PDA

View Full Version : Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth




Pages : [1] 2

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 02:13 PM
Thou Shalt Not Steal...always seems to fall by the wayside, no?

And the fact that nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than a robust, thriving, free market economy?

I guess that's lost as well.




Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth

Pontiff's first major publication calls on global leaders to guarantee work, education and healthcare

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny

Pope Francis has attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny", urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality in the first major work he has authored alone as pontiff.

The 84-page document, known as an apostolic exhortation, amounted to an official platform for his papacy, building on views he has aired in sermons and remarks since he became the first non-European pontiff in 1,300 years in March.

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticising the global economic system, attacking the "idolatry of money" and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and healthcare".

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"

The pope said renewal of the church could not be put off and the Vatican and its entrenched hierarchy "also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion".

"I prefer a church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security," he wrote.

In July, Francis finished an encyclical begun by Pope Benedict but he made clear that it was largely the work of his predecessor, who resigned in February.

Called Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), the exhortation is presented in Francis's simple and warm preaching style, distinct from the more academic writings of former popes, and stresses the church's central mission of preaching "the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ".

In it, he reiterated earlier statements that the church cannot ordain women or accept abortion. The male-only priesthood, he said, "is not a question open to discussion" but women must have more influence in church leadership.

A meditation on how to revitalise a church suffering from encroaching secularisation in western countries, the exhortation echoed the missionary zeal more often heard from the evangelical Protestants who have won over many disaffected Catholics in the pope's native Latin America.

In it, economic inequality features as one of the issues Francis is most concerned about. The 76-year-old pontiff calls for an overhaul of the financial system and warns that unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence.

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.

Denying this was simple populism, he called for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality" and added: "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor."

Since his election, Francis has set an example for austerity in the church, living in a Vatican guest house rather than the ornate Apostolic Palace, travelling in a Ford Focus, and last month suspending a bishop who spent millions of euros on his luxurious residence.

He chose to be called Francis after the medieval Italian saint of the same name famed for choosing a life of poverty.

Stressing co-operation among religions, Francis quoted the late Pope John Paul II's idea that the papacy might be reshaped to promote closer ties with other Christian churches and noted lessons Rome could learn from the Orthodox church such as "synodality" or decentralised leadership.

He praised co-operation with Jews and Muslims and urged Islamic countries to guarantee their Christian minorities the same religious freedom as Muslims enjoy in the west.

Ronin Truth
11-26-2013, 02:18 PM
Maybe he's just talking to and about the limousine liberal billionaire hypocrites. ;)

shane77m
11-26-2013, 02:28 PM
Thou Shalt Not Steal...always seems to fall by the wayside, no?

Maybe it got thrown out the window with the part about idols.

Philhelm
11-26-2013, 02:28 PM
Arch-Bastard of Canterbury. That's all I have to say.

amy31416
11-26-2013, 02:50 PM
I also urge the wealthy to share--by giving people a job.

Jesus was that "teach a man to fish" fellow, wasn't he?

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 02:53 PM
I also urge the wealthy to share--by giving people a job.

Jesus was that "teach a man to fish" fellow, wasn't he?

Yeah, that was him.

I'm sure he'd approve of these guys showing up to collect the "fair share" owed by "the rich".

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/photo31.jpg

erowe1
11-26-2013, 02:55 PM
What is he actually calling for in public policy?

Tywysog Cymru
11-26-2013, 02:58 PM
What is he actually calling for in public policy?

He wouldn't be the first Pope to do so.

erowe1
11-26-2013, 03:02 PM
He wouldn't be the first Pope to do so.

To do what?

Dr.3D
11-26-2013, 03:06 PM
Maybe he should start out by liquidating most of the riches the Vatican holds and giving the proceeds to the poor.

EBounding
11-26-2013, 03:07 PM
"unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence."

And violently redistributing wealth leads to....?

Lucille
11-26-2013, 03:08 PM
Great. The Pope doesn't know the difference between capitalism and fascism either.

Dr.3D
11-26-2013, 03:10 PM
Great. The Pope doesn't know the difference between capitalism and fascism either.
Perhaps he thinks forced charity is really charity.

dinosaur
11-26-2013, 03:11 PM
What is he actually calling for in public policy?

I don't know. Forced welfare or true charity? JPII certainly had a few statements that could be interpreted as either also. The church condemns the ideology of socialism and certain aspects of capitalism as well, so it is highly unlikely that he has gone rouge and is advocating force.

CCC 2425

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

dinosaur
11-26-2013, 03:12 PM
Perhaps he thinks forced charity is really charity.

doubtful

erowe1
11-26-2013, 03:14 PM
Notice that the words "unfettered capitalism" in the article are not part of a quote from the Pope.

Notice also that, as far as I can tell, he never specifically calls for any kind of coercive redistribution of wealth. His only mention of welfare is calling for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality."

If that 84-page document actually called for any public policies in terms that were specific enough for anyone from any political persuasion possibly to disagree, then this article did a rotten job of reporting on that.

Ender
11-26-2013, 03:17 PM
Great. The Pope doesn't know the difference between capitalism and fascism either.

Actually in the crony capitalism of today there isn't a difference.

I believe Pope Francis to be a good man. I do not believe he is talking about force but about giving of one's own accord.

And Jesus never said: "Teach a man to fish....."

This saying was coined by Anne Isabella Thackeray Ritchie (1837–1919) in her novel, Mrs. Dymond (1885):

"I don't suppose even Caron could tell you the difference between material and spiritual," said Max, shrugging his shoulders. "He certainly doesn't practise his precepts, but I suppose the Patron meant that if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn. But these very elementary principles are apt to clash with the leisure of the cultivated classes. Will Mr. Bagginal now produce his ticket—the result of favour and the unjust sub-division of spiritual environments?" said Du Parc, with a smile.

Some think its a Chinese proverb but there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

Cleaner44
11-26-2013, 03:17 PM
Shall we assume the Pope will be having a massive garage sale?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/badcatholic/files/2012/09/doing-it-wrong-pope.jpeg

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/23723vatwealth.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/wp-content/blogs.dir/470/files/2012/04/i-8007d533ad9054f6c43844156964c62e-vatican.jpg

Some pigs are more equal than others.

EBounding
11-26-2013, 03:21 PM
Notice that the words "unfettered capitalism" in the article are not part of a quote from the Pope.

Notice also that, as far as I can tell, he never specifically calls for any kind of coercive redistribution of wealth. His only mention of welfare is calling for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality."

If that 84-page document actually called for any public policies in terms that were specific enough for anyone from any political persuasion possibly to disagree, then this article did a rotten job of reporting on that.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#SOME_CHALLENGES_OF_TODAY%E2%80%99S _WORLD


While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions.

juleswin
11-26-2013, 03:21 PM
To do what?

Philanthropy, charity, sharing all virtues am down with just like nobody tries to use forces to push it. They can use shame but no guns.

Brian4Liberty
11-26-2013, 03:22 PM
There is only one Commandment: "Greed is good".

Lucille
11-26-2013, 03:25 PM
Actually in the crony capitalism of today there isn't a difference.

There is a difference, but go ahead and let the progs define what it means, so they can more easily blame and destroy the idea of free enterprise when their filthy fascist system comes crashing down.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
- Samuel Adams

erowe1
11-26-2013, 03:27 PM
Philanthropy, charity, sharing all virtues am down with just like nobody tries to use forces to push it. They can use shame but no guns.

When I said, "To do what?" that was in response to tywysog.

Ender
11-26-2013, 03:27 PM
Shall we assume the Pope will be having a massive garage sale?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/badcatholic/files/2012/09/doing-it-wrong-pope.jpeg

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/23723vatwealth.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/wp-content/blogs.dir/470/files/2012/04/i-8007d533ad9054f6c43844156964c62e-vatican.jpg

Some pigs are more equal than others.

Pope Francis is under a V of P and lived under it in South America. Some actually chastised him because he lived under the vow so diligently in Argentina.

He did not choose to be Pope but because he is, he is responsible for the belongings of the Catholic Church- BUT HE is still under the Vow.


Throughout his life, both as an individual and as a religious leader, Bergoglio has been noted for his humility, his concern for the poor, and his commitment to dialogue as a way to build bridges between people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and faiths. He is known for having a simpler and less formal approach to the papacy, most notably by choosing to reside in the Domus Sanctae Marthae guesthouse rather than the papal apartments of the Apostolic Palace formerly used by his predecessors. In addition, he is known for favoring simpler vestments void of ornamentation, by starting to refuse the traditional papal mozzetta cape upon his election and choosing silver instead of gold for both his piscatory ring and pectoral cross.[7][8]

erowe1
11-26-2013, 03:28 PM
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#SOME_CHALLENGES_OF_TODAY%E2%80%99S _WORLD

That's helpful. But it's still just a vague generality.

Cleaner44
11-26-2013, 03:30 PM
Multiple choice...

The Vatican has assets of approximately:

$8 Million
$80 Million
$800 Million
$8 Billion

Ender
11-26-2013, 03:32 PM
There is a difference, but go ahead and let the progs define what it means, so they can more easily blame and destroy the idea of free enterprise when their filthy fascist system comes crashing down.

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
- Samuel Adams

Please tell me you know the difference between "crony capitalism" which is mercantilism and the reason we fought the Revolutionary War, and REAL capitalism.

Dr.3D
11-26-2013, 03:38 PM
Multiple choice...

The Vatican has assets of approximately:

$8 Million
$80 Million
$800 Million
$8 Billion

None of the above.

Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html

erowe1
11-26-2013, 03:42 PM
None of the above.

They are very stingy with their property too, even severely limiting scholarly access to antiquities that are of immense value for study.

Every state and institution with antiquities is very careful with them. But the Vatican has a reputation of being orders of magnitude more unreasonable than anyone else.

Ronin Truth
11-26-2013, 03:44 PM
Maybe he should start out by liquidating most of the riches the Vatican holds and giving the proceeds to the poor. BINGO! Teach by example!

Cleaner44
11-26-2013, 03:44 PM
Pope Francis is under a V of P and lived under it in South America. Some actually chastised him because he lived under the vow so diligently in Argentina.

He did not choose to be Pope but because he is, he is responsible for the belongings of the Catholic Church- BUT HE is still under the Vow.

God bless Pope Francis for being a frugal example. Now where do I send my email to him requesting my share of the Vatican wealth? One simple gold goblet is all that I ask.

pcosmar
11-26-2013, 03:56 PM
Anyone surprised that a Jesuit would be pushing socialism,, has not been paying attention.

Lucille
11-26-2013, 03:57 PM
Please tell me you know the difference between "crony capitalism" which is mercantilism and the reason we fought the Revolutionary War, and REAL capitalism.

What makes you think I don't know what it means, Ender? What I take exception to is the term "crony capitalism." Isn't there enough negative association with the word "capitalism" already what with the statists blaming the "free market" for the failure of their fascist system?

Call the system we have mercantilism, corporatism, or fascism. Why smear capitalism? Adding crony to it still drags "capitalism" through the mud.

And please take a row of seats. You're the one who said there's no difference between capitalism and crony capitalism, actually.


Actually in the crony capitalism of today there isn't a difference.

pcosmar
11-26-2013, 03:57 PM
They are very stingy with their property too, even severely limiting scholarly access to antiquities that are of immense value for study.

Every state and institution with antiquities is very careful with them. But the Vatican has a reputation of being orders of magnitude more unreasonable than anyone else.

Perhaps they have more to hide.

Ronin Truth
11-26-2013, 04:03 PM
What makes you think I don't know what it means, Ender? What I take exception to is the term "crony capitalism." Isn't there enough negative association with the word "capitalism" already what with the statists blaming the "free market" for the failure of their fascist system?

Call the system we have mercantilism, corporatism, or fascism. Why smear capitalism? Adding crony to it still drags "capitalism" through the mud.

Sorry, adding crony to it deserves to be dragged through the mud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

Dr.3D
11-26-2013, 04:12 PM
They are very stingy with their property too, even severely limiting scholarly access to antiquities that are of immense value for study.

Every state and institution with antiquities is very careful with them. But the Vatican has a reputation of being orders of magnitude more unreasonable than anyone else.
To make matters worse, that was a 1965 estimate.

In 1965, Time Magazine reported that the Vatican had assets worth in excess of $10 billion, or ($73 billion inflated to 2013 values [2]), including $1.6 billion in shares of stock, or 15% of the value of all shares listed on the Italian stock exchange at the time.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vatican

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 04:14 PM
What makes you think I don't know what it means, Ender? What I take exception to is the term "crony capitalism." Isn't there enough negative association with the word "capitalism" already what with the statists blaming the "free market" for the failure of their fascist system?

Call the system we have mercantilism, corporatism, or fascism. Why smear capitalism? Adding crony to it still drags "capitalism" through the mud.

And please take a row of seats. You're the one who said there's no difference between capitalism and crony capitalism, actually.That term was coined by Marx to smear laissez-faire economists to begin with.

per wiki:


Capitalism is an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) in which trade, industry and the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)) in amarket economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-2) Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation), competitive markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_(economics)) and wage labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labor).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-3) In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-4)
The degree of competition, role of intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interventionism) and regulation, and scope of public ownership varies across different models of capitalism.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-Modern_Economics_1986.2C_p._54-5) Economists, political economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy), and historians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) have taken different perspectives in their analysis of capitalism and recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) capitalism, welfare capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism) and state capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism); each highlighting varying degrees of dependency on markets, public ownership, and inclusion of social policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy). The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy). Many states have what are termed capitalist mixed economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy), referring to a mix between planned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) and market-driven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) elements.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-Stilwell-6) A pejorative characterization, crony capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism), refers to a state of affairs in which insider corruption, nepotism and cartels dominate the system. This is considered to be the normal state of mature capitalism in Marxian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics).

MelissaWV
11-26-2013, 04:22 PM
"unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence."

And violently redistributing wealth leads to....?

To be very technical, violent redistribution still results in unequal distribution --- even far more than would occur naturally.

Communism is an appealing concept to small children who are learning that "sharing is caring," but the easiest way to shatter that early on is to point out that in order for everyone to have "the same amount" you have to have people oversee that everyone has the same amount. People who want to have twice what their neighbor has, need only bribe a few people into allotting them thrice what their neighbor has, so that they net 2x their neighbor's worth in the end. In the meantime, the few people who are getting bribed become richer and richer, allowing them to bribe and attain power on their own. Communism, in practice, results in long bread lines and a large pool of serfs, a political and military class making a small fortune off of hush money, and a ruling class that knows it's better to look the other way and play their part than to agitate both the military and the serfs by letting the secret out.

So I would agree that the unequal distribution of wealth DOES inevitably lead to violence, but so does birth, sex, eating, breathing, and drinking (anything, including water). It is how one reacts to the violence that matters. Rules are not a good reaction.

Ender
11-26-2013, 04:31 PM
What makes you think I don't know what it means, Ender? What I take exception to is the term "crony capitalism." Isn't there enough negative association with the word "capitalism" already what with the statists blaming the "free market" for the failure of their fascist system?

Call the system we have mercantilism, corporatism, or fascism. Why smear capitalism? Adding crony to it still drags "capitalism" through the mud.

And please take a row of seats. You're the one who said there's no difference between capitalism and crony capitalism, actually.

No, I did not. I was referring to your statement:


Originally Posted by Lucille
Great. The Pope doesn't know the difference between capitalism and fascism either.

