A "socialist" Archbishop?

This is an amazing statement to our archbishop. I've met him- he comes from the New Ulm diocese where I grew up, which is far from a hotbed of left-wing radicalism! I'm glad to see even a very conservative archbishop like him is standing on the side of the poor enough to get attacked.

You know, of course, Michael Sean, that most folks who get riled up over the issue of "socialism" actually don't even know what the proper definition of that word is, right? Republicans have successfully made it a scare word to bolster their fight against Democrats running for public office. More's the pity.

About time the catholic bishops be shown how far from them the republican party whom they promote in elections has drifted from christian principles.

Michael. I read your post and desired to push the subject further. I followed the link to Representative Hann's letter to the archbishop. In it I came across the quotation from R.R. Reno. I spent some time before finding the exact article (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-preferential-option-for-t...) as so many Google links lead back rather to Mr. Bill O'Reily's use of it.
I suspect that many are using this reference rather than quote their real source. If they had read the quoted link, they would have noted that in the near next breath (after shots about how many of the poor have cell phones and flat screen TV's), there is a quotation from John Paul II to the effect that the needs of the poor take precedence over the desires of the rich.
Now Mr. Reno certainly has a right to make a presentation as being a social conservative, but the suggestions that the moral poverty is a monopoly of the poor does not seem to be his thrust.
That is left for Rep. Hann.
Rather Mr. Reno's thrust seems to be rather an inferential demand that since others (materially rich) have so debased any moral understanding in the culture, then it's all right to ignore the "priority of the poor". Both positions are hard to swallow.

I hope that I have fairly presented the positions, and I suspect that your brief post will give you the opportunity to respond to the knee jerk responses I'm sure that you'll get.

Good for Archbishop Nienstedt. The Bishops should be pro life and be for helping the poor. The Bishops should not be carrying water for either party and should be their own men, not "owned" by the Republicans or Democrats.

If you will read the Archbishop's statement intelligently and accurately, you will find that he is stating the strict Catholic teaching on caring for the poor while also firmly advocating governmental fiscal responsibility as well. Both fall well within good Catholic principles.

It is unfortunate that the "good" National Catholic Reporter, the official anti-Catholic periodical, and this editorialist in particular, would quote a legislator who obviously also doesn't know Catholic teaching, but not give credit to and quote the Archbishop for the correct teaching of the Church.

In short, there are many periodicals which reflect correctly the true teachings of the Catholic Church along with the great Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Unfortunately, the National "catholic" Reporter is not one of those.

that staunch anti-communist wojtyla shocked Monsenor Romero in making a similar comment about then recent Salvadoran clerical martyrs of our Faith.

I hope Pope Benedict doesn't remove Archbishop Nienstedt as being pro liberaton theology for his stance on the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden in America.
Nice to hear Archbishop Nienstedt standing with Jesus in his concern for the poor.

Howard

One should note Mr. Winters, that your subtle presumption is that the compassion for the poor demands more governmental spending. That is nonsense. The demand is on us, the Faithful, to aid the poor and to have compassion on the less fortunate. The love of God and the Good News does not drive governmental spending; it drives each of us to aid the poor in compassion so the poor are provided for. It is the Church that is called to respond! Not the taxpayers.

The Republican Party through most of its modern history has been pro-rich, joined in recent years by some bishops and a good portion of the grandchildren of Catholic immigrants who got an education, got wealthy, became Republicans, and completely forgot their roots. Maybe we will have some courageous bishops who will focus on what it means to be truly Catholic when it comes to the poor, the suffering, the disabled and others less fortunate than ourselves.

David Hanm, do you think that the American people who defend and speak out for the poor in US are "socialists"? Do you read the Gospel? It semms to me that your capitalist and conservative ideology does not permit to see Jesus Christ in the poor people.

Wow, as also having Nienstedt when he was in New Ulm before he moved to St Paul/Mpls, he is as far from "socialist" as you can get (spearheaded anti gay marriage amendment last fall which helped the large Republican victory in the MN Legislature). It shows just how far removed from reality the Minnesota Republican party.

