Should the re-distrubution of wealth and power be worldwide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Sock

Guest
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
 
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
source? I don’t think the Church advocates either world-wide shared power or centralized re-distribution of wealth. :eek:
 
source? I don’t think the Church advocates either world-wide shared power or centralized re-distribution of wealth. :eek:
Can’t find the source but the thesis was the Vatican’s considerations toward a true world bank.
 
With effort and cooperation of nations, we can eliminate world hunger while gaining the meaningful employment of of workers through training and education.
 
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
This is not Distributism. In fact, it’s the antithesis of it. What you are talking about is a redistribution of wealth. And no, I’m not in favor of it. It’s been tried in Russia and China and elsewhere and produced nothing but more poverty because it doesn’t raise others up to the level of the wealthy but lowers everyone down to the level of the least productive. Hardly a sound method of improving the lot of the poor.

Rather, the poor need job education and aid to get businesses and farms going. I think idealistic, arm chair economist ought to leave business to those who understand it instead of trying to shoehorn their favorite isms onto and into it. People forget that it is the wealthy who maintain businesses and buy goods and services from ordinary working people who depend on their custom. Simply giving away money won’t solve a thing. Within a few months the poor would be right back in the same old situation even if all the money of all the wealthy in the world were given to them.
 
This is not Distributism. In fact, it’s the antithesis of it. What you are talking about is a redistribution of wealth. And no, I’m not in favor of it. It’s been tried in Russia and China and elsewhere and produced nothing but more poverty because it doesn’t raise others up to the level of the wealthy but lowers everyone down to the level of the least productive. Hardly a sound method of improving the lot of the poor.

Rather, the poor need job education and aid to get businesses and farms going. I think idealistic, arm chair economist ought to leave business to those who understand it instead of trying to shoehorn their favorite isms onto and into it. People forget that it is the wealthy who maintain businesses and buy goods and services from ordinary working people who depend on their custom. Simply giving away money won’t solve a thing. Within a few months the poor would be right back in the same old situation even if all the money of all the wealthy in the world were given to them.
This last part shows the problem with just redistributing wealth without creating a just economy. It would alleviate the problem on a very temporary basis and might lead to other economic issues we cannot predict in the effort of those few who own the vast majority of industries, land, etc. to regain that wealth.
 
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
Distributionism is NOT re-distribution.
 
newsmax.com/Newsfront/vatican-economic-authority-pope/2011/10/24/id/415466

It’s written by a Vatican official, not by the Pope himself.
Cardinal Peter Turkson and Archbishop Toso authored the document, Prof. Leonardo Becchett also contributed.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf says on the document:
I’ll quote what I said on COL. Trust me this is another “Fisichella” scandal.
Even though it’s not about abortion: it’s not as if liberty and private property are not rather important inalienable rights of man.
“A socialist economist, a left-wing “Catholic” who’s extremely active with the Democrat Party (formerly known as Partito Comunista Italiano, here’s is profile on the website of the party and other socialist organizations. He even has a blog
on the website of the ultra-secularist paper “La Repubblica” which leads the charge against the Catholic Church every time the occasion presents itself. I guarantee you that loyal Catholics – and competent economists – don’t get to spread the truth through blogs on La Repubblica’s website.

Among other things this guy formed a lobby to request the EU to levy crazy taxes on financial transactions which will destroy whatever is left of available capitals, especially for small businesses and small investors, with a trickle-down effect that will further damage an economy brought to collapse by socialist greed for power, money and control.

So basically a Vatican dicastery helped a socialist ideologue to advance his agenda with the imprimatur of the Holy See (obviously he is the ghost writer of the part on financial transactions).

The writings of this guy are quoted by all Marxist organs and groups. Here is an example taken by a blog of a local group of the Italian “Democratic Left for European Socialism”. I guarantee you these people HATE the Church and of course liberty and property. They are part of a left-wing coalition led by “Niki” Vendola, a militant homosexualist of the former Communist Party.”

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/10/more-about-the-white-paper-from-the-pontifical-council-for-justice-and-peace

Just How “Major” Was Monday’s Finance Document?
“Major” is a relative term, and while it might be accurate to say that the document was “major” by the lights of the PCJP, it was not major in the overall Vatican sweep of things. The mere fact that it’s being issued by the PCJP tells you that much.
That’s no slight to the PCJP. It is a dicastery (department) of the Holy See, with its own proper work and role. It’s just not a venue the pope uses to issue major documents, when “major” is read in terms of the Vatican as a whole.
stated:

The truth of the matter is that “the Vatican” — whether that phrase is intended to mean the Pope, the Holy See, the Church’s teaching authority, or the Church’s central structures of governance — called for precisely nothing in this document. The document is a “Note” from a rather small office in the Roman Curia.

