T
teeboy
Guest
Q: Is Pride a sin?
A: I believe boasting is a sin.
A: I believe boasting is a sin.
- Status
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I’m doomed…:crying:
S
sallybutler
Guest
And I brought it up because I may have misread something Abu wrote, thinking that he was saying that people and businesses are seperate.
C
clem456
Guest
You must be joking. I own a business. We conduct ourselves morally. Period. Always.
You are confusing morality, consequences, etc…
There is no such compartmentalization of morality in Catholicism.
Morality can never be separated from the individual’s free will.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
STOP…I have heard enough…Get your head back in those books. If you are not working …you have the time.I appreciate that Zolt.
The problem is there are lots of intelligent and talented people out there to compete with. The eternal optimist in me says something will come along, but I’m gutted my aspirations of becoming a lawyer have bit the dust. That said, someone once said to me, ‘Go through the door that is open.’ The next door that opens I’m going through it.
My daughter, who majored in “boys” throughout college, decided to go to law school. I tried to talk her out of it because she was not a really good student and I knew I would be picking up the tab. She went and graduated. But she could not seem to pass the Bar Exam for a license. She has never worked as an attorney, but has gotten some very well paying jobs and promotions that she credits to her “useless degree” as she calls it.
She almost gave up…until I notified her that the Zoltan Cobalt Legal Education Grant would have to be repaid if a degree was not forthcoming.
Don’t give up Murph! :tsktsk:
Well in a True Pure Capitalistic…oh you’ve heard that one before.
I am all for consumer protection as long as it protects consumers. Too often it is used to protect one business from competition.
In New york City, the Public Health Department closes down an average of ten restaurants every day due to health violations. Yet people still get food poisoning from restaurants that have passed their inspections… Could a Public Health Inspector be offered a bribe???
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Yes, I remember. But just a few popes ago the Church was extolling Capitalism.A bit like democracy then?
The Church has recently spoke out of the inequalities and injustices that result from capitalism. We encountered each other on a thread discussing that very topic.
You may use any of my quotes to embellish your essay.
I’m not a libertarian. I consider myself a “hard core” laissez-faire Capitalist. (Radical sounds…well …radical)
But I don’t duck the issue…Zoltan speaks Truth.
A
Abu
Guest
Such continued denial of reality and history is puerile.
- Free enterprise developed with the Catholic monks from the ninth century.
- The Catholic Late Scholastics observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).
- Both St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have affirmed free enterprise and called on people to act morally.
- Adam Smith cannot be used to support free enterprise as encouraged by the popes as in The Spirit of Enterprise, George Gilder…critiques Adam Smith’s ‘concept of the economy as a great invisibly guided “machine” in which capitalists are tools of the “market”.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
by Thomas E. Woods Jr. - published by Regnery Publishing, 2005
A Book Review by Father John McCloskey
“Of course, realizing that modern economics owes much of its basic understanding to Catholic thought can encourage society to pay greater attention to the papal teachings on social justice, ranging over the course of a century from Leo XIII’s *Rerum Novarum *to John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus.”
“This perspective is particularly important given our increasingly rapid transition to a global economy. Woods proceeds to examine the work of the late Scholastics (writing in the 15th and 16th centuries) on inflation, the foreign exchange market, the value of money, just price interest rates, etc. Their thinking on economics was insightful and strikingly modern, especially since they were writing long before the 18th century appearance of the Scottish Enlightenment and Adam Smith.”
First appeared in National Catholic Register, September 11, 2005 issue.
catholicity.com/mccloskey/westernciv.html
Thus is Adam Smiths problem revealed – upon whom some rely so much in their mistaken drive to condemn the reality of free enterprise. To his credit, apart from the reality, clearly shown, that free enterprise is based on the sound moral principles developed through St Augustine, the fruits of the Catholic monastics and the Catholic Late Scholastics, Adam Smith did recognise these values.
“Seventeen years before The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he brilliantly argued that humans are social animals, and that their moral ideas and actions are an inherent aspect of their nature. Smith believed that if people were left free to live their lives as they saw fit but were forbidden to use force or fraud, mankind would naturally form a rich and fulfilling community.”
*The Road To Freedom (How To Win The Fight For Free Enterprise), *Arthur C Brooks, Basic Books, 2012, p 11-12].
The evil of price fixing was recognised by Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. Sálvio M Soares (MetaLibri, 2007), v.1.0s., quoted in The Road To Freedom, Arthur C Brooks, Basic Books, p 120].
