Pope Francis claims global economy is close to collapse and describes youth unemployment rates as an ‘atrocity’ in damning message

[seekerz]

Also, since it seems every country in the world makes at least AK-47s, mortars and RPGs, it’s not just the big economies who sell arms.

Every country in the world? Source? ***Not even half ***of the countries I’ve visited on this planet, make that stuff.

 

[ProVobis]

I have read and am reading it.

You need to listen to the Pope. He was talking about the consequences of idolatry of money. He is right.

But then, are things much better in Rome?

Pope blamed by homeless Romans for ignoring their plight

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You need to listen to the Pope. He was talking about the consequences of idolatry of money. He is right.

He said that greed causes youth unemployment. He is wrong.

 

[seekerz]

He said that greed causes youth unemployment. He is wrong.

Ah, I see. The Pope is wrong because he doesn’t agree with you. I rest the case made in my previous post.

 

[seekerz]

But then, are things much better in Rome?

Pope blamed by homeless Romans for ignoring their plight

What do you mean? Did his comments exclude Rome? Maybe I’m mistaken in thinking he was commenting on the global economy

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ah, I see. The Pope is wrong because he doesn’t agree with you. I rest the case made in my previous post.

No, the Pope is wrong because he doesn’t agree with reality. The claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployment doesn’t pass the most basic test of causation, as I noted previously.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Sorry, lumping classical liberalism into the French revolution is sloppy at best, misleading at worst. Historically, there were main two branches of the “englightenment”, one French, the other English. While there were some early French contributors to classical liberalism, it was the French Revolution which established the different path leading to communism, socialism, and modern liberalism as well as hostility to religion.

Sorry, that was indeed sloppy.

The English enlightenment gave us the classical form of liberalism which was, at its worst, neutral towards religion (e.g. freedom of religion). So while modern liberalism is, indeed, waging a war against religion, classical liberalism never did.

I’ll quote part of an interview that David Schindler gave that probably explains better than myself what I mean:

Can we unmask the assumptions of our culture and deal with them in a way that will free the latent generosity of the culture? Or will those hidden assumptions overcome our generosity? This is the real battle, both globally and in America. It calls for a new effort of evangelization – which consists, above all, in first getting clear about the ideas in Evangelium Vitae; understanding the logic of self-centeredness in a post-Enlightenment liberal culture. Alasdair McIntyre has a great line: that all debates in America are finally among radical liberals, liberal liberals and conservative liberals. That’s how I would sum up. If we don’t come to terms with liberalism –

Q: But liberalism in what sense? Quite a few people who would describe themselves as conservative or neoconservative are, in fact, liberal . . .

That’s the point: They’re the conservative wing of liberalism. And in a sense, they wouldn’t even deny that, insofar as their project is to show that a benign reading of American liberal tradition is harmonious with Catholicism. That’s what I’m challenging. Their approach doesn’t go to the roots of our [cultural and spiritual] problem, as identified in this pontificate and in the work of theologians like De Lubac and Balthasar.

[Contemporary U.S. culture is rooted in] self-centeredness. A false sense of autonomy centered in the self; an incomplete conception of rights. So we need to reinstate a right relation to God on all levels – not only at the level of intention, but at the level of the logic of our culture. Our relation to God has to inform not only our will, but how we think and how we construct our institutions.

Liberalism, not excluding classical, is ultimately centered on one’s self, and consequently, greed. IMO that is what the Pope is getting at and he is 100% correct.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ll quote part of an interview that David Schindler gave that probably explains better than myself what I mean: …"And in a sense, they wouldn’t even deny that, insofar as their project is to show that a benign reading of American liberal tradition is harmonious with Catholicism. "…Classical liberalism is ultimately

I mentioned freedom of religion and this is perhaps an illustrative example of the harmonization of “American liberal tradition” and Catholicism. Whereas the Church was originally suspicious of this principle, it is now a stable of Catholicism with even the popes demanding it of governments.

And while America has always been mainly protestant, compare religiosity in America with most traditionally Catholic countries, e.g. Italy and Spain. It’s not a pretty picture.

For more on such harmonization, see e.g. www.acton.org

 

[seekerz]

No, the Pope is wrong because he doesn’t agree with reality. The claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployment doesn’t pass the most basic test of causation, as I noted previously.

