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

[sallybutler]

The principles of a free market certainly are quite biblical. Scripture is clear that people deserve payment for their services and goods, and Scripture is quite clear that people have property rights (which is the basis for a free market).

1 Tim 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Leviticus 19:13 Do not defraud or** rob your neighbor**. Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

Luke 10:7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.

Exodus 20: 15 Thou shall not steal,

Deuteronomy 5:21 You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land…or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Gen 23:8-9 And he said to them, “If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar,that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place.”

2 Thes 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you,8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you.

2 Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

But nowhere does it say “Put your trust in the free market and all will be well” Nowhere does it say that there should not be laws and regulations. As a matter of fact, some of quotes sound like rules that must be followed when running a business. The muzzle one in particular sounds like a regulation. And, from what many say, that means there can’t be a totally free market if one is following a biblical model.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But nowhere does it say “Put your trust in the free market and all will be well” Nowhere does it say that there should not be laws and regulations. As a matter of fact, some of quotes sound like rules that must be followed when running a business. The muzzle one in particular sounds like a regulation. And, from what many say, that means there can’t be a totally free market if one is following a biblical model.

Nowhere does it say “put your trust in government and all will be well”. Nowhere does it say there should not be limitations on government. As a matter of fact, Jesus was crucified by the government after being falsly convicted by an amoral politician seeking to placate the mob, as is so often their practice.

 

[sallybutler]

Nowhere does it say “put your trust in government and all will be well”. Nowhere does it say there should not be limitations on government. As a matter of fact, Jesus was crucified by the government after being falsly convicted by an amoral politician seeking to placate the mob, as is so often their practice.

You misunderstand me. I do not believe government is the answer to all things. However, I also do not believe a free market is the answer to all things. Moderation is probably a better path. Some regulations are necessary as not all people will be honest in their dealings. Too much regulation is also not good as that can lead to silly stuff in addition to making it impossible to have any businesses.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You misunderstand me. I do not believe government is the answer to all things. However, I also do not believe a free market is the answer to all things. Moderation is probably a better path. Some regulations are necessary as not all people will be honest in their dealings. Too much regulation is also not good as that can lead to silly stuff in addition to making it impossible to have any businesses.

Please point me to a reputable advocate for free markets who says no regulation (so-called “unfettered capitalism”) is best.

The pertinent question is whether we have too much or too little regulation at the moment (or, more precisely, what regulations we ought to get rid of or add). A great example of this debate is Uber which has upended a heavily regulated service, taxi cabs. Most people who are not driving taxis would agree that Uber is a good thing.

 

[sallybutler]

Please point me to a reputable advocate for free markets who says no regulation (so-called “unfettered capitalism”) is best.

The pertinent question is whether we have too much or too little regulation at the moment (or, more precisely, what regulations we ought to get rid of or add). A great example of this debate is Uber which has upended a heavily regulated service, taxi cabs. Most people who are not driving taxis would agree that Uber is a good thing.

I didn’t say reputable advocates said that all regulations are bad. However, there are several people in these forums who say it.

As for Uber, who is protecting the drivers? What happens if the passenger refuses to pay? And who is protecting the passengers? What prevents the driver from charging too much?

Most of the regulations around taxis were made to protect both the passengers and the drivers. Both groups had unscrupulous members who cheated on a regular basis. Most regulations arise because someone doesn’t play nice.

And trust me, people will discover why many of those regulations are there. Enough drivers get cheated, they will be screaming for regulations and laws. Enough passengers get abused, there will be new laws.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I didn’t say reputable advocates said that all regulations are bad. However, there are several people in these forums who say it.

As for Uber, who is protecting the drivers? What happens if the passenger refuses to pay? And who is protecting the passengers? What prevents the driver from charging too much?

Most of the regulations around taxis were made to protect both the passengers and the drivers. Both groups had unscrupulous members who cheated on a regular basis. Most regulations arise because someone doesn’t play nice.

And trust me, people will discover why many of those regulations are there. Enough drivers get cheated, they will be screaming for regulations and laws. Enough passengers get abused, there will be new laws.

Your implicit assumption throughout is that government (regulation) is a benevolent influence in the market place to be added as needed. You seem not to realize how often it is the problem and free markets the solution. If people were satisfied with regulated taxi services there would be no Uber.

 

[zz912]

I didn’t say reputable advocates said that all regulations are bad. However, there are several people in these forums who say it.

Who specifically. I haven’t seen anyone on here stating that all regulation is bad. Please be specific.

As for Uber, who is protecting the drivers?

Protecting from what? What regulations do you think would protect them and how?

What happens if the passenger refuses to pay?

The Uber driver calls the police. And Uber provides the police with the passenger’s information. Police track him down and arrest him for theft.

And who is protecting the passengers?

