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

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

Some would date modernity to the Enlightenment or, as I noted, to the Reformation, both of which predate the industrial revolution. By the time of the industrial revolution the social changes were manifest but as early as the Enlightenment and, arguably, the Reformation, there were essential ideas in discussion.

Of course, to say that Laudato Si is Catholic teaching is something of an tautology. It is what the Church is teaching at the moment under Pope Francis. Whether Pope Francis is best understood as a Peronist is the subject in another thread.

 

[Thomas_White]

Some would date modernity to the Enlightenment or, as I noted, to the Reformation, both of which predate the industrial revolution. By the time of the industrial revolution the social changes were manifest but as early as the Enlightenment and, arguably, the Reformation, there were essential ideas in discussion.

Of course, to say that Laudato Si is Catholic teaching is something of an tautology. It is what the Church is teaching at the moment under Pope Francis. Whether Pope Francis is best understood as a Peronist is the subject in another thread.

I don’t think so. It is suggested you do a search of Modernism with respect to a period of Philososophy and of Modernity with respect to the industrial era. The point is the teachings of Pope Francis are and always have been the teachings of the Church. I don’t believe the moral teachings of the pope are anything other than Catholic teaching.

Sorry if I have confused the threads.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think so. It is suggested you do a search of Modernism with respect to a period of Philososophy and of Modernity with respect to the industrial era. The point is the teachings of Pope Francis are and always have been the teachings of the Church. I don’t believe the moral teachings of the pope are anything other than Catholic teaching.

The first sentence from wiki: “Modernity is a term of art used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both a historical period (the modern era), as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in post-medieval Europe and have developed since, in various ways and at various times, around the world.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity, emphasis mine.]

If you want to examine the argument that modernity began with the Protestant Reformation, read Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First

It would be an understatmenet to say that the Protestant Reformation was a trauma for the Church. The counter-reformation never restored the status quo. The Enlightenment was another blow to the authority of the Church. Both of these predate the industrial revolution which was a material realization of the fruits of the earlier ideas.

Now, as a Catholic, I would argue that the Protestants accidentally stumbled onto something. I don’t believe in the Protestant “work ethic” much less “sola fide” or “sola scriptura”. But I do see a lot of prideful intransigence, particularly from the Latin American Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

The first sentence from wiki: “Modernity is a term of art used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both a historical period (the modern era), as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in post-medieval Europe and have developed since, in various ways and at various times, around the world.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity, emphasis mine.]

If you want to examine the argument that modernity began with the Protestant Reformation, read Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First

It would be an understatmenet to say that the Protestant Reformation was a trauma for the Church. The counter-reformation never restored the status quo. The Enlightenment was another blow to the authority of the Church. Both of these predate the industrial revolution which was a material realization of the fruits of the earlier ideas.

Now, as a Catholic, I would argue that the Protestants accidentally stumbled onto something. I don’t believe in the Protestant “work ethic” much less “sola fide” or “sola scriptura”. But I do see a lot of prideful intransigence, particularly from the Latin American Church.

Yes, the word ‘modernity’ is often used in both ways. I specifically pointed this out, noted it is often used synomomously with ‘modernism’ and said I used the word ‘modernity’ to refer to its first meaning in your quote (but more as an idea) as the period beginning with the industrial era. I also said I used the word ‘modernism’ to refer specifically to modern philosophy beginning with Descartes.

This is important to an understanding of the moral teaching of Laudato Si. It has nothing whatever to do with any supposed ‘prideful intransigence’ in the Latin American Church or anywhere else. However, I would note that ‘prideful’ is hardly the near-consensus perception of Pope Francis.

It is necessary to focus on the basis of the moral teaching of Laudato Si to find an answer to your question. It is explained in the encyclical in the description of the cultural and epistomological paradigm, as previously explained. It is found in Chapter 3, beginning particularly with paragraphs 106-108. This is what is relevant.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, the word ‘modernity’ is often used in both ways. I specifically pointed this out, noted it is often used synomomously with ‘modernism’ and said I used the word ‘modernity’ to refer to its first meaning in your quote (but more as an idea) as the period beginning with the industrial era. I also said I used the word ‘modernism’ to refer specifically to modern philosophy beginning with Descartes.

