Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[pnewton]

Socialism is not only bad as historically defined,but even in theory. The idea that the goverment should have control over businesses and have the responsibility of providing for everybody’s personal needs is wrong.

Already here, you are starting to re-define socialism a little. The government can legitimately have control over business, just to a less than complete amount. Taxation is one control that has always been accepted. Safety standards are a control over business. In some businesses, health standards are a control. In some businesses, absolute control is acceptable, such a public safety (fire, police) or other public good (road construction, mail).

Now if we take something controversial, like health care, we have some that call any government interference socialism. This is the type of re-definition of which I speak. Health care, regardless of how much control is exercised, is not socialism, as it is not the only business in America. It may be wrong, stupid, wasteful to have “socialized” medicine, but it is not socialism and one is not a socialist for wanting it.

Do you see what I am saying about changing definitions?

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Nor has any other president in the past fifty years.

Has any other President ran a campaign claiming to represent the ordinary person to the degree that Obama did?

 

[stinkcat_14]

This is what confuses me about Pope Francis’ comments. He seems to be going against he Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

In what way is he going against the principle of subsidiarity?

 

[pnewton]

In what way is he going against the principle of subsidiarity?

As the Pope did not refer to any specific, subsidiarity is not an issue. “The state” can allow decisions to be made at any level, in addition to the fact this was but one of several groups he tasked with the need for distribution of resources.

 

[ishii]

For all the times the political right has criticized the left for its Cafeteria Catholicism, I hope it is remembered that by what measure we judge others, we too will be judged, now that it is time for those on the other end of the spectrum to be taught something they do not want to hear.

Which is what? What is it that the “political right” does not want to hear? That needs to be taught? And how does it equate to the usual things that are mentioned in association with “cafeteria Catholicism” ? Since you brought this up, I think its only fair to explain your comment.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

In what way is he going against the principle of subsidiarity?

As the Pope did not refer to any specific, subsidiarity is not an issue. “The state” can allow decisions to be made at any level, in addition to the fact this was but one of several groups he tasked with the need for distribution of resources.

He specifically referred to the UN as very important to deal with issues such as “the root causes of hunger.” Now, regardless of whether you like or dislike the UN, it seems that calling on an organization such as the UN to deal with an issue such as poverty, would be the antithesis of what it means to handle problems by the lowest or least centralized competent authority. Furthermore, when he says that governments should redistribute wealth to the poor, is he talking about city governments? I would be willing to bet he is referring to large, centralized federal governments. Again, that does not seem to be in tune with the principle of subsidiarity.

Ishii

 

[EIF5A]

He specifically referred to the UN as very important to deal with issues such as “the root causes of hunger.” Now, regardless of whether you like or dislike the UN, it seems that calling on an organization such as the UN to deal with an issue such as poverty, would be the antithesis of what it means to handle problems by the lowest or least centralized competent authority. Furthermore, when he says that governments should redistribute wealth to the poor, is he talking about city governments? I would be willing to bet he is referring to large, centralized federal governments. Again, that does not seem to be in tune with the principle of subsidiarity.

Ishii

Is there a Catholic principle called practicality?

 

[anthony022071]

Already here, you are starting to re-define socialism a little. The government can legitimately have control over business, just to a less than complete amount. Taxation is one control that has always been accepted. Safety standards are a control over business. In some businesses, health standards are a control. In some businesses, absolute control is acceptable, such a public safety (fire, police) or other public good (road construction, mail).

Now if we take something controversial, like health care, we have some that call any government interference socialism. This is the type of re-definition of which I speak. Health care, regardless of how much control is exercised, is not socialism, as it is not the only business in America. It may be wrong, stupid, wasteful to have “socialized” medicine, but it is not socialism and one is not a socialist for wanting it.

Do you see what I am saying about changing definitions?

I didn’t redefine socialism. Government control over industries is one of the defining characteristics of socialism. And so is having the government be the main provider of goods and services to all the people,so that the people become dependent on the government for their personal needs. Taxation and safety standards do not amount to socialism or government control over industries unless they increase so much that the government really does have unnecessary,improper and burdensome involvement. Socialized health care is socialism. It is government control - meaning government management - over health care industries. It has been a goal of socialists since the early 20th century. Government control does not have to be complete to be rightly called socialism. There are varying degrees of tyranny. The governments of Western Europe and America have been incrementally socialist,gradually increasing their control over businesses and society by passing more and more laws that curtail legitimate liberties,making people become increasingly dependent upon government welfare programs,and suppressing Christian faith and morality.

