Care for poor rooted in Gospel, not communism, Pope affirms

[EmperorNapoleon]

Just because some “right wingers” are mistaken abou Pope Francis , does not all of a sudden mean some Leftist ideas are in conformity with the Church.

For instance, the principle of subsidiarity goes against the worldly notions of secular promotion of “Socialized medicine” or socialized programs.
Certain things, as our existing federal means of welfare are not Catholic. Even if some on the Right are mistaken when they oppose all more localized government means of helping the poor.

That isn’t necessarily true. It requires that the least common denominator fill those roles, but sometimes the State IS the least common denominator because no one else can fill the shoes. Socialist policies fill the gap.

 

[Veridical16]

That isn’t necessarily true. It requires that the least common denominator fill those roles, but sometimes the State IS the least common denominator

Forgive me for not being concise and clear in my lengthy post.

Later on in the entirety of my post I said this, which agrees with what you said

The Poor should be helped, and if the State may need to provide some of that help so be it, with the principle of subsidiary , but not by the means of socialist policies and central planning as promoted by the Democrat party and parts of Western Europe.

EmperorNapoleon:

** because no one else can fill the shoes. Socialist policies fill the gap**.

Again this relates to Subsidiarity…Take NASA as an example.

NASA is not socialist policy, it’s an example that a higher level organization with the means and recourse to the LAW (federal level) has the funds to aid Big Science that private research, on a localized level may not have the funds for sustaining for practical reasons…

Health Care** Insurance** with help from the state, is not necessarily Socialist, depending on the means taken by certain levels of government. ( Whether or not that policy is sustainable in its implementation on a wide scale, and how it affects economic exchange to operate well in the long run, is another thing… )

There is a difference however, in respect to the actions of what the government may exploit from providing a service – then seeks to usurp roles it has no business usurping, – this is when it lends itself to the errors of Socialism.

If for instance State and Local governments are better able to attend citizens actual specific problems regarding Health Care Access better than the higher levels of The State, then the Federal Government should not be so eager to interfere in what can be solutions on a more localized level, just for the sake of consolidating political power and its purview over free citizens eventually upsetting free citizens self -determination and personal responsibilities in decision making relating to important aspects of their lives…

 

[BigBlueCane]

Just another example as to how right wing policies in this country are out of step with catholic teachings.

 

[freeRadical]

And the popes and the Church have always urged us to care for those in need.

Of course.

 

[freeRadical]

I think the reason why right wingers want to criticize the Pope is because they conflate economic policies with political systems. One could have certain essential services be socialized but still not have a socialized/communist society. For instance, the UK has a socialized health system (just an example, not saying it’s a great thing) but is not a socialist/communist empire. On the other hand, one could have a partially private health care system but a communist political system with a government-run religious system and restrictions on freedom of speech (think China or North Korea). I think (and I could be wrong) that Pope Francis would be in favor of decreasing income inequality and insuring poor people have essential services. He would be again a communist political/social system. The two are not the same thing, but people who really don’t want to see reforms of present inequalities want to conflate them for political gain.

Socialism and Communism are not political systems, they are economic systems. You can have Socialism with a dictatorship, a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, etc. The same with Communism.

 

[freeRadical]

By “right wingers,” I was referring to individuals who would ascribe moral approbation to the poor rather than acknowledging that opportunities are not equal. I think back to a statement I heard on Fox where a conservative activist claimed people should just basically stop being poor, like it was all their choice. Options are very much dependent on where you are born, how much money your parents have, who you know, etc. Additionally, socioeconomic inequality has actually been linked with poorer overall health for everyone in a society (I can find the citation from a longterm study of British civil servants if you are interested.). The end result of unfettered capitalism is slavery where the human dignity of workers is jeopardized. Extreme socialism or communism would also devalue persons. However, encouraging a society where all are insured essentials is not communism. But, people who benefit from the status quo can use the “C” word to whip everyone into a frenzy. For the record, my family is very conservative and I’ve heard these arguments against the Pope multiple times. I was discussing classic rightwing arguments and the role I feel they play. I didn’t attack you personally. No need to be sarcastic and flippant. Generally, it seems like anytime I try to offer some observtion or analysis on this board that differs from what someone else believes, people become sarcastic and rude. Don’t worry though, I am not planning on engaging in any more convos on CAF. If I try to offer a different perspective, I’m apparently incendiary. Here I just thought we all were having a sociopolitical discussion.

