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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or "socialism."This appears to bolster my claim that it’s the atheism and dictatorships within socialism that are being targeted, and not socialism per se.
Click to expand...
…You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

Surely these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, “Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.”[2] They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is “the root of all evils which some coveting have erred from the faith,”[3] they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life. These are the startling theories they utter in their meetings, set forth in their pamphlets, and scatter abroad in a cloud of journals and tracts. Wherefore, the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns.
  1. But the boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit. For you know, venerable brethren, that that most deadly war which from the sixteenth century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith, and which has grown in intensity up to today, had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone. This kind of error, which falsely usurps to itself the name of reason, as it lures and whets the natural appetite that is in man of excelling, and gives loose rein to unlawful desires of every kind, has easily penetrated not only the minds of a great multitude of men but to a wide extent civil society, also. Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the Iyceums and gymnasia – in a word, from every public institution. In fine, the rewards and punishments of a future and eternal life having been handed over to oblivion, the ardent desire of happiness has been limited to the bounds of the present. Such doctrines as these having been scattered far and wide, so great a license of thought and action having sprung up on all sides, **it is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich; it is no matter for surprise that already there exists no sense of security either in public or private life, and that the human race should have advanced to the very verge of final dissolution. **
- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism), 1878
​
Robert, it sounds to me that the Magisterium condemns the very thought of Socialism. The problem with Socialism is that it is, at its core, utterly materialistic.
 
seaton2005 said:
It’s all a matter of your personal lens. There are some good things about socialism, and good things (probably a few more) about capitalism. Just as the reverse is also true.
Click to expand...
There is one good way where the basic concept of community of goods in a society can work (not I am not calling it “socialism”) – and that is where all members of that society participate in that community voluntarily…and are afforded the opportunity to leave that community voluntarily.

Where we see this is with religious communities.

Even then, they all, to one degree or another, depend upon alms from outside of their community for at least a portion of their sustenance. And those alms come from people who have the opportunity to acquire private property.

If all of society was forced into this mold – particularly with no possible means of leaving that type of living (either voluntarily or by being expelled), then that society would, inevitably, end up dying as a result of entropy.
 
markomalley said:
…You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

Surely these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, “Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.”[2] They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life. They refuse obedience to the higher powers, to whom, according to the admonition of the Apostle, every soul ought to be subject, and who derive the right of governing from God; and they proclaim the absolute equality of all men in rights and duties. They debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is “the root of all evils which some coveting have erred from the faith,”[3] they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life. These are the startling theories they utter in their meetings, set forth in their pamphlets, and scatter abroad in a cloud of journals and tracts. Wherefore, the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns.
  1. But the boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit. For you know, venerable brethren, that that most deadly war which from the sixteenth century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith, and which has grown in intensity up to today, had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone. This kind of error, which falsely usurps to itself the name of reason, as it lures and whets the natural appetite that is in man of excelling, and gives loose rein to unlawful desires of every kind, has easily penetrated not only the minds of a great multitude of men but to a wide extent civil society, also. Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the Iyceums and gymnasia – in a word, from every public institution. In fine, the rewards and punishments of a future and eternal life having been handed over to oblivion, the ardent desire of happiness has been limited to the bounds of the present. Such doctrines as these having been scattered far and wide, so great a license of thought and action having sprung up on all sides, **it is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich; it is no matter for surprise that already there exists no sense of security either in public or private life, and that the human race should have advanced to the very verge of final dissolution. **
- Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism), 1878
​
Robert, it sounds to me that the Magisterium condemns the very thought of Socialism. The problem with Socialism is that it is, at its core, utterly materialistic.
Click to expand...
Why is the CCC so precise to state that it’s totalitarianism and atheism that are really to be condemned? I go with the CCC and contend that not all forms of socialism are evil.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Why is the CCC so precise to state that it’s totalitarianism and atheism that are really to be condemned? I go with the CCC and contend that not all forms of socialism are evil.
Click to expand...
Except, the Catechism does not stated this. There is no word “really” which you inserted. The Catechism does condemn totalitarianism and atheism but it does not condone either capitalism or socialism in that passage. Therefore, there is no conflict with the words of Pope Leo XIII. You are not choosing the catechism over Pope Leo. You are choosing the catechism on one point and rejecting Pope Leo on another, or you would be if you believe pure socialism is acceptable.
 
pnewton said:
Except, the Catechism does not stated this. There is no word “really” which you inserted. The Catechism does condemn totalitarianism and atheism but it does not condone either capitalism or socialism in that passage. Therefore, there is no conflict with the words of Pope Leo XIII. You are not choosing the catechism over Pope Leo. You are choosing the catechism on one point and rejecting Pope Leo on another, or you would be if you believe pure socialism is acceptable.
Click to expand...
I’m a psychologist, not an economist. From my perspective, I believe that the world will become socialistic. Also as a psychologist, I see certain forms of socialism as being much more congruent with humanitarianism and LOVE.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Do you agree with Bill Gates’ assertions? This is what the thread was supposed to be about.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that Bill Gates is a role model for philanthropy, given he is still the second richest man on Earth with $58 billion. It seems as if he has raided his penny jar for his work on poverty.

If Bill gave away $57 billion, that would be the same as fifty seven million people giving a thousand dollars each, and he would still be left with a billion, we don’t want to leave him in poverty.

Justice for the third world is at the heart of the Gospel.

Blessings

Eric
 
tabycat said:
Last time I checked Bill Gates was was both ‘obscently rich’ and far right. I could name others that are overly rich and far left. Can you name at least one on the right that is both overly rich and far right? 🙂
Click to expand...
Koch brothers, that is two.
 
Pure capitalism sounds good in principle. Then there’s the ugly underside of human greed…
 
EIF5A said:
Pure capitalism sounds good in principle. Then there’s the ugly underside of human greed…
Click to expand...
People are fallen. Each and every one of us.

