Pope Warns Against New Colonialism: Corporations, Loan Agencies, and Austerity Measures That Hurt Poor

[lynnvinc]

Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. In theory, capital provides the means for the production of goods and services for the benefit of all in a free market of supply and demand. But capital has the ability to influence and even control the terms of trade, including both supply and pricing. A notorious example is health care, where doctors and hospitals have the pricing power to routinely charge patients $60 for a Tylenol tablet or $6,000 daily for a single room, costs not usually even disclosed to the patient before the patient receives the final bill. This has no rational relationship to the true costs in a free market.

Whatever the reasons for it, it is not supply and demand efficiently at work, providing goods and services in a free market for the benefit of the patient. This is rather the intervention of pricing power within a supposedly free market. And I would say it is this type of situation (and there are many others) that Laudato Si questions and not capitalism per se.

I think Laudato Si says that capitalism and the free market are not enough to reduce environmental harms (see LS #190-195)…which is eerily similar to what I’ve been teaching for years.

Here’s from my lecture notes:

• FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES RE ENVIRONMENT:

1. consumers valuing the environment will buy green products
   Problem:
   a. some don’t value the environment
   b. many don’t know @ impact
   FREE MARKET…
2. as natural resources decline, prices will go up, people will buy less
   - not so (exotic bird feather problem in 1800s)
   - studies: prices don’t rise until the very end (e.g., when the old growth forest is in collapse)
   FREE MARKET created problems in the 1st place

• Negative EXTERNALITIES: enviro harm costs not born by biz or consumer

CRITICISM OF FREE MARKETS HELPING ENVIRO:

1. Manufactures change due to regs, not solely on market forces
   - REGULATIONS & LAWS are weak, small fines
   CAFE standards only add bit to cost of
   SUVs & Hummers in violation
   also – used better tech to get more
   horsepower from smaller engines
2. FREE MARKET is not free
   biz join together, pressure gov
3. People lack KNOWLEDGE about harms
4. Many resources are public or common (air, water…)
   → people mainly protect their own resources, not public’s
   “Tragedy of the Commons”

---

Now having just pointed out that market forces are not enough to solve the problems, I often do try to entice people into doing the EC (environmentally correct) things by pointing out that they will save money, either right away, short-term or long term.

However, this doesn’t work either bec I guess “there is not such thing as a rational, economically maximizing man” – the very foundation of economic theory is a myth. I guess there must be some subconscious Freudian thanatos (death wish) thing going on or something. It has me scratching my head as to why people would trash the earth for the poor and future generations – their own progeny, for Pete’s sake – in ways that actually cost them more money.

Maybe it’s the devil or dev-oil make 'em do it

 

[Thomas_White]

I think Laudato Si says that capitalism and the free market are not enough to reduce environmental harms (see LS #190-195)…which is eerily similar to what I’ve been teaching for years.

---

Now having just pointed out that market forces are not enough to solve the problems, I often do try to entice people into doing the EC (environmentally correct) things by pointing out that they will save money, either right away, short-term or long term.

However, this doesn’t work either bec I guess “there is not such thing as a rational, economically maximizing man” – the very foundation of economic theory is a myth. I guess there must be some subconscious Freudian thanatos (death wish) thing going on or something. It has me scratching my head as to why people would trash the earth for the poor and future generations – their own progeny, for Pete’s sake – in ways that actually cost them more.

I reread the noted paragraphs twice and agree. The theory that the economy and markets behave rationally assumes that humans will behave rationally, and that is of course complete nonsense.

Perhaps interestingly, it was while treating war veterans who suffered from what today would be termed PTSD that Freud began to doubt that his Pleasure Principle (Eros) provided a full explanation of behavior while he observed the way his patients would repeatedly relive the horrors they had experienced, over and over again, as though they were occurring in real time. The observed behavior was clearly not pleasurable.

In his later Ego and the Id, Freud had this to say: “The death instinct would thus seem to express itself–though probably only in part–as an instinct of destruction directed against the external world.” The world ‘instinct’ is a mistranslation from the German, and what Freud meant was a death ‘drive’ (Thanatos). What is interesting in the context here is that Freud says this drive is directed against the external world.

What I have noticed is not leftists lurking in every shadow but rather left-brain hemispheric dominance. I think maybe it is not so much that the theory of capitalism and a free market couldn’t work so much as it is the fact that they manifestly don’t work, as they are contemplated in theory, for all the well-known reasons associated with human behavior.