It is only the development of the economic laws of cause and effect by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on faith and reason, and from which Adam Smith drew and developed, which enabled the enrichment of untold millions from the poverty before the enterprises that came with the “Industrial Revolution”.
M
minkymurph
Guest
First I would like to say I hope the OP doesn’t think I am derailing the thread talking about this - perhaps it’s indirectly relevant.
I can understand why you would say that Zolt but it’s not that simple. Here it is not a matter of passing the Bar Exam. To become an attorney you first need a law degree. You then need to train at what is called ‘the institute’ for two years. You have attorney’s but here we have barristers and solicitors. Barristers solely represent people in court.
I was one of 500 who sat the ‘institute’ exam last year. I went to a tutor for the exam who is barrister and she told us to throw away the law books because you need to know very little about law for the exam. They give you a narrative and multiple choice questions and they have a negative marking system. The Law society offered 20 places to barristers and the places are allocated to the candidates who score in the top 20 in the exam. I didn’t get in the top 20.
To get in as a solicitor it doesn’t matter as what you score, you need a law firm to take you on as an apprentice and because of the recession, law firms are just not taking on apprentices. The only people who are getting taken on are people whose parents are lawyers. Lots of bright, talented young people are doing what we call ‘conversion’ degrees after their law degree for things like social work and accountancy because they can’t get in. What is a bigger concern for me is I don’t think I will get a 2:1 classification because I was ill in 2nd year and my marks were way down. Law firms won’t look at you unless you have a 2:1 classification. So I feel my 2nd year blew it for me - through no fault of my own.
I would be glad to be offered any job at the moment. I have been more or less guaranteed a job come September in - a call center.
I swore I would never work in call center but it’s a help line that offers financial advice to students and I was head-hunted for it. The door is open Zolt - while to door to being a lawyer is not only firmly closed but guarded by by barking Alsatians foaming at the mouth! Who know? Maybe I could progress to management or their legal department? If all else fails I could go into politics but unfortunately I live in the North of Ireland and DON’T have a prison record which is almost mandatory.
Besides - I could never take the hypocritical oath.
So how do we do that without government legislation?
Probably!
In my town a new coffee house opened and someone - thought to be a rival business - snitched to the cops they were putting shots in their coffee and didn’t have a licence. Get a life!
M
minkymurph
Guest
I have no problem with property rights, free enterprise and trade. No has any issues with the free market aspect of the EU. The big issue is free movement of persons.
I may just do that.You may use any of my quotes to embellish your essay.
We may not agree but I cannot accuse you of ducking issues. I also appreciate the fact you actually bothered to read links I gave you and evaluated them objectively and honestly. There are others who have rejected the information contained in links I gave them as ‘wrong’ without even reading them.
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
Mr. Abu again searches for the needle in the haystack of Papal interpretations of faith, for even a few spare words in favor of free trade and property rights, while being reminded constantly in this thread that free trade is not capitalism:
- Pope Leo XIII’s’ seminal Rerum Novarum of 1891 was addressed to redressing the injustices and miseries brought by capitalism e.g, 'Of primary concern was the need for some amelioration of "The misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class. (This was the reality of Zoltan’s “pure capitalism”.) It supported the rights of labor to form unions, rejected (both) communism and unrestricted capitalism, whilst affirming the right to private property, in the wake of two depressions starting with the Panic of 1879. Read the following summary and tell me again that His Eminence was endorsing the economy of unrestricted free trade, as in 1891 was the norm:
- John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus was literally amplifying an identical call for social justice in the newly capitalist global system, on the 100th year anniversary of Pope Leo’s declaration. Again, one would have to misrepresent His Eminence’s address quite inconsiderately to find that he was endorsing capitalism:
M
minkymurph
Guest
This is another issue I have - ignoring the miseries and injustices that are generated by capitalism. Or worse - justifying it by arguing it’s in everyone’s interests.
I have never heard capitalism is rooted in Catholicism - if that is what is being said.
The only economic system I can think of that was God-ordained was that practiced by the the nation of Israel prior to the institution of the monarchy. I stand to be corrected but I don’t see any endorsement of Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ theory in the OT. I am wrong?
A
Abu
Guest
Nothing against the Catholic Late Scholastics free enterprise – all about the faults of people in using it.
The misrepresentation lies in the refusal to face the facts, obviously either due to incompetence or another agenda, that St John Paul II has thoroughly endorsed free enterprise. One more time – this time pay attention to the facts:
In *Centesimus Annus *#42, 1991, St John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is equally clear and decisive and so precisely reveals the value of free enterprise and the market economy as the value of human dignity against human frailty, in Caritas et Veritate, 2009, #36:
“Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations. Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure state.** It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.**”
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
There is none, correct. I think if the Church could take over world affairs it would not expunge all traces of capitalism, but would definitely perform a top-to-bottom overhaul!
