A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The other difference is that the Pope hasn’t proposed a world central bank.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
What I know is that the documents come from an office in the Roman Curia, not from the Pope and we are free to disagree with the document. I understand why some are concerned about the language that is being used, because people will use it to attack the Catholic Church even more. ‘Central world bank’ comes straight out of a conspiracy theory, related to the Book of Revelation. I think the document is a bit like the Pope’s comments on condoms in Light of The World, it is very nuanced and difficult for a person to understand. I think there is also a degree of discomfort that the two Cardinals who wrote the document have written a financial economic plan of sorts in the first place, when shouldn’t they be focusing on the moral and humanitarian issues.
M
MojeIme1981
Guest
I agree!
C
Chipper
Guest
Resorting to insults, has the effect of discrediting your arguments.
B
BartBurk
Guest
All of these foreign entanglements and world bodies have caused many more problems than they have solved.
B
BartBurk
Guest
I suggest this article regarding Caritas in Veritate:
takimag.com/article/truth_charity/print#axzz1bj6vCNJP
takimag.com/article/truth_charity/print#axzz1bj6vCNJP
T
TMC
Guest
I would appreciate if you would point me to the several critical facts about which I am mistaken. As for the tone of my comments, your point is taken, but when people attack the Church and its leaders in such harsh tones, I sometimes fall prey to the impulse to respond in kind. I will try to do better in the future.
T
TMC
Guest
It is not an infallible document, but the faithful are not bound to merely follow infallible decrees. It is a document that is based on the sure teaching of the Church, and it is entirely consistent with that teaching. The Church has made a statement some Catholics disagree with. That happens, but Catholics should not be reacting by saying that the authors of the work should be “fired” or otherwise suggesting that the authors have somehow done something improper. Nor should Catholics be dismissing an official Vatican publication as inconsistent with the faith or suggesting that Catholics are free to ignore it. At a minimum, the document deserves respect from Catholics, and those that think it is somehow off base may want to take some time to review the document and the body of Catholic teaching in this area and honestly assess how their own political and economic preferences fit into their faith.
T
TMC
Guest
I cannot agree that we have “many rogue cardinals, bishops and priests out there.” Even if that were true (which its not) this document would certainly not be evidence of that. It is entirely consistent with the Church’s teaching and it comes from a council that was appointed by (and reports to) the Pope. Do you think councils dash these things off in their spare time and then publish them without any review? I am sure this document was carefully vetted, as all such publications are. It is not a rogue document, the Ponitifical Council for Justice and Peace is not a rogue organization, Cardinal Turkson is not a rogue Cardinal and Bishop Toso is not a rogue bishop.
A
A_Catholic
Guest
I’m curious. Have you read the document? I have read it. I am not saying this document is “rogue.” And on its face, it does not go against church teaching. My main problem with the document is that it is dealing almost exclusively with the material problems of man and does not go into the spiritual problems which are causing this, such as corrupt governments, the spread of Communism and Socialism (both explicitly condemned by the Church), the crisis caused by the fact that probably a billion or more people have been aborted in the last 40 years through surgical and chemical means (35,000 a day in China alone) who could be contributing to the world economy. It is never acknowledged by the MSM, but one of the main reasons we do not have enough money is because we have killed so many hundreds of millions of potental tax payers and job creators. None of this is dealt with at all.
Although it is never mentioned, this document would be an argument against distributism, which is completely supported by the Church. The definition of distributism from Wikipedia: "The ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (laissez-faire capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” This document proposes giving all authority to one small group of people.
All of man’s problems are spiritual at root. This document deals almost exclusively in a material solution in proposing a supranational Authority. It mentions subsidarity, which has to do with giving authority on a local level, but then pushes a global Authority (they capitalize this througout). The only Authority I know of that can solve man’s problems comes from above.
I don’t know how this document came to be created, and I cannot judge as to the motives. Neither you nor I know if it was vetted or by whom. I just know that it scares me.
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, I have read the document.
Then what did you mean when you said “We have many rogue cardinals, bishops and priests out there”?
I agree, and would go on to say it does not go against church teaching in any way.
The Church is not merely charged with spiritual matters, but also with taking care of the material needs of all humanity. And I think the document does discuss the moral underpinnings of its suggestions. The fact that it does not discuss all the things it could have discussed does not make it somehow invalid.
I think you are completely misreading the document, which does not advocate giving a small group of people all authority over the world’s material goods. In fact, I think it supports reform of the current financial system to achieve the opposite–for example in its discussion of promoting the ethic of solidarity…
Again, I think you are misreading the document, which clearly has moral and spiritual teaching at its root.
