'I'm no Marxist', Pope Francis tells conservative critics

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not sure I understand your point. Let’s start with your original claim. Is your claim that our only obligation to the poor is to pursue our own self interests in the marketplace? If that is not your claim, then tell me what your claim is.

Nope. My main claim was that sacrifice is not essential to giving. I thought that would be obvious but apparently not. I made that point in support of my point that the last couple centuries have witnessed an increase in awareness of the positive sum aspects of human social interaction but that many remain mired in zero-sum worldviews with obvious negative consequences. Now it is certainly true that the marketplace is one of the best means of realizing positive sum social interaction but, as I showed in my book example, it applies as well to philanthropy.

Your claim was that sacrifice somehow made giving more sacred and therefore it is morally inferior to indulge in positive sum giving. If that is your belief then all you need to do is increase your own suffering each time you give (a cat-o-nine-tails ought to do the trick) and you’ll be on your way to heaven in no time.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Nope. My main claim was that sacrifice is not essential to giving. I thought that would be obvious but apparently not.

Obviously, there can be giving that is nonsacrificial, but the relevant question is whether sticking to nonsacrificial giving is sufficient. There is no evidence that we can solve the problems of the poor without sacrificial giving.

I made that point in support of my point that the last couple centuries have witnessed an increase in awareness of the positive sum aspects of human social interaction but that many remain mired in zero-sum worldviews with obvious negative consequences.

Of course, your fatal mistake is that you believe if someone does not believe that the market can solve every problem then they have a zero sum worldview. If the market can solve everything, then how come for profit colleges are at the bottom of the barrel? Foreign students don’t come to the US to go to the University of Phoenix, they come to go to Harvard and the like. You think Havard’s $32 billion endowment came without sacrifice?

Now it is certainly true that the marketplace is one of the best means of realizing positive sum social interaction but, as I showed in my book example, it applies as well to philanthropy.

It can apply, but not that it must apply.

Your claim was that sacrifice somehow made giving more sacred and therefore it is morally inferior to indulge in positive sum giving. If that is your belief then all you need to do is increase your own suffering each time you give (a cat-o-nine-tails ought to do the trick) and you’ll be on your way to heaven in no time.

The rich men in Gospel gave lots without sacrificing much, yet they did not get much praise. Who am I going to believe, you or the Gospel?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Obviously, there can be giving that is nonsacrificial, but the relevant question is whether sticking to nonsacrificial giving is sufficient. There is no evidence that we can solve the problems of the poor without sacrificial giving.

I notice that you like to shift the burden of proof onto others.

My goal was more modest, simply to point out that very little thought has been given to how positive sum economics impacts the morality of giving to the poor. But what is the evidence that sacrificial giving is necessary?

(Hint: you’ll need to show that even people who give something up materially are not being compensated in nonmaterial ways as, for example, in an increase in happiness. Otherwise it’s like buing a ticket to a movie, it’s a purchase of pleasure.)

Of course, your fatal mistake is that you believe if someone does not believe that the market can solve every problem then they have a zero sum worldview. If the market can solve everything, then how come for profit colleges are at the bottom of the barrel? Foreign students don’t come to the US to go to the University of Phoenix, they come to go to Harvard and the like. You think Havard’s $32 billion endowment came without sacrifice?

Funny you should repeat that tired fallacy since I’ve been arguing against it from the start in several threads. Who has claimed that free markets solve everything? Not me. Not anyone I’ve read in these threads or elsewhere.

It can apply, but not that it must apply.

Can is sufficient. You can drive your car safely but it’s up to you.

The rich men in Gospel gave lots without sacrificing much, yet they did not get much praise. Who am I going to believe, you or the Gospel?

Since you have conceded my point that giving without sacrifice is possible I suppose we should now inquire as to why anyone would think it immoral or morally inferior to sacrificial giving.

 

[epan]

Regardless of how it’s interpreted, capitalism works best.

Pope Francis saying it does or doesn’t will not change that.