 

[zz912]

Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. In theory, capital provides the means for the production of goods and services for the benefit of all in a free market of supply and demand. But capital has the ability to influence and even control the terms of trade, including both supply and pricing. A notorious example is health care, where doctors and hospitals have the pricing power to routinely charge patients $60 for a Tylenol tablet or $6,000 daily for a single room, costs not usually even disclosed to the patient before the patient receives the final bill. This has no rational relationship to the true costs in a free market.

Whatever the reasons for it, it is not supply and demand efficiently at work, providing goods and services in a free market for the benefit of the patient. This is rather the intervention of pricing power within a supposedly free market. And I would say it is this type of situation (and there are many others) that Laudato Si questions and not capitalism per se.

That’s not an example of capitalism, as much as you wish it were. That kind of ridiculous pricing is the result of over-influence of govt into the free market, causing all kinds of manipulations and unintended consequences.

 

[zz912]

Monarchy arose much much later – at the tail end of human history. It’s only been around about 5,000 years or so.

The term and formal understanding, maybe. But in any human grouping, there develops a leader who has executive power, and only recently were the legislative and judicial powers separated from this. Throughout history they were all consolidated into one man, the king (or other title). This is human nature and goes back as far back as humans go.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That’s not an example of capitalism, as much as you wish it were. That kind of ridiculous pricing is the result of over-influence of govt into the free market, causing all kinds of manipulations and unintended consequences.

How does the government cause $60 Tylenol pills?

 

[zz912]

How does the government cause $60 Tylenol pills?

You’re playing coy. You’re informed enough on economics to know the manipulation the govt has made into the healthcare market.

 

[Thomas_White]

You’re playing coy. You’re informed enough on economics to know the manipulation the govt has made into the healthcare market.

And that is the main point. The free market is a myth because of the many factors that intervene in it, from corporate greed to lobbying of legislatures to unlimited campaign donations. This is hardly true only in health care. It permeates the entire market.

 

[Thomas_White]

In theory, capital provides the resources for businesses and other entities to develop the means of production of goods and services for the mutual benefit of all. That this has not been the case as a result of self-centered interests throughout the system, from the manipulation of markets (as the Vampire Squid has done in the commodities and other markets) to the influence of lobbyists who roam the halls of Congress with checkbook in hand, to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall legislation, are well known facts and not leftist political beliefs.

Here is one example. It is known that Wall Street manipulated the commodity futures market. Doing so eventually resulted in grain shortages and higher food prices. In Middle Eastern nation-states, there is a significant dependence on grain imports as a food source. When high grain prices and food shortages resulted, there was major discontent with the governments of those countries. This played a major role in the Arab Spring. This is an instance of the way Pope Francis says everything is interconnected. Events do not occur in isolation.

That Wall Street manipulated grain futures in part to influence the price of corn sold for the production of ethanol, a product that yields higher margins than grain sold for food, only illustrates the complexity of the problem. Agribusinesses have purchased large acreages of what were small family farms for the purpose of growing corn to be sold at the higher price of grain used for ethanol production.

The point is that this is not a question of political belief. These are facts. It seems to me that the denial of facts is an instance of what Pope Francis terms the error of putting the idea above what is real. And this is of course the error of ideology.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

There are several critical reviews of “Laudato Si” that are worthy of our consideration. One of the most recent (and I think, one of the best) is by R.R. Reno, editor of the journal “First Things.” The complete article (which I include as an embed below) deserves to be read in its fullness but, because of its length, can’t be placed in the body of this comment section at the Catholic Answers Forum. To cite it in-full would be impolite and burden to many who don’t have time to read the article. I will, however, quote a section of it here to give folks a taste of its content and the quality of its criticism. I would be particularly interested in other people’s responses to Mr. Reno’s comments – especially those of you who can take the time to read the entire article.

Here’s a snippet from Reno’s critique:

*"…my concern is with the cogency of the encyclical as a whole. A great deal of what is commended as an alternative to the global system sounds to me like just another version of it.

Environmental debates, especially debates about global warming, are contentious. That’s because they involve difficult trade-offs. We need scientifically informed conjectures about climate change—and experts to estimate the costs of avoiding or remediating the worst outcomes. Then we need to balance these factors with judgments about how best to reduce global poverty, and how to do so in a way that promotes human dignity. It’s a never-ending, always-contested balancing act.

