Pope a Marxist?

[Abu]

From Caritas in Veritate we see the core of the Pope Emeritus Benedict’s meaning to spread wealth: it is through training, entrepreneurship, work and supplying, at competitive prices through trade, what others need in other countries.

Just as Christ’s Parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the Parable of the Dishonest Steward – the steward is dishonest, “but the nature of his work is not. In fact by praising his shrewdness, Christ admires his opportunism. While the steward abuses the trust his master extends to him, it must be recognised that the nature of the work that is entrusted to him is fundamentally good. The sin of the steward is his misuse of his master’s business, not the work of business itself.” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 47].

1. “There is the emphasis on the ‘talent’, which is a measure of value.
2. “The trading activity of the two stewards is important. Christ praises them for the energy, alertness, and perseverance they demonstrate in making a truly significant profit (they have doubled the original sum). There is a reference to accountability which is crucial to any business.
3. “Then the nuanced criticism of fear: ‘I was afraid, and I went off and hid your talent in the ground.’ This fear leads the lazy steward to avoid the risks and obstacles that are a key part of entrepreneurial work.
4. “There is the clear reference to the financial system. The lazy steward at least could have placed the ‘money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.’ ”

“We can thus affirm unambiguously that Jesus Christ ‘looks with love on upon human work’ and that the work of the merchant – the businessman or the entrepreneur – is one of the ‘different forms’ of work that is affirmed. The parable of the talents makes this clear by its reference to money, trading, risk taking and banking.”
Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 48-49].

It is precisely because Jesus warns, through His Church’s teaching, that the principle of subsidiarity is vital, that real Catholics insist on that principle. The state of societies in general has been greatly weakened through governments intervening in spheres and to extents, regardless of such principles, and clearly enunciated by the acknowledged Saint John Paul II, which is why needed aid must be provided by communities so established and not supplanted by the State.

Nowhere does Christ require mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

 

[BBGE]

It is the solemn duty of every priest of the Christ to pass on our Lord’s teaching with both charity and clarity. From the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis has failed to teach with clarity on many issues, leaving many of his comments open to diverse interpretations. This has lead to considerable controversy on several issues and caused serious consternation among many Catholics worldwide. Damage control seems to be the order of the day far too often when he speaks publically. On this most recent issue of the redistribution of wealth, he has spoken with greater clarity than usual, though he has still left a muddy mess in his path; and some have been left scratching their heads over whether he has charity for all or only for the poor.

Pope Francis very clearly directs the nations of the world to redistribute wealth from their rich to their poor in a program of equity and the United Nations to use its influence and authority to coerce resistant member nations to comply with such a program. Thus, he has clearly advocated for institutionalized theft, for the right of the state over the right of the wealthy individual to the fruits of his labor. Indeed, he has denied the right of any wealthy individual to retain personal wealth legally gained through his own industry or gifted to him by a family member and the capricious distribution by the state of the fruits of such an individual’s labor to those who have done nothing to earn them. Whether his supporters like it or not, this is very clearly a Marxist principle and scheme and exactly what many of us feared would be the case when we learned that a Bishop of Rome was selected from South America—the land of Marxist liberation theology. What this is not, is teaching in the tradition of the Christ.

The virtue of justice is only a virtue if justice is extended to all persons: rich, poor and otherwise. Depriving one of the fruits of his labor without cause to arbitrarily distribute them to another who has no right to them is theft, pure and simple, and a clear violation of the Seventh Commandment. As we have seen when this principle has been applied in such nations as the Soviet Union and Communist China, it is but a pernicious and insidious attack on the virtues of charity and justice toward all. Pope Francis might do well to remember that and to advocate rather for virtue than for sin. He is, after all, the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of Robin Hood.

In these days, where it is quite popular to hate the rich, it may surprise some to read that Christ loves the rich every bit as much as he loves the poor, that, indeed, he loves everyone equally, that is to say, that he loves everyone to the fullest extent that each can be loved. Jesus was, of course, well aware of the dangers of temporal wealth, that its seeming security and consuming nature can blind one to his existential dependence upon God and into a kind of spiritual complacency or apathy. His counsels to the rich were so directed as to draw them away from these perils and unto himself. But nowhere does one find him teaching the world that it is either charitable or just to steal from one person to give to another, regardless of the financial status of either; for he is, after all, God, the same God who gave us the Ten Commandments and who declared, “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17-18).”

