Pope's Message for Summit of the Americas

[MarcoPolo]

Pope Francis: *I am convinced – and I expressed so in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium – that inequity, the unjust distribution of riches and resources, is the source of conflicts and violence between peoples, because it implies that the progress of some is built with the necessary sacrifice of others that, to be able to live worthily, need to fight against the others (Cf. 52, 54). Wellbeing achieved this way is unjust at its roots and attempts against the dignity of persons. There are “goods of first necessity,” such as the earth, work and house, and “public services,” such as health, education, security, the environment, from which no human being should remain excluded.*Full article at Zenit

 

[ringil]

I love this stuff!!

Go Pope Francis!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

I wonder if it’s a translation issue that results in him saying no human being should be excluded from the environment. I’m not sure that’s possible…

 

[Ricky_C]

From what I’m seeing, he’s saying that the idea of an economic system where success is achieved through sacrificing others is harmful and wrong; it’s a big reason why capitalism isn’t too great as an economic system.
Looking only at its economic aspects, communism is more moral than capitalism, because with a communist economic system, everybody would be economic equals and you wouldn’t have a lower class; poverty would be solved. The two issues are figuring out how to run it (because dictatorships in communism have resulted in loss of people’s rights) and how to motivate people (since there’s no motivation for people to work harder).
I don’t think that capitalism is morally wrong, though; I think that a capitalist country can function, and that there’s some capability for us to be moral in handling it, but communism eliminates the idea of sacrificing others for personal gain, which would leave many unfortunate people better off.

The First Reading this past Sunday talks about how the disciples lived together, and it seems to show similar ideas: “There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.” (Acts 4:34-35) Any other thoughts?

 

[7_Sorrows]

I thought the Catholic church does not support communism or marxism.

 

[Inisfallen]

I thought the Catholic church does not support communism or marxism.

It doesn’t. And nothing the Pope said is Marxist, or Communist.

Wasn’t it some South American bishop who said something like “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why they’re poor, they call me a Communist”?

 

[7_Sorrows]

It doesn’t. And nothing the Pope said is Marxist, or Communist.

Wasn’t it some South American bishop who said something like “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why they’re poor, they call me a Communist”?

I didn’t say the Pope did. I thought you were defending communism.

 

[Ricky_C]

Did a quick Google search, and the Catechism says this about communism and the like:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The Catholic stance against communism/socialism comes from the idea of “regulating the economy solely by centralized planning”. I suppose, then, that what I’m talking about isn’t necessarily communism or socialism, because what I’m thinking of is an economy that is run by nobody; everybody gets their share of whatever there is, kind of like in the verses I cited from Acts. Maybe that’d be some form of anarchy?

 

[mikekle]

Did a quick Google search, and the Catechism says this about communism and the like:

The Catholic stance against communism/socialism comes from the idea of “regulating the economy solely by centralized planning”. I suppose, then, that what I’m talking about isn’t necessarily communism or socialism, because what I’m thinking of is an economy that is run by nobody; everybody gets their share of whatever there is, kind of like in the verses I cited from Acts. Maybe that’d be some form of anarchy?

Well, the US is pretty much acting as a socialist nation, I never hear anyone speak out against it at my parish, seems like alot of people are quite content under this system actually, so what does this mean?

 

[Ricky_C]

Well, the US is pretty much acting as a socialist nation, I never hear anyone speak out against it at my parish, seems like alot of people are quite content under this system actually, so what does this mean?

The US economic system isn’t socialist, it’s capitalist; if it were socialist, there wouldn’t be a market economy where we’re free to start businesses and all that. But your point does still stand in that the US has a capitalist system that both the Catechism and Pope Francis speak against (with Pope Francis going more into the aspect of people ruining others to boost themselves in the economy). What do we do?
The country runs under a virtual democracy; what happens in our laws is a result of a majority opinion, but the majority isn’t always correct. The idea that capitalism is supposedly good is an example of this. The question, then, is this: do we have to live in a capitalist system even if we don’t believe it is morally good? I’d say yes:

“They brought the coin, and he asked them, ‘Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.’ And they were amazed at him.” (Mark 12:16-18 NIV)

This verse applied to the tax, of course, but the tax was a structure within the same kind of economic system as we have today. Maybe there’s another side to that argument I’m not seeing, but that’s what I think.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The US economic system isn’t socialist, it’s capitalist; if it were socialist, there wouldn’t be a market economy where we’re free to start businesses and all that.

By this definition, the US is far more socialist today than it was 8 years ago when many more businesses could go about their business without federal damnation.

 

[Ricky_C]

By this definition, the US is far more socialist today than it was 8 years ago when many more businesses could go about their business without federal damnation.

That’s a good point, at least in terms of the US politically. The abuse of business does show a tendency toward government control of business (which is key to the political part of socialism), but I don’t think we’re gonna become socialist anytime soon, because the economy isn’t heading that way.

There are two aspects to how a nation runs: political and economic. In terms of political systems, there is a leaning toward socialism in the US, because the regulation is being abused to control business. But even socialist governments can abuse regulation; that central planning is why socialism as a political concept is immoral, as stated in the Catechism. Socialist and communist countries abuse their people by taking away their rights, but that’s due to the political aspect, not the economic aspect.
The economic side of the US is far from socialist; economically, socialism completely eliminates the poverty gap, but in the US, the upper class abuses their power and squashes the lower class, making the poverty gap wider. In terms of economy, we’re not going toward socialism.

It’s ironic; the politics of capitalism are better than the politics of socialism, and the economics of socialism are better than the economics of capitalism, but the US is going towards the negative aspect of each one.