This is important to an understanding of the moral teaching of Laudato Si. It has nothing whatever to do with any supposed ‘prideful intransigence’ in the Latin American Church or anywhere else. However, I would note that ‘prideful’ is hardly the near-consensus perception of Pope Francis.

It is necessary to focus on the basis of the moral teaching of Laudato Si to find an answer to your question. It is explained in the encyclical in the description of the cultural and epistomological paradigm, as previously explained. It is found in Chapter 3, beginning particularly with paragraphs 106-108. This is what is relevant.

The first meaning in the quote I gave is not consistent with your alignment of modernity with the industrial revolution but with my identification of it with an earlier period, what they called “post-medieval”.

More precisely:

“As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77).”

Still more precisely:

“Modernity has been associated with cultural and intellectual movements of 1436–1789 and extending to the 1970s or later (Toulmin 1992, 3–5).”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity#Phases_of_modernity

Why is this important? For whatever reason, Pope Francis wants to assert that liberal ideas followed technology. First came the industirial revolution, and then came the ideas of liberty as an unwanted byproduct. But if the ideas of liberty came first and are the cause of the industrial revolution then he’s in a bit of a pickle. It makes it harder to take for granted the technology that we enjoy while bashing the ideas from which it springs forth. Praise the bounty but curse the creators of it?

 

[Thomas_White]

The first meaning in the quote I gave is not consistent with your alignment of modernity with the industrial revolution but with my identification of it with an earlier period, what they called “post-medieval”.

More precisely:

“As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77).”

Still more precisely:

“Modernity has been associated with cultural and intellectual movements of 1436–1789 and extending to the 1970s or later (Toulmin 1992, 3–5).”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity#Phases_of_modernity

Why is this important? For whatever reason, Pope Francis wants to assert that liberal ideas followed technology. First came the industirial revolution, and then came the ideas of liberty as an unwanted byproduct. But if the ideas of liberty came first and are the cause of the industrial revolution then he’s in a bit of a pickle. It makes it harder to take for granted the technology that we enjoy while bashing the ideas from which it springs forth. Praise the bounty but curse the creators of it?

I have explained that the two terms have been used synonymously and also how I have used the terms. Here is the first sentence from wiki: “Modernity is a term of art used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both an historical period (the modern era) as well as the emsemble of particular socio-cultural norms and attitudes that arose in post-medieval Europe…it can also refer to the subjective or existential experience of the conditions they produce.”

"Charles Baudelaire is credited with coining the term ‘modernity’ (modernite) in his 1864 essay “The Painter and Modern Life…”

Why is this important? Suffice it to say, it isn’t because “Pope Francis wants to assert that liberal ideas followed technology”. In Laudato Si, technology is specifically referred to as that component of Modernity of which Romano Guardini was critical. The Enlightenment and the ideas of liberty began long before the industrial revolution and of ‘modernity’ as the term is used here (late 1800’s and continuing into the 20th Century), and Laudato Si does not have it otherwise. It is the incorporation of science and technology as the perspective of a cultural and epistomological paradigm is why this is important. Part of the “subjective and existential experience they produce” is an absence of spirituality and consequent moral relativism.

This is not “bashing the ideas from which it springs forth” but is critical of the methods of science and of technology as a cultural paradigm. With all due respect, I am not persuaded you quite grasp the encyclical and the base of its moral teaching, perhaps by attempting an intellectual criticism of it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I have explained that the two terms have been used synonymously and also how I have used the terms. Here is the first sentence from wiki: “Modernity is a term of art used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both an historical period (the modern era) as well as the emsemble of particular socio-cultural norms and attitudes that arose in post-medieval Europe…it can also refer to the subjective or existential experience of the conditions they produce.”

