Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter anthony022071
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
Marxism was originally atheist but that didn’t stop Liberation Theology.

Fascism has had a more mixed relationship with faith. It was never atheist but it has been anti-clerical.

“Neither Marxists nor Capitalists. Peronists!” goes the phrase.

Now I don’t expect Pope Francis to start preachig Gaia, the secular/pagan spiritualisation of Malthusian ideology, but what would a Catholic spiritualization look like?

Something like this:

Of course, anti-capitalism long predates the AGWism. It is more accurate to say that AGW is simply the latest manifestation of this ideology.

I’m not sure why you single out Pol Pot. But, yes, his mania had a Buddhist spin.

My concern is less with genocide than with continued impoverishment which I see as a natural consequence of Malthusian ideology.
Click to expand...
The article you cited from the National Review considers the argument that both Nazi Germany and environmentalism have in common (the later as a potentiality) Malthusian thought. The author argues Malthusian thought was but an illusion in Nazi Germany and that Malthusian thought should be rejected as a response to climate change and AGW in favor of the conservatism the author of the article views as far preferable. This is fair enough: The National Review is a conservative political journal. But what the article does not mention is Marxism, Socialism, Communism or provide any reference to Pope Francis, the Catholic Church or its social teaching.

Where would liberation theology fit in this picture? It seems your view is that Pope Francis is sympathetic to both Socialism and Fascism? Is that it? It is not in the article you cited. Those two ideologies with contradictory world views engaged in a death struggle during WWII where only one country could survive, Nazi Germany or the USSR. Right?

How would continued impoverishment be a natural consequence of “Malthusian ideology”? The National Review article is only critical of Malthusian “ideology” as a reaction to climate change and AGW, saying this would be “horribly wrong”. The author the article criticizes does not even disagree. It is his thesis as well, and he is warning of the dangers of Malthusian thought in this context. What the National Review article is arguing is that climate change and AGW can be addressed by science and technology and concludes that resources can be unlimited if conservative political principals were adopted. The debate is political all around.

Why draw Pope Francis and Catholic social teaching into politics in this way? What is your point?
 
Thomas_White said:
Where would liberation theology fit in this picture? It seems your view is that Pope Francis is sympathetic to both Socialism and Fascism? Is that it? It is not in the article you cited.
Click to expand...
To boil down my argument to its essentials:
  1. Both fascism and socialism are anti-capitalist derivives of Malthusian thought. What I found interesting in the article is the focus on the role of Malthusian thought in the fascisn/naziism of the 1930s. But the topic is much broader than that.
  2. Pope Francis’ socio-political views can best be described as Peronist. Of course, we could be more precise still but that at least puts it into a meaningful historical context. Peronism is not Marxism, as the slogan attests. But it is anti-capitalist.
Those two ideologies with contradictory world views engaged in a death struggle during WWII where only one country could survive, Nazi Germany or the USSR. Right?
Click to expand...
This a fundamental error. You are assuming that because fascism and socialism went to war in WWII that they are diametrically opposing ideologiues. This is wrong. Sunni and Shiite are often at war with one another but that does not make them polar opposites.

There are real difference between fascism and socialism but also agreements. They are both enemies of capitalism, for example. They both advocate a strong state.
How would continued impoverishment be a natural consequence of “Malthusian ideology”? The National Review article is only critical of Malthusian “ideology” as a reaction to climate change and AGW, saying this would be “horribly wrong”. The author the article criticizes does not even disagree. It is his thesis as well, and he is warning of the dangers of Malthusian thought in this context. What the National Review article is arguing is that climate change and AGW can be addressed by science and technology and concludes that resources can be unlimited if conservative political principals were adopted. The debate is political all around.
Click to expand...
The problem with Malthusian ideology is illustrated by the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (among other things). It is the mistaken belief that there are natural limits to economic growth and that the pie is thus of a limited size and must be fairly aportioned out by a strong state. In some cases this leads to war and genocide. But in other cases it results in economic stagnation, and thus poverty, as in Argentina, our Pope’s home and lifelong point of reference.
Why draw Pope Francis and Catholic social teaching into politics in this way? What is your point?
Click to expand...
Pope Francis has drawn himself into it. It is a worthy topic of debate.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Those who seek to insulate Pope Francis from political criticism will have to do better than such nonsensical jibberish as has been offered to date…
Click to expand...
As opposed to name calling a loaded rhetoric. At least I can define what specifically is an emotional appeal, what is and imposition of politics in a non-political argument, and what is a misrepresentation of what the Holy Father has said. Using the phrase “nonsensical jibberish” is in and of itself, the very thing it describes.