....and saying that there is little difference between fascism and crony capitalism.

I agree about smearing the word capitalism with titles such as crony capitalism and I understand 1000% what real capitalism is. In fact I teach it- However, the world is filled with people who use the term "crony capitalism" and there's not much anyone can do about it except teach what real capitalism is.

Also- I am also under a V of P and I respect the Pope; I believe he comes from a background of sincere poverty and wants to help the poor of the world. I do not think he understands what real capitalism is, any more than the rest of the world and I do not believe he is implying force.

ZenBowman
11-26-2013, 04:42 PM
Nowhere does he imply force, rather he pleads to people not to make money the sole object of their life, and more importantly to show COMPASSION to the poor.

This is in perfectly in line with Christian teachings, if you find this offensive, chances are you are not a Christian.

It is sad that when someone makes a perfectly valid criticism, there is such a knee-jerk politically correct reaction, especially on this board.

If someone sees inequality as a problem, it doesn't mean they see government force as the solution.

TheTyke
11-26-2013, 04:50 PM
Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion.

Which is less than Goldman-Sachs got in one bailout, and not that much for an entire city and universal organization, especially considering they've been around for two thousand years. Especially when TRILLIONS are being bandied about by the real earthly powers. In fact, this pope has been a critic of central banks too. Other targets make a lot more sense.

The media constantly twists what the Pope says to fit its own agenda. I would take "WOW - The Pope said THIS" articles with a huge grain of salt.

Dr.3D
11-26-2013, 04:54 PM
Which is less than Goldman-Sachs got in one bailout, and not that much for an entire city and universal organization, especially considering they've been around for two thousand years. Especially when TRILLIONS are being bandied about by the real earthly powers. In fact, this pope has been a critic of central banks too. Other targets make a lot more sense.

The media constantly twists what the Pope says to fit its own agenda. I would take "WOW - The Pope said THIS" articles with a huge grain of salt.

That was a 1965 estimate.

In 1965, Time Magazine reported that the Vatican had assets worth in excess of $10 billion, or ($73 billion inflated to 2013 values [2]), including $1.6 billion in shares of stock, or 15% of the value of all shares listed on the Italian stock exchange at the time.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vatican

Ronin Truth
11-26-2013, 05:05 PM
Maybe the Pope could hit up the Rothschilds for a meaningful donation. :D

Contumacious
11-26-2013, 05:10 PM
Thou Shalt Not Steal...always seems to fall by the wayside, no?

And the fact that nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than a robust, thriving, free market economy?

I guess that's lost as well.




Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth

.


here in the US we work until July to pay for the welfare/warfare state. So he wasn't talking about the US , that's for sure.

.

Lucille
11-26-2013, 05:13 PM
Nowhere does he imply force, rather he pleads to people not to make money the sole object of their life, and more importantly to show COMPASSION to the poor.

This is in perfectly in line with Christian teachings, if you find this offensive, chances are you are not a Christian.

It is sad that when someone makes a perfectly valid criticism, there is such a knee-jerk politically correct reaction, especially on this board.

If someone sees inequality as a problem, it doesn't mean they see government force as the solution.

He does imply force. EBounding (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434251-Pope-Francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny-and-urges-rich-to-share-wealth&p=5321834&viewfull=1#post5321834) helpfully bolded it. That is what is decidedly Un-Christian.


While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions.

Name one state on the planet that doesn't regulate the shit of the economy and that isn't chock full of corrupt bastards writing the laws that enrich themselves and their fascist partners in crime.

Demigod
11-26-2013, 05:29 PM
None of the above.

I really doubt the Vatican has managed to only acquire 10-15 billion in more than a millennium.If the numbers were 1-2 trillion dollars it would maybe be plausible but 10-15 billion is a joke.They own one of the biggest banks in Italy that alone would be worth twice as much.

Rothbardian Girl
11-26-2013, 05:40 PM
That term was coined by Marx to smear laissez-faire economists to begin with.

per wiki:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I don't think Marx "smeared laissez-faire economists" so much as he simply pointed out that political economists (after Smith, Ricardo and Mill) turned to defending capitalist (not free-market) interests. The intellectual atmosphere changed noticeably after 1830:

"It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not."

I've always found this quote interesting as well:
Is that to say we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat.

LibForestPaul
11-26-2013, 06:08 PM
God bless Pope Francis for being a frugal example. Now where do I send my email to him requesting my share of the Vatican wealth? One simple gold goblet is all that I ask.
Why would he steal something for you?

Cleaner44
11-26-2013, 06:30 PM
Why would he steal something for you?

Because that is what socialists do. Take from the rich, give to the poor. Robin Hood is a hero and all of that bullshit. Haven't you been paying attention? None are so generous as those willing to steal for the noble purpose of redistributing wealth. All hail the socialist thieves!

Ender
11-26-2013, 06:37 PM
Because that is what socialists do. Take from the rich, give to the poor. Robin Hood is a hero and all of that bullshit. Haven't you been paying attention? None are so generous as those willing to steal for the noble purpose of redistributing wealth. All hail the socialist thieves!

Robin Hood was stealing BACK what had been stolen from the people; he was NOT redistributing wealth.

Kotin
11-26-2013, 06:38 PM
Then I'm waiting for my check, Vatican.. You guys are loaded.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 06:58 PM
I don't think Marx "smeared laissez-faire economists" so much as he simply pointed out that political economists (after Smith, Ricardo and Mill) turned to defending capitalist (not free-market) interests. The intellectual atmosphere changed noticeably after 1830:


I've always found this quote interesting as well:
Fair enough. Your choice of words is better than mine, thnx. ~hugs~

Cleaner44
11-26-2013, 07:03 PM
Robin Hood was stealing BACK what had been stolen from the people; he was NOT redistributing wealth.

I might be wrong but I don't think Robin Hood was real. That of course doesn't stop socialist from pretending they are heros.

Lucille
11-26-2013, 07:06 PM
Ahistoric, Unscientific Papal Prejudice Is Okay When it’s About Capitalism, Anyway!
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/26/ahistoric-unscientific-papal-prejudice-i


Pope Francis's Evangelii Gaudium about the "new tyranny" of "unfettered capitalism" might just be the biggest thing to hit the lefty blogosphere since Mitt Romney uttered the instantly immortal, irrelevant phrase "binders full of women."

"It's about time," says Daily Kos diarist Egberto Willies. "Great Pope or Greatest Pope?" wondered Wonkette's Commie Girl. "Pope Francis Strafes Libertarian Economics," celebrated Slate's Matthew Yglesias. It's like that time Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope, only this time the Pope is Sinead O'Connor, and the picture is capitalism! Yay!

I don't wish to stand in the way of people enjoying other people's prejudices, but Francis's hyperbolic rants about the role and allegedly dictatorial power of free markets are embarrassing in their wrongness. Cheering them on is like donating money to a Creationist Museum, only with more potential impact. To take one papal passage out of dozens:


Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
[...]
To look upon the miracles of this world and lament the lack of "means of escape" is to advertise your own ignorance. To call it a "tyranny" is to do violence to any meaningful sense of that important word (much like Francis's predecessor did with his silly "dictatorship of relativism" crack). And to make such absolutist statements as "everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest" is to admit up front that you are not primarily interested in spreading truth, but rather in exciting popular passions. Which I suppose makes sense.

It's a free world; Pope's gonna Pope & all that. I don't go to the Vatican for global economics, and Catholics probably don't seek out Reason for spiritual guidance. And the new kid in the Vatican actually seems pretty good to my outsider eyes. But prejudice against global capitalism isn't some kind of twee affect coming from the mouth of one of the globe's largest religious institutions. It's an out-and-out attempt to rewrite measurable history to fit theological imperatives. Liberals who congratulate themselves on mocking creationists while co-signing factually laughable claims about the world they actually live in are not exactly demonstrating a consistent adherence to the Scientific Method.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 07:10 PM
I might be wrong but I don't think Robin Hood was real. That of course doesn't stop socialist from pretending they are heros.
I think he was a myth too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_hood

Ender
11-26-2013, 07:50 PM
I might be wrong but I don't think Robin Hood was real. That of course doesn't stop socialist from pretending they are heros.

Robin Hood is a story that was carried down by the historians of the day- the bards. Most early English history was transmitted this way. This is why we know of King Arthur, although Sir Lancelot was not during Arthur's time.

There was definitely a Sheriff of Nottingham, who was evil personified. Many believe that "Robin Hood" wasn't personally named for his own safety and was probably Robert Hode/Robyn Hode. Some do have him as Robin of Loxley or Robin, Earl of Huntington.

There are also some who believe that William Wallace was the true Robin Hood, as his story follows perfectly- a wife named Marion, who was killed by an evil sheriff plus a younger brother named John- thus Little John.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:12 PM
Maybe he should start out by liquidating most of the riches the Vatican holds and giving the proceeds to the poor.


BINGO! Teach by example!



The Catholic Church certainly does. It spends over $150 billion per year in the US alone on social programs for the poor, hungry, sick, and needy.

But, of course, that's not enough for the anti-Catholics.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:14 PM
I completely agree with the Holy Father, the rich do have a moral obligation to share their wealth with the poor.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:18 PM
I completely agree with the Holy Father, the rich do have a moral obligation to share their wealth with the poor.


Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.

He is clearly talking about state control of markets and perhaps wealth itself.

As a concept, you support this?

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:19 PM
I completely agree with the Holy Father, the rich do have a moral obligation to share their wealth with the poor.
I think it's more reasonable to call it a moral obligation to share their wealth in a way that lifts up the poor. ("give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime", and all that) AFAIK, neither Yeshua nor Paul would approve of welfarism or handouts.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:21 PM
He is clearly talking about state control of markets and perhaps wealth itself.

As a concept, you support this?

No, and Catholics may disagree on political and economic matters with the Pope, as long as they do not deviate from the moral teachings of the Faith.

What I completely reject, though, is the Ayn Randian notion that we should only follow self interest. As Christians we have a moral duty to not follow own own self interest, but to work for the common good of all mankind, and that includes in economic activities. The rich have a moral duty to share with the poor.

I do agree with the Pope that the state has a role in playing in ensuring the common good, namely by protecting basic rights such as the right to life and the right to property.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:23 PM
I think it's more reasonable to call it a moral obligation to share their wealth in a way that lifts up the poor. ("give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime", and all that) AFAIK, neither Yeshua nor Paul would approve of welfarism or handouts.

Welfarism, no. Voluntary handouts, definitely. When I see the extreme poverty you witness in Latin America, I give 'handouts' expecting nothing in return. I give money and food to people lying on the street for no other reason than as an act of charity.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:25 PM
No, and Catholics may disagree on political and economic matters with the Pope, as long as they do not deviate from the moral teachings of the Faith.

What I completely reject, though, is the Ayn Randian notion that we should only follow self interest. As Christians we have a moral duty to not follow own own self interest, but to work for the common good of all mankind, and that includes in economic activities. The rich have a moral duty to share with the poor.

What if your self interest, your motivation, IS sharing your wealth and helping the less fortunate?

The effectiveness of that help is open to debate, but clearly, self interest can include philanthropy and good works.

It seems counteractive but it really is not.

People acting in their own "selfish" best interests are the people most likely to help the poor.

Just as unfettered free markets are the best way to lift people out of poverty.

Were these statements untrue, North Korea would be a economic powerhouse and beacon of light to the world.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:30 PM
What if your self interest, your motivation, IS sharing your wealth and helping the less fortunate?

The effectiveness of that help is open to debate, but clearly, self interest can include philanthropy and good works.

I said was talking of Ayn Rand's definition of self-interest. That must be rejected. As Christians we must reject our own self-interest and instead work to serve God, not ourselves, in what we do.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:31 PM
Welfarism, no. Voluntary handouts, definitely. When I see the extreme poverty you witness in Latin America, I give 'handouts' expecting nothing in return. I give money and food to people lying on the street for no other reason than as an act of charity.
Okay, but would it not be more charitable to provide a way to help those indigents provide for themselves? Perhaps you could save your donations and give them to a charity that creates jobs for the disabled/homeless/etc.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:32 PM
Were these statements untrue, North Korea would be a economic powerhouse and beacon of light to the world.

And nowhere has the Pope ever said we should be more like North Korea. The Church condemns communism as completely incompatible with Christianity.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:33 PM
Okay, but would it not be more charitable to provide a way to help those indigents provide for themselves? Perhaps you could save your donations and give them to a charity that creates jobs for the disabled/homeless/etc.

I don't know, perhaps. But sometimes when you see a little girl who is actually around 14 but looks like she's 8 because she's so malnourished, has no shoes, and is eating out of a garbage can the charitable thing to do is to buy her a pair of shoes and a meal.

acptulsa
11-26-2013, 08:34 PM
But it's governmental squelching of competition that 'unfetters' capitalism, government which deprives people of the opportunity for 'dignified work' and puts them out on the street by regulating small business out of existence, central authority that e suspended bishop used to feather his own nest and government that puts that major emphasis on security.


Notice that the words "unfettered capitalism" in the article are not part of a quote from the Pope.

Yes, I definitely did notice that. I couldn't help but wonder if Francis was so ignorant of the true problem, or if this was a case of the pope speaks, the media spins

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:35 PM
I said was talking of Ayn Rand's definition of self-interest. That must be rejected. As Christians we must reject our own self-interest and instead work to serve God, not ourselves, in what we do.
AF seems to be describing rational self-interest, not self-interest/selfishness. It is in our rational self-interest to help the poor because when they are self-reliant, they can be free to serve God rather than just trying to stay alive. (IIRC, Augustine talked about this doctrine of doing good works for their own sake in "Confessions")

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:35 PM
I do agree with the Pope that the state has a role in playing in ensuring the common good, namely by protecting basic rights such as the right to life and the right to property.

Do you agree with this statement by Francis?


beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and healthcare".

Ender
11-26-2013, 08:35 PM
I think it's more reasonable to call it a moral obligation to share their wealth in a way that lifts up the poor. ("give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime", and all that) AFAIK, neither Yeshua nor Paul would approve of welfarism or handouts.

Matthew 19:21

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:36 PM
I don't know, perhaps. But sometimes when you see a little girl who is actually around 14 but looks like she's 8 because she's so malnourished, has no shoes, and is eating out of a garbage can the charitable thing to do is to buy her a pair of shoes and a meal.
I agree with that. :) Charity is a great virtue when exercised properly.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:36 PM
And nowhere has the Pope ever said we should be more like North Korea. The Church condemns communism as completely incompatible with Christianity.

Never said he did.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:39 PM
Do you agree with this statement by Francis?

Yes, I do. I think one of the main roles of the state is to guarantee everyone the right to be able seek dignified work, to seek education, and to seek healthcare. Do you not?

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:39 PM
Matthew 19:21

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
This is cherry-picked from the parable of the Rich Young Man, who sought to buy salvation. In context, this is not simply about giving stuff away.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:41 PM
I think this is a great snippet of an interview the Pope had back in March, before the Conclave that elected him the successor of St. Peter:


REPORTER: But don’t you blame various governments around the world for poverty?

BERGOGLIO: Some. Yes.

REPORTER: But you refuse to blame corporations for their role.