"Charles Baudelaire is credited with coining the term ‘modernity’ (modernite) in his 1864 essay “The Painter and Modern Life…”

Why is this important? Suffice it to say, it isn’t because “Pope Francis wants to assert that liberal ideas followed technology”. In Laudato Si, technology is specifically referred to as that component of Modernity of which Romano Guardini was critical. The Enlightenment and the ideas of liberty began long before the industrial revolution and of ‘modernity’ as the term is used here (late 1800’s and continuing into the 20th Century), and Laudato Si does not have it otherwise. It is the incorporation of science and technology as the perspective of a cultural and epistomological paradigm is why this is important. Part of the “subjective and existential experience they produce” is an absence of spirituality and consequent moral relativism.

This is not “bashing the ideas from which it springs forth” but is critical of the methods of science and of technology as a cultural paradigm. With all due respect, I am not persuaded you quite grasp the encyclical and the base of its moral teaching, perhaps by attempting an intellectual criticism of it.

With all due respect, I think you are trying to defend the indefensible by marking the start of modernity in the 1800s instead of the 1500s as historians do. The reason that historians begin with that earlier time is precisely because that is when they detect the origins of these “modern” ideas; this is when the “cultural paradigm” began to shift. Is Pope Francis now “teaching” history too?

 

[Thomas_White]

With all due respect, I think you are trying to defend the indefensible by marking the start of modernity in the 1800s instead of the 1500s as historians do. The reason that historians begin with that earlier time is precisely because that is when they detect the origins of these “modern” ideas; this is when the “cultural paradigm” began to shift. Is Pope Francis now “teaching” history too?

I have explained that the terms ‘modernism’ and ‘modernity’ are often used synomomously but also have specific definitions. I have also explained those specific definitions that I have used–Modernism to refer to modern philosophy beginning with Descartes and Modernity as the period of history that began with the industrial era. These are not the same thing. Modernity, as I and many others (including the Catholic Church) have used the term, refers to the liberal-capital-industrial system that began to develop toward the end of the 19th Century. In the early 20th Century, a number of Catholic authors, including G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, as well as the theologian Romano Guardini, developed a critique of this system that held until near the end of the century when a small number of opposing Catholic apologists began working on a political agenda inspired more by the politics of Washington D.C. than the Vatican.

It would be fair to say Pope Francis and his encyclical Laudato Si reject this political agenda in favor of the traditional teaching of the Church with respect to Modernity (as defined). I cannot see how simply ignoring these facts is going to result in an understanding of either Laudato Si or Pope Francis.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Modernity, as I and many others (including the Catholic Church) have used the term, refers to the liberal-capital-industrial system that began to develop toward the end of the 19th Century.

I have explained why this is erroneous history, particularly in the realm of philosophy and ideas.

 

[Thomas_White]

I have explained why this is erroneous history, particularly in the realm of philosophy and ideas.

When discussion of the basis of the moral teaching of Laudato Si is avoided, I would say the issue is settled.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

When discussion of the basis of the moral teaching of Laudato Si is avoided, I would say the issue is settled.

When the basis is faulty history, I would agree.

 

[seaton2005]

I wonder where Pope Francis stands on liberation theology?

ncronline.org/news/jesuit-liberation-theology-will-endure-and-grow

Liberation theology is very powerful among groups who have historically suffered discrimination. Some minority churches practice it. I am sure he (Pope) is mindful of it. I do like the Pope’s message. He seems to be unsettling to many of my Catholic sisters and brothers on his message. This pope is need now more than ever.

 

[Thomas_White]

When the basis is faulty history, I would agree.

At the beginning of modernism and the Enlightenment, the U.S. would not yet exist for several more centuries. It is not that modernism did not yet exist, but that its consequent cultural paradigm became more and more pronounced in the US. beginning with the industrial revolution.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

At the beginning of modernism and the Enlightenment, the U.S. would not yet exist for several more centuries. It is not that modernism did not yet exist, but that its consequent cultural paradigm became more and more pronounced in the US. beginning with the industrial revolution.

