Events vindicate Vatican viewpoint

[fix]

Norwich:

Why is capitalism the best way of achieving freedom? Jesus wasn’t a capitalist, he owned nothing. Peter was; as a fisherman, but, he left it all behind to follow Jesus. Mathew was, but a reluctant one who sent the results of his efforts to Rome. The only one of the Apostles who was a real capitalist and made money from Jesus was Judas.

From what I can see of capitalism it simply removes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. So called “Trickle Down” is a falacy. If it worked, the USA as the richest nation on earth should have no poor. Yet the differentials between your rich and poor is probably (with one or two minor exceptions) the greatest in the world.

The argument that the rich create employment for the poor is also a nonsense. Without the rich the poor would still produce food, they would still have places to live, they would probably make their own motor cars or washing machines, they just wouldn’t have to pay so much for them.

Part of my industry is sewage farming. We often comapare sewage to capitalists, the largest ones always float to the surface.

There is a difference bewteen capitalism and unfettered capitalism . Are you arguing capitalism is against the Catholic faith?

I employ people. If tomorrow I told them all to go out and build a car and live off the land because they are fired, would that be Catholic?

 

[Norwich]

fix:

There is a difference bewteen capitalism and unfettered capitalism . Are you arguing capitalism is against the Catholic faith?

I employ people. If tomorrow I told them all to go out and build a car and live off the land because they are fired, would that be Catholic?

No, but there is a world of difference between the modern accepted view of Capitalism and RESPONSIBLE Capitalism.

Britiain of the Victorian era although bad in many many ways had a number of Responsible capitalists. Many of them strange to say Quakers. (why that should be strange I don’t know). They built industries and bussines’s based on the manpower they had and considered their manpower to be their greatest asset. I have no doubt that examples of this sort of philanthropy existed in the States as well. They built schools, Hospitals, Churches, houses for their workers, arranged outings, holidays and other social events. They were in essence the patriarchs of their society and they valued their employees.

Now tell me how many large conglomerates can say that now? The mighty dollar, or Pound, or Yen or whatever, drives industry. The wants of the Shareholder or Bank overule the needs of the very people who contribute the greatest to the success of the conglomerate. Those that give their lives to support their families and heirs. When the conglomerate goes bust, who wins? Directors ussually walk away with millions, Banks and shareholders sell of the assets and split it between them, the tax man takes whatever is left, and the poor worker who probably sweated blood for them, what does he get? oh yes, maybe assistance in finding another job. Big deal.

 

[jlw]

Norwich:

No, but there is a world of difference between the modern accepted view of Capitalism and RESPONSIBLE Capitalism.

Britiain of the Victorian era although bad in many many ways had a number of Responsible capitalists. Many of them strange to say Quakers. (why that should be strange I don’t know). They built industries and bussines’s based on the manpower they had and considered their manpower to be their greatest asset. I have no doubt that examples of this sort of philanthropy existed in the States as well. They built schools, Hospitals, Churches, houses for their workers, arranged outings, holidays and other social events. They were in essence the patriarchs of their society and they valued their employees.

Now tell me how many large conglomerates can say that now? The mighty dollar, or Pound, or Yen or whatever, drives industry. The wants of the Shareholder or Bank overule the needs of the very people who contribute the greatest to the success of the conglomerate. Those that give their lives to support their families and heirs. When the conglomerate goes bust, who wins? Directors ussually walk away with millions, Banks and shareholders sell of the assets and split it between them, the tax man takes whatever is left, and the poor worker who probably sweated blood for them, what does he get? oh yes, maybe assistance in finding another job. Big deal.

I don’t dispute you too much here Norwich. BUT, it still remains that we have two choices ON EARTH. Live with free will, or give our will over to the government. I will not give my will over to the state. I WON’T.

I will bend my will to God’s. The world would be a better place if the US injected God into our capitalism, and Europe injected God into their socialist states.

 

[Nichevo]

jlw:

I don’t dispute you too much here Norwich. BUT, it still remains that we have two choices ON EARTH. Live with free will, or give our will over to the government. I will not give my will over to the state. I WON’T.

I will bend my will to God’s. The world would be a better place if the US injected God into our capitalism, and Europe injected God into their socialist states.

Well said! That is where it really has to begin if any positive ground is to be gained (whether by Norwich’s method or my own), God must be put back in his proper place in the scheme of our lives, the Top.

 

[fix]

Norwich:

No, but there is a world of difference between the modern accepted view of Capitalism and RESPONSIBLE Capitalism.

Britiain of the Victorian era although bad in many many ways had a number of Responsible capitalists. Many of them strange to say Quakers. (why that should be strange I don’t know). They built industries and bussines’s based on the manpower they had and considered their manpower to be their greatest asset. I have no doubt that examples of this sort of philanthropy existed in the States as well. They built schools, Hospitals, Churches, houses for their workers, arranged outings, holidays and other social events. They were in essence the patriarchs of their society and they valued their employees.

