Full text: Laudato Si

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
Whether there is or is not near precedent does not change the fairly clear message of wealth redistribution. As a voluntary thing, I think that’s fine. When it comes to state compulsion, I would think you would be even more wary of it than I, since you don’t even approve of social security.
Click to expand...
International wealth redistribution is always going to be voluntary, since outside of war there is no way to compel countries to redistribute resources. But, I do think we have a moral obligation to help those who have less and nothing the pope says is inconsistent with that moral obligation.
But there is no law, legal or moral, that requires consistency of any of us. Well, the tax code does, perhaps.
Click to expand...
Regardless, I am extremely wary of any kind of international scheme to redistribute national wealth, based on the environment or anything else.
Click to expand...
Are the world bank and IMF wealth redistribution schemes?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I don’t see anything there that is any different than other popes have said. For example, Pope John Paul II called for wealthier nations to forgive the debts of less developed nations.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with John Paul II calling on nations to do that…even though I disagree with that. John Paul II was not announcing an economic fact; he was exhorting the faithful to be charitable, which is great. But, in the long run, forgiving debt encourages the debtor nations to continue in their unsustainable ways. While unsustainable debt is good for the short term, it is very bad for the long term. I believe that John Paul II demonstrated a strong aptitude for Catholic theology, but a poor aptitude for international economics.

Similarly with this encyclical. To the extent that Francis endorses a particular scientific theory, he demonstrates a poor aptitude for science. I suspect his moral and theological teaching is spot on.

In the present encyclical, people think (likely wrongly) that Francis is announcing a scientific fact. If he is announcing a scientific fact, I think it would be a first (or, if it has been done before, then it was reversible error). But, no one has yet suggested that we must agree with his scientific belief except for those who have a political agenda.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Attacking and insulting the Holy Father, as some have done here, is blatantly against forum rules:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9658867&postcount=13
Click to expand...
There is a difference in attacking a person, which is against forum rules, and disputing what is said, What your call an attack on the Pope is simply a harsh critique, better said another way, on what has been written. You have written some harsh words against people not their ideas but against them. If you want to dispute what is written about Laudato Si then do so without attacking the person. You say it is an insult but do not give any argument for what the Pope has written. Some think it is poorly written, you should address that instead of attacking the person. I would challenge and do challenge what is meant by a diary? You accomplish nothing by just telling people they have insulted the Pope by insulting others.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
International wealth redistribution is always going to be voluntary, since outside of war there is no way to compel countries to redistribute resources. But, I do think we have a moral obligation to help those who have less and nothing the pope says is inconsistent with that moral obligation.

Are the world bank and IMF wealth redistribution schemes?
Click to expand...
Depends on who gets to do the “volunteering”, wouldn’t you say? If the U.S. enters into a treaty to do it, it’s inescapable. This administration would do it in a heartbeat. Presumably the Senate would not ratify such a thing. But perhaps you and I are talking past each other if the issue to you is whether residtribution is probable. I was addressing the concept, not the likelihood of compulsory redistribution of wealth.

I doubt anyone on here would doubt we have, as individuals, a moral obligation to help the poor. I would dispute that we have a moral obligation to give someone else’s wealth away.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Depends on who gets to do the “volunteering”, wouldn’t you say? If the U.S. enters into a treaty to do it, it’s inescapable. This administration would do it in a heartbeat. Presumably the Senate would not ratify such a thing. But perhaps you and I are talking past each other if the issue to you is whether residtribution is probable. I was addressing the concept, not the likelihood of compulsory redistribution of wealth.

I doubt anyone on here would doubt we have, as individuals, a moral obligation to help the poor. I would dispute that we have a moral obligation to give someone else’s wealth away.
Click to expand...
But we would need to voluntarily enter into a treaty, nobody could force us into a treaty. I am just saying that as a concept, we have a moral obligation to help the poor. Now, I have not said anything about how that should be done. But my point is that in the area of redistribution Pope Francis has not said anything different than Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict.

I don’t think I said anything about giving someone else’s wealth away.
 
adrift said:
There is a difference in attacking a person, which is against forum rules, and disputing what is said, What your call an attack on the Pope is simply a harsh critique, better said another way, on what has been written. You have written some harsh words against people not their ideas but against them. If you want to dispute what is written about Laudato Si then do so without attacking the person. You say it is an insult but do not give any argument for what the Pope has written. Some think it is poorly written, you should address that instead of attacking the person. I would challenge and do challenge what is meant by a diary? You accomplish nothing by just telling people they have insulted the Pope by insulting others.
Click to expand...
Indeed
 
stinkcat_14 said:
But we would need to voluntarily enter into a treaty, nobody could force us into a treaty. I am just saying that as a concept, we have a moral obligation to help the poor. Now, I have not said anything about how that should be done. But my point is that in the area of redistribution Pope Francis has not said anything different than Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict.

I don’t think I said anything about giving someone else’s wealth away.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, you are almost certainly correct in saying “nobody could force us into a treaty”. With the current composition of the Senate, that’s almost certainly correct. A few years ago, Obama had the power, probably, to do it, and we can’t be certain a president Hillary Clinton wouldn’t if Bill got paid enough.

Money paid by one country to another is always “giving someone else’s wealth away”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Fortunately, you are almost certainly correct in saying “nobody could force us into a treaty”. With the current composition of the Senate, that’s almost certainly correct. A few years ago, Obama had the power, probably, to do it, and we can’t be certain a president Hillary Clinton wouldn’t if Bill got paid enough.

