Top 5 Lame Excuses Not to Support Extreme-Poverty Alleviation Work

[Robert_Sock]

Is that love? Force is love? God commands us to voluntarily help the poor. How would you correct the disparity between the rich and poor? By forcibly taking from one and giving to another? By taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive? You see to know very little about what the Church teaches on these concepts.

When a young child refuses to share with other children, a teacher or parent is likely to intervene and insist that greedy child share. Likewise with God. When He sees injustices and unloving people, God often demands the same.

Well, again, the Church disagrees with you. You really need to read Rerum Nevoram. The Church absolutely believes in the right of private property, and in that encyclical Pope Leo states that private property rights are God-given and in accordance with natural law. Depriving man of his private property rights violates natural law.

Do you see that quote from Pope Leo I posted about those who think they can design a society that promotes love and justice?

Yes, I saw what you quoted, and I take it to heart, but I think I see conflicts between what Pope Leo is saying and the teachings of the Gospels. Again, Christ commands virtues such as LOVE, justice and sacrifice, with no mention of private property and other capitalistic values. Perhaps designing a society of increased LOVE and justice will prove impossible, but I think we’re commanded by Christ to try!

Pope Francis is most concerned with poverty. It will be interesting to see his views on capitalism, if he ever shares this with us.

LOVE!

 

[markomalley]

Yes, I saw what you quoted, and I take it to heart, but I think I see conflicts between what Pope Leo is saying and the teachings of the Gospels.

How do you reconcile your views that Leo was in conflict with the Gospel (I assume talking about Rerum Novarum) and John XXIII’s view:

Hence, the Leonine encyclical is rightly regarded, even today, as the Magna Charta (9) of social and economic reconstruction

- Encyclical Mater et Magistra.
​

Or what Pope Pius XII called, *The Magna Charta of Christian Social Ethics *(Radio Message for Pentecost, 1941)

You claim to be really into putting the gospel into practice in society. Rerum Novarum is universally considered to be the foundation of all Catholic Social Teaching.

But you, Robert, say that it conflicts with the Gospel.

Perhaps you’d care to provide an exact citation from Rerum Novarum and compare it to an exact citation from the Gospels to, like, back up your allegation. Otherwise, perhaps, you’d be wise to withdraw your allegation.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How do you reconcile your views that Leo was in conflict with the Gospel (I assume talking about Rerum Novarum) and John XXIII’s view:

Hence, the Leonine encyclical is rightly regarded, even today, as the Magna Charta (9) of social and economic reconstruction

- Encyclical Mater et Magistra.
​

Or what Pope Pius XII called, *The Magna Charta of Christian Social Ethics *(Radio Message for Pentecost, 1941)

You claim to be really into putting the gospel into practice in society. Rerum Novarum is universally considered to be the foundation of all Catholic Social Teaching.

But you, Robert, say that it conflicts with the Gospel.

Perhaps you’d care to provide an exact citation from Rerum Novarum and compare it to an exact citation from the Gospels to, like, back up your allegation. Otherwise, perhaps, you’d be wise to withdraw your allegation.

I would like to see how the Gospels were included as in past popes’ conceptualizations of capitalism and socialism. I’m not really trying to cram this down anybodies’ throat, but presenting my thoughts, and the conflicts within my head, within CAF. I’m troubled by the inconsistency that exists between the teachings of the Church and what I have come to believe. I keep the inconsistencies in my head, make a note of them, and move on with life trusting that God will eventually provide me the spiritual insight necessary to know the truth. Until this time, I suffer with a certain cognitive dissonance.

 

[markomalley]

I would like to see how the Gospels were included as in past popes’ conceptualizations of capitalism and socialism. I’m not really trying to cram this down anybodies’ throat, but presenting my thoughts, and the conflicts within my head, within CAF. I’m troubled by the inconsistency that exists between the teachings of the Church and what I have come to believe. I keep the inconsistencies in my head, make a note of them, and move on with life trusting that God will eventually provide me the spiritual insight necessary to know the truth. Until this time, I suffer with a certain cognitive dissonance.