Francis seems to endorse this approach without qualification. Quoting from another Vatican document, he writes, “In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future, decisions must be made ‘based on a comparison of risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives.’” Yet, given the strident criticism of modernity’s signature achievements of scientific and technological mastery, it’s more than a little odd that Francis turns in this direction. Risk–benefit analysis is one of the main planks in the technocratic platform.

At one point, Francis calls for “one plan for the whole world.” We need “a politics which is farsighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis.” Such a dream (which is to me a nightmare) requires armies of technocrats with reams of data-laden reports. It presumes a global bureaucracy of unprecedented size and power. It’s a vision of human self-mastery on a global scale—technocracy on steroids.

Moreover, in this section Francis adopts signature phrases from today’s technocracy—not just interdisciplinary approaches and calls for “honest and open debate,” but also inclusion, transparency, raising awareness, diversity, and dialogue. There’s even a section promoting “best practices”! These are buzzwords used by McKinsey consultants. And they’re not innocent. All are formal, procedural gestures. They are designed to avoid substantive moral and metaphysical questions. They represent late modernity’s desire to shape the common good without any reference to the nature of the human person, his proper ends, or natural law. It’s embarrassing that this encyclical makes such heavy use of these familiar, technocratic conceits. So much for the bold cultural revolution."*

Here’s the article in-full: firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/the-weakness-of-laudato-si

 

[Thomas_White]

There are several critical reviews of “Laudato Si” that are worthy of our consideration. One of the most recent (and I think, one of the best) is by R.R. Reno, editor of the journal “First Things.” The complete article (which I include as an embed below) deserves to be read in its fullness but, because of its length, can’t be placed in the body of this comment section at the Catholic Answers Forum. To cite it in-full would be impolite and burden to many who don’t have time to read the article. I will, however, quote a section of it here to give folks a taste of its content and the quality of its criticism. I would be particularly interested in other people’s responses to Mr. Reno’s comments – especially those of you who can take the time to read the entire article.

Here’s a snippet from Reno’s critique:

*"…my concern is with the cogency of the encyclical as a whole. A great deal of what is commended as an alternative to the global system sounds to me like just another version of it.

Environmental debates, especially debates about global warming, are contentious. That’s because they involve difficult trade-offs. We need scientifically informed conjectures about climate change—and experts to estimate the costs of avoiding or remediating the worst outcomes. Then we need to balance these factors with judgments about how best to reduce global poverty, and how to do so in a way that promotes human dignity. It’s a never-ending, always-contested balancing act.

Francis seems to endorse this approach without qualification. Quoting from another Vatican document, he writes, “In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future, decisions must be made ‘based on a comparison of risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives.’” Yet, given the strident criticism of modernity’s signature achievements of scientific and technological mastery, it’s more than a little odd that Francis turns in this direction. Risk–benefit analysis is one of the main planks in the technocratic platform.

At one point, Francis calls for “one plan for the whole world.” We need “a politics which is farsighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis.” Such a dream (which is to me a nightmare) requires armies of technocrats with reams of data-laden reports. It presumes a global bureaucracy of unprecedented size and power. It’s a vision of human self-mastery on a global scale—technocracy on steroids.

Moreover, in this section Francis adopts signature phrases from today’s technocracy—not just interdisciplinary approaches and calls for “honest and open debate,” but also inclusion, transparency, raising awareness, diversity, and dialogue. There’s even a section promoting “best practices”! These are buzzwords used by McKinsey consultants. And they’re not innocent. All are formal, procedural gestures. They are designed to avoid substantive moral and metaphysical questions. They represent late modernity’s desire to shape the common good without any reference to the nature of the human person, his proper ends, or natural law. It’s embarrassing that this encyclical makes such heavy use of these familiar, technocratic conceits. So much for the bold cultural revolution."*

Here’s the article in-full: firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/the-weakness-of-laudato-si

An interesting article, and in time I will respond to it. First, however, I want to note (as is true of much of the criticism of the encyclical) that the author does not even understand that it is not science and technology but rather an epistemological paradigm of which the pope is critical of in Laudato Si’. If that is not understood, nothing else is either. It is a papal encyclical that concerns theology and not politics. It is this that must be understood.

Pope Francis absolutely does not seek any sort of global government. He is rather, in Laudato Si’, calling for a commonality of agreement among local social units (in accordance with the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity, if you will) that addresses common problems affecting everyone but does not compromise unique identity, including that of religious belief. The pope most certainly is no fan of globalism. As he sees it, as as he has explained, globalism is the primary problem. But there remains the question of what could be done about it at this critical juncture.

