‘I quote the Gospel, they call me a Communist’

[otjm]

I think the government should use tax money to help the poor with the essentials of food, shelter, and clothing.

But the government shouldn’t be using taxpayer money on evils like abortions and calling this helping the poor.

And the principle of subsidiarity would say that big government should stay out of the issue.

 

[J_Peterson]

And the principle of subsidiarity would say that big government should stay out of the issue.

Not if it can be shown that the govenment is better at distributing material needs to those who need it. I’m not convinced that private charities can handle it without govenment assitance. For example, Catholic Charities USA receives around $500 million from the federal government. Can private donations make up for that? That’s only one charity. How would private charities cover the food stamp program if it were taken away?

 

[christofirst]

Not if it can be shown that the govenment is better at distributing material needs to those who need it. I’m not convinced that private charities can handle it without govenment assitance. For example, Catholic Charities USA receives around $500 million from the federal government. Can private donations make up for that? That’s only one charity. How would private charities cover the food stamp program if it were taken away?

I agree, there is no guarantee that private charity can or would replace the social safety net we have established, and there is no compelling reason why it should, especially in a democracy such as ours. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We create a false “us versus them” mentality whenever we disagree with our elected officials, but we elected them. We agree with the policies and laws our representatives enact, or we vote them out of office. We the people have decided that a social safety net, administered collectively through a government of our fellow citizens, can help provide for those of us in need. But you can’t please all the people all the time, and those who disagree with such policies always seem to think subsidiarity is far more important than solidarity.

 

[FollowChrist34]

But you can’t please all the people all the time, and those who disagree with such policies always seem to think subsidiarity is far more important than solidarity.

Prudential judgement…

 

[graciew]

We the people have decided that a social safety net, administered collectively through a government of our fellow citizens, can help provide for those of us in need. But you can’t please all the people all the time, and those who disagree with such policies always seem to think subsidiarity is far more important than solidarity.

Maybe I do not understand you,Christofirst. Why do you sort of extrapolate these concepts?

 

[graciew]

Excuse me,Christofirst. I will reframe it. It was messy.
Why is it necessary to separate these two concepts? How did you reach that conclusion?
I just would like to understand it better. Sounds kind of strange to me.
Thanks!

 

[Seamus_L]

Maybe if the Pope made a clear condemnation of Communism, Marxism, and Socialism, people wouldn’t be making such accusations. When you make horrific comments like “Communists are closet Christians” you’re guaranteed to make a few people start wondering.

 

[J_Peterson]

Maybe if the Pope made a clear condemnation of Communism, Marxism, and Socialism, people wouldn’t be making such accusations. When you make horrific comments like “Communists are closet Christians” you’re guaranteed to make a few people start wondering.

He said he is not a Marxist. What else should we require of him?

 

[Seamus_L]

I think a statement that Communism is evil would go alot further than a statement that I’am not a Communist does.

 

[openmind77]

He sounds naive in regard to his opinions on the government and the economy and the causes of poverty. He seems to just go along with socialist views. I know he is not a socialist,so he must be naive.

Actually, to me the Pope sounds very astute, well informed and in touch with the real world. You just assume that because he does not agree with your world view. I would say he has a better grasp of government and economy than you do (unless of course, you are some famous economist posting incognito here)

The proportion of people who go hungry and without access to health care is small. The number of people who are in that condition is large because the population of the country is very large - about 318 million people.

I am not sure what this means. 40 million people are a lot of people whatever the percentage. In any case, all other developed countries cover 100% percentage of their population. Even a non-OECD country like Brazil does a decent job of covering everyone.

As for a decent living wage,that is partly a matter of opinion,and it depends upon whether a person is single or married or married and with children. It is not necessary to be in the middle income range to be in a decent living condition. I am single and far below the middle income range but my living condition is decent.

I don’t know where you got this idea. There are thousands of substitute teachers with college degrees in the US, who need second jobs to make ends meet. Even adjunct university lecturers without tenure cannot afford healthcare insurance. When you come to the uneducated McDonald worker, you can forget about affording the rent. If you have kids and work at McDonald’s, your case is hopeless.

It isn’t proper for the government to be helping people with their personal needs so that they become dependent upon it and lose their motivation to help themselves and others. It is unnatural. It goes against natural law. The responsibility of helping those in need naturally and properly belongs individual persons,families,neighbors,and churches.

This is standard rightwing ideology. Does Matthew 25:31-46 tell you that it is OK to stand in the way of a government which is trying help those who are hungry, sick or are from elsewhere. Is this natural law of yours supported by any verse in the New Testament?

