Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope's new encyclical?

[Gidge]

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” - Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis

I believe the next encyclical will be more telling, as form what I understand, the main body of work was from H.H. Benedict XIV.

Pope Francis is solid on doctrine, even though his liturgical style is much different than his predecessor (In America, I think people feel that the ars celebrandi translates into the approach to sacred dogma, and this is not always the case).

 

[lynnvinc]

No wonder such understanding is skewed.

That fallacy was widely spread by Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, and still believed by many today, It is obviously wrong, because the fact is that free enterprise arose in Europe centuries before the Protestant Revolt…

I guess it really depends on definitions of capitalism. Plus, Weber was not talking about capitalism, so much as the “spirit” of modern day capitalism (not the spirit of traditional and ancient market economies – which have admitted be around for 1000s of years).

 

[Abu]

The fact that free enterprise had its beginnings in the monasteries and the principles were developed by faithful Catholics, especially the Late Scholastics, and generally supported by the Popes, culminating in the wise words of the acknowledged St John Paul II followed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, involving definitions of moral behaviour, means that the wrongs occurring before during and after the Industrial Revolution and the plight of even so-called “free” economies and peoples today are due **not **to that great discovery but to the evil practices of people, against moral behaviour.

Those are the vital truths which support Catholic free enterprise ideas and excoriate immoral economic behaviour.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pope Francis: serve the Word of God, not the idolatry of riches and worldly cares

(Vatican Radio) The riches and the cares of the world “choke the Word of God,” said Pope Francis at Mass this morning at the Casa Santa Marta. The Pope pointed out that our life is set on three pillars: election, covenant, and promise, adding that we must trust the Father in living in the present without worrying about what will happen.
“No one can serve two masters.” Pope Francis began his homily with the words of Christ in today’s Gospel, where He focuses on the theme of riches and cares. Jesus, the Pope said, “has a clear idea on this subject”: they are “the riches and cares of the world” that choke the Word of God, they are the thorns spoken of in the Parable of the Sower, that choke the seed that has fallen on the ground:
“The riches and cares of the world choke the Word of God and do not allow it to grow. And the Word dies, because it is not cared for: it is choked. In that case you serve riches or you serve cares, but you don’t serve the Word of God. And this also has a temporal sense, because the Parable is somewhat constructed – the discourse of Jesus in the Parable – in time, is it not? Don’t worry about tomorrow, about what you will do tomorrow. . . . And also the Parable of the Sower is built on time: he sows, then the rain comes and it grows. Simply, we remove from time.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

Pope Francis: serve the Word of God, not the idolatry of riches and worldly cares

Being wealthy is not a sin. It’s how you use your wealth that matters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Being wealthy is not a sin. It’s how you use your wealth that matters.

I didn’t say it was, or was not, a sin. I see the Pope’s guidance to what we seek to fulfill in this life, and how those things affect us spiritually. We should approach his guidance without trying to make it fit our worldly views.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I didn’t say it was, or was not, a sin. I see the Pope’s guidance to what we seek to fulfill in this life, and how those things affect us spiritually. We should approach his guidance without trying to make it fit our worldly views.

That goes without saying here on a Catholic forum.

 

[Carlan]

That’s exactly my point.

That’s why I find the term “liberals,” especially when it’s used in a pejorative sense, such an empty meaningless phrase.

I’m a liberal - I believe in democracy, equal rights, a free market, private property, government by population not by class, etc., etc.

As a* liberal* I believe in human rights and as a catholic liberal I believe that these extend to the unborn, the migrant, etc;., etc.

So when the word liberal used as an insulting term I go “meh” and switch off.

BTW I’m sure there many “conservatives” who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage etc., etc.

Right you are, I am a Dem for life and i believe marriage the way God defined it, I like to call myself a centralist, or a moderate, I do not like the term liberal.Peace, Carlan

 

[BTNYC]

Wake up, American Catholics - There is no room for us in this nation’s political system.

The choice is between the party of abortionists and sodomites on the one hand and the party of warmongers and userers on the other.

And for a Catholic, that is no choice at all.

Viva Cristo Rey.

 

[livingwordunity]

Wake up, American Catholics - There is no room for us in this nation’s political system.

The choice is between the party of abortionists and sodomites on the one hand and the party of warmongers and userers on the other.

And for a Catholic, that is no choice at all.

