S
stinkcat_14
Guest
It that what the Church teaches, that we are to hold on to ALL of our money and not give any to help the poor?
- Status
T
TEPO
Guest
Well I need it. I have bad credit and I’m out of gas.
H
hazcompat
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1887 The inversion of means and ends,10 which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."11
10 Cf. CA 41.
11 Pius XII, Address at Pentecost, June 1, 1941.
Peace
1887 The inversion of means and ends,10 which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."11
10 Cf. CA 41.
11 Pius XII, Address at Pentecost, June 1, 1941.
Peace
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think the widow in the parable needed her money as well.Well I need it. I have bad credit and I’m out of gas.
A
anthony022071
Guest
He isn’t against the principle of subsidiarity,but he does think that governments should be redistributing economic benefits. Whatever that means,he didn’t say wealth. He isn’t a socialist,but like Pope Benedict and many bishops,he has been influenced by the example of the socialist or welfare state model of government,because that has been the norm since the 1940’s. Millions of people who are not socialists just take it as a given that the government should be providing regular support for those in need. It is true that his experience in Argentina has colored his outlook on economies.
I
ishii
Guest
Hi anthony022071. I am not so sure that someone who urges an organization as monolithic as the UN, and as dubious in its effectiveness historically in addressing and solving problems, is really a believer in the principle of subsidiarity. Comparisons have been made between the background of Pope Francis and his two predecessors, both of whom lived under brutal totalitarian regimes. How many Catholics even know of anything called the principle of subsidiarity, let alone have the ability to define it and understand it? That is part of the problem: the norm is, as you say, a belief that the government (usually federal or state level) is the most appropriate authority for solving problems in society. Since they take big government as a given and most likely don’t know the principle of subsidiarity, its obvious why so many tolerate a monolithic government and expect it to do something about every problem. Poor school kids need hot lunch in Dubuque? Let the federal government solve it! On this 50th anniversary of the “Great Society” federal programs, and in light of the damage those programs have had on the fabric of society and in increasing the numbers of poor people, I think the wiser counsel would be to caution people to not trust large government organizations to solve so many problems.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I find it interesting that Pope Pius mentions the word capitalism or capitalist a whopping 3 times. Yet, how many times does he mention the word socialist or socialism? I lost count at around 40. If you look at 117 - he spends quite a bit of time discussing socialism and those who seem to want so bad to have the Church say that socialism is okay. He says, if socialism remains truly socialism, it cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic church. Again, though - I’m not sure how you are reading into Quadregisimo Anno a condemnation of capitalism - as he doesn’t mention it specifically like he does socialism. He does criticize the concentration of wealth. Perhaps you can provide the quotes in which he condemns capitalism?Dear Ishii,
I am not quite sure where you derived this quotation from, however I must assume a second hand source rather than from the encyclical directly, because this is what Pope Pius XI actually said in Quadregisimo Anno:
(QA, p. 49)
Having conducted a quick google search of the internet, I found this tampered quotation of yours quoted on numerous pro-capitalist Catholic websites, one entitled “Pope as the Defender of Capitalism”.
The “system” mentioned is what the church terms the “market economy”. Obviously people are entitled to own property and trade. This is not, however, what the church understands by “capitalism” as I have been repeatedly explaining to you.
Oh Ishii, you never fail to amaze me
Although apparently not accurately if you need to add in the word “capitalism” where it is not even mentioned. Ironic considering how earlier on you upbraided me for insinuating that the pope was referring to capitalism when he wasn’t.
As my quotation from Pope Paul VI has already made clear in relation to socialism, it is not so “simple” on that end either. He explained in my long aforementioned quote how “socialism” can be used to vaguely refer to “justice, equality and rights for the poor” which obviously does not conflict with the Church’s teachings.
Here it is again:
vatican.va/holy_father/pa…eniens_en.html
A Socialist looks at what the Pope says above and thinks, like you do in relation to capitalism, “Oh Socialism as I understand and practice it must be ok then”. Not so!
Here is an example from the period:
Yet as we know, this is not “socialism” properly defined and nor is simple free trade and property-owning tantamount to “capitalism”.
Both of them in their strictly defined, proper sense are condemned by the church. Still you have not commented on those two earlier quotations of mine but avoided them entirely.