I have no desire or need to insulate the Pope from those that do not understand that he addresses our spiritual needs. He is not running for office. I find irony in that the right, who always accuses the media of being “mainstream leftest” has swallowed hook, line and sinker the caricature of the Holy Father as one of them.
 
pnewton said:
As opposed to name calling a loaded rhetoric. At least I can define what specifically is an emotional appeal, what is and imposition of politics in a non-political argument, and what is a misrepresentation of what the Holy Father has said. Using the phrase “nonsensical jibberish” is in and of itself, the very thing it describes.

I have no desire or need to insulate the Pope from those that do not understand that he addresses our spiritual needs. He is not running for office. I find irony in that the right, who always accuses the media of being “mainstream leftest” has swallowed hook, line and sinker the caricature of the Holy Father as one of them.
Click to expand...
Few people “run for office” and, yet, when they register to vote the check one of the boxes “Democrat” or “Republican”. Even parish priests and bishops. Last time I checked there was not a box for “Catholic” on the voter registration forms.

That’s because the categories of Democrat and Catholic are not mutually exclusive. Some Democrats are Catholics and some Catholics are Democrats. Even members of the clergy!

It is nonsensical jibberish to assert, as you did, that the pope is not Republican or Democrat (or Partido Justicialista or Unión Cívica Radical) because he is Catholic.
 
When we talk about the Pope drawing criticism from some conservatives are we talking about Catholic conservatives worldwide…or some Catholic conservatives here in the US…there are some 77 million Catholics here in the US…I doubt if the majority of those are conservative Catholics…probably many are Catholic in name only…the worldwide Catholic population is some 1.2 billion…not all conservative Catholics in other countries have the same views on conservatism as conservative Catholics here in the US…much of which is governed by US politics…
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
To boil down my argument to its essentials:
  1. Both fascism and socialism are anti-capitalist derivives of Malthusian thought. What I found interesting in the article is the focus on the role of Malthusian thought in the fascisn/naziism of the 1930s. But the topic is much broader than that.
  2. Pope Francis’ socio-political views can best be described as Peronist. Of course, we could be more precise still but that at least puts it into a meaningful historical context. Peronism is not Marxism, as the slogan attests. But it is anti-capitalist.
This a fundamental error. You are assuming that because fascism and socialism went to war in WWII that they are diametrically opposing ideologiues. This is wrong. Sunni and Shiite are often at war with one another but that does not make them polar opposites.

There are real difference between fascism and socialism but also agreements. They are both enemies of capitalism, for example. They both advocate a strong state.

The problem with Malthusian ideology is illustrated by the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (among other things). It is the mistaken belief that there are natural limits to economic growth and that the pie is thus of a limited size and must be fairly aportioned out by a strong state. In some cases this leads to war and genocide. But in other cases it results in economic stagnation, and thus poverty, as in Argentina, our Pope’s home and lifelong point of reference.

Pope Francis has drawn himself into it. It is a worthy topic of debate.
Click to expand...
A major influence on Karl Marx, a philosopher, was Hegel and from this German philosopher he developed a theory of dialectical materialism, claiming he had thereby stood Hegel on his head. Malthusian ideas have been criticised by Marxists, socialists, libertarians, free market enthusiasts, social conservatives, feminists and human rights advocates alike. Neither Marxism nor Socialism are a derivitive of Malthusian ideas.

