Pope criticizes the ‘cruelty’ of capitalism

[levi86]

In a word, yes.
I think he lacked the courage to nail his colours to the mast.
Our Lord condemned capitalism, he called it Mammon, and damned it as anti-G_d.
I think it is high time that the Church stopped dilly-dallying the point.
Capitalism = Mammon = Anti-G_d = evil.

I completely agree with you with respect to capitalism, but I think it would be unreasonable to suggest that The Holy Father “lacks courage”. The Pope has to act with caution on such a matter. Capitalism has become rooted in western society, to condemn capitalism outright may have some very negative effects.

There are many people (capitalists) that are so attached to their own personal wealth that they would chose their own property over the Church

 

[Ridgerunner]

What you describe is not capitalism, but rather liberalism.
Unfortunately Liberalism is a dirty word in the US so another word is misused in its place.
What I have said stands.

If you had said anything, it might stand. But since you didn’t, it can’t. Your “capitalism=anti-God=evil” is just a conclusion without a shadow of a foundation.

I agree liberalism is a dirty word in the U.S. among many. It has lost its original meaning and is now considered equivalent to “socialism” because socialism is advocated by many who call themselves “liberals”.

What I have said stands.

 

[josephdavid]

So the U.S. ok’ing business in China which has repressive government and abuses he environment so we all ca shop cheaply at Wal-Mart which obviously has labor problems of their own this is good?

Was it good that a local Chicago manufacturer shuts down their plant to manufacture in China. The employees lost their pensions and the executives parachute out with a $40 million in “bonuses”? Leaving the taxpayers to provide assistance to the worker?

Was it suitable for the U.S. government to allow forced abortions and sweatshops in the Mariana Islands to go on?

I am not saying nor is the Holy Father is saying that Capitalism is evil but at there are present situations in this world which Catpitalism is failing the ordinary citizen.

It just needs some fixing.

 

[MH84]

VATICAN CITY - Benedict XVI criticizes the “cruelty” of capitalism and colonialism and the power of the wealthy over the poor in his first book as pope released on Friday.

Benedict began writing his personal meditation on Jesus Christ’s teachings, entitled “Jesus of Nazareth,” in 2003 when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He stressed that the book is an expression of his “personal search for the face of the Lord” and is by no means official Catholic Church doctrine.

“Everyone is free, then, to contradict me,” he wrote.

msnbc.msn.com/id/18094760/

Has anyone read this new book themselves? I am interested in buying it, but I normally find his work too complex for me. I know he is gifted with high intelligence.

 

[levi86]

Has anyone read this new book themselves? I am interested in buying it, but I normally find his work too complex for me. I know he is gifted with high intelligence.

I’m not sure it’s even been released yet. I think it’s set for release in mid May, but I could be wrong.

 

[cleargospel99]

Our system of free enterprise markets in the West is firmly planted in our Christian heritage.

Here is our Lord speaking on point.

Matthew 25:14-30

The Parable of the Talents
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’

21"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22"The man with the two talents also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.’

23"His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

 

[Orionthehunter]

Surely you’re not serious? You think we should have terrible, unfair, corrupt governments in order to help people to trust in God? Far more to be thankful under the good government of faithful Christians than when reliant on God for basic food and clothing. Of course God will provide, but we should do our best to provide and to give justice to the poor. You shall not tempt the Lord your God…

You miss my point. God is more interested in what is in our heart and that we look to Him in gratitude as the source of all good gifts. And we are measured not by the justice of the government we have but by what we personally do to provide and to give justice to the poor. When Christ is separating the goats from the sheep, he will not be interested in me saying “but I lived in the US and not China.” And then when asked, “but what did YOU do?” I doubt it will be satisfactory to say that "I advocated government programs to take from the rich to give to the poor. I really felt strong that the rich had to much wealth that was bad for their souls and they needed to do more to relieve suffering around me.

Regarding your comment “Far more to be thankful under the good government of faithful Christians than when reliant on God for basic food and clothing.”, I am reliant on God for everything always. All I have and all I am is because of God’s generousity and He is to whom I am grateful.

So the U.S. ok’ing business in China which has repressive government and abuses he environment so we all ca shop cheaply at Wal-Mart which obviously has labor problems of their own this is good?

