Pope Francis calls for big changes in Roman Catholic Church

[ProVobis]

We are all part of societies that are going in debt to pay for our social programs

And even more so since all the central banks have completely gone off the gold (or hard asset) standard and now print or credit as much money as they can get away with. But it’s not limited to just our social programs. Stock markets have done exceedingly well, which is why China lent to the U.S. to begin with.

 

[Vasallus]

Late coming to the party, but my answer to the OP would be: No, he isn’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It works the other way too. In several countries I’ve visited, most middle-class families (that includes teachers, nurses, accountants) can afford a full time maid (to iron the sheets and water the plants - not just to clean either!) and the better paid professionals (doctors, lawyers etc) can afford drivers and gardeners too. A large percentage of those same people would not dream of installing air conditioning on the grounds that it is an unnecessary luxury. I say this just to show that making comparisons across cultures can be misleading.

To me the real test of poverty lies in defining the basic needs for a particular society and then determining whether the people in question in that society have the resources necessary to meet those needs. Food, clothing and shelter are all basic, but the type and amounts required, the resources needed to access them etc., all vary depending on where in the world you are.

Just a few decades ago, middle class people in the U.S. did have far more domestic help than they do now. Of course, it was a cash thing and “at will”. No withholding, no employment regulations, nothing like that. It often seems to me a shame that there are so many able-bodied people who could do that kind of work, particularly for elderly or disabled people, but nobody but the very wealthy can now hire them.

Farm labor was similar. Many, perhaps most farmers could hire a “hired hand”, provide living quarters, food and some cash. Now, you even have to file a 1099 if you pay more than $600 to any one contract laborer, so most farmers and ranchers have even more disincentive to hire.

 

[seekerz]

Do they now?
Is it your contention then that a series of popes are in unison with your own position, and that therefore you, like they , are a better Catholic?

And , since I they are apparently in disagreement with my position, the opposite must be therefore true of me, that my religious faith is not in Christ, my faith IS in worldy economic systems, and that criticizing immorality when I see it is both painful and unnerving for me.
If that is not what you are saying, then you are saying nothing at all.

Since I already gave you an example, you do not even have enough curiousity to contemplate what that example meant.
The example was China. That is an example of an economy that was based on strict centralized control and socialist dogma, and then it opened itself up to free market mechanisms, at least a limited basis initially. Poverty was not solved; enormous wealth was created. Overall, people became better off, even if crushing poverty still exists.

Capitalism as I perceive it is not perfect. It exists in a myriad of places, and in none of those places is the type of free markets that do exist perfect or beyond criticism or improvement.
Free markets exist in Canada. They exist in America, India and Europe.It is not as if they are unknown or non-existent; it is a question of less or more free, less or more influenced by criminal activity.

Markets run by criminal gangs, thugocracies such as exist in Russia under Putin, are neither free markets nor really capitalist, although the thugs in charge are becoming fabulously rich through exploiting them.

But maybe you disagree with this too. And if you do, certainly, the whole series of popes do to. For evidently the Catholic popes all disagree with the fact that capitalism has had a positive effect on China, that capitalism IS greed, that secular culture has not done much to destroy the Catholic conscience, that it is a simplification to divide the world into either a liberal camp and a greedy camp.
That is what you have contended, and I am sure that you now feel like a much better Catholic for having put me in my place as an anti-pope for saying otherwise.

I’m truly puzzled by your post. It was not my impression that this was a contest to see who is the better Catholic.

To my knowledge (since this is a term I grew up with) “unfettered capitalism” has been criticized by contemporary Popes (so your contention that it is not the problem strikes me as curious). That is quite different from a wholesale condemnation of capitalism, which seems to be your interpretation of my stance.

Let’s put it this way: I can love my family/job/country/church and still point out the flaws or failings I perceive. The same goes for an ideology or economic system, except that I would consider “love” too strong a word to describe my feelings even for the ideology or system which I found most acceptable.

Your point about China illustrates mine: that wealth increased in China and several of the countries you mention - is not in itself evidence that there was an overall improvement in people’s lives (I am not denying - just questioning). If the gap between rich and poor simply widened in a particular country, that is not = overall improvement because it would simply put the poor more at a disadvantage. I don’t know enough about life on the ground in those countries to decide either way (although I seem to have heard that some aspects of life, such as health care access, have worsened for the rural poor in China), but I can certainly trust that the Pope apprises himself of such details before speaking on economic issues.

 

[Darryl1958]

]I’m truly puzzled by your post. It was not my impression that this was a contest to see who is the better Catholic.

It certainly was mine, after having read yours.

To my knowledge (since this is a term I grew up with) “unfettered capitalism” has been criticized by contemporary Popes (so your contention that it is not the problem strikes me as curious). That is quite different from a wholesale condemnation of capitalism, which seems to be your interpretation of my stance.