BERGOGLIO: Okay, they also told me you have a degree in economics. No buyer, or seller either, enters into any exchange against his will. It is the nature of the economy. Man is frail, and he makes mistakes and sometimes is greedy and they enter into exchanges that don’t help them. Sometimes they become poor, but they made choices. There is nothing the Church can do except try to educate people to become good consumers. Chiefly, for me, it is an education solution on that side. And the Church has more schools around the globe than any other faith. I say teach the people to save their souls, and also teach them how not to become poor. And now not to allow the government to trick them into poverty.

REPORTER: And you blame government.

BERGOGLIO: No, I blame the self-serving politicians.

REPORTER: So your solution to poverty is to change the nature of politics?

BERGOGLIO: Please feel free to broadcast this; I don’t want to be pope. Friend, you are a socialist and your friends are socialists. And you are the reason for 70 years of misery in Russia and Europe now is seizing in pain from your policies. You believe in the redistribution of wealth and it makes entire populations poor. You want to nationalize everything and bring every human endeavor under your control. You destroy a man’s incentive to take care of his very own family, a crime against nature and nature’s God. You want social control over populations and incrementally you are making everything against the law. Together this ideology creates more poverty today than all the corporations you vilify have in the history of man.

REPORTER: I’ve never heard such from a Cardinal. I’m not sure if you are here to help yourself or disqualify yourself.

BERGOGLIO: Please air this interview. People being dominated by socialists need to know we don’t all have to be poor. Some poverty is part of our being cast out of the Garden of Eden. But look at the empire of dependency created by Hugo Chavez. Promising them, tricking them into worship of government and his very own person. Giving them fish but not allowing them to fish. If a fisherman does develop a talent today in Latin America; he is castigated and his catch stolen by the socialists. He stops…


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100208720/did-pope-francis-really-say-that-socialism-causes-misery-and-that-america-is-heading-towards-a-form-of-communism/


Does that, especially the bolded part, sound like he is praising socialism?

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:42 PM
Yes, I do. I think one of the main roles of the state is to guarantee everyone the right to be able seek dignified work, to seek education, and to seek healthcare. Do you not?

Mmmmm, I'm not reading it that way.

Guarantee means a guarantee of results.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 08:42 PM
Yes, I do. I think one of the main roles of the state is to guarantee everyone the right to be able seek dignified work, to seek education, and to seek healthcare. Do you not?
The state couldn't do this if it wanted to. It cannot understand mechanisms of price/cost by its nature, which is why it inevitably fails. Charity is the duty of the church and individuals.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:44 PM
I think this is a great snippet of an interview the Pope had back in March, before the Conclave that elected him the successor of St. Peter:

Does that, especially the bolded part, sound like he is praising socialism?

No, it does not.

This sounds like AmeriKa though.


Giving them fish but not allowing them to fish.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:45 PM
The state couldn't do this if it wanted to. It cannot understand mechanisms of price/cost by its nature, which is why it inevitably fails. Charity is the duty of the church and individuals.

Did I say anything about the state needing to or being cable of understanding the markets? What in what I said had anything to do with economics? Nothing.

We all have the right to seek a dignified job, but we are not owed a job. We all have the right to seek education, but we are not owed education by anyone. We all have the right to seek healthcare, but we are not owed healthcare.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 08:49 PM
Did I say anything about the state needing to or being cable of understanding the markets? What in what I said had anything to do with economics? Nothing.

We all have the right to seek a dignified job, but we are not owed a job. We all have the right to seek education, but we are not owed education by anyone. We all have the right to seek healthcare, but we are not owed healthcare.

What you wrote does not jibe with what was quoted as being said by Francis:


beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and healthcare".

Now, maybe he was quoted out of context, maybe the full quote is "the right to seek dignified work, education and healthcare".

I have not read the document yet, so I don't know.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:51 PM
Now, maybe he was quoted out of context, maybe the full quote is "the right to seek dignified work, education and healthcare".

I have not read the document yet, so I don't know.

Maybe you should read the document instead of relying on a leftist secular newspaper for your information.

Read it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

If anything, the Pope is attacking corporatism and crony capitalism that the free market.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 08:57 PM
Here is the section of Evangelii Gaudium dealing with the economy:


SOME CHALLENGES OF TODAY’S WORLD

52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.

No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.


The word capitalism isn't mentioned a single time. What the Pope is attacking is the egoistic self-interest that has taken over as the new moral guide, the idolatry of money and the profit at all cost mentality.

Ender
11-26-2013, 08:58 PM
This is cherry-picked from the parable of the Rich Young Man, who sought to buy salvation. In context, this is not simply about giving stuff away.

Good grief- Jesus mentions the poor over 400 times in the scriptures- here's a couple more.

Luke 14:13 - But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.

Deuteronomy 15:11 - For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

eduardo89
11-26-2013, 09:05 PM
Jesus was that "teach a man to fish" fellow, wasn't he?

Yeah, that was him.

("give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime", and all that)

The fish proverb is not from the Bible.

Anti Federalist
11-26-2013, 09:11 PM
Maybe you should read the document instead of relying on a leftist secular newspaper for your information.

Read it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

If anything, the Pope is attacking corporatism and crony capitalism that the free market.

Yeah, maybe I should.

amy31416
11-26-2013, 09:15 PM
The fish proverb is not from the Bible.

Already explained Eduardo. I can read.

heavenlyboy34
11-26-2013, 09:39 PM
The fish proverb is not from the Bible.
I didn't say it was. It's a colloquial phrase-and very true.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 06:51 AM
I think this is a great snippet of an interview the Pope had back in March, before the Conclave that elected him the successor of St. Peter: ...

Does that, especially the bolded part, sound like he is praising socialism?

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this interview is genuine, or that the Pope said any of the things attributed to him in it.

Or, to put it another way,
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jd4tV2ouuPo/T0PnYoPy5UI/AAAAAAAAIr8/Vm5-qNZHq_Y/s431/bigFoot.jpg

JohnM
11-27-2013, 07:00 AM
Context


"205. I ask God to give us more politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world! Politics, though often denigrated, remains a lofty vocation and one of the highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good.[174] We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”.[175] I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor! It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare. Why not turn to God and ask him to inspire their plans? I am firmly convinced that openness to the transcendent can bring about a new political and economic mindset which would help to break down the wall of separation between the economy and the common good of society.."

The Pope is being fairly careful not to say what policies he advocates.

He does, however, seem fairly certain that politicians and government leaders should try to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education, and healthcare.

He is certainly not saying that government leaders should merely ensure that people have the right to seek these things, unless he is expressing himself very, very poorly. (And that is something that just is not going to happen in an official Vatican document. They choose their words very, very carefully.)

It looks to me that he definitely implies some degree of force.

pcosmar
11-27-2013, 07:55 AM
It looks to me that he definitely implies some degree of force.

And those before him have always promoted government,, and lots of it.

They made Kings. And removed them. The Roman Church has always been a political force.
I see it as nothing more than the continuation of the Roman Empire.

And I mean no disrespect to individual Catholics,, I know there are some good christian believers within the church.
But the organization,, and the Pope,, I have no use for.

TER
11-27-2013, 08:45 AM
God bless this Pope. May more people grow to have as much love and compassion for the poor as he does.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 10:06 AM
Maybe you should read the document instead of relying on a leftist secular newspaper for your information.

Read it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

If anything, the Pope is attacking corporatism and crony capitalism that the free market.

Eduardo, did YOU read it? From your link!

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

Tell me with a straight face that if anyone other than the pope had said ^that you would think he was merely attacking "crony capitalism"? And if you would say that, then that proves you don't know what "crony capitalism" is. Crony capitalism wants higher taxes and regulations in order to put its competition out of business. This is why I could never be a Catholic. There's no way I'd want to be defending this tripe.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 10:09 AM
God bless this Pope. May more people grow to have as much love and compassion for the poor as he does.

If by love and compassion for the poor, you mean may many people support higher regulations and taxation in order to redistribute wealth to the poor, because that's what the Pope essentially said then may people not have compassion on the poor. May people read the Bible for themselves and find this:


2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter

7 As every man purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or out of compulsion; for God loveth the cheerful giver.

What is taxation other than compulsive giving! God bless this Pope to repent!

amy31416
11-27-2013, 10:21 AM
I don't agree with the Pope on this particular matter, but I am curious to know what's behind the visceral hatred for Catholicism by Protestants--I mean, the non-Catholics seem to be absolutely joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian or entirely conservative. Most Catholics I know don't even pay any attention to most Protestant sects, much less be hostile towards them.

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 10:23 AM
If by love and compassion for the poor, you mean may many people support higher regulations and taxation in order to redistribute wealth to the poor, because that's what the Pope essentially said then may people not have compassion on the poor. May people read the Bible for themselves and find this:


2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter

7 As every man purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or out of compulsion; for God loveth the cheerful giver.

What is taxation other than compulsive giving! God bless this Pope to repent!

When I go to WalMart and buy their products I'm helping the poor.

When I object to the government imposing confiscatory taxation and regulation I'm helping the poor. Businesses will flourish in the US if the governments are respectful of their property right.

Taxpayers work very hard for their money so their income must not be stolen in order to support individuals who may not subscribe to the work ethic.

.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 10:42 AM
I don't agree with the Pope on this particular matter, but I am curious to know what's behind the visceral hatred for Catholicism by Protestants--I mean, the non-Catholics seem to be absolutely joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian or entirely conservative. Most Catholics I know don't even pay any attention to most Protestant sects, much less be hostile towards them.

Oh? I hadn't noticed that.

Perhaps you could point to two Protestants on this forum who have this visceral hatred and who are joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian?

tony m
11-27-2013, 10:54 AM
Called my local diocese and left a message to set up a meeting with our auxiliary bishop who will remember me back from when
he was a priest at my grammar school.

Let's see if it will happen. A lesson on monetary theory and a reminder of power over the commoners would be fun.

amy31416
11-27-2013, 10:56 AM
Oh? I hadn't noticed that.

Perhaps you could point to two Protestants on this forum who have this visceral hatred and who are joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian?

I've already read through the entire thread, and I have a slow connection, so no. But on this page itself, JMDrake surely seems pretty happy to declare the pope a giant craphead for not being libertarian--and I've read plenty of posts on this forum about Catholics being as evil as Masons, Bilderbergers, etc.

Even AF (on the first page of this thread) seemed pretty delighted--though I have no idea what his religion is, if any. If you want more, there's more.

I have a bias towards a religion, but I recognize it--Evangelical Christian Zionists. No apologies for it, but I'm curious about the anti-Catholic bias.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 11:06 AM
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that Evangelii Gaudium takes the view that political action (redistribution?) is necessary to ameliorate the results of the free market.

But what is more interesting to me is the way this sentence finishes. I would take the view that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, would succeed in bringing more material prosperity to the poor. But that isn't what Evangelii Gaudium is concerned about. It speaks, rather, about "justice and inclusiveness."

What exactly is "justice"? Getting what you deserve? Getting convicted and punished when you commit a crime? Not being punished when you are innocent of the crime? I don't know what Evangelii Gaudium means by justice, but it looks to me like it means equality of outcome.

And what is "inclusiveness"? (This is something the document is concerned about, for the paragraph then refers to "the excluded" and "a lifestyle that excludes others". How does one define "the excluded"? Does it mean people who lack food and the other necessities of life? Or does that mean people who have considerably less in the way of material goods than others?

When the document says

This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system,
it is on interesting territory.

Economic growth, aided by the free market, does, it seems to me, bring, all things being equal, increasing prosperity and freedom from want for the poor. But it does not bring equality of outcome. And while I do not have a crude and naïve trust in those wielding economic power, or in the workings of the prevailing economic system, I think that any economic system that replaces it may be just as bad - especially if it is based on the disparagement of free markets.

Indeed, it seems to me that Evangelii Gaudium has a crude and naïve trust in politicians if it believes in the ability of politicians and governments to come up with an economic system which will bring considerably greater justice that a pure free market system would bring.

tony m
11-27-2013, 11:12 AM
Called my local diocese and left a message to set up a meeting with our auxiliary bishop who will remember me back from when
he was a priest at my grammar school.

Let's see if it will happen. A lesson on monetary theory and a reminder of power over the commoners would be fun.

Hey, father Ed called me back. His response basically is, that the pope is saying alot of things all over the place and to give him some time. Thats his view because he doesn't understand economics either. But I will set something up since he asked if I do presentations and such.

The popes stated damaging comments. Their sellouts or afraid or other, depending on which research a person believes.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 11:17 AM
I've already read through the entire thread, and I have a slow connection, so no. But on this page itself, JMDrake surely seems pretty happy to declare the pope a giant craphead for not being libertarian--and I've read plenty of posts on this forum about Catholics being as evil as Masons, Bilderbergers, etc.

Even AF (on the first page of this thread) seemed pretty delighted--though I have no idea what his religion is, if any. If you want more, there's more.

I have a bias towards a religion, but I recognize it--Evangelical Christian Zionists. No apologies for it, but I'm curious about the anti-Catholic bias.

It seems to me that most anti-Catholic feeling on this forum comes not from Protestants, but from those who are sceptical about all organised religion.

As for JMDrake, I must confess that I didn't actually detect visceral hatred for Catholicism or joy that the Pope was not libertarian.


And to change the subject - are you really posting from Burkina Faso!?

TER
11-27-2013, 11:24 AM
If by love and compassion for the poor, you mean may many people support higher regulations and taxation in order to redistribute wealth to the poor, because that's what the Pope essentially said then may people not have compassion on the poor. May people read the Bible for themselves and find this:


2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter

7 As every man purposeth in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly or out of compulsion; for God loveth the cheerful giver.

What is taxation other than compulsive giving! God bless this Pope to repent!

No, what I mean by love for the poor is to give your life to help them, similarly to what this Pope has done.

dinosaur
11-27-2013, 11:25 AM
I could be wrong, but it sounds to me that Evangelii Gaudium takes the view that political action (redistribution?) is necessary to ameliorate the results of the free market.

Why assume redistribution? He could be talking about political action being necessary to prevent exclusion through crony capitalism.


What exactly is "justice"? Getting what you deserve? Getting convicted and punished when you commit a crime? Not being punished when you are innocent of the crime? I don't know what Evangelii Gaudium means by justice, but it looks to me like it means equality of outcome.

I read it as needing a just system, one where there is equal access to the market, or "inclusiveness." (i.e. not letting those in power monopolize the market)


Indeed, it seems to me that Evangelii Gaudium has a crude and naïve trust in politicians if it believes in the ability of politicians and governments to come up with an economic system which will bring considerably greater justice that a pure free market system would bring.

And the opposite is true as well, because of human nature a pure free market system would be corrupted pretty quickly by the successful buying political advantage. Maybe a free market has a better chance of existing for a longer period of time if laws are made to prevent that.

Ender
11-27-2013, 11:26 AM
Here is the section of Evangelii Gaudium dealing with the economy:




The word capitalism isn't mentioned a single time. What the Pope is attacking is the egoistic self-interest that has taken over as the new moral guide, the idolatry of money and the profit at all cost mentality.

Just read the proclamation in full-

My take is that the Pope is speaking of the financial system as it is today and pointing out the deep flaws; he is asking that leaders move away from this. And, he is saying many of the same things that are said on this forum.

He is also choosing his words carefully as the financial world is a dangerous place.


No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 11:28 AM
No, what I mean by love for the poor is to give your life to help them, similarly to what this Pope has done.

Go ahead and knock yourself out.