 

[Thomas_White]

There are several critical reviews of “Laudato Si” that are worthy of our consideration. One of the most recent (and I think, one of the best) is by R.R. Reno, editor of the journal “First Things.” The complete article (which I include as an embed below) deserves to be read in its fullness but, because of its length, can’t be placed in the body of this comment section at the Catholic Answers Forum. To cite it in-full would be impolite and burden to many who don’t have time to read the article. I will, however, quote a section of it here to give folks a taste of its content and the quality of its criticism. I would be particularly interested in other people’s responses to Mr. Reno’s comments – especially those of you who can take the time to read the entire article.

“It can be said that many problems of today’s world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the methods and aims of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the working of society. The effect of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life.” Laudato Si (107)

Reno interprets this central theological teaching of Laudato Si to mean that the “consumerist mentality results from disbelief in God” and that God-forgetfulness leads to “a pernicious, destructive anthropocentrism”. Pope Francis, he says, draws “a direct line from God-forgetfulness to the destructive modern technocratic spirit of mastery and domination”. But the encyclical “falls into contradiction. There are no clearly articulated principles guiding analysis of the ecological and social crises precipitated by global capitalism.”

Nevertheless, they are there to see in Section II of Chapter Three, 'The Globalization of the Technocratic Paradigm, and in particular its paragraphs 106 and 107. This is where Reno errs, for the teaching is certainly not that the “consumerist mentality results from disbelief in God.” It is Reno who fails to articulate whatever that might mean whereas Pope Francis clearly describes a cultural paradigm and explains the problems it presents.

Why might the encyclical lack “clearly articulated principles guiding analysis”? The weakness of post-Vatican II theological teaching, of course, the “debilitating consequences” of the eclectic or incoherent formulation of Church leaders post-Vatican II. The culprit is Liberalism (of course). And the global ecological movement? It is “a rich-country phenomenon funded by the One Percent”! But, we are informed, that’s beside the point. For it is Christian revelation or belief in God that judges and corrects the ecological movement (with the earthly assistance of the Koch brothers, one presumes).

The above quotation from Laudato Si provides what is perhaps the basic theological teaching of the encyclical. And it represents the complete rejection of modernism. What is theologically opposed is the philosophy that evolved following the Scholastic period. This was Modernism. The significance of the encyclical’s opposition here, certainly representing orthodox Catholicism, could hardly be overstated. There is also the influence of the theologist Romano Guardini, certainly no modernist. But Reno sees only a criticism of science and technology themselves, rather than the problem of their imposition as an epistomological paradigm on reality as a whole. This completely misses the point and is why he concludes the encyclical does not clearly articulate a theological teaching. He even raises the issue of modernity, an objection that only further illustrates his misunderstanding. The moral teaching of the encyclical is far closer to the teachings of St. Francis of Assisi and to Catholic social teaching than it is to any buzzwords of McKinsey and Company, an impertinence that leaves no doubt of Reno’s lack of understanding.

Beyond that, it is not reasonable to expect a papal encyclical to present comprehensive solutions to incredibly complex scientific problems. There are only suggestions.

The article presents an obviously ideologically conservative interpretation of the encyclical. I just don’t believe its moral teaching can be understood that way.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

Thomas White,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I don’t agree with everything you’ve written, but you’ve bravely gone where others on this forum have not. The issue we face is daunting and a deeper conversation is necessary.

One point in your response strikes me as needing clarification. You write that Reno’s contention that the encyclical “falls into contradiction” when he suggests it provides “…no clearly articulated principles guiding analysis of the ecological and social crises precipitated by global capitalism” is in error in your opinion, and you cite Paragraph’s 106 and 107 as examples of how the pope does provide clearly articulated principals for analysis. But I think that, in this, the pope actually may be less than clear and that Reno’s critique holds more than a little water.

Paragraph 106 gives us the pope’s understanding of the nature and scope of the paradigm. He says that those who “unconsciously” adhere to the rules of the paradigm embrace a “false notion that ‘an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed.’” Paragraph 107 concludes with the advice that “we have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.” There is a lot of meaty language to digest here.

