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

[KSU]

One way around this is to offer on only general aims and leave it to the laity to work out the details of implementation, e.g. that the poor must be cared for but not that they must be cared for in some particular way such as welfare programs.

Given Church teaching, I believe that is how section 54 of E G was intended to be read, except that Francis added a little dig at the Argentinean “derrame”/“spillover” economy. However, because, as I said, Francis is neither an economist nor a politician, nor fluent in English, nor very particular about the competency of the Vatican translators, nor a phony diplomat, that’s not the way it came out of the Vatican press office.

We will just have to disagree about that.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Given Church teaching, I believe that is how section 54 of E G was intended to be read, except that Francis added a little dig at the Argentinean “derrame”/“spillover” economy. However, because, as I said, Francis is neither an economist nor a politician, nor fluent in English, nor very particular about the competency of the Vatican translators, nor a phony diplomat, that’s not the way it came out of the Vatican press office.

We will just have to disagree about that.

I wish I were as confident as you that he was commenting narrowly on Argentine economics but I hope we can at least agree that anti-capitalists (and not just marxists) have used his words in their own campaigns for bigger government and he has not corrected them so far. They will accuse you of twisting his words and ignoring their plain meaning.

 

[KSU]

I wish I were as confident as you that he was commenting narrowly on Argentine economics but I hope we can at least agree that anti-capitalists (and not just marxists) have used his words in their own campaigns for bigger government and he has not corrected them so far. They will accuse you of twisting his words and ignoring their plain meaning.

I didn’t mean to imply that Francis in section 54 was commenting only on Argentine economics. I believe his dig however was aimed at the Argentinean model and all other such models which hold the absurd position that free market economic growth BY ITSELF will take care of the poor. I’ll leave it up to Catolico65 and you to identify the countries which use that excuse for not helping them.

Now, if you want to be as confident as I am about what the pope wrote in section 54, you first have to know what Francis actually wrote. Here, for example, is Phil Lawler’s English translation and comments. Lawler BTW is a straight-down-the-middle guy: catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

No honest person who reads what the pope actually wrote can say with a straight face that the pope was describing the American economic system or the magnanimous American efforts, flowing from the benefits of such system, to aid the poor via (a little Spanish and Italian there) government and private means.

And, yes, of course we can agree “that anti-capitalists (and not just Marxists) have used his words in their own campaigns for bigger government.” So will some clergy. President Obama most certainly and shamelessly did.

I don’t agree, however, that he has not corrected them at all, i.e., see his LaStampa interview. Nor should he have to correct them any more specifcally–see his words in the last paragraph of my post#172. He is the Holy Father, God’s representative on earth and fully supports the Compendium. Do you really expect or want him to sink to their level in a public debate on the wonders of Marxism? That’s not his job.

 

[Catolico65]

If so, I have my work cut out for me because few ideas are so thoroughly misunderstood which is ironic given that it supposedly is the dominant economic practice. You yourself have demonstrated great confusion. Contrast the above description of free markets (and taxes and religion) with what you wrote below:

More importantly, if the free market had nothing to do with religion (and taxes) then why would Pope Francis, like so many popes before him, be weighing in on the subject?

A free market system is not a political system but an economic system. I have never presented a free market economy as anything other than it is. See the wiki link which is no different than what I learned in school. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

 

[Catolico65]

I didn’t mean to imply that Francis in section 54 was commenting only on Argentine economics. I believe his dig however was aimed at the Argentinean model and all other such models which hold the absurd position that free market economic growth BY ITSELF will take care of the poor. I’ll leave it up to Catolico65 and you to identify the countries which use that excuse for not helping them.

Now, if you want to be as confident as I am about what the pope wrote in section 54, you first have to know what Francis actually wrote. Here, for example, is Phil Lawler’s English translation and comments. Lawler BTW is a straight-down-the-middle guy: catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

No honest person who reads what the pope actually wrote can say with a straight face that the pope was describing the American economic system or the magnanimous American efforts, flowing from the benefits of such system, to aid the poor via (a little Spanish and Italian there) government and private means.

And, yes, of course we can agree “that anti-capitalists (and not just Marxists) have used his words in their own campaigns for bigger government.” So will some clergy. President Obama most certainly and shamelessly did.

I don’t agree, however, that he has not corrected them at all, i.e., see his LaStampa interview. Nor should he have to correct them any more specifcally–see his words in the last paragraph of my post#172. He is the Holy Father, God’s representative on earth and fully supports the Compendium. Do you really expect or want him to sink to their level in a public debate on the wonders of Marxism? That’s not his job.

Since I am relatively fluent in Spanish I did a quick google search and it is apparent the trickle down effect is the same as “teoria de derrame economico”.

