R
Robert_Sock
Guest
What Pope Leo presented was not based on infallibility. Yes, he could be wrong.
And I never said that he was wrong, but that what he said sounded like it was based on stereotypes.
Top 5 Lame Excuses Not to Support Extreme-Poverty Alleviation Work
- Status
And I never said that he was wrong, but that what he said sounded like it was based on stereotypes.
F
freeRadical
Guest
I guess if Pope Leo could be wrong, that means all the Popes could be wrong, including Pope Francis’ critiques on Capitalism. He wasn’t speaking infallibly then either.
The Church has never taken an official stance on economic or political systems. They have wisely said that it is out of their domain and their time is better spent on guiding Catholics on faith and morals. However, the Church has officially condemned both Socialism and Communism explicitly. And they have stated that a free market, free enterprise, economic freedom and private property rights are in line with Catholic teaching.
The Catechism is based on the teachings of the Magisterium, including the writings of the Popes. If the Catechism is based on the writings of the Popes, and you just claimed the Popes could be wrong, couldn’t we reasonably conclude that the Catechism is wrong? It seems to me that you just want to pick and choose those writings that support your views and ignore those writings that conflict with your views, even going so far as to conclude that the Popes could be wrong.
It is the height of hubris to conclude that the Popes are wrong just because they don’t support your views. You should assume you are wrong and the church, including the Popes, are right.
Catholics should submit themselves to the authority of the Church.
M
markomalley
Guest
Robert, I would really like you to take a look at Canon 752, which I posted here in post #129.
Rerum Novarum is part of the authentic Magisterium of the Church. Although not needed to cite it as part of the authentic Magisterium, a really good confirmation of this fact is that each and every Pope after Leo XIII, including Francis, has cited it as such in their official writings.
So this Canon 752 states that you are required to submit to this teaching with religious submission of your intellect and will.
This is different than if Pope Benedict would have come out and said, “Vote for Obama” or “Vote for Romney” (I put both here so as to keep this apolitical). Or if the Pope was to say that he believes the Juventus football team was going to win the cup this year. Those are not statements on doctrine and morals.
Rerum Novarum is a statement presented on doctrine and morals and it is presented in a formal fashion. You can’t simply dismiss it as you are doing because it doesn’t agree with your ideology.
As Pope Francis [said](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/And when a Christian becomes a disciple of ideology, they have lost the faith: they are no more a disciple of Jesus, they are a disciple of this attitude of thought, of thisâ¦â And for this reason Jesus says to them: âYou have taken away the key of knowledgeâ.) a few months ago,
And when a Christian becomes a disciple of ideology, they have lost the faith: they are no more a disciple of Jesus, they are a disciple of this attitude of thought, of this…” And for this reason Jesus says to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge’.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
It does seem that I’m at odds with Catholic teachings, and I’m bothered. I’m seriously considering moving away from these controversies by becoming a strict contemplative. But I honestly do see socialism as being preferable to capitalism in its ability to promote LOVE and social justice. (I still see the CCC’s teaching on socialism to state only that totalitarianism and atheism to be evil). Will God condemn me for seeing this seemingly obvious fact? Its social policy aside, I’m in 100% in agreement with the Church and all things Biblical. I’m still dumbfounded why the popes did not clarify their reasoning for condemning socialism. I see them as partly to blame for my plight.
M
markomalley
Guest
Robert, I understand what you are saying and I do agree that we should all live in love.
If you take a look at the Book of Acts, you can see the following very powerful passage:
[bibledrb]Acts 4:33-35[/bibledrb]
There are a couple of very powerful things to consider here:
- The people did so voluntarily, without compulsion. They did not have IRS agents holding guns to their heads or putting property liens on their houses. Their properties were not confiscated. They voluntarily gave them.
- The people gave their material wealth not to the government at the time but to the apostles (in modern day, we’d say that they gave their property to the bishops) and then the apostles (bishops) distributed that property as people had need.
- All of society was not yet impacted by these unselfish acts…just the relatively small number of Christians that existed shortly after the Day of Pentecost.
Take a look, now, at this passage attributed to St John Chrysostom (a bishop of Constantinople in the 5th Century):
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
If you want to read it yourself, you can get this book, On Living Simply. It’s about $10.
I think we both want the same thing in the end. I believe that peoples’ hearts need to be changed for there to be any authentic justice and solidarity. If I read you correctly, you believe that love can be forced and that justice and solidarity can be imposed from on high.
But I think we both want the same in the end…just radically different ways for people to get from point “A” to point “B”.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
No, I never meant to infer that LOVE be forced on somebody, but I feel it’s perfectly legit to implant the deeper meaning of LOVE into the mass media, and let people decide for themselves. I believe that it’s perfectly natural for people to embrace LOVE. Not only do I predict this as actually happening, but I feel that loving people will naturally gravitate towards socialism sometime in the near future.
I helped analyze data on parenting styles on the emotional wellbeing in children; loving, empathic parents produced the best results! Authoritarian parenting, on the other hand, produced the worst results. Teaching children to be empathic, from within experimental classrooms, had positive effects. The mass media could focus on creating empathic, loving citizens. The best place to promote LOVE is from within the Catholic Church, but for others, the mass media approach to empathy and LOVE makes perfect sense.