What chance do you think there is that the Christ when he returns in the next few years will agree with your ‘natural’ law? Are you prepared to argue with him and tell him what the government should and should not do? Maybe you will think he is naive too? Remember he said - turn the other cheek! - Isn’t that naive according to your ‘natural’ law?

 

[christofirst]

Excuse me,Christofirst. I will reframe it. It was messy.
Why is it necessary to separate these two concepts? How did you reach that conclusion?
I just would like to understand it better. Sounds kind of strange to me.
Thanks!

The concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity, it seems to me, usually exist in a state of tension. Ideally, they should always be in balance, but in reality, one concept is often promoted over, and sometimes it seems, to the exclusion of the other. Come election season, I see many conservatives promoting subsidiarity as a justifiable reason for diminishing or eliminating the role of a central government in providing for its most needy citizens. The claim is made that the poor can be better served at a local level or though private charity, and I disagree. Solidarity requires that we work not only individually but collectively, both locally and nationally, to assist the poor and needy among us. As Pope Francis says in Evangeli Gaudium:

"It is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society. Based on the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, and fully committed to political dialogue and consensus building, it plays a fundamental role, one which cannot be delegated, in working for the integral development of all."

Now, someone who is at odds with the State, or who would like to see less of the State, and uses the concept of subsidiarity to justify this position, will likely be put off by the Holy Father telling us the “fundamental role” of the State “cannot be delegated,” and they might even call him a Marxist, for being, in their opinion perhaps, too focused on solidarity.

Does that help?

 

[graciew]

The concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity, it seems to me, usually exist in a state of tension. Ideally, they should always be in balance, but in reality, one concept is often promoted over, and sometimes it seems, to the exclusion of the other. Come election season, I see many conservatives promoting subsidiarity as a justifiable reason for diminishing or eliminating the role of a central government in providing for its most needy citizens. The claim is made that the poor can be better served at a local level or though private charity, and I disagree. Solidarity requires that we work not only individually but collectively, both locally and nationally, to assist the poor and needy among us. As Pope Francis says in Evangeli Gaudium:

"It is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society. Based on the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, and fully committed to political dialogue and consensus building, it plays a fundamental role, one which cannot be delegated, in working for the integral development of all."

Now, someone who is at odds with the State, or who would like to see less of the State, and uses the concept of subsidiarity to justify this position, will likely be put off by the Holy Father telling us the “fundamental role” of the State “cannot be delegated,” and they might even call him a Marxist, for being, in their opinion perhaps, too focused on solidarity.

Does that help?

Yes,it does. A lot. Thanks so much for being so clear,Christofirst.

 

[anthony022071]

Actually, to me the Pope sounds very astute, well informed and in touch with the real world. You just assume that because he does not agree with your world view. I would say he has a better grasp of government and economy than you do (unless of course, you are some famous economist posting incognito here)

When he talks about the supposed need for more government regulation and the supposed
causes of poverty,he is repeating ideas that are promoted by college professors with socialist inclinations,using the same language. He does not give examples of what exactly about the economy or business practices that causes poverty,and he does not show concern about how government regulation interferes with legitimate freedom and private property rights and leads to government corruption and tyranny. And he speaks about the economy as if it is an unified institution,whereas in reality it is the result of countless transactions of millions of people.

I am not sure what this means. 40 million people are a lot of people whatever the percentage. In any case, all other developed countries cover 100% percentage of their population. Even a non-OECD country like Brazil does a decent job of covering everyone.

Having insurance coverage is not the same thing as receiving good treatment. Its a paper guarantee for the hospitals and doctors that they will get paid.

I don’t know where you got this idea. There are thousands of substitute teachers with college degrees in the US, who need second jobs to make ends meet. Even adjunct university lecturers without tenure cannot afford healthcare insurance.

So what? A college degree is not a guarantee of an adequate salary. And there is nothing unusual or unfair about people having to work at two jobs. The government makes it expensive to live by middle class standards. What things people want to have determines how much money they have to get to support themselves.

When you come to the uneducated McDonald worker, you can forget about affording the rent. If you have kids and work at McDonald’s, your case is hopeless.

It depends on how many hours you work and what your position is. And no one who works at a fast food restaurant is stuck having to work there permanently. There are other,higher paying jobs that are available to people who work at fast food restaurants.

This is standard rightwing ideology. Does Matthew 25:31-46 tell you that it is OK to stand in the way of a government which is trying help those who are hungry, sick or are from elsewhere. Is this natural law of yours supported by any verse in the New Testament?

What chance do you think there is that the Christ when he returns in the next few years will agree with your ‘natural’ law? Are you prepared to argue with him and tell him what the government should and should not do? Maybe you will think he is naive too? Remember he said - turn the other cheek! - Isn’t that naive according to your ‘natural’ law?