Oh, I see, and reality is what, according to you?

 

[CrossofChrist]

I mentioned freedom of religion and this is perhaps an illustrative example of the harmonization of “American liberal tradition” and Catholicism. Whereas the Church was originally suspicious of this principle, it is now a stable of Catholicism with even the popes demanding it of governments.

And while America has always been mainly protestant, compare religiosity in America with most traditionally Catholic countries, e.g. Italy and Spain. It’s not a pretty picture.

For more on such harmonization, see e.g. www.acton.org

Continuing with the religious freedom example, the Church has a completely different understanding from liberalism of why it is good. Freedom implicitly assumes the truth of Christ and that we have an obligation to search for the truth. It doesn’t exist for our sake, as liberalism would claim, but for the truth’s sake. When the Church dialogues with modernity and the American tradition, her goal is not just to embrace what it says but to transform it so that it fits with Catholic teaching. The Church has not given up her teaching from before Dignitatis Humanae, but has deepened her awareness for how the obligation to assent to the truth and liberty of conscience relate to each other.

So a nice and easy harmonization isn’t possible, at least in its entirety. There has to be some kind of transformation on the side of liberalism.

But regardless of whether you agree with me or not, my guess is that Pope Francis’ views are similar to the Communio group of theologians (Ratzinger, de Lubac, von Balthasar, etc.) who view it like Schindler.

If you want to read more of what he says, here’s something to read.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Oh, I see, and reality is what, according to you?

You see, there is this old fashioned idea of collecting evidence and making an argument constructed upon it. I learned that in Catholic school from some radical monks.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Continuing with the religious freedom example, the Church has a completely different understanding from liberalism of why it is good. Freedom implicitly assumes the truth of Christ and that we have an obligation to search for the truth. It doesn’t exist for our sake, as liberalism would claim, but for the truth’s sake.

Classical liberals were very much of the opinion that all freedom was for such purpose and held the view that virtue was a prerequisite to a just society. Modern liberalism, on the other hand, has turned freedom of religion into freedom from religion.

 

[ProVobis]

What do you mean? Did his comments exclude Rome? Maybe I’m mistaken in thinking he was commenting on the global economy

True, but don’t a lot of things start with what happens at home? Shouldn’t those problems be fixed first before larger economies are addressed? Seems like so far all we’ve heard up till now is how the Pope is trying to save money. As noble as that may be, it’s not exactly stimulating growth in employment. That’s the way economics works.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Classical liberals were very much of the opinion that all freedom was for such purpose and held the view that virtue was a prerequisite to a just society. Modern liberalism, on the other hand, has turned freedom of religion into freedom from religion.

Classical liberalism implies a deist worldview.

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about classical liberalism: acton.org/global/article/market-economy-and-ethics#_ftn1#_ftn1

Perhaps especially pertinent: * Although this position admits the freedom of individual businessmen, and to that extent can be called liberal, it is in fact deterministic in its core. *

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Classical liberalism implies a deist worldview.

That is simply untrue. Deism was easily the shortest lived religious idea in history. Classical liberalism implies an internal pursuit of truth and salvation, something that is entirely consistent with Catholicism (save the occassional violent suppression of heresy).

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about classical liberalism: acton.org/global/article/market-economy-and-ethics#_ftn1#_ftn1

Interestingly, this was written before the rise of China and India and the liberation of eastern Europe from communism. While Africa is still a basket case and there are still many pockets of poverty in India and China, nobody would write today of the huge divide between “north and south”. Did Catholicism lift billions out of poverty? No. Capitalism did.

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict was correct to point to tensions but it would be a grave mistake to read him as in agreement with Pope Francis that greed causes youth unemployment. Resolving those tensions in favor of Christianity is what Acton does. Declaring such harmonization to be inherently impossible is prejudicial.

 

[CrossofChrist]

That is simply untrue. Deism was easily the shortest lived religious idea in history. Classical liberalism implies an internal pursuit of truth and salvation, something that is entirely consistent with Catholicism (save the occassional violent suppression of heresy).

No, it implies a deterministic worldview, but yes I jumped the gun by associating that strictly with Deism.