Problem in the West there are too many liberal politicians who use the force of government to pick and choose winners and losers. :tsktsk:

And yet we know from history that unbridled capitalism is as cruel as any other system. So, if not regulated by government, then how would you regulate it?

If you believe in pure libertarianism, then I would suggest that your point of view is incredibly naïve.

 

[Tsuwano]

The problem that I (and I think many, but I don’t want to claim to speak for others) have with this is that almost without exception the moral analysis is exactly as above: government vs. business (or, alternatively, free market capitalism); If business/free markets can’t do it then government must.

This is idiotic and does not engender trust in the reasoning of clerics on matters of economics and related issues of justice.

Have they heard of the Catholic Church? It’s not a business and it’s not government. How about the family? How about private charity? There is an entire web of institutions, usually called “civil society”, that are neither business nor government that fill a crucial void.

But for some very odd reason they are never considered when the clergy leap from what business cannot do to what government must do.

What’s up with that?!

Of course there is a whole web of organizations which serve to alleviate the suffering of the poor and destitute within society, but providing charity and alleviating suffering is not the same thing as providing and insuring justice in society. Justice must exist at the very foundation of society if it is to permeate the culture. Charity, as beneficial as it is to those in need, does not insure justice on this level. It requires the cooperation of all segments of society, and this includes religion, government, and business. Secondly, I think you are flat out wrong if you believe priests and bishops do not consider these other segments of society when speaking of a just society. How can you honestly say with a straight face that the clergy are not concerned with the role of the family in society? That has been a major theme of bishops for the last ten years. The Church is not antagonistic toward business when it calls for a just society. Neither is it antagonistic toward government. And to focus on the role of business and government is not to ignore the other elements within society which also have a role to play in bringing about justice. There is plenty of material out there written by clerics which provide insights into the roles these other parts of society have to play. Perhaps you have simply ignored it.

 

[One_point]

I notice that you like to shift the burden of proof onto others.

My goal was more modest, simply to point out that very little thought has been given to how positive sum economics impacts the morality of giving to the poor. But what is the evidence that sacrificial giving is necessary?

(Hint: you’ll need to show that even people who give something up materially are not being compensated in nonmaterial ways as, for example, in an increase in happiness. Otherwise it’s like buing a ticket to a movie, it’s a purchase of pleasure.)

Funny you should repeat that tired fallacy since I’ve been arguing against it from the start in several threads. Who has claimed that free markets solve everything? Not me. Not anyone I’ve read in these threads or elsewhere.

Can is sufficient. You can drive your car safely but it’s up to you.

Since you have conceded my point that giving without sacrifice is possible I suppose we should now inquire as to why anyone would think it immoral or morally inferior to sacrificial giving.

sacrifice is self-lessness, self-denial. This us a theme that permeates catholic spiritual teaching for millennia. I’m really shocked that a catholic would challenge it. As the other blogger said, Jesus said that the widow who gave the penny had given more than the rich man who given lots because she gave her whole while he only gave out of his surplus. He did not say that the rich man sinned in giving. He simply said that the widow’s giving was far superior in Gods eyes.

 

[One_point]

I don’t understand what problem there is in the popes words unless one believes in pure libertarianism/capitalism that regards private property as absolute. This is a lie. Private property is an institution that exists to regulate the use of the gifts God has given to mankind among the many members of the human society because we cannot all use or possess all these things at once even though God gave them to human beings. But how can one believe that it is absolute such that it is always unjust for the government to tax society for the benefit of others?

The church teaches that a person can take food that belongs to another if he is dying and has no other choice and that this would not be stealing. If a person can take food from my kitchen and eat it when I said no to him, and for it to be perfectly moral and not theft, it means that that bread is not mine absolutely. It means that the church teaches that there exist circumstances that can give others an equal or greater right to my property than I have even though I bought it with my own money.

