Pope Benedict XVI calls for "the redistribution of wealth"--a blow to Free Market Theology?

[BB2]

Federal finagling as shown ad infinitum.
July 19, 2010: Of the world’s biggest economies, only the U.S., Britain and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, (The Keynesian idiocy) though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can’t compete with Obama’s $800 billion fiasco… The president has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet. (July, 2010). Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of.
jewishworldreview.com/0710/steyn071910.php3

Gordon Brown borrowed irresponsibly. So did Berlusconi. That is not what Keynes advocated. Unless you can point to where Keynes said in any of his works precisely that “governments should borrow irresponsibly”, the point you’ve expressed here is moot. Not only is it moot, but it is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Since you seem to despise fiscal spending so much, what is your opinion on Somalia? After all, they have no government. They have no gun control. They have no regulation. They have no taxes.

 

[BB2]

Inflation: Food, Fuel, and the Fed
May 9, 2011 | by Mark W. Hendrickson
“…the Federal Reserve’s QE2 policy of creating more money has been called into question. Asked if the Fed bore some responsibility for these vexing price increases, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke essentially replied, “It’s not our fault.”
"The Fed has flooded the financial system with newly created money, and the inevitable result of a lot more money bidding for approximately the same supply of goods is markedly higher prices. Indeed, for Bernanke to deny partial responsibility for higher prices is more than disingenuous, since the Fed’s stated goal last September was for prices to rise more rapidly. Does the Fed now regret getting what it wished and aimed for?

I find your “snipping” of quotes without your own explanation rather humorous. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of fundamental economics.

Food and fuel prices are not increasing because of monetary policy per se, but more so because of the extra demand coming from China and other emerging economies. In addition, 2011 has been a very bad year for crop harvests: ““Along with the U.S., France, and China all are experiencing some pretty nasty drought that is going to have a major global impact on commodities, wheat in particular” [More here: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/26/208170/texas-worst-drought-dust-bowl-wheat/ ]
This is also not to mention the additional impact of speculators using futures and other fancy financial instruments on commodities that have a direct impact on food and fuel. When you add demand from emerging economies, bad crop season as well as the influence of speculators through derivatives, you get an increase in food and fuel prices. But it is much easier to say “Blame the Fed”, isn’t it?

Food and fuel prices are not included in what is called “core inflation”. The reason for this is because food and fuel prices are very volatile - they fluctuate rapidly from one day to the next.

 

[BB2]

Placing central planning over individual initiative is against the very nature of our God given free will. Government is a beast that enslaves us through regulation and taxation. The anti-Christ will work his unspeakable crimes through a one world government which is socialisms logical end.

Here we go again with the conspiracy theories . Do you also believe the world is going to end in 2012?

 

[BB2]

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

“Scholasticism may not be ascribed to one religious order alone.
“With the foundation of the Society of Jesus in 1540, Jesuit thinkers such as…Juan de Mariana (1535-1624)…made significant contributions.
“The last chapter of Mariana’s book on inflation deals with the ultimate cause of currency debasement, i.e., public spending.
“The Medieval Schoolmen also studied the effect that an increase in the money supply (or a process of currency debasement) has on prices. This portion of their analysis is of great interest to many modern authors.” [The *School of Salamanca Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory

, 1544-1605 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952) by Majorie Grice-Hutchinson devotes special attention to this topic].
[References in *Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius, 1986, p 24, 70, 75].

Intellectual dishonesty once again. You are using Catholic sources, and as such, it is almost inevitably going to be historical revisionism in favour of the Catholic Church. If you have studied at university/college, you would know about this. Try reputable sources - e.g. Financial Times, Economist, World Bank, etc; instead of embarrassing yourself with circular logic on a public forum.

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church rejected the charging of interest for an extensive period of time. This explains why the Catholic Church often used Jews as banking intermediaries (hence why Jews were stereotyped as avaricious bankers):

**And the Catholic Church forbade usury. Without the ability to lend with interest there would be no trade, no merchandise, no commerce.

That was where the Jew came in and solved the problem for Christian Europe. Both the Church and the nobleman needed an intermediary. Since the Jew was going straight to Hell anyway, according to Church doctrine, why not use him while he was on this Earth.