Natural law is implanted in human nature. It is the sense of duties and rights that God has gives to our consciences.

Natural law morality is expressed in the bible in the ten commandments,the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself,the proverbs,the admonitions against sexual immorality.

The aspect of natural law that I was talking about is the principle of subsidiarity,which is part of Catholic social teaching.

Jesus’ speech in Matthew 25:31-46 puts the responsibility of caring for those in need on each person separately,not on governments. When governments lure people to become dependent upon government programs,they interfere with each person’s responsibility to take care of themselves and to help others who are needy.

The widespread expectation that the government should be providing for people’s personal needs is a recent development in the history of civilization. It only came about in the 20th century,as result of socialist teaching and socialist government programs.

 

[openmind77]

When he talks about the supposed need for more government regulation and the supposed causes of poverty,he is repeating ideas that are promoted by college professors with socialist inclinations,using the same language.

These are smart, knowledgeable people - that is why they are professors.

He does not give examples of what exactly about the economy or business practices that causes poverty

That’s not the Pope’s job

,and he does not show concern about how government regulation interferes with legitimate freedom and private property rights and leads to government corruption and tyranny

This is just right wing propaganda. Government regulation by and large protects the average citizen

And he speaks about the economy as if it is an unified institution,whereas in reality it is the result of countless transactions of millions of people.

???

Having insurance coverage is not the same thing as receiving good treatment. Its a paper guarantee for the hospitals and doctors that they will get paid.

At least it assures some treatment when you need it, instead of having to wait for an emergency because you can not afford basic care and then having to declare bankruptcy because you did not have coverage.

So what? A college degree is not a guarantee of an adequate salary. And there is nothing unusual or unfair about people having to work at two jobs. The government makes it expensive to live by middle class standards. What things people want to have determines how much money they have to get to support themselves.

I am just pointing out what is unjust, since that was your question. And government does no such thing. Monopolies and price gauging is what makes things expensive.

It depends on how many hours you work and what your position is. And no one who works at a fast food restaurant is stuck having to work there permanently. There are other,higher paying jobs that are available to people who work at fast food restaurants.

I don’t care how many hours you work at McDonalds, you still can’t afford the rent and there are not many ‘higher paying’ jobs available for most people without training or college education

Natural law is implanted in human nature. It is the sense of duties and rights that God has gives to our consciences.

Natural law morality is expressed in the bible in the ten commandments,the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself,the proverbs,the admonitions against sexual immorality.

The aspect of natural law that I was talking about is the principle of subsidiarity,which is part of Catholic social teaching.

Jesus’ speech in Matthew 25:31-46 puts the responsibility of caring for those in need on each person separately,not on governments. When governments lure people to become dependent upon government programs,they interfere with each person’s responsibility to take care of themselves and to help others who are needy.

The widespread expectation that the government should be providing for people’s personal needs is a recent development in the history of civilization. It only came about in the 20th century,as result of socialist teaching and socialist government programs.

OK, you can explain all this to the Christ when he returns, as to the reason why you are against government helping people. I hope he buys it!

 

[CaptFun]

And who is this THEY the Pope is referring to ? Rush Limbaugh I believe only stated that that some of the Pope’s economic ideas were Marxist, while allowing for the*** possibility that what he read was a mistranslation.***

emphases in red above are mine. And :sad_yes: I agree.

Good point.

This headline refers to a quote not found in the OPs posted link.

cruxnow.com/church/2015/01/11/popes-latest-interview-i-quote-the-gospel-they-call-me-a-communist/

It appears to be a paraphrase of Francis made up by its writer, Ines San Martin.

I’m still looking for that Gospel verse (from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) that references “trickle down economics”. In any version.

In the OPs link, Francis is quoted much more generally about critiques he gets when he cites the early Church fathers. Maybe he does. But that was not the Limbaugh one … which I remember quite clearly.

Limbaugh did wonder if the Pope had been misquoted in the translation into English … and lo and behold the Pope did come out and clarify the he was not advocating Communism as a recommended economic system shortly after that.

Limbaugh said “THIS (not he) sounds like pure Marxism from the mouth of the Pope.”

His comment referenced a Washington Post story, which reported upon a 50,000 word Papal writing on the subject of the joy of evangelism “Gaudium Evangelii” as though the whole thing was a Pontifical condemnation of capitalism. There was, taken from the middle of the text, this purported “quote” from Francis, translated into English – it turns out, with a bit of license …

washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pope-francis-denounces-trickle-down-economic-theories-in-critique-of-inequality/2013/11/26/e17ffe4e-56b6-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

On Tuesday, he showed a willingness to use tough language in attacking what he views as the excesses of capitalism. Using a phrase with special resonance in the United States, he strongly criticized an economic theory — often affiliated with conservatives — that discourages taxation and regulation.

