Is Pope qualified to preach economics

[janeway529]

Pope Francis is preaching the Catholic Social Justice teaching of Solidarity. Most right-wing conservatives get all riled up because they focus too much on Subsidiarity, to the detriment of Solidarity. Most left-wing liberals focus too much on Solidarity, forgetting about Subsidiarity. Pope Francis is teaching all of us that you need both Solidarity and Subsidiarity for a good economy, wherein the economy (Greek for ‘order of household’) is for the good of the people, and not the other way around like it currently is. :twocents:

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you everyone - I believe the pope is wildly off base in seeking a government that takes vs a society that gives. All these countries that espouse socialism deal with great levels of poverty. I do believe the pope has excellent qualities in areas unrelated to economics

Did you see the quote that johnmann provided from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891)? The Church recognizes that there are those in each society who are in need, and she calls upon not only “a society that gives”, but also, governments who can protect and care for those who need their assistance.

You can’t lay this at the feet of Pope Francis and claim that he’s “wildly off base”…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thank you everyone - I believe the pope is wildly off base in seeking a government that takes vs a society that gives.

That may be your opinion, but why is your opinion any better or worse than the Pope’s opinion?

 

[rfournier103]

Again and again the Pope preaches and espouses left wing economics, for which I believe he is wildly off base and misinformed.

I don’t feel he is qualified and should stick with core Catholic teaching and principles. Your thoughts

Social justice; charity; and generosity are ALL Catholic teaching and principles, are they not? Perhaps His Holiness is calling for a little humanity from those that have more than they could EVER need/use? Greed is the root of so much evil and despair in the world not just today, but throughout human history.

**Matthew 19:24 **clearly states ~ And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It is not for me to interpret this passage; but for the Church. I do believe that the Church teaches that we ALL have a duty to aid those less fortunate than us REGARDLESS of how they came to be in that circumstance; and those who have more to spare have a greater responsibility.

And where would you draw the line between “economics” and Catholic “social justice?”

Good question. Our Catholic faith should be a part of our entire life, not just one hour per week (mass). “The Church” (the clergy) can’t do everything. Christ calls on us ALL to help the needy in whatever way we can afford.

For example: I don’t know if the Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam is a Christian or not; but according to the Wall Street Journal he received 23.1 million dollars in total compensation in 2011. That’s a lot of money.

What would Jesus say to Mr. McAdam? Would He say; “You earned it. Enjoy it! Go ahead and buy that fourth vacation home in Bora-Bora!”

Or would Jesus say something like; “How about throwing a bone to some hungry people that slept in the subway last night? They might like a hot meal and a new pair of shoes.”

Surely Mr. McAdam can afford to buy a handful of meals and a few pairs of shoes, don’t you think? I’m not saying that he has to give EVERYTHING away, nor would I think Jesus would expect that either. But to completely ignore the plight of the poor, homeless, starving, and the sick is a gross injustice.

When Christ asks him; “You had so much; what did you do with it?” What will McAdam’s answer be?

Remember; this is just an example. I have no idea what Mr. McAdam’s donations to charity are (if any) or what his religious affiliation is (if any). He was just the first rich guy I thought of.

Then Catholic social teaching advocates the use of force. You can’t help the poor with other people’s money unless you first take it away from them.

That is quite a bold statement on your part. You seem to think that nobody would ever use their own money WILLINGLY to help the poor; and that the only way this would work is through the use of force.

Isn’t the Pope calling for us to show a little compassion and generosity? He’s NOT calling for us to take up arms and become a Church full of Robin Hoods - taking other people’s money at gunpoint. That would be ludicrous.

 

[Makavic]

That is quite a bold statement on your part. You seem to think that nobody would ever use their own money WILLINGLY to help the poor; and that the only way this would work is through the use of force.

Isn’t the Pope calling for us to show a little compassion and generosity? He’s NOT calling for us to take up arms and become a Church full of Robin Hoods - taking other people’s money at gunpoint. That would be ludicrous.

