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

[Thomas_White]

For purposes of our discussion here we could say, simply, that Marxism prescribes violent subjegation of free enterprise to the state while liberation theology prescribes a more peaceful version of the same, what is generally referred to as democratic socialism. It is worth remembering that liberation theology was rejected as a heresy. et allii…

It is also worth noting that Pope Francis has never supported liberation theology. It is also not the theology of the Church. Pope Francis is open to different voices, and it is not a valid argument to conclude that listening to the views of others means he supports those views. Pope Francis is a Jesuit. I’d say his perspective is different from what we are accoustomed to hearing from the Vatican and that there are those who just don’t get what for others is intuitively obvious.

The Church has taught for the last century and a half that unfettered capitalism is liberalism. Catholic teaching is that we are not free to do whatever we please, and this is as true in the economic sphere as it is in the teachings on abortion and SSM. Freedom to do as one pleases is the core concept of liberalism, and it is also a keystone belief of the free enterprise system the political right embraces. There is thus a contradiction. Opposition to Iiberalism is the basis of Pope Francis’s opposition to laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism has for some raised the standard of living. It has both arisen in and afforded the personal freedom and independence that is an American ideal. But from this freedom and relative independence arise social issues that the Republican Party, the Christian Right and the Church all view as negatives, including abortion and SSM. There are many other examples. This difficulty for the political right (but not for the transcendent teachings of the Church) seems intractable given its internal contradiction. The teachings of the Church, which are spiritual and result from divine revelation, could in a sense be viewed as political when at times expressed in the temporal world, but only with the understanding they transcend the partisan politics of either the right or the left. There is criticism of the left as well. The teachings of the Church stand alone.

“Poor” is a Western concept and arises from the duality of rich and poor. So is poverty. These realities are there to see in global capitalism, and it is not limited to Latin America. However, it is likely that the indigenous peoples of the Americas did not for thousands of years perceive themselves this way. It is not a question of north and south. These concepts more than likely did not yet exist in the Americas.

It is too easily forgotten that the United States was established only following its own bloody revolution that overthrew a European monarchy. Independence and freedom became ideals of the new country, though this was primarily limited to the European immigrants who had overthrown the ruling British. The cherished liberal concepts of freedom and independence became embedded in the concept of a free market. These liberal ideals sometimes conflict with the teachings of the Church, and the U.S. has never been a Catholic country. Tensions remain manifest.

The Church does not oppose capitalism, but it emphatically does not support a capitalism that does not justly serve the people (see comment #61). I have tried to explain that Pope Francis and Laudato Si seek a morally-informed economic system. Banks and other financial institutions were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds following the economic and financial catastrophe of 2008. Without government assistance, these institutions would have fallen like bowling pins. The repeal of Glass-Steagall played a significant role. It is undeniable that many millions of Latin Americans have come to the U.S. seeking a better life. The question is why? What is it that has caused immigration from Latin America to dramatically increase in the global economy?

I have not suggested this is caused by a concern for the poor. That is a result and a response to whatever is the cause. But what is the cause? As I’ve said I don’t pretend to know the answer and only know it is complex. But I would suggest that whatever it is has similarly resulted in poverty in the U.S. The one commonality is a global economy based on an unethical form of an economic system that results from unethical behavior. This is not an indictment of capitalism but rather of unethical behavior. This very much concerns the fallen nature of humanity as well as a cultural paradigm.

Part 1 of 2

 

[Thomas_White]

For purposes of our discussion here we could say, simply, that Marxism prescribes violent subjegation of free enterprise to the state while liberation theology prescribes a more peaceful version of the same, what is generally referred to as democratic socialism. It is worth remembering that liberation theology was rejected as a heresy. et allii…

Part 2 of 2

Pope Francis has been clear about what he opposes. Modernism and modernity are not the same thing. Modernity arose with the industrial era. I think what Pope Francis has rejected of modernity is clear in his description in Laudato Si of the cultural paradigm. A familiarity with the writings of Romano Guardini would be helpful. Beginning with Vatican II, the Church has attempted to find its place in the modern world, but this also is not an acceptance of Modernism, or not that of a philosophy that began with Rene Descartes five-hundred years ago. But I would doubt Pope Francis is seeking a return to Thomism. There is his often mentioning that ‘the real is above the idea’. Philosophically, these are fundamental concepts and a great deal follows from those six words. He also speaks of dialectics, and he did so favorably again today, in Cuba, relative to disagreement in the Church, though he does not publicly use the word ‘dialectic’ and does not often publicly explain his remarks in a technical way. Remember that he is a Jesuit and experienced fourteen years of Jesuit formation. Perhaps Pope Francis just knows more about Catholic teaching than Rush Limbaugh.

