Vatican Calls for Global Authority on Economy

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ridiculous. We don’t pick and choose as catholics what encyclical to accept and what not to. People on these forums are in denial that the language used in this vatican statement is verbatim from our Holy Father’s encyclical: Catholics need to calm down are read the encyclical. It states that this authority would observe consistently subsidiarity. Maybe it’s time conservative catholics spend less time listening to right-wing propaganda on the economy and spiritually and intellectually drink from the deep well of catholic social teaching.

The question that is being raised here is whether the document is a consequence of Church teaching. Any fool can claim consistency.

On the other hand, there is now good reason to suspect that the source of the recommendations are not merely the encyclical but those of Prof. Leonardo Becchett (see above).

If that is the case then Catholics have every reason to question this document and to demand an investigation of the process by which it was given whatever color of vatican authority it has assumed.

 

[Pork_Roll]

If that is the case then Catholics have every reason to question this document and to demand an investigation of the process by which it was given whatever color of vatican authority it has assumed.

Whatever the case may be, the release of this statement by the Vatican has been a disaster. Conservatives say it’s masqueraded liberation theology, liberals say this is proof the church is more progressive than Obama. I say it’s consistent with what has been clearly written in caritas in veritate.

But the fact that this has upset so many people and is causing so much confusion at the very least shows us that the church has been ineffective in teaching its social doctrine.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Whatever the case may be, the release of this statement by the Vatican has been a disaster. Conservatives say it’s masqueraded liberation theology, liberals say this is proof the church is more progressive than Obama. I say it’s consistent with what has been clearly written in caritas in veritate.

But the fact that this has upset so many people and is causing so much confusion at the very least shows us that the church has been ineffective in teaching its social doctrine.

We agree on that much.

But the most damning criticism is this: the document claims that the recommendations are the only way to solve the problems enumerated. It is not sufficient to show that the document is consistent with Catholic social teaching. Whoever wrote it will have to answer for that broad, audacious claim because, on its face, it is in direct contradiction to the principle of subsidiarity unless this group has, in fact, somehow managed to discern the one and only solution for all time to these problems. (And, if they have, they deserve a Nobel prize.)

Even if this is merely a working document intended to solicit a response and start a dialog the use of the word “only” is nothing less than a scandal. And I suspect that this, more than anything else, is what has generated the fierce reaction.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I see it this way. This is a document by a Cardinal which does not make it an official Church document. This is not an encyclical and it is not an infallible statement from the Pope by any means! Therefore, let us trust in God and wait see what the Vatican has to say about it. Remember, God is in control and the gates of Hell will NEVER prevail against the Church.

 

[Chipper]

Ridiculous. People on these forums are in denial that the language used in this vatican statement is verbatim from our Holy Father’s encyclical: .

This is a truly an amazing statement.

The writers of this Schizo white paper on Global Authority, are willing to accept the imposition of “ANGUISH AND SUFFERING”, in order to implement this Only Solution of a World Authority.

Can you show me where in the Encyclical that the Pope calls for “Anguish and suffering”, in order to implement a world Authority"???

The writers of this schizo document have signed up for the return of Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome saw fit to impose anguish and suffering, in order to implement their World Authority. They fed people to the lions, burned them alive, and tortured them.

Just how far are these folks willing to go to implement “Great anguish and suffering”, in order to establish this World Authority?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Truly amazing.

Now I can calm down finally. Just knowing that this is an attempted infestation by the commie leftwingers, and that they are being exposed, makes me that much more confident that the vatican will eventually release some important statements concerning this (as Fr z says) schizo document on global authority.

I did wonder, how could a Cardinal and an Archbishop who are not economists I don’t think, come up with such specific economic ideas, now we know Prof. Leonardo Becchett must have had influence, and as he is a socialist, we know his background and history, it is very likely the ‘central world bank’ came from him. But why was he chosen to contribute? Especially since the Popes have condemned socialism. We will probably never know.