Also, you didn’t comment on Pope John Paul’s comments on capitalism. Here they are again:
“The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”
You see, Vouthon - with capitalism it kind of depends on how we define it. Yet with socialism, it is always, “real socialism” is condemned. No one ever says, “real capitalism is condemned” do they? Instead they say, “unfettered” capitalism, or “bad” capitalism. Capitalism can be good or bad, depending on who the capitalists are. Not so with socialism
Ishii
E
Et_Cetera
Guest
The fiscal policies of the GOP do not align with Catholicism and the teachings of Jesus. I have been saying this on here for years (and so have many others). A lot of feathers are ruffled because people are starting to realize that they need to either pick their religion or their political affiliation. The two do not align perfectly. Unfettered capitalism allows the greedy and powerful to prey on the weak, and this is not a system that should be promoted by a follower of Christ.
Every time a new statement comes out from the Pope, people rush to say that he must be misquoted and that his words surely have been misconstrued, but really just read his words. He is being very clear. He is condemning the exact policies that are exalted by Fox News. Where does your allegiance lie?
Every time a new statement comes out from the Pope, people rush to say that he must be misquoted and that his words surely have been misconstrued, but really just read his words. He is being very clear. He is condemning the exact policies that are exalted by Fox News. Where does your allegiance lie?
P
pnewton
Guest
No, he is not. I would say, yes, read his words. In this thread, several key differences have already been pointed to, with direct quotes, between what the Holy Father said, and what different news outlets said he said. He is being misquoted. I even linked the whole message earlier.
FYI - Republicans mostly do pick their political affiliations based on being a follower of Christ, and a belief that in a two-party system, one should chose the lesser of two evils. God only knows the Democratic Party supports its share of evil.
I do not support either party myself because of the reasons you gave, but I would be guilty of rash judgment if I were to take my point of view as the “Catholic” standard and assume those that do not share it are somehow less committed to their faith than I am.
E
estesbob
Guest
You say that but you have absolutely no evidence that is true. the Church neither endorse either Party’s fiscal policies. In addition we do not have unfettered capitalism in this country nor does the GOP advocate this. What we see constantly is Catholic Democrats trying to rationalize their support of abortion and homosexual marriage by misstating the views of the GOP. They build a caricature of an abjectly evil group that eats puppies for breakfast and wants to starve the old and poor to death. Having built this straw man they then make the leap of logic that because the GOP is so evil its ok for them to support evil. Archbishop Chaput explains it best:
Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
E
estesbob
Guest
Archbishop Chaput explains it not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils-it is a matter of voting to lessen evil.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I agree.
We already do have socialist government,even though it has not swallowed up the entire market economy or all industries. The socialism consists of the huge administrative bureaus and welfare programs and the takeover of car companies and banks and health care industries.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a perfect example of re-defining the meaning of socialism. This is why we have to be careful when saying the Catholic Church condemns socialism, which she does. However she only condemns socialism that is properly defined, not used willy-nilly in any manner we choose.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Which is what Cicero, the Roman writer JPII liked to quote, pretty much wrote, Primum minima de malis (roughly, “Of evils, choose the least”)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not to mention the virtually complete takeover of the monetary system, which determines interest rates, margins, etc, through its appointed Federal Reserve System.
A
anthony022071
Guest
I did not re-define socialism. Socialism is not always about government ownership of all industries or the denial of property rights. It also involves excessive regulation of businesses and a welfare state that absorbs the natural functions of parents and private associations and the Church and makes people dependent upon the government. And it also involves the government promoting the secularization of society and a materialist world view.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is not the way the Catholic Church defines it when it condemns socialism. It is not the way any of the dictionaries I looked into when this thread started defined it. Excessive regulation is a matter of opinion. Socialism is something the Catholic Church has denounced.
You can define things as you wish, but understand it adds confusion, especially if the same term is mentioned specifically as a heresy. What you are doing is the equivalent of me saying Arianism is just anything that has some wrong concept of God. Specific terms help discussion. Broad terms help the rhetoric that stifle discussion and push people into ideological camps that they may or may not fit in.
I
ishii
Guest
I think part of the problem is that we have socialists in government who genuinely want to bring about socialism. Just because they can’t do that quickly, and so do it incrementally does not make them any less socialist. Examples of the incremental socialism are Obamacare - and the desire among so many Democrats to have single payer govt. healthcare. To have the federal govt. basically running things, be opposed to the Church whose existence challenges the authority of the state. So naturally the secular left is opposed to the Church. These things are signs that many in power are socialist - but just because we don’t quite have a socialist system here now, does not mean that the secular left is trying to get there incrementally - little by little.
Ishii
H
hazcompat
Guest
Matthew 23:23“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Peace
Peace
T
Tsuwano
Guest
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? 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.
- Status