' policy where the 'natives' in some parts of the world are concerned.

That's putting it rather bluntly: but it's an unpleasant situation. And one which I find profoundly distasteful. Particularly since I don't think answers to the problems of poverty should include killing the victims. Or sterilizing women who aren't of the 'proper sort.'

It would have been nice, if Western culture had learned from efforts to clean up Europe's gene pool. (April 8, 2012) As it is, we seem to have a reality check or two ahead.

Poverty, People, and Getting a Grip

Like I've said before, I recommend reading "Caritas in Veritate." I try to hit the main points - but there's a whole lot more in the document. Here's part of the last paragraph in section 28:
"...Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. ... By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, ... they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual."
("Caritas in Veritte," 28)
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that poverty is a problem: but killing poor people isn't a good solution.

Related posts:
More:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, February 27, 2012

"The Scandal of Glaring Inequalities"

Like I said last week 'it's complicated.' Or, as Pope Benedict XVI put it:
"Today the picture of development has many overlapping layers...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 22)

2,700 Pairs of Shoes; and Getting a Grip

I think 'equality' is a good idea. I have to think that, since I'm a practicing Catholic and that's what the Church says.

But I do not think it makes sense to try making everybody 'equal.' Not if it's the sort of 'equality' where everybody has to pretend to be just like everybody else. I've been over this before. (August 4, 2011)
  • Human beings are equal
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1934, 1935)
  • But we're not all alike
    (Catechism, 1936)
  • And this is okay
    (Catechism, 1937)
Because of my beliefs, I don't expect everybody to be pretty much just like me. Take footwear, for example.

I don't particularly like shoes. From spring, through autumn, I wear flip-flops, and like to have the pair that I'm wearing: and another pair as a backup, when the 'in use' pair wears out. Maybe that seems like an extravagance: but here in Minnesota, most stores have a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' policy. I 'need' that second pair to get inside and buy the next backup.

I have no idea why someone would want to own 2,700 pairs of shoes. I understand that fashion-conscious folks want different styles of shoes for different outfits: but 2,700? That seems extravagant: and it's how many Imelda Marcos is supposed to have had.

Oddly, I don't have a problem with someone owning that many shoes. I don't understand why someone would want to: but I don't think it's wrong. If, as seems to have been the case, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos got their wealth by hurting other people - that, I have a problem with.

Wealth, Waste, and Woe

"...As John Paul II has already observed, the demarcation line between rich and poor countries is no longer as clear as it was at the time of Populorum Progressio[55]. The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 22)
Back in my 'good old days,' I'd expect to hear something about the oppressed proletariat and capitalistic warmongers after someone mentioned that some folks are getting richer: and others poorer. That's one reason I don't miss the 'good old days.' And that's another topic.

Here's what came before that observation about "superdevelopment" and "dehumanizing deprivation:"
"...This fact should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways, and it should lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 22)
Based on what Western civilization tried, during the 19th and 20th centuries: I don't think full-bore laissez faire capitalism or the various flavors of socialism and communism make sense. 'All of the above' look good on paper - or can be made to do so. In the real world? Not so much.

Looking at the Problems

Like Benedict XVI wrote:
"...'The scandal of glaring inequalities'[56] continues...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 22)
We're looking at:
  • Corruption and illegality in
    • Rich countries
      • 'Old rich'
      • 'New rich'
    • Poor countries
  • Sometimes human rights of workers aren't respected by
    • Large multinational companies
    • Local producers
  • International aid often gets sent to the wrong folks, by
    • The chain of donors
    • Folks at the receiving end
  • Cultural factors
    • Rich countries
      • Excessive protection of intellectual property rights
        • Particularly health care
    • Some poor countries
      • Cultural models and social norms of behavior
The issue of excess zeal in intellectual property rights enforcement in health care fields is new to me. Maybe there'll be more discussion of that later in "Caritas in Veritate," or maybe I'll find background elsewhere.

I don't think the message here is that companies - big or small - are bad. Or that rich countries are warmonger oppressors. Or that poor countries are guilty of not being Americans.

What Benedict XVI seems to be doing is identifying what sort of issues we can look for - anywhere.

No Micromanagement Here

As for solutions? There aren't any in this paragraph. Maybe there's a detailed 'how to' somewhere in the remaining 57 paragraphs.

Or - more likely, I think - what I'll find is that we're being given guidance for how we're supposed to go about making things better. Which makes sense, since folks at the grassroots level are more likely to know what the local or regional problems are: and what solutions are more likely to work.

Cherished Cultural Traditions

When someone suggests a change in routine, someone else is likely to say, "we've never done it that way!" It's one reason that it's hard for many companies to adjust to new conditions: and why so many countries can't seem to adjust to living in today's world. My opinion.

"Cultural models and social norms of behavior," the last item in that 'issues' list, covers a lot of territory. I'm going to focus on literacy: the ability to read and write. It's a fairly basic skill today.

Apart from being able to understand warning signs like "Caution - Liquid Nitrogen - Gloves and Face Shield Required," someone who is literate can read newspapers, books, magazines: and blogs like this one.

Reading is a very effective way to learn what folks around the world have been thinking. Someone who can write can add to that storehouse of knowledge: and I'm getting off-topic.

But not by much.

I live in America: which, for all its faults, is a remarkably prosperous nation. It's also the only country that I'm familiar with 'from the inside.' I'm going to use America, and a few other countries, to illustrate how literacy connects with other aspects of life.