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

I took this as a pastoral*** warning not to delegate our love of neighbor to any system ***… that is, we have a personal responsibility to help those of our neighbors that we can. MY EMPHASES above in the “Pope’s quote/English Translation” calls out the words ***will inevitably succeed *** as significant … and somewhat shy of a condemnation. After all, Jesus Himself said that the poor would always be with us … so I’d not be one of those who’d believe in that “inevitable success” that some other unnamed conservatives supposedly do.

Limbaugh IMO did not get the distinction, at first, that even the English edited translation that added the loaded term ***“trickle down economics” ***in summarizing the Pope’s caution that capitalism was not in itself a proven cure for poverty – did not really affirm Marxism nor condemn capitalism. He did get the idea that maybe the Pope had been misquoted or had a creative ghost writer per the English translation.

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/27/it_s_sad_how_wrong_pope_francis_is_unless_it_s_a_deliberate_mistranslation_by_leftists < note the qualifiers in the headline here.

** Limbaugh: ** But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn’t exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States. Unfettered, unregulated.

Though subsequent reports emphasized that Limbaugh was calling HIM a Marxist (as below, which also named Limbaugh and branded him an ultraconservative) - the Pontiff did then go on record as not believing in Marxism.

*Q: Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?

• Pope Francis: “The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” - See more at: forwardprogressives.com/pope-francis-responds-to-rush-limbaugh-and-ultraconservatives-saying-hes-a-marxist/#sthash.xu9YxnMg.dpuf

As you say, Seamus L, “THEY” would be more than one person calling him a Communist or Marxist. And as you can see, Limbaugh did not do that. Though that’s the way it was spun.

Would the Pope be offended if called an ultraconservative (as it seemed Pope Benedict was)? Would he consider Rush “good people” if he met him?

Given the Pope’s positions on abortion, same sex marriage, birth control and a number of other issues - he actually may be more “ultraconservative” than Rush in many ways.

I am sadly uninformed about the early Church Father’s cautions about “trickle down economics” way back when. I do know about their calls to love neighbor and care for the poor though.

 

[ProVobis]

Given the Pope’s positions on abortion, same sex marriage, birth control and a number of other issues - he actually may be more “ultraconservative” than Rush in many ways.

That may very well be true, but what’s that old adage about having only one chance to make a first impression? It seems some won’t ever forgive some of his earliest comments reflecting his priorities, primarily for the poor and suffering among other things. Just sayin…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

OK, you can explain all this to the Christ when he returns, as to the reason why you are against government helping people. I hope he buys it!

Why do you support a government that does more harm than good?

Good intentions don’t solve problems.

You need to learn the truth of economics. Free markets have done more to lift the poor up out of poverty than all government programs combined.

 

[openmind77]

Why do you support a government that does more harm than good?

Good intentions don’t solve problems.

You need to learn the truth of economics. Free markets have done more to lift the poor up out of poverty than all government programs combined.

I don’ believe at all that governments cause more harm than good . this is just a myth created by rich powerful people who don’t want government to protect the weak and powerless from exploitation and looting. This myth is especially powerful in the US

We need free enterprise and right to property, but beyond a certain point it needs constant regulation and control. The Pope thank God recognizes that.

 

[christofirst]

I don’ believe at all that governments cause more harm than good . this is just a myth created by rich powerful people who don’t want government to protect the weak and powerless from exploitation and looting. This myth is especially powerful in the US

We need free enterprise and right to property, but beyond a certain point it needs constant regulation and control. The Pope thank God recognizes that.

"We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programs, mechanisms, and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality" Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium.

Notice he does not insist we eliminate welfare programs - they clearly serve a need - only that we also work to get beyond that need. Who, if not the government, will provide the “programs, mechanisms, and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income” ? The private sector? The Holy Father (and common sense) already tells us we can “no longer trust the unseen forces and invisible hand of the market” to carry out necessary oversight, regulation and reform. Trusting the private sector to self-regulate is like trusting the henhouse to the foxes. The drive for profit is too strong. Only our government, while also in constant need of oversight and prudence, has the legal power to ensure our poorest citizens are not left to fend for themselves.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

He said he is not a Marxist. What else should we require of him?

I believe that he should point out that free markets have shown the best results for lifting people out of poverty.

If he is going to speak of economics at all, he should be aware of and promote the best methods which help the most people.