.

pcosmar
11-27-2013, 11:28 AM
I've already read through the entire thread, and I have a slow connection, so no. But on this page itself, JMDrake surely seems pretty happy to declare the pope a giant craphead for not being libertarian--and I've read plenty of posts on this forum about Catholics being as evil as Masons, Bilderbergers, etc.

Even AF (on the first page of this thread) seemed pretty delighted--though I have no idea what his religion is, if any. If you want more, there's more.

I have a bias towards a religion, but I recognize it--Evangelical Christian Zionists. No apologies for it, but I'm curious about the anti-Catholic bias.

I am not fond of any organized religion. I was raised Roman Catholic,, but consider myself simply a christian believer.

But if you want to understand some of the concern,, read Revelation 17 .


It seems to me that most anti-Catholic feeling on this forum comes not from Protestants, but from those who are sceptical about all organised religion.


That would include me.. But I am especially wary of the Roman Church.
Perhaps because as the largest and most powerful political religion,, they have the ability to do the most harm.
And to lead millions in the wrong direction.


Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 11:42 AM
Why assume redistribution? He could be talking about political action being necessary to prevent exclusion through crony capitalism.


I read it as needing a just system, one where there is equal access to the market, or "inclusiveness." (i.e. not letting those in power monopolize the market)


And the opposite is true as well, because of human nature a pure free market system would be corrupted pretty quickly by the successful buying political advantage. Maybe a free market has a better chance of existing for a longer period of time if laws are made to prevent that.


You may be correct, Dinosaur. It would be nice if you were.

But based on paragraph 205 of Evangelii Gaudium (see my post above (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434251-Pope-Francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny-and-urges-rich-to-share-wealth&p=5322497&viewfull=1#post5322497)) - I don't think that this is just about equal access to the market. I think it is about (for example) governments taking action to ensure that people actually receive healthcare and education and employment.

heavenlyboy34
11-27-2013, 11:43 AM
I am not fond of any organized religion. I was raised Roman Catholic,, but consider myself simply a christian believer.

But if you want to understand some of the concern,, read Revelation 17 .


That would include me.. But I am especially wary of the Roman Church.
Perhaps because as the largest and most powerful political religion,, they have the ability to do the most harm.
And to lead millions in the wrong direction.
All religions are political to some extent or another.

TER
11-27-2013, 11:50 AM
It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world. Capitalism may produce more wealthy people, but I don't think it necessarily produces more saints. Capitalism may in theory produce more jobs, but it doesnt necessarily produce more saved souls. Only love can do that, and only Christ like love which some abandon in order to defend some economic theory.

This obsession of defending capitalism as if it is the answer to our problems is close (IMO) to worshiping Mammon over Christ. I understand the benefits of free markets, but I don't understand this hatred against Christians whose worldview may be different with regards with helping those who suffer. Is the Pope an economist? No, and he doesn't pretend to be. His job as it were is to bring people to Christ and to pray for the world. If you don't agree with his socioeconomic policies because you think you are smarter then him, then good for you. But this obsession of raising capitalism to be the savior of our economic hardships around the world while at the same time castigating those who preach about giving to the poor and sharing our wealth with those who are in need is very unfortunate (especially when done by self-professed Christians). I wonder how these same people would treat Jesus if He came now instead of 2000 years ago and told us to give our riches to the poor. They would call him a socialist and deried and mock Him.

Now, granted, I haven't read much of what Pope Francis has said or written, so I can't make a very informed opinion on his economic beliefs, but from what I have read so far, nothing he has said would make me doubt his sincerity and hope of helping those who are poor and following in this in the footsteps of Christ.

We can disagree on economic theories (I prefer free markets to socialism), but the personal attacks against him and the questioning of his sincerity and love for the poor seem unwarranted.

angelatc
11-27-2013, 11:51 AM
I don't agree with the Pope on this particular matter, but I am curious to know what's behind the visceral hatred for Catholicism by Protestants--I mean, the non-Catholics seem to be absolutely joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian or entirely conservative. Most Catholics I know don't even pay any attention to most Protestant sects, much less be hostile towards them.

You think this is bad, you should check out Ireland.

Dr.3D
11-27-2013, 11:51 AM
All religions are political to some extent or another.
It's when a church sleeps with the government that it becomes hyper-political. I recall one that did that in the 3rd century. Next thing you know, they are claiming to be an empire.

amy31416
11-27-2013, 11:57 AM
It seems to me that most anti-Catholic feeling on this forum comes not from Protestants, but from those who are sceptical about all organised religion.

As for JMDrake, I must confess that I didn't actually detect visceral hatred for Catholicism or joy that the Pope was not libertarian.


And to change the subject - are you really posting from Burkina Faso!?

Many see it as an evil "government" proxy so far as I can tell, disguised as a religion. And I guess Drake's exclamation points mean something different to you. :p I don't take any pleasure in a Protestant church having leaders with ideas that are antithetical to liberty, and I understand why a person would stick with a church, flaws and all.

Sorry, not posting from Burkina Faso--I'm from the past and am indeed posting from Upper Volta. :)

amy31416
11-27-2013, 11:58 AM
You think this is bad, you should check out Ireland.

Yeah--I was thinking about that. Still doesn't help me understand too much. Did the Catholic Church torture Protestants back in their dark days or something?

heavenlyboy34
11-27-2013, 12:00 PM
It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world. Capitalism may produce more wealthy people, but I don't think it necessarily produces more saints. Capitalism may in theory produce more jobs, but it doesnt necessarily produce more saved souls. Only love can do that, and only Christ like love which some abandon in order to defend some economic theory.

This obsession of defending capitalism as if it is the answer to our problems is close (IMO) to worshiping Mammon over Christ. I understand the benefits of free markets, but I don't understand this hatred against Christians whose worldview may be different with regards with helping those who suffer. Is the Pope an economist? No, and he doesn't pretend to be. His job as it were is to bring people to Christ and to pray for the world. If you don't agree with his socioeconomic policies because you think you are smarter then him, then good for you. But this obsession of raising capitalism to be the savior of our economic hardships around the world while at the same time castigating those who preach about giving to the poor and sharing our wealth with those who are in need is very unfortunate (especially when done by self-professed Christians). I wonder how these same people would treat Jesus if He came now instead of 2000 years ago and told us to give our riches to the poor. They would call him a socialist and deried and mock Him.

Now, granted, I haven't read much of what Pope Francis has said or written, so I can't make a very informed opinion on his economic beliefs, but from what I have read so far, nothing he has said would make me doubt his sincerity and hope of helping those who are poor and following in this in the footsteps of Christ.

We can disagree on economic theories (I prefer free markets to socialism), but the personal attacks against him and the questioning of his sincerity and love for the poor seem unwarranted.
Well, if there is a better economic system than laissez-faire (from the perspective of maximum potential for liberty and prosperity for all), I don't know of it. That said, economics is a value-free science. Any values we try to "impose" on an economic system by nature come from somewhere else. I (as well as Rothbard) believe that the moral foundation for an economic system has to come from religion of some sort (I hold that this foundation is best laid by God-in the Orthodox sense-that is, all 3 persons of God-and I imagine you would agree).

IOW, you have a great point here. :)

amy31416
11-27-2013, 12:04 PM
I am not fond of any organized religion. I was raised Roman Catholic,, but consider myself simply a christian believer.

But if you want to understand some of the concern,, read Revelation 17 .


That would include me.. But I am especially wary of the Roman Church.
Perhaps because as the largest and most powerful political religion,, they have the ability to do the most harm.
And to lead millions in the wrong direction.

I consider the book of Revelation to be nothing more than allegory, possibly written by someone mentally unstable.

Catholic charities are the only charities that pass the sniff test for me, they also have the ability to do great good and often do. I'll rally for the Catholic Church to get out of politics as soon as Evangelical Zionists are out of politics--at this point, they are doing the most harm, globally.

angelatc
11-27-2013, 12:07 PM
Yeah--I was thinking about that. Still doesn't help me understand too much. Did the Catholic Church torture Protestants back in their dark days or something?

I believe the Protestants divided from the Catholic Church, and it had something to do with Martin Luther.

pcosmar
11-27-2013, 12:07 PM
All religions are political to some extent or another.

And hence their danger..
And if you have followed my postings,,though I am a "believer" I am also rather irreligious. ;)

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 12:09 PM
It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world. .

Is socialism the answer? Check Somalia, Cuba and similar countries.

Sweden fair better because its people subscribe to the work ethic for the most part.

Check conditions before the industrial revolution the repost.

.

Dr.3D
11-27-2013, 12:09 PM
I believe the Protestants divided from the Catholic Church, and it had something to do with Martin Luther.

That's why they call them Protestants. They protest much of what the Catholic Church does.

TER
11-27-2013, 12:15 PM
Is socialism the answer?

Not necessarily, and most cases end up in total ruin because of the sins of men. I am not sure what the answer is to the financial problems of the world. I think most of the major theories and socioeconomic political structures have their advanatages and disadvantages (some better then others and dependent on the morality of the people and the conditions of the soceity and their environment). I do believe though that the Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, and that if people think private property rights and capitalism will be the foundation of that otherworldly Kingdom, I think they will be in for a shock.

oyarde
11-27-2013, 12:15 PM
I believe the Protestants divided from the Catholic Church, and it had something to do with Martin Luther.

He was very contoversial for his day :) , insisting that good deeds and money/purchase could not get you salvation.The Church threw him out , lol

pcosmar
11-27-2013, 12:16 PM
I believe the Protestants divided from the Catholic Church, and it had something to do with Martin Luther.

Luther was one of many.
He was a Catholic Priest and scholar that attempted to reform some errors that he saw.
Those in error did not want to reform.

There were many that disagreed with the church. Ever hear if the Inquisitions?

dinosaur
11-27-2013, 12:18 PM
But based on paragraph 205 of Evangelii Gaudium (see my post above (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434251-Pope-Francis-calls-unfettered-capitalism-tyranny-and-urges-rich-to-share-wealth&p=5322497&viewfull=1#post5322497)) - I don't think that this is just about equal access to the market. I think it is about (for example) governments taking action to ensure that people actually receive healthcare and education and employment.

The most likely answer is that he is talking about governments making these things priorities while at the same time trying to avoid endorsing one political system over another. I hope that it isn't his personal opinion that education and healthcare and such should be controlled by government. But if it is, oh well. He isn't forcing that opinion on us (he didn't even clarify or expand on it), and it isn't even the main point he is trying to make in that portion of the document.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 12:21 PM
It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world. Capitalism may produce more wealthy people, but I don't think it necessarily produces more saints. Capitalism may in theory produce more jobs, but it doesnt necessarily produce more saved souls. Only love can do that, and only Christ like love which some abandon in order to defend some economic theory.

This obsession of defending capitalism as if it is the answer to our problems is close (IMO) to worshiping Mammon over Christ. . . .


Good post.

When it comes to solving (or at least dealing with) the world's problems, charity and love are much more important that politics and economics.

To believe that the solution to the world's problems are largely economic or political is to be deceived.

One of my personal concerns is that Evangelii Gaudium discusses discusses economics and politics in such a way as not only to give the impression that a lot of the world's economic problems can be solved by political means, but also to give the impression that a large part of the solution to the problem is the use of the coercive power of the state to redistribute wealth.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 12:30 PM
I consider the book of Revelation to be nothing more than allegory, possibly written by someone mentally unstable.


But allegory can be true - and relevant.

The Book of Revelation is much misunderstood, probably because much of the detail is difficult to understand. But many sane and balanced scholars have studied it, and few have suspected that the writer was mentally unstable.

I might add that it influenced me a lot in my journey to libertarianism - and that I've never had much sympathy with Christian Zionism.

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 12:56 PM
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this interview is genuine, or that the Pope said any of the things attributed to him in it.

Hmmm... Putting words in the pope's mouth. Wonder how deadly a sin that is considered to be.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 12:58 PM
Even AF (on the first page of this thread) seemed pretty delighted--though I have no idea what his religion is, if any. If you want more, there's more.

Delighted would not be the word I'd use.

Bemused perhaps.

I have no ill will toward Catholics at all.

I do have an issue with promoting the idea that it is just and moral to use armed force to take what is mine, because you feel that people have a right to my dignified work, my healthcare or my education.


We need to be convinced that charity “is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)”

Political macro relationships can only mean forced redistribution of wealth, ultimately at the barrel of a gun.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 01:00 PM
Hmmmm...whaddya know?

Fakey phony fraud.


There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this interview is genuine, or that the Pope said any of the things attributed to him in it.

Or, to put it another way,
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jd4tV2ouuPo/T0PnYoPy5UI/AAAAAAAAIr8/Vm5-qNZHq_Y/s431/bigFoot.jpg

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 01:09 PM
I happen to agree.

The only problem comes when force is introduced into this.

Not only is that immoral but it also hinders salvation.

You cannot force a man at gunpoint to accept Christ, act Christlike and be saved.

And me, personally, if Christ were to return today and, among other things, whip the banskters to shreds, I'd be the first to line up as a disciple.

;)



It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world. Capitalism may produce more wealthy people, but I don't think it necessarily produces more saints. Capitalism may in theory produce more jobs, but it doesnt necessarily produce more saved souls. Only love can do that, and only Christ like love which some abandon in order to defend some economic theory.

This obsession of defending capitalism as if it is the answer to our problems is close (IMO) to worshiping Mammon over Christ. I understand the benefits of free markets, but I don't understand this hatred against Christians whose worldview may be different with regards with helping those who suffer. Is the Pope an economist? No, and he doesn't pretend to be. His job as it were is to bring people to Christ and to pray for the world. If you don't agree with his socioeconomic policies because you think you are smarter then him, then good for you. But this obsession of raising capitalism to be the savior of our economic hardships around the world while at the same time castigating those who preach about giving to the poor and sharing our wealth with those who are in need is very unfortunate (especially when done by self-professed Christians). I wonder how these same people would treat Jesus if He came now instead of 2000 years ago and told us to give our riches to the poor. They would call him a socialist and deried and mock Him.

Now, granted, I haven't read much of what Pope Francis has said or written, so I can't make a very informed opinion on his economic beliefs, but from what I have read so far, nothing he has said would make me doubt his sincerity and hope of helping those who are poor and following in this in the footsteps of Christ.

We can disagree on economic theories (I prefer free markets to socialism), but the personal attacks against him and the questioning of his sincerity and love for the poor seem unwarranted.

amy31416
11-27-2013, 01:09 PM
But allegory can be true - and relevant.

The Book of Revelation is much misunderstood, probably because much of the detail is difficult to understand. But many sane and balanced scholars have studied it, and few have suspected that the writer was mentally unstable.

I might add that it influenced me a lot in my journey to libertarianism - and that I've never had much sympathy with Christian Zionism.

In my experience, the book of Revelation is what makes people forget all the good in the first four gospels and go full-on warmonger, scaring children with apocalyptic nightmares, inspiring "Left Behind" types of mindsets, GW Bush worship, Jesus sending Jews to hell en masse and anti-christs in every closet. I obviously associate it with Christian Zionism.

Most people aren't smart enough to interpret it any other way than how John Hagee tells them.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 01:12 PM
We can disagree on economic theories (I prefer free markets to socialism), but the personal attacks against him and the questioning of his sincerity and love for the poor seem unwarranted.

His love for the poor and his commitment to them through vows of poverty has blinded him to central fact that the fastest way to help the poor is to make them rich.

And an unfettered free market is what has consistently proved to be the way in which to that.