Consequently, the nobleman lent money to the Jew at 25% interest and the Jew in turn lent it to the merchants or common people at 33-40% interests, which were normal rates in the Middle Ages.**

Jewish History, “The Usury Accusation”: jewishhistory.org/the-usury-accusation/

Only until it became clear that no complex economy can survive without interest rates that Catholic Church had to “give in” and accept that the charging of interest was not sinful. You can deny it all you want, but it is factual history. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Adios.

 

[exnihilo]

Mainstream economics does not consider itself a natural science, but a social science. It is nonetheless still a science, only with the added complexity of human volition and individuality. Sociology, a social science, also uses statistics. So does psychology. Economics is not different…

The Austrian School is popular amongst non-economists because it is very simple. It does not use maths or economic jargon. Simply because something is simple does not make it correct. We live in a very complex economy today, and as such requires theories that take into account the complexity at play.

It is my opinion that many social sciences want to make themselves out to be like a natural science to gain credibility. I agree that simplicity does not make something right. I find an economic school that better accounts for the fullness of human nature to be more useful. It is the other schools that reduce human beings to simple economic actors whose actions can be predicted by charts. I think we always lived in a complex economy. The only added complexity we have is our financial system which is our own creation and not a free market system given the Fed and bailouts of failed institutions.

Austrian economics is inadequate at explaining the systemic risks that can be wrought by derivatives on an entire economy. Austrian economics is inadequate at using game theory to explain why menu costs incur aggregate demand externalities on competitors in a monopolistically competitive market. Austrian economics is inadequate at explaining the impact of exogenous shocks. The Average Joe does not care about “derivatives”, “aggregate demand externalities” or “exogenous shocks”. That’s why Austrian economics is so satisfying to the Average Joe - it reduces the complexity of the economy to a simple, “Blame the Fed”.

The phrases you used are special terms. But anyone could understand the ideas if explained. The average person may not know what a broken femur is but he would know what a broken leg is.

If what you say is true it also condemns the democracy we spread across the Earth by military might. If the Average Joe really cant understand the complexities of the market then he has insufficient knowledge to judge who should be running things. I’m actually a monarchist in part due to arguments made by Austrian economists.

Borrowing from the private sector doesn’t crowd out investment if the private sector isn’t going to invest anyway. After all - that’s the whole point of why Keynes said the government should borrow . The government should borrow and subsequently invest because the private sector is not investing.

Money in America is either spent on consumption or invested if held in the bank, since the bank lends out people’s savings. The government can only decide who will receive the money that would be spent in some way by taking that power from the consumer or the saver. Consumption is money spent on things to be consumed now. Investment is money spent to increase later consumption.

We have never had a Depression since the Great Depression. This is a fact .

We’ve not had a depression because they now call depressions recessions (like they renamed the Department of War the Department of Defense and now America only defends itself and never makes war). A depression can be avoided by inflating the money supply, which the Fed always does, and thus avoiding a nominal decrease in economic activity. The ‘orthodox’ economists come up with numbers that make politicians look good and the people happy and then revise them down months or years later.

 

[Betyourlife]

Here we go again with the conspiracy theories . Do you also believe the world is going to end in 2012?

How is the “anti christ” a conspiracy theory? I didn’t say when, just how…through socialism. Be careful that you don’t give up your liberty for a bowl of rice.

 

[Abu]

We have seen the reality that the Catholic Late Scholastics are considered the first real economists by one of the great economists of the 20th century, as more than any other group “the ‘founders’ of scientific economics.” [Joseph a Schumpeter, *History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1954, p 97]

Why? Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

Bl John Paul II has emphatically affirmed free enterprise and now, from Phil Lawler, we have an inspiring reference to an entrepreneur who learned the hard way, and not through distributism.

A lesson in facing reality – an inspiring perspective
What entrepreneurs should learn from Blessed John Paul II
By Phil Lawler | December 20, 2011Andreas Widmer is a former member of the Swiss Guard…

In this anti-poverty work The Pope and the CEO], Widmer disdains the organizations that “patronize the poor,” and warns against those who use world poverty as an excuse to establish their own fiefdoms. To work effectively for the poor, he insists, one must understand their needs, unlock their abilities, and help them to generate new wealth by themselves.

Helping people to realize their potential: this, Widmer argues, is the key not just to anti-poverty work, but to any successful enterprise. He uses Blessed John Paul II as an illustration of his point. The late Pontiff touched and inspired countless millions of people because he cared for them: genuinely, deeply, consistently. A great leader succeeds by serving others.