 

[pnewton]

I didn’t redefine socialism.

. Socialized health care is socialism.

You just did.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia;

A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life.

Socialized health care is no more socialism than socialized mail delivery, as we have now.

newadvent.org/cathen/14062a.htm

Read the article. What the Catholic Church condemns is true socialism, where all production is under government ownership and control. The condemnation of socialism arose in response to the philosophy of Karl Marx. Those countries with socialized medicine are not Marxist and are not operating under the Catholic condemnation of socialism based on this one element of the economy. Here is one quote:

Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life.” Leo XII

Note that what is condemned is the denial of right to property and seizing whatever one acquires. Now, in England, for example, one is still allowed to own things, acquire things and pass them on in an inheritance. If you check the internet, you will still find private business operating with their own capital in England. By this definition, England is not a socialist state. England has socialized medicine. Ergo, socialized medicine is not socialism.

 

[ishii]

I didn’t redefine socialism. Government control over industries is one of the defining characteristics of socialism. And so is having the government be the main provider of goods and services to all the people,so that the people become dependent on the government for their personal needs. Taxation and safety standards do not amount to socialism or government control over industries unless they increase so much that the government really does have unnecessary,improper and burdensome involvement. Socialized health care is socialism. It is government control - meaning government management - over health care industries. It has been a goal of socialists since the early 20th century. Government control does not have to be complete to be rightly called socialism. There are varying degrees of tyranny. The governments of Western Europe and America have been incrementally socialist,gradually increasing their control over businesses and society by passing more and more laws that curtail legitimate liberties,making people become increasingly dependent upon government welfare programs,and suppressing Christian faith and morality.

Mostly agree. It appears some would wait until the last industry (however small) is controlled by the government before they would admit that yes, this is socialism. There is a tipping point beyond which for better or worse ( I would argue worse) that description would have to be socialist. Obama and the Democrat party are basically socialists. Some socialist states have allowed for a minimal and inconsequential free-market while still being rightly called socialist. The only exception I would make is that I think we are on the way toward socialism, while we are not quite all the way there yet. Socialized medicine is a huge first step.

Ishii

 

[EIF5A]

I didn’t redefine socialism. Government control over industries is one of the defining characteristics of socialism. And so is having the government be the main provider of goods and services to all the people,so that the people become dependent on the government for their personal needs. Taxation and safety standards do not amount to socialism or government control over industries unless they increase so much that the government really does have unnecessary,improper and burdensome involvement. Socialized health care is socialism. It is government control - meaning government management - over health care industries. It has been a goal of socialists since the early 20th century. Government control does not have to be complete to be rightly called socialism. There are varying degrees of tyranny. The governments of Western Europe and America have been incrementally socialist,gradually increasing their control over businesses and society by passing more and more laws that curtail legitimate liberties,making people become increasingly dependent upon government welfare programs,and suppressing Christian faith and morality.

When the economy sucks, people lose jobs and suffer. The government provides some assistance. Some people have other situations beyond their control beyond unemployment (e.g., loss of health). They, too, are provided with some assistance.

The government isn’t forcing themselves upon welfare recipients. The welfare programs are there as safety nets so they don’t live on the streets or suffer from malnutrition.

(Yes, I know some people become addicted to welfare, either by loss of hope for a better future, lack of opportunity, or lack of willpower to help themselves.)

The suppression of Christian faith has very little to do with government aid. Government welfare does not cause or abet anti-Christian laws, for instance.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pope Francis is right on in our need to help those living in poverty, and I believe he will speak the truth as to how it must be remedied. Unregulated Capitalism will be nowhere to be condoned, and instead, he will embrace an economic theory that will promote social justice in helping to alleviate poverty; whether this new economy is Socialistic in nature, we will need to wait a little longer.

LOVE!

The Catholic Church is against socialism. :yup:

So scratch that idea.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The government isn’t forcing themselves upon welfare recipients. The welfare programs are there as safety nets so they don’t live on the streets or suffer from malnutrition.

So they say, and maybe that’s how it started out. But suspicions that welfare is being used to buy votes are, I would say, not entirely unfounded.

(Yes, I know some people become addicted to welfare, either by loss of hope for a better future, lack of opportunity, or lack of willpower to help themselves.)

Some people also scam the system and seem to know that they are. How Christian is that?

The suppression of Christian faith has very little to do with government aid. Government welfare does not cause or abet anti-Christian laws, for instance.

People on welfare find themselves in undesirable situations, such as single parenthood.

 

[ishii]

Is there a Catholic principle called practicality?