Literacy (percent of people age 15 and over can read and write) in:
I'm not happy that American literacy isn't 100% - but 99% isn't bad, for a country this size. And that's yet another topic.

Countries like America and Japan aren't perfect. But hordes of citizens living in grinding poverty isn't among our problems. And - I think this is important - for all our similarities, America and Japan aren't alike. Even our robots tend to look different - and that's yet another topic.

I'd have to do some serious number-crunching to confirm this, but I think countries with high literacy rates aren't quite as likely to have radical inequalities of wealth.

Then there's the matter of keeping women from learning how to read - and that's more than I want to get started with in this post.

Related posts:
More posts about "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth)
"Caritas in Veritate"
More:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Timothy, Amos, Money, and Getting a Grip

I'm still at the Catholic Marketing Network's 15th Anniversary Trade Show, working as gofer at my son-in-law and #2 daughter's booth. I'm taking an 'in-booth break' at the moment.

More about the Catholic Marketing Network Trade Show and me:

Isn't Money Sinful, or Something?

As a practicing Catholic, there are a few things I'm not allowed to do. One of these is simony, buying or selling spiritual things. That's a really bad idea. (Acts 8:9-24)

I've heard simony explained as not being allowed to sell the blessing related to a string of rosary beads.
"...It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2121)
It's not buying and selling that's wrong: it's pretending that someone can sell the power of God that gets you in trouble.1 Selling the rosary beads is okay.

I think part of the notion that money is bad comes from remembering part of a few verses in the Bible:
"For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains."
(1 Timothy 6:10)

"Let your life be free from love of money but be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never forsake you or abandon you.'"
(Hebrews 13:5)
It's "love of money," not just "money" that's bad for us. As I heard someone at the trade show say, money is morally neutral. It's what we do with money that's good or bad.

Worshiping the 'Almighty Buck?' Bad Idea

The Catholic Church forbids idolatry. Strictly (Catechism, 2112-2114, for starters)
"...Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc...."
(Catechism, 2113)
A favorite quote of mine is in this dialog from Fiddler on the Roof:
"Perchik: Money is the world's curse.
"Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it. And may I never recover."
(IMDB)
And I'm getting off-topic.

Wealth and Moderation

I've been impressed with how often the idea of 'moderation' shows up in Catholic teaching:
"Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God. 'The promise [of seeing God] surpasses all beatitude. . . . In Scripture, to see is to possess. . . . Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive.'344"
(Catechism, 2548)

Amos: Not All That Much has Changed

I can see where (mis-)remembering "money is the root of all evil" from 1 Timothy 6:10 and Hebrews 13:5: and reading parts of Amos might let someone think that the world is divided into wicked rich people and virtuous poor folks. Here's some of what Amos had to say about the Northern Kingdom:
"Hear this, you who trample upon the needy and destroy the poor of the land! 1 'When will the new moon be over,' you ask, 'that we may sell our grain, and the sabbath, that we may display the wheat? We will diminish the ephah, add to the shekel, and fix our scales for cheating! We will buy the lowly man for silver, and the poor man for a pair of sandals; even the refuse of the wheat we will sell!' 2 The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Never will I forget a thing they have done!"
(Amos 8:4-7)

27 Centuries Later, People are Still People

Just over 27 centuries after Amos had his say, some things have changed. I don't think the epha is a common measure of grain today, for one thing.

People, though, don't seem to be all that different:
"1 2 Woe to the complacent in Zion, to the overconfident on the mount of Samaria, Leaders of a nation favored from the first, to whom the people of Israel have recourse! Pass over to Calneh and see, go from there to Hamath the great, and down to Gath of the Philistines! Are you better than these kingdoms, or is your territory wider than theirs? You would put off the evil day, yet you hasten the reign of violence! Lying upon beds of ivory, stretched comfortably on their couches, They eat lambs taken from the flock, and calves from the stall!"
(Amos 6:1-4)
Like I said, misreading part of 1 Timothy and Acts, and selecting parts of Amos: and liberation theology might start making sense. Which it doesn't, and that's another topic. Neither does the 'prosperity gospel,' and that's yet another topic.

Bottom line, as I see it, is that being wealthy is okay. What the Church does is remind us that God doesn't approve of powerful folks taking advantage of people in a weaker position. Not that all rich people are oppressors. Yet again another topic. Almost.

It's "Blessed are the Poor in Spirit"

Jesus, Son of the Living God, said that the "poor in spirit" are blessed:
"3 'Blessed are the poor in spirit,4 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven....' "
(Matthew 5:3)
That's "poor in spirit" - not "poor." So, what's "poor in spirit?"

There's an advantage to being part of an outfit that's been dealing with questions - reasonable and otherwise - for thousands of years. Here's part of an answer to that "poor in spirit" question:
"The kingdom belongs to the poor and lowly, which means those who have accepted it with humble hearts. Jesus is sent to 'preach good news to the poor';253 he declares them blessed, for 'theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'254 To them-the 'little ones'-the Father is pleased to reveal what remains hidden from the wise and the learned.255 Jesus shares the life of the poor, from the cradle to the cross; he experiences hunger, thirst, and privation.256 Jesus identifies himself with the poor of every kind and makes active love toward them the condition for entering his kingdom.257"
(Catechism of the Catholic Chrurch, 544)

"Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use:
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.238"
(Catechism, 2445)
There's more, of course. (Catechism, 915, 2443, 1934-1938, 2833 for starters)

"Equality," Not "Sameness"

As far as I can tell, poverty is okay, wealth is okay: and that what matters is what a person does with either condition. Coming at the same basic idea from a different direction:
  • Human beings are equal
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1934, 1935)
  • But we're not all alike
    (Catechism, 1936)
  • And this is okay
    (Catechism, 1937)
I could probably trim this post down a bit, and improve it in the process: but that would take time that I don't have just now. And that reminds me of writing techniques, editing, communication, and a mess of other topics.