Protecting them from what? And what regulations do you think would protect them and how?

What prevents the driver from charging too much?

The passenger knows how much the fare is going to be before they accept the ride. And payment is made through the Uber app. If the passenger doesn’t like the fare, they are free to refuse the ride offer and call a cab.

Most of the regulations around taxis were made to protect both the passengers and the drivers. Both groups had unscrupulous members who cheated on a regular basis. Most regulations arise because someone doesn’t play nice.

Some basic regulations arise to make things open and fair. But most simply exist to provide barriers to entry so that oligarchies or monopolies arise. That’s why a taxi medallion costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Uber has gone around this govt-imposed oligarchy and created a system where passengers willing participate and are provided services much cheaper and with better riding conditions. Govt regulation caused the price of taxi rides to skyrocket. The free market with Uber has destroyed that.

And trust me, people will discover why many of those regulations are there. Enough drivers get cheated, they will be screaming for regulations and laws. Enough passengers get abused, there will be new laws.

Actually it seems to be working fine. Uber acts as a neutral third-party, and payments are known in advance and guaranteed. Drivers are rated and those who score low are kicked out of Uber. All in all the system seems to be working well. It is growing organically based on passengers demanding it in their cities. No one is forced to use the service or forced to drive.

 

[sallybutler]

Your implicit assumption throughout is that government (regulation) is a benevolent influence in the market place to be added as needed. You seem not to realize how often it is the problem and free markets the solution. If people were satisfied with regulated taxi services there would be no Uber.

No it isn’t. My implicit assumption is that extremes are bad.

And trust me there have been unregulated taxi services before Uber. Uber has just organized them with a ‘cool’ app, giving a different set of regulations the drivers have to follow.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No it isn’t. My implicit assumption is that extremes are bad.

How is extreme holiness bad?

And trust me there have been unregulated taxi services before Uber. Uber has just organized them with a ‘cool’ app, giving a different set of regulations the drivers have to follow.

No doubt since the need to escape oppressive regulation has always been there.

Uber just made it more practical to do on a large scale.

 

[tws]

As a relatively recent convert to Catholicism, I am very discouraged by the Pope’s visit to the U.S. and feel like he has destroyed my trust in him. How can any of us move confidently forward, when Francis left behind faithful Catholics to please and appease radical secularists in the U.S. at every opportunity? I feel completely lost.

• Since I am unfamiliar with climatology, I will leave this part alone.
• However, Pope Francis laughed with Obama on camera multiple times, Obama the man who refuses to defund the butchers at Planned Parenthood, even if it means shutting down the U.S. government to protect them, and Obama the man who forces Catholic organizations pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs.
• In response, Pope Francis could have said something to Congress about abortion or the unprecedented evils of Planned Parenthood, but instead he said nothing at all, leaving those in Congress fighting Planned Parenthood with no support at all.
• Now to his credit he did meet with the Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who are suing the Obama administration over the contraception issue. But this symbolic act was overshadowed by other events.
• There were signs of hope when Pope Francis talked about protecting religious freedom for public workers, and even met with the Kentucky clerk who was jailed for not signing same-sex marriage certificates. But couple of days later the Vatican withdrew his support of her cause, completely hollowing the meaning of his earlier words.
• This confused approach took another turn after Pope Francis spoke vaguely about threats to God’s design for sexuality and marriage in his address to Congress, but then met with a longtime gay friend and his partner in search of a “hug” from them. The gay friend even claimed that over the many years they have known each other, the Pope has never challenged him about his sodomy.

Through these and other conflicted words and actions, it appears Obama and people like him have been emboldened continue their attack on orthodox Christianity. Nearly every media report echoes what secularists now believe: Pope Francis is marginally concerned about the slaughter and sale of the unborn in this country, is an advocate for same-sex relationships, and won’t defend those who are persecuted for standing against gay marriage. Although this is probably untrue, perception is everything. To me it looks like he left very grave matters in an even worse condition than before his visit, and this is the first time since my conversion I feel shame for being a Catholic.

 

[sallybutler]

Dear TWS.

As a Catholic, I believe that the Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. As a result, I do not presume that I know why the Holy Spirit choose him, but I do know I need to trust. This is hard, but what we are called to do.

 

[zz912]

Through these and other conflicted words and actions, it appears Obama and people like him have been emboldened continue their attack on orthodox Christianity. Nearly every media report echoes what secularists now believe: Pope Francis is marginally concerned about the slaughter and sale of the unborn in this country, is an advocate for same-sex relationships, and won’t defend those who are persecuted for standing against gay marriage. Although this is probably untrue, perception is everything. To me it looks like he left very grave matters in an even worse condition than before his visit, and this is the first time since my conversion I feel shame for being a Catholic.

