Pope declares "New World Economic Order"?

[Captain_America]

I agree with the above. Interestingly, there have been protests in China, with workers wanting some of this “welfare state” stuff.

In many instances, the term “welfare state” is used pejoratively, derisively, negatively.

My guess, it’s a guess, is that economists have some measure for what percentage of state activity makes a state a “welfare state.” I really doubt that anyone would want to return to the satanic mills, six or seven hour workdays, 12-hour workdays, and gruel-level wages of 19th Century libertarian capitalism. Works against human flourishing.

 

[freshair]

Now if you still think this is a socialist agenda that you refuse to follow then you have simply become another Protestant who thinks he knows better then the Church.

David

It is certainly amorphous enough to allow for a socialist to construe it as a justification for social welfare and redistributionist policies. Number 1899 is egregious. If the assertion is that the current “authorities” should be obeyed, then perhaps you can explain why the Catholic bishops themselves are fighting the Administration (HHS) on government contracts for victims of human trafficking? Is that not refusing to obey the “authorities”. There is absolutely no evidence that the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court have authority “ordained by God” and anyone who believes we should bow down to Washington or any other government official simply because that person managed to get himself elected or appointed to some bureaucratic position doesn’t know a thing about Washington, D.C.

 

[Abu]

davidmlamb #76
A welfare state is perfectly fine so as long as it does not violate subsidiary.
Again let me point out that the best example of a welfare state we have are found in the scandinavian countries and yet the Church does not accuse or condemned them for violating subsidiary nor does it condemned them for their many state benefits they provide their citizens.

This is just as naïve and mistaken as your mistaken feeling that the Church’s social teaching is “the Word of God” in post #62 in the thread *No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth? *As social teaching is not a on a level with defined doctrine it is a grave error to portray it as such – “The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:…” [CCC 2423]. Never will anyone find that the social teaching is equated with the Sacred Scriptures as the “Word of God”.

The Church does not condemn countries for deviating from Her social doctrine. She reaffirms what She teaches so that errors may be corrected and it may be applied by those of good will.

The Church clearly condemns the Welfare State (post #73). The State which recognises subsidiarity, assists and supplements those community organizations in aid where necessary is not a Welfare State. The Holy Father explains why:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. (CA 48).

The glaring example of Sweden, your idea of one of the “best examples of a Welfare State”, shows the crippling results that follow.
In the 1970s to hasten Sweden’s long march towards the Social Democratic nirvana, involved expanding welfare programs, nationalizing many industries, expanding and deepening regulation, and – of course – increasing taxation to punitive levels to pay for it all.

Over the next twenty years, the Swedish dream turned decidedly nightmarish. The Swedish parliamentarian Johnny Munkhammar points out that “In 1970, Sweden had the world’s fourth-highest GDP per capita. By 1990, it had fallen 13 positions. In those 20 years, real wages in Sweden increased by only one percentage point.” So much for helping “the workers.”

Facing severe economic stagnation, Sweden began implementing several rather un-social democratic measures in the early 1990s. This included curtaining its public sector deficit and reducing marginal tax-rates and levels of state ownership. Another change involved allowing private retirement schemes, a development that was accompanied by the state contributing less to pensions.

Over the next 15 years the economy did improve although unemployment is high especially among the 15-25 year olds largely due to the level of the union-imposed minimum wage.

 

[ManOnFire]

How about we try cleaning up the culture first so the weaker don’t become as dependent? How about we promote good clean love-of-family capitalism and disparage liberal hedonist love-of-self sex-and-run capitalism that requires a bailout from taxpayers??? How about we remove all the evil tempations that are holding people down? How is it fair or just to tax those who work hard and sacrifice much to handle their pleasure in order to give it to those who give in to temptation easily? Where’s the motivation to be good? Maybe the Pope is being blackmailed…

 

[davidmlamb]

This is just as naïve and mistaken as your mistaken feeling that the Church’s social teaching is “the Word of God” in post #62 in the thread *No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth? *As social teaching is not a on a level with defined doctrine it is a grave error to portray it as such – “The Church’s social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:…” [CCC 2423]. Never will anyone find that the social teaching is equated with the Sacred Scriptures as the “Word of God”.

The Social Teachings of the Church are not defined doctrine but they are defined morals and therefore they are in fact teachings. Furthermore, scripture teaches us that the Church speaks the wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) so I am not in grave error to equate the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the “Word of God.” By Word of God I don’t mean sacred scriptures I mean the wisdom of God. IMO they go hand in hand and cannot be separated. The Sacred Scriptures were never meant to work in a vacuum but to rest on the pillars of the Church (1 Tim 3:15) and it is the Church which continues to speak the Wisdom of God throughout the ages to address certain cultural issues synonymous with the times. On matters of Social Justice, these are issues that could never be fully addressed during the time of the Apostles but has been left up to the Successor of Peter and the apostles to address various issues as they come up in a changing world of technology and human culture.

