Italian writer stirs a hornet’s nest with doubts about Pope Francis

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Chesterton & Daryl are correct in what they say about crony capitalism, etc. However, I would add that without Christian morality /charity a “Capitalist” society becomes immoral, at least in some respects. I think that’s Openmind’s point.

Good point.

However, I think the same could be said for any system.

 

[CarmelJerome]

It seems quite clear if you want universal, socialist control, you have much hope in the Pope.
If you cling to the freedom God has intended for us, you have considerable concern about some of the Pope’s statements, or at least the translations and interpretations, which sadly are often dubious.

Except Francis is not a socialist. He views capitalism in the same way that Chesterton and Belloc did, as another variety of mad materialism in which human beings are treated like expendable items in a corporate.balance sheet.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

The key issue here is that the Church should act as a barometer for moral judgement when it comes to making economic and political systems. Getting drawn into debates of what the most appropriate macro economic system which brings about a “fair and equal society” is a secular debate in my opinion which lends itself to siding with socialism. However I can’t prevent The Holy Father from speaking to media although I would like that to be done with a little more caution.

 

[dmar198]

the Church should act as a barometer for moral judgement when it comes to making economic and political systems.

I think that’s all the pope is doing. For example, in Evangelii Gaudium, it seems to me that his judgments about economic systems are limited to moral problems such as exclusion and debasement of the person. I think his judgment centers on paragraphs 57-58, where he calls upon leaders in business and politics to bring ethics into economics. I don’t see anywhere where he says that capitalism is automatically exclusionary or debasing, do you?

I can’t prevent The Holy Father from speaking to media although I would like that to be done with a little more caution.

I like that he talks to the media because it creates opportunities for evangelization. I don’t think Pope Emeritus Benedict or St. John Paul II were talked about this much in public, and I don’t think I was asked questions about them so often because people know I’m Catholic.

For me, every time the media misunderstands something the pope says, a positive effect is that people start talking about Catholic teaching in social media and in the real world, and as a result they hear and read the contributions of apologists who then explain and defend the Church’s teachings – sometimes people even start reading what the pope actually said in Vatican sources to which they are referred. And I think that’s a good thing that wouldn’t happen as much if the pope didn’t speak so conversationally with the media.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Except Francis is not a socialist. He views capitalism in the same way that Chesterton and Belloc did, as another variety of mad materialism in which human beings are treated like expendable items in a corporate.balance sheet.

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism is a system by which individuals are free to use their time as they choose. Capitalism is a system which says that one man is not the property of another.

Capitalism doesn’t cause people to sin.

 

[dmar198]

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

Capitalism is a system by which individuals are free to use their time as they choose. Capitalism is a system which says that one man is not the property of another.

Capitalism doesn’t cause people to sin.

That’s one definition. Why do you think that definition is better than Chesterton’s?

One reason I doubt the definition you just gave is because distributism also has those characteristics, and yet I don’t think distributism is capitalist. Shouldn’t we aim for definitions that capture one economic system alone?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That’s one definition. Why do you think that definition is better than Chesterton’s?

One reason I doubt the definition you just gave is because distributism also has those characteristics, and yet I don’t think distributism is capitalist. Shouldn’t we aim for definitions that capture one economic system alone?

It is not a matter of aiming for a definition. It is either right or wrong.

Capitalism does not let one man confiscate the work of another man. It is a system of individual liberty.

Any system with state controls involves a degree of coercion.

 

[dmar198]

It is not a matter of aiming for a definition. It is either right or wrong.

Capitalism does not let one man confiscate the work of another man.

Not permitting theft is a good thing, and I think that’s a feature of distributism as well. But when you say it is not a matter of aiming for a definition, I think I must be misunderstanding you. For example, if you don’t define capitalism or reject some definitions, I don’t think you can answer Chesterton’s objections. Chesterton seems to define capitalism as a system where most people work for powerful corporations. I don’t think you can at the same time reject that definition and say that it is not a matter of aiming for a definition. That makes me think I am misunderstanding you. Can you clarify what I’m missing?

And if you don’t mind defending definitions, what makes you think your definition of capitalism is better than Chesterton’s?

Any system with state controls involves a degree of coercion.

From your previous posts, it seems you think State controls are fine as long as they are limited to preventing at least some immoral business practices. Did I understand you correctly?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I think that’s all the pope is doing. For example, in Evangelii Gaudium, it seems to me that his judgments about economic systems are limited to moral problems such as exclusion and debasement of the person. I think his judgment centers on paragraphs 57-58, where he calls upon leaders in business and politics to bring ethics into economics. I don’t see anywhere where he says that capitalism is automatically exclusionary or debasing, do you? I like that he talks to the media because it creates opportunities for evangelization. I don’t think Pope Emeritus Benedict or St. John Paul II were talked about this much in public, and I don’t think I was asked questions about them so often because people know I’m Catholic.