However, while I sympathize with the pope’s concerns, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I feel that, as Reno says, the pope’s language hardly offers us a helpful set of “clearly articulated set of principles (to be used for) guidance” at all. The pope’s analysis is an opinion offering very little practical guidance. Also – and it must be said – the pope is almost conspiratorial here. He indicts “certain,” unnamed “powerful groups,” who dictate their interests onto an unsuspecting people. This is unhelpful. If indeed a crisis has come upon us, we need theoretically sound and practical guidance, not a mish-mash of prejudice and surmise.

The accusation that Reno’s criticism of the encyclical is prompted by his conservatism is, I think, a straw man. In fact, Reno is quite charitable and measured in his critique. He just comes to a different conclusion than you do.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I don’t agree with everything you’ve written, but you’ve bravely gone where others on this forum have not. The issue we face is daunting and a deeper conversation is necessary.

One point in your response strikes me as needing clarification. You write that Reno’s contention that the encyclical “falls into contradiction” when he suggests it provides “…no clearly articulated principles guiding analysis of the ecological and social crises precipitated by global capitalism” is in error in your opinion, and you cite Paragraph’s 106 and 107 as examples of how the pope does provide clearly articulated principals for analysis. But I think that, in this, the pope actually may be less than clear and that Reno’s critique holds more than a little water.

Paragraph 106 gives us the pope’s understanding of the nature and scope of the paradigm. He says that those who “unconsciously” adhere to the rules of the paradigm embrace a “false notion that ‘an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed.’” Paragraph 107 concludes with the advice that “we have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build.” There is a lot of meaty language to digest here.

However, while I sympathize with the pope’s concerns, I don’t agree with his conclusions. I feel that, as Reno says, the pope’s language hardly offers us a helpful set of “clearly articulated set of principles (to be used for) guidance” at all. The pope’s analysis is an opinion offering very little practical guidance. Also – and it must be said – the pope is almost conspiratorial here. He indicts “certain,” unnamed “powerful groups,” who dictate their interests onto an unsuspecting people. This is unhelpful. If indeed a crisis has come upon us, we need theoretically sound and practical guidance, not a mish-mash of prejudice and surmise.

The accusation that Reno’s criticism of the encyclical is prompted by his conservatism is, I think, a straw man. In fact, Reno is quite charitable and measured in his critique. He just comes to a different conclusion than you do.

Thanks for the reply. First, I think the papal encyclical is primarily intended as a moral teaching. This teaching is provided in paragraphs 106-108, in particular, as well as in what follows in the rest of the section. Perhaps this is not fully articulated in these paragraphs in a way easily accessible to some modern readers, but one would expect that Reno, a theologian, would understand it. And I cannot see how he could. The critique concerns an epistemological paradigm where science and the scientific method, well and good in themselves, have become a way of interacting with the world. I found it clear enough, but as you say, “There is a lot of meaty language to digest here.” But to understand the moral teaching of the encyclical, I believe it is necessary to fully understand these paragraphs. In my opinion, Reno does not.

“A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but this is a difficult habit to acquire today.” Laudato Si (108)

Indeed. During the evolution of Western philosophy following the Scholastic period, ethics more and more became a subjective category. Pope Francis readily acknowledges the many benefits of science and its objective methods, but notice what he says is missing. It is ethics. This is the very point. There is a very long history to this, including the Church’s resistance to modernism. When ethics (good and evil) become in philosophy a subjective category, the result is moral relativism and secularism. It is more complex, of course, and involves Immanence relative to the possibility, or impossibility, of knowing God or of his existence by reason (objectively). The full rejection of this development by Pope Francis, is, I think, the primary moral teaching of the encyclical.

What sort of practical guidance is needed? This is a spiritual teaching. Again, I think it is completely unrealistic to expect a papal encyclical to present a solution to a set of very complex scientific problems. Laudato Si is a papal encyclical, and its theological teaching is what is important. Reno says he does not disagree with the encyclical’s “substantive claims”, and that he agrees with Pope Francis’s main point–global capitalism poses significant and fundamental problems that must be addressed. What is lacking, he says, is cogent teaching. I disagree. Profound moral and spiritual teaching is there if it is only understood.

Pope Francis experienced thirteen years of Jesuit instruction, most of it prior to Vatican II (and all of this instruction prior to its full implementation), before he was ordained a Jesuit priest. Reno does not display any awareness of the background of Pope Francis and what he has accomplished. It was, in particular, the concluding paragraph of Reno’s article that I thought political, and even gratuitous insolence, insofar as it was directed toward the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[lynnvinc]

The term and formal understanding, maybe. But in any human grouping, there develops a leader who has executive power, and only recently were the legislative and judicial powers separated from this. Throughout history they were all consolidated into one man, the king (or other title). This is human nature and goes back as far back as humans go.