This is being received by people as from the Vatican, when it is very likely the core ideas came from this Prof. But are conspiracy theorists going to care or do the research? Probably not.

To be honest I doubt the Vatican will release further clarification.

 

[Chipper]

To be honest I doubt the Vatican will release further clarification.

I have to diagree. It seems to me that this schizo document is attempting to feed us to the lions, where it calls for the imposition of Anguish and Suffering in order to accept this world authority.

This is so much in direct oppostion to the Popes Encyclical, that something has to be done. To let this thing float around like it is, would do great damage, to the Christian world.

I just can’t beleive that the Vatican isn’t doing something about it right now. They operate slowly, but, this is to our benefit.

 

[TMC]

I am stunned that supposedly loyal Catholics would come to a Catholic forum to accuse Cardinals and bishops of the Church of being “commie leftists”, “schizo”, “infiltrators” and so on. Maybe the proper response to a hard teaching is to reflect as to why one finds it so hard. I am not saying that good Catholics can never disagree with the Church on anything, but I am saying that it is wrong to immediately dismiss what one finds hard, and even more wrong to also react by accusing high-ranking Church officials of bad faith or ulterior motives.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

I am stunned that supposedly loyal Catholics would come to a Catholic forum to accuse Cardinals and bishops of the Church of being “commie leftists”, “schizo”, “infiltrators” and so on. Maybe the proper response to a hard teaching is to reflect as to why one finds it so hard. I am not saying that good Catholics can never disagree with the Church on anything, but I am saying that it is wrong to not only immediately dismiss what one finds hard, and even more wrong to also react by accusion high-ranking Church officials of bad faith or ulterior motives.

:clapping:

 

[Chipper]

I am stunned that supposedly loyal Catholics would come to a Catholic forum to accuse Cardinals and bishops of the Church of being “commie leftists”, “schizo”, “infiltrators” and so on. Maybe the proper response to a hard teaching is to reflect as to why one finds it so hard. I am not saying that good Catholics can never disagree with the Church on anything, but I am saying that it is wrong to immediately dismiss what one finds hard, and even more wrong to also react by accusing high-ranking Church officials of bad faith or ulterior motives.

I am not calling any Bishop any of that stuff you cited.

The only one hinted at being a commie is the Professor, not a bishop.
The document has been refereed to as Schizo by Father Z. Perhaps it is being overused. But it is the document that was referred to this way, not the bishop.

The real question is how did this guy with his credentials get to be included in this document.

 

[Holly3278]

I am stunned that supposedly loyal Catholics would come to a Catholic forum to accuse Cardinals and bishops of the Church of being “commie leftists”, “schizo”, “infiltrators” and so on. Maybe the proper response to a hard teaching is to reflect as to why one finds it so hard. I am not saying that good Catholics can never disagree with the Church on anything, but I am saying that it is wrong to immediately dismiss what one finds hard, and even more wrong to also react by accusing high-ranking Church officials of bad faith or ulterior motives.

I totally agree with you. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and especially the Pope know far more about the Pope and indeed other things than most, if not all, of us.

 

[Chipper]

I totally agree with you. Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and especially the Pope know far more about the Pope and indeed other things than most, if not all, of us.

Obviously.

So what is that they know concerning this professor who is ex member of the communist party, current socialist, anti catholic blogger, as a member/contributor of this document???

Obviously, someone knows something we don’t? But what is it?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am stunned that supposedly loyal Catholics would come to a Catholic forum to accuse Cardinals and bishops of the Church of being “commie leftists”, “schizo”, “infiltrators” and so on. Maybe the proper response to a hard teaching is to reflect as to why one finds it so hard. I am not saying that good Catholics can never disagree with the Church on anything, but I am saying that it is wrong to immediately dismiss what one finds hard, and even more wrong to also react by accusing high-ranking Church officials of bad faith or ulterior motives.

