Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth

[TEPO]

While his way of speaking may be humble, it isnt assertive or decisive. All thats happening is that believers are becoming confused, while nonbelievers simply feel justified in their ways by his vague words with no thought or compulsion for conversion.

If there is a goal or a plan, I’d prefer it not to be kept secret.

 

[marywarfield]

We are supposed to give to government money or resources sufficient for it to operate. Those things belong to caesar. If he meant what he said, that he believes that our faith requires us to TAKE FROM OTHERS who are UNWILLING to give, I don’t see how that is reconcilable. He is lending Christ’s legitimacy to murder/killing, coercion, and imprisonment by the state to enforce his belief that the state can and should compel giving. That’s just got to be wrong.

Also, there is a difference between man/government making a value or policy determination about to what purpose government’s power should be put. It is quite another for the Pope, leader of the Church, and Christ’s representative on Earth to claim that Jesus requires us to use force to take wealth from others.

I think we need to realize when the Pope talks like this
the United States is NOT the center of his attention.
That re-distribution in the United states is a far cry from
areas of the world where money is spent lavishly on
family governments while the rest of the population
starves to death. Not that they are “unwilling” to give- they literally
have nothing to give.

This is not the American Tea Party-Republican-Democrat
Libertarian issue because unlike most people overreacting
to his statements the Pope is not U.S.-centric. He is addressing
the WORLD at large.

 

[TEPO]

Then consider this, the Holy Father did not use the word “force”. He also did not use the word “demand” as per the AP article.

It would better to read the full text, in context:

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/05/09/pope_to_un:_resist_the_economy_of_exclusion,_serve_the_poor/en1-797707

Note that the emphasis is *not *on redistribution of wealth. That was one phrase. The emphasis is on helping the poor and hungry in the world. It is not aimed at the United States and refers to economic, intellectual and spiritual sharing.

Do you suppose the people who this Papal message was aimed at realize that it is they who the Pope is talking about? Whomever it might be?

…Could it be the Muslim world or Africa in particular?

 

[pnewton]

Oh, one more thing, the Holy Father is not an economist. He knows this. He is giving us principles. We need to be in love with the poor as much as Jesus was. He used the example of Zacchaeus who gave freely to help others. His primary emphasis was on a voluntary spirit of generosity. We can argue back and forth about the role of government vs. private sector. The Holy Father did not elevate one or the other but said we need a working partnership of both.

 

[ganoaitaly]

Then consider this, the Holy Father did not use the word “force”. He also did not use the word “demand” as per the AP article.

But he did say “by the state.” How does “the state” enforce its will? Through force. That is the only tool it has. Whether it’s violence, imprisonment, or coercion. And that’s my problem. We can’t act as though this is an issue of reportage. He used those words “by the state.” He said, regardless of whether he meant it, that the tools of government should be used to compel an outcome.

To wit,

Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and** by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State,** as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

His argument proceeds as follows:

1. 
   *]fair economic and social progress requires science and technology
   *]it further requires solidarity [with our fellow man?]
   *]it further requires that we do not act in our own self interest (“disinterested spirit of gratuitousness”)
   *]a part of accomplishing this goal (equitable economic and social progress) will be “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”
   

   Note that the emphasis is *not *on redistribution of wealth. That was one phrase.

   granted. totally agree. But he did say it. And worse, he said that the state should do it. Nobody would contest that the Church teaches that we should equitably distribute wealth. I am really confused, though, because his statement will lead to the imprisonment or death of someone who disagrees with him and refuses to follow the Church’s teaching.
   

   Consider the poorest countries with a wealth of resources. Should the warlords, dictators or aristocracy become conspicuously rich in a country that also has starvation and abject poverty? Let us think past America. We are doing pretty good on this, though we probably could do better (better, not necessarily more). Elsewhere though, people die while the leaders build resorts for the elite.

   Should they become so rich at the expense of others (i.e., unearned wealth)? Absolutely not. Did Jesus teach us to kill them for it? I don’t think so.

 

[ganoaitaly]

He is addressing
the WORLD at large.

and that’s a fair point. But even so, should the power of any state be used to compel Christ’s teaching?

 

[TEPO]

But he did say “by the state.” How does “the state” enforce its will? Through force. That is the only tool it has. Whether it’s violence, imprisonment, or coercion. And that’s my problem. We can’t act as though this is an issue of reportage. He used those words “by the state.” He said, regardless of whether he meant it, that the tools of government should be used to compel an outcome.