Not so. In band level societies – which were there for 99% of human history before tribal, then chiefdom, then state-level societies arose – they have no leader with power. Same also with tribal level societies. If at all there were a “headman,” what he might have was influence (because people respected him and he was good and generous), but no real power to coerce people to do things, no “live & death” power over the people. People were basically free, much freer than we are today or could ever imagine. Such coercive power came later with chiefdom-level and state-level societies…and eventually when this become extremely bad, democracy arose as a corrective to it, tho it doesn’t set us anywhere near as free as those in band-level societies.

Actually all this got me to thinking about when Jesus appeared in human history. There could be many reasons & we shouldn’t 2nd guess God, but one might be that it was at a time when this executive power and imperial expansion colonialism became so strong and dire that we really needed someone to show us the right way to live and respond.

Canticle of Zechariah: He “shall set us free to set us free from the hands of our enemies, free to worship him without fear, holy and righteous in his sight all the days of our life.” And this wasn’t just about political freedom and the right to worship as we please, as Americans might have it, but spiritual and internal freedom … from the fears, worldly attachments, and evils inside us … so that we could boldly and confidently worship God, seek and find union with God.

But first is the purgation, the nada, nada, nada. As St. John of the Cross says:

To reach satisfaction in all
desire its possession in nothing.
To come to possession in all
desire the possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all
desire to be nothing.
To come to the knowledge of all
desire the knowledge of nothing.
To come to the pleasure you have not
you must go by the way in which you enjoy not.
To come to the knowledge you have not
you must go by the way in which you know not.
To come to the possession you have not
you must go by the way in which you possess not.
To come by the what you are not
you must go by a way in which you are not.
When you turn toward something
you cease to cast yourself upon the all.
For to go from all to the all
you must deny yourself of all in all.
And when you come to the possession of the all
you must possess it without wanting anything.
Because if you desire to have something in all
your treasure in God is not purely your all.

 

[lynnvinc]

There are several critical reviews of “Laudato Si” that are worthy of our consideration. One of the most recent (and I think, one of the best) is by R.R. Reno, editor of the journal “First Things.” …

I wouldn’t read anything from First Things. I read something there a few years back that was anti-environmental and CC denialist … which to me means anti-life. Not sure but maybe FT is getting money from Exxon and Koch like the Acton Institute (headed by Fr. Sirico). They are all corrupt sources of ideas and information. Neuhaus, the founder of First Things, for instance, signed the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship (an anti-environmental, anti-life wolf in sheep’s clothing developed by Sirico and his anti-environmental cronies), so he was ev-oil in following the dev-oil, whether or not he received fossil fuel funding.

EWTN is also problematic, a veritable mine-field, with anti-environmental spiels and attacks against environmentalists every now and then, having Sirico as a guest speaker now and then. I even wrote to ask if they too received money from Exxon, Koch, Peabody Coal, etc or other such sources that have vested interest in suppressing environmental measures to save lives. They wrote back they did not, and I take that at face value, bec I know there are lots of ideologues out there with no financial gain blasting environmentalism … perhaps because it would mean they too would have to change their lifestyles to reduce their harms if they accepted environmental knowledge about the harms we are causing. It would mar their goody-2-shoes image.

It was funny seeing EWTN jaws dropping when the first words of Pope Francis as pope (after asking us to pray for him) were, “We need to protect creation…” They gave some twisted interpretation that “he couldn’t have been referring to the environment…”

Anything at First Things would be some twisted interpretation of LS and not worth reading.

 

[Tomdstone]

I wouldn’t read anything from First Things. …
Anything at First Things would be some twisted interpretation of LS and not worth reading.

Yes. I was surprised to read a recent article in FT against the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

 

[zz912]

I wouldn’t read anything from First Things. I read something there a few years back that was anti-environmental and CC denialist … which to me means anti-life. Not sure but maybe FT is getting money from Exxon and Koch like the Acton Institute (headed by Fr. Sirico). They are all corrupt sources of ideas and information. Neuhaus, the founder of First Things, for instance, signed the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship (an anti-environmental, anti-life wolf in sheep’s clothing developed by Sirico and his anti-environmental cronies), so he was ev-oil in following the dev-oil, whether or not he received fossil fuel funding.

