Is there any difference between a Communist and a Leftist?

[Brendan_64]

That’s true, Brendan. However you brought TAXATION into this discussion and that involves government and Sir Winnie’s opinion does apply there.

Now if you and the others would limit the discussion to Church/Christian matters and dwell on tithing, donations and the basic collection plate…then I would not have brought up comments by a wise statesman.

Perhaps then you ought to contact Pope Francis to tell him to stop talking about economic policy, and stop criticising things like trickle-down economics.

How wealth is distributed IS the business of the Church. The Church should no more stay out of that area of politics than it should stay out of the politics of abortion, euthanasia etc. Both impact on the dignity of the human person, and that therefore makes poverty, economics and taxation policy the business of the Church.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Perhaps then you ought to contact Pope Francis to tell him to stop talking about economic policy, and stop criticising things like trickle-down economics.

I would never do that. Pope Francis is MY Pope.

I will leave the criticism up to Rush Limbaugh. He seems to have more effect on the Vatican right now.

How wealth is distributed IS the business of the Church. The Church should no more stay out of that area of politics than it should stay out of the politics of abortion, euthanasia etc. Both impact on the dignity of the human person, and that therefore makes poverty, economics and taxation policy the business of the Church.

I disagree!

How the wealth of the Church is distributed is the business of the Church.

Involving any government in charity or benevolence is like making a pact with the devil.

I have no idea how much of my tax money will actually go to reduce poverty… or support the “politics of abortion, euthanasia etc”. In this country the government’s idea of helping the poor is to keep them in a state of government dependence. I don’t like that.

However, the Church can be trusted to help the poor in a much efficient and honest way.

It is much better to voluntarily donate to the Church or a private charity than to have money taken from you (by force) by a government to be used for “general purposes”.

 

[Brendan_64]

I disagree!

How the wealth of the Church is distributed is the business of the Church…

Everything that impacts on the dignity of the human person IS the business of the Church. The policies of governments relating to taxation, and other issues, have a very direct impact on individuals and their dignity. It is the business of the Church to get involved and speak out on such issues.

Pope Francis certainly doesn’t pull any punches on this in Evangelii Gaudium.
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

This is not about calling individuals to make charitable donations, this is about addressing the structural causes of inequality, how the economic system is set up and how wealth is distributed. This system clearly involves taxation as one of its components.

 

[ishii]

Everything that impacts on the dignity of the human person IS the business of the Church. The policies of governments relating to taxation, and other issues, have a very direct impact on individuals and their dignity. It is the business of the Church to get involved and speak out on such issues.

Pope Francis certainly doesn’t pull any punches on this in Evangelii Gaudium.
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

This is not about calling individuals to make charitable donations, this is about addressing the structural causes of inequality, how the economic system is set up and how wealth is distributed. This system clearly involves taxation as one of its components.

So what is the official Catholic approved tax rate? 50%? 80%? Whatever the "leftists tell us? Also, what specific policy or policies fulfill the “preferential option for the poor”?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Perhaps then you ought to contact Pope Francis to tell him to stop talking about economic policy, and stop criticising things like trickle-down economics.

How wealth is distributed IS the business of the Church.

Two things: One: the Pope did not use the words “trickle down economics.” Two: the economy is not a finite pie to be carved by the elites. Rather it is an expanding pie that benefits all: including those on the bottom part of the ladder. That I how the free market at its best works here in America. Of course the economy stagnates when leftists meddle with it. The best thing for the poor is an an expanding economy and the opportunities therein, rather than the few scraps thrown to them by the left in the form of handouts - done for supposedly good intentions, but with the effect of keeping the poor down.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Perhaps then you ought to contact Pope Francis to tell him to stop talking about economic policy, and stop criticising things like trickle-down economics.

How wealth is distributed IS the business of the Church.

Two things: One: the Pope did not use the words “trickle down economics.” Two: the economy is not a finite pie to be carved by the elites. Rather it is an expanding pie that benefits all: including those on the bottom part of the ladder. That I how the free market at its best works here in America. Of course the economy stagnates when leftists meddle with it. The best thing for the poor is an an expanding economy and the opportunities therein, rather than the few scraps thrown to them by the left in the form of handouts - done for supposedly good intentions, but with the effect of keeping the poor down.