F
freeRadical
Guest
I think you are heading down a dangerous road Robert. You admit that what you believe is at odds with Church teaching but you still think you’re right? You should assume that you are wrong and the Church is right, and submit yourself to the authority of the Church. Socialism does not promote love and justice, the Church and the Popes both say this. You are 100% in agreement with the Church, except when it comes to their social policy? You can’t pick and choose what you believe, this isn’t a buffet. You are either 100% in agreement with the Church or 0%. You know what the Bible says about lukewarm Christians right?
Did you ever read Rerum Novarum? Pope Leo specifically states why Socialism is at odd with Catholic teaching.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Thanks, but no, I NEVER quite said that I was at odds, but that it would seem that I was at odds. Big difference if you really think about it; at least I expected that my comment would convey a certain element of doubt.
I’m personally very disappointed by what Pope Leo said in that I would have loved for him to have reference LOVE, which is by far the most commonly mentioned value in the NT. I’m honestly confused by what he said, and I honestly doubt that there is anything in Rerum Novarum that would counteract my confusion.
LOVE!
F
freeRadical
Guest
Maybe if you read it then you would understand why Pope Leo wrote what he wrote. He explicitly and specifically states, in Rerum Novarum, why Socialism is at odds with Catholic teaching. It’s the very goals and principles of Socialism, and the means by which these goals are achieved, that are in conflict with Catholic teaching.Thanks, but no, I NEVER quite said that I was at odds, but that it would seem that I was at odds. Big difference if you really think about it; at least I expected that my comment would convey a certain element of doubt.
I’m personally very disappointed by what Pope Leo said in that I would have loved for him to have reference LOVE, which is by far the most commonly mentioned value in the NT. I’m honestly confused by what he said, and I honestly doubt that there is anything in Rerum Novarum that would counteract my confusion.
LOVE!
M
markomalley
Guest
Regarding the bolded text above…au contraire!Thanks, but no, I NEVER quite said that I was at odds, but that it would seem that I was at odds. Big difference if you really think about it; at least I expected that my comment would convey a certain element of doubt.
I’m personally very disappointed by what Pope Leo said in that I would have loved for him to have reference LOVE, which is by far the most commonly mentioned value in the NT. I’m honestly confused by what he said, and I honestly doubt that there is anything in Rerum Novarum that would counteract my confusion.
LOVE!
It would have been nice had you actually read the encyclical prior to criticizing it:
30 Thus, by degrees, came into existence the patrimony which the Church has guarded with religious care as the inheritance of the poor. Nay, in order to spare them the shame of begging, the Church has provided aid for the needy. The common Mother of rich and poor has aroused everywhere the heroism of charity, and has established congregations of religious and many other useful institutions for help and mercy, so that hardly any kind of suffering could exist which was not afforded relief. At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State. But no human expedients will ever make up for the devotedness and self-sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.
(charity, as you know, Robert, is the English rendering for the Greek word ἀγάπη (love))
61. And further great advantage would result from the state of things We are describing; there would exist so much more ground for hope, and likelihood, even, of recalling to a sense of their duty those working men who have either given up their faith altogether, or whose lives are at variance with its precepts. Such men feel in most cases that they have been fooled by empty promises and deceived by false pretexts. They cannot but perceive that their grasping employers too often treat them with great inhumanity and hardly care for them outside the profit their labor brings; and if they belong to any union, it is probably one in which there exists, instead of charity and love, that intestine strife which ever accompanies poverty when unresigned and unsustained by religion. Broken in spirit and worn down in body, how many of them would gladly free themselves from such galling bondage! But human respect, or the dread of starvation, makes them tremble to take the step. To such as these Catholic associations are of incalculable service, by helping them out of their difficulties, inviting them to companionship and receiving the returning wanderers to a haven where they may securely find repose.
(snip)
- In regard to the Church, her cooperation will never be found lacking, be the time or the occasion what it may; and she will intervene with all the greater effect in proportion as her liberty of action is the more unfettered. Let this be carefully taken to heart by those whose office it is to safeguard the public welfare. Every minister of holy religion must bring to the struggle the full energy of his mind and all his power of endurance. Moved by your authority, venerable brethren, and quickened by your example, they should never cease to urge upon men of every class, upon the high-placed as well as the lowly, the Gospel doctrines of Christian life; by every means in their power they must strive to secure the good of the people; and above all must earnestly cherish in themselves, and try to arouse in others, charity, the mistress and the queen of virtues. For, the happy results we all long for must be chiefly brought about by the plenteous outpouring of charity; of that true Christian ** charity **which is the fulfilling of the whole Gospel law, which is always ready to sacrifice itself for others’ sake, and is man’s surest antidote against worldly pride and immoderate love of self; that **charity **whose office is described and whose Godlike features are outlined by the Apostle St. Paul in these words: "Charity is patient, is kind, . . . seeketh not her own, . . . suffereth all things, . . . endureth all things.’’[41]
Just sayin…
S
St_Francis
Guest
Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are putting the cart before the horse. Socialism is condemned by the Chirch because it takes the fruits of men’s labor–in essence, socialism makes slaves of those in such a system.
A state such as you envision will not increase love; love could cause a situation similar to that to arise. In other words, I think that we cannot focus on increasing government involvement in alleviating human problems and expect an increase in love, we shouod instead focus on converting people’s *hearts, *turning their hearts towards God, and then people will start helping others more.
T
TARRAT
Guest
Because poverty is the norm in places without free enterprise. And with all of Bill Gates largesse there is still poverty everywhere.
- Status