EWTN is also problematic, a veritable mine-field, with anti-environmental spiels and attacks against environmentalists every now and then, having Sirico as a guest speaker now and then. I even wrote to ask if they too received money from Exxon, Koch, Peabody Coal, etc or other such sources that have vested interest in suppressing environmental measures to save lives. They wrote back they did not, and I take that at face value, bec I know there are lots of ideologues out there with no financial gain blasting environmentalism … perhaps because it would mean they too would have to change their lifestyles to reduce their harms if they accepted environmental knowledge about the harms we are causing. It would mar their goody-2-shoes image.

It was funny seeing EWTN jaws dropping when the first words of Pope Francis as pope (after asking us to pray for him) were, “We need to protect creation…” They gave some twisted interpretation that “he couldn’t have been referring to the environment…”

Anything at First Things would be some twisted interpretation of LS and not worth reading.

It’s almost laughable how much is allowed regarding attacks on the clergy or other Catholics from the left. Accusing Fr. Sirico of being bought off, accusing EWTN of the same. All because they may disagree with your personal opinion and theology on ecological matters.

Lynn, you aren’t the Pope, nor the magisterium. Disagreeing with you is not “anti-life”, and disagreeing with your far-left opinions on the environment does not make one a bad Catholic, no matter how much you wish it were so.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s almost laughable how much is allowed regarding attacks on the clergy or other Catholics from the left. Accusing Fr. Sirico of being bought off, accusing EWTN of the same. All because they may disagree with your personal opinion and theology on ecological matters.

Lynn, you aren’t the Pope, nor the magisterium. Disagreeing with you is not “anti-life”, and disagreeing with your far-left opinions on the environment does not make one a bad Catholic, no matter how much you wish it were so.

First Things is very slanted and unfair when it comes to its recent article on Eastern Ukraine.

 

[Thomas_White]

Reno agrees with Pope Francis about both environmental problems and the problems that global capitalism present. And then he doesn’t. And why not? He says Laudato Si has no cogent theological teaching let alone a solution for both of these gigantic problems is why. Global warming is discounted but even if it were the unlikely case, global capitalism will take care of it and poverty too, Reno assures us.

“We may hold that global capitalism promotes economic development and that, in the long run, this best serves the common good. Francis thinks otherwise,” Reno writes. And of course Reno does not hold otherwise though he provides nary a clue how the common good is served when there is a vast amount of data and empirical evidence that reveals a growing devide between the Uber-Rich and everyone else. The real issue here is the bogus ‘trickle down’ that never arrives for the desperately poor (nor, as is becoming more and move evident, to the middle class either).

Reno claims that the encyclical uses McKinsey buzzwords that are designed to avoid substantive moral and metaphysical questions. He says these buzzwords represent later modernity’s desire to shape the common good without any reference to the nature of the human person, his natural ends, or natural law." It is difficult to fathom that Reno read the same Laudato Si as I did, but suffice it to say this is absolute nonsense. One can only suppose it is Reno’s belief that natural law calls for the exploitation of the environment with a vengeance. Do not take this lightly. It is a highly profitable activity. And the right has used religion to justify it.

To understand this pope, I believe one must first realize that throughout his priesthood he has firmly resisted any attempt to interpret Catholic teaching through the prism of an ideology any of sort. In the encyclical Laudato Si Pope Francis is of course critical of science and the scientific method. But not in themselves. The objection is that the amoral objectivity of science has become a cultural paradigm, a paradigm Francis also refers to as epistomological. Epistimology concerns the nature and scope of knowledge and the way belief can be objectively acquired and justified.

As many have noted, following Descartes at the end of the Scholastic period of philosophy, in the early Sixteenth Century, objectivity would become the method of science. At the same time, Immanence, in the sense of the ability of reason to know God, disappeared from philosophy as an objective category. Ethics thus became a subjective category too, with God a question of faith and belief. The Providence of man was one’s Reason alone.

In the scientific method, the subject becomes an object. But in consequence of the way ethics has become subjective, with the question of an absolute truth no longer considered, subjects in the methods of science become mere objects. When this approach becomes an epistomological paradigm, the problem ought to be obvious: humans and nature–in a paradigm void of ethics–are viewed as mere objects. The result has been the unethical manipulation and exploitation of both humans and nature. It would be very difficult to maintain this is not occurring. Reno doesn’t even try.