Contumacious
11-27-2013, 01:13 PM
Not necessarily, and most cases end up in total ruin because of the sins of men. I am not sure what the answer is to the financial problems of the world. I think most of the major theories and socioeconomic political structures have their advanatages and disadvantages (some better then others and dependent on the morality of the people and the conditions of the soceity and their environment). I do believe though that the Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, and that if people think private property rights and capitalism will be the foundation of that otherworldly Kingdom, I think they will be in for a shock.

I concur, I am an atheist so I know the concept is pure fiction.

.

heavenlyboy34
11-27-2013, 01:22 PM
I concur, I am an atheist so I know the concept is pure fiction.

.
That was rather uncalled for. :p Your gnosis does not impress.

JohnM
11-27-2013, 02:29 PM
In my experience, the book of Revelation . . . . I obviously associate it with Christian Zionism.

That is understandable. It has long been a happy hunting ground for cranks.

When I was a youngster, the people in the church who talked about the book of Revelation and were interested in it were all, er, um, cranks. Usually Christian Zionists. The people in the church who seemed to be sane and balanced were not interested in the book of Revelation. At least they didn't talk about it. Ever.

It was only when I went off to college that I learned that there were intelligent and sane scholars, who believed the Bible, and who had written books about Revelation. I got one such book and read it about 30 years ago. It was an eye-opener. I have read other books about Revelation over the years. I have read through the book of Revelation many times. It's an old friend. And it is unremittingly negative in its portrayal of the power of the state. In other words, the ultimate book in the Bible for libertarians. (Though the four gospels are pretty good too!)

Is it scary? Yes. Because the world is actually a very scary place. Reality is scary. The truth about the world and about history is often unpleasant.


Most people aren't smart enough to interpret it any other way than how John Hagee tells them.

You are probably right. Sad. Very sad. But then Jesus said something about that (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:15-23&version=NASB).

erowe1
11-27-2013, 02:48 PM
I have read through the book of Revelation many times. It's an old friend. And it is unremittingly negative in its portrayal of the power of the state. In other words, the ultimate book in the Bible for libertarians.

This is definitely true. If any libertarians think that Revelation is something less than one of the most amenable books of the Bible to their politics, they're completely off.

I say this as someone who is more comfortable with seeing support for Christian zionism in that book than you probably are.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 05:30 PM
And this goes here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqFhDK0uueg

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 06:02 PM
It is interesting how some people will throw away charity and love in order to defend capitalism, as if capitalism is going to save the world.

What on earth are you talking about? Taxation and regulation is not charity! Come on man. You're smarter than that.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 06:15 PM
I don't agree with the Pope on this particular matter, but I am curious to know what's behind the visceral hatred for Catholicism by Protestants--I mean, the non-Catholics seem to be absolutely joyful that the Pope isn't libertarian or entirely conservative. Most Catholics I know don't even pay any attention to most Protestant sects, much less be hostile towards them.

As a Protestant who has consistently defended Catholics from the "all Catholics are going to hell" charge, I take (slight) offense at ^that remark. That said, the mental gymnastics I see papal defenders going through in this thread explain why some Protestants have viseral hatred for Catholics. It's the same visceral hatred some have for Obamabots or Bushites who defend ridiculous positions.

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 06:19 PM
The first Jesuit pope since God knows when is promising to become the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic church.

TER
11-27-2013, 06:24 PM
What on earth are you talking about? Taxation and regulation is not charity! Come on man. You're smarter than that.

jmdrake, I am not equating taxation to charity, I am talking about how some people like to criticize and judge others as not being good Christians simply because they may have a different or flawed perspective with regards to economic systems. I dont recall any Pope taxing me by force and yet this Pope is getting treated like he has.

Ender
11-27-2013, 06:26 PM
The first Jesuit pope since God knows when is promising to become the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic church.


I agree.

TER
11-27-2013, 06:30 PM
I agree.

As do I. And it is encouraging to see nominal lapsed Catholics returning to their Church. What this world needs is more Christians returning to faith instead of materialism, consumerism, and atheism.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 06:47 PM
No, what I mean by love for the poor is to give your life to help them, similarly to what this Pope has done.

What this Pope has done in this speech is directly attack the free market and you are apologizing for it. One can believe in the free market and believe in charity. In fact the free market makes charity possible.

amy31416
11-27-2013, 06:49 PM
As a Protestant who has consistently defended Catholics from the "all Catholics are going to hell" charge, I take (slight) offense at ^that remark. That said, the mental gymnastics I see papal defenders going through in this thread explain why some Protestants have viseral hatred for Catholics. It's the same visceral hatred some have for Obamabots or Bushites who defend ridiculous positions.

I agree that some of the defenses are weak, but that shouldn't cause hatred. And I can't say that I've ever heard any Catholics say that most or all Protestants are going to hell, and I grew up with a half-Catholic family and went to a Catholic college.

I'm looking to start going to a Catholic Church to get my daughter's religious education started, and I am looking at being completely shunned when my in-laws (Baptists) find out. They think Catholics are evil, and I know I'm going to make her great grandmother cry. It's very common among Catholics to know that they should avoid Baptists--though not black Baptists, I have to remember to make the distinction because they're like totally different churches.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 06:50 PM
jmdrake, I am not equating taxation to charity, I am talking about how some people like to criticize and judge others as not being good Christians simply because they may have a different or flawed perspective with regards to economic systems. I dont recall any Pope taxing me by force and yet this Pope is getting treated like he has.

I didn't say you were equating taxation to charity. That said this pope directly attacked the free market in his speech! I don't understand how you and Eduardo can read the speech, skip over the attacks on the free market and somehow come to the odd conclusion that he isn't attacking capitalism because he doesn't use the "C" word. What do you think the free market is? And frankly the "this pope isn't taxing me" argument is lame. None of the ivory tower accademics who push similar ideas have the power to tax me either. So?

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 06:52 PM
I agree that some of the defenses are weak, but that shouldn't cause hatred. And I can't say that I've ever heard any Catholics say that most or all Protestants are going to hell, and I grew up with a half-Catholic family and went to a Catholic college.

Well you've never heard me say any Catholic was going to hell, so it was uncalled for you to call me out for pointing out the truth that the Pope was attacking free market capitalism. You're better than that. That's all I'm going to say.

amy31416
11-27-2013, 06:55 PM
Well you've never heard me say any Catholic was going to hell, so it was uncalled for you to call me out for pointing out the truth that the Pope was attacking free market capitalism. You're better than that. That's all I'm going to say.

So are you, that's why I said something when you seemed chock full of glee about such a flaw.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:00 PM
Matthew 19:21

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Note. Jesus did not say "Go and sell all that you have and give it to the state so that they can redistribute it for you." Also note that this was a particular command given to a particular person. In other words, it was a test, not a general command. When Annanias and Safira sold their land and held back some of the proceeds, Peter said:

“Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Do you understand what was going on? Annanias wasn't punished by God for not giving all the proceeds to the poor. He was punished for lying about it. He was free to sell the land or not. He was free to keep the money or not. God loves a cheerful giver who does not giver under compulsion. Whether the state is making you give, or the church is saying "Give X or you are going to hell" it is still compulsion.

TER
11-27-2013, 07:01 PM
I didn't say you were equating taxation to charity. That said this pope directly attacked the free market in his speech! I don't understand how you and Eduardo can read the speech, skip over the attacks on the free market and somehow come to the odd conclusion that he isn't attacking capitalism because he doesn't use the "C" word. What do you think the free market is? And frankly the "this pope isn't taxing me" argument is lame. None of the ivory tower accademics who push similar ideas have the power to tax me either. So?

It is obvious in your posts that you believe you know better then Pope Francis on how nations should be run, how Christians should understand what it means to be stewards and charitable, how Christians should arrainge their governments and what financial methods should be utilized. Congrats! But because you think you are a greater Christian then him or smarter than him, does that mean that he does not love the poor?

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:03 PM
So are you, that's why I said something when you seemed chock full of glee about such a flaw.

You assumed I was "chock full of glee"? You know what they say about assuming. :rolleyes: I see no difference between the Pope and Obama. I hate neither, I think both are socialists and neither are above criticism. Those that get offended at their being criticized are the ones with the problem.

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 07:07 PM
I'm not convinced he's attacking markets. I'd like to see some quotes--or better still the too long to read document in unabridged form...


He also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"

In it, economic inequality features as one of the issues Francis is most concerned about. The 76-year-old pontiff calls for an overhaul of the financial system and warns that unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence.

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.

Denying this was simple populism, he called for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality" and added: "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor."

Stressing co-operation among religions, Francis quoted the late Pope John Paul II's idea that the papacy might be reshaped to promote closer ties with other Christian churches and noted lessons Rome could learn from the Orthodox church such as "synodality" or decentralised leadership.

I see condemnation there of corporatism and government squelching of competition by way of condemning economic inequality, the way the media is controlled enough to consider what the big players care about news and which refuse what they want to deemphasize, and calls for decentralization within the church heirarchy, and expresses dissatisfaction with what he calls the 'welfare mentality', among other things. None of this seems the least bit antithetical to free markets.

TER
11-27-2013, 07:09 PM
I'm not convinced he's attacking markets. I'd like to see some quotes--or better still the too long to read document in unabridged form...



I see condemnation there of corporatism and government squelching of competition by way of condemning economic inequality, the way the media is controlled enough to consider what the big players care about news and which refuse what they want to deemphasize, and calls for decentralization within the church heirarchy, among other things. None of this seems the least bit antithetical to free markets.

but but but, he's Catholic, and he's a Pope, he must be evilz!!!!!1!!

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 07:14 PM
but but but, he's Catholic, and he's a Pope, he must be evilz!!!!!1!!

Please stop escalating this and turn the other cheek.

I have great respect for Mr. Drake, and I'm curious to know if he's reading the pope's comments differently than I am, if he was affected by the Guardian's likely slanted synopsis, or if he has actually seen more of this statement than I have. Let's have a calm and rational discussion about this.

I hate to see hackles raised. I don't think anyone's issuing any blanket condemnations here...

TER
11-27-2013, 07:19 PM
Please stop escalating this and turn the other cheek.

you mean like this kind of escalation?: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434295-Pope-Francis-denounces-free-market-capitalism

but to honor your wishes, I will bow out of this thread.

DFF
11-27-2013, 07:21 PM
Dear Pope Francis,

Capitalism isn't what's ailing the US economy.

Bad legislation by the US government, coupled with the policies of the Federal Reserve, are what's causing wealth to become so concentrated in so few hands.

Socialism won't solve the problems caused by these institutions.

Only Capitalism unfettered will.

Sincerely,

DFF

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:21 PM
It is obvious in your posts that you believe you know better then Pope Francis on how nations should be run, how Christians should understand what it means to be stewards and charitable, how Christians should arrainge their governments and what financial methods should be utilized. Congrats! But because you think you are a greater Christian then him or smarter than him, does that mean that he does not love the poor?

And ^this is the basic reason why many Protestants are concerned about Catholics. The idea that somehow the Pope should be making decisions on how nations should be run. I don't think I should be making that decision. I don't think he should be making that decision. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom was of this world then would my servants fight to keep me from being taken captive." Nor do I think my belief in free markets somehow makes me less "Christian" than the Pope or anyone else. I don't know Pope Francis personally and I have no opinion about his walk with God. I simply disagree with the idea that we should be moving away from free markets. I think the problem with the world is that we have moved too far away from free markets. If that makes me "less Christian" then let me be "less Christian."

Also note, TER and amy, when someone else pointed out that the then Pope spoke out against the Iraq war, and the head of the Southern Baptist Convention defended the Iraq war under the "just war theory", not a single Protestant spoke up in defense of that particular Protestant leader. Instead I pointed out that "thankfully he doesn't speak for all Protestants." TER, could it be possible that the head of the Southern Baptist Convention might be a better Christian than you? He might be a better Christian than me. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say that in some ways he probably is a better Christian than me. But his possition on that application of the just war theory was flat out wrong. Likewise this Pope's statement in this speech about free markets if flat out wrong. If my pointing that out offends either of you, than you had better speak up the next time some Protestant religious leader is being justifiably criticized and say "Now now. Don't criticize Pastor X unless you can prove you are a better Christian than he is."

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:23 PM
you mean like this kind of escalation?: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434295-Pope-Francis-denounces-free-market-capitalism

but to honor your wishes, I will bow out of this thread.

I posted that thread after I saw Eduardo had posted a thread claiming Pope Francis had condemned socialism. After a quick Google search on pope Francis' economic views, that was what I came up with. It's the unreasonable defense of the indefensible that caused the "escalation."

purplechoe
11-27-2013, 07:25 PM
I've already read through the entire thread, and I have a slow connection, so no. But on this page itself, JMDrake surely seems pretty happy to declare the pope a giant craphead for not being libertarian--and I've read plenty of posts on this forum about Catholics being as evil as Masons, Bilderbergers, etc.

Even AF (on the first page of this thread) seemed pretty delighted--though I have no idea what his religion is, if any. If you want more, there's more.

I have a bias towards a religion, but I recognize it--Evangelical Christian Zionists. No apologies for it, but I'm curious about the anti-Catholic bias.

Well, did you hear the one about the pope being a Jesuit, an order which was responsible for helping spreading socialism in South America?

TER
11-27-2013, 07:25 PM
TER, could it be possible that the head of the Southern Baptist Convention might be a better Christian than you?

I am sure there are many Southern Baptists that are better Christians then me and will enter the Kingdom before I do. :) I also believe this Pope is probably a much greater Christian than I am.

With that, good night everyone and I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. :)

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:28 PM
I'm not convinced he's attacking markets. I'd like to see some quotes--or better still the too long to read document in unabridged form...



I see condemnation there of corporatism and government squelching of competition by way of condemning economic inequality, the way the media is controlled enough to consider what the big players care about news and which refuse what they want to deemphasize, and calls for decentralization within the church heirarchy, and expresses dissatisfaction with what he calls the 'welfare mentality', among other things. None of this seems the least bit antithetical to free markets.

What is your understanding of this direct quote from Pope Francis?

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

Seriously, I don't see how anyone can construe ^that as anything but an attack on free markets in general.

heavenlyboy34
11-27-2013, 07:35 PM
What is your understanding of this direct quote from Pope Francis?

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

Seriously, I don't see how anyone can construe ^that as anything but an attack on free markets in general.
Well, perhaps he understands the corporatism so common today to be "capitalism". IOW, he could be attacking crony capitalism that is commonly called "capitalism" in popular media. I didn't see where he defined his terms there, but I'm mostly skimming this thread. :/

pcosmar
11-27-2013, 07:39 PM
Well, did you hear the one about the pope being a Jesuit, an order which was responsible for helping spreading socialism in South America?

You mean "Liberation Theology"?

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/pope-meets-liberation-theology-pioneer

Pope meets with liberation theology pioneer



Some observers of the Catholic theological scene are saying that a personal meeting between Pope Francis and Dominican Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez could mark a thaw in decades of frosty relations between the church's hierarchy and liberation theologians.

Gutiérrez, a Peruvian, coined the phrase "liberation theology." The theology is marked by its concern for liberation of the world's people from unjust economic or social conditions. It was developed in Latin America during the region's military dictatorships in the 1960s and '70s.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1303902.htm
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/09/liberation-theology-finds-new-welcome-in-pope-francis-vatican/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus


In Latin America, the Jesuits have had significant influence in the development of liberation theology, a movement which has been highly controversial in the Catholic theological community and condemned by Pope John Paul II on several fundamental aspects.