When the economy sucks, people lose jobs and suffer. The government provides some assistance. Some people have other situations beyond their control beyond unemployment (e.g., loss of health). They, too, are provided with some assistance.

The government isn’t forcing themselves upon welfare recipients. The welfare programs are there as safety nets so they don’t live on the streets or suffer from malnutrition.

(Yes, I know some people become addicted to welfare, either by loss of hope for a better future, lack of opportunity, or lack of willpower to help themselves.)

The suppression of Christian faith has very little to do with government aid. Government welfare does not cause or abet anti-Christian laws, for instance.

You’re missing the point. It isn’t a matter of a government getting involved by providing relief to those who need it “when the economy sucks” and then getting out of the way when the economy improves. It is a matter of a gradual, steady encroachment by the government in all aspect of our lives - by excessive taxation, regulation, and unjust mandates. Leftism, which is the ideology behind all this, cannot abide by a vibrant, powerful Catholic Church. This is because you can’t believe in an all powerful state and at the time believe in an all powerful God. For the left, the state takes the place of God. So they are naturally at odds. Government aid and welfare are part of the leftist belief that the government can take care of us all, and that the citizens exist for the state. Such a belief has no room for Christianity.

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

The Catholic Church is against socialism. :yup:

So scratch that idea.

What Robert is missing is that social justice is more than just helping the poor. At this time, Pope Francis is addressing the area of social justice he sees the greatest need. The right to private ownership of goods and capital are as much of an issue of social justice as anything else. One cannot embrace part of the Church’s teaching in this area as an excuse to reject another area of doctrine. If true socialism ever experiences a resurgence, we will be hearing the Church speak on the social injustice of socialism, as we did back in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

 

[EIF5A]

You’re missing the point. It isn’t a matter of a government getting involved by providing relief to those who need it “when the economy sucks” and then getting out of the way when the economy improves. It is a matter of a gradual, steady encroachment by the government in all aspect of our lives - by excessive taxation, regulation, and unjust mandates. Leftism, which is the ideology behind all this, cannot abide by a vibrant, powerful Catholic Church. This is because you can’t believe in an all powerful state and at the time believe in an all powerful God. For the left, the state takes the place of God. So they are naturally at odds. Government aid and welfare are part of the leftist belief that the government can take care of us all, and that the citizens exist for the state. Such a belief has no room for Christianity.

Ishii

That’s a conflation of atheism and progressivism.

State taking the place of God? All-powerful state? Sound-bite ideology.

Centralized governance in and of itself does not mean there’s no place for Christianity. There’s no place for Christianity because people do not believe in God and His laws, not because the government is too big.

Lack of faith came first, and is necessary and sufficient, for the social/moral decay.

 

[ishii]

What Robert is missing is that social justice is more than just helping the poor. At this time, Pope Francis is addressing the area of social justice he sees the greatest need. The right to private ownership of goods and capital are as much of an issue of social justice as anything else. One cannot embrace part of the Church’s teaching in this area as an excuse to reject another area of doctrine. If true socialism ever experiences a resurgence, we will be hearing the Church speak on the social injustice of socialism, as we did back in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

What other areas of Church doctrine are people rejecting? (you have not clarified the cafeteria catholic point that I had asked you to). Please let me know if you simply are not interested in responding - that way I don’t waste my time.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

That’s a conflation of atheism and progressivism.

State taking the place of God? All-powerful state? Sound-bite ideology.

Centralized governance in and of itself does not mean there’s no place for Christianity. There’s no place for Christianity because people do not believe in God and His laws, not because the government is too big.

Lack of faith came first, and is necessary and sufficient, for the social/moral decay.

Atheism and socialism have been linked throughout modern history. You’re right - not all progressives are atheists, but the modern left, which is largely secular, is naturally opposed to any religion which would have a set of truths that do not make room for the almighty state. And modern progressive, including many who profess to be Christian, do seem to subordinate their religious faith and the obligations therein, to the concerns and agenda of the state. If you don’t believe me, then look at how many catholic politicians supported the HHS mandate - for example. And no, “all powerful state” and the state taking the place of God is not soundbite ideology but historical reality. Moral decay can happen anywhere - and leftism is not required for that.

Ishii

 

[Tsuwano]

Take what you have, sell it and give it to the poor. Then come follow me. Is Francis saying something that hasn’t already been said by the Lord? He is a follower of Christ and not of some political or economic ideology. I would expect him to say nothing less.

 

[seaton2005]

The Catholic Church is against socialism. :yup:

So scratch that idea.

What makes you think that?