D
dmelosi
Guest
You could also add to this the full act of killing another human being.
Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality
- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Thats not what the law teaches.
D
dmelosi
Guest
It is what the church teaches.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The catechism choses its words very carefully as well, so as not to be inflammatory.
D
dmelosi
Guest
But it is what it is.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
If you want to describe abortion as murder, I won’t correct you, but as for my post, it is correct and sufficient as it stands. It conveys the full import of the meaning that abortion has on a woman’s life and on her conscience.
A woman of conscience already knows in her heart of hearts what aborting a child means. There was no need for me to be blunter in that post than I already had been.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Murder is a legal term, the catechism describes the human life starting at the moment of conception. I did not use the legal term murder, but repeated what the catechism says, abortion is killing.
Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."80
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual…
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Elizabeth,
Stop confusing the issue with facts.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
You’re obviously unfamiliar with the issue of abortion and the issue of hunger. The Catholic Church does fight hunger…constantly. But hunger is not as great an evil as abortion. The hungry can be fed…the aborted can never ever live.
Almost no one is choosing abortion due to “hunger.” Most abortions are found in the issues of “inconvenience” and “single parenthood” and not wanting the guy you slept with the other night to be the father of your kids. If casual sex stopped, most abortions would too. More so than your touted and untrue ascertain that hunger causes abortion.
Typical liberal “pontification” is what this sounds like to me…blaming abortions on “hunger” rather than choices. Thinking government programs are the solution…
K
KSU
Guest
QUOTE
Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?
“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”
The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…
“There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist END QUOTE
Thank you for the above quote and link, Abyssinia. You gotta love how he defused the “journalist’s” attempt at exacerbating the Marxism thing.
Now, the question is: did the Holy Father in this interview actually use the U. S. Democrat Party’s pejorative, “trickle-down”, or is this just another sloppy (at best) English translation? Was Francis speaking English to the journalist?
Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?
“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”
The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…
“There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist END QUOTE
Thank you for the above quote and link, Abyssinia. You gotta love how he defused the “journalist’s” attempt at exacerbating the Marxism thing.
Now, the question is: did the Holy Father in this interview actually use the U. S. Democrat Party’s pejorative, “trickle-down”, or is this just another sloppy (at best) English translation? Was Francis speaking English to the journalist?
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Exactly.
Ergo, I am not going to add your legal term to my post, thank you very much.
My post is already blunt enough, and says it all.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Does it have another name? It seems to me that he just picked one to illustrate his point. Economic theories in theory are great, but they don’t necessarily work out that way in practice.Thank you for the above quote and link, Abyssinia. You gotta love how he defused the “journalist’s” attempt at exacerbating the Marxism thing.
Now, the question is: did the Holy Father in this interview actually use the U. S. Democrat Party’s pejorative, “trickle-down”, or is this just another sloppy (at best) English translation? Was Francis speaking English to the journalist?
K
KSU
Guest
Then why would the pope pick the one name (“trickle-down”) of Capitalism that utterly destroys the point he was attempting to make? That one name, despite the Socialists’ pejorative, has been the greatest boon to the poor in the history of mankind. He knows that. The Church know$ that. And the Socialists know that, which is why they despise it.
It is indisputable that Our Lord has never blessed any other economic system in the history of the world the way he has blessed ours, so, the name “trickle-down” does not illustrate the point Francis was making.
Any OBJECTIVE economist anywhere in the world would agree that what the pope was condemning is the opposite of the American Conservative Capitalism system. Just compare it to the European Socialist system we have been destroying our economy with under the current Administration–tax, borrow, print and still spend more than that amount. The rich get richer and the honest poor, the disabled and the lazy are on 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and food stamps.
So, no, Dawnia, the Holy Father did not pick “trickle-down” to illustrate what he was saying.
This was posted above by Ender, and is what I believe:
QUOTE
Originally Posted by Brendan
Given that this term relates directly to an Argentine economic incident that more directly relates to potential negative effects of globalization, this priest felt that it was HIGHLY unlikely that the Pope was referring to ‘Reganomics’".
The question of mistranslation has been raised before and, at a minimum, the inclusion of an American idiom into the translation of a document written in Spanish by a person not intimately familiar with American economic debates is … suspect. There is good reason to believe this is merely a minor example of a major problem, which is the English translations of church documents.Here is the relevant passage and the “official” Vatican translation:
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.
Here is the same passage translated by someone who actually works as a Spanish-English translator and has done this sort of thing before (for documents written by Abp Bergoglio).
54. In this context, some defend “spillover” theories which suppose that all economic growth, for which a free market is [most] favorable, by itself brings about greater equity and social inclusion in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve confidence in the generosity of those [people] who wield economic power and in the sacralized mechanisms of that ruling economic system.