I know enough about how the Vatican operates to be confident that this document was not the product of some unvetted rogue group. This was a major publication from a Pontifical Commission that was touted in advance by the Vatican. It would be bizarre to assume that it was not properly staffed and vetted. At a minimum, the leadership of the Church deserves enough respect that we should assume that they followed proper process in the absence of evidence otherwise.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that there are several concerns being expressed here that have rather simple answers.
Some are concerned that the Church is “meddling” in secular affairs. Observe quotation marks. The simple answer that should help this group is to go back and review world geography and international affairs. Vatican City is the homebase of the Catholic Church; but it is also a sovereign nation. All nations have the right to propose thoughts for consideration on this crisis. Freedom of speech is a right accorded to every nation, including Vatican City. If we help people remember this, it may help them understand that one need not agree with Vatican City on this anymore than one needs to agree with the USA; but we need to allow that particular nation the freedom to speak and not shoot it down, because it says something with which we disagree.
Another concern here is with the words used in the document such as “common good” or “worldwide organization” etc. Again, we need to help people understand that those terms are not unique or the monopoly of any political or economic group. Those terms have been around for centuries. In fact, the term “common good” was coined by St. Benedict 1500 years ago when he founded the first monasteries. Worldwide organization has been used to describe everything from governments to the Boy Scouts. The same for many of these other terms. Just because the curia uses the term does not make the curia part of this or that political movement.
People are concerned about some theory that they have extrapolated from the Book of Revelation about a one-world government. This is just that, an extrapolation. The Church Fathers nor the Magisterium have ever said that this is the correct interpretation to John’s visions. We need to help those who make such an extrapolation by pointing out that the Catholic Church does not give this meaning to the Book of Revelations.
For many Americans, this statement sounds contrary to our economic worldview. Again, we can and should relax with this, because we must remember that the Church has never supported every point and position of any economic worldview, Socialist or Capitalist. She has always pointed to the strengths and moral weaknesses in both systems. The truth is that both systems have strengths and weaknesses. The Church has always called men, of all worldviews, rise above the weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths.
Those who continuously say that the Church should speak only about religious themes, must be reminded that this is not part of our Catholic Tradition. That’s a very Protestant notion that the Church has no voice and should have nothing to say about the secular world affairs. Our tradition, since the time of the Apostles has always been that the Church has been very involved in the world order. Out of that concern came the development of monasteries, which gave birth to the feudal system that saved Europe. This concern for the world’s temporal needs gave rise to our schools, hospitals, science research centers, the arts, music, homes for the elderly, orphanages and worldwide organizations such as Caritas International and other Catholic charities.
When Pope Pius XII silently allowed the clergy, religious and laity break every canon law in the books to save millions of Jews, people condemned him for his silence, because they did not know that his silence was consent to the underground activity going on in the Church. When Pope Benedict XVI wrote Truth in Charity, everyone condemned him for his outspokenness. Now, a Vatican congregation, which is authorized to speak for the pope, as head of state, speaks, people want it to be quiet. Maybe we have to help people remember that the world does not have the right to dictate to the Church, the popes and to his departments when to speak and not to speak. We have a moral duty to listen. This is charity and respect. From there, we can then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, without denying the speaker’s right to speak and without being antagonistic. We don’t have to agree with the proposal, but we may not be antagonistic. We don’t get a free pass from God for going on the attack, be it an attack on Vatican City or an attack on Japan, etc. It does please God that we listen and that we dialogue. Dialogue, even when there is disagreement, is a form of unity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Some are concerned that the Church is “meddling” in secular affairs. Observe quotation marks. The simple answer that should help this group is to go back and review world geography and international affairs. Vatican City is the homebase of the Catholic Church; but it is also a sovereign nation. All nations have the right to propose thoughts for consideration on this crisis. Freedom of speech is a right accorded to every nation, including Vatican City. If we help people remember this, it may help them understand that one need not agree with Vatican City on this anymore than one needs to agree with the USA; but we need to allow that particular nation the freedom to speak and not shoot it down, because it says something with which we disagree.
Another concern here is with the words used in the document such as “common good” or “worldwide organization” etc. Again, we need to help people understand that those terms are not unique or the monopoly of any political or economic group. Those terms have been around for centuries. In fact, the term “common good” was coined by St. Benedict 1500 years ago when he founded the first monasteries. Worldwide organization has been used to describe everything from governments to the Boy Scouts. The same for many of these other terms. Just because the curia uses the term does not make the curia part of this or that political movement.
People are concerned about some theory that they have extrapolated from the Book of Revelation about a one-world government. This is just that, an extrapolation. The Church Fathers nor the Magisterium have ever said that this is the correct interpretation to John’s visions. We need to help those who make such an extrapolation by pointing out that the Catholic Church does not give this meaning to the Book of Revelations.