It’s not bold at all. It’s simple logic. The Pope is not calling for us to show “…a little compassion and generosity.” Please read his words listed in post #13, wherein he calls specifically for “…redistribution of economic benefits by the State.” He is not asking me to redistribute my own economic benefits. He is asking the State to redistribute my (former) economic benefits. It isn’t volunteering if one hasn’t a choice in the matter.

 

[celestialhost]

It’s not bold at all. It’s simple logic. The Pope is not calling for us to show “…a little compassion and generosity.” Please read his words listed in post #13, wherein he calls specifically for “…redistribution of economic benefits by the State.” He is not asking me to redistribute my own economic benefits. He is asking the State to redistribute my (former) economic benefits. It isn’t volunteering if one hasn’t a choice in the matter.

Economic benefits can be redistributed in many different ways. One would be to use taxation to improve educational opportunities for everybody in society.

Is it wrong for governments to tax people and use that money to invest in public education? Or is that an unjust use of force?

 

[CarmelJerome]

Thank you everyone - I believe the pope is wildly off base in seeking a government that takes vs a society that gives. All these countries that espouse socialism deal with great levels of poverty. I do believe the pope has excellent qualities in areas unrelated to economics

Since a portion of the American church was folded into American conservatism as the movement became defined by William F. Buckley Jr. and his collaborators, a good many Catholics have incorporated fundamentally libertarian and frankly anti-Catholic views into their economic credo. In part, this problem was compounded by the problem of many Catholics focused on social justice divorcing the social magisterium from the magisterium in general. The magisterium is one, and complaining that the pope isn't qualified to teach on the moral dimensions of economics is as bad as saying that he isn't qualified to teach on sexual morality or reproductive ethics.

St. John XXIII and St. John Paul II were, with Pope Emeritus Benedict, very much teaching along the same lines without phrasing it so bluntly; Pope Francis uses much more direct language because there is a terrible hardness of heart and conscience among people professing to be good Catholics while serving only Mammon in the world.

 

[Ken_Miller]

Thanks everyone - a better message by the pope is too espouse giving vs govt taking

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thanks everyone - a better message by the pope is too espouse giving vs govt taking

That is of course, a matter of opinion, if by government taking you mean government programs that benefit the poor. For example, one of the redistributive programs that we use to benefit the poor and the nonpoor are public schools. One can be in favor of public funding of education without having his competence in economics questioned.

The real question is whether it is more efficient to do some things collectively through government or to rely on public charity. There are competent economists who argue for each side, so arguing that the government should play a role in redistributing economic benefits does not make one incompetent in the field of economics.

 

[Makavic]

Economic benefits can be redistributed in many different ways. One would be to use taxation to improve educational opportunities for everybody in society.

Is it wrong for governments to tax people and use that money to invest in public education? Or is that an unjust use of force?

How about using the public purse to fund abortions and contraceptives? You may not think this a legitimate use of funds, but others certainly do. And that’s where this line of thinking fails. Once your money has been confiscated, you lose control over how its spent. If you disagree with how it is being spent you could certainly engage in a tax strike, and then you will indeed meet with a use of force, whether just or unjust depending on your viewpoint.

At it’s most fundamental, this is a question on the purpose of law. Do laws exist to prevent injustice, or to promote justice? If you answered the latter, the conclusion of that endeavor has always been socialism.

The query posed in the original post was valid.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jane, like your comments…we lack unitive leadership to synthesize the two. That is also why we have a 2 party system but it isn’t working.

I really enjoyed studying ‘Centisimus Annos’…where the State exists to serve the people.

 

[sallybutler]

How about using the public purse to fund abortions and contraceptives? You may not think this a legitimate use of funds, but others certainly do. And that’s where this line of thinking fails. Once your money has been confiscated, you lose control over how its spent. If you disagree with how it is being spent you could certainly engage in a tax strike, and then you will indeed meet with a use of force, whether just or unjust depending on your viewpoint.

At it’s most fundamental, this is a question on the purpose of law. Do laws exist to prevent injustice, or to promote justice? If you answered the latter, the conclusion of that endeavor has always been socialism.

The query posed in the original post was valid.