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
John Paul II, 1991, reprising Leo’s encyclical of 1891:
"A new form of property had appeared — capital; and a new form of labour — labour for wages, characterized by high rates of production which lacked due regard for sex, age or family situation, and were determined solely by efficiency, with a view to increasing profits.
In this way labour became a commodity to be freely bought and sold on the market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand, without taking into account the bare minimum required for the support of the individual and his family. Moreover, the worker was not even sure of being able to sell “his own commodity”, continually threatened as he was by unemployment, which, in the absence of any kind of social security, meant the spectre of death by starvation.
The result of this transformation was a society “divided into two classes, separated by a deep chasm”.6 This situation was linked to the marked change taking place in the political order already mentioned. Thus the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote total economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a deliberate lack of any intervention. At the same time, another conception of property and economic life was beginning to appear in an organized and often violent form, one which implied a new political and social structure.
At the height of this clash, when people finally began to realize fully the very grave injustice of social realities in many places and the danger of a revolution fanned by ideals which were then called “socialist”, Pope Leo XIII intervened with a document which dealt in a systematic way with the “condition of the workers”. The Encyclical had been preceded by others devoted to teachings of a political character; still others would appear later.7 Here, particular mention must be made of the Encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, which called attention to the essential bond between human freedom and truth, so that freedom which refused to be bound to the truth would fall into arbitrariness and end up submitting itself to the vilest of passions, to the point of self-destruction. Indeed, what is the origin of all the evils to which Rerum novarum wished to respond, if not a kind of freedom which, in the area of economic and social activity, cuts itself off from the truth about man?" – #4
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
Pope John Paul II, 1991, reprising and affirming Rerum Novarum, 100 years before:
"The “new things” to which the Pope devoted his attention were anything but positive. The first paragraph of the Encyclical describes in strong terms the “new things” (rerum novarum) which gave it its name: “That the spirit of revolutionary change which has long been disturbing the nations of the world should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the related sphere of practical economics is not surprising. Progress in industry, the development of new trades, the changing relationship between employers and workers, the enormous wealth of a few as opposed to the poverty of the many, the increasing self-reliance of the workers and their closer association with each other, as well as a notable decline in morality: all these elements have led to the conflict now taking place.”
The Pope and the Church with him were confronted, as was the civil community, by a society which was torn by a conflict all the more harsh and inhumane because it knew no rule or regulation. It was the conflict between capital and labour, or — as the Encyclical puts it — the worker question. It is precisely about this conflict, in the very pointed terms in which it then appeared, that the Pope did not hesitate to speak.
Here we find the first reflection for our times as suggested by the Encyclical. In the face of a conflict which set man against man, almost as if they were “wolves”, a conflict between the extremes of mere physical survival on the one side and opulence on the other, the Pope did not hesitate to intervene by virtue of his “apostolic office”,9 that is, on the basis of the mission received from Jesus Christ himself to “feed his lambs and tend his sheep” (cf. Jn 21:15-17), and to “bind and loose” on earth for the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 16:19). The Pope’s intention was certainly to restore peace, and the present-day reader cannot fail to note his severe condemnation, in no uncertain terms, of the class struggle.10 However, the Pope was very much aware that peace is built on the foundation of justice: what was essential to the Encyclical was precisely its proclamation of the fundamental conditions for justice in the economic and social situation of the time.
In this way, Pope Leo XIII, in the footsteps of his Predecessors, created a lasting paradigm for the Church. The Church, in fact, has something to say about specific human situations, both individual and communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine for these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze social realities, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved.
In Pope Leo XIII’s time such a concept of the Church’s right and duty was far from being commonly admitted. Indeed, a two-fold approach prevailed: one directed to this world and this life, to which faith ought to remain extraneous; the other directed towards a purely other-worldly salvation, which neither enlightens nor directs existence on earth. The Pope’s approach in publishing Rerum novarum gave the Church “citizenship status” as it were, amid the changing realities of public life, and this standing would be more fully confirmed later on. In effect, to teach and to spread her social doctrine pertains to the Church’s evangelizing mission and is an essential part of the Christian message, since this doctrine points out the direct consequences of that message in the life of society and situates daily work and struggles for justice in the context of bearing witness to Christ the Saviour. This doctrine is likewise a source of unity and peace in dealing with the conflicts which inevitably arise in social and economic life. Thus it is possible to meet these new situations without degrading the human person’s transcendent dignity, either in oneself or in one’s adversaries, and to direct those situations towards just solutions.
