T
Thomas_White
Guest
How do you get from there to Pope Francis and your comment, #169?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pope Francis draws criticism from some conservative Catholics over stances on economy, environment, social issues
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That was an extension of my comment here:How do you get from there to Pope Francis and your comment, #169?
I see many indications that Pope Francis subscribes to a Malthusian-tainted worldview.Why are “conservatives” criticizing Pope Francis? Fundamentally it is fear of Malthusian theology.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
What might those indications be? That he believes the world’s resources are finite?That was an extension of my comment here:
I see many indications that Pope Francis subscribes to a Malthusian-tainted worldview.
P
pnewton
Guest
If that is a definition of a Mathusian, then the only two people in the world are Mathusians and those who are bad at Math. This is why I see this term used more as an insult. Thomas Malthus was not known for his statement of the obvious, but the conclusions he drew from that. The message of Pope Francis, “Courage”, is unheard from Malthus. But hey, if the writer of the article got to throw the name Hitler out in speaking of the Holy Father, I guess it served his purpose.What might those indications be? That he believes the world’s resources are finite?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Yes, precisely.What might those indications be? That he believes the world’s resources are finite?
This is fundamental difference between capitalism and the myriad of Malthusian critics of it.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
To be clear, I am not claiming that everything Pope Francis thinks or says can be reduced to the ideas of Malthus. I am merely saying that his worldview has been shaped, indirectly and partially, by Malthusian ideas.The message of Pope Francis, “Courage”, is unheard from Malthus.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Marx’s political philosophy concerned economic determinism and relative scarcity. In Laudato Si, Pope Francis describes a cultural paradigm where the environment is headed toward ruin to the point it can no longer sustain life at all. In this paradigm, resources will begin to steadily diminish and eventually beyond all human control. This is the concept of absolute scarcity, and in the end no economic theory could possibly resolve it. Pope Francis does include unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism in his critique, but the economic theory itself is not the difficulty.Yes, precisely.
This is fundamental difference between capitalism and the myriad of Malthusian critics of it.
Laudato Si is a mortal teaching that sees the only solution to a world crisis in a new cultural and epistomological paradigm that includes ethics and spirituality where humans and nature are not viewed as mere objects. This teaching is neither politics nor economics. It does not even directly concern the economic theory of capitalism, not when the difficulty is seen as a spiritual one. In the new cultural paradigm Pope Francis advocates, economics will take care of itself.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
My first “uh, oh” momement with Pope Francis was when he declared that wasting food was like stealing from the poor. Of course, Laudato Si is a very complex treatise and I would not attempt to reduce it to any simplistic idea. And, yet, one can see woven through Pope Francis thinking the spectre of the Reverend Thomas Malthus and the distrust of human ingenuity.Marx’s political philosophy concerned economic determinism and relative scarcity. In Laudato Si, Pope Francis describes a cultural paradigm where the environment is headed toward ruin to the point it can no longer sustain life at all. In this paradigm, resources will begin to steadily diminish and eventually beyond all human control. This is the concept of absolute scarcity, and in the end no economic theory could possibly resolve it. Pope Francis does include unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism in his critique, but the economic theory itself is not the difficulty.
Laudato Si is a mortal teaching that sees the only solution to a world crisis in a new cultural and epistomological paradigm that includes ethics and spirituality where humans and nature are not viewed as mere objects. This teaching is neither politics nor economics. It does not even directly concern the economic theory of capitalism, not when the difficulty is seen as a spiritual one. In the new cultural paradigm Pope Francis advocates, economics will take care of itself.
I understand why you want to pretend that Pope Francis is merely speaking spiritually. I’ve explained why I think that dichotomy is flawed.
P
pnewton
Guest
Do you think if Jesus was alive today, he would be denounced as too liberal, Malthusian, or some other politically incorrect stance by conservative America?The pope is solid with the doctrinal issues. Isn’t that the most important thing to a “conservative” Catholic?
Must they agree with everything the man thinks and feels thinks on every topic?
Jesus himself denounced the idolatry of money. Do these conservative Catholics in question disagree with Jesus’s stance?
Jesus himself talked about being fair.