If you truly feel that paying your taxes is a mortal sin because of the contraception issue, you should talk to a priest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

An example where Pope Francis preaches left-wing economics:

“Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

• 09 May 2014 address to the United Nations

“A CONTRIBUTION” and "Legitimate redistribution of benefits’. Gee, that might possibly include things like a living wage. . .which is hardly preaching left-wing economics in my book. Also it helps if you look at the works of John Paul (St) and Benedict to see what they were saying. . .

 

[Makavic]

“A CONTRIBUTION” and "Legitimate redistribution of benefits’. Gee, that might possibly include things like a living wage. . .which is hardly preaching left-wing economics in my book. Also it helps if you look at the works of John Paul (St) and Benedict to see what they were saying. . .

Please describe left-wing economics as defined in your book.

 

[jimmy]

That may be your opinion, but why is your opinion any better or worse than the Pope’s opinion?

I think you are missing the point of the thread. The question is whether a catholic is free to disagree and have a different opinion than the pope. In the context of the thread your question implies that a catholic should just submit to the pope on all matters of opinion, because their opinion is no better than his.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think you are missing the point of the thread. The question is whether a catholic is free to disagree and have a different opinion than the pope. In the context of the thread your question implies that a catholic should just submit to the pope on all matters of opinion, because their opinion is no better than his.

Actually, if you read the first post, it has nothing about whether we are free to disagree with the Pope. The poster said that the Pope should refrain from commenting on economic issues because he thought the pope was not qualified in economics. But of course the posters only proof of the pope’s alleged nonqualification is economics is that the poster disagrees with the pope. And of course, someone is not necessarily wrong because they disagree with me.

Again and again the Pope preaches and espouses left wing economics, for which I believe he is wildly off base and misinformed.

I don’t feel he is qualified and should stick with core catholic teaching and principles. Your thoughts

 

[celestialhost]

How about using the public purse to fund abortions and contraceptives? You may not think this a legitimate use of funds, but others certainly do. And that’s where this line of thinking fails. Once your money has been confiscated, you lose control over how its spent. If you disagree with how it is being spent you could certainly engage in a tax strike, and then you will indeed meet with a use of force, whether just or unjust depending on your viewpoint.

At it’s most fundamental, this is a question on the purpose of law. Do laws exist to prevent injustice, or to promote justice? If you answered the latter, the conclusion of that endeavor has always been socialism.

The query posed in the original post was valid.

Can I assume then you think it is an injustice for the state to use taxation to invest in public education?

 

[Church_Militant]

So then Christ had no right to criticize the rich that did not help the poor? C’mon…

Then too we have the Blessed Virgin who says,

46] And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” (Emphasis mine)

The Church has always called for all people to make “a living wage”, but society doesn’t want to do that because it runs afoul of the economics of supply and demand and making a product as cheaply as possible in order to sell it at the highest possible profit. yet if everyone made a living wage then such profits would be held in check and CoL would remain the same…but no one wants to play by those rules. That’s human society…

 

[celestialhost]

So then Christ had no right to criticize the rich that did not help the poor? C’mon…

Then too we have the Blessed Virgin who says,

46] And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47] and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49] for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50] And his mercy is on those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51] He has shown strength with his arm,
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52] he has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree;
[53] he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent empty away.
54] He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55] as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.” (Emphasis mine)

The Church has always called for all people to make “a living wage”, but society doesn’t want to do that because it runs afoul of the economics of supply and demand and making a product as cheaply as possible in order to sell it at the highest possible profit. yet if everyone made a living wage then such profits would be held in check and CoL would remain the same…but no one wants to play by those rules. That’s human society…

Potentially a mandatory living wage could deter employers from hiring as many employees as they might without such a measure.

However kind and generous, a businessman has to meet his overhead costs. In deciding to take on an extra employee, the extra cost of paying a mandatory living wage could make the difference.

 

[Genesis315]

Economics boils down to relationships and interactions between human beings and societies. Such interactions and relationships necessarily involve notions of rights and duties and of morality. Rights and duties and morality come from God and are rooted in the natural law, and they affect the salvation of man. As such, the Church not only has the right, but the duty to preach on these matters. The Pope, who by divine right and mandate exercises this teaching function of the Church, therefore is also qualified to preach on these matters.