To wit,

His argument proceeds as follows:

1. 
   *]fair economic and social progress requires science and technology
   *]it further requires solidarity [with our fellow man?]
   *]it further requires that we do not act in our own self interest (“disinterested spirit of gratuitousness”)
   *]a part of accomplishing this goal (equitable economic and social progress) will be “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”
   
   granted. totally agree. But he did say it. And worse, he said that the state should do it. Nobody would contest that the Church teaches that we should equitably distribute wealth. I am really confused, though, because his statement will lead to the imprisonment or death of someone who disagrees with him and refuses to follow the Church’s teaching.
   
   Should they become so rich at the expense of others (i.e., unearned wealth)? Absolutely not. Did Jesus teach us to kill them for it? I don’t think so.

1. 
   I don’t think the Arabs or Africans distribute wealth nearly as well as the United States currently does. This message would serve them well -those who hoard billions and divert rivers to starve their neighbors on purpose.

 

[ganoaitaly]

I don’t think the Arabs or Africans distribute wealth nearly as well as the United States currently does. This message would serve them well -those who hoard billions and divert rivers to starve their neighbors on purpose.

Assuming you’re correct, and further assuming that these bad actors are not “the state,” the Pope then intended that the polity/the state should use force, coercion, or imprisonment to stop it? If that’s what he intended, I think he would just have said it.

I think it’s much more likely that he either (a) believes that the machinery of the state should be used to force the outcome he desires (equality of outcome), or (b) that, as he has repeatedly shown to be the case, he spoke either without adequate thought or with insufficient clarity (choose your poison).

But if someone can explain to me the use of force / state power to accomplish Christ’s teachings, I’m still all ears. Just super duper confused…

 

[TEPO]

You raise a fine point. More often than not, it is ‘the State’ that cause these injustices to take place.

 

[pnewton]

Do you suppose the people who this Papal message was aimed at realize that it is they who the Pope is talking about?

I believe that is an issue in every sermon we hear. To quote Judas, " Is it I, Lord?"

Yes, I think there are those that know well that they live off the misery of the poor. The worst sinners do not usually lack knowledge, but morality.

 

[TEPO]

Oh, one more thing, the Holy Father is not an economist. He knows this. He is giving us principles. We need to be in love with the poor as much as Jesus was. He used the example of Zacchaeus who gave freely to help others. His primary emphasis was on a voluntary spirit of generosity. We can argue back and forth about the role of government vs. private sector. The Holy Father did not elevate one or the other but said we need a working partnership of both.

Yes, a working partnership between the State and the people. I can name dozens of middle Eastern, Asian and African nations who fall short in that regard. It’s true.

…We’re not exactly ‘perfect’ either.

 

[Avila123]

As with many debates about the Pope, mention is made of the Vatican’s wealth, so here is some food for thought on the financial situation and treasures.

1. The Vatican is a small independent state under sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiff.
2. It is legally bound by the Lateran Pacts of 1929 (biblelight.net/treaty.htm) see especially Article 18. Selling statues and treasures would violate the treaty (caritasetveritas.com/2013/03/the-myth-of-vatican-wealth-on-helping-the-poor/).
3. It is obliged to pay all of its employees a fair wage and pensions (except the clergy and religious).
4. The Vatican State does not own all church buildings throughout the world, therefore, has no legal or moral sell them.
5. The only money received from the Vatican from individual parishes to help with upkeep is the annual Peter’s Pence voluntary donation.
6. The Vatican Bank is a means by which our charitable donations can move to the recipients e.g. mission churches, schools, hospitals etc. (ior.va/Portals/0/Content/Media/Documents/AnnualReports/425x00sc399T!/IOR_AnnualReport_E.pdf)

Hopefully this will help a little on the alleged wealth side.

 

[Larry1700]

**Pope Francis has already reiterated that Socialism is condemned by the Church. ** Furthermore, he is not speaking about economic systems or advocating one over the other. He is stating what the Church has stated for centuries, that it is the duty of those in power to provide for all. Stop trying to make him say the things YOU want him to say.

I know that the Church condemned socialism and communism in Centessimus Annus and other places, but please provide the source for Pope Francis’ condemnation. I know this will come up in conversation soon, so I’d like to have the source handy.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What in this miserable and corrupt world is fair? Was the industrial revolution fair to the Third-World? Did the top 2% of the richest people obtain their money fairly? Surly not from the perspective of those living extreme poverty. We steal resources from the impoverished countries, such as those in Africa. It’s time justice is served and severe poverty get eliminated, even if it costs the well-to-do some of their riches. In considering what is fair and just, remember that there are 9,500 children who die of starvation every day. **Please, I ask you, is it fair? **

LOVE!