The Catholic Doctrine does not endorse a capitalist or socialist economic system. The opposition to communism is that the extreme socialist doctrine where everything is owned by the state is also dialectic materialism. There various levels of socialism.

To say that the church is opposed to all types of socialism is a grave error.
In fact the Church's social teachings recognizes the right of individuals to organize and peacefully negotiate. David Hann is outside Catholic teaching if he bases his opposition to socialism on Catholic doctrine.

By the way Hann should be made to define his terms since there are several types of socialism. Some of these who yell liberal and socialist are against public roads, the post office, Fire department, etc.

The archbishop's case is weakened by headlines such as this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/social-security-payme...
What the USCCB should REALLY be doing is pounding the message that "CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME" and call for a mere 10% annual reduction in OVERSEAS funding -especially military- until the country's deficit is wiped out.

Memo to Senator Hann:
Boy, have you got a surprise coming when you reach the Pearly Gates and discover that 1% of the total population do NOT control 40% of the wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://www.bgassociates.com/Los%20Angeles%20Times_%20Over%2050%20and%20O...

Perhaps a few socialist archbishops isn't a bad idea.

Thank you for sharing this instructive item with a wider audience. Nienstedt didn't realize he overstepped his bounds by advocating for the poor. Apparently he's welcome to denounce gays and steer Catholics towards the GOP in that regard. Otherwise, it seems he's supposed to shut up. He needs to learn from the example of the bishops nationally, whose silence on the Iraq War was deafening. Or do as Robbie George has advocated: speak out on the issues the religious right considers "moral issues" and keep quiet about anything else.

I live in David Hann's district. I think he's trying to make a name for himself with the GOP base in Minnesota for a(nother) run for governor. Hard to see how it will work as so many Catholics seem to be Republicans. I will vote for his opponent next year with even more satisfaction than the last times.

James K wrote:
"John Charles writes that it is not the government's responsibility. Oh really, Mr. Charles? Have you by chance read the social teachings of the Catholic church? "

Then he had some long quotes, NONE of which referred to the governments responsibility to share the wealth.

Note this one:
"5.Role of Government and Subsidiarity
The state has a positive moral function. It is an instrument to promote human dignity, protect human rights, and build the common good."

Promote human dignity, protect rights, build the common good. This is all opposed by socialism, which does NOT promote human dignity, but the state, takes away rights, and does NOT build the common good, but only special interests.

"All people have a right and a responsibility to participate in political institutions so that government can achieve its proper goals.
The principle of subsidiarity holds that the functions of government should be performed at the lowest level possible, as long as they can be performed adequately. When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene. See selected quotations on the role of government and subsidiarity."

Socialism destroys the principle of subsidiarity. This is one of the reason the Church condemns socialism. It does NOT start at the lowest level possible.

When it comes to activities at the capital, Archbishop Nienstedt represents another constituency working to gain the ear of government. He’s appealing to the government on behalf of the human services that he represents to ensure that their state dollars aren’t taken away. No problem it’s politics. However, when the Archbishop writes his appeal to a democratic governor, ignores a republican held congress, and adds comments like “spending reductions, program delivery reform and increased revenue should all be on the table” he begins to walk, talk, and act like a Democrat.

However, Senator Hann isn’t clean as the proverbial bishop’s robe either. In his response to the Archbishop he reacted as any politician would react to a letter favoring the other side of the political aisle. He went over the top and started spouting off platitudes about “socialist fiction” and “moral claims on someone else’s property.” However, whatever the normal political banter that occurs at the capital between Senators and Representatives, he should never treat any citizenry the way that he treated the Archbishop, regardless of how much he deserved it.

They both stepped over the line and got what they deserved. We should just recognize the situation and not make this out to be something bigger than it is: two clashing agendas in the world of politics. For me, it reaffirms my belief in the separation of church and state.