You only assume Pope Francis is anti-capitalist. He opposes the same type of capitalism the Church has long opposed. What has changed is that his Catholic teaching has shifted the recent focus. And it is here where perhaps politics becomes involved. The Catholic Church does engage the world politically as well as spiritually. But there is in Catholic teaching what transcends partisan politics. What the Church teaches is right or wrong is right or wrong whether this is supported by the left or the right. It is irrelevant. Though the more immediate focus of Pope Francis is on the poor and the periphery, this current focus does not change doctrine or Catholic teaching. The Church continues to condemn abortion as well as question unfettered capitalism. It concerns the same question. Pope Francis was elected to the papacy at a point in history, and it is the belief of CatholicIsm that the process of the conclave of Cardinals is guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not necessarily mean we understand it.

The science of both climate change and global warming is settled. It is a hard truth to accept. But is it a manifestation of a dark view of the human condition that results from the view that resources are limited? Creation and the temporal world are finite and how resources could be infinite (unlimited) requires an explanation. There are things that seem infinite, such as a number series beginning 1,2,3…and continuing indefinitely. But this is a concept, an idea, and not a tangible thing. Attempt this with even the grains of sand of the earth and the number series would eventually come to an end. This once again is the real above the idea. I don’t see this fact as a dark view of the human condition. Every human will one day leave this temporal word. The earth, the sun, the stars of the Milky Way and the solar system will in time end. This is reality.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is also worth noting that Pope Francis has never supported liberation theology. It is also not the theology of the Church. Pope Francis is open to different voices, and it is not a valid argument to conclude that listening to the views of others means he supports those views. Pope Francis is a Jesuit. I’d say his perspective is different from what we are accoustomed to hearing from the Vatican and that there are those who just don’t get what for others is intuitively obvious.

The one voie he seems not to be open to is that in support of capitalism. I agree it is different from what we are accostomed to, but I’d add, not in a good way. There was one brief moment when Pope Francis expressed puzzlement at the crticisim from American Catholics over his anti-capitalist rhetoric and it seemed like he might follow up by hearing some pro-capitalist voices. But I’ve heard nothing more on that.

The Church has taught for the last century and a half that unfettered capitalism is liberalism. Catholic teaching is that we are not free to do whatever we please, and this is as true in the economic sphere as it is in the teachings on abortion and SSM. Freedom to do as one pleases is the core concept of liberalism, and it is also a keystone belief of the free enterprise system the political right embraces. There is thus a contradiction. Opposition to Iiberalism is the basis of Pope Francis’s opposition to laissez-faire capitalism.

The problem, as I have to frequently point out, is that “unfettered capitalism” is either a straw man or rhetorical device. We have never seen, nor are we likely to ever see, “unfettered capitalism” anywhere. We should be so lucky to have less-fettered capitalism.

Capitalism has for some raised the standard of living. It has both arisen in and afforded the personal freedom and independence that is an American ideal. But from this freedom and relative independence arise social issues that the Republican Party, the Christian Right and the Church all view as negatives, including abortion and SSM. There are many other examples. This difficulty for the political right (but not for the transcendent teachings of the Church) seems intractable given its internal contradiction. The teachings of the Church, which are spiritual and result from divine revelation, could in a sense be viewed as political when at times expressed in the temporal world, but only with the understanding they transcend the partisan politics of either the right or the left. There is criticism of the left as well. The teachings of the Church stand alone.

No, this is simply wrong. You will not find capitalism anywhere leading to lower standards of living. To be sure there are many consequences that follow from not only the abundance that capitalism has produced but also the change in thinking that it engenders. But it is one thing to seek to improve on capitalism, quite another to reject it in favor of an un or ill defined “third way”. That is nothing less than hubris.

“Poor” is a Western concept and arises from the duality of rich and poor. So is poverty. These realities are there to see in global capitalism, and it is not limited to Latin America. However, it is likely that the indigenous peoples of the Americas did not for thousands of years perceive themselves this way. It is not a question of north and south. These concepts more than likely did not yet exist in the Americas.