The lessons in leadership furnished by John Paul II are inextricably entwined with the Pope’s spiritual teachings, Widmer points out. A good leader—in the business world or in any other line of work—should exhibit the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. It takes humility, too, to recognize one’s own limitations and to recognize good advice. And Widmer, following John Paul II, takes the extra step to say that prayer is essential as well, to help keep everything in proper perspective.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=878

 

[Abu]

BB2 #44:
To believe that the Catholic Church actually looked upon interest favourably is historical revisionism. I’m not even sure why I’m responding to such a claim, because it is frankly ridiculous and lies along the same veracity as the claim that the world is flat.

Some never learn. Faithful Catholics know that doctrine can and does develop without contradiction. The Church develops Her teaching as conditions may warrant.

“The idea that a rich man had the obligation to lend without charge to the poor who were in desperate need was one that was inherited from the Old Testament; it was a basic obligation of human solidarity.” [Roger Charles, S.J., *Christian Social Witness and Teaching, Vol 1, Trowbridge, Cromwell Press, 1998, p 200].

While the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers is condemned, Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, decrees of councils and popes do not envisage the economic conditions where money markets determine rates of interest – so charging interest as such is not considered. [See Vermeersch, S.J., *Usury, *The Catholic Encyclopedia *, vol 15, Appleton, 1912].

“The laws concerning usury were concerned not with business deals, but with lending from the rich to the poor who were seeking survival. Charles cites Lactantius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome in support of his argument.

“But as trade expanded, so too the demand for money, not only as a means of exchange but as a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money by investment; it was capital….with trade expanding the Church still wanted to defend the poor, but She also began to recognise that there exists an opportunity cost to money…the teaching underwent a development….” Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 76].

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

The Franciscan St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was perhaps the first theologian to recognize that time of use had an economic value and, at least in certain cases, might be licitly compensated. St. Antoninus (1389-1459), a Dominican of Florence, seems to have questioned whether Aristotle was correct in saying that money is naturally sterile. Money alone, he said, is sterile, but, combined with knowledge and enterprise, it is fruitful. His Summa Moralis examined commerce and banking, and prepared the way for modern notions of interest, which generally regard proper returns on loans taken with just title as fair.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Intellectual dishonesty once again. You are using Catholic sources, and as such, it is almost inevitably going to be historical revisionism in favour of the Catholic Church. If you have studied at university/college, you would know about this. Try reputable sources - e.g. Financial Times, Economist, World Bank, etc; instead of embarrassing yourself with circular logic on a public forum.

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church rejected the charging of interest for an extensive period of time. This explains why the Catholic Church often used Jews as banking intermediaries (hence why Jews were stereotyped as avaricious bankers):

Jewish History, “The Usury Accusation”: jewishhistory.org/the-usury-accusation/

Only until it became clear that no complex economy can survive without interest rates that Catholic Church had to “give in” and accept that the charging of interest was not sinful. You can deny it all you want, but it is factual history. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Adios.

And using Jewish sources is inevitably going to be historical revisionism in favor of Judaism. If a person studies at a secular university that is hostile towards the Catholic Church, then of course it’ll look like the Church has flip-flopped. The reason the Catholic Church “gave in” was because society was completely different before capitalism. Money wasn’t “fruitful” before capitalism (because of feudalism), and now it is. Usury is still a sin. It’s just how money is used has changed.

Just thought I’d add something to the discussion. As Nick Riviera said, “Bye everybody!”

 

[Mudgely]

As a social welfare issue, it makes sense. There is no correlation between per capita GDP in the advanced countries and longevity, social mobility, child welfare, infant mortality, levels of education achieved, etc…

But there is a very clear and consistent linear relationship when you chart any of these social factors against income distribution. Even the the wealthy do not do as well in these areas in countries with a wide gap, as they do in countries with a flatter distribution.

The countries which are doing the best by these social measures are Japan and Sweden. So, the issue is not the mechanism of distribution. In Japan’s case, the wage gap is narrower. In Sweden’s case, redistribution is done through taxation.

The country which is doing the worst in each and every one of these social quality of life measures is the United States by a wide margin. The US also has the most uneven income distribution among advanced nations. The rest of the countries fall right on a straight line, and appear to be directly and inversely proportional to a flat income distribution.