Nonetheless, I now know I have caused some confusion trying to explain the Pope’s point of view. The Pope’s perspective represents I believe the majority of existing governments out there that by far don’t have adequate social services for their constituents.Part of the problem is Americans inherent vanity in that we think everyone is talking about us specifically, as if no one else existed in the world.

Therefore, if one wants to understand where the Pope is coming from from a “Western” perspective one need only to look at the US or Europe at the height of the industrial revolution before the onset of worker’s unions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A free market system is not a political system but an economic system. I have never presented a free market economy as anything other than it is. See the wiki link which is no different than what I learned in school. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

That’s a bit simplistic, but its certainly sufficient to contradict your claim that, “The way free markets work doesn’t have anything to do with religion nor taxes nor social services but only the mechanics of how goods are bought and sold.” Nor can it rescue the contradiction of your own posts as I pointed out previously.

More importantly, it leaves entirely unresolved what is an “economic system”. Communism was an “economic system” that was totalitarian in nature reaching into every nook and crany of life. Free market capitalism is not nearly as ambitious but it is certainly more than merely the mechanics of how goods are bought and sold which is why popes speak about it.

But most importantly, however you wish to define it, you must be consistent in your use of it. If you define free market capitalism to include the institutions that care for the poor then you must acknowledge that free market capitalism cares for the poor. If, for whatever reason, you exclude those institutions from the “economic system” and treat them as external to it then it makes no sense to accuse free market capitalism of not caring for the poor when that is so by definition.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t mean to imply that Francis in section 54 was commenting only on Argentine economics. I believe his dig however was aimed at the Argentinean model and all other such models which hold the absurd position that free market economic growth BY ITSELF will take care of the poor. I’ll leave it up to Catolico65 and you to identify the countries which use that excuse for not helping them.

Now, if you want to be as confident as I am about what the pope wrote in section 54, you first have to know what Francis actually wrote. Here, for example, is Phil Lawler’s English translation and comments. Lawler BTW is a straight-down-the-middle guy: catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

Yes, there was a lot of discussion of this early in these threads and at first I was encouraged by it but now I am not so sure.

No honest person who reads what the pope actually wrote can say with a straight face that the pope was describing the American economic system or the magnanimous American efforts, flowing from the benefits of such system, to aid the poor via (a little Spanish and Italian there) government and private means.

And, yes, of course we can agree “that anti-capitalists (and not just Marxists) have used his words in their own campaigns for bigger government.” So will some clergy. President Obama most certainly and shamelessly did.

I don’t agree, however, that he has not corrected them at all, i.e., see his LaStampa interview. Nor should he have to correct them any more specifcally–see his words in the last paragraph of my post#172. He is the Holy Father, God’s representative on earth and fully supports the Compendium. Do you really expect or want him to sink to their level in a public debate on the wonders of Marxism? That’s not his job.

I did see that and it was certainly a return to the idea of stating aims, not means, but I would not characterize it as a correction of those who had used his words in their own agendas.

Perhaps the best way to answer all of this is to ask what is Pope Francis’ criticism of Argentina? Is he, as Catolico65 suggests, complaining that it does not have enough government welfare for the poor? To my knowledge, nobody is defending the status quo in Argentina but the free market criticism of Argentina is obviously much different. Even if we are merely focusing on the poor, there is a huge difference between saying that the poor are not finding job opportunities and saying that they are not getting handouts from the government.

 

[Catolico65]

That’s a bit simplistic, but its certainly sufficient to contradict your claim that, “The way free markets work doesn’t have anything to do with religion nor taxes nor social services but only the mechanics of how goods are bought and sold.” Nor can it rescue the contradiction of your own posts as I pointed out previously.

More importantly, it leaves entirely unresolved what is an “economic system”. Communism was an “economic system” that was totalitarian in nature reaching into every nook and crany of life. Free market capitalism is not nearly as ambitious but it is certainly more than merely the mechanics of how goods are bought and sold which is why popes speak about it.

But most importantly, however you wish to define it, you must be consistent in your use of it. If you define free market capitalism to include the institutions that care for the poor then you must acknowledge that free market capitalism cares for the poor. If, for whatever reason, you exclude those institutions from the “economic system” and treat them as external to it then it makes no sense to accuse free market capitalism of not caring for the poor when that is so by definition.

With all due respect I haven’t contradicted myself. It appears you are confused about an economic system vs a political system of government. I recommend you do some research on your own.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

With all due respect I haven’t contradicted myself. It appears you are confused about an economic system vs a political system of government. I recommend you do some research on your own.