Now tell me how many large conglomerates can say that now? The mighty dollar, or Pound, or Yen or whatever, drives industry. The wants of the Shareholder or Bank overule the needs of the very people who contribute the greatest to the success of the conglomerate. Those that give their lives to support their families and heirs. When the conglomerate goes bust, who wins? Directors ussually walk away with millions, Banks and shareholders sell of the assets and split it between them, the tax man takes whatever is left, and the poor worker who probably sweated blood for them, what does he get? oh yes, maybe assistance in finding another job. Big deal.

I agree with your general drift. Capitalism, like democracy, must be infused with people who obey God’s laws. Without that they can be oppressive.

 

[Norwich]

Bloody Hell!!! CONCENCUS!!!

Thanks folks!!!

 

[jlw]

Norwich:

Bloody Hell!!! CONCENCUS!!!

Thanks folks!!!

You might not win a spelling bee, but we agree that capitalism must be run by Godly people.

That said, I don’t know if you actually believe that the state should stay the heck out of our pocketbooks. No??

 

[dmelosi]

sbcoral:

Only if you listen to right-wing nuts.

Knowing what we know now, though, has the invasion and occupation of Iraq been worth the price? What have we gained by sacrificing the lives and bodies of 1000s of our own soldiers, to say nothing of the #s of Iraqis we have killed or maimed intentionally or unintentionally? Maybe I am some kind of psychic, but I never saw evidence of an imminent threat to our security before the war and never knew what the big rush to invade was about. To my mind, war should only be fought as a last resort. I was against the war from the start. Looks like I was right.

The number people we have lost is horrible. BUT, can we forget the 100’s of thousands of people killed in Iraq by Hussain? How many 100’s of thousands did we save by removing Hussain. No matter if you lean to the left or the right, this has to be acknowledged. I understand that the majority are Muslim’s, but my goodness they died directly because of Hussain. Do you not think that these people are worth saving?

 

[Matt25]

Re Simone Weil

Nichevo:

I don’t ridicule her or ignore her. I do view her politcal ideas within the context of the time in which she lived along with her own predjudices and worldview. She was after all a Spanish Civil war veteran (as part of the anarchist movement), a part of the French resistance, a labor organizer, a factory worker, and teacher. these are all areas where the socialist philosophy was espoused to the minimalization of all others. I tend to discount her philosophical applicability to the world in which we live today.

Even though she criticized Marxism, she still tends to see things in the Marxist dialectic of oppressor and oppressed. In The Need For Roots, she left me scratching my head as she called for freedom in Europe but, condemned the best means of achieving this freedom (Capitalism). I will say though, that I did enjoy reading Waiting for God.

You are somewhat in error about Simone. If you read Simone Petrement’s biography of her you will see that learning at the Ecole Normal Superiore, teaching in private school and being involved in the Gaullist Free French Movement was very far from being in an area where socialist ideas predominated. Her experiences in the Civil War lasted for about a week and her factory worker experiences served to drive politics largely out of her mind.

I’m surprised at your analysis of The Need for Roots I found it the most right wing of her works. Her emphasis on rights being balanced by obligations may not seem much to you. The self image of Republican France even for right wingers like de Gaulle is founded on it being the home of the “Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen” so Simones emphasis was quite shocking in its original context. Anyway the book is a long ways from her thought in " Oppression and Liberty"

As far as using taxation as a mechanism for redistributing wealth goes. In a democracy if you don’t like paying high taxes vote for low tax parties. European voters often prefer comprehensive health services, pensions and “the social wage” to low taxes. Americans are different but that doesnt make them necessarily right or wrong.

 

[Nichevo]

Matt25:

Re Simone Weil
I’m surprised at your analysis of The Need for Roots I found it the most right wing of her works. Her emphasis on rights being balanced by obligations may not seem much to you. The self image of Republican France even for right wingers like de Gaulle is founded on it being the home of the “Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen” so Simones emphasis was quite shocking in its original context. Anyway the book is a long ways from her thought in " Oppression and Liberty"

I’m taking a few weeks of leave at the end of the month. I will go back and reread The Need for Roots then. I’ll PM you when I’m finished.

 

[Norwich]

jlw:

You might not win a spelling bee, but we agree that capitalism must be run by Godly people.
QUOTE]

Sorry, Dislexia strikes again!!

Note to the administrator, for we who suffer with such a problem (Dislexia is a problem by the way) why can’t we have a spellchecker attached to the top icons?

 

[Brad]

gilliam:

Math is short for mathematics.

However, you guys need to be more charitable to each other.

Sorry Gilliam - I’m really trying. But I can only tolerate so much anti-Americanism to the extent that it justifies giving an OK to cold-blooded dictators - and using the Catholic Church to justify it to boot.

 

[Brad]

sbcoral:

He never said Iraq did any of those things, either.

The Pope is not a leader of a state. It is not his business to condemn goverment support of terrorism. It is his business to condemn terrorism.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

You are missing the teachings of the Catholic Church. Many people might sincerely believe Iraq had WMDs. The question the Pope rightfully poses is the certainty of that knowledge for it is just to wage war, kill civilians and torture Iraqis.

