Pope vows to study US criticism of his anti-capitalist rhetoric

[Peccavi]

I never said you Irish were Catholic Socialists I said Ireland was now no longer a bulwark of traditional Catholicism as seen in the vote on Gay Marriage and the church losing members.
Is that untrue ? or is something odd going on in the World’s media reporting and Irish Referendum ?

 

[Peccavi]

I rather think the early Christian communities were dare I say it communities that shared wealth - decide what that suggests in political terms. As for the USA well I’m not from that Continent so I can only see it from the outside, but I don’t think most of them understand Europe or European socialism or European Catholic concerns.

 

[ringil]

I commend the Holy Father for being so humble as to consider the feelings of American conservatives.

I don’t think he has anything to “consider” but I’m no Conservative so. . . . .

 

[stinkcat_14]

I commend the Holy Father for being so humble as to consider the feelings of American conservatives.

I don’t think he has anything to “consider” but I’m no Conservative so. . . . .

You are saying that conservatives have nothing to “consider”? You think liberalism is so perfect that you can’t learn anything from conservatives? Don’t you think that is a pretty arrogant position to take?

 

[Peccavi]

I do not believe in an inward looking faith but a faith that looks outwards to others - not self-centered but other centered - therefore I see nothing wrong with following Jesus teachings in my politics, indeed I see the work to create the Kingdom of God on this World as crucial to an understanding of what Jesus was getting at. How can you love your neighbour and take a profit from him ?

 

[ringil]

You are saying that conservatives have nothing to “consider”? You think liberalism is so perfect that you can’t learn anything from conservatives? Don’t you think that is a pretty arrogant position to take?

My post relates to the Holy Father.\

But since you asked, no, I really don’t believe that I could learn anything to apply for myself from Conservative economic and Governmental perspectives- as I am liberal in these areas and reject “small Government” diatribe.

I can learn what to resist I suppose. . . .

 

[stinkcat_14]

My post relates to the Holy Father.\

But since you asked, no, I really don’t believe that I could learn anything to apply for myself from Conservative economic and Governmental perspectives- as I am liberal in these areas and reject “small Government” diatribe.

I can learn what to resist I suppose. . . .

That is a really sad position to take. I really feel bad for you that you think you know so much that you can learn nothing from the other side. I am always looking to learn, and somethings I even learn things from liberals.

 

[Darryl1958]

This is not quite what Pope St. John Paul II had to say in his encyclical Laborem Exercens (1981), which says in part:

*The truth that by means of work man participates in the activity of God himself, his Creator, was given particular prominence by Jesus Christ-the Jesus at whom many of his first listeners in Nazareth "were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him?.. Is not this the carpenter?’"40. For Jesus not only proclaimed but first and foremost fulfilled by his deeds the “gospel”, the word of eternal Wisdom, that had been entrusted to him. Therefore this was also “the gospel of work”, because he who proclaimed it was himself a man of work, a craftsman like Joseph of Nazareth41. And if we do not find in his words a special command to work-but rather on one occasion a prohibition against too much anxiety about work and life42- at the same time the eloquence of the life of Christ is unequivocal: he belongs to the “working world”, he has appreciation and respect for human work. It can indeed be said that he looks with love upon human work and the different forms that it takes, seeing in each one of these forms a particular facet of man’s likeness with God, the Creator and Father. Is it not he who says: "My Father is the vinedresser"43, and in various ways puts into his teaching the fundamental truth about work which is already expressed in the whole tradition of the Old Testament, beginning with the Book of Genesis? *

Jesus of Nazareth was not a vagabond who never did any work and who vaguely expected working people to support him. He was out doing the work His Father gave him to do, knowing that His Father would provide for his needs. If what Jesus did was not work, after all, then why did the temple officials get into such a knot about it when he healed on the Sabbath? His Passion was also a work, the culmination of the work for which He was sent into the world. He said this clearly in the Gospel of John: I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do.** Jn 17:4**

Once he was baptized by John and received the Holy Spirit, his life was set forth on a very different path for the next three years, which are the three years that we know about Jesus.

n his own words, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”. This is the man who was found in the fields gleaning wheat from what the workers left behind. He very much became all about giving up the cares and worries of having a family and being weighed down by money.
The Church itself progressed along more diverse paths than just that. Family life, with all the attendant worries and woes of that kind of responsibility, is very much a part of the NT too.
But as for the kind of politics and economic system that Jesus followed, that really was not what he was all about. His message was to make us aware of a very different kind of kingdom available to us.

