Pope Blames Refugee Crisis on 'God of Money,' 'Socio-Economic System That Is Bad, Unjust'

[ARSpade]

Can’t be due to money.

ISIS, if you removed the whole murder/rape/religious oppression and the giant heap of bad stuff, often runs in a very charitable way towards the poor. Free healthcare, welfare payments, food, etc. Their version of Islam includes not just the violent bits but the charity bits too.

Of course this is often overlooked because otherwise they’re terrible people.

But, yeah, it isn’t money or greed driving it all.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s not forget that Pope John Paul II didn’t make any bones about his stand against Communism/his support of Solidarity in Poland.

Yes, thank you, that is a perfect example.

Of course, per the previous article, liberation theologians want us to believe that Pope John Paul II only opposed Communism because he had lived under it.

 

[Thomas_White]

If Pope Francis and the Liberation Theology advocates were merely concerned for the poor, even if they were primarily concerned for the poor, there woud be no dispute or debate. The dispute arises only as a consequence of what they prescribe to do about the problem of poverty.

Capitalism is, quite simply, the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the history of mankind. We need more, not less, of it, not for the sake of the rich and the middle class but for the sake of the poor.

It is safe to say capitalism has not been universally thought to be “the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the history of mankind”. That is political ideology. What Pope Francis describes in Laudato Si is a cultural and epistomological paradigm where both humans and nature have become objects that are too often exploited. What he advocates, as a moral teaching, is a new paradigm that includes ethics and spirituality. This is not a political teaching.

I believe that Pope Francis is a human being and, like other human beings, particuarly those of an intellectual bent, he has a socio-political worldview. I don’t believe, as you seem to, that he has successfully sanitized his spiritual proclamations of his socio-political worldview nor do I think it is even possible or meaningful to do so. Does he even claim this himself? On the contrary, he seems to be more than happy to offer his opinions freely.

Like all human beings, Jorge Bergoglio was thrust into an existential ground. This is not determinative of either one’s future spirituality or political beliefs. If it were the case, every child born in like circumstances in Buenos Aires at that time would have an identical socio-political worldview. I rather doubt it, and particularly so when the fact is the future Pope Francis chose to undergo fourteen years of Jesuit formation and become a Catholic priest. There are a great many influences on a given person’s development.

To simply say you don’t believe Pope Francis “has successfully sanitized his spiritual proclamations of his socio-political world views” is only your belief. I would say I don’t know what any such beliefs might be, but what matters is his spirituality.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is safe to say capitalism has not been universally thought to be “the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the history of mankind”.

I understand that. The list of critics of capitalism is long not least because Malthusian thinking comes naturaly and the idea that resources can be infinite seems as implausible as the Incarnation.

That is political ideology. What Pope Francis describes in Laudato Si is a cultural and epistomological paradigm where both humans and nature have become objects that are too often exploited. What he advocates, as a moral teaching, is a new paradigm that includes ethics and spirituality. This is not a political teaching.

There will always be opportunities for improving the condition of mankind. But it does not follow that all criticisms are equally valid much less that proposed solutions can improve humanity. I believe that Karl Marx had the best of intentions. He was just wrong.

Like all human beings, Jorge Bergoglio was thrust into an existential ground. This is not determinative of either one’s future spirituality or political beliefs. If it were the case, every child born in like circumstances in Buenos Aires at that time would have an identical socio-political worldview. I rather doubt it, and particularly so when the fact is the future Pope Francis chose to undergo fourteen years of Jesuit formation and become a Catholic priest. There are a great many influences on a given person’s development.

To simply say you don’t believe Pope Francis “has successfully sanitized his spiritual proclamations of his socio-political world views” is only your belief. I would say I don’t know what any such beliefs might be, but what matters is his spirituality.

I am not merely claiming that Pope Francis is Peronist because he is from Argentina. The authors of the articles did not arrive at the conclusion by that line of argument. Why don’t you read some of those articles and deal with the substance of their observations and claims.

Here is the thread where you can find them:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=972398

 

[Thomas_White]

I understand that. The list of critics of capitalism is long not least because Malthusian thinking comes naturaly and the idea that resources can be infinite seems as implausible as the Incarnation.

There will always be opportunities for improving the condition of mankind. But it does not follow that all criticisms are equally valid much less that proposed solutions can improve humanity. I believe that Karl Marx had the best of intentions. He was just wrong.

I am not merely claiming that Pope Francis is Peronist because he is from Argentina. The authors of the articles did not arrive at the conclusion by that line of argument. Why don’t you read some of those articles and deal with the substance of their observations and claims.

