Pope Calls Latin American Bishops to Center Mission in Christ, Not Ideologies

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bones_IV

Guest
Benedict XVI continued by saying, “The peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean have the right to a full life, proper to the children of God, under conditions that are more human: free from the threat of hunger and from every form of violence.” But, he warned, “Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves.”
“And this ideological promise,” he added, “has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.”

I hope Catholics in America take notice of this.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=78654
 
Everyone should take note. A capitalist economic system is amoral, not immoral. In a free country, the citizens have the freedom to be moral or immoral. As a Church, it is our responsibility to help society to become more moral.
bones_IV said:
Benedict XVI continued by saying, “The peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean have the right to a full life, proper to the children of God, under conditions that are more human: free from the threat of hunger and from every form of violence.” But, he warned, “Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves.”
“And this ideological promise,” he added, “has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it. The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.”

I hope Catholics in America take notice of this.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=78654
Click to expand...
 
I’ll be more specific…how do you institute this?
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0217/__PK.HTM
This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called ***a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives. ***
Click to expand...
Should an employer pay a father with eight kids more than a father of four kids for the same job?
How do you institute a “family allowance” or “grant” to families whose mother stays home? The financial needs of a family, per child, are going to vary by the income-earning potential of the husband. Even if you discover a way for it to work on paper, how do you get support for it from a majority of the people’s representatives in government?

Now, we do have child tax credits currently, but I’m assuming that it is not enough for some people.
 
rlg94086 said:
And, what is the economic system in your just society?
Click to expand...
A society that recognizes that every human being deserves full protection of the law from the moment of fertilization until natural death.
 
rlg94086 said:
I’ll be more specific…how do you institute this?
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0217/__PK.HTM

Should an employer pay a father with eight kids more than a father of four kids for the same job?
How do you institute a “family allowance” or “grant” to families whose mother stays home? The financial needs of a family, per child, are going to vary by the income-earning potential of the husband. Even if you discover a way for it to work on paper, how do you get support for it from a majority of the people’s representatives in government?

Now, we do have child tax credits currently, but I’m assuming that it is not enough for some people.
Click to expand...
rlg, when society looses the respect for the dignity of the human person none is actually safe. Faith is what will save Latin America not partisan politics. I look at it as a challenge to workers to follow the gospel.
 
bones_IV said:
A society that recognizes that every human being deserves full protection of the law from the moment of fertilization until natural death.
Click to expand...
You are giving non-answers my friend. What*** economic system*** was the question, as that is what your quote of the Pope referenced in the OP.
 
rlg94086 said:
You are giving non-answers my friend. What*** economic system*** was the question, as that is what your quote of the Pope referenced in the OP.
Click to expand...
I look at it this way. Capitalism is too individualistic and presses too far the right of capitalists to do as they wish with their property. Socialism was too communitarian in that it removes the right of private property from everyone and tried to put all property in the hands of the government.

John Paul II,

“After the collapse of the ideologies of the twentieth century, as especially after the fall of communism, various nations pinned their hopes on democracy. Yet we need to ask ourselves what a democracy ought to be. It is often said that with democrary, the true State of law is realized. In this system, in fact, social life is regulated by laws established by parliaments with legislative power. In these assemblies, norms are drawn up which delimit the conduct of citizens in the various areas of social life. Every area clearly requires legislation that will ensure its ordered development. In this way a State of law accompanies the purpose of every democracy: that of forming a society of free citizens who jointly pursue the common good.”

“Israel, as God’s chosen people, was a theocratic society, in which Moses was not only the charismatic leader but also the prophet.”

(Memory and Identity).
 
bones_IV said:
Capitalism is too individualistic and presses too far the right of capitalists to do as they wish with their property. Socialism was too communitarian in that it removes the right of private property from everyone and tried to put all property in the hands of the government.
Click to expand...
OK…and the preferred economic system is?
 
rlg94086 said:
OK…and the preferred economic system is?
Click to expand...
Distributionism. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus show us that between the extremes of Communism on the one had and Capitalism on the other there is a middle and human way for man to conduct his economic affairs.
 