 

[estesbob]

I rather think the early Christian communities were dare I say it communities that shared wealth - decide what that suggests in political terms. As for the USA well I’m not from that Continent so I can only see it from the outside, but I don’t think most of them understand Europe or European socialism or European Catholic concerns.

1. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer.** They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
   **
2. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.** Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. **

RERUM NOVARUM

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CAPITAL AND LABOR
w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

How can you love your neighbour and take a profit from him ?

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas defined a “just transaction” as that in which each party gives that which he values less in exchange for that which he values more.

So, if they are to be credited, there is “profit” in every “just transaction”, since each party gains.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Jesus promoting the Market ? How come then he attacked the Market in the Temple with a whip - traders, bankers et al. he turned them out. He said plainly " You cannot serve God and Mammon ( meaning money) - and he clearly described the rich as required to quote “take all (they) have and give it to the poor”. The whole thrust of Jesus teaching is in favour of communal sharing which is described in Acts as being carried out by the early church.

I think this is an over-interpretation. Jesus didn’t attack some secular marketplace, of which there were undoubtedly many in Jerusalem and Galilee. Not once. He said it Himself, He attacked the temple merchants because He felt they were defiling the temple with trade, not because it was trade.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I rather think the early Christian communities were dare I say it communities that shared wealth - decide what that suggests in political terms. As for the USA well I’m not from that Continent so I can only see it from the outside, but I don’t think most of them understand Europe or European socialism or European Catholic concerns.

Voluntary wealth pooling in community is not socialism. In fact, it is more in line with the modern corporation. All corporate participants-investors, employees, suppliers, customers- are volunteers.

Under socialism participation is coerced.

 

[estesbob]

I think this is an over-interpretation. Jesus didn’t attack some secular marketplace, of which there were undoubtedly many in Jerusalem and Galilee. Not once. He said it Himself, He attacked the temple merchants because He felt they were defiling the temple with trade, not because it was trade.

When one believes they are empowered to interpret scripture for themselves it is of no surprise when their interpretation just happens to support their political views

 

[estesbob]

. How can you love your neighbour and take a profit from him ?

What does that mean?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

How can you love your neighbour and take a profit from him ?

How can you love your neighbor and force him to work for you for free?

That’s called slavery.(or socialism)

 

[triumphguy]

I think probably at this point we can all agree that Church teaching is fundamentally against Marxism, is pro-capital (and that the right to own property is a fundamental right), and is positive towards capitalism except where it operates to excess and exploits people and the environment they (we) live in.

We can also agree the Church is against greed, and avarice.

The Church also teaches that we owe as a moral duty our excess to those in poverty.

 

[estesbob]

I think probably at this point we can all agree that Church teaching is fundamentally against Marxism, is pro-capital (and that the right to own property is a fundamental right), and is positive towards capitalism except where it operates to excess and exploits people and the environment they (we) live in.

We can also agree the Church is against greed, and avarice.

The Church also teaches that we owe as a moral duty our excess to those in poverty.

That moral duty is a personal responsibility we cannot delegate to the government . That does not mean the government does not have a place in caring for the poor and needy but a Catholic cannot fulfill their personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for politicians who promise to take other peoples money and do it for them

 

[triumphguy]

That moral duty is a personal responsibility we cannot delegate to the government . That does not mean the government does not have a place in caring for the poor and needy but a Catholic cannot fulfill their personal obligation to help the poor and needy by voting for politicians who promise to take other peoples money and do it for them

Absolutely.

And because a personal responsibility I have to actually do something about it myself.

 

[Latias]

1. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.** Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. **

That seems so idealistic. Most people do not earn enough to own the means of production, but merely earn enough to support themselves, while still being subject to the vicissitudes of life in a modern capitalist economy, such as recessions and off-shoring. In the case of “modern” liberal democratic countries. the bottom 90 percent own (both through direct and indirect, as “direct” means “not owned through a retirement account”) only 20% of equities, while the “direct” figure is 3.3%. (See this, page 11.) Thus, the common worker does not own much of the corporate equities. (However, to put this into perspective, I need to know what proportion of the corporate capital structure is in debt vs. equities, along with the distribution of those who own corporate debt, or even Treasuries and municipal bonds.)