Here is the thread where you can find them:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=972398

Well, I previously read the articles and said what I thought about them when you introduced them on a separate thread. There is the inference of fascist sympathy or belief. The articles are entirely speculative and political, much as we see here, and an attempt to portray Pope Francis as a Peronist of some nefarious sort. I don’t know why this is necessary or the reason for it, but it is conservative criticism.

It seems to me that if Laudato Si is to be criticized, then it ought to be done so directly and on its merits rather than by an attempt to discredit either the encyclical or Pope Francis on the basis of dubious and indirect political arguments. Argue the merits of the encyclical if one must, and if it is the case that one disagrees with Catholic social teaching, then say so. But it is necessary to first understand the philosophical and theological basis of Laudato Si’s moral teaching. I have not seen anything remotely close to it in any of those articles.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, I previously read the articles and said what I thought about them when you introduced them on a separate thread. There is the inference of fascist sympathy or belief. The articles are entirely speculative and political, much as we see here, and an attempt to portray Pope Francis as a Peronist of some nefarious sort. I don’t know why this is necessary or the reason for it, but it is conservative criticism.

It sounds like you reacted to the fascist connection and didn’t really consider it beyond that.

Note that while the term “fascist” has acquired very nefarious connotations in modern usage, it was originally more benign. One might start by understanding precisely what Juan Peron copied from Benito Mussolini. To say that Pope Francis is Peronist is not to say that he advocates invading third world countries.

It seems to me that if Laudato Si is to be criticized, then it ought to be done so directly and on its merits rather than by an attempt to discredit either the encyclical or Pope Francis on the basis of dubious and indirect political arguments. Argue the merits of the encyclical if one must, and if it is the case that one disagrees with Catholic social teaching, then say so. But it is necessary to first understand the philosophical and theological basis of its moral teaching. I have not seen anything remotely close to it in any of those articles.

One might criticize Laudato Si as you describe. I made my own notes when I read it.

But there is the entirely sepearate question as to what Pope Francis is thinking, what is his social and political worldview and how might that influence his philosophical and theological thinking. Positioning him within the Peronist philosophy is at least a partial answer to that.

 

[Thomas_White]

It sounds like you reacted to the fascist connection and didn’t really consider it beyond that.

Note that while the term “fascist” has acquired very nefarious connotations in modern usage, it was originally more benign. One might start by understanding precisely what Juan Peron copied from Benito Mussolini. To say that Pope Francis is Peronist is not to say that he advocates invading third world countries.

One might criticize Laudato Si as you describe. I made my own notes when I read it.

But there is the entirely sepearate question as to what Pope Francis is thinking, what is his social and political worldview and how might that influence his philosophical and theological thinking. Positioning him within the Peronist philosophy is at least a partial answer to that.

The philosophical and theological basis of Laudato Si provides a critique of a cultural and epistomological paradigm that has its roots in the end of the Scholastic period and the earliest beginnings of the Enlightenment. The encyclical proposes a new epistomological paradigm that in part reflects the thinking of Romano Guardini, a Catholic theologian, as well as the spirituality of St. Francis. This new paradigm also has its roots in that that long ago era, but it proposes a correction of it in the existing cultural paradigm. But I cannot see where this proposed new paradigm, a paradigm that would incorporate ethics and spirituality, involves Peronism or what Juan Peron might have copied from Benito Mussolini. That just seems fantastic.

Peace.

 

[zz912]

The difficulty is in understanding or interpreting what is spiritual in a political way. The “preferential option for the poor” is a concept derived directly from the teachings of Christ in the Gospels. The concept is Catholic social teaching and has nothing whatever to do with a revival of Marxism in liberation theology (not that atheism was or possibly could be a component of liberation theology or of any theology). I would think the preferential option for the poor is the commonality of interest to Pope Francis, not Marxism, in the sense that liberation theology returns to the Catholic theology from which it sprung.

Again, and in a charitable way, it is why I have said I do not believe Pope Francis can be understood when viewed through the prism of political ideology. The teaching is spiritual; it is not political. The introduction of facts seems a futile effort here, so I will let it go.

There is no such thing as a person devoid of politics. Politics is how society is ordered and run, it can’t be avoided.

 

[Thomas_White]

There is no such thing as a person devoid of politics. Politics is how society is ordered and run, it can’t be avoided.

Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political? Or is it that some understand it this way?

 

[sarah_j]

Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political? Or is it that some understand it this way?

Pope John Paul II certainly understood it that way.

Ideally, a person’s politics are informed by his religious beliefs.
That is what creates a moral society, IMO.

When people segregate their religious beliefs from other aspects of their lives
morality suffers.
Think of the Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion because they
‘can’t force their religious beliefs on others.’