By almost any rational standard, the vast majority people were “poor” for most of human history. That started to change around the 17th century (historians debate precisely when). Today widespread poverty is regarded as an anomaly as if Africa and Latin America were the exception. They were, for most of human history, the rule.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is too easily forgotten that the United States was established only following its own bloody revolution that overthrew a European monarchy. Independence and freedom became ideals of the new country, though this was primarily limited to the European immigrants who had overthrown the ruling British. The cherished liberal concepts of freedom and independence became embedded in the concept of a free market. These liberal ideals sometimes conflict with the teachings of the Church, and the U.S. has never been a Catholic country. Tensions remain manifest.

And this is precisely what I meant when I said that we need a pope (or, more generally, a clergy and academia) who can sort the wheat from the chaff. The idea that modernity is to be rejected in toto is absurd.

The Church does not oppose capitalism, but it emphatically does not support a capitalism that does not justly serve the people (see comment #61). I have tried to explain that Pope Francis and Laudato Si seek a morally-informed economic system. Banks and other financial institutions were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds following the economic and financial catastrophe of 2008. Without government assistance, these institutions would have fallen like bowling pins. The repeal of Glass-Steagall played a significant role. It is undeniable that many millions of Latin Americans have come to the U.S. seeking a better life. The question is why? What is it that has caused immigration from Latin America to dramatically increase in the global economy?

As I noted, even if your yardstick is simply what is best for the poor then capitalism wins. We can debate the finer details all day but at a gross level, this is a fact of life.

I have not suggested this is caused by a concern for the poor. That is a result and a response to whatever is the cause. But what is the cause? As I’ve said I don’t pretend to know the answer and only know it is complex. But I would suggest that whatever it is has similarly resulted in poverty in the U.S. The one commonality is a global economy based on an unethical form of an economic system that results from unethical behavior. This is not an indictment of capitalism but rather of unethical behavior. This very much concerns the fallen nature of humanity as well as a cultural paradigm.

I don’t think that concern for the poor, stated in a general way, is a cause of poverty. But I woudl assert that many policies that present themselves as out of concern for the poor do great harm to the poor.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Pope Francis has been clear about what he opposes. Modernism and modernity are not the same thing. Modernity arose with the industrial era. I think what Pope Francis has rejected of modernity is clear in his description in Laudato Si of the cultural paradigm. A familiarity with the writings of Romano Guardini would be helpful. Beginning with Vatican II, the Church has attempted to find its place in the modern world, but this also is not an acceptance of Modernism, or not that of a philosophy that began with Rene Descartes five-hundred years ago. But I would doubt Pope Francis is seeking a return to Thomism. There is his often mentioning that ‘the real is above the idea’. Philosophically, these are fundamental concepts and a great deal follows from those six words. He also speaks of dialectics, and he did so favorably again today, in Cuba, relative to disagreement in the Church, though he does not publicly use the word ‘dialectic’ and does not often publicly explain his remarks in a technical way. Remember that he is a Jesuit and experienced fourteen years of Jesuit formation. Perhaps Pope Francis just knows more about Catholic teaching than Rush Limbaugh.

I stand corrected. My interest is in the apparent (?) rejection of modernity. I’m sure I could muster some kind words in favor of Modernism but that’s not my main concern.

You only assume Pope Francis is anti-capitalist. He opposes the same type of capitalism the Church has long opposed. What has changed is that his Catholic teaching has shifted the recent focus. And it is here where perhaps politics becomes involved. The Catholic Church does engage the world politically as well as spiritually. But there is in Catholic teaching what transcends partisan politics. What the Church teaches is right or wrong is right or wrong whether this is supported by the left or the right. It is irrelevant. Though the more immediate focus of Pope Francis is on the poor and the periphery, this current focus does not change doctrine or Catholic teaching. The Church continues to condemn abortion as well as question unfettered capitalism. It concerns the same question. Pope Francis was elected to the papacy at a point in history, and it is the belief of CatholicIsm that the process of the conclave of Cardinals is guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not necessarily mean we understand it.

I don’t assume it, I infer it from his words and deeds, what you call a change of focus. At a minimum, he does not view capitalism as a solution to poverty.

