Y
Yeoman
Guest
Thanks.
I certainly agree that it would be a stretch to claim it had Papal support. I just wondered how this fit in with some Distributist thought.
Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality
- Status
I certainly agree that it would be a stretch to claim it had Papal support. I just wondered how this fit in with some Distributist thought.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
Indeed.
In my view a Distributist economy would have to be heavily modified to reflect the general success of Capitalism. Indeed, rather it would be the infusion of Distributist principals into Capitalist systems, which would probably have to take on the role of limitations on corporations and the legal protections they are afforded, which are in and of themselves modifications in Capitalism that make it less Capitalistic.
Y
Yeoman
Guest
It’s nice that all of this can be rationally discussed here. Elsewhere I’ve seen comments that vary from:
- The Pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regard to Capitalism; to
- It’s revolutionary; to
- The Pope’s economic message is only an economic message for Catholics, and only to the extent that it applies to their personal life.
S
seekerz
Guest
Oh, you’ll get the first two in this thread - #3, I haven’t come across yet.
S
seekerz
Guest
How did I slip?Hah, methinks you slipped up there and divulged that you know much more about Church teaching than you want us to believe!
What is your agenda, seekerz, my friend?
Truly puzzled. I am a cradle Catholic - not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination - but I’m at least as familiar with Church teaching as the next person in the pew.
S
seekerz
Guest
How did I slip?Hah, methinks you slipped up there and divulged that you know much more about Church teaching than you want us to believe!
What is your agenda, seekerz, my friend?
Truly puzzled. I am a cradle Catholic - not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination - but I’m at least as familiar with Church teaching as the next person in the pew.And BTW, I have no agenda other than a civil discussion, but since you bring it up - do you have one?
S
seekerz
Guest
You want coordinates?
I already answered the question.
S
seekerz
Guest
No kidding.
Mark121359
Well-known member
And to me, this is deliberately done! Deliberately cherry picking certain quotes to push their propaganda. For example; when the Pontiff said, “Who am I to judge a gay person?”…the media’s reaction; the Catholic Church is relaxing it’s view towards homosexuality. When the Pontiff said; “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.”…the media translates; The Catholic Church doesn’t put a high priority on these things anymore. When the Pontiff said “There is no Catholic God” the media spins it…the Catholic understanding of God is no better than any other faith. And on it goes. The frustrating part about this is, is that many, many unsuspecting Catholics unhesitantly believe the media spin on this. And then, usually within a week after the media has had it’s field day spinning like a top, the Vatican steps in to clarify the Pope’s words…but predictively this goes widely unreported!
The truth of the matter is this, Pope Francis is saying absolutely ***nothing ***different about capitalism than previous pontiffs before him have said on this topic, and yet the media will have you believe that there’s been a major breakthrough here, and that the latter are nothing but dinosaurs! And they go out of their way to emphasise this last point too! To me, anyone who has a properly formed conscience and an adequate knowledge of the Catholic Faith will read this media like a cheap dime store novel. They have been cherry picking his words and playing them like a fiddle from the get go…all too successfully I might add!
Peace, Mark
I
ishii
Guest
Sorry I must have missed it. Yes, please do tell me where this unfettered capitalism exists in America.You want coordinates?
Ishii
K
KSU
Guest
In your post #803, you dodged my question about wether you think there even was an English mistranslation of the popes words, but you said:How did I slip?
And BTW, I have no agenda other than a civil discussion, but since you bring it up - do you have one?
“It is interesting to see, after a line of (how many?) popes, that in the 21st century, translation of the pontiffs words has become such a quandary! Well, Jesus spoke Aramaic, which was then translated into…Greek/Latin…English - so how can we KNOW what he said about the poor and our attitudes to possessions? Hah, methinks that’s why we have been given a Church and a pope…”
Even though you dodged my question, you slipped up there by acknowledging, and giving an excellent example of why, Christ gave us a Church and a pope. I.E., a pope can cut through all the worldly confusion and speak for Christ; so, why does this thread even exist?
Because you know that basic theology (many “Catholics” don’t), and because you also know how abhorrent even moderate Socialism is to the Church, as has been clearly taught by the popes, nevertheless, in pretty much everything else you say in this thread, you want us to believe that your almost Catholic Worker-like position is buttressed by what the popes have said.
Well, you can’t have it both ways. You are far too knowledgeable about what the previous popes have taught on behalf of Christ (they are quoted in this thread, along with the relevant sections of the Compendium) to believe that the embarrassingly incompetent English translation is really what Pope Francis said.
So, why do you argue as though the mistranslation really reflects previous Church teaching? I repeat, what is your agenda, my friend?
My agenda is to correct harmful error as appears in this thread (hopefully not intentionally) about, first, the Church, and, second, my country. Both are under attack by the homosocialist cabal in America. Without the existence of traditional political freedom, as intended by our founders, the Catholic Church in America will be reduced to an underground Church as happened to my grandparents in the damnable old U. S. S. R., and which is still happening in Cuba, China, and to a lesser extent elsewhere.
K
KSU
Guest
What’s a homosocialist cabal? Here’s an example the pope knows well:
churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-12-12
churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2013-12-12
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Or in the wider world.
F
fnr
Guest
Sorry for stepping into this conversation…
Well, is Jesus king, or isn’t he? He was crucified under the sign INRI, which stands for “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Is he not king of kings? Is he not Lord of Lords? The New Testament is full of the proclamation that Jesus is the true and only king of this world, from Matthew 28:18’s “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” to Paul proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord in lands where “Caesar is Lord” was the norm, to Revelation. Jesus is REALLY king.