Robert, if you are a research psychologist by trade, you are fully smart enough to read some of these documents and compare them to what you know in the Bible.

For example, in this document, Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII made the following statement:

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.

Where is this contradicted in Scripture?

Honestly, taking time to read them and then finding where Scripture supports or opposes the statements would be really good topics for some threads in the Social Justice forum.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, if you are a research psychologist by trade, you are fully smart enough to read some of these documents and compare them to what you know in the Bible.

For example, in this document, Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII made the following statement:

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.

Where is this contradicted in Scripture?

Honestly, taking time to read them and then finding where Scripture supports or opposes the statements would be really good topics for some threads in the Social Justice forum.

In respect to what I have highlighted, it sure sounds like stereotyping on the part of Pope Leo XIII. That rest of what you have quoted sounds like personal opinion, with nothing to back himself up.

LOVE!

 

[markomalley]

In respect to what I have highlighted, it sure sounds like stereotyping on the part of Pope Leo XIII. That rest of what you have quoted sounds like personal opinion, with nothing to back himself up.

LOVE!

But you aren’t able to cite some Scripture that indicates where he’s wrong?

 

[Sarcelle]

I sometimes get the impression these threads are more about politics than helping the poor. I know I have sometimes said conservatives put party over principles in the past, but in this area, I think it is the* anti*-conservatives that put ideology over charity. One does not need to help promote abortion or contraceptives to also help the poor. I think it should be taken for granted that Catholics here are doing what they are called to do in response to the poor. Those that aren’t, then simply exhort them of our duty to God. There is no need for accusations and holding one’s own programs and priorities as superior.

This.

 

[Robert_Sock]

But you aren’t able to cite some Scripture that indicates where he’s wrong?

This is true. But it’s so hard for me to comprehend how Pope Leo’s conclusions are Bible based.

LOVE!

 

[markomalley]

This is true. But it’s so hard for me to comprehend how Pope Leo’s conclusions are Bible based.

LOVE!

Consider this, Robert, very carefully – particularly the bolded text below:Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

(snip)

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

(snip)

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
The term “college of bishops” is defined as follows:Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.
In other words, the term “college of bishops” is talking about the world’s bishops, acting together…

The reason I bring this up, Robert, is that both you and I as Catholics are required to submit our intellects and wills to the teachings of the Magisterium, even when those teachings are not proposed as “infallible” teachings (as a note, Rerum Novarum does not contain “infallible” language).

You should think about that when you discount the words written by a pope…particularly when those words have been referenced so many times by subsequent popes. According to Canon Law, you are obliged to consider them…

That’s the reason I asked you for some Scripture that contradicts Leo’s words.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Consider this, Robert, very carefully – particularly the bolded text below:Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

(snip)

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

(snip)

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
The term “college of bishops” is defined as follows:Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer the universal Church.

Can. 337 §1. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.
In other words, the term “college of bishops” is talking about the world’s bishops, acting together…

The reason I bring this up, Robert, is that both you and I as Catholics are required to submit our intellects and wills to the teachings of the Magisterium, even when those teachings are not proposed as “infallible” teachings (as a note, Rerum Novarum does not contain “infallible” language).

You should think about that when you discount the words written by a pope…particularly when those words have been referenced so many times by subsequent popes. According to Canon Law, you are obliged to consider them…

That’s the reason I asked you for some Scripture that contradicts Leo’s words.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut! This is turning into an education for me.

Will there be private property in the World-to-Come? I doubt it, but if it’s such a God given right, why not? In any event, I’m really like a monk or hermit, and I can avoid this conflict, I think, by becoming a contemplative and not worry myself with these sorts of issues.

I’m still wondering why the wording of the CCC is what it is. I believe it, and I’m in complete agreement with it. Are we not obligated to believe it? What are we supposed to do when it conflicts with the teachings of past popes? It seems that we must either twist what it actually says, or twist what past popes have had to say. Do you see any contradiction between the CCC’s teaching of socialism and that of the past popes?