Sort-of-related posts:
1 Simon's reality check, in Acts:
"6 When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, 'Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.' But Peter said to him, 'May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God. Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven. For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.' Simon said in reply, 'Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.' "
(Acts 8:18-24)
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 18, 2011

Drought, Starvation, Death, Request for Help - But No Pressure

There's more to being a Catholic than contemplating how needy some folks are. There's also doing something about it:
"Catholic aid agency appeals for help as 10 million face starvation in East Africa"
CNA (Catholic News Agency) (July 17, 2011)

"The U.K.-based Catholic Agency for Overseas Development is appealing to the world on behalf of 10 million East Africans facing starvation and death due to a severe drought.

" 'As we are talking now, we're seeing 10 million people at risk,' said the agency's International Director Geoff O'Donoghue, in a July 9 Vatican Radio interview. 'We are trying to get resources to put clean water, medicine and food alongside these communities – to get alongside people and support them to survive.'

"Some aid workers say this year's drought conditions in Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and South Sudan are the worst in living memory. O'Donoghue noted that no rains will likely arrive until October, 'and even then they're not guaranteed.'...

"...He described the Catholic agency's work in East Africa as 'urgent and immediate' in a 'life-saving way,' and said the simplest way to donate is through the website at http://www.cafod.org.uk...."

Catholic Agency Unfair - Sort Of

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development isn't, in one sense of the word, "fair." Water, food, medicine, and shelter for folks who have had to move isn't being distributed equally. The youngest and the oldest folks get top priority.

Somehow, I don't see a problem with that.

Who Cares About the Poor?

There isn't, generally, a fast payback for being generous with worldly goods. Sure, sometimes you'll get a 'thank you,' but that's not something you can take to the bank.

For many folks in America - and a fair number of other countries - giving a few bucks to some charity, in the short run, means one less movie, or maybe going to a fast-food place instead of a fancy restaurant.

In the long run, I think charity pays back. Big time. But the 'return' on helping folks elsewhere, so they can help us stay prosperous through trade and mutual aid - that can take generations. And, like everything else in this world, it's not a sure thing.

So: Why bother helping the poor? Who cares?

The Catholic Church, for one:
"...The hungry nations of the world cry out to the peoples blessed with abundance...."
(Populorum Progressio, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Development of Peoples (March 26, 1967))
Then there's Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2443-2449, on why it's a good idea to help the poor.

The Vatican didn't make that up. The 'help the poor' directive came from a higher authority: as noted in Matthew 25: 35-40, for example.

No Pressure

Do I think you 'have to' rush out and give money to http://www.cafod.org.uk?

I really don't know. Besides, as I've pointed out before, I'm "some guy with a blog." I don't have the authority to tell you to do anything.

However, I don't think it could hurt to think about sending some help to the folks in Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and South Sudan. Maybe it's something you can pray about: and see what comes after that.

But, hey: no pressure.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Passing Through Status Symbol Land

I've run into folks - some of them old enough to know better - who seem to think the '50s really were "Happy Days." On that topic, I have three words:
  • Gray
  • Flannel
  • Suit (1956)
My memory's pretty good - and the 'good old days' weren't. (January 12, 2010) On the other hand, I don't think I've lived during any time when things were absolutely icky, either. Which is another topic.

Pleasant Valley Sunday on My Mind

I woke up this morning with The Monkees' "Pleasant Valley Sunday" running through my mind. Which is how this post got started.

I don't think many folks ever sat down and decided that they'd start 'buying things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like.' (March 12, 2011)

On the other hand, I do think that the Monkees had a point:
"...And Mr. Green, he's so serene
He's got a TV in every room..."

"Another Pleasant Valley Sunday...
Here in status symbol land..."

"...Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul
And make it hard for me to see...."
(The Monkees:Pleasant Valley Sunday Lyric Wiki)
I also think that "status symbol1 land" is never very far away.

Here in America, we don't (generally) wear crowns or wreaths2 to show status. On the other hand, someone opined that one of today's status symbol is the 'right' pair of sneakers.3 I think she's probably right: about sneakers identifying a person's status, at least.

So, do I think status symbols are Satanic, and that only folks who have as much wealth as I do, or less, are 'saved?' Hardly.

I do think that wealth is a mixed blessing:
"3 Happy the rich man found without fault, who turns not aside after gain! Who is he, that we may praise him? he, of all his kindred, has done wonders, For he has been tested by gold and come off safe, and this remains his glory; He could have sinned but did not, could have done evil but would not, So that his possessions are secure, and the assembly recounts his praises."
(Sirach 31:8-11)
As far as I can tell, wealth isn't the problem. What we decide to do with what we've got is the issue. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 10 - the Tenth Commandment, for starters)

It's avarice and envy that are on the 'don't do this' list, not being wealthy or poor. (Catechism, 2536, 2538)

By the way, I recommend following those links, and checking out what the Catholic Church has to say. I try to be informed, but I've got the authority of "some guy with a blog."