The science of both climate change and global warming is settled. It is a hard truth to accept. But is it a manifestation of a dark view of the human condition that results from the view that resources are limited? Creation and the temporal world are finite and how resources could be infinite (unlimited) requires an explanation. There are things that seem infinite, such as a number series beginning 1,2,3…and continuing indefinitely. But this is a concept, an idea, and not a tangible thing. Attempt this with even the grains of sand of the earth and the number series would eventually come to an end. This once again is the real above the idea. I don’t see this fact as a dark view of the human condition. Every human will one day leave this temporal word. The earth, the sun, the stars of the Milky Way and the solar system will in time end. This is reality.

Nothing in science is settled. But that is beside the point. What I am suggesting is that it is part of a larger, longer running pattern. There are many who view AGMism as a vehicle for attacking capitalism. What I see as a dark view of the human condition is the idea, espoused by yourself, and which I infer Pope Francis shares, that resources are limited. The implications of that worldview are difficult to understate.

 

[philipl]

It is true, but I don’t see how to repair the American socio-economic system that worships “the god of money.”

There is nothing wrong with the american system, fix all the corrupt liberal government and the problem will be solved.

 

[ProVobis]

The theory of Capitalism is that capital will invest in entities that will produce goods and services to the mutual benefit of all. This is not the reality in the U.S. where markets are fixed by Wall Street and other investors, lobbyists roam the halls of Congress with checkbooks in hand, corporations are persons and money is speech.

The markets and currencies are manipulated by the central banks. And the Fed is their chief leader. They work through providing credit to some and not to others. The “God” of money is indeed a false god.

 

[zz912]

This is called the revision of history. The land where I am right this very moment was once part of Mexico. It is a much longer story.

California wasn’t part of Mexico 100 years ago, and Mexico was on par with the US at the turn of the 20th century. That’s not revision, that’s actual history. And South America, particularly Brazil and Argentina were also on par with the US. But all of those countries took a sharp nosedive after socialism spread in their countries. The US did not accept socialism and prospered. We have started instituting socialism in our country, and we’ve experience 8 years of stagnation to show for it.

The difficulty is that whatever name we choose to call it, it is the reality.

Nice try, but no. You’re trying to claim the US has a capitalist system, but the truth is we don’t have one anymore. We have a corporatocracy/oligarchy model of neo-socialism. We don’t have a free market anymore in the US.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

That’s my feeling as well. I’m in South Louisiana and we have a ton of
Mexicans and S. Americans here.
After Hurricane Katrina, the Latinos were some of the only folks who were willing to
live in the city right after it was opened again (living conditions were awful) and they
replaced most of the roofs in the city, gutted houses, etc. If it wasn’t for them,
we would have been in a much worse mess.
You won’t hear many people around here clamoring for the illegals to be deported.
(except for Republican politicians at election time) as we owe them a debt of gratitude.
New Orleans is a “sanctuary city.”

When I hear about the fear of terrorists coming in from South of the border,
I remember that Mohammed Atta and the other 911 terrorists were here
legally. I don’t fear the Latinos at all and think that one day we may
be happy to have them here as they are largely Catholic and might help return the U.S.
to a more godly country.

As the ranks of Democratic party swell with Latinos, I’d say your hopes of returning the country to anything other than same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and funding for live baby dissection via Planned Parenthood are going to evaporate.

Not that they deserve less compassion because of their poor voting record, but lets not pretend they offer us a return to some sort of Catholic Xanadu.

Statistically speaking, their votes are NOT helping this country, and are certainly not pro-life. Thus, it would seem they are not even able to make this a more Godly country. Unless of course, you consider chopping up children Godly?

 

[stinkcat_14]

California wasn’t part of Mexico 100 years ago, and Mexico was on par with the US at the turn of the 20th century. That’s not revision, that’s actual history.

And that is actually false. In 1900, the US had a per capita GDP of around $4000. Mexico was around $1300, so that is far from on par.

ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries/

And South America, particularly Brazil and Argentina were also on par with the US. But all of those countries took a sharp nosedive after socialism spread in their countries. The US did not accept socialism and prospered. We have started instituting socialism in our country, and we’ve experience 8 years of stagnation to show for it.

Nice try, but no. You’re trying to claim the US has a capitalist system, but the truth is we don’t have one anymore. We have a corporatocracy/oligarchy model of neo-socialism. We don’t have a free market anymore in the US.

Argentina was closer, around $2900, but Brazil was worse than Mexico.