Viva Cristo Rey.

There is a party of abortionists on one side. But this same side that is Pro-Abortion is also supported by many billionaires including the second richest man in the world. They say they don’t like the millionaires, but that’s because they like the billionaires. The talk about being for the poor is nothing but talk. Bad management of the economy through wasteful spending hurts the poor more than at anyone else. They promise peace as a war continues on.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is a party of abortionists on one side. But this same side that is Pro-Abortion is also supported by many billionaires including the second richest man in the world. They say they don’t like the millionaires, but that’s because they like the billionaires. The talk about being for the poor is nothing but talk. Bad management of the economy through wasteful spending hurts the poor more than at anyone else. They promise peace as a war continues on.

And there are no rich people on the other side?

And the other side talks about stopping abortion…but nothing changes.

And which side started the wars?

 

[BTNYC]

And there are no rich people on the other side?

And the other side talks about stopping abortion…but nothing changes.

And which side started the wars?

You’re exactly right, lamentably.

I’m ashamed to admit that, like so many other Catholics in this nation, I was duped by the sleazy neocon machine that exploits the zeal of orthodox Catholics and other tradition- minded people (“social conservatives” if you must) who want the sanctity of life and family upheld by the elected officials whose duty it is to preserve the common good. And with two terms of Reagan, one term of Bush Sr and two terms of Bush Jr in just under 3 decades, literally nothing substantive was done to stop the mass murder of babies whose blood cries out to heaven for vengeance against this godless masonic nation.

I was even stupid enough for a while to think I could support the completely unjustified wars our nation has engaged in for the past decade because they benefitted our Israeli “allies” and, after all, they’re God’s “chosen people” right? Our “older brothers” in faith? (Thankfully a good dose of Chrysostom helped to start to work some of that BS out of my system…)

And I defended free market capitalism because, well, it’s not communism… I actually believed that, because communism is a materialistic, overtly atheistic economic system, I HAD to place my faith in the materialistic, subtly atheistic economic system of capitalism because, y’know, what else was there? Then I kept running afoul of repeated Church condemnations of usury… and then I read “Rerum Novarum”… and then I learned about Distributism… and suddenly the laissez-faire economic philosophy the Republican party loves so dearly started to look more and more like the anti-Catholic, usurious, Calvinistic love letter to human greed that it actually is.

You know, perhaps I misspoke in my previous post… In fact, I have to say BOTH parties are parties for sodomy, abortion, usury and warmongering, they merely divvy up the issues they publicy support and disavow in order to have bases to pander to, all while doing nothing at all to disturb the diabolical status quo.

My plea to Catholics who have been hoodwinked by the neocons is this: Depart from secular political ideologies altogether. Develop your Sensus Catholicus. Judge political parties through the lens of consistent Catholic teaching, not vice-versa. Read “Rerum Novarum” and consign your Ayn Rand books to the nearest trash receptacle.

 

[Abu]

BTNYC #131
I HAD to place my faith in the materialistic, subtly atheistic economic system of capitalism

Unfortunately, such a view expresses the naïve opinions of those who know nothing about the papal praise of free enterprise developed by great Catholics which transformed so many multitudes of poor, and which have been chronicled here.

On Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (U.S.A.), explains…“his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. [Italics added]. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon…. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity. Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to ‘badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.’ But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. Further: ‘Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.’ More, not less, trade is needed: ‘the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.’…
Benedict does see a role for the state here [in wealth redistribution], but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.”

“The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. ‘The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,’ the pope firmly states, and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’

“Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”

 

[Abu]

BTNYC #131
Then I kept running afoul of repeated Church condemnations of usury… and then I read “Rerum Novarum”… and then I learned about Distributism

While the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers is condemned, Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, decrees of councils and popes do not envisage the economic conditions where money markets determine rates of interest – so charging interest as such is not considered. [See Vermeersch, S.J., *Usury, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 15, Appleton, 1912].

“The laws concerning usury were concerned not with business deals, but with lending from the rich to the poor who were seeking survival. Charles cites Lactantius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome in support of his argument.

“But as trade expanded, so too the demand for money, not only as a means of exchange but as a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money by investment; it was capital….with trade expanding the Church still wanted to defend the poor, but She also began to recognise that there exists an opportunity cost to money…the teaching underwent a development….” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 76].