The Vicar of Christ really ought to be teaching in the tradition of the Christ; that is to say, he ought to be teaching as Christ did, not as God, of course, but as a spiritual director of all men for all time. Jesus taught the principles of salvation and a way of living in which each and every man could attain to a purposeful end with God in heaven. He taught such that every individual in every time could approach this end without fail, and he left their liberty intact, he left them to follow or not follow as they willed. He did not speak to nations, but to men. In this tradition, Pope Francis might have addressed the issue of what he apparently sees as mass inequity in the possession of temporal goods by urging all men to use this world’s goods as justly, charitably and generously as possible and in a manner that serves to help them toward their supernatural end, which is God in his heaven, and that allows them the freedom God does in making their own choices. But, unfortunately, Pope Francis seems to be more interested in acting as a Head of State and soliciting the government officials of nations to tyrannically enact the Marxist principle of wealth confiscation and redistribution against the freedom of their citizens. I suppose it is hardly surprising that he has chosen as his partner in this endeavor one of the most vile and corrupt organizations in the history of man—the United Nations. After all, who else would be as eager as they in embarking on the tyrannical and unethical?

I am old enough and enough of a student of history to remember when the Church was the most ardent foe of communism and its associated evils. I am saddened in the extreme to see that this pope has decided we should all now be comrades.

 

[openmind77]

…
Francis’ tweets and off the cuff comments come out of this Latin American experience. . . true economies of exclusion.

Are you saying he is not smart enough to understand the rest of the world? Especially the US - the richest country on earth, where so many are hungry, lack jobs and adequate healthcare? Is this the economy of inclusion, perhaps?

 

[openmind77]

…
Nowhere does Christ require mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

Sure Jesus does not ‘require’ giving up your possessions. But what exactly is he trying to say here?

Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.

Mathew 19:23 Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven

Maybe its his parochial middle-eastern background? Maybe he was not exposed yet to our modern superior capitalism?

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #82
Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.
Mathew 19:23 Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven
Maybe its his parochial middle-eastern background? Maybe he was not exposed yet to our modern superior capitalism?

That comment shows the failure to understand Christ’s teaching on wealth and property – a sign of a closed mind, because we have seen already in post #80 that just as Christ’s Parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the Parable of the Dishonest Steward.

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.

“As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): ‘you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.’ " Dr Chafuen notes that "many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them." Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

 

[openmind77]

That comment shows the failure to understand Christ’s teaching on wealth and property – a sign of a closed mind, because we have seen already in post #80 that just as Christ’s Parable of the Talents most strikingly acknowledges Christ’s respect for the work of business, so does the Parable of the Dishonest Steward.

In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.

“As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): ‘you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.’ " Dr Chafuen notes that "many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them." Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

I am not interested in Chafuen’s interpretation of Jesus’s words. The Christ’s words speak for themselves.

Nobody is disrespecting business or hard work or owning property. There is nothing wrong in possessions. However, complaining about giving food or healthcare to the poor (through whatever agency necessary) while having millions yourself is not part of Jesus’s teaching.

The point is that if there are people hungry anywhere, they need to be provided food **now **. Anybody who stands in the way of something that is trying to provide the help, just for ideological reasons, is not doing the Christ’s work.

The Pope does not care whether the government does it or some private person does it, but it is a fact that there are people in the world (including the US) that need help now, and if the only way to make sure that they are helped is through the government, then so be it.

 

[Abu]

openmind77 #84
I am not interested Chafuen’s interpretation of Jesus’s words. The Christ’s words speak for themselves.

The fact that Christ’s words are misunderstood, accompanied by (Edited) they “speak for themselves”, shows the confusion over Christ’s teaching and the inability to follow Him when He clearly encourages wealth production. Wealth cannot be distributed until it is produced.

The Pope does not care whether the government does it or some private person does il, but it is a fact that there are people in the world (including the US) that need help now, and if the only way to make sure that they are helped is through the government, then so be it.

Nowhere has Pope Francis challenged the truth of St Paul: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (See 2 Thess 3:6-15).

Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

Catholic Social Teachings condemn the Welfare State. From *Centesimus Annus *, 48, Pope St John Paul II, 1991:
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” [My emphasis].

The revered Fr James V. Schall, S.J. looks at poverty.
Extract:
‘Whenever someone, religious or secular, tells us that he wants to “identify” with the poor, especially someone who has little clue about the causes of wealth and poverty, we can suspect that the poor are being used as a cloak to justify a political or personal agenda that needs careful examination.