So, it all means Pope Francis is a Peronist, some fantastic confabulation of fascism and socialism, because if and when he votes in an election he necessarily has to check one box or the other and there is no box for “Catholic”. But some Democrats are Catholic and some Catholics are Democrats. Since it is a mistaken belief of Democrats that there are natural limits to economic growth, Pope Francis would check the box marked “Democrat”. And this proves your theory is correct.

Do you think that is a persuasive argument that the teachings of Pope Francis are not spiritual but political? Is that it? I ask this in a charitable attempt to suggest you might want to rethink this argument. Though I say this with all due respect, I do understand the way that certain implications of your comments with respect to Pope Francis are very troubling.
 
Thomas_White said:
A major influence on Karl Marx, a philosopher, was Hegel and from this German philosopher he developed a theory of dialectical materialism, claiming he had thereby stood Hegel on his head. Malthusian ideas have been criticised by Marxists, socialists, libertarians, free market enthusiasts, social conservatives, feminists and human rights advocates alike. Neither Marxism nor Socialism are a derivitive of Malthusian ideas.
Click to expand...
Marxism and Socialism, whether they acknoweldge it or not, are based upon Malthusian ideas. (I would suggest, further, that they are also based on Christian ideas as well.) Yeah, Marx denied the influence of Hegal just as Liberation Theology denies the influence of Marx.
So, it all means Pope Francis is a Peronist, some fantastic confabulation of fascism and socialism, because if and when he votes in an election he necessarily has to check one box or the other and there is no box for “Catholic”. But some Democrats are Catholic and some Catholics are Democrats. Since it is a mistaken belief of Democrats that there are natural limits to economic growth, Pope Francis would check the box marked “Democrat”. And this proves your theory is correct.
Click to expand...
More simply: Pope Francis, if he voted in Argentina, did something equivalent. I don’t know how voting works in Argentina and I don’t know if he voted so I won’t speculate beyond that. But I do know that clerics in the United States vote and that they must therefore register to vote and that they must select from among the political party options and that “Catholic” is not one of those options.
Do you think that is a persuasive argument that the teachings of Pope Francis are not spiritual but political? Is that it? I ask this in a charitable attempt to suggest you might want to rethink this argument. Though I say this with all due respect, I do understand the way that certain implications of your comments with respect to Pope Francis are very troubling.
Click to expand...
Your phrase “are not spiritual but political” implies, again, a mutual exclusivity that is not in evidence. I would urge you to rethink your assumption that an opinion must be one or the other.

For example, historians note that within the text of the Pentateuch there is a strain of a political clash between those who wanted to consolidate the Yewah cult in Jerusalem vs. those who wanted to continue sacrifices outside the city. Was that a purely spiritual debate or was it also political? Most would recognize the later.
 
Peebo said:
When we talk about the Pope drawing criticism from some conservatives are we talking about Catholic conservatives worldwide…or some Catholic conservatives here in the US…there are some 77 million Catholics here in the US…I doubt if the majority of those are conservative Catholics…probably many are Catholic in name only…the worldwide Catholic population is some 1.2 billion…not all conservative Catholics in other countries have the same views on conservatism as conservative Catholics here in the US…much of which is governed by US politics…
Click to expand...
I would say this mainly concerns those so-called “conservative Catholics” in the U.S. that seem to believe the Church ought to conform to their political views. Their numbers are likely minimal, and their views are not shared by the Catholic Church. It is very unfortunate that they apparently do not realize it.
 
Thomas_White said:
I would say this mainly concerns those so-called “conservative Catholics” in the U.S. that seem to believe the Church ought to conform to their political views. Their numbers are likely minimal, and their views are not shared by the Catholic Church. It is very unfortunate that they apparently do not realize it.
Click to expand...
Problem is too many people equate conservative Cathoilc with Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church
 
estesbob said:
Problem is too many people equate conservative Cathoilc with Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church
Click to expand...
It is intersting, isn’t it, how those who would argue into the night about the nuances of various strains of socialism, Marxism and Peronism try to get by with terms as vague as “conservative”.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
It is intersting, isn’t it, how those who would argue into the night about the nuances of various strains of socialism, Marxism and Peronism try to get by with terms as vague as “conservative”.
Click to expand...
To be honest I have no idea what a"conservative" Catholic is
 
estesbob said:
Problem is too many people equate conservative Cathoilc with Catholics who adhere to the teachings of the Church
Click to expand...
I understand, and it is definitely not what I meant. This discussion is about viewing the teachings of the Church relative to political ideology. This is a separate issue. I would agree there should be and in fact there is no such thing as “conservative Catholics”. That is basically the point. But there are those who self-identify themselves that way even on this forum. My comments concern only the attempt to introduce politics and political ideology into Catholicism.
 