Nobody is accusing the Cardinal or Archbishop who wrote the document of being either of those, but questions surround the Prof. who was chosen to contribute. It has been found he is a socialist, and works for a paper that isn’t very friendly to Catholicism. etc. Naturally as a Catholic I find the choice of this Prof. a weird choice.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am not calling any Bishop any of that stuff you cited.

The only one hinted at being a commie is the Professor, not a bishop.
The document has been refereed to as Schizo by Father Z. Perhaps it is being overused. But it is the document that was referred to this way, not the bishop.

The real question is how did this guy with his credentials get to be included in this document.

Nobody is accusing the Cardinal or Archbishop who wrote the document of being either of those, but questions surround the Prof. who was chosen to contribute. It has been found he is a socialist, and works for a paper that isn’t very friendly to Catholicism. etc. Naturally as a Catholic I find the choice of this Prof. a weird choice.

To my mind, this is now the key question. The vatican group deliberately chose this particular professor, one would assume knowing his background and views. One would hope that they are not merely playing vatican politics. But I don’t think it is sufficient to fob this off on the professor. Those who invited him in and joined his views to theirs share responsibility.

The more I reflect on this the less comfortable I am with the idea that this was merely an invitation to a dialog by a low level vatican group. The wording of the document doesn’t fit that view.

 

[A_Catholic]

Thanks so much for the link! I have bookmarked it

(Father Z’s blog, that is)

Father Z’s blog is a MUST read every day. He is a straight ahead, orthodox priest intensely loyal to the Church. They don’t come much better than him.

 

[A_Catholic]

To my mind, this is now the key question. The vatican group deliberately chose this particular professor, one would assume knowing his background and views. One would hope that they are not merely playing vatican politics. But I don’t think it is sufficient to fob this off on the professor. Those who invited him in and joined his views to theirs share responsibility.

The more I reflect on this the less comfortable I am with the idea that this was merely an invitation to a dialog by a low level vatican group. The wording of the document doesn’t fit that view.

Remember what the Holy Father said upon being elected pope: "“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.” He wasn’t talking about only outside forces. We must pray for the Holy Father and the Church always.

 

[Chipper]

Father Z’s blog is a MUST read every day. He is a straight ahead, orthodox priest intensely loyal to the Church. They don’t come much better than him.

I totally agree. I read his blogs quite often - and often thank the Lord that he has a blog.

 

[TMC]

I am not calling any Bishop any of that stuff you cited.

The only one hinted at being a commie is the Professor, not a bishop.
The document has been refereed to as Schizo by Father Z. Perhaps it is being overused. But it is the document that was referred to this way, not the bishop.

The real question is how did this guy with his credentials get to be included in this document.

The document was signed by a Cardinal and a bishop, and issued by a Pontifical Council that includes seven Cardinals and seven bishops. It is their work that is being called “schizo” and “an attempted infestation by the commie leftwingers.” You cannot defame the work of these successors to the apostles with those terms and seriously contend that doing so does not defame them as well.

I fully expect that the Pope will make some reference to this document in the coming days or weeks. I am confident it will be a positive reference, as the document is completely consistent with Pope Benedict’s past statements and with the Church’s teachings.

 

[Chipper]

The more I reflect on this the less comfortable I am with the idea that this was merely an invitation to a dialog by a low level vatican group. The wording of the document doesn’t fit that view.

Buba don’t get me wrong with what I am about to say, I do fully appreciate your posts.

But it seems to me that with the Vatican being incharge of 1.2 billion people,- well -, it’s easy for me to see how mistakes can be made. Of course, assuming this Global Authority thinga-ma-jig is a mistake, or oversight.

However, I am not necessarily in complete disagreement with you either. I am anxiously awaiting for some more news from the Vatican on this subject. Until then I will argue until I am blue in the face with those here who support this strange document.

 

[Chipper]

completely consistent with Pope Benedict’s past statements and with the Church’s teachings.

Please exlain to me how a Call to Anguish and suffering, in order to establish a World Authority, is consistent with Pope Bendict.

Please explain to me how a single beneficiary (European Central Bank) as cited in this document is consitent with the Pope’s past statement.