Indifference is Not Holiness

I don't envy anyone because of the sneakers that person wears. Which is no particular virtue. I could probably care less about that sort of status - but not by much.

On the other hand, I looked out the window just now and saw a nifty exercise machine that belongs to my neighbor. I'd like to have it. This, apparently, isn't wrong by itself. As long as I could find a just way to get it. (Catechism, 2537)

A closer inspection showed that it's free - an unsold item from the weekend's yard sale. I'm not taking it, by the way: my wife wouldn't like it, and that's another topic.

Keeping Priorities Straight

The sort of things I've wanted - that I've ached for, sometimes - are the usual 'guy stuff' like motorcycles and specialty vehicles: and the not-so-usual things like M. C. Escher prints, high-end information technology, and a working art studio. Of those, I've got good-enough information tech. - some of which I'm using to write this post; and I'm working on getting a good-enough studio.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn't have much to say about status symbols, specifically. Apart from a passing mention in a movie review. Which is a case-in-point for why I don't go to the movies often. And that's yet another topic.

The Holy See mentions status symbols a few times on www.vatican.va, in the context of: Etruscan jewelry, starting from ca. 7th century B.C. (in English and French); a discussion of Christian humanism in the third millennium (in Italian); and a discussion of tourism (in English).

It looks like making status symbols a priority isn't the best idea:
"...The technological advancements in communications and transport, and the incredible improvements in information technology and use of the mass media have made tourism the fastest growing industry today. What people see on the television screen, they want to experience in reality. They don't mind working longer hours to be given the opportunity to enter into another cultural world. They don't mind getting into debt ('Fly First, Pay Later' schemes) to enjoy for the moment. There is the danger that it can become a status symbol or self-gratification due to the highly competitive advertising industry...."
("People on the Move N° 96 (Suppl.)" (December 2004)4
That doesn't mean that the Catholic Church is against credit cards. Or airplanes. Or tourism:
"...Tourism can indeed become a force and a vehicle for bringing people together for peace...."
("People on the Move N° 96 (Suppl.)" (December 2004)4
I think it's pretty safe to think that what matters is where our priorities are: what we think is most important. (Matthew 6:19-21)

"Vague?" I Don't Think So

In a way, it's no wonder that some folks claim the Catholic Church is "vague." (July 18, 2009)

We're told that the "prosperity gospel" is a bad idea. But we're not told that 'poverty is next do Godliness.' In fact, a man who owned France is a Saint. (February 4, 2010)

We're told that human beings are equal. (Catechism, 1934, 1935) But that we're not all alike. (Catechism, 1936) And that this is okay. (Catechism, 1937)

It makes sense, I think: but only for folks who accept the idea that there's more to life than wealth, pleasure, and status symbols:
"Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God. 'The promise [of seeing God] surpasses all beatitude. . . . In Scripture, to see is to possess. . . . Whoever sees God has obtained all the goods of which he can conceive.'344"
(Catechism, 2548)
I don't suggest trying to find profound wisdom in songs by the Monkees. On the other hand, I think they got it right in these lines:
"...Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul
And make it hard for me to see...."
(The Monkees:Pleasant Valley Sunday Lyric Wiki)
Related posts:
More, about wealth and all that (not a comprehensive list):
1 Status symbol: "a possession which is regarded as proof of the owner's social position, wealth, prestige, etc." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, via Free Online Dictionary)

2 "On Status Symbols in the Ancient World," The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 7 (April, 1969)

3 "Sneakers as Status Symbols," Janis Prince Inniss, Everyday Sociology Blog (May 5, 2011)

4 "People on the Move N° 96 (Suppl.)," Bringing Peoples Together for a Just Peace: Challenges to Tourism in the 21st Century, Bro. Anthony ROGERS, FSC, Executive Secretary of the Office for Human Development of the FABC, Malaysia, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People (December 2004)
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Wealth, Poverty, Stereotypes, and Snidely Whiplash

You'll probably never read a story about a poor but honest victim of society. Not because writers don't use stereotypes any more, but because I combined stereotypes from two storytelling traditions.

"Poor but honest?" There's a tacit assumption there.

'Poor But Honest'

I remember when the phrase "poor but honest" showed up occasionally: generally, as I recall in spoofs of old melodramas.

The stereotype "poor but honest" character, threatened with eviction by the rich and greedy villain of the piece - sometimes complete with stovepipe hat and black opera cape - made for some good stories. In my opinion, that is: Tales of Dudley Do-Right and Snidely Whiplash aren't for everyone.

I doubt that many folks took the Rocky and Bullwinkle stories seriously. Not as 'relevant' drama, that is. I haven't seen "relevant" used in its old '60s sense for a while - and that's almost another topic.

Imprisoned for Stealing Bread

Another stereotype is the starving victim, forced into crime by poverty. Some folks took that stereotype very seriously indeed when I was growing up. Still do, most likely.

I think that, like all stereotypes, there's some truth to it.

It's a fact of life that some folks have fewer resources than their neighbors. Sometimes a whole lot less. Depending on the culture, those resources might be measured in cattle, gold, or credit score. And that's almost another topic again.

Poor is Okay; Rich is Okay

Do I think it's wrong to be poor? Or rich?