No. I’'m not missing the teachings. The post said that “events vindicate Vatican viewpoint”. The events were that no WMD were found. The Vatican never said “attack if WMD are found” or “only attack if you are absolutely sure”. They certainly did not say “Iraq doesn’t have any WMD”. All the Vatican said is that war is a bad thing. They are right. It’s a terrible thing. So is terrorism. They’ve said that too.

They’ve never called the war with Iraq unjust - it is the posters here that are putting words in the Pope’s mouth and not allowing us to agree with the war.

 

[Brad]

Matt25:

Your evidence that I favour forced redistribution of wealth at the point of a bayonet is? (bearing in mind that I am a Pacifist)

Your evidence that I favour a society lacking in freedom, along the lines perhaps of the US backed dictatorship of Pinochet in the 70’s and 80’s, is what?

I do not actually know much about Liberation Theology so I cannot claim to be influenced by it. Like the Holy Father and many Catholic thinkers I am influenced by the thought of Simone Weil. She was French and left wing so obviously you will feel free to ignore and/or ridicule her. Nonetheless she was an important and profound thinker which is why echoes of her thought appear so frequently in the words of the Holy Father.

The Church has repeatedly condemned the ideas and implementation of socialism through many encyclicals in the last 100+ years.

 

[Brad]

Norwich:

Why is capitalism the best way of achieving freedom? Jesus wasn’t a capitalist, he owned nothing. Peter was; as a fisherman, but, he left it all behind to follow Jesus. Mathew was, but a reluctant one who sent the results of his efforts to Rome. The only one of the Apostles who was a real capitalist and made money from Jesus was Judas.

From what I can see of capitalism it simply removes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. So called “Trickle Down” is a falacy. If it worked, the USA as the richest nation on earth should have no poor. Yet the differentials between your rich and poor is probably (with one or two minor exceptions) the greatest in the world.

The argument that the rich create employment for the poor is also a nonsense. Without the rich the poor would still produce food, they would still have places to live, they would probably make their own motor cars or washing machines, they just wouldn’t have to pay so much for them.

Part of my industry is sewage farming. We often comapare sewage to capitalists, the largest ones always float to the surface.

Capitalism gives everyone an opportunity that is willing to seize it. Foreign born people have a 10x greater change of being successful and owning their own business than American born people. Most of these foreigners come over with zero dollars. They recognize opportunity and they seize it - because they can and the government doesn’t tell them they can’t. As a result, countless people have started with nothing and gone on to start schools, hospitals, churches, environmental organizations, and charitable outreaches of all varieties - because they had the money and time to do so - and were not restricted by the goverment.

Private ownership of goods is at the core of capitalism. It has always been heavily promoted by the Church. Rerum Novarum encyclical is one example. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here is a quote:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one’s own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.

Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly, that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life’s well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates - that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.

end quote.

Remeber, the more you tax and limit the private citizen, the more you restrict his/her private ownership and his/her ability to be charitable towards others.

 

[sbcoral]

dmelosi:

The number people we have lost is horrible. BUT, can we forget the 100’s of thousands of people killed in Iraq by Hussain? How many 100’s of thousands did we save by removing Hussain. No matter if you lean to the left or the right, this has to be acknowledged. I understand that the majority are Muslim’s, but my goodness they died directly because of Hussain. Do you not think that these people are worth saving?

Were there really hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam? Is that an exaggeration or do you have a source? We know that he gased some Kurds 15-20 years ago and that he was ruthless with his political opposition, but I don’t know that he was really responsible for a genocide of his people. Was he? Were 100s of thousands of Iraqis in imminent danger of being killed by Saddam if we didn’t invade? Is that the reason for this war? This is the first time I’ve heard that one, at least.

 

[aimee]

sbcoral:

Were there really hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam? Is that an exaggeration or do you have a source? We know that he gased some Kurds 15-20 years ago and that he was ruthless with his political opposition, but I don’t know that he was really responsible for a genocide of his people. Was he? Were 100s of thousands of Iraqis in imminent danger of being killed by Saddam if we didn’t invade? Is that the reason for this war? This is the first time I’ve heard that one, at least.

Who are you? The statement or news quoted in your post are indeed true…its been in the news here so perhaps wherever your from you might want to keep up with things.

 

[sbcoral]

aimee:

Who are you? The statement or news quoted in your post are indeed true…its been in the news here so perhaps wherever your from you might want to keep up with things.

I am from the USA. Was it really hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that he killed? That is an awful lot. How do we know this? When did it happen? I am not being facetious. I know about the Kurds, and I’ve heard about mass graves, but I haven’t heard that number quoted before. That is a genocide-type number. Was he really committing genocide of his own people?

 

[sbcoral]

Gosh, I was wrong. One website said 300,000 Iraqis killed during Saddam’s regime, though other sites were all over the place. I’ll take that as fact. He was a bad man. But saving the lives of Iraqis still wasn’t the reason we invaded Iraq, was it? It was because of WMDs or something like that. But maybe I’m wrong here. I sure don’t know everything.