Was it good that a local Chicago manufacturer shuts down their plant to manufacture in China. The employees lost their pensions and the executives parachute out with a $40 million in “bonuses”? Leaving the taxpayers to provide assistance to the worker?

Was it suitable for the U.S. government to allow forced abortions and sweatshops in the Mariana Islands to go on?

I am not saying nor is the Holy Father is saying that Capitalism is evil but at there are present situations in this world which Catpitalism is failing the ordinary citizen.

It just needs some fixing.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Pope’s message. We as individuals who live in a capitalist system are failing the downtrodden. The fruits we recieve from our participation in our system, because of its capacity to produce abundance (which is a good thing), are gifts from God. To whom much is given, much is expected. The Pope is calling on us to enter into the suffering personally and do something about it personally. In my mind, too often solutions to suffering in capitalist countries seem to place the blame on the system and not on each and every one of us.

With regard to doing business with China, there are two issues.

One is as Christians we need to be concerned about the abuses of people and the environment. Because their government doesn’t answer to anyone (including their own people) and definitely not to us or our government, we have to appeal to their self-interest to get them to understand these are not good “fruits” of their production. Such an appeal if successful, is the only answer to get them to change their ways. If I had a “silver bullet” answer, I wouldn’t be on this board. At the same time, I’m not sure that boycotting business with them is the answer. Like so many things, it is likely a combination of various and diverse “carrot and stick” propositions.

Second, we should not have a knee-jerk opposition to the moving of jobs from the US to undeveloped countries. These people deserve an improvement of their standard of living as much as we do. When the poorest of our poor would be considered wealthy in most of the undeveloped world, the movement of jobs to them is an instrument of improving the condition of people also made in God’s image. Our call to social and economic justice is not limited to U.S. citizens but to the entire world.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Likewise, you choose to missunderstand the words which are plain.
I do not condemn honest money, neither do I condemn hard work, or diligence.
What you choose to discribe as capitalism is something different from communism, but not true capitalism.
It is like a non-white calling himself black, because he is not white.
Capitalism is as I described.
It is a belief system, nay, a religion, which is concerned solely with measures to improve monetary integrity. It has no room in its crede for measures to relieve any suffering which adherence to these aims may cause.
What you seem to be describing is some form of Christian socialism, but in the US, socialism, like liberalism is a dirty word, so you misuse some other word.
If you choose to misuse words, then you will suffer misunderstanding, both by yourself, and those with whom you endeavour to communicate.

Capitalism is not a belief system. It is an economic system for the distribution of land, labor and capital and the legal ownership of the fruits of land, labor and capital. It is silent to the matter of what is the best remedy for social and economic justice. These are matters left to the individual to discern as a matter of prudential judgment. Christ directly placed these matters directly on me “the least of what I did to my brother. . .” and did not tell me to delegate these responsibilities to others, my government and did not say that I would get credit for the social and economic justice practiced by others or my government.

 

[cleargospel99]

Capitalism is not a belief system. It is an economic system for the distribution of land, labor and capital and the legal ownership of the fruits of land, labor and capital. It is silent to the matter of what is the best remedy for social and economic justice. These are matters left to the individual to discern as a matter of prudential judgment. Christ directly placed these matters directly on me “the least of what I did to my brother. . .” and did not tell me to delegate these responsibilities to others, my government and did not say that I would get credit for the social and economic justice practiced by others or my government.

James 2:14-15

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. **16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? **17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 

[Brendan]

James 2:14-15

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. **16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? **17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Exactly,

James puts the onus on the exact same place Christ does, on the individual person.

We are each personally obligated to assist others in Christian charity. To give our cloak to those in need ( to paraphrase Luke 3), but are we not supposed to have bought the two cloaks to begin with.

And is it the responsiblilty to the State (or the Church) to take a cloak from a man who has two to give the man who has none? That is not the Gospel!

Forced charity is not charity at all.

Rather, if a man has two cloaks, and we know of another who has none, our task as Christians is to convince the first man of the spiritual value of freely giving up his second cloak.

If he refuses, we have no right to take the cloak, or encourage others to take the cloak, but are rather to pray for his conversion.