Can you define “Distributionism?” If you mean a Capitalist system with controls on it and a tax system with tax credits to help the poor, then that’s what we have in the US right now.
bones_IV said:
Distributionism. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and Centesimus Annus show us that between the extremes of Communism on the one had and Capitalism on the other there is a middle and human way for man to conduct his economic affairs.
Click to expand...
 
The pope is not an economist. The catholic church does not have divine authority to declare the details of a perfect economic system. It DOES have the authority to decry systemic injustices in EXISTING systems where they become painfully obvious.

A system where governments can arbitrarily seize property and give it to politically connected insiders is inherently unjust.

A system where the offspring of the ultra-rich are nearly guaranteed luxury for life without any effort or personal achievement AND where those born very poor have no access to genuine opportunity is SIMILARLY unjust.

God has not revealed to us the specifics of a utopian economy and it probably cannot be acheived as long as we are fallen men. But that does not mean we cannot make improvements as time goes on and lessons are learned.

IMO, it would be consistant with catholic teaching for our current system to be modified to include a VERY heavy inheritence tax (often called a death tax by those who wish to kill it. Silly semantics since dead men have no money or possessions. They go to God barenaked and penniless.). The proceeds ought to be used EXCLUSIVELY for educational and public health expenditures. THAT would be a distributist change in our current system.
 
What, from a Church standpoint or simple logic, is unjust about someone being born to wealth?
manualman said:
The pope is not an economist. The catholic church does not have divine authority to declare the details of a perfect economic system. It DOES have the authority to decry systemic injustices in EXISTING systems where they become painfully obvious.

A system where governments can arbitrarily seize property and give it to politically connected insiders is inherently unjust.

A system where the offspring of the ultra-rich are nearly guaranteed luxury for life without any effort or personal achievement AND where those born very poor have no access to genuine opportunity is SIMILARLY unjust.

God has not revealed to us the specifics of a utopian economy and it probably cannot be acheived as long as we are fallen men. But that does not mean we cannot make improvements as time goes on and lessons are learned.

IMO, it would be consistant with catholic teaching for our current system to be modified to include a VERY heavy inheritence tax (often called a death tax by those who wish to kill it. Silly semantics since dead men have no money or possessions. They go to God barenaked and penniless.). The proceeds ought to be used EXCLUSIVELY for educational and public health expenditures. THAT would be a distributist change in our current system.
Click to expand...
 
Man’s fallen nature includes a proclivity to selfishness, does it not? It also includes problems with sloth, greed, lust, envy - any of these sound familiar?

Fortunately, we also retain vestiges of the image and likeness of God: love, creativity, compassion.

The best economic system must consider both aspects of human nature. Just as it must contain checks against sloth, it must contain checks against greed. Neither are good (In spite of what Ayn Rand might have to say on the matter). Both of these tendancies are results of the fall.

Money is power in our economy. No question about it. And power corrupts. The Marxist attempts to address the problem by seizing the fortune of all the wealthy and distributing it to all (in theory). This approach fails to recognize the hazards of sloth. When you remove the incentive for hard work, risk and innovation, people don’t do it.

Conversely, inhereted wealth fails to check greed in that inhereted money is the same as inhereted power. That power is used for personal advantage by men who never did anything to create that wealth in the first place. This ALSO puts the damper on hard work, risk and innovation because a large portion of society correctly perceives that all that stuff doesn’t matter: only WHO you know and who knows YOU counts. Exhibit A: George Bush. I voted for the guy twice in general elections, but lets not kid ourselves that he was EVER the best qualified American for the job. He got it because we don’t address the problem of inherited wealth. (Same goes for Ted Kennedy and a whole pile of Democrats!)

Our free enterprise system works best when people see that there is a REAL and genuine opportunity for them to make their own fortune by the sweat of their own brow. It fails when either the government or an excessively powerful wealth class chokes that opportunity and seizes wealth (or hoards it) unto themselves. When all of the board of directors of the major corporations are alumni of the same schools, give each other the first dibs on all the great IPOs, approve each other’s golden parachutes, pay off the politicians, and make sure their kids get legacy admissions to those same schools… I haven’t even scratched the surface!

Inherited wealth is a drain on the kind of free enterprise system that made this country great. When we realize that and return to a society where the rich got that way on their own, we’ll see a new economic marvel that will make the Asian tigers look like pussycats.
 