See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11614600&postcount=176 where I previously layed out your contradiction. I am willing to discuss free market capitalism either way, as exclusive of politics and charitable organizations, or inclusive of them. But what I am unwilling to to do is argue with shifting defintions.

 

[Catolico65]

See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11614600&postcount=176 where I previously layed out your contradiction. I am willing to discuss free market capitalism either way, as exclusive of politics and charitable organizations, or inclusive of them. But what I am unwilling to to do is argue with shifting defintions.

I see no contradiction, nonetheless you have worn me out on this topic. See you in another thread.

 

[KSU]

Since I am relatively fluent in Spanish I did a quick google search and it is apparent the trickle down effect is the same as “teoria de derrame economico”.
Nonetheless, I now know I have caused some confusion trying to explain the Pope’s point of view. The Pope’s perspective represents I believe the majority of existing governments out there that by far don’t have adequate social services for their constituents.Part of the problem is Americans inherent vanity in that we think everyone is talking about us specifically, as if no one else existed in the world.
Therefore, if one wants to understand where the Pope is coming from from a “Western” perspective one need only to look at the US or Europe at the height of the industrial revolution before the onset of worker’s unions.

You say that you did a quick google search and found that “…it is apparent the trickle down effect is the same as ‘teoria de derrame economico’”.

To be exact, the Pope said " las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico." There is no exact Spanish word for “trickle”, and the word “down” is not included in the Pope’s words. So, that leaves the word derrame:

“DERRAME” ENGLISH TRANSLATION
derrame {noun}
derrame {m} (also: fuga, gotera, escape, goteo)
leakage {noun}
derrame {m} (also: consecuencia, efecto, reguero, sobra)
spillover {noun}
derrame {m} (also: desagüe, surtidero, secreción, emanación)
outflow {noun}
derrame {m} (also: reguero, derramamiento, vertido)
spillage {noun}
derrame {m} (also: derramamiento)
shedding {noun}
derrame {m} [med.] (also: efusión )
effusion {noun} [med.]
derrame pericárdico
pericardial effusion​

My friend, with respect to this one narrow issue ,“trickle-down”, it appears you didn’t directly address my point. But, since you did not allege that “derrame” means “trickle-down” in English, you are indirectly admitting that you agree with my point–Francis was mistranslated. In short, he did not use the pejorative “trickle down” which American Socialists and anti-Capitalists use against American Conservatives. The mistaken belief that he did (thanks to the media) in part led to the title of this thread. Francis obviously chose the Argentinean Spanish “spillover.”

What I am saying is that Francis was mistranslated so badly in section 54 (and other sections not directly pertinent here) that the meaning of his section 54 in Spanish was reversed when read in the horribly inaccurate English version. That is a travesty and is part of what has Conservative people like our friend Bubba, and me, understandably upset.

How is it possible that incompetents in a press office are permitted to mislead the English-speaking world about what God’s representative on earth tried to say to them?!

In any event, what I am saying is based on a lot of research. It includes the statements of a priest in Argentina and the opinion of a former translator of Bergoglio’s documents. I also looked at other translations (e.g., jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/ and nationalreview.com/article/365720/agreeing-pope-francis-michael-novak/page/0/2. All of this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads.

So, my friend, I’m not debating whether or not the practical effect of the English “trickle-down” is similar to what has been the effect of, in the Argentinean idiom, “spillover”. That was never the point of debate, and I defer to your expertise in the matter of economic systems in Spanish speaking countries.

Nor have you caused me any confusion trying to explain the Pope’s point of view. I generally agree with you. I hope you agree with me that this entire brouhaha was caused by a mistranslation of what the Pope wrote. The problem I described is based on things other than our inherent American vanity. ( And if you think American vanity is bad, which it is, you have never been to France, and I know you know that the vanity of Spanish speaking people is as bad as ours).

 

[Catolico65]

You say that you did a quick google search and found that “…it is apparent the trickle down effect is the same as ‘teoria de derrame economico’”.

To be exact, the Pope said " las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico." There is no exact Spanish word for “trickle”, and the word “down” is not included in the Pope’s words. So, that leaves the word derrame:

“DERRAME” ENGLISH TRANSLATION
derrame {noun}
derrame {m} (also: fuga, gotera, escape, goteo)
leakage {noun}
derrame {m} (also: consecuencia, efecto, reguero, sobra)
spillover {noun}
derrame {m} (also: desagüe, surtidero, secreción, emanación)
outflow {noun}
derrame {m} (also: reguero, derramamiento, vertido)
spillage {noun}
derrame {m} (also: derramamiento)
shedding {noun}
derrame {m} [med.] (also: efusión )
effusion {noun} [med.]
derrame pericárdico
pericardial effusion​

My friend, with respect to this one narrow issue ,“trickle-down”, it appears you didn’t directly address my point. But, since you did not allege that “derrame” means “trickle-down” in English, you are indirectly admitting that you agree with my point–Francis was mistranslated. In short, he did not use the pejorative “trickle down” which American Socialists and anti-Capitalists use against American Conservatives. The mistaken belief that he did (thanks to the media) in part led to the title of this thread. Francis obviously chose the Argentinean Spanish “spillover.”