Thomas_White said:
But not articles in the National Review upon which one attempts to portray the pope in a political way?
Click to expand...
National Review is a single publication. But even there one can find differences of opinion. If by “conservative” you mean the views espoused by the National Review editorial board, that’s fine.

As for portrayals of the pope, perhaps you mean by “conservative” anyone who disagrees with the pope’s solutions to poverty and his criticisms of capitalism.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
National Review is a single publication. But even there one can find differences of opinion. If by “conservative” you mean the views espoused by the National Review editorial board, that’s fine.

As for portrayals of the pope, perhaps you mean by “conservative” anyone who disagrees with the pope’s solutions to poverty and his criticisms of capitalism.
Click to expand...
No, I very clearly referred to only the article in the National Review, the one you cited in your attempt to portray Pope Francis as a Peronist, with a subtext implying he was at least sympathetic to both the Fascism which is discussed in the article and Socialism which is not. I cite your own comment, #169.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Pope Francis’ socio-political views can best be described as Peronist. Of course, we could be more precise still but that at least puts it into a meaningful historical context. Peronism is not Marxism, as the slogan attests. But it is anti-capitalist.
Click to expand...
I do not know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect. There are and have been many Peronists who are also pro-capitalist: Carlos Menem, Domingo Cavallo, Sergio Massa. The fact that Peronism is not capitalist does not mean that it is against it.
 
Aletheian said:
I do not know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect. There are and have been many Peronists who are also pro-capitalist: Carlos Menem, Domingo Cavallo, Sergio Massa. The fact that Peronism is not capitalist does not mean that it is against it.
Click to expand...
Labels, even general ones, will always come from thinking that is more rhetoric than substance. When these labels are narrowed down even more specific, to actual names of people, like Peron, Malthus and Marx, they become even more useless in dialogue and disintegrate to an adult version of calling people names, literally. Such propaganda will sell airtime and generate blog hits, but in the end, insults illustrate only a lack of charity in the one engaged in name-calling. I fear that with the election coming around, and the Holy Father challenging us to get outside of ourselves and look to needs other than our own, that this will worsen.
 
Thomas_White said:
No, I very clearly referred to only the article in the National Review, the one you cited in your attempt to portray Pope Francis as a Peronist, with a subtext implying he was at least sympathetic to both the Fascism which is discussed in the article and Socialism which is not. I cite your own comment, #169.
Click to expand...
The articles (plural) that describe Pope Francis as a Peronist are from a variety of sources including the NYT, Washington Post, the Federalist, and, yes, National Review.

See:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=972398

Peronism was derived, in part, from the fascism of Mussilini (not Hitler) who Juan Peron admired.

The single National Review article that you are referencing here had to do specifically with the ideology of Malthus.

My claim was that the ideas of Malthus underly both fascism and socialism. It’s what they have in common: a distrust of capitalism and it’s promise of rising standards of living for all.
 
Aletheian said:
I do not know where you got this impression from, but it is incorrect. There are and have been many Peronists who are also pro-capitalist: Carlos Menem, Domingo Cavallo, Sergio Massa. The fact that Peronism is not capitalist does not mean that it is against it.
Click to expand...
I think you are playing semantic games. Trying to distinguish “not capitalist” from “anti-capitalist” is a fools errand. Communism was not capitalist. The Soviety Union sought to make sure that Russia was “not capitalist” and that none of it’s client states were capitalist.

What, pray tell, is the difference between anti-capitalist and not capitalist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top