‘In the course of history, two kinds of poverty, as it were, have been distinguished. In part, this distinction had to with the meaning of what we now call works of “charity.” That is, some people are poor because of natural or accidental defects in intelligence or health, whereby it was impossible for them to care for themselves and their own interests. Someone else had to care for them at least in part. This group was really what Aristotle meant by “slaves,” people by nature or accident who were unable to care for themselves.

‘The other group contained those who could care for themselves if they had an opportunity to do so. Ideally, they would be able to get themselves out of poverty if they lived in a place or in a system that allowed or encouraged them to do so. Not every economic or political system can or will do this.

‘Much of world poverty has in fact been reduced or alleviated, as a recent essay in *The Economist *has shown. Christians often seem not to know that this change has happened or why it happened.’
tinyurl.com/ldjt6go

Emphatically, then, Pope Francis is no Marxist.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Are you saying he is not smart enough to understand the rest of the world? Especially the US - the richest country on earth, where so many are hungry, lack jobs and adequate healthcare? Is this the economy of inclusion, perhaps?

Are you saying he wouldn’t have a special love and concern for his own cultural world that is every bit as bad as I described, if not worse? But it was OK when JP II cared about Poland?

Do you really think the poor or “poor” in the US have it as all bad as poor in Argentina like in Concordia or the shanty towns in Rio or Haiti? Do you seriously think there is just as much chance for upward mobility in South American countries as in the USA?

Or does it just tick you off that I said–accurately, by the way–that Francis stands by Catholic Social teaching which rejects collectivism, class warfare, and dependency on government entitlements, and encourages individual and collective initiative, private ownership of property and the means of production, entrepreneurial ability, education, competition, legitimate profit, and regulated capitalism (i.e., government ensuring a level playing field)?

 

[pristine2]

No need to condescend.
I personally think that everyone should pay tax at the same rate.

Mr. Obama abhors private sector economy. And he loves for people to blame the “rich”.

I also do not subscribe to the notion that corporations are inherently evil.

I’m with you on the flat tax. And I didn’t vote for Obama. But it really isn’t true to say he “abhors” the private sector economy – at least the corporate side of it. He’s actually very fond of corporations, interacts easily with them, and has greatly accelerated the wholesale adoption of the Bush-era “outsourcing” model, by which government money is channeled through large corporate entities and cartels. Obamacare is an excellent case in point.

All that govt spending – and it is deficit spending – is toxic on many levels. It distorts prices and extinguishes competition.

Despite their spats and spectacles, the neo-liberals and neo-conservatives share a common approach to modern governance. Instead of cutting federal spending, they outsource it, often at much higher cost. Everything from government scientific research to welfare entitlements are now administered by corporations, not the government. Only the largest corporations have the resources to comply with the complexity imposed by the bureaucratic paymaster, snuffing out competition and breeding cartels. Those select few end up wielding enormous influence over all spheres of life. They enjoy guaranteed, government mandated profits. They can often escape taxation entirely. Their interests trump the national interest.

There’s a term for this: corporate oligarchy.

Corporations are inherently evil, and inherently good. Imminently capable of both. In fact, the more of them, the better. When many people and businesses are engaged in competition, the result is lower prices, consistent innovation and general prosperity. Within our own borders, government should regulate, and tax, the private sectors as lightly as possible.

It’s when corporations are larger, fewer and more powerful that injustice soon follows. Cronyism and corruption appear. Public policy aims are vetoed by minority interests. Fewer people can participate in the economy. The free market withers. Prosperity declines.

There is a grand difference between free enterprise and corporate rule. The threat to liberty is greatest when Big Government converges, or colludes, with Big Business.

 

[Indy2003]

Marxist and Socialist philosophies differ only as to who controls the means of production, not their ends. The Catholic Church in the U.S. long ago abdicated its responsibilities to caring for the poor. Witness Social Security and the 16th Amendment. The Church has relied on government largesse to supply those needs. It accepted its tax status and is constantly fearful of expressing itself for fear of losing that status. “Legal redistribution of wealth” is an oxymoron. This country was founded on the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. It is not the function of government to redistribute wealth. Caring for ourselves, as well as our families and our community is our responsibility. We provide support to the Church through donations and ministries. In that way ]WE decide where money is redistributed, not the government. I don’t know if the Pope is uttering a “Marist” philosophy, but his statements need a lot of clarity.