Today, at a distance of a hundred years, the validity of this approach affords me the opportunity to contribute to the development of Christian social doctrine. The “new evangelization”, which the modern world urgently needs and which I have emphasized many times, must include among its essential elements a proclamation of the Church’s social doctrine. As in the days of Pope Leo XIII, this doctrine is still suitable for indicating the right way to respond to the great challenges of today, when ideologies are being increasingly discredited. Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the “social question” apart from the Gospel, and that the “new things” can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."-- #5
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
Pope John Paul II, 1991:
"With the intention of shedding light on the conflict which had arisen between capital and labour, Pope Leo XIII affirmed the fundamental rights of workers. Indeed, the key to reading the Encyclical is the dignity of the worker as such, and, for the same reason, the dignity of work, which is defined as follows: “to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and first of all for self-preservation”.12 The Pope describes work as “personal, inasmuch as the energy expended is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, furthermore, was given to him for his advantage”. Work thus belongs to the vocation of every person; indeed, man expresses and fulfills himself by working. At the same time, work has a “social” dimension through its intimate relationship not only to the family, but also to the common good, since “it may truly be said that it is only by the labour of working-men that States grow rich”. These are themes that I have taken up and developed in my Encyclical Laborem exercens.
Another important principle is undoubtedly that of the right to “private property”. The amount of space devoted to this subject in the Encyclical shows the importance attached to it. The Pope is well aware that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal destination of the earth’s goods.
On the other hand, it is certainly true that the type of private property which Leo XIII mainly considers is land ownership. But this does not mean that the reasons adduced to safeguard private property or to affirm the right to possess the things necessary for one’s personal development and the development of one’s family, whatever the concrete form which that right may assume, are not still valid today. This is something which must be affirmed once more in the face of the changes we are witnessing in systems formerly dominated by collective ownership of the means of production, as well as in the face of the increasing instances of poverty or, more precisely, of hindrances to private ownership in many parts of the world, including those where systems predominate which are based on an affirmation of the right to private property. As a result of these changes and of the persistence of poverty, a deeper analysis of the problem is called for, an analysis which will be developed later in this document." – #6
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
John Paul II in 1991, expounding on basic human rights in conjunction with basic human rights (and as opposed to the demands of capitalism):
"In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is the “natural human right” to form private associations. This means above all the right to establish professional associations of employers and workers, or of workers alone.19 Here we find the reason for the Church’s defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the formation of unions “cannot … be prohibited by the State”, because “the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence”.
Together with this right, which — it must be stressed — the Pope explicitly acknowledges as belonging to workers, or, using his own language, to “the working class”, the Encyclical affirms just as clearly the right to the “limitation of working hours”, the right to legitimate rest and the right of children and women to be treated differently with regard to the type and duration of work.
If we keep in mind what history tells us about the practices permitted or at least not excluded by law regarding the way in which workers were employed, without any guarantees as to working hours or the hygienic conditions of the work-place, or even regarding the age and sex of apprentices, we can appreciate the Pope’s severe statement: “It is neither just nor human so to grind men down with excessive labour as to stupefy their minds and wear out their bodies”. And referring to the “contract” aimed at putting into effect “labour relations” of this sort, he affirms with greater precision, that “in all agreements between employers and workers there is always the condition expressed or understood” that proper rest be allowed, proportionate to “the wear and tear of one’s strength”. He then concludes: “To agree in any other sense would be against what is right and just” – #7
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Really? I thought it was:
Step 1. Find something that you do.
Step 2. Find a better way to do it.
I just ran across this fresh new article for work on how work spaces define innovation. I don’t see anything of what you’re describing.
This article also mentions Thomas Edison, the man who failed 1000 times before creating the lightbulb. You know the famous saying right? Would you have considered his 1000 times a huge waste?
P
PeopleB4Things
Guest
That’s true. Most Catholics I know don’t believe that the acquisition of wealth and resources should be at the expense of others. In the US, we are seeing a small group of people acquiring a significant portion of this country’s wealth and resources while the poorest class grows in numbers. In 2010, according a 2013 UCSC report, in terms of total wealth, the top 1% of households held 35% of America’s wealth. In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% held 42%. This disparity, this injustice is of very great concern for American Catholics.
T
ThomasJMullally
Guest
Sure, dangle the lottery-odds prospect of vast success. This ambition is what is destroying the world. And Edison was an SOB…
.- Status