So why cannot government tax to provide the best available healthcare to its citizens if it does so without committing injustice in so doing, such as abortions, euthanasia or stem-cell research? How could that be unjust if the Government takes in a way that does not cause you harm or deny you your human rights? For example. If it does not deny you the opportunity for work, business, purchase things you want, obtaining and keeping a family and other happy things of life? I dont see why that should be seen as bad by Catholics. We can reject injustices like abortion but we don’t have to reject governmental efforts to provide basic necessities to others.

Marxism/Communism denied the importance of the individual and was willing to sacrifice persons for the community which it views as the real person with absolute rights while the real human persons were like cogs in a machine without rights. That is why it was evil. It was like a fake worldly “church”, with a collective that is one entity per the ideology like the church, which necessitated an infallible “magisterium” to speak on its behalf. This entity was not made up of individuals with human rights like the church, but mere sums. It was not evil because it sought to care for the community which was a good and holy motive as with all other errors, but because it was based on a false view of the human person that ended up denying humans their personhood and rights and necessitating a totalitarian, worldly, political magisterium unprotected, of course, by the Holy Spirit.

Am I misunderstanding capitalism?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

sacrifice is self-lessness, self-denial. This us a theme that permeates catholic spiritual teaching for millennia. I’m really shocked that a catholic would challenge it. As the other blogger said, Jesus said that the widow who gave the penny had given more than the rich man who given lots because she gave her whole while he only gave out of his surplus. He did not say that the rich man sinned in giving. He simply said that the widow’s giving was far superior in Gods eyes.

The question is whether sacrifice is essential to giving (e.g. to the poor).

Here are some Catholic themes:

1. Work (e.g. performing miracles on sabbath)
2. Taking up one’s cross (e.g. the crucifixion)
3. Asceticism (e.g. wandering the desert)

There is obviously another theme:

1. Helping the poor

As you correctly noted, Jesus did not condemn the rich man but simply praised the widow. This is much less mysterious when you view it in the context of second temple period Judaism; Jesus gave many examples of how the last would be first.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Of course there is a whole web of organizations which serve to alleviate the suffering of the poor and destitute within society, but providing charity and alleviating suffering is not the same thing as providing and insuring justice in society. Justice must exist at the very foundation of society if it is to permeate the culture. Charity, as beneficial as it is to those in need, does not insure justice on this level. It requires the cooperation of all segments of society, and this includes religion, government, and business. Secondly, I think you are flat out wrong if you believe priests and bishops do not consider these other segments of society when speaking of a just society. How can you honestly say with a straight face that the clergy are not concerned with the role of the family in society? That has been a major theme of bishops for the last ten years. The Church is not antagonistic toward business when it calls for a just society. Neither is it antagonistic toward government. And to focus on the role of business and government is not to ignore the other elements within society which also have a role to play in bringing about justice. There is plenty of material out there written by clerics which provide insights into the roles these other parts of society have to play. Perhaps you have simply ignored it.

Before we address the clergy, let’s discuss your own words first. Why did you limit your own gaze to business and government? Why did you overlook the role of family and civil society? Why did you ignore them before I brought the oversight to your attention?

 

[Tsuwano]

Before we address the clergy, let’s discuss your own words first. Why did you limit your own gaze to business and government? Why did you overlook the role of family and civil society? Why did you ignore them before I brought the oversight to your attention?

Because my thinking on the subject was in response to post number 89, which brought up the relationship between business and government in aiding the economy. It was a post which you responded to by describing it as spot on. Don’t you remember? I haven’t overlooked the role of family and other institutions within society. I was responding to a specific post. That post made no mention of the family or civil society. I don’t know why that poster didn’t mention these other aspects of society or why you didn’t mention it to him.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because my thinking on the subject was in response to post number 89, which brought up the relationship between business and government in aiding the economy. It was a post which you responded to by describing it as spot on. Don’t you remember? I haven’t overlooked the role of family and other institutions within society. I was responding to a specific post. That post made no mention of the family or civil society. I don’t know why that poster didn’t mention these other aspects of society or why you didn’t mention it to him.