Also, here is an entry from Wikipedia about the Salvadorian civil war. I suppose this would be subsumed under a “capitalist” system, since the US aided and abetted inhumane efforts against revolutionary and reform in that country during the 80s. The Church did not give an explicit denunciation of US foreign policy in Central America, nor did it condemn the actions of the death squads, but rather suppressed liberal theology by appointing conservative bishops. The Apartheid is another example of a socially just regime too.

By the late 1980s, 75% of the population lived in poverty.[5] The living standards of most Salvadorans declined by 30% since 1983. Unemployment or underemployment increased to 50%.[100] Most people, moreover, still didn’t have access to clean water or healthcare. The armed forces were feared, inflation rose almost 40%, capital flight reached an estimated $1 billion, and the economic elite avoided paying taxes.[101] Despite nearly $3 billion in American economic assistance, per capita income declined by one third.[5] American aid was distributed to urban businesses although the impoverished majority received almost none of it.[101] The concentration of wealth was even higher than before the U.S.-administered land reform program. The agrarian law generated windfall profits for the economic elite and buried the cooperatives in debts that left them incapable of competing in the capital markets. The oligarchs often took back the land from bankrupt peasants who couldn’t obtain the credit necessary to pay for seeds and fertilizer.[102] Although, “few of the poor would dream of seeking legal redress against a landlord because virtually no judge would favor a poor man.”[101] By 1989, 1% of the landowners owned 41% of the tillable land, while 60% of the rural population owned 0%.[5]

No one can credibly buy that rhetoric about the concern for the working man’s “liberty of disposing of wages” to “obtain property”. How would a little “socialism” harm them, but it would harm the interests of the US and the landowners.

==
I posted this before:

I thought that [Dorothy Day] always an anarchist: the type who would be sympathetic to the Kronstadt sailors as opposed to the Bolshevik regime that suppressed the uprising. I don’t think she supported the Soviet regime though, or expressed assent to Trotskyism or a variant of Marxism-Leninism.

Still, I do not consider her a “revolutionary”, some who has sufficient fervor and devotion to be a party cadre or part of the vanguard, but she had little sympathies for counter-revolutionaries.

How would the the Church or the eclessia benefit if it effaces her far-leftism to render her more palatable to conservatives? Certainly conservatives would appear to possess an ostensible minority on sainthood and righteousness. However, what about those who have some far-left sympathies who feel alienated in the Church since its teachings do not affirm any of their values and they fell encircled by conservative Catholics whose primary concern is abortion and gay marriage.

 

[estesbob]

That seems so idealistic. Most people do not earn enough to own the means of production, but merely earn enough to support themselves, while still being subject to the vicissitudes of life in a modern capitalist economy, such as recessions and off-shoring. In the case of “modern” liberal democratic countries. the bottom 90 percent own (both through direct and indirect, as “direct” means “not owned through a retirement account”) only 20% of equities, while the “direct” figure is 3.3%. (See this, page 11.) Thus, the common worker does not own much of the corporate equities. (However, to put this into perspective, I need to know what proportion of the corporate capital structure is in debt vs. equities, along with the distribution of those who own corporate debt, or even Treasuries and municipal bonds.)

Also, here is an entry from Wikipedia about the Salvadorian civil war. I suppose this would be subsumed under a “capitalist” system, since the US aided and abetted inhumane efforts against revolutionary and reform in that country during the 80s. The Church did not give an explicit denunciation of US foreign policy in Central America, nor did it condemn the actions of the death squads, but rather suppressed liberal theology by appointing conservative bishops. The Apartheid is another example of a socially just regime too.

No one can credibly buy that rhetoric about the concern for the working man’s “liberty of disposing of wages” to “obtain property”. How would a little “socialism” harm them, but it would harm the interests of the US and the landowners.

==
I posted this before:

Take up your complaints with the church. I was really pointing out that always categorically condemned socialism and communism .