For me, every time the media misunderstands something the pope says, a positive effect is that people start talking about Catholic teaching in social media and in the real world, and as a result they hear and read the contributions of apologists who then explain and defend the Church’s teachings – sometimes people even start reading what the pope actually said in Vatican sources to which they are referred. And I think that’s a good thing that wouldn’t happen as much if the pope didn’t speak so conversationally with the media.

1. Nope and if you read my post you’ll find that I didn’t say that he derided Capitalism. I probably should have included a paragraph to make that clear but I’m clarifying this now. Please read my posts first. Thanks.
2. The media have very possibly distorted practically everything that he’s said - spot on. How is that a good thing? People don’t talk about Catholic teaching (including peope who claim that they’re Catholic) because they didn’t understand it to begin with and that’s the problem. Then the media say something that’s completely incorrect and heretical and ignorant people write “Facebook” posts on their wall talking about how “liberal” the Catholic church is. I’m sorry but to see a distortion of the Blessed Truth as positive is not only ridiculous but problematic and potentially disastrous for the Church.

 

[dmar198]

1. Nope and if you read my post you’ll find that I didn’t say that he derided Capitalism.

Understood.

1. The media have very possibly distorted practically everything that he’s said - spot on. How is that a good thing?

I think it’s a bad thing, I just think there is a positive effect: non-Catholic people post things for discussion on social media about Catholic teaching, and they read the responses, including responses by Catholics who know their faith and can defend it. Additionally, they talk about it conversationally, at work and in other places, and the people they talk to include Catholics who know the faith and can defend it. I think that’s a good thing, even though it comes from the bad thing of the Media misquoting the pope (which he has also complained about).

I’m sorry but to see a distortion of the Blessed Truth as positive is not only ridiculous but problematic and potentially disastrous for the Church.

I don’t think it’s good that the truth gets distorted, I just think that, among the bad results, there is a good result, and the good result may outweigh the bad results.

the media say something that’s completely incorrect and heretical and ignorant people write “Facebook” posts on their wall talking about how “liberal” the Catholic church is.

John Martignoni says that every misconception about the Church is an opportunity. (That doesn’t make misconceptions good.) Whenever someone posts something false about the Church or brings it up in conversation, that means their ears are open at least briefly, and a Catholic can give them some good solid data. I think the media’s frequent distortions of Pope Francis have a result that people start talking about Catholic stuff, and their ears are opened just a little for Catholics to give them good info. And I think that’s a good effect, even though the distortion is bad and has other, bad effects.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Understood. I think it’s a bad thing, I just think there is a positive effect: non-Catholic people post things for discussion on social media about Catholic teaching, and they read the responses, including responses by Catholics who know their faith and can defend it. Additionally, they talk about it conversationally, at work and in other places, and the people they talk to include Catholics who know the faith and can defend it. I think that’s a good thing, even though it comes from the bad thing of the Media misquoting the pope (which he has also complained about). I don’t think it’s good that the truth gets distorted,** I just think that, among the bad results, there is a good result, and the good result may outweigh the bad results.** John Martignoni says that every misconception about the Church is an opportunity. (That doesn’t make misconceptions good.) Whenever someone posts something false about the Church or brings it up in conversation, that means their ears are open at least briefly, and a Catholic can give them some good solid data. I think the media’s frequent distortions of Pope Francis have a result that people start talking about Catholic stuff, and their ears are opened just a little for Catholics to give them good info. And I think that’s a good effect, even though the distortion is bad and has other, bad effects.

There isn’t a good result though! Why do you think Church attendances are plummeting? Do you seriously believe that out of the media distortion people are going to stop watching brain dead TV and come to Mass instead in their thousands?
People see the Pope now as being a great guy who wants to “change things” and make the Church “reformulated” to “move with the times”. That’s down to the media and not the Holy Father. People won’t attempt to take part in rituals demanded by our Lord Jesus Christ which is supported by evidence. Vague unrealistic optimism NEVER helps.
Last week our priest gave a sermon where he said “God doesn’t mind if you miss Mass the odd time. He only cares about how you treat your fellow man”. Utter tosh and beyond pathetic. Attending the Mass is a MUST. Accepting truth is a MUST. Treatment of our fellow man stems from the Ten Commandments and is a MUST. It’s Catholic. It’s Universal and it’s everything. The media is a nothing that’ll fade away to dust along with every other secular fad.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Not permitting theft is a good thing, and I think that’s a feature of distributism as well. But when you say it is not a matter of aiming for a definition, I think I must be misunderstanding you. For example, if you don’t define capitalism or reject some definitions, I don’t think you can answer Chesterton’s objections. Chesterton seems to define capitalism as a system where most people work for powerful corporations. I don’t think you can at the same time reject that definition and say that it is not a matter of aiming for a definition. That makes me think I am misunderstanding you. Can you clarify what I’m missing?