The ethics of an objective scientific method come into question even within scientific research itself, as occurs when living subjects become the objects of research. It at once becomes an obvious ethical issue the moment these “objects” are seen as subjects. This is lesson enough. It is reality. Both humans and nature are properly subjects and not objects to be viewed as a means to an end. Both are ends in themselves. When the objectivity of a science void of ethics becomes not only a method but also a cultural paradigm, one would think it would be obvious that there will be many adverse consequences for both humanity and nature. It would seem perplexing that there are those of an certain ideological perspective that cannot seem to grasp that the result is moral relativism and secularism. One wonders why? Think green–not of the environment but of the sort that is of convient size to fit inside a wallet.

Reno, almost inevitability, presents a straw man. And it is the conservative’s very favorite: Vatican II. Pope Francis just did not learn proper Catholic theology during his thirteen years of Jesuit formation–never mind that he is now seventy-eight years old and began his formation in the 1950’s. Reno assures his receptive readers he just didn’t, that’s all. And it is the fault of Vatican II. Just believe that too. So, Catholics must now become reconcilled to the fact that, as a result of Vatican II, no one else will receive a proper theological formation either.

Tell me how this ends.

 

[Hazen_Pingree]

I wouldn’t read anything from First Things. I read something there a few years back that was anti-environmental and CC denialist … which to me means anti-life. Not sure but maybe FT is getting money from Exxon and Koch like the Acton Institute (headed by Fr. Sirico). They are all corrupt sources of ideas and information. Neuhaus, the founder of First Things, for instance, signed the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship (an anti-environmental, anti-life wolf in sheep’s clothing developed by Sirico and his anti-environmental cronies), so he was ev-oil in following the dev-oil, whether or not he received fossil fuel funding.

EWTN is also problematic, a veritable mine-field, with anti-environmental spiels and attacks against environmentalists every now and then, having Sirico as a guest speaker now and then. I even wrote to ask if they too received money from Exxon, Koch, Peabody Coal, etc or other such sources that have vested interest in suppressing environmental measures to save lives. They wrote back they did not, and I take that at face value, bec I know there are lots of ideologues out there with no financial gain blasting environmentalism … perhaps because it would mean they too would have to change their lifestyles to reduce their harms if they accepted environmental knowledge about the harms we are causing. It would mar their goody-2-shoes image.

It was funny seeing EWTN jaws dropping when the first words of Pope Francis as pope (after asking us to pray for him) were, “We need to protect creation…” They gave some twisted interpretation that “he couldn’t have been referring to the environment…”

Anything at First Things would be some twisted interpretation of LS and not worth reading.

How very disappointing to read your reply. Your attack on both First Things as well as EWTN is uncalled for and lacking in simple charity. Similarly, your animus towards Fr. Neuhaus and Fr. Sirico very misplaced and unkind.

Fr Neuhaus was a very good man; a man who loved Christ with all his heart. A convert to the Catholic faith from Lutheranism, he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. back in the 60’s. He, along with Daniel Berrigan and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel formed Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam in protest to that war. He began changing politically following the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 (your characterization of him being anti-life is scandalous and a smear of gargantuan proportions). In 1990, he started the journal, First Things which was from its inception a publication that encouraged ecumenism and a commitment to an ethical Judeo/Christian understanding of the world. The journal often – and I mean often – would post articles by authors it’s own editorial political stance would disagree with – a very balanced approach to the great issues of our day. In 1995, Fr. Neuhaus along with Chuck Colson formed Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), a group that has done much to bridge the gap between Protestantism and Catholicism, for which they are to be commended. His personal reflections on having cancer and the process of dying (As I Lay Dying, 2003), are some of the most moving testimony on the absolute and singular necessity of relying on the mercy of Christ that I have ever read. Neuhaus was a good man. I can also say things of similar quality about Fr. Sirico. Also, for your information, EWTN has brought more people back to and into the Church than perhaps any Catholic media organization in existence – ever, your disparaging remarks notwithstanding. I dare you to find another organization of equal reach and power to evangelize.

It disturbs me to watch people smack other people and organizations around simply because they have a disagreement in politics. Your leaning on the Koch & Exon memes in your post is nothing short of partisan wall papering – talking points given to you by your masters. Surely you have thoughts of your own. Not everyone agrees with you, and you’re not always right. And, after your incontinent response, I am far more confirmed in my position than I have ever been. With proponents for your cause like yourself, who hit rather than reason, your cause is in trouble.