How some conservatives view the Curia

[StudentMI]

Hmmm interesting.

Makes sense.
Take Leo XIII,s Rerum Novarum.

Or even more so Centesimus annus.

 

[Stat_Crux]

spectator.org/the-popes-marxist-head-of-the-jesuits/

Thoughts?

The article may adopt a tone which is a “bit ott”, but it’s also factually correct that the new head of the Jesuits (a Venezuelan) signed a declaration praising Fidel Castro and his regime.

Here’s a report from a more reputable source:

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/jesuit-superior-general-signed-letter-praising-fidel-castro-in-1989/

Communist or not, it is a worrying endorsement of a brutally anti-Catholic regime. Hopefully he has changed his mind since then.

 

[FollowChrist34]

spectator.org/the-popes-marxist-head-of-the-jesuits/

Thoughts?

A tad sensationalist but all in all closer to true than not. We get into trouble with all the shades of socialism going into Marxism. I think there are very few real die hard official Marxists walking around anymore anywhere, and to allege that there are makes one sound a little out there, but of course there are many ‘open-minded’ compassionate socialist leaning leftists looking out for all of us… And a lot of folks, not just the Pope and the Jesuits, think that is being a really good Catholic. They can claim support in the Bible for these arguments. The rich are supposed to share with the poor. As part of a larger morality it’s fine - does the Church get too into the weeds with ‘social justice’ as a political here and now agenda…I would say yes. I don’t think social justice should be ignored or undermined, but it should just not be the main theme it is undeniably under Pope Francis. Commitment to this alone does not a good Catholic make. I don’t agree that that ‘is what Jesus would do’ as the argument usually runs. Gross oversimplification and twisting of the faith.

 

[Peter_J]

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”

Like LVCIVS DEI said, it is interesting. Although having been an American my whole life and a Republican to boot for all but the last year, it may take me a little while to get used to people speaking in that way.

 

[StudentMI]

Like LVCIVS DEI said, it is interesting. Although having been an American my whole life and a Republican to boot for all but the last year, it may take me a little while to get used to people speaking in that way.

Oh definitely. It’s so culture based, really. I find that in regard to a lot of political terminology. In Europe socialism didn’t come to mean what it did here, so the word means so many different things to different people. I came across a 19th century writer who we would describe now as libertarian, and he argued for free markets but said he was against capitalism, which to him meant what we call state capitalism now. It makes sense when you understand how he meant this but not that, etc. It’s interesting to me.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Or even more so Centesimus annus.

Never heard of that one.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh definitely. It’s so culture based, really. I find that in regard to a lot of political terminology. In Europe socialism didn’t come to mean what it did here, so the word means so many different things to different people. I came across a 19th century writer who we would describe now as libertarian, and he argued for free markets but said he was against capitalism, which to him meant what we call state capitalism now. It makes sense when you understand how he meant this but not that, etc. It’s interesting to me.

As G. K. Chesterton said, too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists but too few capitalists.

 

[mikekle]

Capitalism has been that system of society which has created wealth while socialism has destroyed it.

Everybody should know this.

Capitalism is the legalising on an individual basis and corporate collective of private property and the right to keep the wealth created by that individual or corporation subject to some taxation based on democratic government. People who are good at creating wealth are thus the ones who are deciding where that wealth should be re-invested. This tends to create more wealth.

No power on earth has been so successful in creating wealth and lifting people out of poverty.

Socialism is the ideology that all wealth belongs to the state and it has the right to re-invest it along the lines of socialist ideology. This creates a ruling elite which is corrupt and not involved with the creation of wealth but simply the taking of it. Wealth is thus reinvested by people who are not good at creating wealth and the money tends to be spent on protecting the ruling class elite.

Socialism destroys wealth and no system on earth has been as repressive and authoritarian as socialist regimes.

I would expect the pope, like most people, knows this.

Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins for a reason though.

 

[twf]

Pope Francis has always said Marxism is false. Don’t pin socialism on him, he’s an enemy of socialism.

He isn’t a Marxist, but I think he definitely leans towards democratic socialism. Not all forms of socialism are Marxist.
The Jesuit Superior General on the other hand? While clearly not a pure Marxist, as that would imply atheism as well, he is pretty darn leftist. That’s clear when you read his musings.

 

[twf]

Like LVCIVS DEI said, it is interesting. Although having been an American my whole life and a Republican to boot for all but the last year, it may take me a little while to get used to people speaking in that way.

I don’t understand those (mostly Americans) Catholics who are militantly opposed to all forms of socialism to the point that they claim it is fundamentally contrary to Catholicism. Clearly Popes disagree. Not all socialism is Marxism. Traditionally, according to the mind of the Church prior to very modern times, what was the ideal form of government? Christian monarchy. St. Thomas Aquinas is one authority who taught such. Would not a Christian Prince be obligated to provide for his people? Didn’t pious Catholic lords, throughout history, invite their poor subjects to the manor to enjoy a fine meal on feast days? The Church lauded such generosity… how is that not a form of proto-socialism? The lord takes his portion of the bounty of the land and shares some back…

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t understand those (mostly Americans) Catholics who are militantly opposed to all forms of socialism to the point that they claim it is fundamentally contrary to Catholicism.

Okay but don’t stand too close to me on the forum – I don’t want to get splattered by rotten fruit ricochetting off of you.

