T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
If you ain’t first you’re last: youtu.be/XPFMzskXZvY
- Status
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Maybe, but we know Bush and Santorum, both Catholic, were publicly critical of the pope’s encyclical.
E
estesbob
Guest
Why is that a problem? In fact in his encyclica the Pope called for debate on these issues. And he agreed with Bush that is not the churches place to settle scientific matters.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
As they should be. Anything true found in the document has already been stated by the Church. One must wonder what the purpose is.
Free markets have proven to be the best tool for lifting people out of poverty. But his document completely ignores the empirical evidence. Why?
Z
zz912
Guest
Socialism has been explicitly condemned by the Church as contrary to the Catholic faith.
And Sanders supports many grave, objective evils that a Christian cannot support.
So, no, Sen Sanders is not agreeing with the encyclical.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
National Review gives a good critique. Is the technocracy and consumerism that has enabled countries like India to escape perpetual famine ‘extreme’, or merely adequate?
Noting that free markets are better for the environment is not deifying those markets. It is just noting that the markets are a better technical solution than any other economic system.
Moreover social conservatives certainly do not see the markets as the panacea. Community organizations and churches, all strong families teaching sound values are all required for the markets to work properly.
Markets are not abstract things after all. Markets are people, so markets are only as good as the people that they consist of.
It is not concern for the environment and brother wind and sister earth that is part of the critique on the environment. The critique consists of the simplistic understanding of economics and technology that drive the solutions for so much of the environmental movement.
Noting that free markets are better for the environment is not deifying those markets. It is just noting that the markets are a better technical solution than any other economic system.
Moreover social conservatives certainly do not see the markets as the panacea. Community organizations and churches, all strong families teaching sound values are all required for the markets to work properly.
Markets are not abstract things after all. Markets are people, so markets are only as good as the people that they consist of.
It is not concern for the environment and brother wind and sister earth that is part of the critique on the environment. The critique consists of the simplistic understanding of economics and technology that drive the solutions for so much of the environmental movement.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s passingly interesting to note that purporting that “belief in MMGW” is Catholic doctrine, is actually every bit as heretical as “once saved, always saved.” or “justification by faith alone”.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
While consumerism in and of itself is not a bad thing, at its extreme it can be very bad. Just think of all the jumbo lenders that went belly up during the financial crisis because people decided they just had to have a 3500 square foot house that they could not pay for. That part of the crisis was caused by pure greed because fannie and freddie did not buy those loans, neither were jumbos taken out by poor people.
The market by itself does little to solve the problem of environmental externalities. However, the market does allow incomes to increase and as our incomes go up we demand a cleaner environment. One thing that you often see is environmental regulations are stricter in higher income countries than lower income countries.
E
estesbob
Guest
Especially since the Pope specifically stated in his encyclical that was not the church’s place to settle matters of science. As I said before I am sure those on the left are terribly disappointed that he did not, as they expected, pronounce that Catholics had to accept AGW and any solutions offered to it or suffer a eternal damnation
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There are many Catholics who belong to European socialist parties.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Can a Pope be a socialist?
The linked article says that the following are some of the teachings of Pope Francis:
- Economic inequality is the root cause of all the world’s problems
- ‘New tyranny’ of capitalism concentrates wealth, increases inequality
- Capitalism’s ‘worship of money’ is the new ‘golden calf’ idolatry
- ‘Invisible hand’ of capitalism can’t be trusted, increases inequality
- Capitalism’s ‘trickle-down’ economics is a failed ideology
- Capitalism promotes excessive consumption, undermining society
- Capitalist economics excludes the masses, killing public solutions
- Capitalism sees humans as ‘consumer goods’ to be exploited
- Capitalism’s individualists reject ethics, increasing inequality
- Conservative individualism is undermining the common good.
marketwatch.com/story/thank-god-the-pope-is-an-anticapitalism-socialist-2013-12-11
Also see:
beliefnet.com/columnists/attheintersectionoffaithandculture/2014/04/pope-francis-a-socialist-by-any-other-name.html
marketwatch.com/story/thank-god-the-pope-is-an-anticapitalism-socialist-2013-12-11
americanvision.org/11482/yes-pope-francis-is-a-socialist/
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This needs to be explained more fully. What the catechism actually teaches in paragraph 2425 is this:
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.
You need to read this carefully to see that the Church is not condemning socialism as such. She is condemning the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies that have been associated with socialism in modern times. Therefore the Church would have no problem with a form of socialism that did not embrace these ideologies, which one could argue does describe some socialistic societies today.
Furthermore, if you want to read this as saying the Church condemns socialism in all its forms, you would have to read the next sentence in 2425 as saying the Church condemns capitalism in all its forms too. But of course she does not. The Church only condemns the specific excesses that might occur in some, but not all, capitalistic societies.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The problem isn’t that Bush as a politician supports climate change. It is rather that Bush, a Roman Catholic, publicly criticized both the Pope and his papal encyclical. This is no different than a politician publicly rejecting the teachings of Humanae Vitae. Bush could surely reject “climate change” without reference to a papal encyclical.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I watched members of the clergy criticize Benedict for disregarding the concerns of women and gays - on local TV. Scout’s honor.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A lot of dissent in the Church?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think he responded to a question about the encyclical, didn’t he?
Humanae Vitae was about inherently immoral acts which the Church has always condemned.
Manmade Global Warming is a fact conclusion about which there actually is legitimate debate.
There is no comparison at all between the two.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
There are moral issues cited in the encyclical.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
There are a lot of things that people on these forums might call socialism that the Church in no way condemns. We could go to a single payer government funded healthcare system and the Church would not condemn it. We could implement a cap and trade approach and the Church would not condemn it. We could increase spending on public housing and welfare and the Church would not condemn it. None of these things would necessarily violate Church teaching. We could debate whether they are prudent, but would they be condemned by the Church, no.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
I wouldn’t say that. It was an interview on local TV about what Seattle Catholics felt about Pope Benedict. The gist was they disagreed with him on issues such as women’s role in the Church and gay rights. I of course disagreed with that.
(for whatever reason I apparently didn’t meet the criteria of the program for a “Seattle Catholic”) I watched local clergy and laity do interviews saying the Church needed to go in another direction on these topics. That is all I am saying. (not sure it is the same thing as Bush though; I am a little off topic.) My point is other Popes have been publicly criticized from the other direction if you will.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
- Status