Why It's Inherently Sinful For Catholic Groups To Accept (Let Alone Seek) Government Funding

And as we know, sin always has consequences in the afterlife and often in this present life.

Ladies and gentlemen, the basis of this post's title is found right in the Seventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal.  It doesn't matter if the stealing is sanctioned by law (after all, is not baby-murder and sodomy now sanctioned by law?), stealing is still sin.  It is NOT an acceptable venue for "charity", for true charitable giving must stem from an act of free will, not governmental extortion.

Why don't Catholic charitable organizations accept that truth?  Lured by the smell of what they perceived to be "easy money" (and with the connivance of leaders with marxist mindsets), many Catholic organizations took the bait - and on account of their own shortsightedness and stupidity, fell into a rather obvious trap.  When President Bush rammed through his ill-advised "faith-based intiative" nonsense, many of us saw the pitfalls but failed to make others see them.  The fact that at the time a relatively benign president was at the helm lulled them into a false illusion of assurance and complacency.  Now that illusion has been shattered and the lemmings are now howling.

From ChurchMilitant.com we read news of the sprung trap.  Here's the first sentence: "A source within the federal government has informed the Friday Fax that the White House is quietly moving forward with a policy change that will require charitable humanitarian groups to accept LGBT applicants in order to qualify for government funding, even those religious groups that might have religious objections."  Naturally there's whining and gnashing of teeth.  Many of these "faith-based" recipients are crying "foul" when they've been playing foul all along by accepting funding that has been bilked from the wallets of already-strapped taxpayers.  Boys and girls, can we say "crocodile tears?"

We've seen in this blog alone many examples of the anti-Catholic actions of Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Campaign for Human Development.  It is no accident that these agencies derives a significant percentage, if not majority, of their funds from governmental agencies at various levels of government.  In order to keep the federal faucets flowing into their coffers, these organizations have literally sold their Catholic souls and in many cases are working to advance anti-life and anti-God agendas.  They probably have the blood of many unborn babies and the damnation of countless souls to their credit - all for the receipt of the proverbial "thirty pieces of silver".

The real solution to this dilemma is simple and necessary, although it won't be easy.  We see it in the first sentence of the article, particularly the underscored portion.  Here it is, spelled out.  Stop seeking after and accepting government funding - NOW!  These groups cannot have it "both ways"; you accept the government's money by accepting their rules.  That's a fact of life.  The charities must decouple from the feds at once if they are to maintain true independence from governmental interference.  They must stop playing the little piglets and  immediately wean themselves immediately from governmental teats.  They must accept the fact that if they cannot fund their ventures from voluntary donations, the venture is not theirs to undertake.  Of course they can stop paying salaries of several hundred thousands of dollars to their CEOs and other perks.

If they insist on salivating after government funds, they deserve all the grief from government that they can get - and not one red cent from true Catholics.

Pope's Economic Ideas - Harmful To Civilization

Approximately 400 years ago, the settlers who landed at Plymouth Rock (Pilgrims) decided at the get-go that they would hold all in common.  All would work for the good of all.  They were led in this venture by their governor, William Bradford.  The result was several years of paltry harvests plus resentments among the pilgrims that they could not benefit from their own labor.  Bradford and the others had the wisdom to know that socialism (for that is what it was) was an inherently flawed system that was doomed to failure.  Bradford divided the land among the settlers and decreed that what the farmers grew was theirs to use.  Lo and behold, both planting and harvests increased dramatically and the famines they had experienced became a thing of the past.  Read here and here for more details and context.

Of course I need not go into the spectacular failures of socialism that have been evidenced throughout modern history, most notably the FORMER Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the other Iron Curtain countries.  They and the free world were at odds with one another during what was known as the Cold War.  They collapsed as a result of the inherent corruption and flaws of socialism.  By and large, their leaders had not the wisdom and humility that William Bradford possessed 400 years ago.  Of course Bradford was a professed Christian and the Iron Curtain leaders were atheists so that accounts for a large part of their mental dispositions.

In light of all this, I and many others look with dismay upon the words of the Holy Father as he addressed United Nations leaders today.  I link now to the complete address that he gave.  Let me remind one and all that the Holy Father, by virtue of his office, will never solemnly proclaim error.  He can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals: immutable and inherent truths of the Church.  He does not possess those same guarantees when it comes to matters of prudential judgment.  A discussion on what economic policies to pursue falls into this area in which good Catholics can respectfully disagree with the Pope simply because in these matters the Holy Father may well be in error from a prudential perspective.