Individuals will be judged on the last day, not any government…

 

[ericc]

I’ve really been trying to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt on his statements seemingly promoting the socialist philosophy of the need for the forced redistribution of wealth and his attacks on capitalism. His remarks to the UN indicating that governments need to redistribute wealth (money they get from taxation) appear to be very Marxist in nature to me. This is basically forcibly taking from some through taxation and giving to others. I always thought the Church promoted giving but not forced giving.

So, is the Pope promoting Marxist economic ideology or am I missing something?

Thanks!

There is no one country that operates on 100% free enterprise and likewise no country that operates on 0% free enterprise. Most countries operate with some level of socialistic policies. Taxation is a legitimate way for a government to finance its policies. The voters have empowered the government to tax. (Dictatorships are not in my list) The redistribution of wealth depends on the policies of the government. If the government provides funding for welfare, that is a socialistic program. If the government provides subsidies/tax breaks for a certain group of people, that’s social policy too. Or if the government were to bail out certain companies in the interests of employment of the people, that is socialistic in nature too. Of course Wall Street would like them to go bust so that they can come in later to pick up the pieces for a song but that’s another story. Didn’t you hear the politicians/entrepreneurs supporters objecting to government interference in the market place?

Did the Pope says to use coercive force to redistribute wealth? If he did, then he is promoting stealing/robbery which is against the 10 commandments. If you said he did but he didn’t, then you are breaking the commandment of bearing false witness or almost on the verge of it… Perhaps a more careful reading of his thinking reveals that he is asking governments no more than to be more mindful of the social needs of the people and therefore set aside resources accordingly. Taxation is one way, reducing costs of basic needs is another plus a million other ways.

There is nothing wrong with having socialistic policies or programs. But there could be many many things wrong with HOW to to it. I don’t see the Pope advocating sinful ways of achieving those policies.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . .
Did the Pope says to use coercive force to redistribute wealth? If he did, then he is promoting stealing/robbery which is against the 10 commandments. If you said he did but he didn’t, then you are breaking the commandment of bearing false witness or almost on the verge of it… Perhaps a more careful reading of his thinking reveals that he is asking governments no more than to be more mindful of the social needs of the people and therefore set aside resources accordingly. Taxation is one way, reducing costs of basic needs is another plus a million other ways.
. . . .

I would argue that what seems to elude many Catholics in the equality of outcome (forced redistribution . . . by excessive taxation, for example) versus equality of opportunity debate is that greater equality is the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church. This is the “legitimate redistribution” Francis was speaking about; but it is not achieved via forced outcome equality by governmental fiat.

Yet this teaching (includes):
• the regulated but free market (PP, #61; CA, #13,15,34; CSDC, #347)
• private ownership of property and the means of production (RN, #6,9; QA, #45; MM, #19, 108-9; GS #71; LE, #11, 14; CA, #24, 30; SRS, #42; CCC, #2211,2402-2403,2405; CSDC, #282)
• bridled, regulated capitalism (MM, #55-8; LE, #14; CA, #42)
• presumption of independent individual and/or group initiative (RN, #15; QA, #79; MM, #55,57; PT, #18; GS, #64; PP, #15,18,30,33,70; LE, #5, SRS, #15,42,44; CA, #13,32; CSDC, #336,343; CCC, 2429; CV, #17,42)
• encourages entrepreneurial ability; (CA, #32; CSDC, #337)
• the legitimacy of profit (QA, #136; CA, #35; CV, #21)
• the value and role of competition (PP, #33,58,61; CA, #34,40; CSDC, #347)
• the creation of opportunity (CA, #35)
• laments cultural models and social norms that inhibit development (CV, #22;
• rejects class conflict (RN, #4,19; QA, #29,81,136; CA, #12,23; CCC, #2402-2403,2405)
• condemns collectivism/socialism (RN, #4-5,15; QA, #46,111-120; PP, #33; MM, #34; LE, #14; CA, #12-13,41)
• rejects the welfare state (CA, #48; CV, #57)
• rejects dependency relationships based on aid (CV, #42,47)
• the importance of education (MM, #61; PP, #35; SRS, #15,44; CA, #16,35; CV, #61)
• opening markets for broader access (CV, #58)
• establishment of the rule of law and democratic structures where lacking (SRS, #44; CA, #44; CV, #21,32,41)
• sharing scientific, medical, technical, and business know-how (PP, #48; CA, #32)
• cutting back on expensive aid bureaucracies for poor countries (CV, #47,60)
• opposes religious fundamentalism and terrorism (ICFL, #79; SRS, #24, CA, #14,29,46; CV, #29)