I do apologize if I mistakenly lumped you in with others and attributed to you something that was more properly attributed to the person to whom you were responding. I have been arguing against that particular line of thinking in several threads since Pope Francis’ exhortation, which I believe also expressed it, at least implicitly.

 

[with_spirit]

Marxism/Communism denied the importance of the individual and was willing to sacrifice persons for the community which it views as the real person with absolute rights while the real human persons were like cogs in a machine without rights. That is why it was evil.

Socialism and Marxism/ Communism is evil because it doesn’t respect private property. According to Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum:
“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.”

 

[One_point]

Socialism and Marxism/ Communism is evil because it doesn’t respect private property.]

According to Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum:
“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.”

That is a highly simplistic conclusion you’ve made there, to reduce the basis of the church’s opposition to communism to a matter of nothing but private property is to read those documents with the bias of the present ideological wars of America.

Popes said more than that in their condemnation of communism, for example:

"The doctrine of modern Communism, which is often concealed under the most seductive trappings, is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. **In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race. **

 

[with_spirit]

That is a highly simplistic conclusion you’ve made there, to reduce the basis of the church’s opposition to communism to a matter of nothing but private property is to read those documents with the bias of the present ideological wars of America.

You’re right: I did simplify and generalize from socialism to Marxism/communism. I agree that communism and some forms of marxism advocate the additional evil of violent revolution. However, you seem to minimize the importance of private property when you talk about the present ideological wars. Continuing on with what Pope Leo XIII wrote in 1891, Rerum Novarum:
Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

1. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation

 

[anthony022071]

What popes and many bishops have accepted (long before John XXIII) is that government does have a role to play in procuring a fair and just society for all citizens.

That’s true,but until the 1960’s the bishops and other leaders in the Church disapproved of the welfare state model of government. Bishop Fulton Sheen frequently spoke against it. I was mistaken about popes John 23 and Pope Paul 6 and John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 - they also were critical of socialism. But John 23 and Benedict 16 (Caritas In Veritate) but still proposed a world political authority to regulate the world economy.

tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/what-the-popes-have-to-say-about-socialism.html

I do not know if the bishops would label it socialism, but I think they would recognize that a just society cannot be brought about without the participation of government on some level.

Many bishops do not call the welfare state “socialism”. They think of it as a means of social justice and care for the common good. With many supporters of the welfare state,socialism is the ideology that dares not reveal its name.

I don’t think it is the intention of business to spread wealth throughout society. The intention, rather, is to accumulate wealth. This is fine to a point, and the point is when the accumulation of wealth leads to injustice in society and the inability of a large number of citizens to rise above poverty despite their strenous efforts to do so. We generally do not trust business to go against its own interests, which, as pointed out, is the accumulation of wealth, and so we tend to expect governments, in a democratic society, to protect the interests of the citizens. That, after all, is a role of government in liberal, democratic societies. It is not the business of business to provide jobs to every person in society, but neither is it in the interest of a just society to ignore those persons who cannot work or cannot find jobs. Neither is it the role of government to allow business interests to utilize the labor of a society without providing justice in the form of just wages, adequate working conditions, and benefits which lead to productive lives for the employees. The Church is right to recognize that both business and government must work together to build a just society. To advocate such a united effort is not to advocate any particular economic system. It is to advocate justice. That is the primary interest of the Church, the Pope and the Bishops. And when business or government fail in attempting to instill justice in society, then the Church should stand as a prophet and condemn those practices which stand in the way of justice. I believe this is what Pope Francis is doing today.

The accumulation of wealth is not only the intrest of businesses,but governments,and people in general. It is not always possible to say that the accumulation of wealth by businesses is keeping people from rising out of poverty. One has to look at what poor people are doing or not doing. In the U.S.,there are many poor people who are not doing anything,or doing little,to rise out of poverty.