Money paid by one country to another is always “giving someone else’s wealth away”.
Click to expand...
I haven’t actually said I was in favor of international aid through the government, although I have kind of mixed feelings on that. I think much of the money is wasted because of faulty incentives. On the other hand, there are a lot of countries where China is pumping quite a bit of money, so it is a reasonable question as whether we should be doing similar things to lesson the influence of China.
 
MODERATOR REMINDER

All posts are to be charitable, even if you disagree with something, post charitably
 
For those of you “shaming” those who disagree with this political encyclical and who criticize this pope, I’d remind you that St Thomas More (for example) spoke frequently against Pope Clement, who he considered incompetent, but he was martyred defending his Papal authority. I, for one, will use him as my example.

Btw, for the Changelings on this site–if the Pope came out against “climate change” and in favor of Capitalism, would you take his encyclical seriously?? To most Changelings, anti-Capitalism and “Climate change” IS their “religion”. You’d ignore it as though it was never written.

This was a tremendous blunder on the part of FI imo. Very revealing too–and I’ll tell you what else was revealing to me! That he scheduled the canonizations of JP2 and John XXIII on the same day. You mean that John Paul the Great didn’t deserve his own day? Or John XXIII for that matter? I think it was done because JP2 was PERCEIVED as a “conservative”/traditional pope, and John XXIII was PERCEIVED as a “liberal” pope. It was a bone (and possibly a signal) thrown to the Left within the Church (who despised JP2), and it did a disservice to both great men. John XIII was completely overshadowed that day–but the point was made! My opinion, of course.
 
MarkR said:
For those of you “shaming” those who disagree with this political encyclical and who criticize this pope, I’d remind you that St Thomas More (for example) spoke frequently against the Pope Clement, but he was martyred defending his Papal authority. I, for one, will use him as my example.

Btw, for the Changelings on this site–if the Pope came out against “climate change” and in favor of Capitalism, would you take his encyclical seriously?? To most Changelings, anti-Capitalism and “Climate change” IS their “religion”. You’d ignore it as though it was never written.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I am a Changeling because that term means nothing to me, but I am as capitalist as they come so if the pope came out with an encyclical in favor of capitalism you better believe I would take it seriously. Of course, I have not seen anything in this encyclical against capitalism.
This was a tremendous blunder on the part of FI imo. Very revealing too–and I’ll tell you what else was revealing to me! That he scheduled the canonizations of JP2 and John XXIII on the same day. You mean that John Paul the Great didn’t deserve his own day? Or John XXIII for that matter? I think it was done because JP2 was PERCEIVED as a “conservative”/traditional pope, and John XXIII was PERCEIVED as a “liberal” pope. It was a bone thrown to the Left within the Church (who despised JP2), and it did a disservice to both great men. John XIII was completely overshadowed that day–but the point was made! My opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
We were fortunate to have two great popes who were canonized.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I don’t know if I am a Changeling because that term means nothing to me, but I am as capitalist as they come so if the pope came out with an encyclical in favor of capitalism you better believe I would take it seriously. Of course, I have not seen anything in this encyclical against capitalism.

We were fortunate to have two great popes who were canonized.
Click to expand...
1\ A Changeling is my term for “climate change” cultists.

2\ Each were so great that they deserved their own day, particularly JP2 who reigned for 28 years and shook the world. I believe they skipped a miracle for John XIII to make sure this would happen.

If it wasn’t done to prove a point, it was in bad taste.
 
MarkR said:
1\ A Changeling is my term for “climate change” cultists.
Click to expand...
I am an agnostic when it comes to climate change. But I think reasonable people can differ on the issue of climate change without calling either side cultists.
2\ Each were so great that they deserved their own day, particularly JP2 who reigned for 28 years and shook the world. I believe they skipped a miracle for John XIII to make sure this would happen.
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t done to prove a point, it was in bad taste.
Click to expand...
De gustibus non est disputandum.
 
MarkR said:
For those of you “shaming” those who disagree with this political encyclical and who criticize this pope, I’d remind you that St Thomas More (for example) spoke frequently against Pope Clement, who he considered incompetent, but he was martyred defending his Papal authority. I, for one, will use him as my example.

Btw, for the Changelings on this site–if the Pope came out against “climate change” and in favor of Capitalism, would you take his encyclical seriously?? To most Changelings, anti-Capitalism and “Climate change” IS their “religion”. You’d ignore it as though it was never written.

This was a tremendous blunder on the part of FI imo. Very revealing too–and I’ll tell you what else was revealing to me! That he scheduled the canonizations of JP2 and John XXIII on the same day. You mean that John Paul the Great didn’t deserve his own day? Or John XXIII for that matter? I think it was done because JP2 was PERCEIVED as a “conservative”/traditional pope, and John XXIII was PERCEIVED as a “liberal” pope. It was a bone (and possibly a signal) thrown to the Left within the Church (who despised JP2), and it did a disservice to both great men. John XIII was completely overshadowed that day–but the point was made! My opinion, of course.
Click to expand...
I take every encyclical seriously. 🤷

I think we need to be careful about being too cynical. A lot of us try too hard to read the tea leaves and we wind up making presumptions about the pope’s motives, and those presumptions can fill us with bitterness and resentment towards our Holy Father. That’s not good.
 
I am on another forum with non-Catholics (pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, atheists etc.) and the difference in tone is stark. The overriding impression so far is decidedly positive, with one poster opining that the encyclical “is an intellectual masterpiece” and another praising the quality of the prose. :cool: The poster who referred to it as a ‘masterpiece’ had actually read the encyclical itself, just to make sure that media portrayals of it were correct. Apparently he came away even more impressed by the breadth and depth of the text.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison I suppose…🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top