Furthermore, is it the role of the Christian to make claims that the first man should not own two cloaks in the first place? That the very fact that he has extra when others are in need is a matter of injustice? I can’t find that in the Gospel either.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by levi86 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Do you have a particular issue with what The Pope has said?
In a word, yes.
I think he lacked the courage to nail his colours to the mast.
Our Lord condemned capitalism, he called it Mammon, and damned it as anti-G_d.
I think it is high time that the Church stopped dilly-dallying the point.
Capitalism = Mammon = Anti-G_d = evil.

<honk…!> Wrong-o, buckeroo…!!!

Your basic heresy is that of “the world is evil”.

We are to live in the world.

Economics are how we supply the needs of each other.

Economics, like the blade of a knife, is neither good nor evil, but only a “force” which can be used for good or evil.

Those who use the “blade edge” to hurt people are doing evil.

Those who use the blade edge to create food (wealth) to feed those who need it are doing good.

Many aspects of capitalism create the opportunity to use the blade of economics for evil.

Capitalism is not evil, and is not Mammon. Mammon is simply a name of Satan.

To call capitalism mammon would be the equivalent of calling all knives mammon because knives can be used for evil,… and just as “childish”.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[manualman]

Vaclav,

It isn’t every day I get accused of being a Calvinist, so you have my undivided attention! Have you ever made ANY observations on Natural Law? Is Jesus not the WORD incarnate and the author of ALL creation? What happens to the squirrel when winter comes and he didn’t lay in acorns? What did God mean when he told Adam after the Fall that he would have to work the fields by the sweat of his brow to eat?

God created our natural world to operate according to principles. If we are wise, we will order our economic systems such that they mirror what He had created as closely as possible. Accordingly, YES, there must be consequences for the squirrel who fails to gather acorns. If we attempt to create a SYSTEM that AUTOMATICALLY protects the lazy squirrel from himself, we will implode. No one will gather acorns - why would we? Much more fun to chase the female squirrels!

But just because an economic system does not systematically protect the weak, unfortunate or lazy does not mean that PEOPLE cannot do so on their own. I will turn your question on itself: Where does Jesus command his followers to lobby Pilate for public health care or a widows endowment fund? He doesn’t. He commands his followers to do it PERSONALLY because the personal contact changes both the giver AND the recipient. The weak become strong, the greedy become generous, the lazy are inspired to motivation. NONE of that happens in a faceless safety net SYSTEM.

The problems of capitalism today are twofold:

1. Corporations are of such a size that financial machinations are far more profitable than actually producing products or services. That needs addressing through law that gives economic advantage to small business against megacorporations. Yup, I’m aware that this would no longer be ‘pure’ capitalism. But it isn’t the financiers and capitalists who make capitalism work. Its the entrepenuers! Fix the system to make THEM the highest rewarded, not the Wall Street suits. Believe it or not, its not a major structural adjustment.
2. The culture we live in is so degraded that the numbers healthy charitable humans are out of proportion with the weak and needy. That is a cultural problem, not a problem with the basic economic system. It cannot be solved via entitlement programs. As noted above, such attempts only perpetuate the dependency. It can only be solved by a turnaround in the culture.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Exactly,

James puts the onus on the exact same place Christ does, on the individual person.

True.

We are each personally obligated to assist others in Christian charity.

Yet the Samaritan, in paying the innkeeper, delegated responsibility of charity to that innkeeper, so, yes, you can delegate charity.

To give our cloak to those in need ( to paraphrase Luke 3), but are we not supposed to have bought the two cloaks to begin with.

No, It is entirely possible to acquire trwo coats by accident. How many toasters have been given as wedding presents to the same couple?

And is it the responsiblilty to the State (or the Church) to take a cloak from a man who has two to give the man who has none? That is not the Gospel!

No, but the church did exclude any who failed to comply with church law. It is reasonable to call someone who behaves in a non-Christian manner, a non Christian, even an anti-Christian.

Forced charity is not charity at all.

Call a spade a spade! A man without charity belongs to SATAN!

Rather, if a man has two cloaks, and we know of another who has none, our task as Christians is to convince the first man of the spiritual value of freely giving up his second cloak.