I think some leftists genuinely desire to help the poor. But many like running peoples’ lives and the power that can be had from leftist policies

Ishii

 

[Brendan_64]

Two things: One: the Pope did not use the words “trickle down economics.”

Well you’d better get on to the Vatican straight away and tell them that they are wrong because the official translation of the document on the Vatican website states

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

states.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

Two: the economy is not a finite pie to be carved by the elites. Rather it is an expanding pie that benefits all: including those on the bottom part of the ladder. That I how the free market at its best works here in America. Of course the economy stagnates when leftists meddle with it. The best thing for the poor is an an expanding economy and the opportunities therein, rather than the few scraps thrown to them by the left in the form of handouts - done for supposedly good intentions, but with the effect of keeping the poor down.

Ishii

And of the free market, Pope Francis says,

“Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric.”

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.”

“We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income”

These are all direct quotes from the document. This is what our Pope is telling us.

We may of course choose to close our ears to it because it doesn’t suit our own lifestyle (like many other groups do)…

 

[JB_Dugan]

Everything that impacts on the dignity of the human person IS the business of the Church. The policies of governments relating to taxation, and other issues, have a very direct impact on individuals and their dignity. It is the business of the Church to get involved and speak out on such issues.

Great!! When can we expect the Church to ACT on excessive government taxation?
Perhaps a directive from American Catholic Bishops ORDERING Catholics NOT to pay taxes. That would be nice.

Pope Francis certainly doesn’t pull any punches on this in Evangelii Gaudium.
vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

Wow, that sounds like the root of all evil is “the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and inequality”. And " no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems."

That is pretty heavy stuff, and if true, the only recourse would be an infallible declaration condemning free markets, financial speculation and ordering the creation of all individuals in a perfectly equal state.

The Holy Father could do that…and actually solve the world’s problems and “for that matter, any problems.”

I am all for a problem free, better world…go for it Your Holiness!

This is not about calling individuals to make charitable donations, this is about addressing the structural causes of inequality, how the economic system is set up and how wealth is distributed. This system clearly involves taxation as one of its components.

If this is REMOTELY about helping the poor then charitable donations are the primary source. Involve forced government taxation and you are asking for trouble.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Two things: One: the Pope did not use the words “trickle down economics.” Two: the economy is not a finite pie to be carved by the elites. Rather it is an expanding pie that benefits all: including those on the bottom part of the ladder. That I how the free market at its best works here in America. Of course the economy stagnates when leftists meddle with it. The best thing for the poor is an an expanding economy and the opportunities therein, rather than the few scraps thrown to them by the left in the form of handouts - done for supposedly good intentions, but with the effect of keeping the poor down.

Ishii

Very good

The alternative to “trickle down…” is:

 

[ishii]

Well you’d better get on to the Vatican straight away and tell them that they are wrong because the official translation of the document on the Vatican website states

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

The translation is unfortunate as “trickle down” is a perjorative term that means nothing. The term trickle down better describes leftist, socialistic income redistribution policies which confiscate huge sums of money, but in turn do not do much to help the poor improve their situation. In any case, the Church, the Vatican are experts on the moral responsibilities of Christians operating within a certain economic system - be it free market, socialist, or mixed. Experts on economics they aren’t - which is shown by how they translated the Pope’s words.

“Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric.”

I agree with the Pope unbridled consumerism is bad.

“While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.”

Agree, absolute autonomy of the market place is bad. There needs to be some regulation, but much less than we have now.

“We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income”

Sorry to disappoint you, but the above is not a prescription for socialism, Brendan. Yes, we need more than just economic growth alone - we need sensible education policy, for example: in America the community college system offers a cheap way to learn skills which can command a living wage. The community college system is public. Ww also need a safety net. We need people to have the opportunity to move up so they can participate in the economy - and get more income.