No. I've been over this before:
More to the point, the Catholic Church has something to say about material wealth and poverty. Quite a bit, actually. Also the condition that's called 'poor in spirit.' I've gone over this before, too (February 4, 2010):
" 'Blessed are the poor in spirit,4 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven....' "
(Jesus, Son of God, quoted in Matthew5:3)
"The kingdom belongs to the poor and lowly, which means those who have accepted it with humble hearts. Jesus is sent to 'preach good news to the poor';253 he declares them blessed, for 'theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'254 To them-the 'little ones'-the Father is pleased to reveal what remains hidden from the wise and the learned.255 Jesus shares the life of the poor, from the cradle to the cross; he experiences hunger, thirst, and privation.256 Jesus identifies himself with the poor of every kind and makes active love toward them the condition for entering his kingdom.257"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 544)

"Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use:
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.238"
(Catechism, 2445)
There's more, of course. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 915, 2443, 1934-1938, 2833 for starters)

I don't think it's very far from the mark to say that poverty is okay, wealth is okay: and that what matters is what a person does with either condition.

Greed is Not Nice

Greed? That's wrong. In my opinion. And, much more to the point, greed is wrong according to the Catholic Church. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2536)

Let's see: where was I? Snidely Whiplash, thrown in prison for stealing bread, stereotypes. Right.

Stereotypes: Good Enough for a Story?

Definition time:
  • Stereotype
    • Noun: "a conventional or formulaic conception or image"
    • Verb: "treat or classify according to a mental stereotype"
    (Princeton's WordNet)
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with stereotypes. Provided that they're recognized as such. Trouble starts, I think, when folks confuse a simplified image for the reality it's intended to reflect.

There's a ripping good yarn about some dude who's thrown in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and what happens to him after that. It's called Les Misérables. Victor Hugo made a name for himself with that story - and others - about a century and a half back. So far, no problem. Not as far as I'm concerned, anyway.

Making a "formulaic conception" of  'thrown in prison for a loaf of bread,' and assume that everyone in prison is there because they're poor and had to steal bread?

There, I think, we've got a problem. Particularly in countries like America, where public opinion can get translated into national policy. Which is another topic. One I've discussed, sort of, in another blog:

Stereotypes and This Catholic

Since I make it fairly clear, in Another War-on-Terror Blog, that I don't think America is to blame for just about everything, I'm 'obviously' an unfeeling conservative.

Just as I'm 'obviously' a bleeding-heart liberal because I think America doesn't need the death penalty. (October 2, 2008) A willingness to treat criminal behavior as a serious problem, yes. And I'm drifting off-topic again.

I've discussed Catholic teachings and today's mores before, too:

"And may I Never Recover"

One of my favorite quotes from Fiddler on the Roof is this exchange:
"Perchik: Money is the world's curse.
"Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it. And may I never recover."
(IMDB)
I think that one reason that I don't think it's unfair that some folks have a bigger line of credit than I do is that I wouldn't mind being fantastically rich, myself. Which doesn't mean that I assume that what rich folks do is always right. Yep: I've discussed that sort of thing before, too.

"Poor in Spirit" is Something Else

I take what my Lord says seriously. Like the beatitudes.

As far as I can tell, being "poor in spirit" isn't something I can measure with credit scores. Wouldn't you know it, there are posts in this blog about that, too:

"Poor But Honest?!"

I'd heard the phrase "poor but honest" for years before one of the implications hit me. "Poor BUT honest?!" You mean that folks who are poor generally aren't honest?

Maybe the "poor but honest" phrase stems from something like 19th century social Darwinism: the notion that folks who weren't rich were also deficient in virtue. Sort of like contemporary jokes about "trailer trash", except using longer sentences.

And yes, I know: "social Darwinism" was more specifically built around the idea that "survival of the fittest" was a principle that should be extended to how people treat each other. More topics. Lots more topics.

Is the idea that folks who are poor 'deserve' to be poor, in a moral sense, true? I don't think so. But I could cherry-pick quotes from the Bible to support either side of the argument. (Exodus 20:5, Ezekiel 18:20, Mark 2:1, Luke 12:1, John 5:14, John 9:3, and that's just following one thread a short distance)

I've touched on what the Catholic Church has to say about being poor earlier in this post, under the Poor is Okay; Rich is Okay heading.

Related (?) posts:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 18, 2011

Bishops, Congress, and the Poor

Socially and politically, it's possible to label me as a hidebound reactionary conservative. I could also be called a bleeding heart liberal.

It depends on which issue is in play at the moment.

I've discussed philosophical pigeonholes in today's America before. (August 24, 2010, November 3, 2008)

The Catholic Church gets called "conservative" quite a bit. Partly because of what the Church teaches about marriage; and the Catholic insistence that killing babies and old people isn't nice. Even if they're sick or inconvenient.

Then there's the matter of wealth and poverty. From Thomas Nast's bloated capitalists to college coffee shops of my younger days, the stereotype "conservative" among America's more angstily earnest serious thinkers was stinking rich and oppressed the poor something fierce. Or was poor and a deluded pawn of the plutocrats.

So, if "conservatives" are greedy plutocrats, ripping crusts of bread from the bleeding lips of the poor - why are a bunch of American bishops telling Congress to not hurt the poor?
"Budget cuts must protect poor and vulnerable, say US bishops"
Benjamin Mann, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (February 15, 2011)

"A group of more than 300 Catholic leaders met with members of Congress on Feb. 15, to share a message from the U.S. bishops – urging legislators to remember the needs of the poor and vulnerable, as they make cuts to the federal budget.