RN = Rerum Novarum – Pope Leo XIII, 1891
QA = Quadragesimo Anno – Pope Pius XI, 1931
MM = Mater et Magistra – Pope John XXIII, 1961
PT = Pacem in Terris – Pope John XXIII, 1963
GS = Gaudium et Spes – Vatican Council II, 1965
PP = Populorum Progressio – Pope Paul VI, 1967
LE = Laborem Exercens – Pope John Paul II, 1981
SRS = Solicitudo Rei Socialis – Pope John Paul II, 1987
CA = Centesimus Annus – Pope John Paul II, 1991
CV = Caritas in Veritate – Pope Benedict XVI, 2009
CSDC = Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church - Pontifical Council For Justice And Peace, 2004
CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., 1997
ICFL = Instruction On Christian Freedom And Liberation – CDF, 1986

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying he is not smart enough to understand the rest of the world?

Do you really think the poor or “poor” in the US have it as all bad as poor in Argentina like in Concordia or the shanty towns in Rio or Haiti?

Just as the context of a statement (or in this case one phrase) must be considered, so must the audience and the speaker. The Pope is misunderstood out of a mistaken ethnocentrism that takes addresses like the one at the UN and thinking it is all about America, or Europe, or one’s own social circle or parish. Of course the Holy Father is going to teach from his experience in South America. This is one of the great advantages of having a little diversity in the papacy. Pundits need to stop taking everything the Pope said as if he is slamming on conservative America. He is not.

I would argue that what seems to elude many Catholics in the equality of outcome (forced redistribution . . . by excessive taxation, for example) versus equality of opportunity debate is that greater equality is the inevitable end result of the application of the actual social teaching of the Church.

Yet this teaching (includes):

Nice list! The Holy Father is not giving us anything new, except maybe a new perspective. I would add in addition to that list, which stands as a background to the latest UN address, the Catholic Church also supports the the role of government, as well as private enterprise and individuals in helping the poor, including a preferential preference for the poor. None of this stuff contradicts. It balances. We also see the allowance for a wide degree of possible actions all of which are morally acceptable.

It’s like coloring as a kid. We can choose many different crayons, but we still need to color in the lines.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Just as the context of a statement (or in this case one phrase) must be considered, so must the audience and the speaker. The Pope is misunderstood out of a mistaken ethnocentrism that takes addresses like the one at the UN and thinking it is all about America, or Europe, or one’s own social circle or parish. Of course the Holy Father is going to teach from his experience in South America. This is one of the great advantages of having a little diversity in the papacy. Pundits need to stop taking everything the Pope said as if he is slamming on conservative America. He is not.

Nice list! The Holy Father is not giving us anything new, except maybe a new perspective. I would add in addition to that list, which stands as a background to the latest UN address, the Catholic Church also supports the the role of government, as well as private enterprise and individuals in helping the poor, including a preferential preference for the poor. None of this stuff contradicts. It balances. We also see the allowance for a wide degree of possible actions all of which are morally acceptable.

It’s like coloring as a kid. We can choose many different crayons, but we still need to color in the lines.

Exactly.

And Francis said as much in Evangelii Gaudium (#184): . . . This Exhortation is not a social document, and for reflection on those different themes we have a most suitable tool in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I heartily recommend. Furthermore, neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems. Here I can repeat the insightful observation of Pope Paul VI: “In the face of such widely varying situations, it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. This is not our ambition, nor is it our mission. It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country.”

My argument has been that worries about his attitude toward free (w/I limits) enterprise itself, given the established body of Catholic social teaching, are unnecessary.

 

[calmthesea]

Exactly.

And Francis said as much in Evangelii Gaudium (#184): . . . This Exhortation is not a social document, and for reflection on those different themes we have a most suitable tool in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I heartily recommend. Furthermore, neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems. Here I can repeat the insightful observation of Pope Paul VI: “In the face of such widely varying situations, it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. This is not our ambition, nor is it our mission. It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country.”

My argument has been that worries about his attitude toward free (w/I limits) enterprise itself, given the established body of Catholic social teaching, are unnecessary.

