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

[Bubba_Switzler]

The point is that Church teaching allows for such things and that they do not constitute socialism.

Right, but, again, the question is not what the Church allows but what it requires. Does the Catholic Church require Catholics to support the welfare state? I concede that the Catholic Church does not require Catholics to oppose the welfare state. Between those it is left as a prudential matter for the laity in their various roles (voter, academician, politician) in pursuit of higher objectives, e.g. the care for the poor, the support of the family, as well as support for economic activity.

The history of the Church’s stand on this issue is quite intereting. Prior to Vatican II the Church generally opposed state involvement in social matters. The reason? Suspicion of socialism.

 

[StudentMI]

Right, but, again, the question is not what the Church allows but what it requires. Does the Catholic Church require Catholics to support the welfare state? I concede that the Catholic Church does not require Catholics to oppose the welfare state. Between those it is left as a prudential matter for the laity in their various roles (voter, academician, politician) in pursuit of higher objectives, e.g. the care for the poor, the support of the family, as well as support for economic activity.

The history of the Church’s stand on this issue is quite intereting. Prior to Vatican II the Church generally opposed state involvement in social matters. The reason? Suspicion of socialism.

Considering that in Centesimus Annus Pope John Paul II opposed the welfare state and made the statement that I posted I think it’s clear that the two are not one and the same.

As for what you said of the Church prior to Vatican II, I would suggest you look at Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am surprised that with this amazing document eveyone here seems to want to focus only on the economic tidbit.

 

[dmelosi]

That is the name of the thread.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Considering that in Centesimus Annus Pope John Paul II opposed the welfare state and made the statement that I posted I think it’s clear that the two are not one and the same. As for what you said of the Church prior to Vatican II, I would suggest you look at Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.

Actually, I had Rerum Novarum in mind. Both of those were reactions to Communism and related movements.

What is interesting about the Church and the welfare state is that it has been pretty clear in it’s denunciation of the dark consequences of it. JPII perhaps more than any other. But voting for politicians who promise welfare is not treated the same as voting for politicians who promise abortion on demand.

 

[StudentMI]

Actually, I had Rerum Novarum in mind. Both of those were reactions to Communism and related movements.

I’m confused then as to why you wrote they generally opposed state involvement in social affairs. It sounds like Church social teaching changed after Vatican II the way you put it. However it did not as those encyclicals illustrate. Even JPII said

Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a “cog” in the State machine. It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the State which completely excludes the economic sector from the State’s range of interest and action.

 

[KSU]

I would also like to state that the many documents you quoted showing Church teaching on socialism also contain approval given to state actions many American conservatives would not approve of. Just read the entirety of Quadragesimo Anno, or article 48 in Centesimus Annus.

Is that an assumption on your part? If not, are you able to give me examples of such pope-approved state actions disapproved of by living, authentic American Conservatives. I mean card-carrying Tea Party types and other Conservatives who have no major problems with them.

American Conservatives do not equate themselves with the Church, but thanks be to God, it is a fact that the Church abhors what American Conservatives abhor-- Socialism.

I know that really upsets the Left (I do not mean you, my friend) which tries to drive a wedge between Conservatives and the Church. Did you hear Obama today, predictably, on “trickle-down”?

 

[StudentMI]

Is that an assumption on your part? If not, are you able to give me examples of such pope-approved state actions disapproved of by living, authentic American Conservatives. I mean card-carrying Tea Party types and other Conservatives who have no major problems with them.

American Conservatives do not equate themselves with the Church, but thanks be to God, it is a fact that the Church abhors what American Conservatives abhor-- Socialism.

I know that really upsets the Left (I do not mean you, my friend) which tries to drive a wedge between Conservatives and the Church. Did you hear Obama today, predictably, on “trickle-down”?

As I said, read those documents. Centesimus Annus is great. They’re both relatively short. I know some conservatives in this country would disagree with them, at least the ones I’m familiar with. Then again conservative is a general term and we might have different conservatives in mind. I never said all American conservatives would disagree with them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m confused then as to why you wrote they generally opposed state involvement in social affairs. It sounds like Church social teaching changed after Vatican II the way you put it. However it did not as those encyclicals illustrate. Even JPII said

For example:

Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a “society” of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them… The State should watch over these societies of citizens banded together in accordance with their rights, but it should not thrust itself into their peculiar concerns and their organization, for things move and live by the spirit inspiring them, and may be killed by the rough grasp of a hand from without.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I would suggest you need to re-read “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” because what Reagan did was classic Keynesianism.

It depends on a number of factors, for example Obama cut Social Security taxes for a couple of years, but businesses did not respond by investing and creating jobs. Also, businesses often invest and create jobs when taxes are not cut, such as during the Clinton years.

Actually, in inflation adjusted terms, revenue to the federal government increased by about 20%. It increased by about 37% during the Clinton term.

Actually, the President has no control of the FOMC.

Demographics surely had nothing to do with Reagan’s policies. As to increased globalization, this was facilitated by lowered transaction costs (through smaller communications costs), lower transportation costs and lower trade barriers. The first two Reagan’s policies had very little to do with and Reagan did not to a lot of reduce trade barriers.