LOVE!

 

[markomalley]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut! This is turning into an education for me.

Will there be private property in the World-to-Come? I doubt it, but if it’s such a God given right, why not? In any event, I’m really like a monk or hermit, and I can avoid this conflict, I think, by becoming a contemplative and not worry myself with these sorts of issues.

I’m still wondering why the wording of the CCC is what it is. I believe it, and I’m in complete agreement with it. Are we not obligated to believe it? What are we supposed to do when it conflicts with the teachings of past popes? It seems that we must either twist what it actually says, or twist what past popes have had to say. Do you see any contradiction between the CCC’s teaching of socialism and that of the past popes?

LOVE!

The CCC is completely valid. The trouble is that you are making the logical error of affirming the consequent.

The relevant part of the CCC states: 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

Yes, the Church rejects totalitarian and atheistic ideologies…

Yes, the Church rejects “communism” and “socialism.”

But you are interpreting it incorrectly, as if it actually said, “The Church has rejected “communism” and “socialism” because of the associated totalitarian and atheistic ideologies.”

The argument you are using is: “if a → b; b; therefore, a” – and that’s just plain incorrect logic (nowhere in the initial assertion does it exclude the possibilities of c->b or d->b)

As for if there will be private property in the world-to-come, I don’t know (honestly). Consider this:

[bibledrb]John 14:2[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Thes 2:19[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]2 Tim 4:8[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]James 1:12[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Pet 5:4[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Rev 2:10[/bibledrb]

Is the mansion going to be our own little parcel given to us or will we just live there? Will we own the crowns given us? Who knows?

But more importantly, will there be “need” in the world to come or “scarcity” in the world to come? Also, will the stain of original sin exist in the world to come? I don’t believe that any of the three will exist in the world to come. So I don’t think a lot of that is going to really matter much.

 

[Tigg]

I take your post to heart, and maybe socialism is evil in all its forms, but I still do not see it this way.

In any event, we need to alleviate extreme poverty, and I do not think a capitalistic world will cater to the needs at hand. Socialism seems the better alternative to me since it can more easily create a society that cares about the needy.

There you go again, Robert. Did you actually mean to write the word “cares?” Do you sincerely think a political system can socially engineer people so that they become morally upright? A coercive government that forces wealth distribution and takes away individual liberty is completely antithetical to the message of Christ. We care about the needy because we wish to follow the commandments of the Son of God WHOM we love. The State is not our God - and there is no virtue or spiritual merit in doing that which we have no choice but to do.

I believe socialism is just better suited to promote humanitarian values. I foresee a world where deeper meanings of LOVE are planted in society.

Please think about your comment in light of the Christian faith. Only the Divine Lord can implant “meanings “ of love into society. Only He can teach us how to love and promote justice, and I repeat……the State is not our God and neither is any human individual(s) capable of helping us achieve this love you are speaking of……it only can come from the deep conviction to live our lives as Christ taught.

 

[Robert_Sock]

There you go again, Robert. Did you actually mean to write the word “cares?” Do you sincerely think a political system can socially engineer people so that they become morally upright? A coercive government that forces wealth distribution and takes away individual liberty is completely antithetical to the message of Christ. We care about the needy because we wish to follow the commandments of the Son of God WHOM we love. The State is not our God - and there is no virtue or spiritual merit in doing that which we have no choice but to do.

I think it’s a fact that the mass media can implant love and caring into society. I doubt that many social psychologists would believe otherwise.

Please think about your comment in light of the Christian faith. Only the Divine Lord can implant “meanings “ of love into society. Only He can teach us how to love and promote justice, and I repeat……the State is not our God and neither is any human individual(s) capable of helping us achieve this love you are speaking of……it only can come from the deep conviction to live our lives as Christ taught.

If parents can implant meanings of love into a child’s environment, why would not the mass media’s be able to implant love into society? Again, social psychologists know fully well how to do this.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The CCC is completely valid. The trouble is that you are making the logical error of affirming the consequent.