I am not sure that I really wish to enter into this fray. But, the word “Christian” in countries and communities has distinctly different definitions. And, power and greed seem to hold sway over charity. so, even in “Christian” countries what the Pope says can be co-opted and twisted into unintended usage. In the end, the Church has a historical tendency to get blamed for things it didn’t necessarily promote. And yet, many in the pew would say it did.

I humbly ask, how do you over come that?

Moses said no work…no eat St. Paul said…no work…no eat That should be part of the forced distribution equation.
Secondly, in America, there’s no one who hasn’t had the opportunity to use available programs and pull themselves up by their own boot straps and then help those around them.
Third, a bloated government of 300 million people is not the most efficient use of Gods resources…stewardship That’s not subsidiarity.
The people in government are the ones who get fat off the hog. We do have alot of experience at that over the centuries.

Best, Patrick

 

[pnewton]

Moses said no work…no eat St. Paul said…no work…no eat That should be part of the forced distribution equation.
Secondly, in America, there’s no one who hasn’t had the opportunity to use available programs and pull themselves up by their own boot straps and then help those around them.

First, neither St. Paul nor Pope Francis directed comments at America. The opinions expressed are important considerations and Catholics can disagree on the best way of addressing social concerns. However, one who is perfectly happy with the level of government can be equally Catholic. This is something we must first acknowledge so that we can have mutual respect. Now, I would like to look at what St Paul said.

1. It was written to a specific Church, the one at Thessalonica
2. The context was a Church in which some had gone idle awaiting the Second Coming (see First Thessalonians.
3. These people were not just idle, but the busy idle, sowing mischief.
4. They served as models of those who would earn their own wages, while admitting that those who serve the Church have the right to earn a living from this service. This is reinforced in other epistles, which I can show if I need.
5. The food they were receiving is from the charity of believers. If you are inclined, you can check out a parallel problem with widows who were receiving charity about which Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 5.

So, this instruction is not a doctrine. It is a practical consideration that affected the situation at Thessalonica. Today, we have a similar, but not exact consideration. I have to disagree that everyone has an opportunity to pull themselves up. There are many that legitimately need help through no fault of their own. There are also those who could use help temporarily in order that they might “pull themselves up.”

The principle remains, every dollar spent helping someone that has other means of help, or who simply refuses to work, is a dollar less that could help someone in need. These practical considerations are the source of legitimate disagreement.

Also, my opinion is in line with yours on the issue of subsidiarity. The same money spent on assistance would be far more effective if it was passed on to local agencies to help the same people. For one thing, with thousands of different ways of approaching the same problem, we could see what worked well to reduce the burden to society and what worked poorly, discarding the bad and keeping the good.

 

[calmthesea]

The American Tale of redistribution

John lost his job in the town of 8000 in upstate New York. His esteem has been spiraling down and he’s been drinking too much. There’s no jobs around. He been fighting with his wife and now child services are coming around. Good thing for child services.

He heads down to the bar where he spends most of his time with his marriage on the rocks. He passes by the run down houses of his neighbors who struggle just to make ends meet. He wishes things could be like down in Albany where things seemed to be bustling. Or perhaps like he sees on tv over the bar, about how everything is great in Washington, DC that is.

What would he do without them. why they give him some money. Lucky thing, they say. There’s so much inequality. You see all his neighbors, every last one, by golly, send off $4000.00 yearly to this fairy tale land just to make it fair.

You see, those in Neverland, this fairytale land far, far away,are the only ones who truly know John and what he truly needs. And, they’ll tell us all so just in case we don’t know.
Then, after Neverland uses up 60 cents of every dollar for ‘expenses ’ ya know’. John gets his 40 cents from his neighbors wallet. It’s a good thing for those far away distributors, they just needed their cut. What we do without them. Well, I’ll tell you what.

We’d distribute it ourselves, I say. How could that be. We’d keep our money. Donate some. Each person on Johns street could hire John to paint their houses. The flowers would bloom. The stores on main street would take the plywood off their storefronts, and perhaps the birds would chirp. Or, maybe for the first time in a long time, John could actually here those birds. His wife would get flowers and his kids a trip to the zoo.

The only ones who wouldn’t prosper are those in social services, and those in the fairy tale land far, far away. Remember them, their the ones who know whats good for us and how to spend our money.

 

[calmthesea]

Gods way,

In Samuel chapter 8, God warned the people that a large bureaucracy would suck much of the resources from the people and use it up for themselves. He said if they allowed that to happen, He wouldn’t be there to bail them out.