 

[Thomas_White]

Nice try, but no. You’re trying to claim the US has a capitalist system, but the truth is we don’t have one anymore. We have a corporatocracy/oligarchy model of neo-socialism. We don’t have a free market anymore in the US.

Well, the thing is that by whatever name we chose to call it, it is the reality.

 

[zz912]

And that is actually false. In 1900, the US had a per capita GDP of around $4000. Mexico was around $1300, so that is far from on par.

ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries/

Argentina was closer, around $2900, but Brazil was worse than Mexico.

GDP isn’t the only measurement. They were on par with the US for infrastructure, development, and growth. They didn’t have as high a GDP, but they certainly had the infrastructure and setting to rival the US. But they sold out to socialism and their economies tanked and their countries stagnated into 3rd world status.

 

[philipl]

That’s my feeling as well. I’m in South Louisiana and we have a ton of
Mexicans and S. Americans here.
After Hurricane Katrina, the Latinos were some of the only folks who were willing to
live in the city right after it was opened again (living conditions were awful) and they
replaced most of the roofs in the city, gutted houses, etc. If it wasn’t for them,
we would have been in a much worse mess.
You won’t hear many people around here clamoring for the illegals to be deported.
(except for Republican politicians at election time) as we owe them a debt of gratitude.
New Orleans is a “sanctuary city.”

so because they are cheap to hire and willing to lower the standard of living for all americans, you support them? BTW, which government agency writes your paycheck? They there people are such great business men and what not, why is their country is such bad shape? Blaming the USA isnt an answer.
sarah jWhen I hear about the fear of terrorists coming in from South of the border:

They are turning red states blue and at some point they may very well demand that some state turn into Mexico.

 

[Thomas_White]

GDP isn’t the only measurement. They were on par with the US for infrastructure, development, and growth. They didn’t have as high a GDP, but they certainly had the infrastructure and setting to rival the US. But they sold out to socialism
and their economies tanked and their countries stagnated into 3rd world status.

Where are the data and facts to support this? Without them, it is only rhetoric.

 

[stinkcat_14]

GDP isn’t the only measurement. They were on par with the US for infrastructure, development, and growth. They didn’t have as high a GDP, but they certainly had the infrastructure and setting to rival the US. But they sold out to socialism and their economies tanked and their countries stagnated into 3rd world status.

Ok, let’s see your data. Can you point to an economist who thinks we should not use GDP to compare well-being among countries?

 

[Caldera599]

I would blame this crisis on a bloody war which the US instigated so we could have our “regime change”.

 

[sarah_j]

After Hurricane Katrina, the Latinos were some of the only folks who were willing to live in the city right after it was opened again (living conditions were awful) and they replaced most of the roofs in the city, gutted houses, etc. If it wasn’t for them,
we would have been in a much worse mess.
You won’t hear many people around here clamoring for the illegals to be deported.
(except for Republican politicians at election time) as we owe them a debt of gratitude.
New Orleans is a “sanctuary city.”

When I hear about the fear of terrorists coming in from South of the border,
I remember that Mohammed Atta and the other 911 terrorists were here
legally. I don’t fear the Latinos at all and think that one day we may
be happy to have them here as they are largely Catholic and might help return the U.S.
to a more godly country.

As the ranks of Democratic party swell with Latinos, I’d say your hopes of returning the country to anything other than same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and funding for live baby dissection via Planned Parenthood are going to evaporate.

Not that they deserve less compassion because of their poor voting record, but lets not pretend they offer us a return to some sort of Catholic Xanadu.

**Statistically speaking, their votes are NOT helping this country, and are certainly not pro-life. Thus, it would seem they are not even able to make this a more Godly country. **Unless of course, you consider chopping up children Godly?

I hope you’re wrong about that.
Where I work, there are many Latino workers and they are here with their wives and
babies…they sure don’t appear to be pro-abortion. We have many Cuban families
who have been in this area since the '60s and they are solidly Catholic and conservative.

Do you have statistics showing that the Latinos
support abortion and same-sex marriage ?

It might just be that they are voting Democrat because they’re afraid
the Republicans will deport them all.
I think it’s a *big *mistake for the Republicans to declare themselves enemies
of the Latinos.
They are driving the Latinos into the arms of the Democratic party which will
certainly be disastrous down the road.