These are all direct quotes from the document. This is what our Pope is telling us.

We may of course choose to close our ears to it because it doesn’t suit our own lifestyle (like many other groups do)…

And some groups choose to twist the Pope’s words into a false endorsement of socialism.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It’s interesting to me to see how a certain brand of liberal economic policy has insinuated itself into American Catholicism and somehow passed itself off as orthodoxy for many years. This piece, “Pope Francis reiterates Catholic condemnation of economic liberalism – and causes heartburn in America,” is an assessment of this problem. The comments on the piece are also lively and worth attention. They include this lovely quotation from Brazilian Archbishop Hélder Câmara: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.”

There has been a lot of talk and worry over the years about “cafeteria Catholicism.” I wonder if, in the coming years, there will not be honest talk and worry about “libertarian Catholicism,” which may perhaps be understood to be a heretofore unrecognized salad bar in the Catholic cafeteria.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[ishii]

Grace & Peace!

It’s interesting to me to see how a certain brand of liberal economic policy has insinuated itself into American Catholicism and somehow passed itself off as orthodoxy for many years. This piece, “Pope Francis reiterates Catholic condemnation of economic liberalism – and causes heartburn in America,” is an assessment of this problem. The comments on the piece are also lively and worth attention. They include this lovely quotation from Brazilian Archbishop Hélder Câmara: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.”

There has been a lot of talk and worry over the years about “cafeteria Catholicism.” I wonder if, in the coming years, there will not be honest talk and worry about “libertarian Catholicism,” which may perhaps be understood to be a heretofore unrecognized salad bar in the Catholic cafeteria.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Please advise what part of Church teaching is the libertarian Catholic violating.

 

[St_Francis]

Why are these discussions always cast in the same socialism/unfettered free market dichotomy?

Just wonderin’…

 

[ishii]

A wise statesman? That is debatable.

How did Britain stack up in terms of a world power after the war, compared to its position before the war? After the war there were only two world powers of any significance, the USA and the USSR. When the fate of Europe was being decided at Potsdam, Churchill spent half the time asleep leaving Truman and Stalin to carve things up in their favour.

He was good at giving rousing speeches during the war years, but after the war ended he couldn’t even lead his own party properly, let alone lead the nation, and he lost the 1945 General Election.

A drunkard, a womaniser, a Prime Minister who neglected his to properly represent his nations interests at Potsdam, and a Prime Minister who failed in his ability to lead his country (or even his party) during peacetime. A charismatic figure? Yes. A man to give rousing speeches? Yes. But a wise statesman? Hardly.

Still, I suppose he looked good with his bow tie and fat cigar. So that’s OK then.

I suggest you read a history book or two: you’re not doing justice at all to Potsdam or Churchill.

The conferences of Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam could be said to chronicle the “evolution” of American attitudes toward the Soviet Union and Stalin. Churchill understood Stalin and the USSR, it was the Americans (FDR) who didn’t get it. FDR referred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe” and believed he could be trusted. At Tehran Churchill remarked to Harold McMillan: " Germany is finished, though it may take some time to clean up the mess. The real problem now is Russia. I can’t get the Americans to see it." At Yalta, FDR blocked Churchill’s attempts to coordinate Anglo & American policy in advance of the conference - and did so in deference to Russia. Clearly, FDR did not understand that Russia and Stalin were enemies. He (FDR) settled for Russian promises of fair elections in Poland but did not support the British demand for international supervision of the elections. In misunderstanding the nature of the Soviets, FDR was carrying on a tradition among the left in the west.

By Potsdam, the issue wasn’t so much a matter of what Churchill did or did not do: it was more a matter of how fast the US military would penetrate Europe. If it moved quickly, it might get to eastern Europe and perhaps spare the occupation of the Soviets. This is what the Brits (and Churchil) wanted, but apparently Eisenhower did not want to risk casualties for “purely political purposes.” It should also be noted that the US commanders did not want to alienate the Russians - they wanted them helping the US invade Japan.