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 07:46 PM
I posted this in Mr. Drake's thread...



I'm not one who is convinced that Hoover, Reagan, or 'trickle down economics' have anything at all to do with free markets myself...


'The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands.'--Will Rogers

Seems to me free markets are full of entrepreneurs, and stuff 'trickles down' from oligarchs. Very, very few entrepreneurs ever become oligarchs, and only a minority of oligarchs are entrepreneurs.

To which I can only add that his statement that he has not seen 'trickle down' work is more of a condemnation of those wielding economic power than an acknowledgement that they're allowing a free market to work, and the reference to the 'prevailing economic system' seems to me to confirm this.

All in all, it's pretty ambiguous and maybe I'm wrong. But the comments I saw from back when he was a cardinal make me think I'm reading it right. I wish he'd sharpen up his thoughts and his language on the matter.

jmdrake
11-27-2013, 07:49 PM
Well, perhaps he understands the corporatism so common today to be "capitalism". IOW, he could be attacking crony capitalism that is commonly called "capitalism" in popular media. I didn't see where he defined his terms there, but I'm mostly skimming this thread. :/

Fair enough. I used to think that unfettered free markets were "bad" and the government needed to intervene for the "social good." Then again I voted for Bill Clinton twice and John Kerry once and I flirted with the idea that the Acts model of Christianity justified the welfare state. In other words I was a borderline socialist and I didn't even know it. Was I a bad person back then? I don't think so. No worse than I am now. I was just wrong about some things. I'm sure I'm still wrong about a lot of things. I think that compassion and systematic benevolence are important. I don't think they are incompatible with free markets.

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 07:56 PM
Fair enough. I used to think that unfettered free markets were "bad" and the government needed to intervene for the "social good." Then again I voted for Bill Clinton twice and John Kerry once and I flirted with the idea that the Acts model of Christianity justified the welfare state. In other words I was a borderline socialist and I didn't even know it. Was I a bad person back then? I don't think so. No worse than I am now. I was just wrong about some things. I'm sure I'm still wrong about a lot of things. I think that compassion and systematic benevolence are important. I don't think they are incompatible with free markets.

Indeed, I suspect you've come around to the other side of the circle because you see the greater efficiency (due to reduced graft) of true charity--over and above the humanity inherent in opportunity.

Like I say, I do wish Francis would sharpen his thoughts and his language on this matter. If he did, he could turn into the force for good he seems to want to be. He certainly spoke plainly and freely enough when he was a mere cardinal who didn't want to be pope. It would be a terrible shame if he began mincing words just because he achieved such a bully pulpit.

Ender
11-27-2013, 07:57 PM
I posted this in Mr. Drake's thread...




To which I can only add that his statement that he has not seen 'trickle down' work is more of a condemnation of those wielding economic power than an acknowledgement that they're allowing a free market to work, and the reference to the 'prevailing economic system' seems to me to confirm this.

All in all, it's pretty ambiguous and maybe I'm wrong. But the comments I saw from back when he was a cardinal make me think I'm reading it right. I wish he'd sharpen up his thoughts and his language on the matter.

I believe my answer in post #105 might be the reason things seem ambiguous:


My take is that the Pope is speaking of the financial system as it is today and pointing out the deep flaws; he is asking that leaders move away from this. And, he is saying many of the same things that are said on this forum.

He is also choosing his words carefully as the financial world is a dangerous place.

tony m
11-27-2013, 07:58 PM
I read the proclamation and I am in agreement. #56 debt and purchasing power is a good example. The zombie types will not be able to read between the lines to figure out where he is pointing at. However, I see this as a great tool to explain his words to others. We have a person here who is revered and we can get headway explaining these economic proclamation points.


Just read the proclamation in full-

My take is that the Pope is speaking of the financial system as it is today and pointing out the deep flaws; he is asking that leaders move away from this. And, he is saying many of the same things that are said on this forum.

He is also choosing his words carefully as the financial world is a dangerous place.

LibForestPaul
11-27-2013, 08:24 PM
No, and Catholics may disagree on political and economic matters with the Pope, as long as they do not deviate from the moral teachings of the Faith.

What I completely reject, though, is the Ayn Randian notion that we should only follow self interest. As Christians we have a moral duty to not follow own own self interest, but to work for the common good of all mankind, and that includes in economic activities. The rich have a moral duty to share with the poor.

I do agree with the Pope that the state has a role in playing in ensuring the common good, namely by protecting basic rights such as the right to life and the right to property.

So you do not follow your self interests?
Define rich?
Define poor?
Define common good? What is this common good that you speak of?

acptulsa
11-27-2013, 08:28 PM
I agree with you, Ender and tony m.


. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own.

This seems to be the heart of the Socialism Trap. People feel they can abrogate their responsibility to humanity because they vote for socialists and pay their taxes. Meanwhile, opportunity dries up, plunging more people into need; charity becomes politicized, causing graft to eat up the resources before they reach the poor; charity becomes bureaucritized, ensuring it goes firstly and mostly to those who jump through the hoops the best without respect to actual need; and people lose the chance to help with their hearts and their hands. I still remember how much less got done in Joplin after the tornado when, after a week of outstanding effort, FEMA showed up and literally locked down the city. It was criminal. All the humanity went out of the enterprise, with a severely chilling effect on the effectiveness of it.

I think this pope is opening the door to a more mature conversation on this topic. I hope we will walk through that door--with a vengeance.

eduardo89
11-27-2013, 08:30 PM
So you do not follow your self interests?

Yes, but I am a sinner and I pray every day that God give me the strength and guidance to serve Him instead of myself.


Define rich?

Those who have more than they need.


Define poor?

Those who are unable to meet their basic essentials needed for sustaining life: food, water, shelter, clothing.


Define common good? What is this common good that you speak of?

This is what the Catechism sums up its definition of the common good as, I think it's a good starting place:


The common good comprises "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (GS 26 1).

The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.

The dignity of the human person requires the pursuit of the common good. Everyone should be concerned to create and support institutions that improve the conditions of human life.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 10:01 PM
And this fits nicely right here:


What Republicans Won’t Ever Say About Obamacare

by eric • November 27, 2013

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/11/27/vvvvv/

I keep getting forwarded e-mails from “conservative Republicans” moaning about Obamacare. Of course, none challenge the ethical idea behind it – this notion that people have a right to medical care and it is the obligation of others to provide it, at gunpoint if need be (the latter ugliness never mentioned, even in passing).

These Affordable Care Act critics will cackle all day long on Fox News about the “glitches” plaguing the Obamacare web site, about the rising cost of premiums, over policy cancellations because the old policies didn’t meet the new Obamacare Mandatory Minimums. But they won’t touch upon the only question that matters.

I despair, because the battle’s been lost – and these fools don’t even realize it.

Imagine whining that a bully used brass knuckles instead of his own knuckles to break your nose. This is the essence of the Republicans’ utilitarian objection. Not that the bully broke your nose – but how he did it. If he did it some other way, then it would ok.

Hence, the bacon-faces in the Senate will talk about reforming Obamacare, or starting over… with a “new plan” (their plan) which of course will be a better plan.

What none of them will talk about – not even Rand Paul – is questioning the very idea of bacon-faces in Congress (or jug ears in the White House) force-feeding their got-damned plans to anyone. That maybe medical care is, like any other work of human hands, the rightful property of those who create and provide it – and of those who buy it, with their own got-damned resources.

It is tragic that there are people who are ill or debilitated. They are entitled to sympathy – arising from empathy. Certainly, they ought to be helped.

But they are not ethically entitled to use violence to obtain so much as an tongue depressor. One man’s misfortune is not a claim enforceable at gunpoint on another.

Civilization is premised on this concept. That people are not beholden to one another except in terms of treating one another with respect and civility absent just cause (such as in self defense against aggression) to do otherwise. If that critical prop is kicked away – if it is replaced by the odious notion that one man may legally, via the mechanism of the ballot box, take from another, may enslave him (to any degree) in order to improve his own condition, with violence or its threat as his cudgel – then the death warrant of civilization has been signed.

It remains only to be executed.

Obamacare enshrines this notion – and thus, signs and executes the death warrant of whatever remains of the free society America once was but is no longer – because so many of her people have rejected ethical action and embraced the Republicans’ utilitarian human hyena-ism.

If, after all, every person is entitled to “care” – that is, to force others to provide it merely because he needs it and they posses the means to provide it – then surely every person is also entitled also to every other thing they need – from a roof over their heads to clothes on their backs to food in the ‘fridge. And not merely a roof – but a nice roof (perhaps architectural shingles) and designer clothes and rib eyes in the ‘Fridge – plus a flat screen TeeVee and an Escalade parked outside, too.

If not, why? What is the ethical argument in opposition?

There is none such.

All that’s left is squabbling over how much, who from – and how. This is mass-murderer Vladimir Lenin’s formulation of government: Who does what to whom.

And the Republicans? They are like the woman in the story attributed to Winston Churchill (or perhaps it was WC Fields, it doesn’t really matter). He offered a woman $1 million dollars if she would agree to sleep with him. The woman readily agreed. Whereupon Winston (or WC) inquired: “Well, how about $10?” The woman, greatly offended, shrieked back: ‘What kind of woman do you think I am?” Winston/WC shot back: “Madam, we have already established that. We are now haggling over details.”

Quite so.

That is what Republicans gave away when they refused to take an ethical stand against the underlying premise of Obamacare. Not that it “won’t work” or will “increase costs” and ought to be “repealed and then replaced.”

They should have said, simply: It is wrong to use one man’s misfortune as the basis for imposing misfortune on another man. Charity is good, neighbors and friends and families voluntary coming to each others’ aid in times of need, superlative. It brings out the best in people. Using bayonets and billy clubs, threats and cages – brings out the worst in people. It turns them into animals – scavengers – fighting over the corpses of their fellows.

This argument holds water. It is five feet thick – and re-bar reinforced. It leaves the proponents and defenders of Obamacare no choice but to bare the fangs behind their disingenuous smile of “progressive” and “liberal” (and yes, “compassionate” conservative) false humanity. For there is nothing less humane than slavery – the chaining of one human being to another. But this form of it is particularly odious because of its subtlety.

Rather than a single master, we each become one another’s master.

And one another’s slave, too.

It pours acid over empathy – and gradually extinguishes the natural and normal desire of men to help one another. Instead, people grow to resent one another. Your neighbor is no longer your neighbor. He is a guy whose “health care” imposes an obligation on you and your family no different than if you’d borrowed money from him at interest. Only he gets to set the amount of the principle – and the rate of interest – and you will never be able to pay off the “debt.”

If you think things were bad, pre-Obamacare – denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, stifling bureaucracy, high cost – just wait until the full weight of Obamacare descends and nothing about your life and how you live it is yours (and your own business) anymore.

Smoke? Your neighbors now have a claim on you – to be enforced at gunpoint. Eat red meat? The same. Exercise not “enough”? Duly noted; it will be reflected in your premium. By the way, how are your relations with the wife? Do you get angry much? What kinds of books do you read? And so on – with everything.

It is the natural, the inevitable consequence of accepting the utilitarianism that underlies Obamacare. And the only antidote is the rejection of utilitarianism – and an insistence on ethics. The ethics of the golden rule, of non-aggression and self-ownership and voluntary cooperation.

The result of that would be people taking care of each other – rather than preying on each other.

But don’t expect to hear it from a Republican.

Throw it in the woods.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 10:04 PM
Those who have more than they need.

Who decides that?

I don't know how much you "need".

Do you know how much I need?


Those who are unable to meet their basic essentials needed for sustaining life: food, water, shelter, clothing.

What kind of food?

Cornmeal and rice or filet Mignon?

What kind of shelter?

An 800 square foot dwelling or a mansion on Lake Como?

And who decides that?

More importantly...who enforces all of this?

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 10:07 PM
If, after all, every person is entitled to “care” – that is, to force others to provide it merely because he needs it and they posses the means to provide it – then surely every person is also entitled also to every other thing they need – from a roof over their heads to clothes on their backs to food in the ‘fridge. And not merely a roof – but a nice roof (perhaps architectural shingles) and designer clothes and rib eyes in the ‘Fridge – plus a flat screen TeeVee and an Escalade parked outside, too.

If not, why not?

What is the ethical argument in opposition?

There is none such.

???

Ender
11-27-2013, 10:07 PM
Who decides that?

I don't know how much you "need".

Do you know how much I need?



What kind of food?

Cornmeal and rice or filet Mignon?

What kind of shelter?

An 800 square foot dwelling or a mansion on Lake Como?

And who decides that?

More importantly...who enforces all of this?

In a truly Christian society, the individual decides.

CaptUSA
11-27-2013, 10:09 PM
And this fits nicely right here:Yes it does.

But it could really use it's own thread, too, don't you think? Good writing. Good sense.


They should have said, simply: It is wrong to use one man’s misfortune as the basis for imposing misfortune on another man.

Anti Federalist
11-27-2013, 10:10 PM
Yes it does.

But it could really use it's own thread, too, don't you think? Good writing. Good sense.

Done.

tony m
11-28-2013, 07:23 AM
Popes talk for emotion response. Nothing new.

In #'s 53 - 60, there is heavy material.

53: powerful - What is missing is, who, exactly, is the powerful? Most will say, the rich. It's deeper than rich.

54: naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system - Well, who is wielding this economic power?
sacralized workings? Yeah, bad stuff is going on in the inside. And what is the prevailing economic system? The Fed's Keynesian system. Prime the pump across the globe.
a globalization of indifference has developed - What is global that caused the global financial crisis which is tearing things apart world wide? The Fed exporting inflation as the worlds currency?

56: the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, -
Whose ideologies? Who exactly is "they"?
A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual - they? invisible? How come the mainstream media is not calling the Pope a conspiracy theorist?
Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. - The Pope sounds like he has been learning from Ron Paul. I only hear people talk about purchasing power if they are with the Liberty Movement. lol. I don't hear that phrase spoken by my local neo-tea's... The Pope won't come out and mention names.

59: no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility - He knows that the commoners are in trouble.

I will be using these points to get to other Catholics. When it comes to monetary theory, the Pope seems to have caught on to RP.

acptulsa
11-28-2013, 07:43 AM
How come the mainstream media is not calling the Pope a conspiracy theorist?

For the obvious reason that he would give credence to every truth-teller whom they try to discredit with that label. They aren't stupid, and they know they have just enough control over the debate to instead pretty much get away with telling baldfaced lies about what he said in the guise of 'interpretation and synopsis'.


I will be using these points to get to other Catholics. When it comes to monetary theory, the Pope seems to have caught on to RP.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tony m again.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 07:44 AM
How come the mainstream media is not calling the Pope a conspiracy theorist?
Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power.

Yeah, read it too and it is thought provoking, and not what the media are making it out to be at all.


He knows that the commoners are in trouble.

Yes, and it is interesting to see him get this political. I'd urge anyone who has the impression that the pope is advocating socialism or redistribution to really read what he is saying. Perhaps this is way to bring conservative zombie catholics over to the RP side and wake them up. If you can challenge them to really think past their initial emotional reaction to the criticism of trickle down. It does open the door to a mature discussion (as acptulsa put it).

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 08:19 AM
Popes talk for emotion response. Nothing new.