As a consequence, most people will always try to gain some sort of advantage over their peers. That’s just human nature (granted, some of us over time have, granted, been given the grace to be liberated from that…but that’s only some). And those who are not cunning enough will end up experiencing some sort of envy…maybe not personal envy…maybe class envy…but envy and jealousy nevertheless.

The trouble is that these tendencies occur with both Fascist/Socialist economic models as well as with free market economies.

When you go to a vegetable market (like a farmer’s market)…prices are constrained. Why? Because there are multiple farmers there trying to sell their crops. When you go to a car dealership, prices are constrained because there are multiple car dealerships from multiple manufacturers. Same thing with most commodities you seek to buy.

In a pure free market system, you bargain: the price tag is a mere starting point for negotiations. The buyer tries to get a better price than what you should; the seller tries to get more than what is just – in the end, you meet somewhere in the middle and that is generally more-or-less a fair price.

The problem comes in when competition is removed: either through government-owned production and marketing (i.e., socialism), through monopolies or oligarchies that can function as a cartel, setting prices on their own, or through a cartel of private businesses where production and pricing is regulated by the government (fascism)

The problem is that people still have their fallen nature. They will still seek advantage over each other. Perhaps it is not in terms of money…but if not money, directly…then it will be in terms of power and privilege.

And that’s where we end up with the real danger behind socialism / fascism / communism: they will tightly regulate the external forum with a view of controlling the internal forum. But the internal forum can’t be regulated by men. (if you’re not familiar with the terms “external forum” and “internal forum”, I suggest you look them up).

And while they attempt to control the internal forum of the proletariat through the idea of thought crime, you still have the privileged elite that pull the strings.

(Note: if you want to talk about doing something to break up cartels and eliminating corporatism in favor of increased markets, rather than just changing who pulls the strings…I’ll be right there with you)
 
Robert_Sock said:
If there was ample love, poverty would be eliminated.
Click to expand...
OK, Robert, why don’t you develop your thought into something more than a catch phrase or a television commercial?

After all, 9 out of the top 10 states for charitable giving (as a proportion of income) vote Republican. And, oh, by the way, that was reported in the HuffPo…not some conservative rag. So, by that measure, it would seem that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats.

But I don’t think that’s probably what you mean.

So rather than giving us a cutesy little picture and a catch phrase, why don’t you develop your idea and let us know what you really want.
 
markomalley said:
OK, Robert, why don’t you develop your thought into something more than a catch phrase or a television commercial?

After all, 9 out of the top 10 states for charitable giving (as a proportion of income) vote Republican. And, oh, by the way, that was reported in the HuffPo…not some conservative rag. So, by that measure, it would seem that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats.

But I don’t think that’s probably what you mean.

So rather than giving us a cutesy little picture and a catch phrase, why don’t you develop your idea and let us know what you really want.
Click to expand...
It’s easy. Jesus commanded us to LOVE, but there is not enough of Christ-like love in the world, even in Christianity. We would care for the people we love. To establish worldwide love, we must adapt political and economic systems that breed love.
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s easy. Jesus commanded us to LOVE, but there is not enough of Christ-like love in the world, even in Christianity. We would care for the people we love. To establish worldwide love, we must adapt political and economic systems that breed love.
Click to expand...
OK, you’re still talking sound bytes here, Robert.

What would you do. Spell it out!
 
markomalley said:
OK, you’re still talking sound bytes here, Robert.

What would you do. Spell it out!
Click to expand...
I’m anything but an economist or political scientist, so I cannot say too much about them, but I’m Catholic psychologist and I can therefore point to shortcomings in the current economic system, namely a lack of Christian love. How to induce caring love is really a psychological issue and professional people from different disciplines must work together to solve the problem. First and foremost, though, Christian love needs to be cultivated worldwide.
 
The essential problem with capitalism - and what I think this article is addressing - are what’s called “barriers to entry.” A barrier to entry is anything that prevents someone from entering into and competing in a free market economy.

Obviously not all barriers to entry are necessarily bad. I don’t think it’s a problem that I can’t start up my own fine jewelry company because I don’t have the money. I can still participate in the economy.

But other things can be significant problems. Medical care is a good example. I’ve had health problems to the point where I couldn’t work. If I hadn’t had a family to help out this could have been a real problem. I couldn’t obtain capital because I couldn’t work, and thus couldn’t pay for medical care. This means that, by myself, I was effectively unable to enter into the free market system. I wanted to work, but was unable to until after receiving medical care for a couple of months.

We generally think that intervention of some sort in these areas is a good thing - I mean in the basic sense, that we should help out people who can’t pay their own medical bills because they aren’t able to work. Things like food and water are also in this category, where people can’t perform work due to starvation.

Other things can also be an issue, depending on the region of the country. For third-world countries, this may mean things like the ability to invest enough money in seeds and farming equipment. In modern America it might mean access to things like clothing of a certain standard (to wear to interviews), or to a phone line to stay in contact with potential employers.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I’m anything but an economist or political scientist, so I cannot say too much about them, but I’m Catholic psychologist and I can therefore point to shortcomings in the current economic system, namely a lack of Christian love. How to induce caring love is really a psychological issue and professional people from different disciplines must work together to solve the problem. First and foremost, though, Christian love needs to be cultivated worldwide.
Click to expand...
I am officially confused here, Robert.

Anything I contribute is unacceptable, yet when I ask you for what your ideas are, you don’t have any?

You say that our current economic system is lacking in Christian love (An assertion with which, by the way, I actually agree)…but you are unable or unwilling to speculate what a system that does have Christian love would look like? (You’ve already ruled out atheistic communist / socialist examples)

I don’t even know what to say at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top