It was you that said that the popes disagreed with me.

Let’s put it this way: I can love my family/job/country/church and still point out the flaws or failings I perceive. The same goes for an ideology or economic system, except that I would consider “love” too strong a word to describe my feelings even for the ideology or system which I found most acceptable.

That has nothing to do with what you were responding to

Your point about China illustrates mine: that wealth increased in China and several of the countries you mention - is not in itself evidence that there was an overall improvement in people’s lives (I am not denying - just questioning). If the gap between rich and poor simply widened in a particular country, that is not = overall improvement because it would simply put the poor more at a disadvantage. I don’t know enough about life on the ground in those countries to decide either way (although I seem to have heard that some aspects of life, such as health care access, have worsened for the rural poor in China), but I can certainly trust that the Pope apprises himself of such details before speaking on economic issues.

In terms of material poverty, the wealth is precisely evidence of an overall improvement in people’s lives.
The poverty that existed before was absolute,then as now, but the wealth that has been generated has been tremendous, and has helped many out of that kind of poverty.
And I have no problem criticizing China.
It still sucks, but now it sucks less.
That is because of capitalism.
The problem of poverty has not been solved for all.
But many have benefited greatly, in material terms.

But if you and the popes would prefer it as it was before, that is your choice.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz;11455798It:

But if you and the popes would prefer it as it was before, that is your choice.

I don’t place my opinions on par with those of the Pope, I’m simply making the point that there is a difference between criticizing some aspects of the practice of capitalism and condemning capitalism wholesale.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I have no problem with the Pope’s actual words. The secular media’s interpretation is ridiculous, however.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t place my opinions on par with those of the Pope, I’m simply making the point that there is a difference between criticizing some aspects of the practice of capitalism and condemning capitalism wholesale.

then suffice to say, since I too do not place capitalism above criticism, if the series of popes are disagreeing me, then they are disagreeing with your too

 

[ProdigalSun]

My take on it is that if you had to sum it all up in one sentence, the Holy Father wants to place more emphasis on what the Church *does *believe in rather than what it doesn’t believe in.

Like:
1)MArriage is between one man and one woman!
2)Chastity.
3)Life begins at conception.
4)Homosexuality is a sin.
5)Daily Prayer & Scripture reading will help conform yourself to the one true Church.
6)The Eucharist is Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. ANyone eating of his body unworthily brings judgement upon himself.
7)All sins can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I bet you there are lots more people can think of. Which ones can you think of Lost Sheep?

Oops here is a big one - Proper matter for the Preisthood is Baptized Catholic.

 

[clem456]

Like:
1)MArriage is between one man and one woman!
2)Chastity.
3)Life begins at conception.
4)Homosexuality is a sin.
5)Daily Prayer & Scripture reading will help conform yourself to the one true Church.
6)The Eucharist is Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. ANyone eating of his body unworthily brings judgement upon himself.
7)All sins can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I bet you there are lots more people can think of. Which ones can you think of Lost Sheep?

Oops here is a big one - Proper matter for the Preisthood is Baptized Catholic.

Just out of curiosity why did you choose to emphasize #4 is a sin but not

fornication
adultery
masturbation

which are waaaay more prevalent sins?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Nothing Christ or the Apostles wrote has ever been a favourable argument for capitalism, except, if you really stretch it, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” It’s simply not a Christian Ideal - not that that’s necessarily a condemnation.

The condemnation is in the numerous exhortations against the accumulation of wealth, which is, I’m pretty sure, what the Holy Father was talking about…

As to the overzealous fire dept, better to be approved under the fire code than to have no coverage in your property insurance when your outdated stoves and vents burn the place down, or when someone gets hurt because the emergency doors aren’t up to code, nicht war? My own parish recently had to replace the emergency doors because of a fire inspection - they could not be opened from the inside if they were locked from the outside. A common problem for my cousin, who used to stay after mass for private prayers and then would need to call the Pastor on his cellular to get the door unlocked to leave.

The gospels do NOT endorse any economic OR political system. To attempt to make them do so is an abuse.

 

[HerrZJA]

The gospels do NOT endorse any economic OR political system. To attempt to make them do so is an abuse.

Wow, I’m really glad I didn’t do that then…

 

[ProdigalSun]

Just out of curiosity why did you choose to emphasize #4 is a sin but not

fornication
adultery
masturbation

which are waaaay more prevalent sins?

Ahhh… no reason it hust popped into my head. I’m sure I left out many sins though not just the three you mention.

Thank you for the additions though, I really agree with you on the big three you listed. Certainly I am no staranger to at least one of these sins.

Any of which I am consicience of and more than willing to come before God with a contrite heart through reconciliation.

Peace!