In #'s 53 - 60, there is heavy material.

53: powerful - What is missing is, who, exactly, is the powerful? Most will say, the rich. It's deeper than rich.

54: naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system - Well, who is wielding this economic power?
sacralized workings? Yeah, bad stuff is going on in the inside. And what is the prevailing economic system? The Fed's Keynesian system. Prime the pump across the globe.
a globalization of indifference has developed - What is global that caused the global financial crisis which is tearing things apart world wide? The Fed exporting inflation as the worlds currency?

56: the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, -
Whose ideologies? Who exactly is "they"?
A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual - they? invisible? How come the mainstream media is not calling the Pope a conspiracy theorist?
Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. - The Pope sounds like he has been learning from Ron Paul. I only hear people talk about purchasing power if they are with the Liberty Movement. lol. I don't hear that phrase spoken by my local neo-tea's... The Pope won't come out and mention names.

59: no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility - He knows that the commoners are in trouble.

I will be using these points to get to other Catholics. When it comes to monetary theory, the Pope seems to have caught on to RP.

Sorry, but this sounds nothing like Ron Paul to me.

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world, This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

I believe Ron Paul would say: "I believe that econim growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. The problem is that we do not have a free market. The federal reserve manipulating the money supply, high taxation, bailouts of banks and auto companies and other institutions do not allow the market to work as it should. In the name of protecting people from the free market, governments around the world have instead increased the misery index."

Sorry, but the Pope sounds more like Occupy Wall Street than Ron Paul. That said, I think the OWS movement, without realizing it, supports some of Ron Paul's ideas. The danger is that they can easily be manipulated into pushing for more government to fix the problems actually created by too much government.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcGT5a9-q7o

Compare with:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdH7iGNqlY

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 08:27 AM
Sorry, but this sounds nothing like Ron Paul to me.

But Pope Francis is diagnosing a spiritual ailment. He is saying that idolizing a free market in principle can blind us to the abuses perpetrated in the name of that market. I don't see any direct criticism of the idea of the free market in that document, the focus is on the abuse. Also, keep in mind that it is a translation.

tony m
11-28-2013, 10:30 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tony m again.

I agree with you.

***

We will also be hawking the phrase Hunger Games/Catching Fire when young people walk by as we vend our Liberty Apparel at our upcoming gigs. Good way to draw this segment in for conversation.

Overall, it's been a really good week of new tools to work two large market segments. There will be productive results.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 10:44 AM
But Pope Francis is diagnosing a spiritual ailment. He is saying that idolizing a free market in principle can blind us to the abuses perpetrated in the name of that market. I don't see any direct criticism of the idea of the free market in that document, the focus is on the abuse. Also, keep in mind that it is a translation.

Yo Dino, I am not aware of any country that practices Capitalism. But what 'abuses" are being perpetrated on its behalf?

.

tony m
11-28-2013, 11:08 AM
The danger is that they can easily be manipulated into pushing for more government to fix the problems actually created by too much government.



True.

The pope here has mixed messages. He does have some keywords and phrasings that are not typical of a progressive stance.

The media has pulled into the feed'em box what works to push their agenda. We only have us to educate others what we can pull that supports what/who are the core causes.

He has spots of some critical thinking skills where it sure seems he is targeting the banksters. I feel that he has said enough to go on to get Catholics thinking about monetary; there is a potential unifier here with Catholic dems and repubs.

Are the banksters more powerful than the Vatican? There is a lot of really heavy info concerning this avenue. I don't know so I can only work evidence that the zombies can begin to handle.

There is something to work with here.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 11:56 AM
Yo Dino, I am not aware of any country that practices Capitalism. But what 'abuses" are being perpetrated on its behalf?

.

The disconnect between the economy and the common good because of crony capitalism. He makes reference to the powerful feeding on the powerless, to reducing people to consumers, debt robbing people of purchasing power. Abuse might not have been the right word...corruption? It's hard to summarize with complete accuracy. He says that it is naive to "assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world" because (in the next sentence) the assumption is based on trusting "those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." I read this as a condemnation of corruption rather than a condemnation of a "free market." I don't think the point of what he is saying is to provide political guidance, though, as much as spiritual guidance to those who make political decisions. It is just interesting that he gets a bit specific about some of the political corruption.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 12:01 PM
True.

The pope here has mixed messages. He does have some keywords and phrasings that are not typical of a progressive stance.

The media has pulled into the feed'em box what works to push their agenda. We only have us to educate others what we can pull that supports what/who are the core causes.

He has spots of some critical thinking skills where it sure seems he is targeting the banksters. I feel that he has said enough to go on to get Catholics thinking about monetary; there is a potential unifier here with Catholic dems and repubs.

Are the banksters more powerful than the Vatican? There is a lot of really heavy info concerning this avenue. I don't know so I can only work evidence that the zombies can begin to handle.

There is something to work with here.

It is the "keywords typical of" that I think a lot of people are reacting to. He doesn't make concrete political recommendations.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 12:31 PM
But Pope Francis is diagnosing a spiritual ailment. He is saying that idolizing a free market in principle can blind us to the abuses perpetrated in the name of that market. I don't see any direct criticism of the idea of the free market in that document, the focus is on the abuse. Also, keep in mind that it is a translation.

Okay. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll keep beating. My argument is not against warnings about idolizing anything or warnings against corportism or anything other than a concern that he apparently considers the assumption that economic growth coming from a free market tends to justice and reduction of economic inequality. I simply don't agree that Ron Paul would say anything of the sort. That said, it's possible that Ron Paul could be wrong. (gasp) It's also possible that Pope Francis could be wrong. (double gasp) I have a concern about people idolizing people more than I have a concern about people idolizing a free market. A free market includes the freedom to be generous. There is nothing about a free market that says I can't take all the proceeds I earn in a free market and give it too the homeless if that's what I want to do. But as countries move away from free markets, individuals have less money that they can spend on voluntarily helping other individuals.

rambone
11-28-2013, 12:33 PM
The Vatican has a history of making anti-freedom statements and wild misinterpretations of the bible. It has called for global gun control and world government.

Vatican Council Calls for World Government, Central Bank (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8864-vatican-council-calls-for-world-government-central-bank) (2011)

The Vatican government is full of false Christians, dark secrets, and statist politicians. That does not imply that all Catholics are bad, but their doctrine has a lot of dangerous departures from the scripture. The presentation of the pope being an "infallible human being" is patently offensive to a bible-believing Christian. Politically or spiritually, follow the Vatican at your own peril.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 12:40 PM
Okay. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll keep beating. My argument is not against warnings about idolizing anything or warnings against corportism or anything other than a concern that he apparently considers the assumption that economic growth coming from a free market tends to justice and reduction of economic inequality. I simply don't agree that Ron Paul would say anything of the sort. That said, it's possible that Ron Paul could be wrong. (gasp) It's also possible that Pope Francis could be wrong. (double gasp) I have a concern about people idolizing people more than I have a concern about people idolizing a free market. A free market includes the freedom to be generous. There is nothing about a free market that says I can't take all the proceeds I earn in a free market and give it too the homeless if that's what I want to do. But as countries move away from free markets, individuals have less money that they can spend on voluntarily helping other individuals.

"Inevitably" lead to justice and reduction and economic inequality...and then note the reason why in the next sentence. I don't see how, in context, you can read this as a criticism of the free market. On the contrary, he seems to be admitting that they lead to good things when not corrupted.

Anyway, it wouldn't be that big of a deal if he was wrong. The document is an Apostolic Exortation rather than an encyclical. It is about the equivalent of a homily from the pope. It is not an infallible document, and I am in wait and see mode like most people about this new pope. But I do think that it is genuinely thought provoking and see no need to react with suspicion about what his personal political opinions may or may not be based on certain keywords.

Edit: I hope I addressed, the "tends to" thing, but I realize now I didn't read your post carefully. One of the things I find thought provoking and timely about what he is saying is that I think he is correct about people's blindness to injustice coming from corporatism..when they assume that our system is free market and therefore must be good, when it is really corporatist.

acptulsa
11-28-2013, 12:41 PM
But as countries move away from free markets, individuals have less money that they can spend on voluntarily helping other individuals.

This. Which not only leaves the poor getting the scraps left over from the graft and corruption, but as I said before, leaves them at the mercy of a bureaucracy which demonstrably rewards those who jump through bureaucratic hoops the best and seems to have no consideration for actual need.

Perhaps the best line from Pope Francis is socialists give a man a fish then prohibit him from fishing.

Ender
11-28-2013, 12:42 PM
The Vatican has a history of making anti-freedom statements and wild misinterpretations of the bible. It has called for global gun control and world government.

Vatican Council Calls for World Government, Central Bank (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/8864-vatican-council-calls-for-world-government-central-bank) (2011)

The Vatican government is full of false Christians, dark secrets, and statist politicians. That does not imply that all Catholics are bad, but their doctrine has a lot of dangerous departures from the scripture. The presentation of the pope being an "infallible human being" is patently offensive to a bible-believing Christian. Politically or spiritually, follow the Vatican at your own peril.

Pope Francis isn't the "Vatican".

I believe him to be a good man and one that will make a big difference, if he lives long enough.

Ender
11-28-2013, 12:47 PM
Okay. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but I'll keep beating. My argument is not against warnings about idolizing anything or warnings against corportism or anything other than a concern that he apparently considers the assumption that economic growth coming from a free market tends to justice and reduction of economic inequality. I simply don't agree that Ron Paul would say anything of the sort. That said, it's possible that Ron Paul could be wrong. (gasp) It's also possible that Pope Francis could be wrong. (double gasp) I have a concern about people idolizing people more than I have a concern about people idolizing a free market. A free market includes the freedom to be generous. There is nothing about a free market that says I can't take all the proceeds I earn in a free market and give it too the homeless if that's what I want to do. But as countries move away from free markets, individuals have less money that they can spend on voluntarily helping other individuals.

The Pope's words are coming to us from a translation- I would like to see the official document and the exact translation. After the nonsensical translations in the case of Iran, I am not too trusting.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 01:46 PM
But the translation is the official Vatican one.

Ender
11-28-2013, 01:57 PM
But the translation is the official Vatican one.

Still want to read it myself.

erowe1
11-28-2013, 02:03 PM
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

Ender
11-28-2013, 02:05 PM
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

Thanks, but I meant in the original language.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 03:54 PM
Thanks, but I meant in the original language.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't trust a translation from the Vatican as they have the most to lose from getting it wrong. That said here is the same thing in Spanish which is the original tongue of Pope Francis.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_sp.html

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 04:06 PM
"Inevitably" lead to justice and reduction and economic inequality...and then note the reason why in the next sentence. I don't see how, in context, you can read this as a criticism of the free market. On the contrary, he seems to be admitting that they lead to good things when not corrupted.

Anyway, it wouldn't be that big of a deal if he was wrong. The document is an Apostolic Exortation rather than an encyclical. It is about the equivalent of a homily from the pope. It is not an infallible document, and I am in wait and see mode like most people about this new pope. But I do think that it is genuinely thought provoking and see no need to react with suspicion about what his personal political opinions may or may not be based on certain keywords.

Edit: I hope I addressed, the "tends to" thing, but I realize now I didn't read your post carefully. One of the things I find thought provoking and timely about what he is saying is that I think he is correct about people's blindness to injustice coming from corporatism..when they assume that our system is free market and therefore must be good, when it is really corporatist.

Okay. Let's say if the Pope had criticized the asumption that the growth of real Christianity inevitably leads to justice? What would you call that? Sorry, but I see you coming back to the same false (IMO) argument. The truth is that we don't have a pure free market system anywhere in the world. We never will. So the question with what causes the "failures" of the freemarket is whether the failure is caused by the free market or the fixes to it. That's like the fact that since the death of the apostles we haven't had pure Christianity. We still have vast injustice in all "Christian" countires. Is that the fault of Christianity? Is faith in Christianity "naive"? Anyway, as I'm not Catholic I have no concern about whether it is an "encyclical" or not. In fact I don't really care if he is ultimately "right" or not. My evalutation is what does he actualy mean. If I read this and didn't know who wrote it, I would think it sounds more like Barack Obama or maybe Cornel West than Ron Paul. That said, while I'm not an Obama fan, I do like Cornel West. That he is skeptical about free markets doesn't bother me like the possibility of Pope Francis being skeptical about free markets seems to bother Catholics.

heavenlyboy34
11-28-2013, 04:15 PM
Okay. Let's say if the Pope had criticized the asumption that the growth of real Christianity inevitably leads to justice? What would you call that? Sorry, but I see you coming back to the same false (IMO) argument. The truth is that we don't have a pure free market system anywhere in the world. We never will. So the question with what causes the "failures" of the freemarket is whether the failure is caused by the free market or the fixes to it. That's like the fact that since the death of the apostles we haven't had pure Christianity. We still have vast injustice in all "Christian" countires. Is that the fault of Christianity? Is faith in Christianity "naive"? Anyway, as I'm not Catholic I have no concern about whether it is an "encyclical" or not. In fact I don't really care if he is ultimately "right" or not. My evalutation is what does he actualy mean. If I read this and didn't know who wrote it, I would think it sounds more like Barack Obama or maybe Cornel West than Ron Paul. That said, while I'm not an Obama fan, I do like Cornel West. That he is skeptical about free markets doesn't bother me like the possibility of Pope Francis being skeptical about free markets seems to bother Catholics.
"black" markets are free, and they exist just about everywhere.

Contumacious
11-28-2013, 04:26 PM
The disconnect between the economy and the common good because of crony capitalism.


Crony capitalism is NOT Laissez faire Capitalism.

I do not know what you mean by the "common good".




He makes reference to the powerful feeding on the powerless, .


I don't like that either.

So I went to a University learn marketable skills and now won't let the powerful feed on the powerless (me). They want my services ? Good. But they must pay through the nose.

.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 05:59 PM
Okay. Let's say if the Pope had criticized the asumption that the growth of real Christianity inevitably leads to justice? What would you call that? Sorry, but I see you coming back to the same false (IMO) argument. The truth is that we don't have a pure free market system anywhere in the world. We never will. So the question with what causes the "failures" of the freemarket is whether the failure is caused by the free market or the fixes to it. That's like the fact that since the death of the apostles we haven't had pure Christianity. We still have vast injustice in all "Christian" countires. Is that the fault of Christianity? Is faith in Christianity "naive"? Anyway, as I'm not Catholic I have no concern about whether it is an "encyclical" or not. In fact I don't really care if he is ultimately "right" or not. My evalutation is what does he actualy mean. If I read this and didn't know who wrote it, I would think it sounds more like Barack Obama or maybe Cornel West than Ron Paul. That said, while I'm not an Obama fan, I do like Cornel West. That he is skeptical about free markets doesn't bother me like the possibility of Pope Francis being skeptical about free markets seems to bother Catholics.

The only "fixes" I can think of that we made to the free market, are things I would label as corruption. They tend to favor one group over another and lead to the kind of inequality that Francis is talking about. I have no idea what your issue is with what Francis said other than the language seems suspicious to you. I suspect that he was deliberately being vague because his purpose was to prescribe a spiritual solution and not a political one. Good luck nailing him down on his exact political opinions. I have no idea what your argument is with me either, because I don't know of any political disagreement that we are having here. You said yourself that no free market actually exists (and won't). Is that because it would be naive to think it could? Aren't you saying the same thing as Francis?