The relevant part of the CCC states: 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.”

Yes, the Church rejects totalitarian and atheistic ideologies…

Yes, the Church rejects “communism” and “socialism.”

But you are interpreting it incorrectly, as if it actually said, “The Church has rejected “communism” and “socialism” because of the associated totalitarian and atheistic ideologies.”

The argument you are using is: “if a → b; b; therefore, a” – and that’s just plain incorrect logic (nowhere in the initial assertion does it exclude the possibilities of c->b or d->b)

As for if there will be private property in the world-to-come, I don’t know (honestly). Consider this:

[bibledrb]John 14:2[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Thes 2:19[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]2 Tim 4:8[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]James 1:12[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Pet 5:4[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Rev 2:10[/bibledrb]

Is the mansion going to be our own little parcel given to us or will we just live there? Will we own the crowns given us? Who knows?

But more importantly, will there be “need” in the world to come or “scarcity” in the world to come? Also, will the stain of original sin exist in the world to come? I don’t believe that any of the three will exist in the world to come. So I don’t think a lot of that is going to really matter much.

Thanks! Yes, I’m taking what you say to heart.

 

[Tigg]

I think it’s a fact that the mass media can implant love and caring into society. I doubt that many social psychologists would believe otherwise.

There’s nothing more to say then, if you believe that distortion, cover-ups and deceptions serve the moral interests of the common person. There is no longer any journalistic integrity and the State sponsored mass media manipulates public opinion. Psychological suggestion will not bring me salvation so I will just follow Christ and let Him show me how to love.

 

[Robert_Sock]

There’s nothing more to say then, if you believe that distortion, cover-ups and deceptions serve the moral interests of the common person. There is no longer any journalistic integrity and the State sponsored mass media manipulates public opinion. Psychological suggestion will not bring me salvation so I will just follow Christ and let Him show me how to love.

Following Christ and having Him teach of LOVE is the much preferred way of learning, but there are still over seven billion other people out there who need to also learn of LOVE!.

LOVE!

 

[TypesAndShadows]

As was noted in our parish bulletin, advertising Cafod “Lent Fast Day” this coming Friday, “1 in 8 of us will go to bed hungry tonight”.

I see the Cafod website has a nice section explaining Catholic social teaching in this area:

CST is founded in scripture and includes statements and letters written by popes and bishops. It shows how Catholic faith can guide our responses to modern day issues.

Our world so often seems ruled by greed and corruption. But CST undermines self-interest. Gaudium et Spes #69 states that “God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples…goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.” In even more strident terms, it reminds us to “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him”. We have a clear duty actively to share resources and strive for justice for our brothers and sisters. Neutrality is not enough.

Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio quotes St Ambrose: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his…The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich."

This vision is key to CST and to our work. Since we believe each person is made in the image and likeness of God and has inherent dignity, we work with those living in poverty to have access to food, water, housing and other basic amenities which many of us can often take for granted.

cafod.org.uk/About-Us/CAFOD-Catholicism

 

[Robert_Sock]

As was noted in our parish bulletin, advertising Cafod “Lent Fast Day” this coming Friday, “1 in 8 of us will go to bed hungry tonight”.

I see the Cafod website has a nice section explaining Catholic social teaching in this area:

cafod.org.uk/About-Us/CAFOD-Catholicism

Wow, that is a nice site!

 

[freeRadical]

In respect to what I have highlighted, it sure sounds like stereotyping on the part of Pope Leo XIII. That rest of what you have quoted sounds like personal opinion, with nothing to back himself up.

LOVE!

Wait a sec. Was Pope Leo not the Vicar of Christ? Was he not guided by the Holy Spirit? Are you saying Pope Leo was wrong?

 

[jimmy]

Perhaps because the very far right may not care about easing poverty at all? Or are concerned about chasing the almighty dollar and profit for those already obscently rich that that could likely be their primary raisond’etre.

And the left is only concerned with killing babies. So on the one hand we have greed, on the other murder.