And if you don’t mind defending definitions, what makes you think your definition of capitalism is better than Chesterton’s? From your previous posts, it seems you think State controls are fine as long as they are limited to preventing at least some immoral business practices. Did I understand you correctly?

State controls should protect individuals from thieves and aggressors.

Unleashing the Power of the Human Mind: The Concept of Capitalism

Capitalism is the social system of the Enlightenment, based on a philosophy of reason, egoism, and freedom leading to peace, prosperity & progress.

www.capitalism.org

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.

 

[dmar198]

There isn’t a good result though!

By “that,” what do you mean? I mean faithful Catholics are defending Church teaching and some people are hearing it for the first time. I think that’s a good thing, and I think it’s happening more now than under Pope Benedict, partly as a result of all the reporting about Pope Francis.

Why do you think Church attendances are plummeting?

Probably the same things you blame. The secularists are doing a better job reaching out to people than Catholics are.

Do you seriously believe that out of the media distortion people are going to stop watching brain dead TV and come to Mass instead in their thousands?

No, but I do think that some people will want to talk about Catholic teaching because they heard the media say something liberal about the pope. And I think faithful Catholics will use those opportunities to defend Catholic teaching, and some people will be convinced to give the Church’s teachings a fresh look.

I think the media’s liberalism is central to some peoples’ beliefs about religion, and those people mostly don’t believe in the Catholic Church. But when those people hear something liberal about the pope, I think many of them will bring it up on social media and in conversation. Even though that is a result of media distortion, I think many good Catholics will use that opportunity to plant some seeds. And I think some people will come out back to the Church or give it a fresh look as a result of those faithful Catholics who listened to them and gave them good info.

People see the Pope now as being a great guy who wants to “change things” and make the Church “reformulated” to “move with the times”.

Before, they ignored him and the Church. I prefer a pope who people pay attention to and bring up in conversation to a pope who people ignore. (At least in some ways.) When you first start talking to someone about the pope, they misunderstand him, but at least they’re happy to talk about him. That’s a good thing. People didn’t want to talk about Pope Benedict. They were happy to know less.

That’s down to the media and not the Holy Father. … Vague unrealistic optimism NEVER helps.
Last week our priest gave a sermon where he said “God doesn’t mind if you miss Mass the odd time. He only cares about how you treat your fellow man”. Utter tosh and beyond pathetic. Attending the Mass is a MUST. Accepting truth is a MUST. Treatment of our fellow man stems from the Ten Commandments and is a MUST. It’s Catholic. It’s Universal and it’s everything. The media is a nothing that’ll fade away to dust along with every other secular fad.

I agree with all of that. (Except what the priest said, obviously.)

 

[dmar198]

State controls should protect individuals from thieves and aggressors.

What about sweat shops? Do those count as theft or aggression?

capitalism.org/
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.

I think the government has an important role to play in the economy, including stopping immoral business practices and supporting good economic endeavors.

How would you answer Chesterton’s objection that capitalism results in most people working for powerful corporations? I think it’s better for people to work for themselves. What do you think?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What about sweat shops? Do those count as theft or aggression? I think the government has an important role to play in the economy, including stopping immoral business practices and supporting good economic endeavors.

How would you answer Chesterton’s objection that capitalism results in most people working for powerful corporations? I think it’s better for people to work for themselves. What do you think?

No one is forced to work anywhere in a truly capitalistic economy.

I think people should be able to choose. Do you think the government should decide for them?

 

[Darryl1958]

Chesterton & Daryl are correct in what they say about crony capitalism, etc. However, I would add that without Christian morality /charity a “Capitalist” society becomes immoral, at least in some respects. I think that’s Openmind’s point.

That is to say that morality is exterior to any system. Without Christian morality, socialists systems become immoral too. And the more that secular system overtly reject Christian morality, they all become immoral.

The moral objective of evangelization therefore ought not focus on the system, but on the hearts and minds and souls of individuals, who alone are the genesis of all morality.