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote:

Every once in a while the Holy See’s smaller offices, Pontifical Councils and so forth, have to put out a paper to justify their budgets and remind everyone that they take up valuable space. These documents, which do not form part of the Holy Father’s Magisterium, can deal with critical issues like how to be a safe driver. The dicasteries keep busy by hosting seminars on how to play sport and so forth.

Mark Brumley states:

Even though Catholics are not obliged to accept the policy proposals of this “note,” many Catholics will nevertheless want to hear what the council says, and others are likely to be influenced by it, even though it does not represent “the Vatican’s position” (contrary to what some media accounts and some leftwing Catholics would lead you to believe).

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/just-how-major-was-mondays-finance-document
 
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
:eek: This was a statement that was issued by a department in the Vatican but was later rescinded because it was not ‘approved’.
You do realise that many say a one world bank is the a sign of the end of times because of the mark of the beast needed to be able to buy anything. Revelation v 16 ,17
 
Let me re-phrase the question. How many people would be willing for the US to sacrifice some of its power and wealthy to promote the end to hunger and homelessness? I. for one, would.
 
Let me re-phrase the question. How many people would be willing for the US to sacrifice some of its power and wealthy to promote the end to hunger and homelessness? I. for one, would.
Sure, lets say all the major powers take all the resources used for military power and use it for peace instead. Instead of MAD (mutual assured destruction) lets have MAP (mutual assured peace). 🙂
 
People mostly would think of Distributionism from within a national sphere, but with the collapse of the economy, recovery may need the forming of an international monetary system, with one true World Bank. I believe this part of the Papal vision for world justice.
This is not the plan of the Catholic Church. It is** Satan’s plan. **

The Catholic Encyclopedia identifies the following respects in which socialism conflicts with Catholic teaching:
  1. Socialism is materialistic. “Socialism appropriates all human desires and centers them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction.”
  2. Socialism is deterministic. “Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. … Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline [the individual’s] interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur Socialist opposition.”
  3. Because of 2, socialism is hostile to the Church and the family. “Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d’etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. … The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly parental.”
4. Socialism conflicts with the natural law regarding private property. "If man, [according to Aquinas], has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it."

In other words: “It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender.”
  1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that** no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. **The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.
Bl. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 1961
 
Let me re-phrase the question. How many people would be willing for the US to sacrifice some of its power and wealthy to promote the end to hunger and homelessness? I. for one, would.
How much?

For example,I am an engineer. For the past several years, I have gone to western Tanzania to do volunteer engineering work, helping the local bishop build churches, hosptials and schools, and to put computers into those schools. I have been doing this on my vacation time and on my own dime.

The average income for a family there is about $500 a year and almost everyone I work with there live in mud brick huts. ( the bishop’s house, where I stay, was concrete at least with a concrete floor and a real steel roof. That was luxury)

How much of your income will you personally give to them?

PM me, I can put you in touch with the bishop there and he can give you the bank code to transfer the funds.
 
How much?

For example,I am an engineer. For the past several years, I have gone to western Tanzania to do volunteer engineering work, helping the local bishop build churches, hosptials and schools, and to put computers into those schools. I have been doing this on my vacation time and on my own dime.

The average income for a family there is about $500 a year and almost everyone I work with there live in mud brick huts. ( the bishop’s house, where I stay, was concrete at least with a concrete floor and a real steel roof. That was luxury)

How much of your income will you personally give to them?

PM me, I can put you in touch with the bishop there and he can give you the bank code to transfer the funds.
I would feel obligated and would donate as much as able (if I knew for sure it was working). This would really separate those who LOVE God and those that don’t.
 
With effort and cooperation of nations, we can eliminate world hunger while gaining the meaningful employment of of workers through training and education.
I guess you do not remember President Johnson’s War on Poverty. It It was a grand expensive failure, just like all socialist programs to eliminate poverty.
 
I would feel obligated and would donate as much as able (if I knew for sure it was working). This would really separate those who LOVE God and those that don’t.
You cannot say that providing money is a proof that one loves God. God does not need money, the money is for other humans. They are well off people who for some reason cannot give to a cause at a given time for any number a reason, do those people love God any less?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top