So, Benedict XVI may be onto something.

 

[RCIA4]

I would like to read the Holy Fathers complete writings on this issue. Simply put, redistribution requires you forcefully take from one persons labor and give it to another persons slothfulness. Redistribution is socialism / communism, and always ends in the slaughter of millions. Pope JPII and Reagan spent much of their efforts and teachings “tearing the wall down”.

The Holy Father has called for wealth redistribution… You must follow it… You have no choice…

Wealth redistribution need not be socialism… Let’s call it populism like Huey Long’s “Share Our Wealth” program of the great Depression…

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a social welfare issue, it makes sense. There is no correlation between per capita GDP in the advanced countries and longevity, social mobility, child welfare, infant mortality, levels of education achieved, etc…

But there is a very clear and consistent linear relationship when you chart any of these social factors against income distribution. Even the the wealthy do not do as well in these areas in countries with a wide gap, as they do in countries with a flatter distribution.

The countries which are doing the best by these social measures are Japan and Sweden. So, the issue is not the mechanism of distribution. In Japan’s case, the wage gap is narrower. In Sweden’s case, redistribution is done through taxation.

The country which is doing the worst in each and every one of these social quality of life measures is the United States by a wide margin. The US also has the most uneven income distribution among advanced nations. The rest of the countries fall right on a straight line, and appear to be directly and inversely proportional to a flat income distribution.

So, Benedict XVI may be onto something.

Inasmuch as the birth rates in Japan and Sweden (other than among Muslims in Sweden) are so abysmally low as to promise a population (and thus societal) collapse within the lifetimes of many on here, I don’t think it can be truly said that they are doing all that well by social measures.

It may be noted that the U.S. birth rate, while not good, is significantly higher than that of either Japan or Sweden.

Birth rates relate to many things, but fundamentally they relate to a people’s belief in the future. The are also related to the perception of affordability of children, which is significantly affected by tax rates.

It may be noted that, while the percentage of income going to property (capital) and to non-property has been a near-constant in the U.S. for many decades and rarely varies more than a percentage point or two, the income from “non-property” includes income from work as well as that of paid non-labor. (transfer payments). Therefore, the most significant factor affecting income from labor as a percentage of total national income is transfer payments. Obviously, an aging population increases the ratio of income from non-labor to that of income from labor, but it’s not the only thing that does. Other middle class “welfare”, as well as welfare for the poor does the same thing.

We ought to note as well that generally accepted “measures of social well-being” do not necessarily tell us all that much. By way of example, longevity is considered one of those “measures”, and you have cited it above. But longevity increases, statistically, as a population ages. The populations that are oldest have the longest average life spans. It’s a statistical thing only. Statistically, a 65-year-old man always has a longer life expectancy than a 25-year-old man, and a much longer life expectancy than a 5 year old. Thus, longevity studies tell you nothing about how long the average person in any given society actually lives, let alone about his quality of life.

Most infant mortality statistics are skewed by the fact that different societies report them differently. Some do not count stillbirths and deaths shortly after birth, while the U.S. does.

So, we should not be so sanguine about those societies which do not view their own futures with sufficient optimism to cause them to bring children into their worlds. Their actions (or non-actions I should perhaps say) speak more loudly than anything else.

 

[dandingo]

Here we go again with the conspiracy theories . Do you also believe the world is going to end in 2012?

Socialism never retreats. It always grows. Socialists always grasp for more power. This is why all Popes have spoken out against Socialism. It is a theft of freedom and suppressor of humanity.

Socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. If you live in any Socialist country, including the U.S., do you have a say where your tax money goes? No. Our freedom is being squashed daily. Now, in California, it’s virtually ILLEGAL to have a fire in your own fireplace. Yes, you read correctly. Also, recently put on the ballot was a measure to force porn stars to wear condoms. As I said, things never become more conservative in a Socialist society. There is always a desire for more and more and more. It never ends. In fact, if people really knew where their tax money went, I would place a very large bet that well over 75% goes to things that the conservative tax payer disagrees with.

 

[Abu]

On Sweden

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden, Per Byland, May 31, 2006(Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies).