Toward the end of the war, Churchill could be said to have achieved two important things: he convinced the Americans that Stalin and the Russians needed to be opposed. He helped galvanize public opinion in favor of an Anglo-American alliance to achieve this. And he also, as Paul Johnson in Modern Times said: “almost single-handedly kept totalitarianism out of the Mediterranean by his vigorous policy in 1944.” ** He was indeed a wise statesman. **

It should be noted, Brendan, that Churchill was there at the beginning of Potsdam. But was replaced by Clement Atlee after the Labour party won the British elections. I highly doubt he could have had much effect on the map of Europe at that point. Moreover, regarding your complaint about the decline of British power in the aftermath of the war - Britain was nearly bankrupt. The goal of Atlee was “full employment” through welfare and and transition to a peacetime economy - and rebuilding what was destroyed during the war, decolonization abroad. Pretty hard to blame Churchill for the decline of British power after WW2.

I highly recommend Modern Times by Paul Johnson:

amazon.com/Modern-Times-Revised-Edition-Perennial/dp/0060935502

Ishii

 

[Cricket2]

Yes, its unfortunate that the climate in UK has slid to the point where everyone in govt. accepts the killing of the unborn. In America, some of us are trying to avoid that. Most are to be found on the right where there is still a belief that not all rights and authority is bestowed on us from the govt, but given to us from God and are inalienable.

I don’t recall every alleging that I know anything about your voting habits. And its too bad that things have become so bad in the UK that all parties are pro-abortion. That is not the case (yet) in America.

I don’t think its any coincidence that the left, which believes in economic liberalism (the American meaning of liberalism - stronger central govt. and overall “socialistic”) also believes in social liberalism. The leftists in America who happens to agree with the Church on the social issues like abortion and gay marriage are so rare as to be kind of an anomaly. Those who are economic liberals, downplay the importance of traditional institutions and family, Church. For them, the almighty government is our Daddy - there for us all throughout their lives. If this idea confuses you: check out this Obama campaign ad from 2012:

youtube.com/watch?v=ig2KmRI-S4A

Note that not only does the almighty Daddy-government provide for us economically, it also provides free birth control and abortions! Economic liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand, Brendan.

What does preferential option for the poor mean specifically when it comes to American candidates? What does “preferential option for poor” translate to from a policy standpoint? Does it mean " give them handouts" ? A safety net? Be specific and I can answer your question.

I reject your premise that the policies of conservatives “see the economic differences in our society widen.” In fact, the policies of conservatives help those who are lower on the economic ladder have opportunities to move up the ladder. It is the liberal policies that see those down the ladder, stay there.

The notion of “right-wing bad, left-wing good” seems to dominate your thinking, Brendan. So I could, using your own logic, say that you are naïve, infantile and ludicrous.

Let me help you understand American politics, Brendan: (see, I can be rude and condescending too!).

** In America, the battle has not been lost. There is still hope that traditional institutions and respect for life might yet win out against the secular leftist onslaught. I am sorry that in the UK, the secular left has won. But in America, the battle is still on. And we will continue the good fight.

Ishii

Ishii: The battle is being lost in America because of the immaturity to which Brendan speaks. It is being lost to the rich who control our lives by owning most of our resources and their trickle down mentality. It is being lost because of the petty packaging of everything into the liberal left and the self-righteous conservative right.
This country is far from what her founders believed she could be, and it is not just because of the abortion issue or the gay issue. It is most certainly due to those with all the power and money thinking they can help the world by giving everyone else a penny to live on.

 

[TheLastWord]

All communists are leftists but not all leftists are communist. Anarchism is leftist without being communist. Not all socialism is communist either so you can be a leftist socialist without necessarily being communist.

Your question is the same as asking if all right wingers are libertarians.

I guess if all communists are leftist, than by definition all rightist are atheist morons.

 

[Cricket2]

I would never do that. Pope Francis is MY Pope.

I will leave the criticism up to Rush Limbaugh. He seems to have more effect on the Vatican right now.

I disagree!

How the wealth of the Church is distributed is the business of the Church.

Involving any government in charity or benevolence is like making a pact with the devil.