Or if he refuses, accept that he belongs to SATAN, and has no place in our community.
Let him be anathema.
Let him be outcast.
Let him be damned to perdition.

If he refuses, we have no right to take the cloak, or encourage others to take the cloak, but are rather to pray for his conversion.

Let us not be mealy mouthed. Let us be plain as to what is acceptable, and what is not.

Furthermore, is it the role of the Christian to make claims that the first man should not own two cloaks in the first place? That the very fact that he has extra when others are in need is a matter of injustice? I can’t find that in the Gospel either.

Our Lord commanded: Have no two coats!
That is, do not deliberately obtain two coats.
Further, if you find that by accident you have a surplus of coats, then be charitable with your excess.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Yet the Samaritan, in paying the innkeeper, delegated responsibility of charity to that innkeeper, so, yes, you can delegate charity…

New concept in charity. Do good because you are paid for it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

<honk…!> Wrong-o, buckeroo…!!!

Your basic heresy is that of “the world is evil”.

I never implied that the world is evil. Your imputaion is imaginary.

We are to live in the world.

Of course.

Economics are how we supply the needs of each other.

I never condemned honest money, or honest trade, or diligent labour.

Economics, like the blade of a knife, is neither good nor evil, but only a “force” which can be used for good or evil.

Who brought up the subject of ecconomics, this is about Capitalism, which is a particular philosophy of ecconomic management.

Those who use the “blade edge” to hurt people are doing evil.

Those who use the blade edge to create food (wealth) to feed those who need it are doing good.

As I said, honest money is not to be condemned. It is the ATTITUDE towards honest money.

Many aspects of capitalism create the opportunity to use the blade of economics for evil.

Capitalism is just another name for monetarism.
It defines a set of disciplines designed to enhance the welfare of capital, or money. It is completely unconcerned with the welfare of people. The term monetarism is generally reserved for an extreme version of capitalism, in which the disregard for human welfare becomes actual malignance thereto.

Capitalism is not evil, and is not Mammon. Mammon is simply a name of Satan.

Perhaps honest capitalism is not entirely evil, but its inherrant lack of charity means that it will always err on the side of evil.
Indeed, in fine analysis, it is not capitalism which is evil. but rather the disciplines that capitalism invokes. These disciplines are the essence of a philosophy, and of a governing principle. So it is a religion, that is, a binding philosophy, from ligare, to bind.
In setting Mammon against G_d, Our Lord is setting like against like. That is, money, as a governing and binding principle against the love of G_d.
The context is quite clear.
Your excessive oversimplification entirely loses this context.
Mammon is contrary to G_d, but is not equal to SATAN, though both are evil.

To call capitalism mammon would be the equivalent of calling all knives mammon because knives can be used for evil,… and just as “childish”.

It is your oversimplification which is childish.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Vaclav]

Orion,

First, let me say thanks for the thoughtful post. I do have a few points I’d like to make.

I myself am not sure I know if there is a universal concept of “Calvinist ethics”. Puritan ethics and many forms of “free personal expression” claim to be from the root of Calvin.

This is true and Contrarini makes a good point about Weber’s view of Calvinism, which is not all-encompassing. But, it did not have to be. Weber was trying to point out the origins of Capitalism, where he did a very good job, and not the theological ins and outs of Calvinism.

If you were to read the great capitalist philosophers (Friedman, Hayek, Smith), capitalism and these writers abhor the abuses of individualism to which you are rightly opposed.

I’ve read all three (though my Hayek could probably be improved). Friedman has a general idealistic philosophy on individual freedom that certainly proved to be utopic with regards to capitalism (Chile makes an excellent case study!). He was primarily known for monetarism and not political thought.

Hayek was one of Maggie’s greatest influences and we shouldn’t forget her infamous quote that “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.” For which she was soundly chastised by the CoE and rightly so.

With regard to your books on “The Protestant Ethic” et. al., the problem is not with regard to the economic system but how he justifies it in light of his prism of humanity which is directly contrary to my view and the view of the Church. While Mein Kampf was a manifesto to Socialism, the problem with the book is less about any problems of socialism than it is about problems of the author’s perverted view of humanity.

While there is some line of truth to this, let’s be fair to Max Weber, who was a well regarded academic and was very much promoting Capitalism.