 

[ucfengr]

I don’t understand those (mostly Americans) Catholics who are militantly opposed to all forms of socialism to the point that they claim it is fundamentally contrary to Catholicism. Clearly Popes disagree. Not all socialism is Marxism. Traditionally, according to the mind of the Church prior to very modern times, what was the ideal form of government? Christian monarchy. St. Thomas Aquinas is one authority who taught such. Would not a Christian Prince be obligated to provide for his people? Didn’t pious Catholic lords, throughout history, invite their poor subjects to the manor to enjoy a fine meal on feast days? The Church lauded such generosity… how is that not a form of proto-socialism? The lord takes his portion of the bounty of the land and shares some back…

Socialism is a failed system. It’s never worked at creating a prosperous society. Sure, there are some socialist nations that are materially successful, but at what cost? Declining birthrates, non-existent church attendance, a complete inability to defend your country. Based on its fruits, socialism is a rotten tree that should be cut down and consigned to the flames, and given current demographic trends, that is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

 

[StudentMI]

Socialism is a failed system. It’s never worked at creating a prosperous society. Sure, there are some socialist nations that are materially successful, but at what cost? Declining birthrates, non-existent church attendance, a complete inability to defend your country. Based on its fruits, socialism is a rotten tree that should be cut down and consigned to the flames, and given current demographic trends, that is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

Which socialism are we talking about? By the definition most Americans use, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Germany etc are socialist nations and they are extremely successful.

And if we’re talking capitalism, which kind? Benjamin Tucker’s or Milton Friedman’s? Rothbard or Cobden? The kind in Somalia or the US, El Salvador or Spain?

I highly recommend the books Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, and 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, both by a great economist named Ha-Joon Chang. He is pro-capitalism but is great at showing why the common assumptions behind it’s success are mostly false. He is not a socialist by any means.

 

[ucfengr]

Which socialism are we talking about? By the definition most Americans use, Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Germany etc are socialist nations and they are extremely successful.

As I said, they can be materially successfully, but is that all there is to success. None of the nations you mentioned are reproducing. In 50 years what are the chances that Germany will be German in any meaningful way? Or Norway? The only people having babies are the Muslim immigrants, and they’re not likely continue European traditions of religious and sexual tolerance. A successful society continues.

 

[StudentMI]

As I said, they can be materially successfully, but is that all there is to success. None of the nations you mentioned are reproducing. In 50 years what are the chances that Germany will be German in any meaningful way? Or Norway? The only people having babies are the Muslim immigrants, and they’re not likely continue European traditions of religious and sexual tolerance. A successful society continues.

So economic success is necessarily bound to cultural success? Singapore and South Korea aren’t reproducing?

Why can’t economic success and cultural success be tied together? Capitalism as well produces a greedy view of the self and society. Why be tied down with kids when you can have a successful career and a big house and several cars?

Maybe the problem is material abundance. But then, socialism and capitalism can produce that. And do we wanna go down that road?

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I just hate it when the populist political right uses the faith as a stick horse or sanctamonius facade order to get sentiment votes in order to justify their cold hearted measures that contradict the Christian concept of charity.

(Please do NOT reply just PM )

 

[ucfengr]

So economic success is necessarily bound to cultural success? Singapore and South Korea aren’t reproducing?

Why can’t economic success and cultural success be tied together? Capitalism as well produces a greedy view of the self and society. Why be tied down with kids when you can have a successful career and a big house and several cars?

Maybe the problem is material abundance. But then, socialism and capitalism can produce that. And do we wanna go down that road?

No, they’re not. South Korea is in a demographic death spiral and Singapore isn’t much better. Neither are reproducing at anything close to replacement rate. They have shrinking and aging populations. Adult diapers selling better than infant is not the mark of a successful society. The future belongs to the folks who show up. Asia and Europe are making the conscious decision not to have a future.

 

[twf]

No, they’re not. South Korea is in a demographic death spiral and Singapore isn’t much better. Neither are reproducing at anything close to replacement rate. They have shrinking and aging populations. Adult diapers selling better than infant is not the mark of a successful society. The future belongs to the folks who show up. Asia and Europe are making the conscious decision not to have a future.

Very true. Canada’s population is growing only because of immigration. One saving grace is that our immigration is varied - which means a single culture (such as Muslims in your European examples in an earlier post) is not likely to dominate. Varied, smaller groups means they are more likely to adopt the core values of the general population. …in time.

 

[ChaosGamma]

Very true. Canada’s population is growing only because of immigration. One saving grace is that our immigration is varied - which means a single culture (such as Muslims in your European examples in an earlier post) is not likely to dominate. Varied, smaller groups means they are more likely to adopt the core values of the general population. …in time.

Given the core values espoused by our modern secular society… That doesn’t strike me as a good thing. Just more souls lost to materialism and sexual perversion.

 

[twf]

Given the core values espoused by our modern secular society… That doesn’t strike me as a good thing. Just more souls lost to materialism and sexual perversion.

Actually…if the Filipinos (our second biggest immigration group) can influence our culture I would probably be quite happy. Here in Vancouver, they are the lifeblood of the Church…the beating heart. Most parishes are a sea of black hair now . I love leaving the cathedral and seeing the infinite line of Filipinos venerating the consecrated hands of the priests. So much more pious than their white counterparts. There’s one parish in a strong Filipino parish that now has 8 weekend Masses - and even so you have big crowds standing in the back. You have to look really hard to find a white worshiper… we white Canadians have turned our backs on God.