I have no idea how much of my tax money will actually go to reduce poverty… or support the “politics of abortion, euthanasia etc”. In this country the government’s idea of helping the poor is to keep them in a state of government dependence. I don’t like that.

However, the Church can be trusted to help the poor in a much efficient and honest way.

It is much better to voluntarily donate to the Church or a private charity than to have money taken from you (by force) by a government to be used for “general purposes”.

I love my Church and God. However, it is naive to believe she is any better at distributing monies she receives more efficiently than other charities or even the government. For most charities and non-profits, with the exception of a few, the poor only see 2-maybe 5% of received monies. The Church can vastly improve her giving…and I mean vastly.

 

[andrewstx]

Why are these discussions always cast in the same socialism/unfettered free market dichotomy?

Just wonderin’…

Exactly, like there is no middle ground between the two extremes.

 

[JB_Dugan]

I love my Church and God. However, it is naive to believe she is any better at distributing monies she receives more efficiently than other charities or even the government. For most charities and non-profits, with the exception of a few, the poor only see 2-maybe 5% of received monies. The Church can vastly improve her giving…and I mean vastly.

No Cricket, it is not naive at all…it is very reasonable to expect the Church to be the most effective manager of charity distribution.

Any religious organization (and some private charities) are spared the overhead of executive salaries and labor since most all work is done by volunteers. A religious organization can be selective in their service or giving. They can also react quickly rather than wait for a bureaucracy to stall things in order to justify their existence.

A government, on the other hand cannot be selective. It must be broad and that opens up the greatest argument against government distributing charitable goods and services…FRAUD, WASTE and ABUSE. That is rampant in any government welfare program.

I really don’t see any need for the Church to change anything regarding her management of charitable funds…but if you have any suggestions I would love to hear them.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I love my Church and God. However, it is naive to believe she is any better at distributing monies she receives more efficiently than other charities or even the government. For most charities and non-profits, with the exception of a few, the poor only see 2-maybe 5% of received monies. The Church can vastly improve her giving…and I mean vastly.

It depends what you mean by efficiently. Catholic Charities, for instance, has a very high rate of return per dollar spent because its advertising is done for free and it has a wide variety of volunteers. Our local Catholic food pantry is also very efficient, in that it does not advertise, it relies on volunteers, its utilities are paid for by the Church, and it gets its food for cheap using a cooperation of donor and local vendors.

Where it is not efficient is at getting the money where it is most needed. Catholic parishes are all spiritually united, but monetarily they are not so much united. Money does not flow from parish to parish near as much as what people envision. Fifty years ago this was not so much of a problem because of the prevalence of religious orders which have the flexibility to send money and man/nun power where it is needed. This is particularly true in poor areas without a significant Catholic presence. The extreme reduction in the number of the religious has drastically hurt us here as it has in so many other areas.

Further, Catholics donate half as much as their Protestant brethren. Some of this too, I believe is tied to the reduction in the number of the religious. Because the Catholic Church used to (and here I am speaking not from personal knowledge but from putting together things others have said) have a stronger connection between religious orders and individual parishes Catholics would donate both to the church and to charity through the religious orders. With the reduction of the religious orders that second donation to charity largely dried up.

Finally, the Church is not so good at handling fraud. When the religious worked directly with the people they served they were good at it. But when parishes are operating food pantries for entire communities, how are they suppose to know who needs what. I know of one not so poor family who got 2 turkeys from two different churches for thanksgiving and then gave one of them to a family that did not need a free turkey. This case probably did not matter too much, but where there is smoke there is fire.

I think that both government and church charities are needed. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Churches can deal with the whole person both materially and spiritually, but are limited materially and spatially (where they are physically present). Governments can handle fraud better, are more efficient than any charity that advertises, has a presence everywhere (so they can both easier find out what is needed where and have a means to get it there) and has more access to funds. Government’s lack of volunteers can be seen in a positive light. I am not against volunteers. We should be like Paul who volunteered both day and night, but we should also do as Paul says and ‘not muzzle the ox that treads the grain’.