Mein Kampf was not so much a socialist tome, in fact it wasn’t socialist at all (it tied Judaism to Bolshevism and Marxism).

More than that Hitler is very careful to make sure that he comes across as a very spiritual man. In fact, Hitler uses the Catholic Church and Protestantism as examples to be lauded and discussed God’s grace in his racial theories. If anything Mein Kampf is a brilliant example of Hitler’s ability to appeal to popular politics, while at the same time move his cause forward.

I tend to find that most people (and I don’t mean this as an insult, so please don’t be offended) who talk about Fascism and Communism have never read Marx or any of the fascist writers.

One last note, I hear a lot that “Capitalism is just an economic system” meaning that it has nothing to do with the rest of society, as if it existed outside of politics, foreign affairs, democracy, social assumptions, etc.

It does not. Any economic system comes with assumptions and generates its own peculiar logic into society and the history of that society. To separate American capitalism (or whatever you wish to call it) from the rest of American society is ridiculous. It is an impossibility. It would be akin to separating one’s personality from oneself. It can be changed, sure, but it cannot be viewed upon as existing in complete isolation.

 

[Keikiolu]

… Quote:

Economics are how we supply the needs of each other.

I never condemned honest money, or honest trade, or diligent labour.
Quote:
Economics, like the blade of a knife, is neither good nor evil, but only a “force” which can be used for good or evil.
Who brought up the subject of ecconomics, this is about Capitalism, which is a particular philosophy of ecconomic management.

We have different definitions of “capitalism”.

You define it as an evil. I don’t.

We can probably agree with that, as you actually DID specifically define it that way. (Capitalism = Mammon)

To me, capitalism is simply the exchange of goods for hopeful mutual benefit. In other words, a relatively non-coercive trade economy.

The best possible version of capitalism would be utterly non-coercive, but that’s “really hard” to do.

Quote:

Those who use the “blade edge” to hurt people are doing evil.

Those who use the blade edge to create food (wealth) to feed those who need it are doing good.
As I said, honest money is not to be condemned. It is the ATTITUDE towards honest money.

Agreed. Do you believe that “trade” is like a knife, in that it can be used for good or evil?

Quote:

Many aspects of capitalism create the opportunity to use the blade of economics for evil.
Capitalism is just another name for monetarism.
It defines a set of disciplines designed to enhance the welfare of capital, or money. It is completely unconcerned with the welfare of people. The term monetarism is generally reserved for an extreme version of capitalism, in which the disregard for human welfare becomes actual malignance thereto.

No true economic system can be unconcerned with human welfare. That would be like saying, to continue that above analogy, a knife can be constructed that is unconcerned with human welfare.

The only thing that gives money value are the humans who desire it. If nothing else, it enhances the welfare of the nasty evil people who amass it and misuse the power that their “mass” gives them.

Quote:

Capitalism is not evil, and is not Mammon. Mammon is simply a name of Satan.
Perhaps honest capitalism is not entirely evil,

My only arguement, which you have just granted as accurate, is that it’s not capitalism itself that is an evil, but a possible tool of evil.

Our argument is finished.

…but its inherrant lack of charity means that it will always err on the side of evil.
Indeed, in fine analysis, it is not capitalism which is evil. but rather the disciplines that capitalism invokes.

So, you’d propose the Ludite solution of destroying all “knives” because they have this nasty tendency to fall into the hands of murderers?

Good luck with that.

…continued —>

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

These disciplines are the essence of a philosophy, and of a governing principle. So it is a religion, that is, a binding philosophy, from ligare, to bind.

If the “love of money”, not the “trade of money”, or the “existence of money” is used as a replacement for God, then you’ve created an idol,… a Mammon.

But capitalism is a “trade of money”, and not a “love of money”, and is, just like any other “tool”, incapable in itself of being a replacement for God.

In setting Mammon against G_d, Our Lord is setting like against like. That is, money, as a governing and binding principle against the love of G_d.

Not true if you understand what money is. And if you understand what God is, of course.

Money is simply a token of “earthly value”, while God has another whole set of tokens for His “heavenly values”.

It’s right to set Mammon (“earthly value” as more important than God) against God.