 

[Thomas_White]

I stand corrected. My interest is in the apparent (?) rejection of modernity. I’m sure I could muster some kind words in favor of Modernism but that’s not my main concern.

The terms modernism and modernity have multiple definitions. Modernism was used in my comment to refer to modern philosophy since Descartes. Modernity was used in reference to Late Modernity, the period beginning with the industrial era and as it concerns techno-science as a component of the cultural paradigm where it is more a criticism of an idea than of an historical period. It concerns the absence of ethics and spirituality. This is the Modernism and Modernity Laudato Si rejects.

Laudato Si criticizes the objectivity of science and the scientific method not in themselves but as the perspective of a cultural paradigm. This development has its roots in the philosophy of Descartes and has developed in both science and philosophy during the past five-hundred years. In this scheme, where science and the scientific method are objective, ethics became subjective. Laudato Si surely rejects this later development.

As a result, even if Pope Francis would say everyone has their own view of right and wrong (these days), I cannot see that it could possibly mean he agrees it is a good thing. It would seem there would necessarily be another more complex explanation particular to the given situation. Pope Francis has at times been criticized for saying things that seem contradictory. I don’t think this really is contradiction but don’t doubt it could seem so. There is a reason for speaking this way I think, and I also think it is intentional. It causes one to consider and to discern what it means as opposed to reading a proclamation that provides only rules to follow. It seems more like the Jesuit tradition of discernment. This has left confusion and perhaps has also found the spiritual confusion of the cultural paradigm.

Modernity is a more recent development, and the Church has always opposed it at least as an idea. But the concept overlaps modernism and is sometimes used synomomously with it. What the Church surely rejects is the secularism and moral relativity of modernism but not the reality of the temporal world. It has formally recognized as dogma that there is a continuous process of change in the temporal world. There are the doctrines of the Church, and there is also continuing revelation. What changes is the temporal world and what doctrine and revelation mean in a world of Becoming.

Laudato Si either explains or at least refers to all this. I am not sure that if this much isn’t understood that the moral teaching of the encyclical would be fully understood. It does conflict with political ideologies and liberalism in the way the Church understands liberalism (as the freedom to do what one wishes). The Church does not agree when actions are sinful.

I don’t assume it, I infer it from his words and deeds, what you call a change of focus. At a minimum, he does not view capitalism as a solution to poverty.

It is clear Pope Francis views poverty, at least in part, as a result of a corrupt form of capitalism. That would not mean capitalism could not provide a solution, and I have not seen where Pope Francis has proposed any economic theory. A concern for the poor, as the Catholic social teaching of the preferential option for the poor, resulted in a harsh reaction from the military dictatorship in Argentina during the '70’s where anyone helping the poor was viewed as a Marxist, and it would seem some still share this misperception. Opposition to the current form of capitalism has been Catholic teaching for at least the past hundred and fifty years. I have explained why: The Church considers this form of capitalism as liberalism, and this opposition is not Marxism. I have not seen where anyone has been willing to defend the existing form of capitalism, and it would seem the consensus is that it is either over-regulated or under-regulated, one or the other.

Pope Francis does present a change of focus but not a change in doctrine or Catholic teaching. The teachings of the Church transcend partisan politics, and neither the political left nor the right is in full agreement. These political positions transpose to a faulty conception of CatholicIsm where some seem to think the Church errs when it does not conform to their supposed Catholic beliefs. The result has been a division that was probably inevitable but differs from the division that began following Vatican II.

Nothing in science is settled. But that is beside the point. What I am suggesting is that it is part of a larger, longer running pattern. There are many who view AGMism as a vehicle for attacking capitalism. What I see as a dark view of the human condition is the idea, espoused by yourself, and which I infer Pope Francis shares, that resources are limited. The implications of that worldview are difficult to understate.

I would not agree nothing in science is settled. Those who view AGW simply as an unreasonable means of attacking capitalism are either confused, misinformed, in denial or are acting politically. There are also powerful interests that do not want AGW accepted and who fund those who are either in denial or politically or economically motivated. I think the pattern you are seeing is simply the Church’s consistent opposition to liberalism. I am beginning to think one problem might be that Laudato Si really is complex. I have not heard one mention of the encyclical at Mass since it was released, and if this approach is widespread it is not helpfull.

