Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[curlycool89]

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_UN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-09-06-31-28

Pope JP II called Liberation Theology a heresy. Now, Pope Francis is getting dangerously close to endorsing this position. This is the first time I am truly troubled by what Pope Francis has said.

I don’t think you quite understand which part of Liberation Theology was wrong.

The summary on Wikipedia is actually quite helpful. What was wrong was an emphasis (exclusive) on works over spreading the gospel, spreading a false dichotomy between “the people” and “the hierarchy”, and the use of the Marxist philosophy of history (tl;dr version: Marxist history reinterprets everything as a class struggle between the workers and the owners of the means of production. It’s a revisionist history, and some LT tried to do so to the Exodus for example, which is just bad theology).

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is pretty well respected, so I’ll just quote something about him: “Cardinal Ratzinger did praise liberation theology in some respects, including its ideal of justice, its rejection of violence, and its stress on “the responsibility which Christians necessarily bear for the poor and oppressed.” He subsequently stated that no one could be neutral in the face of injustice, and referred to the “crimes” of colonialism and the “scandal” of the arms race.” (from the Wikipedia article)

I think a few people here probably need to read the Catechism a little closer too.

(1897) “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all.”

(1898) Every human community needs an authority to govern it.

(1910) It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

This new strain of people who are anti-State and who believe that the State should not be doing anything is really an anti-Catholic position.

 

[pnewton]

I suppose most of us do have ideologies we wave around, but some of us relish it more than others, don’t we? Ideology is easy.

I think the only problem is having a rigid ideology, or at least one that is rigid enough that we use our own perspective as a standard up against we measure that which is supposed to form us. One never forms a conscience by disregarding anything we hear that does not meet our own standards. If we are to disagree with the Holy Father, the Catechism, or any Church teaching, we need to do so slowly and deliberately, wrestling with the reasons, doctrine and morality that serves as both the backdrop (context) and foundation of what is said.

Reactionary disagreement is a good indication that one’s own ideology is too rigid.

 

[ishii]

I suppose most of us do have ideologies we wave around, but some of us relish it more than others, don’t we? Ideology is easy. I would hope the Gospel would guide us for the most part, though even here, the Gospel should never become an ideology. Speaking of ideology, did the Pope say anything about using monolithic govt. institutions to decide who gets what? Did he mention the U.N. at all?

Here is a quote from the article:

“On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a “worldwide ethical mobilization” of solidarity with the poor.”

and,

"Francis urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all."

So yes, Pope Francis did call on monolithic institutions, with very dubious track records, to promote development goals that deal with the root causes of hunger and poverty. And since it was said in the context of “redistribution” - there is cause for concern.

Did I? First of all, I don’t believe that redistribution of resources means relying on any particular institution. Secondly, who is to say it means relying on any institution at all. Perhaps it means relying on the Gospel admonition to love one another. Some might say whatever they please, but that has little to do with what I have said. Still, I’m glad you agree with some of my post. That was pretty much the heart of what I wanted to say, anyway.

A safety net - which is a form of redistribution - is a good thing to have. We don’t want people starving in the streets. But I wish that our Church leaders and clergy had a better understanding both of economics, and also the need for clarity when giving speeches or talking to the press. I wish they knew how much the press wants to twist what they say. But I appreciate your clarity and thank you for your comments.

Ishii