E
estesbob
Guest
He is alive today in his Church.A Church that is always condemned by the current culture for being to"conservative"Do you think if Jesus was alive today, he would be denounced as too liberal, Malthusian, or some other politically incorrect stance by conservative America?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
If one is wasting food and others are going hungry or even starving, the comment is not mysterious. I heard the very same comment said many times, more than sixty years ago, by the nuns at my elementary school. And not once was Thomas Malthus ever mentioned.My first “uh, oh” momement with Pope Francis was when he declared that wasting food was like stealing from the poor. Of course, Laudato Si is a very complex treatise and I would not attempt to reduce it to any simplistic idea. And, yet, one can see woven through Pope Francis thinking the spectre of the Reverend Thomas Malthus and the distrust of human ingenuity.
I understand why you want to pretend that Pope Francis is merely speaking spiritually. I’ve explained why I think that dichotomy is flawed.
Laudato Si provides a solid philosophical and theological basis for its moral teaching. In a new epistomological paradigm that incorporates ethics and spirituality, a paradigm the encyclical sees as the only solution to a world crisis, economics and politics would take care of themselves. The teaching has its roots in the orthodox Catholicism of a bygone era of long ago. That is the way I understand the encyclical and Pope Francis.
Peace.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Yes, it is a common, thoughtless sentiment. But it is one thing for a parent, or a nun, to admonish a child, “eat your vegetables, there are people starving in Europe.” Another thing entirely when the Vicar of Christ says that wasting food is like stealing from the poor.If one is wasting food and others are going hungry or even starving, the comment is not mysterious. I heard the very same comment said many times, more than sixty years ago, by the nuns at my elementary school. And not once was Thomas Malthus ever mentioned.
Why is it so appealing? Because we can easily imagine people seated around a common table where some eat too much and waste while others go hungry. But that’s not how things work in the real world. Understanding why requires the kind of real world prudence that is so often dismissed as worshiping the god of money.
If only it were that simple. Catholicism has yet to come to terms with modernity as Vatican II sought.Laudato Si provides a solid philosophical and theological basis for its moral teaching. In a new epistomological paradigm that incorporates ethics and spirituality, a paradigm the encyclical sees as the only solution to a world crisis, economics and politics would take care of themselves. The teaching has its roots in the orthodox Catholicism of a bygone era. That is the way I understand the encyclical and Pope Francis.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yes, it is a common, thoughtless sentiment. But it is one thing for a parent, or a nun, to admonish a child, “eat your vegetables, there are people starving in Europe.” Another thing entirely when the Vicar of Christ says that wasting food is like stealing from the poor.
Why is it so appealing? Because we can easily imagine people seated around a common table where some eat too much and waste while others go hungry. But that’s not how things work in the real world. Understanding why requires the kind of real world prudence that is so often dismissed as worshiping the god of money.
If only it were that simple. Catholicism has yet to come to terms with modernity as Vatican II sought.
Prudence is understanding why some go hungry while others eat too much and waste food in the real world? I guess I understand it is the reality and perhaps could be said to be the prudence of those not going hungry, but I don’t believe it is right.Yes, it is a common, thoughtless sentiment. But it is one thing for a parent, or a nun, to admonish a child, “eat your vegetables, there are people starving in Europe.” Another thing entirely when the Vicar of Christ says that wasting food is like stealing from the poor.
Why is it so appealing? Because we can easily imagine people seated around a common table where some eat too much and waste while others go hungry. But that’s not how things work in the real world. Understanding why requires the kind of real world prudence that is so often dismissed as worshiping the god of money.
I agree. Modernity is rejected by Laudato Si. And so is secularism. I think this is clear in the description and explanation of the difficulties of the existing epistomological paradigm.If only it were that simple. Catholicism has yet to come to terms with modernity as Vatican II sought.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Prudence is understanding why some go hungry while others eat too much and waste food in the real world? I guess I understand it is the reality and perhaps could be said to be the prudence of those not going hungry, but I don’t believe it is right.Yes, it is a common, thoughtless sentiment. But it is one thing for a parent, or a nun, to admonish a child, “eat your vegetables, there are people starving in Europe.” Another thing entirely when the Vicar of Christ says that wasting food is like stealing from the poor.