That resources could be infinite needs to be explained. It sounds as likely as a perpetual-motion machine.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The terms modernism and modernity have multiple definitions. …

There are many issues and ideas here and I’m trying to avoid going off on multiple tangents. My impression is that the Church, in general, has had issues with modernity for quite some time, one could argue since the Reformation. Criticisms of the epistomology of Modernism are one instance of that. What is most relevant to this discussion, I think, is that capitalism is a relatively new idea in terms of the life of the Church and pre-capitalist morality needs to be reexamined in light of what is now possible.

It is clear Pope Francis views poverty, at least in part, as a result of a corrupt form of capitalism. That would not mean capitalism could not provide a solution, and I have not seen where Pope Francis has proposed any economic theory. A concern for the poor, as the Catholic social teaching of the preferential option for the poor, resulted in a harsh reaction from the military dictatorship in Argentina during the '70’s where anyone helping the poor was viewed as a Marxist, and it would seem some still share this misperception. Opposition to the current form of capitalism has been Catholic teaching for at least the past hundred and fifty years. I have explained why: The Church considers this form of capitalism as liberalism, and this opposition is not Marxism. I have not seen where anyone has been willing to defend the existing form of capitalism, and it would seem the consensus is that it is either over-regulated or under-regulated, one or the other.

Pope Francis does present a change of focus but not a change in doctrine or Catholic teaching. The teachings of the Church transcend partisan politics, and neither the political left nor the right is in full agreement. These political positions transpose to a faulty conception of CatholicIsm where some seem to think the Church errs when it does not conform to their supposed Catholic beliefs. The result has been a division that was probably inevitable but differs from the division that began following Vatican II.

Recent popes have been very coy about what they are criticizing. The common term is “unfettered capitalism” (which you used) but this is never defined. Anyone who calls modern mixed market, welfare state economies “unfettered capitalism” is abusing language. (America currently ranks 12th by one relative measure.) Everyone is a critic of the status quo, it is what we wish to see come about that distinguishes us.

I would not agree nothing in science is settled. Those who view AGW simply as an unreasonable means of attacking capitalism are either confused, misinformed, in denial or are acting politically. There are also powerful interests that do not want AGW accepted and who fund those who are either in denial or politically or economically motivated. I think the pattern you are seeing is simply the Church’s consistent opposition to liberalism. I am beginning to think one problem might be that Laudato Si really is complex. I have not heard one mention of the encyclical at Mass since it was released, and if this approach is widespread it is not helpfull.

Newtonian physics is a classic example. What could have been more settled? Even today the experiments can be reliably replicated in any classroom. And, yet, it was unsettled by Einstein. There is nowhere near the precision and repeatability in AGWism.

That resources could be infinite needs to be explained. It sounds as likely as a perpetual-motion machine.

Happy to.

Let me illustrate with an example: Laudato Si. How many copies of it can we have? There is no practical limit. For this and a host of other resources (software is a perfect example) the only real limit is the demand, the usefulness of the copies (e.g. one per person is usually enough). More generally, ideas can be copied without cost and physical resources remade in new ways. Land is finite but the uses of land are potentially infinite. Earth can be remade in ever more valuable ways.

But there is a crucial ingredient: labor (including both physical and mental exertion). Pope Francis has at least partly recognized the value of human labor even if he doesn’t fully understand how truly valuable it is. There is another essential element: liberty. This the Pope is not so favorable toward.

 

[Thomas_White]

There are many issues and ideas here and I’m trying to avoid going off on multiple tangents. My impression is that the Church, in general, has had issues with modernity for quite some time, one could argue since the Reformation. Criticisms of the epistomology of Modernism are one instance of that. What is most relevant to this discussion, I think, is that capitalism is a relatively new idea in terms of the life of the Church and pre-capitalist morality needs to be reexamined in light of what is now possible.

Briefly and simply stated, modernity is a term referring to a time that began with the industrial era. It is not a reference to Modernism that is the period of philosophy that began five-hundred years ago. These are not tangents and are crucial to an understanding of Laudato Si. But the encyclical is also quite understandable as Catholic teaching apart from these terms, and it would seem it is by many millions of people.

Laudato Si, however, does reference these terms to provide a solid basis for its moral teaching, and with respect to that moral teaching the criticism of the state of capitalism today in the global economy is entirely comprehensible as Catholic teaching and not only its social teaching. In this long discussion here, it became necessary to reference these terms when Peronism and both Marxist and Fascist sympathies were introduced as an explanation.