I was thought what I always thought was a Godly principle but perhaps I’m wrong…Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime…I like fishing…and teaching

Best, patrick

 

[calmthesea]

First, neither St. Paul nor Pope Francis directed comments at America. The opinions expressed are important considerations and Catholics can disagree on the best way of addressing social concerns. However, one who is perfectly happy with the level of government can be equally Catholic. This is something we must first acknowledge so that we can have mutual respect. Now, I would like to look at what St Paul said.

1. It was written to a specific Church, the one at Thessalonica
2. The context was a Church in which some had gone idle awaiting the Second Coming (see First Thessalonians.
3. These people were not just idle, but the busy idle, sowing mischief.
4. They served as models of those who would earn their own wages, while admitting that those who serve the Church have the right to earn a living from this service. This is reinforced in other epistles, which I can show if I need.
5. The food they were receiving is from the charity of believers. If you are inclined, you can check out a parallel problem with widows who were receiving charity about which Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 5.

So, this instruction is not a doctrine. It is a practical consideration that affected the situation at Thessalonica. Today, we have a similar, but not exact consideration. I have to disagree that everyone has an opportunity to pull themselves up. There are many that legitimately need help through no fault of their own. There are also those who could use help temporarily in order that they might “pull themselves up.”

The principle remains, every dollar spent helping someone that has other means of help, or who simply refuses to work, is a dollar less that could help someone in need. These practical considerations are the source of legitimate disagreement.

Also, my opinion is in line with yours on the issue of subsidiarity. The same money spent on assistance would be far more effective if it was passed on to local agencies to help the same people. For one thing, with thousands of different ways of approaching the same problem, we could see what worked well to reduce the burden to society and what worked poorly, discarding the bad and keeping the good.

Newton,

I didn’t say the Pope did, but the pundits in America sure like to use it to their advantage

The rest doesn’t seem worthy arguing about because it seems like a good adage and Saint Paul was certainly taking it from the Torah .

Best to you and yours,
Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

First, neither St. Paul nor Pope Francis directed comments at America. The opinions expressed are important considerations and Catholics can disagree on the best way of addressing social concerns. However, one who is perfectly happy with the level of government can be equally Catholic. This is something we must first acknowledge so that we can have mutual respect. Now, I would like to look at what St Paul said.

1. It was written to a specific Church, the one at Thessalonica
2. The context was a Church in which some had gone idle awaiting the Second Coming (see First Thessalonians.
3. These people were not just idle, but the busy idle, sowing mischief.
4. They served as models of those who would earn their own wages, while admitting that those who serve the Church have the right to earn a living from this service. This is reinforced in other epistles, which I can show if I need.
5. The food they were receiving is from the charity of believers. If you are inclined, you can check out a parallel problem with widows who were receiving charity about which Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 5.

So, this instruction is not a doctrine. It is a practical consideration that affected the situation at Thessalonica. Today, we have a similar, but not exact consideration. I have to disagree that everyone has an opportunity to pull themselves up. There are many that legitimately need help through no fault of their own. There are also those who could use help temporarily in order that they might “pull themselves up.”

The principle remains, every dollar spent helping someone that has other means of help, or who simply refuses to work, is a dollar less that could help someone in need. These practical considerations are the source of legitimate disagreement.

Also, my opinion is in line with yours on the issue of subsidiarity. The same money spent on assistance would be far more effective if it was passed on to local agencies to help the same people. For one thing, with thousands of different ways of approaching the same problem, we could see what worked well to reduce the burden to society and what worked poorly, discarding the bad and keeping the good.

Newton,

You misread me. I lived in the inner city. I’ve attended an inner city community college. I’ve helped the poor. This isn’t ivory tower theory to me. I’ve helped those in need. I in no way do I advocate doing away with all assistance. I believe in helping hands in time of need, just not a lifetime.

My time in the inner city… People would show up from out of state to get there guaranteed assistance, rob some old people, do some other crimes and leave. Women had more babies so they could get more money from the government. people all sold drugs and pulled weapons on each other.

The 1st of the month the checks came everyone was drunk, everywhere. Old people getting rolled. Bottles of ripple broken in the streets… it goes on and on…

I tried giving them jobs. I was a store manager for a time… then I worked in construction…they didn’t want jobs. They had opportunities. Every last one of them. Some didn’t want to work for ‘the man’ …it’s all relative…If they had to work for what they got from the government, many would find jobs. They’d clean up their act. I’ve known a great many.

Best, Patrick