Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdpreacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luigi_Daniele said:
I think that you are absolutely correct. I have not had time to read the entire document; only snippets really. Which is why I said “seems”. I will read it over the holidays and get back to you all.

Just a clarification. I am uncomfortable using the tags “right” and “left” when discussing the Church. Neither American political party is perfect. Republicans can certainly be too much about profits (I, for one, am no fan of many big corporations-I think that they should be rare, and only exist for those few cases when smaller private enterprise can not perform a function); Democrats’ support of gay so called marriage and abortion and (at the very least soft) socialism means that they are even more at odds with my Church.

I will listen (read) the Holy Father because I am a loyal son of the Church above all else.
Click to expand...
I look forward to reading your thoughts on it.
 
Country_Gal said:
LOL, no Welfare mamas, gangbangers, baby daddies, slack jaw potheads, or meth head crazy people then?
Click to expand...
With a 99-week maximum lifetime limit on welfare? Highly unlikely!
Ridgerunner said:
The elderly are by far the wealthiest single demographic group in this country; mostly because they own their own homes and have some savings. So, what do you want to do about them?
Click to expand...
Means-test Social Security and Medicare; problem solved!
 
By the way what is the status of this document. Evangelii, Is it an encyclical or what? What are we to believe ? Is this the Holy Father’s opinion? Does this change things in the church?
 
It would be considered non infallible papal teaching. We should submit to the teaching under religious submission of mind and will. Catholics are not obligated to agree with the Pope in things like this. But why would you disagree with the pope on this stuff he is very knowledgeable and probably knows much more than the majority of us on this board.
 
I’ve been following this forum for the last couple days to see how the right-leaning Catholics are spinning this. Good show so far.
 
What is a “Right leaning " Catholic? What is there in what the Pope said that requires"spinning”
 
catholictiger said:
It would be considered non infallible papal teaching. We should submit to the teaching under religious submission of mind and will. Catholics are not obligated to agree with the Pope in things like this. But why would you disagree with the pope on this stuff he is very knowledgeable and probably knows much more than the majority of us on this board.
Click to expand...
Knows more than us? Yes I’d say. Certainly in ecclesial matters. But I wouldn’t call him an economist if that’s what you mean. Ok I didn’t know what to think of this document. I have yet to read it.
 
estesbob said:
What is a “Right leaning " Catholic? What is there in what the Pope said that requires"spinning”
Click to expand...
I think he means the Catholics that believe that 47% doesn’t contribute to America since they don’t pay a very specific tax while ignoring all the other taxes and contributions they make while acting shocked that their poorly selected, socially moderate candidate gets schooled by a sitting president overseeing the worst economy since the Great Depression.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It seems that term has drawn the most attention in the U.S., and precisely because it’s a pejorative political idiomatic expression. But the whole context of what the Pope said is not in the same vein as the expression is usually taken in this country when uttered.

There will be further explanations, further translations. Then we’ll know better perhaps. In the meantime, as I said, if some translator of the original picked that term as a substitute for a less pejorative, less partisan original, then the translator has done the Pope, and the Church as a whole, a huge disservice.

Frankly, it is a bit difficult for me to believe a Pope who is very much into evangelization would deliberately choose what is almost a swear word in the U.S. against some people. Maybe he really did ask the translator “What’s a word the left in the U.S. uses as a slur against economic conservatives; a word they never use themselves? I would like to throw an insult like that at them. Who cares about evangelizing those people? I would just as soon alienate them”.

Now, maybe the Pope doesn’t care about converting people like Rush Limbaugh or the people who listen to him, or the people who don’t listen to Limbaugh but don’t like having that term thrown at them like the insult it really is. But I profoundly doubt that.
Click to expand...
I greatly doubt that the Pope cares about whose feelings are hurt when he speaks the truth. Neither did Jesus in the Gospels. I do agree that both would tend to avoid, where possible, terminology that is routinely used to insult people. It is not always possible to avoid such terminology. For example, speaking from a global perspective (which is what the Pope generally does), the words “communist” and “leftist” are often used as insults with widely varying meanings, but it also used in the opposite sense by millions of people. Would he avoid using these term because of their propensity to offend or confuse? I think not.