Leftist ideologies tend to believe that men are born basically good, and therefore to reform the system it to enable the goodness inherent in man to blossom. Free enterprise developed from societies where the understanding is that men are born sinners. Divisions of powers are therefore built into a free enterprise system to impede any man’s sinful proclivities. Competition is built into the system because the assumption is that men will not do the right thing unless they have to. If someone else is satisfying the desires of the other better than you, there is no profit in it for you. Therefore there is only profit in doing the right thing.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

By “that,” what do you mean?** I mean faithful Catholics are defending Church teaching and some people are hearing it for the first time.** I think that’s a good thing, and I think it’s happening more now than under Pope Benedict, partly as a result of all the reporting about Pope Francis. Probably the same things you blame. The secularists are doing a better job reaching out to people than Catholics are. No, but I do think that some people will want to talk about Catholic teaching because they heard the media say something liberal about the pope. And I think faithful Catholics will use those opportunities to defend Catholic teaching, and some people will be convinced to give the Church’s teachings a fresh look.

I think the media’s liberalism is central to some peoples’ beliefs about religion, and those people mostly don’t believe in the Catholic Church. But when those people hear something liberal about the pope, I think many of them will bring it up on social media and in conversation. Even though that is a result of media distortion,** I think many good Catholics will use that opportunity to plant some seeds. And I think some people will come out back to the Church or give it a fresh look as a result of those faithful Catholics who listened to them and gave them good info. Before, they ignored him and the Church.** I prefer a pope who people pay attention to and bring up in conversation to a pope who people ignore. (At least in some ways.) When you first start talking to someone about the pope, they misunderstand him, but at least they’re happy to talk about him. That’s a good thing. People didn’t want to talk about Pope Benedict. They were happy to know less. I agree with all of that. (Except what the priest said, obviously.)

Do you believe the mainstream media are going to broadcast the Truth for people to understand? That’s ludicrous and it’s never happened before so no, that hasn’t happened and won’t happen.
You “think”? The media strongly implied that the Church was more “accepting” of same sex attraction. Not human beings who happen to have same sex attraction…same sex attraction itself. That’s a fact!

The reason that “secularists” are “reaching out” is that the media want the Church to change Church teaching. They seek to break down moral boundaries particularly around sexuality so when you say “reaching out” can you please provide an example that doesn’t contradict Church teaching?

The media NEVER ignored the Church and if you think that this attempt to change Church teaching is new then you haven’t been paying attention. They’ve taken advantage of a Pope who talks informally and off the record to journalists which isn’t good. I hope you’re not so naive to believe that all of this is new and will result in something positive. The only way to retain the Church is to keep it faithful to the laws commanded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[PTL]

The media NEVER ignored the Church and if you think that this attempt to change Church teaching is new then you haven’t been paying attention. They’ve taken advantage of a Pope who talks informally and off the record to journalists which isn’t good. I hope you’re not so naive to believe that all of this is new and will result in something positive. The only way to retain the Church is to keep it faithful to the laws commanded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are absolutely right. The Church is the last moral defense. If the Church could be evolved to accept sins as normal, then all is finished. That’s why the media - the tool of the devil - constantly pay attention to the Church. The current pope has been popular to the media since day one. He has become more popular since now he is in the process of changing the church doctrine.

We need to pray hard for the next synod. I am afraid the strategy of the devil is to lobby many bishops to acknowledge gay “marriage”, to make it the voice of the “majority” so the pope could announce to “adapt” to the new “need” without looking like betraying the Gospel teaching. This is the plan of the devil and many are helping the devil including many here on the forum. How sad, but no surprise! This is the way the evil works, the devil gets many help from within the Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

You are absolutely right. The Church is the last moral defense. If the Church could be evolved to accept sins as normal, then all is finished. That’s why the media - the tool of the devil - constantly pay attention to the Church. The current pope has been popular to the media since day one. He has become more popular since now he is in the process of changing the church doctrine.

We need to pray hard for the next synod. I am afraid the strategy of the devil is to lobby many bishops to acknowledge gay “marriage”, to make it the voice of the “majority” so the pope could announce to “adapt” to the new “need” without looking like betraying the Gospel teaching. This is the plan of the devil and many are helping the devil including many here on the forum. How sad, but no surprise! This is the way the evil works, the devil gets many help from within the Church.

Whoa! Check out your post #!

 

[LongingSoul]

You are absolutely right. The Church is the last moral defense. If the Church could be evolved to accept sins as normal, then all is finished. That’s why the media - the tool of the devil - constantly pay attention to the Church. The current pope has been popular to the media since day one. He has become more popular since now he is in the process of changing the church doctrine.

We need to pray hard for the next synod. I am afraid the strategy of the devil is to lobby many bishops to acknowledge gay “marriage”, to make it the voice of the “majority” so the pope could announce to “adapt” to the new “need” without looking like betraying the Gospel teaching. This is the plan of the devil and many are helping the devil including many here on the forum. How sad, but no surprise! This is the way the evil works, the devil gets many help from within the Church.

Maybe that’s what the *devil *wants you to think?