So it is you Abu who needs to be taught and corrected and not me. Your entire argument is meant as a smoke screen to make it perfectly okay for employers to do whatever they feel fit with no regard to the social teachings of the Church other than to be considered as an “option” This is your grave error to replace the social teachings of the church with right wing conservatism and turn them into an option to follow. They are not optional they are either to be followed or incur guilt.

The Church clearly condemns the Welfare State (post #73). The State which recognises subsidiarity, assists and supplements those community organizations in aid where necessary is not a Welfare State. The Holy Father explains why:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. (CA 48)

You’re playing a game of semantics here Abu. This entire thread started because the Holy Father called for a “New Economic World Order” and right wingers have cried out “SOCIALISM.” When I pointed out that it was not socialism but more of a welfare state the argument shifted in an attempt to make it look like the Pope condemned the welfare state. Yet at the same time the Pope is calling on a world centralized banking system. At best you are in dissent from church teachings and at worse you are in schism and leading others astray. But the bottom line Abu is that you have exchanged the Holy Catholic Church’s teachings for right wing conservatism. A grave error which Saint Paul wrote about to Timothy:

Love of Money
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Abu, There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 14:12).

David

 

[exnihilo]

Can you provide a citation for this alleged qoutation??? I seriously doubt the pope either said this or was saying what you are implying. All of Europe including Italy is “BIG GOVERNMENT” and there is nothing in Catholic doctrine to suggest a small government is preferred to a large government. Romans 13 implies the opposite as does CCC 1897-1936. So please provide the citation. Thank you

This alleged quote is quite easily found on the Vatican website. I have quoted below my original post to another forum member who also asked for a citation.

That you seriously doubt the Pope said this suggests that your understanding of Catholic views on government and economics might be imperfect. In fact the Pope was quoting St. Augustine.

There is plenty in Catholic doctrine that suggests small government is preferred. One thing that suggests that is the basic understanding of the sinfulness of man. Man given great power faces great temptations. Men united in their efforts has led to things like the Tower of Babel. The Pope has spoken out against the wars that big governments start and the abortion that they establish as a fundamental right.

The Pope said this to the Bundestag on his visit to Germany. He was specifically considering the German experience, but the idea of course transcends time, which is why the Pope was teaching from Biblical sources and the wisdom of Saint Augustine.

Apostolic Journey to Germany, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI

This is a very interesting address and well worth reading. The Pope is speaking about things at a very different level than most other leaders. It is good and expected that the Pope is drawing people upwards, but it is also sad how far below world politics is.

 

[davidmlamb]

Now if you still think this is a socialist agenda that you refuse to follow then you have simply become another Protestant who thinks he knows better then the Church.

David

It is certainly amorphous enough to allow for a socialist to construe it as a justification for social welfare and redistributionist policies. Number 1899 is egregious. If the assertion is that the current “authorities” should be obeyed, then perhaps you can explain why the Catholic bishops themselves are fighting the Administration (HHS) on government contracts for victims of human trafficking? Is that not refusing to obey the “authorities”. There is absolutely no evidence that the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court have authority “ordained by God” and anyone who believes we should bow down to Washington or any other government official simply because that person managed to get himself elected or appointed to some bureaucratic position doesn’t know a thing about Washington, D.C.

Its not a matter of “bowing down to Washington” but bowing down to the Lord Jesus Christ. So it is not Washington you are in rebellion against but God and that makes you in egregious error and not the Church. The bible teaches us that *there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end that way leads to death (Prov. 14:12). * You cannot serve both God and wealth (Matt. 6:23-25).

David

 

[exnihilo]

Again let me point out that the best example of a welfare state we have are found in the scandinavian countries and yet the Church does not accuse or condemned them for violating subsidiary nor does it condemned them for their many state benefits they provide their citizens. Germany and France are another example yet the Church does not condemn these countries for the role they play on their human society. Nice try though.

I’m pretty sure the Church condemns the right of abortion, the welfare state funding of abortion, and the welfare state funding of contraception in these European countries. I know that it condemns those things in the US, which is just as much a welfare state and is the biggest government the world has ever seen.

 

[freshair]

Its not a matter of “bowing down to Washington” but bowing down to the Lord Jesus Christ. So it is not Washington you are in rebellion against but God and that makes you in egregious error and not the Church. The bible teaches us that *there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end that way leads to death (Prov. 14:12). * You cannot serve both God and wealth (Matt. 6:23-25).