For many Americans, this statement sounds contrary to our economic worldview. Again, we can and should relax with this, because we must remember that the Church has never supported every point and position of any economic worldview, Socialist or Capitalist. She has always pointed to the strengths and moral weaknesses in both systems. The truth is that both systems have strengths and weaknesses. The Church has always called men, of all worldviews, rise above the weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths.
Those who continuously say that the Church should speak only about religious themes, must be reminded that this is not part of our Catholic Tradition. That’s a very Protestant notion that the Church has no voice and should have nothing to say about the secular world affairs. Our tradition, since the time of the Apostles has always been that the Church has been very involved in the world order. Out of that concern came the development of monasteries, which gave birth to the feudal system that saved Europe. This concern for the world’s temporal needs gave rise to our schools, hospitals, science research centers, the arts, music, homes for the elderly, orphanages and worldwide organizations such as Caritas International and other Catholic charities.
When Pope Pius XII silently allowed the clergy, religious and laity break every canon law in the books to save millions of Jews, people condemned him for his silence, because they did not know that his silence was consent to the underground activity going on in the Church. When Pope Benedict XVI wrote Truth in Charity, everyone condemned him for his outspokenness. Now, a Vatican congregation, which is authorized to speak for the pope, as head of state, speaks, people want it to be quiet. Maybe we have to help people remember that the world does not have the right to dictate to the Church, the popes and to his departments when to speak and not to speak. We have a moral duty to listen. This is charity and respect. From there, we can then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal, without denying the speaker’s right to speak and without being antagonistic. We don’t have to agree with the proposal, but we may not be antagonistic. We don’t get a free pass from God for going on the attack, be it an attack on Vatican City or an attack on Japan, etc. It does please God that we listen and that we dialogue. Dialogue, even when there is disagreement, is a form of unity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
BartBurk
Guest
According to the authors the report was not the Pope’s opinion.
blog.acton.org/archives/26862-vatican-releases-note-on-global-financial-reform.html
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
You are correct that “all of man’s problems are spiritual at root” … and, of course, the more we try central planning the worse conditions become for everyone … except for the central planners, who make out like bandits.
The more we get into central planning, the more it fails … and then the more the central planners get drawn into committing violence in order to force their way upon everyone else.
Soviet-style central planning failed abysmally.
And European Union-style central planning is no better.
Singaporean central planning seems to work … but it’s just a tiny city-state … and if you spit on the sidewalk, the penalty is draconian. And of course they are pretty harsh for drug-related offenses.
But basically, the more that society organizes itself along free market competitive capitalism, the better off everyone seems to be. But that means everyone has to be on their “A” game.
What soon happens is that a group seeks power in order to impose crony capitalism, crony socialism or crony tribalism.
And then everything starts to sink into oblivion.
Take a look at Zimbabwe.
S
stewstew03
Guest
That’s my conjecture as well, though I don’t have any hard evidence one way or the other. My point is that there is nothing new under the sun. The global economy is here; world bodies are involved; and the Church is right to weigh in. What’s more, the report released by PCJP has not changed the Church’s position on this issue.
T
TMC
Guest
Nor did they suggest that it was contrary to his opinion. All they said was that it was not issued as a Papal document. That does not suggest it is somehow contrary to Church teaching or that the Pope somehow disapproved of it.
C
Chipper
Guest
Agree!!
And what is even more strange this document seems to support this theory.
Quote: From “TOWARDS REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY”
“In a world on its way to rapid globalization, the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind. However, it should not be forgotten that this development, given wounded human nature, will not come about without anguish and suffering.”
Oaky, this document talks about the “COMMON GOOD” throughout. But then it says the implementation will cause “anguish and suffering”.
My questions is - who gets the anguish and suffering, and who gets the common good? Does America get the anguish and suffering, whilst Europe gets the common good?
Quote from this document"
"On the regional level, this process could begin by strengthening the existing institutions, such as the European Central Bank. "
It seems to me that this document has a lot of holes that need filling up.
A
A_Catholic
Guest
Any time you have “central planning”, putting all of the decisions into the hands of a few people, instead of spreading it out as distributism calls for, you will have oppression, because the “good of the state” will always triumph over the “good of the individual.” That is why the Catholic Church condemns socialism and communism. That is why the Church supports distributism.
And the document in question here goes completely against distributism. This document pushes the idea of an utopia world government where everyone lives in peace - essentially, the Kingdom of God without God.
From the document:
What happened to the Kingdom of God? When did we start promoting the Kingdom of Man?
- Status