It is worth noting that using “trickle down” for “spillover” is hardly the only significant difference. The phrase used in the official version is “encouraged by a free market” while in the translator’s version it is “for which a free market is [most] favorable”. The discrepancy between those two clauses indicates one of two things: either one of the translators is grossly incompetent or the mistranslation is deliberate. Note also that the words “by itself” which appear in the unofficial version are simply missing from the official one. Anyone who speaks Spanish should be able to go to the Spanish version of the pope’s document and see for himself whether that phrase is or is not in the original … and decide for himself which translation is more accurate.
I don’t speak a word of Spanish so this is an opportunity for anyone to demolish my argument simply by checking the original (Spanish) document.
For those interested in the complete (unauthorized) translation (which is not complete because it’s a really long document) can find it here:jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/
Ender END QUOTE
R
Randomname
Guest
This is flat-out wrong. Not only do you misrepresent the Pope’s words by claiming he did not say anything related to"trickle-down" economics, you also make the implication that uttering those words would make him a Marxist.
This claim about “translation mistakes” - has been spread by a couple of American conservative journalists. Knowing that hardly anyone in their audience speaks foreign languages, they must feel safe in doing so.
First of all, The Vatican uses the term “trickle-down” in their own translation! vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html
Secondly, the term used in Spanish: las teorías del «derrame» is equivalent to the term you condemn as a “Marxist” translation (used by the Vatican!).
I hope you aren’t intentionally misleading this forum.
E
Ender
Guest
One of the problems is that it isn’t at all clear what he said or what he meant to say. What is clear is that there isn’t a school of trickle-down economics and no two people would probably define it the same way, so what the term means - other than being derogatory - is pretty much undefined.
There were translation “mistakes”, at least in that passage and it is fairly easy to determine this for yourself. I pointed a significant one out before (in the comment KSU cited.) The phrase “by itself” (por si mismo) is in the Spanish original but missing from the English translation so even if one accepted the phrase “trickle down” and all the rest the passage should read like this: In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will by itself inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
Perhaps there is some place in the world where the government totally abstains from providing assistance to its needy citizens but it surely isn’t in the US.
Well, yes they do … and that is precisely the problem. It is the official Vatican translation that is in fact in error.
Ender
K
KSU
Guest
Pope Francis: “The Marxist ideology is wrong…There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view…"
The social Doctrine of the Church: The duty to respect religious freedom requires that the political community guarantee the Church the space needed to carry out her mission. For her part, the Church has no particular area of competence concerning the structures of the political community: “The Church respects thelegitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution”,[868] nor does it belong to her to enter into questions of the merit of political programmes, except as concerns their religious or moral implications.(Compendium, 424)
Now, Randomname, please stop spreading confusion about this matter. You may want to learn at least the basics of Catholic Doctrine before you make accusations.
D
Dawnia
Guest
I love coming to this site and finding out what my opinion is and what political bent I am. Did it even cross your mind that I was asking because I didn’t know? Or that I’m not an economist (not even close)?
I do understand that there are many economic theories, even within capitalism, some of which have very minor differences. I also know that theories look great on paper, but not so much in practice. There is no greed, theft, etc on paper.
Maybe, next time, you should ask if you don’t understand what another is saying, rather than just assuming and making yourself look like a complete jerk.
R
Randomname
Guest
Your post did not adress any part of what you responded to, interestingly enough. Your response is totally beside-the-point, as nobody ever claimed that the Pope was marxist (with the possible exception of Mr. Limbaugh). More interestingly, you’re asking everyone to accept the translation of partisan Republicans over the translation used by the Vatican itself. Surely you can see how absurd this is. The Vatican would not approve of a translation that contradicts the intended message, and even if such an event were to occur, they would obviously correct the mistake.
As an aside, I could mention that I’m from a Lutheran nation, and very far from a “marxist” (even if you go by by Limbaugh’s ignorant definition of the term). I therefore have no personal interest in whether the Pope used the term “trickle down” or not, despite respecting the man. Still, your blatant spinning of the Pope’s words is ridiculous.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
- In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.
K
KSU
Guest
Dear friend, the last thing I was doing was criticizing you. I DID assume that your question was sincere, and I had no idea of your opinion or political bent, and I still don’t.I love coming to this site and finding out what my opinion is and what political bent I am. Did it even cross your mind that I was asking because I didn’t know? Or that I’m not an economist (not even close)?
I do understand that there are many economic theories, even within capitalism, some of which have very minor differences. I also know that theories look great on paper, but not so much in practice. There is no greed, theft, etc on paper.
Maybe, next time, you should ask if you don’t understand what another is saying, rather than just assuming and making yourself look like a complete jerk.
One becomes a little blunt after a lifetime of battling those who debate in bad faith (certainly not you), so please accept my apology for not being more clear. My poor wife would agree with you.
- Status