Why is it so appealing? Because we can easily imagine people seated around a common table where some eat too much and waste while others go hungry. But that’s not how things work in the real world. Understanding why requires the kind of real world prudence that is so often dismissed as worshiping the god of money.
I agree. Modernity is rejected by Laudato Si. And so is secularism. I think this is clear in the description and explanation of the difficulties of the existing epistomological paradigm and what ought to be done about it.If only it were that simple. Catholicism has yet to come to terms with modernity as Vatican II sought.
A
Aletheian
Guest
The same difference that exists between being anti-Catholic and not being Catholic. Or between being anti-Jewish and not being Jewish. Or between you and me: I do not share some of your views, but I am not against you.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?
Suggesting that not being capitalist is the same as being against capitalism is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
*A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome such as, in some contexts, the assertion that “if you are not with us, you are against us.”*
Z
zz912
Guest
Labels like “Catholic”? What about “Christian”?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.
Anyone who claims to oppose labels is deluding themselves. Labels are very useful and necessary. They allow us to communicate, and without them communication would grind to a complete halt. If I tell you I am Catholic, I am telling you a VAST amount of information in one simple word. I tell you what I believe, my worldview, and much of my motivations. While it is not perfect, it does give much information. If I add even one word, like “faithful”, to the label “Catholic”, it gives even more information and allows you to know quite a bit about me and my views. We can then communicate from this point.
It’s complete fantasy to pretend that you can know people without labels. You simply don’t have time to understand all the views of a bunch of people. I’d say it would be impossible to even know the full views of a small number of people. You’d certainly never be able to know the views and beliefs of those you aren’t friends with.
When people try to use labels, it is an attempt to understand the world and those around them. And EVERYONE does this.
Z
zz912
Guest
People go hungry in this world because of corrupt and overbearing governments. There’s plenty of food, but getting them to those who need it is stopped by corrupt govt.Prudence is understanding why some go hungry while others eat too much and waste food in the real world? I guess I understand it is the reality and perhaps could be said to be the prudence of those not going hungry, but I don’t believe it is right.
Look at the empty grocery stores in Venezuela and ask why they are out of food and basic staples? It’s not because of capitalists or “greedy” people. Capitalists WANT to sell people food they need.
Z
zz912
Guest
There is a dichotomy that exists when it comes to capitalism. Either people are free to buy, sell, and make goods and services to trade with other people, or they are not. Either you favor this or do not. Those economic systems noted before, socialism/fascism/communism are opposed to this freedom.The same difference that exists between being anti-Catholic and not being Catholic. Or between being anti-Jewish and not being Jewish. Or between you and me: I do not share some of your views, but I am not against you.
Suggesting that not being capitalist is the same as being against capitalism is a textbook example of the fallacy of the false dilemma.
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
*A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome such as, in some contexts, the assertion that “if you are not with us, you are against us.”*
T
Thomas_White
Guest
People also go hungry in this world when they cannot afford to purchase food. There is the undeniable dichotomy of rich and poor. In instances the scarcity of food could be the result of corrupt government, and if so it is a difficulty noted in Laudato Si.People go hungry in this world because of corrupt and overbearing governments. There’s plenty of food, but getting them to those who need it is stopped by corrupt govt.
Look at the empty grocery stores in Venezuela and ask why they are out of food and basic staples? It’s not because of capitalists or “greedy” people. Capitalists WANT to sell people food they need.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Corrupt governments are one cause of poverty, but they are not the only cause of poverty. There are many causes, not the least of which is the lack of capital in poor areas. There is a vicious cycle that can be hard to break. Families have little money, so they produce little. They need most of what they produce to sustain themselves so they cannot save nor afford to give significant education to their children. Governments don’t have enough tax base to develop sufficient infrastructure, education, public health, etc. The one thing that is clear is that those who call ourselves Christian have a lot of work to do.People also go hungry in this world when they cannot afford to purchase food. There is the undeniable dichotomy of rich and poor. In instances the scarcity of food could be the result of corrupt government, and if so it is a difficulty noted in Laudato Si.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.