My grandmother, born in 1920, was of the last generation to have that special personal pride, of having a firm and deeply rooted morality, of being a sovereign in life no matter what — to be the sole master of one’s fate. The people of her generation experienced and endured one or two world wars (though Sweden never took part) and were raised by poor Swedish farmers and industrial workers. They witnessed and were the driving force behind the Swedish “wonder.”

Their morality assured they could survive any condition. If they found themselves not being able to live off their wages, they would only work harder and longer. They were the architects and construction workers in building their own lives, even though it often meant hard work and enduring seemingly hopeless situations.

Decent morality is long gone. It was completely destroyed in little more than two generations — through public welfare benefits and the concept of welfare rights.

From the perspective of a bystander (as I consider myself) this madness all makes sense — teaching people they do not need to worry about the consequences of their actions makes willingly dependent subjects. The welfare state has created the egotistical monsters it claims to save us from — through handing out privileges and benefits to everybody at “nobody’s” expense.

The social engineers of the welfare state obviously never considered a possible change in morality and perception — they simply wanted a system guaranteeing security for everybody; a system where the able could and should work to support themselves, but where the unable too could live dignified lives. Who would have thought the progressive reforms to secure workers’ rights and prosperity for all in the early 20th century would backfire philosophically and morally?

It can’t work.
This new morality is the obvious opposite of that of my grandparents’ generation. It is a morality claiming independence can only be achieved through handing over responsibility to others, and that freedom can only be attained through enslaving others (and oneself). The result of this degenerated morality on a social or societal level is a disaster economically, socially, psychologically, and philosophically.

But this is also a personal tragedy for many thousands of Swedes. People seem unable to enjoy life without responsibility for one’s actions and choices, and it is impossible to feel pride and independence without having the means to control one’s life. The welfare state has created a dependent people utterly incapable of finding value in life; instead, they find themselves incapable of typical human feelings such as pride, honor, and empathy. These feelings, along with the means to create meaning to life, have been taken over by the welfare state.

Perhaps this explains why such a large part of the young population now consumes antidepressant medication, without which they are unable to function normally in social situations. And presumably it explains why the number of suicides among very young people who never really knew their parents is increasing dramatically (the total number of suicides remaining about the same). Still people are totally unable to see the problem or find a solution. Like spoiled children, they call for “help” through the state.
mises.org/daily/2190

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I regret having started this thread. I think we all learned nothing. This is a topic that generates something like rage. God willing, I have learned a lesson, which is to not bring up such topics in a group with all sorts of Catholics.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Well, since the thread has actually continued, I’ll come back.

To Abu:

I think the problem isn’t welfare, it’s just the welfare model. the Nordic model doesn’t work, and is essentially socialism, but I think that the German model works, because the state isn’t all encompassing in the German model, like it is in the Nordic model. Luckily, my Swedish ancestors came to America.

 

[Betyourlife]

The Holy Father has called for wealth redistribution… You must follow it… You have no choice…

Wealth redistribution need not be socialism… Let’s call it populism like Huey Long’s “Share Our Wealth” program of the great Depression…

So wealth redistribution is now Church Dogma or is it the new 11th commandment? Your very confused.

 

[RCIA4]

The pope has spoken! You must accept the redistribution of wealth!!

I for one would love to see Bill Gates hauled from his home by Jesuits and his pockets emptied into the hands of the poor LOLS!

 

[Abu]

RCIA4
The pope has spoken! You must accept the redistribution of wealth!!

This poster needs sound counseling on “faith and reason” and on “look before you leap”. The social Encyclicals need to be carefully studied and understood, for example: Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ ” [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].
Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

Fr Sirico sums up the theme and direction of Caritas in Veritate perfectly:
“Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.

“The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. ‘The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,’ the pope firmly states, and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’

“This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.

“Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”

 

[RCIA4]

This poster needs sound counseling on “faith and reason” and on “look before you leap”. The social Encyclicals need to be carefully studied and understood, for example: Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ ” [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].
Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

Fr Sirico sums up the theme and direction of Caritas in Veritate perfectly:
“Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.

“The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. ‘The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,’ the pope firmly states, and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’

“This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.

“Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.”
The Pope has spoken npatrol:!!! The only permitted economic system is distributism! Capitalism is false… Socialism is false… Libertarianism is false! Free markets are false!

Need I repeat myself my friend? Distributism is what is in catholic social teaching…

Then again I’ve been reading up on my Dorothy Day… So I’m pretty biased…