The only salient point in this discussion I think is, what the Pope was actually describing or referring to.
 
catholictiger said:
It would be considered non infallible papal teaching. We should submit to the teaching under religious submission of mind and will. Catholics are not obligated to agree with the Pope in things like this. But why would you disagree with the pope on this stuff he is very knowledgeable and probably knows much more than the majority of us on this board.
Click to expand...
Fallible or non-fallible, I would be disturbed to see faithful Catholics reject his words in favor of secular ideology and I am confident they will not. The Church has always been against unfettered capitalism, always stood in defense of the poor and always urged governments to take these stances in their policies too. I’m not sure what is supposed to be new here.
 
When it comes to poverty, the pope practices what he preaches. He lives out his poverty.

The one thing that I have noticed about socialists/leftists/liberals in North America, they tend to live higher off the hog than I do personally.

I am not a great Catholic, to be sure, and as such I have not taken a vow of poverty.

Who here has?
And what does that poverty entail? One of my material riches, for example, is the information highway.
 
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
Click to expand...
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
Click to expand...
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
Click to expand...
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Click to expand...
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
Click to expand...
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Click to expand...
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Click to expand...
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Click to expand...
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Click to expand...
 
Just as with Pope Francis, John Paul and Benedict were reported in the news in a highly editorialized manner.
With regards to Pope Francis and this latest issue, let us call it “Trickle Down” his entire thoughts are enclosed in his “Evangelii Gaudium …” vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#

As usual the press media gets it wrong by cherry picking what they wish from this 78 page homily.
Nearly all of this report will be agreeable to any of us who claim faith in Jesus Christ.

Pope Francis did indeed debunk “trickle down economics” re. paragraph 54 of the link above to his official document. Those words were actually used in context of our common understanding.
While I don’t pretend to agree with his presuppositions on economics even to allusions using class envy, I will say the sum total of this 78 page homily is well stated with justifiable references to scripture. Any criticism and praise, needs to be placed in full context of his actual words and thoughts.

Please take time to read and enjoy his total report which is a significant work by Pope Frances.
 
I’m sorry but what particular question was I asking, as you say, to respond to what question?
 
Buddyroe said:
I’m sorry but what particular question was I asking, as you say, to respond to what question?
Click to expand...
Unless you are a sock for CrossForChrist, as per the quote box, what I posted was not addressed to you in any way.
 
No problem.
I did read some of your link in the post above that.
One question(or criticism) that came to mind is the assumption in it that inequality(poverty) is the cause of violence. This is proposed on both the personal and the level of nations.
I don’t think that poor people are more disposed to violence and crime than richer people actually. Moreover, when it comes to the violence that rich nations have experienced by those from the third world, it is invariably not the poor or even the poorest nations that are the biggest perpetrators of the violence (aka terrorism). Indeed, the poorest of the poor, in Africa, export none of their violence.

Now when it comes to the biggest massacres of history, the destruction of the Russian bourgoise and Ukranian peasant farmers, the Maoist purges of their elites, the Germans against the detested rich ‘Jewish cabal of banker leeches’, the Hutu against the Tutsi oppressors, the Khmer Rouge against any one smart enough to wear glasses, we do see that within societies, inequality does engender a lot of bloodshed.
One might be tempted to ask though, is it inequality that is the true culprit here, or is it an ideology that breeds envy and resentment based on the idea that some people have more material goods, and some have less? Indeed, in some of the worst examples above, the perceived inequalities were more illusionary than real.
And what can we say about a society whose holds as a higher goal material equality anyway? Is that being any less materialistic than consumer society in general?
Is that really the measure of a societies morality, that everybody has the same amount of stuff, and that those who do not are worse off than those who have more?

I am wondering what the end game of this kind of economic philosophy is going to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top