Distributism has never had wide-spread support. One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201). While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.

That is why Dr Woods’ book above is described as “A welcome antidote to the various combinations of economic incompetence and self-righteous posturing - ‘liberation theology,’ New Deal welfarism, social democratic interventionism, distributism - that too often masquerade as the only ‘authentic’ interpretations of Catholic social teaching.” (Edward Feser, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christians who claim association with either political party agree that the calls from Christ are for an individual conversion of heart. Then we see economies used as an excuse to seek the best way for individuals to give, which places limitations, or stalls solutions, on how to accomplish widespread giving, and maintains the ability to build personal wealth. What is the focus of giving from those with a conversion of the heart; helping as many individuals as possible, through whatever avenues available to us, or national/global wealth of nations?

Then we see the conversion of heart cannot force upon others to participate in giving, through government legislation. Yet, we can stand behind other desired legislation to force others in different moral areas. Meanwhile, other political views are being protected under the umbrella of important issues. Who are the least of His we are called to help? The unbelievers who idolize personal wealth? National economies?

Christ’s simple teachings have become hidden in 2000 years of statements from men of the Church, from much different eras, which only snippets are pulled out to try and demonstrate the Church’s support of particular political views. This happens in the face of current simple calls from our Pope.

There is so much hypocrisy in politics, and when politics are mixed with spiritual the hypocrisy seeps through until we become no more than the bloc of voters used to advance worldly views.

Christ established a Church, not a political party. One is no better than another, and either is led by men. Partisans now use the demonizing of one party to hold up another. There are no righteous political parties. All political parties are made by men. Neither is worthy of dividing the body of Christ over, as some would seem to have it in the name of partisanship.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is a party of abortionists on one side. But this same side that is Pro-Abortion is also supported by many billionaires including the second richest man in the world. They say they don’t like the millionaires, but that’s because they like the billionaires. The talk about being for the poor is nothing but talk. Bad management of the economy through wasteful spending hurts the poor more than at anyone else. They promise peace as a war continues on.

 

[lreyes5]

Yes they are!

 

[livingwordunity]

There is a party of abortionists on one side. But this same side that is Pro-Abortion is also supported by many billionaires including the second richest man in the world. They say they don’t like the millionaires, but that’s because they like the billionaires. The talk about being for the poor is nothing but talk. Bad management of the economy through wasteful spending hurts the poor more than at anyone else. They promise peace as a war continues on.

And there are no rich people on the other side?

The point is that one side makes a pretense of being for the poor.

And the other side talks about stopping abortion…but nothing changes.

“Nothing changes” because one side fights it with all they have every time the other side tries to pass a Pro-Life law. Look up Texas in recent news to know what I’m talking about.

And which side started the wars?

Both. But again, one side makes a pretense of being for peace. See the following:

youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0&list=PL310711130876A845

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The point is that one side makes a pretense of being for the poor.“Nothing changes” because one side fights it with all they have every time the other side tries to pass a Pro-Life law. Look up Texas in recent news to know what I’m talking about.Both. But again, one side makes a pretense of being for peace.

The point is not that only the poor stand for themselves. There are rich behind both political parties. We just witnessed a new record high of spending behind the past presidential election.

Nothing changes because one side fights, while the other side seems to provide ‘lip service’ to maintain a bloc of voters. Both sides have enjoyed majority control of the administration, and both houses, during the current and previous administration. We had no major attempts through either. We can’t look at one state’s action to ‘limit’ as an indication to eradicate completely.

Irony is seeing the accusation of pretense of being for peace by the party that started the wars. As talks progress about pulling out, does not the one party criticize those plans?

Hypocrisy runs through politics. We shouldn’t allow that hypocrisy to cross over to cause divisions within the body of Christ. We are, or should be, Christians first and above all other things. That is a bond that was created by Him. The bonds of partisanship are made by men.

 

[livingwordunity]

Irony is seeing the accusation of pretense of being for peace by the party that started the wars. As talks progress about pulling out, does not the one party criticize those plans?

Why is America still at war if one side is for peace? And where did all the leftist antiwar protesters go? The side that says they are for peace is in the majority and has been able to do all that they want regardless of what the other side has said. They have also enjoyed two full years of holding a super majority. But they chose to keep America at war. See the following:

youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0&list=PL310711130876A845

.