The government and businesses never work together and unite to build a just society. There are always few people in government and business who are really concerned about justice and moral obligations to society. And it is not for governments and businesses to build a just society. Only a people that are already just can do that. Societies that have already been built cannot be built again with more justice by the government and businesses. Either the government forces businesses to cooperate out of greed for the profits of businesses,or businesses lobby and curry favor with the government in order to get tax breaks and regulations lifted and corporate welfare and advantages over their competitors. The latter situation is called crony captialism or corporatism.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of the great difficulties of this issue, for Christians, is that the morality of spending and debt has been so thoroughly demagogued that it’s impossible to advocate cuts in government spending without being accused of hatred for the poor and needy. A group calling itself the “Circle of Protection” recently promoted a statement on “Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor.” But we don’t need to protect the programs. We need to protect the poor. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect the poor from the programs. Too many anti-poverty programs are beneficial for the politicians that pass them, and veritable boondoggles for the government bureaucracy that administers them, but they actually serve to rob the poor of their dignity and their initiative, they undermine the family structures that help the poor build prosperous lives, and ultimately mire the poor in poverty for generations. Does anyone actually believe that the welfare state has served the poor well?

patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2011/08/02/whom-would-jesus-indebt/

 

[Darryl1958]

patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2011/08/02/whom-would-jesus-indebt/

Oftentimes Catholics especially consider intentions to be enough. It is the ‘thought that counts’, and as long as the intentions and the heart are pure, then one is doing all one needs to do to be assured that one is on the right path to heaven.

It is becoming rarer and rarer for people with this mindset to ask themselves “but do the intentions actually help anybody?”

Do the programs work as they were intended?
Are the poor really helped?
Are the programs really sustainable?

These are the questions that only conservatives ask these days, and it is really unfortunate.

It is a very fine theology that allows for intentions to be sufficient for our salvation. Once we become less focused on our own salvation though, and more on the actual problems that the poor face, the first question to ask is what is actually helping the poor, and what is just driving their faces further into the mud?

To actually help, charity is not enough. We also have to do some quality control to ensure that the results are consistent with the intentions.

 

[lynnvinc]

Karl Marx himself even said about various strands of what Marxism had become, “If that is Marxism, then I’m not a Marxist.”

We have to understand the times and horrendous working conditions when Marx lived in the 1800s to understand his ideas and theories. It is most certainly the case for true Christians then that correctives were needed.

I personally find a lot of good ideas in Marx’s writings. However, I am NOT a Marxist. Why? Not because I think private property rights trump all else and the rich should be able to own all they can (and harm and destroy all they wish in pursuit of their wealth) at the expense of the poor and suffering, but because I’m not a material, that is economic (part of the social dimension) determinist. I’m not an ideological or ideational determinist either; I don’t think religion is solely to blame for conflicts and terrorism. I think all the aspects and dimensions of our human condition – biological, environmental, psychological, social, cultural (including religious beliefs & values), and spiritual – impact us. The spiritual being mostly beyond our comprehension – but God knows His plans and divine economy; mystics and spiritually wise people can get glimpses of it.

Also I’m most certainly not an atheist like Marx and many other social theorists of his time, tho I do agree that religion is sometimes used for evil purposes and to justify wrong.

Anyway, Jesus lived at a time in which there was neither industrial capitalism nor industrial communism as we know them today. And BTW capitalism has become even worse in some respects from the time of Marx…in the global capitalism context involving harms to the poor & suffering we well-off participate in* (and sometimes suffer from) but are not aware of* or refuse to acknowledge. Pope Francis being pope of the worldwide Catholic Church is more aware these and that is what he is writing against (which sounds like communism to Rush Limbaugh).

What would Jesus say is the right economic structure (WWJSRES)? Perhaps not communism, but certainly not cut-throat, blinded-to-how-we-participate-in-the-harms-and-suffering-of-others type of capitalism either. Jesus’s thinking on this would probably be along the lines of Pope Francis’s thinking…or vice versa

---

*I’ve been somewhat for some time honed into these harms and sufferings (resulting from cut-throat global capitalism) and the dehumanizing effects. Not as much as saintly people are, but a bit. I try to do what I can in my own life to reduce these, but not nearly enough as I could and should.