If you want to know why people are poor you only have to look one place. The government is why people are poor.

 

[freeRadical]

See Industrial Revolution and the “Age of the Robber Barons” for the effects of unfettered capitalism (and even here it wasn’t really completely unfettered) on workers.

Robber Barons are a myth. The 19th century was a period when the US has its greatest growth and the life of the common man improved tremendously. People from all over the world flocked to this country to make a better life for them and their children.

 

[freeRadical]

Those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. I’m actually arguing that the history of both unfettered capitalism and communism should reveal either direction is problematic. The Pope is advocating for the middle position, and people who would rather see less fettered capitalism may in some cases use this against him. Extreme leftwingers use the Pope for their own purposes too. But, pretending the extreme right wing doesn’t do this too (especially with the communist label) is wrong.

History rarely repeats itself but it often rhymes. There has been no greater system, yet discovered, that can lift people out of extreme poverty and improve the lot of the ordinary man tremendously, then the productive potential that is unleashed in a Capitalistic, free market, free enterprise system. The record of history is clear.

 

[freeRadical]

Just another example as to how right wing policies in this country are out of step with catholic teachings.

As are left wing policies.

 

[bioethics1985]

Socialism and Communism are not political systems, they are economic systems. You can have Socialism with a dictatorship, a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, etc. The same with Communism.

You’re correct. I misspoke. I was thinking of the fact that Communism often lends itself to dictatorship.

 

[bioethics1985]

History rarely repeats itself but it often rhymes. There has been no greater system, yet discovered, that can lift people out of extreme poverty and improve the lot of the ordinary man tremendously, then the productive potential that is unleashed in a Capitalistic, free market, free enterprise system. The record of history is clear.

I agree that regulated capitalism is a powerful force. But, it’s important to remember the many workers who were abused by major capitalist figures. When a worker fell down and roasted to death in an unsafe steel plant after Carnegie refused to correct safety conditions, he was a victim of a system that privileged money making over human health and safety. The ends don’t necessarily justify the means. This not to say that capitalism is bad, but simply to suggest that it is not acceptable without regulations to promote human welfare. The poor immigrants who worked in large factories may not have such a rosy view of life in the early 1900s.

 

[patrick457]

ewtnnews.co.uk/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9698

Good statement by the Holy Father.

Speaking of communism, I saw this one comment made by someone on the internet that really struck me: “No country in the world today can truly be considered ‘communist’.” In a sense, I think this is true: nobody has yet successfully managed to perfectly implement communism in the way people like Marx or Engels envisioned it. (Leninism or Maoism or the North Korean Juche - the ones people might think of today when the word ‘communist’ is mentioned - are technically different creatures.) And I think that’s what’s problematic with the communism as whole: IMHO it’s too idealistic to work in real life. It might sound good in paper, but it’s difficult if not impossible to pull out in actual practice. But then again I might also say the same thing about other systems such as capitalism.

 

[freeRadical]

I agree that regulated capitalism is a powerful force. But, it’s important to remember the many workers who were abused by major capitalist figures. When a worker fell down and roasted to death in an unsafe steel plant after Carnegie refused to correct safety conditions, he was a victim of a system that privileged money making over human health and safety. The ends don’t necessarily justify the means. This not to say that capitalism is bad, but simply to suggest that it is not acceptable without regulations to promote human welfare. The poor immigrants who worked in large factories may not have such a rosy view of life in the early 1900s.

Did anyone say that Capitalism means no laws or regulations? If the US was so bad in the 1900s then why did all those immigrants flock here from all over the world, often bringing their families with them or sending back to get them after they made a way for themselves?