What I am saying is that Francis was mistranslated so badly in section 54 (and other sections not directly pertinent here) that the meaning of his section 54 in Spanish was reversed when read in the horribly inaccurate English version. That is a travesty and is part of what has Conservative people like our friend Bubba, and me, understandably upset.

How is it possible that incompetents in a press office are permitted to mislead the English-speaking world about what God’s representative on earth tried to say to them?!

In any event, what I am saying is based on a lot of research. It includes the statements of a priest in Argentina and the opinion of a former translator of Bergoglio’s documents. I also looked at other translations (e.g., jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/ and nationalreview.com/article/365720/agreeing-pope-francis-michael-novak/page/0/2. All of this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads.

So, my friend, I’m not debating whether or not the practical effect of the English “trickle-down” is similar to what has been the effect of, in the Argentinean idiom, “spillover”. That was never the point of debate, and I defer to your expertise in the matter of economic systems in Spanish speaking countries.

Nor have you caused me any confusion trying to explain the Pope’s point of view. I generally agree with you. I hope you agree with me that this entire brouhaha was caused by a mistranslation of what the Pope wrote. The problem I described is based on things other than our inherent American vanity. ( And if you think American vanity is bad, which it is, you have never been to France, and I know you know that the vanity of Spanish speaking people is as bad as ours).

With all due respect my friend not all words translate directly between English and Spanish and vice versa. I did a research of various terms and the trickle down effect is indeed “teoria de derrame” in Argentinian Spanish. Read it for yourself.

mdp.edu.ar/index.php?key=4993

As far as people like Rush making it bigger than it is, I agree, Again, we Americans think everyone is talking about us. the Pope is speaking to the majority of governments that don’t have socials services for these citizens. He is also staunchly against communism and liberation theory. No doubt if I could have a chat with him I expect his preference of a government would be a free market system with socials services and laws to prevent abuse by big businesses and interests. Paz.

 

[anthony022071]

This is not plausible given the Catholic Bishops very clear directive regarding voting in accordance with our beliefs.

I don’t know what this is a response to.

As far as priests voting for social service in LA they do because mostly there are none, as opposed to the US, which we can thank FDR for.

There are hardly any government social services in Los Angeles?

 

[Catolico65]

I don’t know what this is a response to.

I was referring to supporting communism.

There are hardly any government social services in Los Angeles?

Latin America.

 

[anthony022071]

Interestingly, every modern pope, including Pope Francis, has recognized and spoken out on this problem, though it never gets the press that attacks on free markets do.

Even apart from that ignoring of criticism of socialism,many people who support the welfare state model of government would not even recognize the criticisms of it as applying to current governments. People who favor the welfare state do not see current governments as having the bad effects mentioned by the popes. The only flaws in the welfare state that they might acknowledge are lack of efficiency,corruption and the failure to deliver adequate goods and services (which leads to calls for more government help). But they don’t acknowledge the bad effects on morality and freedom and human dignity. They do not question the supposed rightness of the welfare state model. Its just a matter of “getting it right” in practice.

 

[anthony022071]

I was referring to supporting communism.

I didn’t say the bishops support communism. But many of them do support welfare state programs and want to see them increased. In effect,these bishops do support socialism.

Latin America.

Mexico and some south american countries do have socialist-style governments. If the governments implemented welfare programs more extensively,that would have the effect of undoing people’s morality,freedom,dignity,religion and culture even more than has been done.

 

[KSU]

With all due respect my friend not all words translate directly between English and Spanish and vice versa. I did a research of various terms and the trickle down effect is indeed “teoria de derrame” in Argentinian Spanish. Read it for yourself.

mdp.edu.ar/index.php?key=4993

As far as people like Rush making it bigger than it is, I agree, Again, we Americans think everyone is talking about us. the Pope is speaking to the majority of governments that don’t have socials services for these citizens. He is also staunchly against communism and liberation theory. No doubt if I could have a chat with him I expect his preference of a government would be a free market system with socials services and laws to prevent abuse by big businesses and interests. Paz.