It’s an interesting theory. The problem is that removing money from the wealthy through an inheritance tax and distributing it to the poor has the exact same effect on sloth that Marxism does.

Also, your contention that inherited wealth is a “drain” is incorrect. Where do you think this money resides? In a mattress? Money is invested in stocks, bonds, banks, etc. That money is one of the things that fuels our economy. Also, I’d like to know what society you are referring to that we need to “return to.” Was there a time and place that greed and inheritance didn’t exist?

The problem with the fallen nature of man is not the economic system’s job to fix. As a Church, we need to convert hearts.
manualman said:
Man’s fallen nature includes a proclivity to selfishness, does it not? It also includes problems with sloth, greed, lust, envy - any of these sound familiar?

Fortunately, we also retain vestiges of the image and likeness of God: love, creativity, compassion.

The best economic system must consider both aspects of human nature. Just as it must contain checks against sloth, it must contain checks against greed. Neither are good (In spite of what Ayn Rand might have to say on the matter). Both of these tendancies are results of the fall.

Money is power in our economy. No question about it. And power corrupts. The Marxist attempts to address the problem by seizing the fortune of all the wealthy and distributing it to all (in theory). This approach fails to recognize the hazards of sloth. When you remove the incentive for hard work, risk and innovation, people don’t do it.

Conversely, inhereted wealth fails to check greed in that inhereted money is the same as inhereted power. That power is used for personal advantage by men who never did anything to create that wealth in the first place. This ALSO puts the damper on hard work, risk and innovation because a large portion of society correctly perceives that all that stuff doesn’t matter: only WHO you know and who knows YOU counts. Exhibit A: George Bush. I voted for the guy twice in general elections, but lets not kid ourselves that he was EVER the best qualified American for the job. He got it because we don’t address the problem of inherited wealth. (Same goes for Ted Kennedy and a whole pile of Democrats!)

Our free enterprise system works best when people see that there is a REAL and genuine opportunity for them to make their own fortune by the sweat of their own brow. It fails when either the government or an excessively powerful wealth class chokes that opportunity and seizes wealth (or hoards it) unto themselves. When all of the board of directors of the major corporations are alumni of the same schools, give each other the first dibs on all the great IPOs, approve each other’s golden parachutes, pay off the politicians, and make sure their kids get legacy admissions to those same schools… I haven’t even scratched the surface!

Inherited wealth is a drain on the kind of free enterprise system that made this country great. When we realize that and return to a society where the rich got that way on their own, we’ll see a new economic marvel that will make the Asian tigers look like pussycats.
Click to expand...
 
America got to the top because the government had an enormous amount of land and resources to virtually give away. This provided every man with the ambition and dedication to succeed a chance at it. We don’t have more land to give and the resources are mostly allocated. (Admittedly, it helped that we escaped bombing in two world wars!)

This bounty of the land allowed for the rich to hoard their inheritance AND the poor to have opportunity. But manifest destiny has run its course (for better and worse). If we don’t reform our economic system to sustain reasonable levels of opportunity for all, we will backslide into a class society. And probably get our hind ends kicked by some other nation or culture that ‘gets it.’ India, for example, seems to be throwing off the yoke of the traditional caste system and could easily eclipse us in this century.

I don’t buy the criticism that an inheritance tax saps the will of men to work. Men love their kids, but they love their own wealth and power too. If the big tax hits after death, it doesn’t reduce the incentive to work anywhere remotely as much as it does if you tax him on it immediately. Are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates REALLY motivated by the desire to give their KIDS the most they can?? I don’t think so!
 
manualman said:
I don’t buy the criticism that an inheritance tax saps the will of men to work. Men love their kids, but they love their own wealth and power too. If the big tax hits after death, it doesn’t reduce the incentive to work anywhere remotely as much as it does if you tax him on it immediately. Are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates REALLY motivated by the desire to give their KIDS the most they can?? I don’t think so!
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my comment. I don’t think the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world are in jeopardy of sloth. It’s the people on the government teat that are in jeopardy of sloth.

Please take a look at our friends across the pond. Why do you think France is considering longer work days and other conservative reforms. The same has already happened in the Netherlands. “Distributionism” fails whenever it is tried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top