Damn I'm good!

 

[photoshop courtesy of iOWNTHEWORLD.com]

Little noticed on a day when Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize was a story about some who think he is more eminent than even that honor could demonstrate.  The AP reported yesterday that there is a sense among some of the African Bishops attending a meeting at the Vatican that the hand of the Almighty was involved in Mr. Obama’s election:

African bishops attending a Vatican meeting are speaking about the election of Barack Obama in divine terms—putting them very much at odds with many of their U.S. counterparts.

Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra, Ghana said Wednesday that there was "a divine plan behind" Obama's election.

"It's like the biblical story repeating itself," he told reporters, citing the Old Testament figure Joseph, who after being sold into slavery in Egypt ends up becoming a top official.

If the intuition of these Clerics is correct, would that make the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops a den of heretics for opposing Obama’s health care program on the basis of it’s funding for abortion as well as the prospect of rationing?  I must note that not all Catholics oppose Obamacare, like the liberal organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.  In fact, I have the ignominious pleasure of having the Bishop of my own diocese, Bishop William Murphy, chairman of Domestic Justice and Human Development for the U.S. bishops, as one that weights the social justice aspect of Obamacare above the overarching concerns of the USCCB:

Bishop Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., noted that the “we strongly oppose inclusion of abortion as part of a national health care benefit.” But he emphasized the priority the church placed on coverage for the poor, calling health care “not a privilege but a right.”

“Health care is not just another issue for the Church or for a healthy society,” he wrote. “It is a fundamental issue of human life and dignity.”

So what should I expect living on Long Island?  It’s easy to see the difference between the position of the Church as a whole, and the outlook of some of the senior Clergy that reconcile sacrificing a fundamental tenet of the faith in the name of social justice.  This is part of the mindset that leads some American Catholics to entertain the notion of a schism with Rome, especially among those who more heavily weight social justice concerns as professed in liberation theology; since the same liberation theology that some schismatics flirt with was declared a heresy by John Paul II-a position researched and validated by Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger.

John Paul II disagreed. To make the church into a secular political institution and to see salvation solely as the achievement of social justice was to rob faith in Jesus of its power to transform every life. The image of Jesus as a political revolutionary was inconsistent with the Bible and the Church's teachings.

He didn't mean that the Church was not going to be the voice of the oppressed, was not going to champion the poor. But it should not do it by partisan politics, or by revolutionary violence. The Church's business was bringing about the Kingdom of God, not about creating a Marxist utopia.

[emphasis-ed.]

On a more secular level I tend to agree with Thomas Sowell:

After political crusades for "affordable housing" ended up ruining the housing market and much of the economy with it, many of the same politicians are now carrying on a crusade for "affordable health care." But what you can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing anything. Refusing to pay those costs means that you are just not going to continue getting the same quantity and quality — regardless of what any politician says or how well he says it.

Where is the justice in the degradation of our health care system for the 85% of the public that is happy with their healthcare?  And, as a Catholic, why are leaders of the church advocating for such a system, especially when it violates our fundamental belief in a culture of life?  Whatever happened to “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”… etc?  It seems to me that these leaders aren’t rendering unto God that which is God’s.  And that is certainly a violation of their vows and beliefs; whether Obama is a beneficiary of divine provenance or not.

But, beyond domestic political considerations and questions of a coming schism, this talk of Obama’s ersatz divinity, or divine installation, coupled with the rising tensions, both nuclear and conventional, in the middle east is certain to make students of the Biblical book of Revelation perk up their ears; and ponder whether the action of the Nobel Prize committee was also divinely guided to assist the great pretender in his masquerade as the man who would bring about peace on Earth.  Or, are they wishfully heralding the coming workers paradise on Earth; utopia in the “age of Obama”.  Exactly which eschaton are they immanetizing?

Based on Mark 13:32, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”, so I tend to lean toward the secular implication; because too many people are on to the "Obama as divinity" shtick.  But you never know, I’ve been wrong before…

Rocketman