 

[St_Francis]

I know that the Church condemned socialism and communism in Centessimus Annus and other places, but please provide the source for Pope Francis’ condemnation. I know this will come up in conversation soon, so I’d like to have the source handy.

Pope Francis doesn’t have to condemn either. Does every pope have to personally ratify every teaching if the Church? No, that is assumed.

 

[St_Francis]

I know that the Church condemned socialism and communism in Centessimus Annus and other places, but please provide the source for Pope Francis’ condemnation. I know this will come up in conversation soon, so I’d like to have the source handy.

If there is a goal or a plan, I’d prefer it not to be kept secret.

The goal is what it always has been: for each one of us to attain Heaven and to help our neighbor do the same.

To that end, the Pope urges each of us to do what we can to help those around us, and governments are to do what is necessary to help us do that equitably.

The Pope does not have a “plan” along the lines of this political group’s or that’s. For one thing, that is not his job. The Church knows that different circumstances require different solutions. But the Church also knows if each and everyone of us were to do our share in the enterprise, wonderful things would happen.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I love this Pope. Finally shaking things up a bit to get us back to what Catholics stand for.

Exactly.
When I returned to the Catholic Church it was with the realization that my image of God was not the image I see in the mirror. I don’t want a Pope who will agree with me. I want a Pope who will challenge me. I want a Pope who will shake up, not just the world, but myself and how I see the world.
As expected the Pope’s remarks have shaken the neo-conservative right, including Libertarians to its core. Reading thier comments online (on other forums), is eye-opening. One can truly see where their wealth resides.
May the Pope continue to skake things up.
Kinda sounds like Soneone else we all know.

 

[TEPO]

Exactly.
When I returned to the Catholic Church it was with the realization that my image of God was not the image I see in the mirror. I don’t want a Pope who will agree with me. I want a Pope who will challenge me. I want a Pope who will shake up, not just the world, but myself and how I see the world.
As expected the Pope’s remarks have shaken the neo-conservative right, including Libertarians to its core. Reading thier comments online (on other forums), is eye-opening. One can truly see where their wealth resides.
May the Pope continue to skake things up.
Kinda sounds like Soneone else we all know.

If anything changes from this, let it be the governments of the East who are so awful in cooperating with the people. Babies die all day, everyday in places like Ethiopia because of nations being controlled by greedy militant radicals.

There are different levels of poverty, and priority is Africa. The redistribution of wealth involves stripping governments just as much if not more than stripping free enterprise corporations of wealth.

…this could be considered by some as a plea for free market capitalism in places where it’s the governments who are being corrupt -not the other way around.

 

[Chipper]

While his way of speaking may be humble, it isnt assertive or decisive. All thats happening is that believers are becoming confused, while nonbelievers simply feel justified in their ways by his vague words with no thought or compulsion for conversion.

I don’t think you can say that the Pope is vague. What you are being confused by is the News Media always re-writing what the Pope says to make it look like he is voting for Obama. It’s not what the the Pope says, it’s always what the News Media wants to cram down our throats.

The rest of this post is not directed at you, but rather what I see as the problem with these type of headlines that constantly get thrown at us.

The key phrase here is the headlines stating “Legitimate Redistribution of Wealth”. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. This is what he said “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”.

Has anyone actually paid attention to the discombobulated abuse of the change of the word “benefit” to the word “wealth”??? Benefit and wealth are not synonyms.

Suppose the head line read* “Pope demands legitimate redistribution of economic benefits”. - *Do you think anyone would pay attention to this news story? I doubt it.

Definition of Benefit: 1. a kindly, charitable act. 2. anything contributing to an improvement in condition. 3. payments made by an insurance company, public agency etc…

Where in this definition does anyone get “wealth” ?? It’s beyond me how they can get away with changing the words to suit their needs and everyone reads it and accepts it.???

Is there such a thing as “illegetimate distribution of benefits by the state”?? Clearly there is. Our benefits system is clouded with corruption and thieves. So ya, the Pope is right in calling them out for not doing more concerning the “Legitimate distribution”.

 

[Timothysis]

I know that the Church condemned socialism and communism in Centessimus Annus and other places, but please provide the source for Pope Francis’ condemnation. I know this will come up in conversation soon, so I’d like to have the source handy.

It is something that he recently said during an interview when people first started calling him a Marxist. He responded with “I’m no socialist; socialism is condemned by the Church.”