I actually am in favor of free market economics, but one has to be honest when evaluating the effect of economic policies. I realize it is not politically popular to take an honest look at things instead of canonizing Reagan and his policies. Reagan had some good policies, and some very bad policies as well.

Actually, as I recall, the anticipated burst of creative investment was long-delayed and never fully materialized, in preference to corporate dismemberment, which benefitted the gutting of American industry and industrial wages, and eroded the middle class, while benefitting the paper economy.

 

[seekerz]

By some accounts, yes. By other acconts, no.

So is Pope Francis calling up on us to do the same as Robin Hood (supposedly) did? Is he demanding that we vote for politicians who promise to do similarly through the organs of the state? If some Sherwood Forest townsman refused to aid Robin Hood in his quest, what sin is he committing?

You see unwilling to confront the questions I have posed. Have I been unclear in any way?

Perhaps you could be clearer yourself: who is/are robbing the rich? How exactly?

You do know that there is a whole spectrum of views that lie between the extreme left (no individual property rights) and the extreme right (radical individualism), no? So the idea that there are two podiums - on on the right and the other on the left - on which the Pope must be placed, seems sort of curious to me - or am I misreading you?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=seekerz;11464302]Perhaps you could be clearer yourself: who is/are robbing the rich? How exactly?

The government by taxation.

You do know that there is a whole spectrum of views that lie between the extreme left (no individual property rights) and the extreme right (radical individualism), no? So the idea that there are two podiums - on on the right and the other on the left - on which the Pope must be placed, seems sort of curious to me - or am I misreading you?

The far right in America is basically dead.

The far-left is running the country.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am surprised that with this amazing document eveyone here seems to want to focus only on the economic tidbit.

Why? Most people vote based on economics.

 

[seekerz]

The history of the Church’s stand on this issue is quite intereting. Prior to Vatican II the Church generally opposed state involvement in social matters. The reason? Suspicion of socialism.

How far back in history are you going? I don’t know of a time when the Church ever relinquished its social stances out of fear of anything people thought/said, least of all over fear of being called socialist. After all, the Church is aware that there is something worse than, or at least as bad as, being called names, it’s called being disobedient to Christ.

 

[seekerz]

The government by taxation.

The far right in America is basically dead.

The far-left is running the country.

Perhaps, since we are discussing the Pope, you can direct me to the document where the Church equates taxation to theft…?

More to the point, before separation of Church and State, did the Church itself impose taxes and if it did, was that wrong?

 

[KSU]

… After all, the Church is aware that there is something worse than, or at least as bad as, being called names [Socialist], it’s called being disobedient to Christ.

The unspeakable horrors which occurred and continue to occur under Socialism constitute the supreme disobedience to Christ. Why do you think I was able to fill posts #573 to #575 with strongly worded anti-Socialist statements by the Church?

That, and the Compendium, is why I knew Pope Frances was not breaking with the Church and attacking the world’s ultimate enemy of Socialism–free market American style Capitalism; the best friend of the poor in the history of mankind.

Of course, our president attempted today to make Americans believe the opposite.

I can’t prove it, but I think the pope was attacking the false Capitalism, and no friend of the poor, he experienced in his homeland.

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t prove it, but I think the pope was attacking the false Capitalism, and no friend of the poor, he experienced in his homeland.

This may help you. It tells of his father’s heavy losses during the Great Depression.

philly.com/philly/opinion/20131201_A_pope_for_the_bruised.html

 

[steboyz]

"Republican Catholics and Democratic Catholics"

I got into the Rush debate on the Facebook discussion and I was taken aback by some of the comments about Rush that look all to familiar to me. I usually defend Rush and I continue to do so but Its obvious that a number of Catholics are a little left of center and some of them were a little un Christian to say the least.That being said I only know one type of Catholic and its not a Republican or a Democrat.We are only Catholics to me.

 

[SMGS127]

The unspeakable horrors which occurred and continue to occur under Socialism constitute the supreme disobedience to Christ. Why do you think I was able to fill posts #573 to #575 with strongly worded anti-Socialist statements by the Church?

That, and the Compendium, is why I knew Pope Frances was not breaking with the Church and attacking the world’s ultimate enemy of Socialism–free market American style Capitalism; the best friend of the poor in the history of mankind.

Of course, our president attempted today to make Americans believe the opposite.

I can’t prove it, but I think the pope was attacking the false Capitalism, and no friend of the poor, he experienced in his homeland.

Good thing both the Republicans and Democrats teach free-market capitalism . Democrats encourage regulatory capitalism, Republicans encourage laissez faire capitalism, but both teach capitalism.

 

[steboyz]

After reading some of the responses I am glad to say that I did not go to college and cannot hope to discuss Keynes(is that right?) or the English guy(whats his name,the other English guy) so I deal with more simple explanations. I know I am far behind in this discussion but was it President Reagan who said something like this,its a recession if the other guy is out of work and its a depression if your out of work. Simply put if I hear much more about what the Pope says about capitalism I will stop putting the envelope in the basket on Sunday morning. BTW I am one of those lower 50% who pays taxes but does not pay taxes if you know what I mean.