I won’t even try to guess where you are marking the beginning of “modernism” now but it is interesting how the discovery of the Americas and the Reformation coincided and some historians have even speculated that the fomer influenced the later.

As I recall, Chesterton was mostly preocccupied with the British industrial revolution, seeing as he was British, which predated America’s. I think most would agree that America was uniquely hospitable to capitalism and improved greatly upon it but it did not begin in America. Sadly, while China and India have made great strides there is little reason to think that either could ever play a similar role. For now, at least, even as it has fallen to 12th place, America remains the symbol of capitalism.

Still, I see you are firmly wedded to this idea of a “consequent cultural paradigm” as opposed to the furtile cultural paradigm that laid the ground for it. If this is representative of the best thinking of the Church, no wonder it is still struggling with modernity.

 

[ProVobis]

What does one call an economic system that “privatizes the gains and socializes the losses”?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What does one call an economic system that “privatizes the gains and socializes the losses”?

Kleptocracy?

(It’s a broad term but certainly includes that.)

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Well, some sharia law activists think women shouldn’t drive, should be covered from head-to-toe in searing heat, have no male friends and that GLBTQ folks should be executed.

Should we consider their concerns as well? Who are we to judge? What makes our culture superior to theirs?

See how it is to go down that path…

 

[SuperLuigi]

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

Like in Libya?

 

[ProVobis]

Kleptocracy?

(It’s a broad term but certainly includes that.)

Actually most of us can easily fall into it. Even Ayn Rand, probably capitalists’ chief champion, was known to have accepted social security checks, which is part of a system arguably one of the socialists’ main accomplishments.

 

[Thomas_White]

I won’t even try to guess where you are marking the beginning of “modernism” now but it is interesting how the discovery of the Americas and the Reformation coincided and some historians have even speculated that the fomer influenced the later.

I have said a number of times that in this discussion I have defined the term “modernism” to mean modern philosophy beginning with Rene Descartes. This was the beginning of a paradigm shift in philosophy. One could go back to the pre-Socratic philosophers and reasonably argue the thinking of Plato and Aristotle represented a subsequent paradigm shift in philosophy that only ended with the emergence of modern philosophy following the Scholastic period. Paradigm shifts do not occur at a precise moment of history. It is process that has roots in history. That the discovery of the Americas could have influenced the Reforation would seem a valid proposition; these things are not either/or propositions.

As I recall, Chesterton was mostly preocccupied with the British industrial revolution, seeing as he was British, which predated America’s. I think most would agree that America was uniquely hospitable to capitalism and improved greatly upon it but it did not begin in America. Sadly, while China and India have made great strides there is little reason to think that either could ever play a similar role. For now, at least, even as it has fallen to 12th place, America remains the symbol of capitalism.

It is not argued that capitalism began in America [the U.S.] or that America was inhospitable to it. However, what is occurring in China and India with respect to capitalism is what it is and environmental damage is certainly part of it.

Still, I see you are firmly wedded to this idea of a “consequent cultural paradigm” as opposed to the furtile cultural paradigm that laid the ground for it. If this is representative of the best thinking of the Church, no wonder it is still struggling with modernity.

Certainly, I speak only for myself and have only provided my perspective. The difference between a “consequent cultural paradigm” and a “fertile cultural paradigm” is perhaps semantic, but the cultural paradigm did not precede but evolved from modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes. The cultural paradigm is not tangible: it is a mindset or perspective. It would seem very likely the Reformation (only in part as liberal thought but obviously not as a rejection of Christianity) was also a result of what became the primacy of Reason as a result of the paradigm shift of modern philosophy, with the result that during the Enlightenment the Immannance of God was no longer thought /]knowable by Reason. Ethics would become subjective and God solely a matter of belief (faith) in philosophy–not exclusively so, of course, but as an historical development in philosophy that would become a cultural paradigm. This cultural paradigm evolved, is yet evolving and did not occur at a particular moment in time. The industrial revolution was a later paradigm shift, and this later historical paradigm shift cannot be properly ignored.