Keep the faith TWS. Many have called on the Pope to be more clear and forceful in his public statements, especially at the Synod that’s starting today. The Holy Spirit will protect the Church from teaching error. Even if a Pope fails in doing what he should, the Church will survive.

 

[zz912]

Dear TWS.

As a Catholic, I believe that the Pope was chosen by the Holy Spirit. As a result, I do not presume that I know why the Holy Spirit choose him, but I do know I need to trust. This is hard, but what we are called to do.

Just to be clear, the Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit selects the Pope. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from teaching error officially. The cardinals select the Pope. Whether they are listening to the Holy Spirit or not, we do not know.

 

[sarah_j]

Just to be clear, the Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit selects the Pope. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit protects the Pope from teaching error officially. The cardinals select the Pope. Whether they are listening to the Holy Spirit or not, we do not know.

Thanks for clarifying.
I never bothered looking into it, but always kind of wondered how the Church
could have had some bad Popes way-back-when. Your explanation makes
perfect sense.
Do you know where that explanation might be found in doctrine?

 

[Marie5890]

As a relatively recent convert to Catholicism, I am very discouraged by the Pope’s visit to the U.S. and feel like he has destroyed my trust in him. How can any of us move confidently forward, when Francis left behind faithful Catholics to please and appease radical secularists in the U.S. at every opportunity? I feel completely lost.

• Since I am unfamiliar with climatology, I will leave this part alone.
• However, Pope Francis laughed with Obama on camera multiple times, Obama the man who refuses to defund the butchers at Planned Parenthood, even if it means shutting down the U.S. government to protect them, and Obama the man who forces Catholic organizations pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs.
• In response, Pope Francis could have said something to Congress about abortion or the unprecedented evils of Planned Parenthood, but instead he said nothing at all, leaving those in Congress fighting Planned Parenthood with no support at all.
• Now to his credit he did meet with the Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who are suing the Obama administration over the contraception issue. But this symbolic act was overshadowed by other events.
• There were signs of hope when Pope Francis talked about protecting religious freedom for public workers, and even met with the Kentucky clerk who was jailed for not signing same-sex marriage certificates. But couple of days later the Vatican withdrew his support of her cause, completely hollowing the meaning of his earlier words.
• This confused approach took another turn after Pope Francis spoke vaguely about threats to God’s design for sexuality and marriage in his address to Congress, but then met with a longtime gay friend and his partner in search of a “hug” from them. The gay friend even claimed that over the many years they have known each other, the Pope has never challenged him about his sodomy.

Through these and other conflicted words and actions, it appears Obama and people like him have been emboldened continue their attack on orthodox Christianity. Nearly every media report echoes what secularists now believe: Pope Francis is marginally concerned about the slaughter and sale of the unborn in this country, is an advocate for same-sex relationships, and won’t defend those who are persecuted for standing against gay marriage. Although this is probably untrue, perception is everything. To me it looks like he left very grave matters in an even worse condition than before his visit, and this is the first time since my conversion I feel shame for being a Catholic.

TWS,
Hello and welcome.
Not sure if you notice but Fr Serpa answered your question in the “ask and apologist” section.

His reply is worthy of all of us to read so I am going to post it here.

(quote)

"Dear friend,

I understand your angst. But only the Lord knows what good the Pope accomplished during his U.S. visit. We must remember that He Himself was criticized for speaking to prostitutes and other sinners. He ate with tax collectors who were considered traitors. He loved people BEFORE they repented. In this, the Pope is in good company.

When our Lady appeared to the children in Fatima, she did not tell them to make political statements or to correct politicians. She told them to pray and make sacrifices. Only prayer and personal sacrifice can right the wrongs of society. This begins with us; not them.

When St. Peter wanted to walk on water, our Lord encouraged him to try. He succeeded as long as he focused on the Lord. But when he turned his attention to the stormy waters, he began to sink. We can’t afford to allow whatever we consider to be wrong to govern our attitudes. As long as we keep our minds on the blood that He so willingly shed for all of us, we will be at peace and our perspective will be where He wants it.

Welcome home. It is where He is and so it is safe!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. "

 

[zz912]

Thanks for clarifying.
I never bothered looking into it, but always kind of wondered how the Church
could have had some bad Popes way-back-when. Your explanation makes
perfect sense.
Do you know where that explanation might be found in doctrine?

Here are the relevant portions of the CCC on infallibility. Note that it is the declaration of faith, morals, doctrine that is protected from error. The selection of a particular Pope by the Cardinals is not part of faith, morals or doctrine.

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

 

[sarah_j]

Here are the relevant portions of the CCC on infallibility. Note that it is the declaration of faith, morals, doctrine that is protected from error. The selection of a particular Pope by the Cardinals is not part of faith, morals or doctrine.

thanks for the info, zz !