"Participants in the 2011 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering (Feb. 13-16) took the bishops' message to Capitol Hill, delivering letters from two committees of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops during a day of visits with U.S. representatives and senators. The letters express concern over what Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, chairman for International Justice and Peace, described as 'disproportionate cuts in programs that serve the most vulnerable' to the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Resolution.

"Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, chairman for Domestic Justice and Human Development, warned lawmakers against the temptation to 'secure the nation while at the same time furthering the insecurity of the poor and vulnerable in our midst.'

" 'Decisions should be made that not only reflect a commitment to national and long term fiscal security but demonstrate justice, compassion and fairness,' wrote Bishop Blaire...."

We're Catholic

The short answer is that the Catholic Church is - Catholic. Universal. I've written about that before. (August 26, 2010, April 19, 2010, for starters)

That means that the rules I live by - and the principles behind them - are essentially the same as they were when Caesars ruled Rome. We didn't fit in all that well then, and we still don't.

One of those principles is that it's important to look out for the poor: (Deuteronomy 15:11, Matthew 25:34-40, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 853, 2208, 2449) I've written about wealth, poverty, and being Catholic before:
As for what the Bishops said: I'd like to see an America where folks who can do so help those who need it - through their churches, community organizations, and one-on-one personal involvement. That'd be nice.

As it is, we have quite a few folks who aren't in a position to support themselves - and the institutions that help them are part of the government. I'd like to see a transition to a more grassroots, voluntary, non-governmental system: but right now I'm with the bishops, about "justice, compassion and fairness."

'Politics is so Worldly'

As for what business bishops have, telling Congress that folks who don't have money shouldn't be hurt: the Catechism has a bit to say about that.
"Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man's origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:
"Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51
"The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. 'The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.'52
"It is a part of the Church's mission 'to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.'53"
(Catechism, 2244-2246)
Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, December 13, 2010

Robin Hood, Hamlet, and Five Severed Heads

Life isn't fair. At least, it sometimes feels like that.

The other fellow has better health, a niftier job, more money - or all three plus a vacation home.

It's 'just not fair.'

'Unfair,' Yes: Good Excuse, No

Sometimes there's more than envy and spite involved. Some folks live in places where bribing public officials is the only practical way to get things done - and generally most folks don't have enough money to buy justice.

That, in my opinion, really isn't fair.

But living in a place run by corrupt officials isn't an excuse for selling drugs and lobbing five human heads onto a dance floor. My opinion.

About that over-the-top decapitation display? It 'allegedly' happened in Mexico, in 2006. There's a religious angle, it's not what you may think, and I'll get back to that.

Where was I? Life isn't fair. Public servants on the take. Beheading for God and profit. Right.

I don't think cutting off somebody's head and tossing it around is very nice, but that's just my opinion.

More importantly, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of that sort of thing. I've discussed vigilantism, vengeance, and liberation theology before.

Names and Assumptions

In at least some American subcultures, if a person says "liberation theology," folks assume that it's a bad idea. In other American subcultures, folks assume it's a good idea - and that's another topic.

Among Americans who assume that "liberation theology" is wrong, I think quite a few would also think that Robin Hood had the right idea. He was British, after all - yet another topic.

Liberation Theology: Bad Idea, Not Just My Opinion

The notion that it's okay for poor people to kill rich people and take their property is an attractive one. Particularly for some folks who aren't rich: and for some who are, but apparently figure they're not going to get hit.

One flavor of 'rob the rich, give to the poor' that's popular these days is called liberation theology. As I said, the Holy See doesn't support it, and neither does the United States Council of Catholic Bishops:
And see:

Being Catholic

So: is this proof that the Catholic Church is a pack of greedy plutocratic capitalists, bent on tearing bread from the bleeding lips of the Masses?

Hardly.

We're not bleeding heart commie pinkos, either.

Well, actually, some of us are. And some are die-hard conservatives. Me? I'm Catholic. I've discussed this sort of thing before. (March 13, 2010, July 17, 2009, November 3, 2008)

Robin Hood: That was Then, This is Now

I like the various Robin Hood stories.

There may be a real person behind the stories - seven centuries or more ago - but the tales we have today are, in their details, essentially fiction. ("The Real Robin Hood," History.com)

Robin Hood, ca. 1955

My family and I are watching The Adventures of Robin Hood television series (1955-1960) on weekends: the one with Richard Greene in the title role. The stories and characters are engaging, quite family-friendly - at least by our standards - and, as I said, they're fiction.

This fifties imagining of Robin Hood centers on an almost scrupulously ethical leader. His men would, for the most part, have been pillars of the community: if England and Nottingham weren't being mismanaged by Prince John and the (unnamed, as far as I can tell) sheriff of Nottingham.

The real Robin Hood, assuming there was a historical person behind the stories, may or may not have been like Richard Greene's character.

Robin Hood, ca. 1195

Richard Greene's Robin Hood is set in the late 1100s, nearly a thousand years ago. That's when Richard the Lionheart lived, fought in the crusades, had a debatably-trustworthy brother named John, and was imprisoned for a time on the continent. Just like in many Robin Hood stories.

Sort of.

Maybe someone we know as Robin Hood held Sherwood forest for Richard while he was imprisoned. Or, not. As nearly as I can tell: we just don't know.

Feudal Europe wasn't Information Age North America

Although England still has a monarch, quite a lot changed in the eight centuries since Richard Lionheart's day.