I don’t understand why you brought Rush Limbaugh into our narrow point of discussion. It was long ago established in two other threads that Rush (who BTW greatly admires authentic Catholicism) did not disagree with the Pope. Rush rightly disagreed with what the media–specifically Reuters and the Washington Post-- misled people, including Rush, to believe Pope Francis wrote about the American Capitalist system.

When I heard him say that some of what the Pope said was pure Marxism, I was shocked–until I read the horrible English mistranslation by the Vatican press office and the Reuters/Washington Post spin for myself .

As you know, I agree with you that the Pope was not targeting the American economic and welfare systems. Rush however originally was taken in by the media spin which made Francis sound like a Marxist. Again, that has been established in other threads and is not directly related to what you and I have been discussing.

If I am wrong about what you are saying, please correct me, but please first see posts #75 and 78 of forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=831074&page=5 to get just a taste of the Limbaugh matter.

Now, as to your contention that the Pope really used the Leftist pejorative 'trickle-down", I quoted to you a Spanish/English translation of “derrame”, used by the Pope, to show that it does not mean "trickle-down, en.bab.la/dictionary/spanish-english/derrame , but you ignored it. So here are other meanings:

derrame[der-rah’-may]
noun
1.The portion of liquor or seed lost in measuring. (m)
2. Leakage, allowance for accidental loss in liquid measures. (m)
3. Bevel of a wall at a window or door, to facilitate the entrance of light. (m)
4. Declivity. (m)
5. Subdivision of a ravine or valley in narrow outlets. (m)
6.(Mod.) Accumulation of a liquid in a cavity, or its issuing from the body. (m)
Derrame cerebral → brain haemorrhage
Velazquez® Spanish and English

Again, no “trickle down”. Not convinced yet? Look at another translation I found-- Jero from Argentina writes:

Buenas, estoy escribiendo un texto en el que debo traducir lo que llamamos informalmente “teoría del derrame”, que se refiere a la idea de que el bienestar económico de las empresas (supuestamente) beneficia a la población en general (debido al “derrame” de esos beneficios). ENGLISH-- Hi, I’m writing a text in which I translate what we informally call “overflow theory”, which refers to the idea that the economic well-being of the companies (supposedly) benefits to the population in general (due to the “spill” of those benefits). Any idea of how to translate it or paraphrase it? Thanks a lot. en.bab.la/dictionary/spanish-english/derrame

Your only retort thus far has been an article in Spanish from some University in Argentina, to which some one added “Teoría del derrame. (en inglés: Trickle-down effect) Econ.; Des.Ec-soc”. But, here is the same article in English:

QUOTE
What is the theory of the spill?

«Concept assumed by theories of optimistic growth in the decades of the ´50 and ´60, according to which the fruits of growth penetrate the layers more underserved through the market forces, under increased demand for labor and increases in productivity and wages.

«Even when markets were inadequate for these effects, the growth turned out to be the necessary economic basis so that Governments could reduce poverty with measures to correct the distribution of revenue implemented a progressive system of taxation and social benefits for the most disadvantaged», (HEMMER, 1995).

The use of this theory in our country [Argentina]

«The economic strategy of the Decade of the ´90 was framed in the spill ‘theory’, i.e., on the idea that growth would automatically flow from the top of the pyramid social down, without the need for State intervention in favour of a better distribution of income. With a major dose of tragedy, history showed that even retrieved, economic growth does not automatically transformed into social development», (DINATALE, 2004, p.26). END QUOTE

Again, no trickle down. Catolico65, when are you going to agree with me that derrame does not mean trickle-down? spanish.dictionary.com/translation/trickle-down

In the meantime, remember that he who says A must also say B. So, if you believe the Pope said it, tell me why the Pope (who is not just any anti-Marxist) used an English language, Leftist pejorative that would hurt, insult, or disparage the American economic system? Tell me why you believe it when the English translation of his Exhortation, from beginning to end, is filled to derrame with mistranslations.

 

[Catolico65]

Again, no trickle down. Catolico65, when are you going to agree with me that derrame does not mean trickle-down? spanish.dictionary.com/translation/trickle-down

With all due respect I posted a link in Argentinian Spanish. Teoria de derrame us unequivocally trickle down economics, and even says it in English. If you want to continue to try to redefine standard Spanish but I give up trying to convince you. See you guys in another thread.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

I disagree with Francis. Those that choose something bad are therefore not good in themselves. Marxism is pure evil; and it must be run out of towns; stridently.

 

[KSU]

With all due respect I posted a link in Argentinian Spanish. Teoria de derrame is unequivocally trickle down economics, and even says it in English. If you want to continue to try to redefine standard Spanish I give up trying to convince you. See you guys in another thread.

Salud, friend.