Up to this point in history the treatment and cure of homelessness has been left up to the religious, based on the inaccurate assumption that homelessness is a spiritual problem. But now people are coming out, admitting that this approach to the problem of homelessness has failed. Hopefully we will see a growing interest in a scientific approach to understanding and curing homelessness. It is time to drop the notion that homelessness is caused by a dysfunctional relationship with God, which can be cured with copious amounts of prayer and a proper belief in all the "right" things.
Claiming homelessness as a spiritual problem is Jewish and Left wing Protestant (Pentecostal, Presbyterian and such).
The reason why Catholic religious engaged in helping homeless is other: they need to set an example for other potential givers. That is the Catholic understanding of both Kings and Bishops and Monks who tended homeless and beggars. As well as seing Christ in the poor. Which is an attitude where they too need to set an example.
In fact, there is a very great danger for homeless in an unconscious parody of saying "that one is such a good Christ" because it is not this or that homeless or hungry who is Christ but any, the next one. No need whatsoever to keep someone there. There will always be poor around. THE Christ has promised us that. For poverty, any poverty except sickness itself, is no sickness. It is in part mystery. And in part morals. Both of the poor and of the rich or other givers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Delbo/Paris II, and
23 jan 2010
*"At Vanderbilt"? Great! Do you know what Chesterton had to say about old Cornelius?
9 commentaires:
I will however feature a Chesterton text on that élite culture into which Vanderbildts fit a bit too well:
CHAPTER VIII
THE END OF THE HOUSEHOLD GODS
The only place where it is possible to find an echo of the mind of the English masses is either in conversation or in comic songs. The latter are obviously the more dubious; but they are the only things recorded and quotable that come anywhere near it. We talk about the popular Press; but in truth there is no popular Press. It may be a good thing; but, anyhow, most readers would be mildly surprised if a newspaper leading article were written in the language of a navvy. Sometimes the Press is interested in things in which the democracy is also enuinely interested; such as horse-racing. Sometimes the Press is about as popular as the Press Gang. We talk of Labour leaders in Parliament; but they would be highly unparliamentary if they talked like labourers. The Bolshevists, I believe, profess to promote something that they call "proletarian art," which only shows that the word Bolshevism can sometimes be abbreviated into bosh. That sort of Bolshevist is not a proletarian, but rather the very thing he accuses everybody else of being. The Bolshevist is above all a bourgeois; a Jewish intellectual of the town. And the real case against industrial intellectualism could hardly be put better than in this very comparison. There has never been such a thing as proletarian art; but there has emphatically been such a thing as peasant art. And the only literature which even reminds us of the real tone and talk of the English working classes is to be found in the comic song of the English music-hall.
I first heard one of them on my voyage to America, in the midst of the sea within sight of the New World, with the Statue of Liberty beginning to loom up on the horizon. From the lips of a young Scotch engineer, of all people in the world, I heard for the first time these immortal words from a London music-hall song:--
"Father's got the sack from the water-works
For smoking of his old cherry-briar;
Father's got the sack from the water-works
'Cos he might set the water-works on fire."
I will not quote the rest of the chapter, but that is a scientific analysis of worklessness and homelessness, and the problem is in some peoples' morals.
You can read the rest here Click this link will you!
Oh, just to make sure I make mayself clear with EVERYONE, the moral problem was not in the pipe smoking father!
Here is one other part of the problem: link
And another part of the problem is here - if Fr. Peter R. Scott (the writer of article linked to - were Bishop Williamson, I would have nothing to do with Bishop Williamson.
Indeed, since "first step" of AA is "admitting one is licked, has no power over alcohol" and last step is "making converts for AA" and since they are ecumenical enough to be no strangers to magic (qabbalah and masonic magic, for instance) the ones involved in life long step 12 may be using magic to make people "realise" they are licked.
Even more so, someone who has made such a humiliating admission, may be lying about alcoholic behavious of that someone else who has not "taken the first step" and - usually for good reasons - refuses to do so.
Oh, and Musselmen in contact with Marbouts or Soufis may sometimes be up to such things too.
My problem is not with Musselmen as such, only when they play that game on people around here.
Or similar ones. Or otherwise oppress Christians.
Are Catholic religious Evangelical Protestants, Barbieux?... : Quoting and commenting "Gaudium et spes" : To someone who called me a "scammmmmmmmer" : TFP on Garcia Moreno (link, click here) : Neopaganism and boarding school stories (warning: partly disgusting)...
Enregistrer un commentaire