David

If that rankles you David, which clearly it does, you need to consider that the Catholic Church is as inconsistent in its application of its “social justice” as it is in observing its mandate of charity. As we see, the U.S. bishops now believe they have a right to fund programs with taxpayer money? The U.S. bishops have collected over $800 million in taxpayer funds since George Bush created the “faith-based” intiatives. Now that the intiatives are not what bishops thought, they are planning to sue. What’s wrong with this picture, David? The Church cannot talk about social justice and shove their noses in the public trough. They’re either practicing charity - which is a private endeavor, or they’re fostering a socialist welfare state - which is exactly what they are doing now. If the Catholic Church cannot or will not fund its charitable activities with private funds, it will have to stop them. Social justice = socialism.

It’s more than sanctimonious for you to declare me in “rebellion” against God. Excuse me, who died and put you in charge? Talk about blasphemy! I didn’t get that press release.

 

[exnihilo]

I really doubt that anyone would want to return to the satanic mills, six or seven hour workdays, 12-hour workdays, and gruel-level wages of 19th Century libertarian capitalism. Works against human flourishing.

It is true no one would want to return to amount of work people did in the past. But at the same time most people want the wealth that such a level produces. If they see someone else with that wealth they get the idea that by using the world ‘fair’ and the force of the state they can enjoy that wealth without the work. Humans are subject to greed and sloth, that applies to both the rich and the poor. Most people for most of history worked a lot in return for just surviving. The lack of gratitude that the average ‘poor’ person has in America is in my mind a pretty big sin that is completely ignored.

Whether we like the conditions or not the hard work of 100 years ago created the foundation on which our life of ease rests. And despite all the platitudes I dont see anyone refusing to use goods made by the poor people of our age who are still working hard for very little to produce goods. To deny the industrious poor that ability might actually be very wrong. The industrious people’s of Asia are going to surpass the US and the West if they are allowed to continue to work as they do now in conditions we claim to deplore while reaping the benefits. Their hard work will pay off in the future when their societies enjoy great wealth and power while we’ve been humbled and forced to return to long hours of toil just to survive.

 

[Abu]

davidmlamb
This entire thread started because the Holy Father called for a “New Economic World Order” and right wingers have cried out “SOCIALISM.”

False, again. The Pope did NOT call for a “new world economic order”. That is a furphy – see below.

When I pointed out that it was not socialism but more of a welfare state the argument shifted in an attempt to make it look like the Pope condemned the welfare state.

This poster continually misrepresents papal documents and papal statements, as the popes condemn the Welfare State:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. (Bl John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1991, 48).

Complementing this beautifully, in Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI: Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (57). We notice that “any form” of the “all-encompassing welfare state” would be a single, global or World State which the Pope refutes.

the Pope is calling on a world centralized banking system

False, again.
Post #27 exposed that falsehood. This poster is unable to identify fact from fiction.

Readers can be assured once again, from the commentary by Fr De Celles, of the prudential nature of social teaching, so misunderstood by some posting here.

**The Truth about Caritas in Veritate by Fr. John De Celles **catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9102

“Many have suggested that the encyclical is an “attack on capitalism,” twisting phrases such as the Holy Father’s reference to a “constructing new order of economic productivity” [CV 41] to produce headlines like the New York Times’: “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order.” A careful reading of the encyclical shows that he is not proposing to tear down the present world economic order, especially capitalism. And rather than attacking capitalism Benedict generally embraces it, while calling for its renewal, as it were, in charity and moral truth.1 It is this renewal that will make the old order “new.” Other than that, the Pope does not propose any kind of new order in a technical sense, as he himself explains: “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. He merely presents moral principles and practical advice, attempting to shed the light of the truth of Jesus Christ in guiding the existing order of nations and states.

“Of course, there is room for critique without risk of insult, heresy or disobedience—not every word the Pope writes in an encyclical is intended to have the full authority of Christ himself. This is especially the case with “social encyclicals,” as they move from theology into economic and political theory, fields over which the papal magisterium claims no direct expertise or competence. So, in some places the encyclical expresses and explains defined Catholic doctrines and fundamental moral principles, and in other places it merely expresses the Holy Father’s prudential judgment in applying those doctrines and principles to the situation at hand, as he understands it. While Catholics must accept and follow the former (doctrine and principles), we are free, after careful and respectful consideration, to disagree with the latter (prudential judgments). Finally, papal authority is never a guarantee of eloquence or clarity, which may always be the subjects of respectful critique.”

Endnotes
1 Actually, the encyclical doesn’t even once use the world “capitalism.” But it does refer repeatedly to the “market economy,” a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is “the path to true economic and civil progress.” See Centesimus Annus, 42.