Yes.  With respect to the Holy Father's economic ideas, I beg to differ.  In his address he appeals to a "legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state".  With all due respect to His Holiness, this notion is not only incorrect, but downright dangerous to all who would be impacted by its implementation.  All those already impacted by this concept have already experienced the inherent tyranny of a state so empowered.

Let's examine that phrase that he coined: "legitimate redistribution".  Why does he betray a need to qualify the word "redistribution" with "legitimate"?  Either it's understood to be legitimate or it isn't legitimate.  The very attempt to sanitize this "redistribution" with the word "legitimate" makes plain that he is trying his darnedest to get us to accept a very illegitimate redistribution.

Now for the places cursed with this "legitimate redistribution", we must ask "how does the state obtain these economic benefits to redistribute"?  Isn't it odd how progressive Catholics (and it appears the Holy Father is

in that number) don't like to address that question?  Not really - for they realize that this "obtaining" involved inherently sinful actions.  So let's spell it out in "black and white", shall we?  For all this "legitimate redistribution" to occur, the state would have to be empowered to confiscate the "economic benefits" from those who earned them by their own hard work and risk-taking of investment.  Those earners are treated as so many cash cows to be plundered at will by the state, with the approval - if not assistance - by progressive Catholics.  But there's this minor matter of the Seventh Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Steal.  That commandment binds upon the Church and State as much as it binds on individuals.  The fact that these progressives - from the highest Church office on down - are silent on this aspect of "redistribution" speaks volumes about both their guilty consciences and their refusal to repent of their socialistic proclivities.  What the Holy Father is also saying here is "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".  Ladies and gentlemen, I just quoted Karl Marx.

Pope Francis might do well to examine the words of his predecessors, going all the way back to Pius IX.  They saw clearly the dangers of socialism and a bloated, arrogant state.  Yes the state that is empowered to give us things is the state that is empowered to take them away.  If more and more power is ascribed to the state - and by extension to the oligarchy running it - it will become more and more corrupt and tyrannical.  Don't we see that today with Obamacare breathing down our necks?

Remembering that "redistribution" can hardly be called a dogma of faith, I have no bones opining that the desire for this "redistribution" is at best dangerously simplistic and naive if not downright moronic and deadly.  The Holy Father can and should speak about matters of immutable dogma and inherent morality.  Most people understand that the most common predictor of poverty for an individual is whether or not they come from an intact family where biological father and biological mother remain married to each other and who observe chastity in keeping with their married state.  So many evils militate against the family and against life (the Holy Father did make mention of the culture of death): contraception, abortion, acceptance of homosexuality and other perversions, etc.  Would not the Church and the world be better off if the Roman Catholic clergy would concentrate on faith and morals and stop meddling in matters where she has no practical expertise?  Yes.

Pope Francis Jokes About Seventh Commandment Violation

According to his own account earlier today (see here and here), he removed the crucifix from a Rosary that was in the casket of his fellow priest.  For the sake of non-Catholics reading this blog, let me explain a little of Catholic burial customs.  We have viewings (or wakes) as do most Christian denominations.  When the deceased is placed in his/her coffin, their hands are folded over their midriffs as though they are in slumber.  A Rosary is placed in their hands, intertwined with their fingers.  Often the Rosary is a favorite of the deceased's, or holds meaning to the deceased's relatives.

It is that cross that Pope Francis surreptitiously removed.  In his own words, "And immediately there came to mind the thief we all have inside ourselves and while I arranged the flowers I took the cross and with just a bit of force I removed it.  And in that moment I looked at him and I said 'Give me half your mercy.'"

Coming from the Vicar of Christ, this is incredible.  "Thou shalt not steal" remains the Seventh Commandment, binding on us all.  There is also the matter of the Spiritual Work of Mercy known as "burying the dead".  Whatever else that Work of Mercy means, it doesn't mean helping oneself to personal effects of the deceased and absconding with them for one's personal use/enjoyment.

Particularly scandalous is the nonchalance with which he spoke of his - yes, I'll say the word - crime.  He showed the cross to those in attendance this morning.  Instead of contrition for indulging "the thief we all have inside ourselves" he seemed to affirm his own "inner thief" with a wink-chuckle-wink air.  He is the Holy Father.  Should we all emulate that example?  If so, why stop at "the thief we all have inside ourselves"?  Why not indulge "the murderer we all have inside ourselves"?

The victim of Father Jorge Bergoglio's sticky fingers was himself a well-known confessor.  Perhaps that Sacrament is needed, along with the return of the cross to the deceased's relatives.