Hamlet and Due Process: Old Style

One of the better-known stories - written centuries afterward - that's set more-or-less in Lionheart's era is Shakespeare's Hamlet. The famous play is fiction - but since it should be somewhat familiar to most folks who understand English, I think it's a good place to start discussing life and law in feudal Europe.

Again, Shakespeare's play about a young man who talked to a skull, killed his sweetheart's father, and finally died himself, is fiction.

The culture it was set in is quite real. Or, rather, was.

Chief Suspect? the Judge - Your Star Witness? a Ghost

My understanding is that, in that part of the world, eight or nine centuries back, Hamlet could - in principle - have brought formal charges against the alleged murderer of his father. With a ghost as his star witness.

That wasn't the (fictional) Danish prince's only problem. The alleged murderer was also the judge and chief executive in those parts. There was no way Hamlet would get a fair trial. (Yes, I'm oversimplifying things.)

Under the circumstances, according to the mores of the day, it was Hamlet's moral and legal obligation to avenge his father's murder. He'd been suspicious, and with good reason. His father, a healthy man, had conveniently dropped dead. His father's brother jumped into the throne and married Hamlet's mother: so fast that Hamlet made a crack about "the funeral baked meats" getting recycled as part of the wedding banquet.

Then Hamlet's father shows up. On his own admission, he's not from Heaven: "My hour is almost come, when I to sulphurous and tormenting flames must render up myself." (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5) Hamlet might or might not have believed his father under those circumstances - but he already had very strong suspicions.

Shakespeare's Hamlet was right, by the customs and laws of his time and place, in going after his father's murderer. He bungled the job - badly - and might have been in serious legal trouble if he'd survived.

Hamlet: World-Class Ditherer

But that's what kept the play from ending shortly after the title character was told: "The serpent that did sting thy father's life now wears his crown." I mean to say: Hamlet knew what his duty was, but dithered around - I've gotten off-topic again.

I've listed a few resources that discuss the 'good old days' of feudal Europe, under Background on the setting for many Robin Hood stories; and Hamlet:, below. I'd rather live in Information Age North America that feudal Europe. Particularly since they didn't have the Internet then. But the period wasn't nearly as bad - or good - as it's been portrayed. And it wasn't the "Dark Ages." That's yet again another topic.

Man's Laws and Making Sense

Nearly a thousand years ago, given the limitations of their society's legal and political systems, someone in Hamlet or Robin Hood's position might have been justified in declaring a feud against a murderous uncle - or dropping into Sherwood Forest and waging a guerrilla war against your feudal overlord's enemies.

Maybe. As far as the local culture's rules were concerned.

Even then, though: I doubt that someone could have justified selling cannabis in 'Jolly Olde England,' killing folks who muscled in on your territory - and claiming that you were doing it all to protect the common folk from ruffians who sold cannabis.

That's not as wildly impossible as it may seem. Richard Lionheart was involved in the third Crusade - which could have brought him and any other European with flexible ethics into contact with someone selling hashish. ("Psychoactive Plants: Opium Poppy, Marijuana, and Cocaine," lecture for BIO 305E Plants, Environment, and Human Affairs Spring 2005; School of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Science, The University of Texas at Austin; outline prepared mainly from "Plants and Society," Levetin and McMahon, (2003))

And that is positively the last off-topic digression in this post.

Maybe.

Unhappily, that 'selling drugs to protect people from drug dealers' isn't something I made up.

It was in the news a couple days ago:
"An alleged drug cartel boss killed in clashes with Mexican authorities was also a 'spiritual leader' who used religion to recruit criminals and strengthen his stronghold, according to a Mexican government report.

"Nazario Moreno Gonzalez dubbed himself the 'savior of the people' and crafted the violent La Familia Michoacana cartel's philosophy, outlined in a 'bible' provided to new recruits, a profile released Friday by the office of Mexico's president says...."

"...it [La Familia Michoacana] grabbed national attention in 2006, after reportedly hurling five decapitated heads of rival gang members onto a dance floor.

"Local media described a message found at the gruesome scene: 'La Familia does not kill for money, does not kill women, does not kill innocents. The only ones who die are those who must die. Everyone should know: this is divine justice.'..."

"...'The group may have initially formed as a vigilante group to counter local street crime and law enforcement corruption,' a statement released in 2009 by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said.

"The approach showed a 'strong religious background,' the DEA said.

" 'It purportedly originated to protect locals from the violence of drug cartels. Now, La Familia Michoacana uses drug proceeds to fuel their agenda that encompasses a Robin Hood-type mentality -- steal from the rich and give to the poor,' the statement said. 'They believe they are doing God's work, and pass out Bibles and money to the poor. La Familia Michoacana also gives money to schools and local officials.'..."
(CNN)
Nazario Moreno Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant, by the way.

I'm not going to rant about how all illegal immigrants are drug lords - for about the same reason that I didn't appreciate 'former alter boy' news coverage, not all that long ago.

Generalizations: Handle With Care

Besides, that crack about no generalization being worth anything - attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mark Twain, for starters - has some truth to it.

'All Muslims/Jews/Catholics/whatever are Alike?'

The beheading thing? By someone who apparently insisted that he was doing God's work by having people decapitated?
Let's remember that Nazario Moreno Gonzalez claimed to be a Christian. When "bible" is lower case, it means "book." Capitalized, like in "...doing God's work, and pass out Bibles...," it means the Old and New Testaments: The Bible.