It’s wrong to set money (“earthly value” as a communication mechanism) against God, any more than it is to set knives against God.

The context is quite clear.
Your excessive oversimplification entirely loses this context.
Mammon is contrary to G_d, but is not equal to SATAN, though both are evil.

mammon = evil (I got that.)
mammon = subset of Satan’s Tricks (I got that.)
mammon = capitalism (Nah,… can’t agree with that.)

Quote:

To call capitalism mammon would be the equivalent of calling all knives mammon because knives can be used for evil,… and just as “childish”.
It is your oversimplification which is childish.

As you wish. You would most likely have argued with Christ Jesus about His “simplistic” explanations as well. That’s cool…

Quote:

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

---

Best regards,
Dave.

We’re not really disagreeing overly.

My only issue with what you say is that it “seems” to condemn all capitalism, which would be a human disaster if actually “implemeted” in the world.

I would have to ask you what you would replace capitalism with, and how you would “enforce” it’s imposition?

The answer may very well be some sort of, what’s it called, distributionist subsidiarityism, or some such (see Chesterton), but that would be, in my not overly humble opinon, just another more perfect form of capitalism.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi Keikiolu,
I agree we do not differ greatly in what is essential.
You seem to define, as indeed many do, ‘capitalism’ as somthing which is not ‘communism’.
My definition is much more precise, and I believe that Benedicts definition is also more precise, though it may differ from mine.
As money is a medium of exchange, hence trade, it represents property or capital.
So Capitalism and Monetarism are closely related philosophies, indeed, they are highly overlapping sets of ideas.
The ‘isms’ of both of these philosophies define a system of disciplines which are binding upon followers of these philosophies.
I accept that modern definitions of religion refer to worship of G_d, but Taoism, Kung-fu-tzu, and Buddhism make no definite reference to G_d, so the modern definition of religion is defective.
As I said, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin ‘ligare’ to bind.
Thus any adherents to a binding philosophy, are indeed following a religion, and the essence of that religion is the principle of that philosophy.
Capitalists do not worship money.
They do however bind themselves to a philosophy calculated to enhance the welfare of money, they call in ‘sound ecconomics’.
Now this sound ecconomics has no consideration for the welfare of the population, only for multiplying capital at whatever expense to the population or the environment.
It is this perverted principle which I see as evil
It is this perverted principle, which I believe, Our Lord dubbed Mammon.
It is this perverted principle which Benedict condemns, but not vehemently enough.

 

[Keikiolu]

Hi Keikiolu,
…{snip}…

Aloha dude…

I accept that modern definitions of religion refer to worship of G_d, but Taoism, Kung-fu-tzu, and Buddhism make no definite reference to G_d, so the modern definition of religion is defective.

I agree that “religion” is at best a quasi-definition, which doesn’t work very well for anything but massive generalizations,… much like the definition of “blue”.

As I said, the word ‘religion’ is derived from the Latin ‘ligare’ to bind.
Thus any adherents to a binding philosophy, are indeed following a religion, and the essence of that religion is the principle of that philosophy.

Uh,… OK. I’m with-ish you…

Capitalists do not worship money.
They do however bind themselves to a philosophy calculated to enhance the welfare of money, they call in ‘sound ecconomics’.

To me, no non-human “thing” can HAVE a welfare, so “enhancing the welfare of money” makes no sense to me.

I would call “sound economics” an economics which enhances the “welfare” of some set or subset of human beings.

It is “sound” only in that it is “effective” in doing what it is supposed to do.

It’s “soundness”, just like the measurable “sharpness” of a knife, is no measure of it’s evil/goodness.

Now this sound ecconomics has no consideration for the welfare of the population, only for multiplying capital at whatever expense to the population or the environment.
It is this perverted principle which I see as evil

The results of it’s USE of it’s “soundness” is that which holds it’s “evilness”.

It is this perverted principle, which I believe, Our Lord dubbed Mammon.
It is this perverted principle which Benedict condemns, but not vehemently enough.

Once again, since our definitions don’t coincide, we’re talking about two different things,… so we’ll have to agree that each of our conclusions are “probably” correct given what we each understand.

But I can’t agree with the bald statement that capitalism must be condemned, which you seem to be saying.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.