Our media keep us mostly unaware of these issues. However, I’ve recently come across a great channel Al Jazeera America that makes other media outlets (ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and most certainly Fox, etc) look like tabloids; Fox being heavy on lies and deceit and the others mainly guilty of omissions. I’ve also noticed that many mainstream TV journalists (perhaps those with well formed consciences) have gone over to Al Jazeera. I’d suggest looking at it before knocking it.

I’ve also recently found LINK and FreeSpeechTV (both commercial free) that have for the most part insightful and informative programs and news, but some of their positions (e.g., on homosexuality) are somewhat against Catholic teaching (Catholic teaching of course teaches us to love our gay brethren and treat them kindly and fairly). They all have good things to say about Pope Francis.

Anyway we keep Al Jazeera on as our “background” channel now, and pick and choose what we watch on EWTN, LINK, and FreeSpeechTV. And for entertainment TBS has some great Christian movies, like THE PERFECT STRANGER (see youtube.com/watch?v=XPPwQApwBsA) and old reruns of Bonanza, The Waltons, etc.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Anyway, Jesus lived at a time in which there was neither industrial capitalism nor industrial communism as we know them today. And BTW capitalism has become even worse in some respects from the time of Marx…in the global capitalism context involving harms to the poor & suffering we well-off participate in* (and sometimes suffer from) but are not aware of* or refuse to acknowledge. Pope Francis being pope of the worldwide Catholic Church is more aware these and that is what he is writing against (which sounds like communism to Rush Limbaugh).

From the dawn of man until relatively recently, including of course, the time that Jesus walked the earth, great wealth was primarily a product of conquest and no society had any semblance of meritocracy or class mobility. Further, until the advent of modern industrial capitalism, all but the ultra rich lived pretty miserable lives.

The question is whether Pope Francis is willing to recognize this reality and focus on the new problems that this has created even as it has alleviated old problems.

To pretend that nothing has changed since the time of Jesus is simply foolish and does a diservice to the history of Christianity.

 

[KSU]

The OP can’t be blamed, but, as some already know, this thread is a house built on sand, i.e., Reuters’ original (mis)characterization of what the Holy Father wrote, Rush Limbaugh’s knee-jerk reaction thereto, and Reuters’ and LaStampa’s (mis)characterization of that reaction. It should be a text book study of journalism.

Consider:

1. The Holy Father never used the term “unfettered capitalism”; never even mentioned the word “capitalism”. Reuters did.
2. As has been posted by others in at least one other thread, according to a couple of Argentinean experts who should know, the pope never used the U. S. Democrat’s pejorative, “trickle-down”. In Spanish, the term he used (“derrame”) was the Argentinean “spill over” which the Argentines use to describe their economic horror story over a decade ago. It refers to the dangers of globalization.

3)The term “trickle-down” seems to have been added during the English translation by a translator at the Vatican press office, so one should be very careful and do some basic research before accusing the Holy Father of a political attack on U. S. Conservatives. During the interview Francis gave to the (to be charitable) non-Catholic LaStampa, wherein the term came up again, he was not speaking English, but the press office English translation had already done its global damage. English is pretty much the global language of economics, but it is not the language used by the pope. I can’t be sure, but Francis, not being a politico, more than likely never even heard the English pejorative, “trickle-down.”

4)Contrary to what was written and told to the pope by LaStampa, and later reported by Reuters, no American Conservative called Pope Francis a Marxist. Rush Limbaugh, who was reacting to what Reuters and the Washington Post said that Francis wrote, correctly referred to THAT as pure Marxism. Transcripts are on the Internet. Later, Limbaugh was told he had spoken too soon:
dailyrushbo.com/rush-did-the-worldwide-left-mistranslate-pope-francis-on-capitalism/
‘trickle’ found in these entries
In the English description:
drain away - dribble - leach - seep in
Spanish:
chorrear - goteo - hilo - lágrima - reguero - resbalar