That no more "proves" that Christians behead people, than the antics of Al Qaeda and the House of Saud prove the same of Muslims. (see "Ali Hussain Sibat, Islamic Law, and Getting a Grip," Another War-on-Terror Blog (March 19, 2010))

Being part of a religious minority, I think it's in my best interest to encourage informed tolerance.

It's also the right thing to do. And that isn't quite another topic.

God's Laws and Making Sense

Something I've noticed is that one of the 10 Commandments isn't 'thou shalt expect life to be fair.' And that's not what Jesus said, when someone asked him what the greatest law was. (Matthew 22:36-40)

Not that God isn't fair.

Like so many other things, it comes down to semantics: in this case, what "fair" means.

If by "fair," one means that everybody has the same clothes and food and housing: Well, some countries have tried being "fair" like that. Today, North Korea is one of the more high-profile examples. I'm not favorably impressed.

Another sort of "fairness," one that I'm a tad more comfortable with, is a 'level playing field,' where folks are allowed to try - and either succeed or fail.

Taking the first definition of "fair" to cover the sort of things that God has charge of, we could expect everybody to look alike, and have the same abilities.

Looks like God isn't "fair." Not by that (gonzo, in my opinion) standard. Even "identical twins" - aren't. (Scientific American (April 3, 2008))

I've discussed the Catholic Church, unity, and diversity before. (August 26, 2010)

As for killing someone because you want that person's property? That idea's a non-starter. Giving it a fancy name, like "liberation theology," doesn't help. Not where the Catholic Church is concerned.

The Church even has rules about the sort of thing Hamlet did. Here's what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say on the subject, not long after Richard Lionheart's day:
"...By the Middle Ages, Christians widely accepted the civil power's right to put evildoers to death. Even so, the Church was quick to condition this right. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for example, points out that only a public authority may judge and execute a serious offender where the society's defense is at stake, and where the offender's reform is not expected. St. Thomas leaves no room for private vigilantism...."
("The Gospel of Life and the Sentence of Death: Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment" Rev. Augustine Judd, O.P., via USCCB)
There's more on capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. (2265-2267, for starters) If that quote and the references sound familiar: you may have been following this blog. I used them before: May 31, 2009.

As for me, I don't expect God to be "fair." Not in the sense of giving everybody the same abilities, and the same position in the world. That's just as well: since I'm a brilliant cripple who's on medication for depression and ADHD-inattentive, and who has lived his life near the low end of the American economic scale. If I expected God to be "fair," 'everybody-equal' style, I'd be a basket case by now. (November 30, 2010, September 27, 2010, September 19, 2010, February 4, 2010, February 3, 2009)

On the other hand, we're expected to be "fair" in the sense of being charitable - good grief! Another Topic!!

Related posts:
In the news:
Background on the Catholic Church and 'liberation theology:'
And see:
Background on the setting for many Robin Hood stories, and Hamlet:
Excerpt from the "spiritual leader" CNN article:
"An alleged drug cartel boss killed in clashes with Mexican authorities was also a "spiritual leader" who used religion to recruit criminals and strengthen his stronghold, according to a Mexican government report.

"Nazario Moreno Gonzalez dubbed himself the 'savior of the people' and crafted the violent La Familia Michoacana cartel's philosophy, outlined in a 'bible' provided to new recruits, a profile released Friday by the office of Mexico's president says.

" 'Moreno started as a migrant in California, continued trafficking marijuana on the border and became the leader of one of the most violent criminal organizations in the history of Mexico,' the report says...."

"...it grabbed national attention in 2006, after reportedly hurling five decapitated heads of rival gang members onto a dance floor.

"Local media described a message found at the gruesome scene: 'La Familia does not kill for money, does not kill women, does not kill innocents. The only ones who die are those who must die. Everyone should know: this is divine justice.'..."

"...Officials say Moreno played a key role in La Familia's philosophy -- frequently displayed on banners hung in public places -- which claims to protect the state's people.

" 'The group may have initially formed as a vigilante group to counter local street crime and law enforcement corruption,' a statement released in 2009 by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said.

"The approach showed a 'strong religious background,' the DEA said.

" 'It purportedly originated to protect locals from the violence of drug cartels. Now, La Familia Michoacana uses drug proceeds to fuel their agenda that encompasses a Robin Hood-type mentality -- steal from the rich and give to the poor,' the statement said. 'They believe they are doing God's work, and pass out Bibles and money to the poor. La Familia Michoacana also gives money to schools and local officials.'..."
(CNN)
Posted by 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

  • A 'Saint Brian,' Sort of
    My name is Brian Gill. In keeping with the customs of my culture, the first name is one which my parents chose for me, the last is the name ...
  • Blind Mice; Heroism During the 'Batman' Killings
    The London 2012 Olympics start today: but instead of analyzing the significance of a South Korean flag being displayed with a North Korean...
  • Mass Murder in Orlando
    I'd be writing a longer, more detailed, post about this; but still haven't resolved some technical issues. ( May 6, 2016 ; updated M...
  • Elijah and Pushing a Rock
    10th Sunday in Ordinary Time, 2016: 1 Kings 17:17 - 24 Galatians 1:11 - 19 Luke 7:11 - 17 Third Sunday of Easter, 2016 by Deacon L...
  • Existence, God, and the Meaning of Life
    I exist, so do you, and so does God. I'm pretty sure that I'm right about all three assertions. Some Guy with a Blog, God, and Aut...

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.