 

[Rosebud77]

There is no such thing as a person devoid of politics. Politics is how society is ordered and run, it can’t be avoided.

I feel insulted by this comment. it is also totally untrue thankfully.

 

[Thomas_White]

Pope John Paul II certainly understood it that way.

Ideally, a person’s politics are informed by his religious beliefs.
That is what creates a moral society, IMO.

When people segregate their religious beliefs from other aspects of their lives
morality suffers.
Think of the Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion because they
‘can’t force their religious beliefs on others.’

I don’t think Pope John Paul II understood it this way. Where might spirituality fall on the political spectrum? This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Laudato Si would have a person’s politics informed by spirituality and thus religious belief, and that is pretty much the teaching of the encyclical.

 

[sarah_j]

Shouldn’t all rational people evaluate various political systems based upon
their own personal standards of morality?

I don’t understand your seeming objection to the popes doing the same.

 

[Thomas_White]

Shouldn’t all rational people evaluate various political systems based upon
their own personal standards of morality?

I don’t understand your seeming objection to the popes doing the same.

I will try to explain and refer to my original comment, #29, which reads as follows:

“Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political?”

Your reply, in comment #30, began as follows: “Pope John Paul II certainly understood it this way.”

Your next sentence was as follows: “Ideally a person’s politics are informed by his religious beliefs.” I don’t disagree. But what does not follow is that spirituality and the teachings of Christ are themselves political. This was the misunderstanding, as I saw it. Otherwise, I agree.

Did Saint Pope John Paul II have a personal standard of morality? The question is tricky. I am sure he must have, as a person and in a sense, but was this truly his own standard? Or was it the teachings of Christ and the Church informed by his own spirituality? I doubt Saint Pope John Paul II’s standard of morality was truly a subjective one, and, really, that it could have been is virtually inconceivable.

 

[TMC]

Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political? Or is it that some understand it this way?

The teachings of Christ transcend both the spiritual and the political, as well as the philosophical and the theological. To try to limit Christ’s teachings to any one of those areas is to wholly miss the point of His message, IMHO. He encompasses and surpasses each and all of them.

 

[sarah_j]

Did Saint Pope John Paul II have a personal standard of morality? The question is tricky. I am sure he must have, as a person and in a sense, but was this truly his own standard? Or was it the teachings of Christ and the Church informed by his own spirituality? I doubt Saint Pope John Paul II’s standard of morality was truly a subjective one, and, really, that it could have been is virtually inconceivable.

Are you equating “subjective” (ie. whatever the individual person decides
is right or wrong is fine ) with “personal” ?

Everyone has some kind of personal standard of morality. John Paul did as well –
consistent, and grounded in his religious beliefs and philosophy. (not some subjective
code of morality that he dreamed up, wily-nily).

John Paul reflected the teachings of Christ and the Church as closely as any human
being can reflect them, IMO.

Here are a couple of good articles about his role in the fall of Communism :
catholicregister.org/features/archives/papal-canonizations/item/18031-john-paul-ii-s-influence-key-to-fall-of-communism

catholicstraightanswers.com/pope-john-paul-iis-role-fall-soviet-union/

John Paul’s opposition to totalitarianism grew out of his devotion to the idea of God-given human rights.

‘It cannot happen that one group of men, one social group — however well-deserving — should impose on the whole people an ideology, an opinion contrary to the will of the majority,’ he said in a 1976 homily.

…he also publicly championed independent “trade unions as a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice”

“Everything that happened in Eastern Europe in these last years,” Gorbachev wrote in 1992, “would have been impossible without the presence of this pope and without the important role — including the political role — that he played on the world stage.”

 

[SWolf]

Are spirituality and the teachings of Christ political? Or is it that some understand it this way?

It depends how you define political.

I would argue his “Give unto Caesar” response was political, as the Jews would kill him for telling them to submit to Caesar, and the Romans would kill him if he said not to for insurrection. He gave a brilliant non-answer answer that silenced both factions, allowing him to continue his ministry.

 

[Thomas_White]

The teachings of Christ transcend both the spiritual and the political, as well as the philosophical and the theological. To try to limit Christ’s teachings to any one of those areas is to wholly miss the point of His message, IMHO. He encompasses and surpasses each and all of them.

I understand the point, but it is no secret that the Church understands the teachings of Christ as spiritual teachings.

therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_002.htm

 

[TMC]

I understand the point, but it is no secret that the Church understands the teachings of Christ as spiritual teachings.

therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_002.htm

Yes, but Christ’s teachings are not merely spiritual.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, but Christ’s teachings are not merely spiritual.

What do you mean? What else are they, you think?