Interestingly, this was written before the rise of China and India and the liberation of eastern Europe from communism. While Africa is still a basket case and there are still many pockets of poverty in India and China, nobody would write today of the huge divide between “north and south”. Did Catholicism lift billions out of poverty? No. Capitalism did.

Here’s something more recent from Cardinal Ratzinger, from 2002:

*It is undeniable that the liberal model of the market economy, especially as moderated and corrected under the influence of Christian social ideas, has in some parts of the world led to great success. All the sadder are the results, especially in places like Africa, where clashing power blocs and economic interests have been at work. Behind the apparent beneficial models of development there has all too often been hidden the desire to expand the reach of particular powers and ideologies in order to dominate the market. In this situation, ancient social structures and spiritual and moral forces have been destroyed, with consequences that echo in our ears like a single great cry of sorrow.

No, without God things cannot go well. And because only in Christ has God shown us his face, spoken his name, entered into communion with us; without Christ there is no ultimate hope.
*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020602_ratzinger-eucharistic-congress_en.html

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict was correct to point to tensions but it would be a grave mistake to read him as in agreement with Pope Francis that greed causes youth unemployment. Resolving those tensions in favor of Christianity is what Acton does. Declaring such harmonization to be inherently impossible is prejudicial

I’m not saying that the difficulties can’t be resolved in part, but in their totality it is impossible. There has to be some transformation on the part of liberalism to Christian principles.

I don’t think it would be a mistake to read Benedict as in agreement with Francis.

"Benedict said to us that he also has the impression that theologically he is very in the same line with Pope Francis

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=127405

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, it implies a deterministic worldview, but yes I jumped the gun by associating that strictly with Deism.

That too is untrue. Classical liberalism, while histrically concurrent with the rise of the idea of determinism, is not synonomous with it. Most classical liberals were, and are, very much believers in free will and, in fact, regard it as fundamental to the its principles.

Here’s something more recent from Cardinal Ratzinger, from 2002:

*It is undeniable that the liberal model of the market economy, especially as moderated and corrected under the influence of Christian social ideas, has in some parts of the world led to great success. All the sadder are the results, especially in places like Africa, where clashing power blocs and economic interests have been at work. Behind the apparent beneficial models of development there has all too often been hidden the desire to expand the reach of particular powers and ideologies in order to dominate the market. In this situation, ancient social structures and spiritual and moral forces have been destroyed, with consequences that echo in our ears like a single great cry of sorrow.

No, without God things cannot go well. And because only in Christ has God shown us his face, spoken his name, entered into communion with us; without Christ there is no ultimate hope.
*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020602_ratzinger-eucharistic-congress_en.html

Yes, I did mention that Africa was still a mess. I don’t think anything here contradicts what I said.

 

[seekerz]

You see, there is this old fashioned idea of collecting evidence and making an argument constructed upon it. I learned that in Catholic school from some radical monks.

So, present your evidence/argument; simply stating that the Pope is wrong is constitutes neither.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So, present your evidence/argument; simply stating that the Pope is wrong is constitutes neither.

I have presented my evidence, principally the lack of correlation between greed and youth unemployment (among very many other things). Correlation is not causation but there can be no causation without correlation. As I said, the claim that greed is the cause of youth unemployument fails that most basic test.

 

[edwest2]

The Pope is right. The global economy is simply the amount of available money and who has it. Less greed, less, “I’ll only do the minimum,” I want a big apartment as opposed to a family," I want to play, play, play," are the problems. “Hard work? Not me.” Time to stop that nonsense.

Who wants kids? Why not just hook-up, go to parties and get high? It’s cheaper living with one or both of your parents.

The people in power know what’s going on and TWO, know what to do. They will be FORCED by circumstance to do what they don’t want to do. Most of the world’s land and wealth are owned by a small fraction of people. And those people can buy only a finite number of expensive homes, cars and other luxury items. They know that.

Oil is on its way out. They know that too. Renewable energy is staring them in the face and they are terrified. Who’s going to put an electric meter on the sun or waves or wind? How much profit can they make? Not as much as before. So even the rich will be scrambling for other ways to get richer. Gold? Pfft. How much food can you buy with it?

And youth unemployment. How much of the world is overweight and lazy?

This will sort itself out. Youth will be required to take any work they can get.

Finally, the world is aging. Mom won’t be around forever.

Peace,
Ed