But none of us are Jesus, and all of our efforts are overshadowed by our fallen nature. So any utopian scheme is inherently bound to fail. That’s why we need to act to bring the Kingdom of Heaven here and now. Paul tells us plainly: “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Cor 15:58). Or there’s John 17.
To be Catholic is to be a theocrat. Jesus is king, end of story. How we as fallen humanity realize that kingdom is a matter of prudence. And that’s where Catholic social teaching comes in.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
You had number of good points in your post but I’d like to focus here as it includes several important elements. The one element that I think you neglected is subsidiarity.
I agree that theocracy ought not be a dirty word among Catholics. But that said, we must be precise in our meaning of it and why the theocracies of history are not good models.
We are fallen, yes, and this is something that Christans have long recognized. And we have social teaching, though Protestants obviously diverge here. But it is often forgotten that those in power are also fallen. The problem with the theocracies of history is that they tended to assume that those in power were morally superior to their subjects. You’d think that the divine right of kings would be ancient history but those who advocate more government operate on essentially the same principle: government as teacher, government as parent. Government as god.
Catholic theocracy means, simply, infusing all areas of human activity, including politics and economics, with Christian theology and moral purpose.
Given our fallen nature and the limits of Catholic teaching the great balance is filled by prudence. Prudence was once regarded as the charioteer of virtues but nowadays is relegated to an asterisk and hardly anyone understands subsidiarity.
Prudence and subsidiarity lead almost directly to free market capitalism. Only free market capitalism aspires to integrate the prudential judgement of everyone. Only free market capitalism respects subsidiarity to its fullest. Every non-charity “fix” to free market capitalism entails the violation of either prudence or subsidiarity or both.
An ideal Catholic theocracy is not a dictatorship of clerics, it is a free market of brothers and sisters each pursuing the fulfillment of their respective gifts.
S
StudentMI
Guest
This depends on how you are defining “free market capitalism.” If one were to define it in Church terminology, as a market system with government involvement where needed, then your statement would be true. However, given that it is also used to mean a purely libertarian system, clarification is needed on your part.
If you did mean the latter (which is not to say those two alone are the only such statements possible), however, your claim flies in the face of Catholic social teaching, including encyclicals by numerous Popes. Subsidiarity is often misunderstood to mean something akin to a libertarian system.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That is absolutely right. One of my complaints throughout this thread is the lack of clarity, and someties the obfuscation, of terms and concepts.
Even the term “pure libertarian” is imprecise. The only group that I am aware of that is flat out opposed to government is “anarcho-capitalism” and they are a sliver of a sliver. I have no intention of defending that except to say, as you did, that it being a highly theoretical concept, we don’t know it won’t work.
Most free market capitalist advocates have in mind something closer to what the Church teaches: a state that provides judicial and, thus, some regulatory functions: the prevention of violence, theft, and fraud. Where I think libertarians diverge from Church teaching is in the area of state-provided welfare. The Church has not condemned it generally, only warned against the problems that result from it. Libertarians are of the view that the problems are inevitable and that the costs outweigh the benefits.
My own opinion is that the Church has been far too deferential to the encroachment of the state into it’s historical domains; too many clerics are all to happy to operate on tax funding.
I
ishii
Guest
Re-post:
You want coordinates?
I would still like to know where this unfettered capitalism is in America.
I
ishii
Guest
Change “economic” to “pro-life” and you will see Catholics on these forums regularly making that comment.
Ishii
D
Darryl1958
Guest
[/QUOTE]That does not yet contradict my description since my description specifically states that heaven exist only when one is **morally and ethically **living in the Spirit.
The selfishness that you describe would not be considered to be living according to even the basest of ethics. It is a wrong reading of my description of heaven to think that one is being moral by only looking out for Number One.
Still, no contradiction there with the short, succint description of heaven that I had given.
One can understand well enough where one is progressing from, but until one knows where one is progressing to, to clean out one demon tends to lead to a state of affairs where seven more move into the empty space and set up shop.
One does not have to have great peripheral vision even to see the kinds of demons that await and salivate at the thought that the world that has been built through two thousand years of Christian though is being torn down by progressives, with no vision of how to keep those seven demons from taking over.
I am saying that the inner peace that is the peace that Christ leaves with us is the kingdom of heaven that Christ proclaims to be near at hand. You can reject that as gnostic. I don’t consider myself to be gnostic thought believe that the created world is the inferior product of an evil demiurge, but that there is a sacramental quality to this creation.
Be that as it may, it is fair enough that you reject that, and advocate a (Catholic) theocratic form of government. That is what I was asking the other guy, if that is what he wants.
As for your comments on ‘inner peace’, **you have misread what I written and made it into some sort of touchie-feelie dweebie kind of emotional thingie. Inner peace **as I have presented it and as I have describe it is a life absent of the turmoil that comes from the guilt and shame of not living ethically and morally and according to the Spirit that Christ has sent. Your examples are not disagreeing with my description, but merely elucidating what ethical and moral and life in the Spirit means.
Sure. Government when necessary, but only as much government as necessary. Ours is a gospel of freedom. Freedom does not exist without limits, which enable it.
As I said before, my question of “where are you progressing to?” is a real one.
The status quo, as inherently evil as it is, according to our fallen nature, also contains many elements of these Christian limits, and the checks and balances, that define the parameters through which human freedom can be realized to the fullest.
It is not gnosticism to desire this of our world, as I do. It is not resigning oneself to evil either, to baulk from throwing off the shackles of the status quo, as if two thousand years of Christian thinking have not been built into it.
Anyway, the major fundamental disagreement that you have had with me is based in your fundamental misreading of what I describe the kingdom of heaven as. You did not take into account the fact that morality, ethics, and living in the Spirit were at the very heart of that kingdom. Jesus rules this world through our hearts and minds, through us becoming the hands and hearts of God.
- Status