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 06:00 PM
Crony capitalism is NOT Laissez faire Capitalism.

Is that supposed to be news to me? It seems painfully obvious.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 06:04 PM
I'm not sure why you wouldn't trust a translation from the Vatican as they have the most to lose from getting it wrong. That said here is the same thing in Spanish which is the original tongue of Pope Francis.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_sp.html

He is wise not to.

RJB
11-28-2013, 06:12 PM
Popes are usually vague in these matters as are most politicians. Because they are limited by both Scripture and Sacred Tradition, their "power" is limited. The only type of pronouncement made by a Pope that gets attention from Catholics is on issues such as should we receive the Eucharist standing or kneeling.

My interpretation since there isn't a true free-market, he speaking of corporate corruption of the Military Industial Complex in wars, big pharma corrupting health care, banking cartels and their control of our money.

Then again as with most political writing, you see what you want to see as is demonstrated by this thread.

In the long term (the way I see it as a Catholic) he is merely occupying a seat. 2000 years from now, Pope Francis will be dead but the Church will remain. In the past there have been very holy men who were popes as well as very evil men, However, that doesn't affect my relation with my savior, Jesus Christ.

Ender
11-28-2013, 07:05 PM
In just a little perusing of the Spanish, I believe that the correct interpretation of the Pope's words are a little more favorable. A couple of small essential words have been left out.

Here it is in Spanish:


54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo. Esta opinión, que jamás ha sido confirmada por los hechos, expresa una confianza burda e ingenua en la bondad de quienes detentan el poder económico y en los mecanismos sacralizados del sistema económico imperante.

The "official" translation says:


54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

The real translation is:

54. In this context, some still defend the 'spill' theories, which assume that all economic growth, favored by the free market, achieved by itself result in greater equity and social inclusion in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the kindness of those who hold economic power and the pilgrimage mechanisms of the prevailing economic system.

There are a few differences, but I have bolded the part that changes the Pope's words a bit and makes them reasonable. He seems to be saying that not all prosperity and inclusion is achieved by a market and by itself. And that to think so, puts a naive trust in the present PTB.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 07:05 PM
He is wise not to.

I do not trust the Whitehouse, but I would trust it to at least faithfully translate Obama's speeches. If the Pope can't make sure that his own words are correctly translated on his own website...that's rather weak. Plus, doesn't he speak fluent English?

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 07:10 PM
The only "fixes" I can think of that we made to the free market, are things I would label as corruption. They tend to favor one group over another and lead to the kind of inequality that Francis is talking about. I have no idea what your issue is with what Francis said other than the language seems suspicious to you. I suspect that he was deliberately being vague because his purpose was to prescribe a spiritual solution and not a political one. Good luck nailing him down on his exact political opinions. I have no idea what your argument is with me either, because I don't know of any political disagreement that we are having here. You said yourself that no free market actually exists (and won't). Is that because it would be naive to think it could? Aren't you saying the same thing as Francis?

My "issue" isn't with Francis. It's with the mental gymnastics people like you are going through to make him say what he didn't or deflect from what he did say. I don't think the MSM misrepresented what he said at all. Maybe he was being purposefully vague. I know that TER felt he was talking politically and he was defending the Pope. You think he was not speaking politically but merely spiritually and you're defending him. So two of his defenders are at odds over what he actually said and yet somehow I'm the bad guy for reading in the most obvious explanation which is that it was actually an attack on free markets. A Catholic that dislikes free markets would read what he said and praise him for agreeing with the socialist position. My view of what he said is only seen as "bad" here because socialism is seen as "bad" here.

pcosmar
11-28-2013, 07:22 PM
Plus, doesn't he speak fluent English?

I think he is practiced at double talk in several languages.

and am personally convinced that he will be that last pope. Or at least that it is very likely.

Ender
11-28-2013, 07:34 PM
I think he is practiced at double talk in several languages.

and am personally convinced that he will be that last pope. Or at least that it is very likely.

Read my translation on post #206.

eduardo89
11-28-2013, 07:37 PM
But Pope Francis is diagnosing a spiritual ailment. He is saying that idolizing a free market in principle can blind us to the abuses perpetrated in the name of that market. I don't see any direct criticism of the idea of the free market in that document, the focus is on the abuse. Also, keep in mind that it is a translation.
Very well said, +rep

erowe1
11-28-2013, 07:43 PM
Why are people talking about the Spanish? That's not the original language is it?

eduardo89
11-28-2013, 07:47 PM
Why are people talking about the Spanish? That's not the original language is it?

It's the Pope's native language and the one he is most comfortable communicating in. I assume he would write something as important as his first apostolic exhortation in his native language....the official language for the apostolic exhortation is Latin, though.

Ender
11-28-2013, 09:10 PM
Why are people talking about the Spanish? That's not the original language is it?

Yes, the Evangelii Gaudium was written in Spanish.

jmdrake
11-28-2013, 09:20 PM
In just a little perusing of the Spanish, I believe that the correct interpretation of the Pope's words are a little more favorable. A couple of small essential words have been left out.

Here it is in Spanish:



The "official" translation says:



The real translation is:

54. In this context, some still defend the 'spill' theories, which assume that all economic growth, favored by the free market, achieved by itself result in greater equity and social inclusion in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the kindness of those who hold economic power and the pilgrimage mechanisms of the prevailing economic system.

There are a few differences, but I have bolded the part that changes the Pope's words a bit and makes them reasonable. He seems to be saying that not all prosperity and inclusion is achieved by a market and by itself. And that to think so, puts a naive trust in the present PTB.

That's nice. Your translation still sounds more like a Cornel West criticism of unfettered free markets than a Ron Paul attack on corportism corrupting free markets. Sorry, but it does. And it expresses a naivite on the Pope's part that the people who support unfettered free markets are counting on the goodness of those who wield economic power as opposed to the power of market forces to "correct" those who abuse free markets. It's a fundamental different understanding of free markets just like there is a fundamendat different understanding on guns between those who are for and against gun control. When Ron Paul says that had the market been allowed to work the result of the housing bubble would have been the bad players going out of business he's not saying that because he felt that the "good guys" would punish the "bad guys" but that enlightened self interest would punish the "bad guys". I don't know how many times I will have to repeat this before someone gets it. Belief in the power of free markets to punish malfeasance has nothing to do with belief in the "goodness" of people with economic power.

Ender
11-28-2013, 10:34 PM
That's nice. Your translation still sounds more like a Cornel West criticism of unfettered free markets than a Ron Paul attack on corportism corrupting free markets. Sorry, but it does. And it expresses a naivite on the Pope's part that the people who support unfettered free markets are counting on the goodness of those who wield economic power as opposed to the power of market forces to "correct" those who abuse free markets. It's a fundamental different understanding of free markets just like there is a fundamendat different understanding on guns between those who are for and against gun control. When Ron Paul says that had the market been allowed to work the result of the housing bubble would have been the bad players going out of business he's not saying that because he felt that the "good guys" would punish the "bad guys" but that enlightened self interest would punish the "bad guys". I don't know how many times I will have to repeat this before someone gets it. Belief in the power of free markets to punish malfeasance has nothing to do with belief in the "goodness" of people with economic power.

You are not reading what is written.

I think you've got the Anti-unfettered markets and capitalism campaign that's going on, confused with what the Pope actually is saying. He is NOT talking about economics or capitalism or any ism except the "ism" of corrupt power and the downtrodding of one's fellowman.

Here is what Pope Francis is saying:

First he sets up the realities of today’s world- something we talk about continually on this forum. How there is no escape and basically how the common man is becoming excluded: “those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

THEN he says that in this context, some are still defending the trickledown theories because they are assuming that ALL economic growth is a result of greater prosperity and social inclusion. The Pope then says that this exhibits a real naïve ignorance about the purpose of those who hold economic power and control the current system.

dinosaur
11-28-2013, 11:05 PM
My "issue" isn't with Francis. It's with the mental gymnastics people like you are going through to make him say what he didn't or deflect from what he did say. I don't think the MSM misrepresented what he said at all. Maybe he was being purposefully vague. I know that TER felt he was talking politically and he was defending the Pope. You think he was not speaking politically but merely spiritually and you're defending him. So two of his defenders are at odds over what he actually said and yet somehow I'm the bad guy for reading in the most obvious explanation which is that it was actually an attack on free markets. A Catholic that dislikes free markets would read what he said and praise him for agreeing with the socialist position. My view of what he said is only seen as "bad" here because socialism is seen as "bad" here.

My "mental gymnastics" are in your head. A catholic who dislikes free markets might do just what you say, but his conclusions would not be based on something that was actually in the text of the document.

Ender
11-29-2013, 12:42 PM
Please read my "translation" on post #216.

pcosmar
11-29-2013, 01:01 PM
The Pope then says that this exhibits a real naïve ignorance about the purpose of those who hold economic power and control the current system.

And who is that? I am sure he knows,,

Will he name them?
@doubts

Ender
11-29-2013, 01:17 PM
And who is that? I am sure he knows,,

Will he name them?
@doubts

You want an honest liberty-leaning Pope to stick around awhile or go the way of JFK?

eduardo89
11-29-2013, 01:24 PM
And who is that? I am sure he knows,,

Will he name them?
@doubts

Why does he have to name them? The names of world and economic leaders are easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection.


You want an honest liberty-leaning Pope to stick around awhile or go the way of JFK?

He wouldn't last longer than John Paul I.

eduardo89
11-29-2013, 11:05 PM
Very good video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdmrqx3fvRo

Carson
11-30-2013, 12:10 AM
"Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth"

Funny.

What I've been seeing for the last fifty years is a unfettered stealth-back-door-socialism from the central bank counterfeiting that grew an ever widening gap between the rich, like in the church, and the poor, as in the people.

It has been stealing the capital out of the capital, capitalism needs to function.

Now they are calling for in-your-face socialism to fix it.

Well funny but definitely not the Haw Haw type of funny.

Ender
11-30-2013, 12:58 AM
"Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth"

Funny.

What I've been seeing for the last fifty years is a unfettered stealth-back-door-socialism from the central bank counterfeiting that grew an ever widening gap between the rich, like in the church, and the poor, as in the people.

It has been stealing the capital out of the capital, capitalism needs to function.

Now they are calling for in-your-face socialism to fix it.

Well funny but definitely not the Haw Haw type of funny.

*SIGH*

Lucille
11-30-2013, 10:34 AM
Unpacking the Latest Hot Mess from Pope Francis
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2013/11/28/unpacking-the-latest-hot-mess-from-pope-francis/


Dread. From the moment the white smoke appeared, it has just been dread. Every day I dread what he is going to say or do. What must be remembered in all of this, and what I have been saying since day one of the Franciscan pontificate is that we MUST understand and remember that Our Lord is ANGRY. Very, very angry. And as St. John Eudes told is in no uncertain terms, when God is angry with His people, we get bad clergy. Given the unprecedented sins of the once-Christian world, it should be no surprise whatsoever that we now have not just bad priests, but a bad pope. Hey, if we had the pope we deserved we would have Pope Snoop Dogg right now, so… yeah. Sigh.
[...]
False premise #1: Pope Francis is intelligent, because only an intelligent man could ever rise through the Church and be elected pope. (This sounds eerily familiar somehow…)
TRUE premise: Pope Francis is not a terribly intelligent man.
[...]
False premise #2: Pope Francis understands economics and the financial system.
TRUE premise: Pope Francis understands little to nothing about economics and the financial system.

This cannot be overemphasized. Taking economic advice from Pope Francis is like taking advice on deep sea oil drilling or the proper playing of the French Horn from me. For those of you who have watched my 2.5 hour video series on YouTube about the financial system and economics, do you honestly believe that Pope Francis knows ANYTHING about any of that? Do you think he understands the situation with regards to the banking system, the debt bubble or the massive global derivatives exposure? And that is just barely scratching the surface of the topic. Do you think Pope Francis even understands or has thought about what money actually is? Let me answer that question clearly. No. Pope Francis’ entire economic platform is, “Give poor people more free stuff forevah.” That’s it.

False premise #3: Pope Francis is politically conservative or completely non-political.
TRUE premise: Pope Francis is a Peronist-Fascist which is a particular subset of Marxism in South America that believes that the state should control the economy and redistribute wealth.
[...]
False premise #4: Pope Francis is fully versed in and fully understands and fully believes what the Church teaches and has taught for 2000 years.
TRUE premise: Pope Francis is a Jesuit and a direct product of the post-asteroid (aka post Vatican II) era. As such, he is woefully uneducated and contra-educated, and believes that the Church was “reborn” in approximately ARSH 1968, and that everything before ARSH 1968 is inferior and/or irrelevant...

pcosmar
11-30-2013, 11:10 AM
He wouldn't last longer than John Paul I.

That would be one way to prove that he is not the "Last Pope".

And I don't remember Jesus ever being concerned about those that opposed his message.

Contumacious
11-30-2013, 12:00 PM
"Pope Francis calls unfettered capitalism 'tyranny' and urges rich to share wealth"

Funny.

What I've been seeing for the last fifty years is a unfettered stealth-back-door-socialism from the central bank counterfeiting that grew an ever widening gap between the rich, like in the church, and the poor, as in the people.

It has been stealing the capital out of the capital, capitalism needs to function.

Now they are calling for in-your-face socialism to fix it.

Well funny but definitely not the Haw Haw type of funny.

Bingo.


Pope Francis shouldn't bite the hand that feeds the Catholic Church (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/pope-francis-shouldnt-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-the-catholic-church/article/2539926)

Pope Francis doesn’t celebrate Thanksgiving. So there is no need for him today to thank capitalism, a system that has done far more to alleviate poverty, his pet crusade, than the institution he leads. But he should take a pause from railing against it — not least because it enables the very activity that he cherishes most: charity."

.

dinosaur
11-30-2013, 12:22 PM
First he sets up the realities of today’s world- something we talk about continually on this forum. How there is no escape and basically how the common man is becoming excluded: “those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

THEN he says that in this context, some are still defending the trickledown theories because they are assuming that ALL economic growth is a result of greater prosperity and social inclusion. The Pope then says that this exhibits a real naïve ignorance about the purpose of those who hold economic power and control the current system.

This makes sense, thank you.

pcosmar
11-30-2013, 12:42 PM
You want an honest liberty-leaning Pope to stick around awhile or go the way of JFK?

I don't want a Pope at all.

I certainly have no use for a "man of God" being fearful of being killed. Or one that can be killed without God ordaining it.

Ender
11-30-2013, 02:07 PM
I don't want a Pope at all.

I certainly have no use for a "man of God" being fearful of being killed. Or one that can be killed without God ordaining it.

I'm not Catholic but Pope Francis is the first Pope I have looked at with some deep respect. He didn't start the church but now he heads it and his deep compassion for the downtrodden is amazing. I would like to see him stick around awhile and see where his leadership takes the church.

And for those of you that keep spouting the "anti-capitalism" rhetoric, Pope Francis never says what you are insisting he is saying.

Contumacious
11-30-2013, 02:49 PM
I'm not Catholic but Pope Francis is the first Pope I have looked at with some deep respect. He didn't start the church but now he heads it and his deep compassion for the downtrodden is amazing. I would like to see him stick around awhile and see where his leadership takes the church.


Are those of us who work until July to pay for the US welfare/warfare state considered downtrodden?


And for those of you that keep spouting the "anti-capitalism" rhetoric, Pope Francis never says what you are insisting he is saying.

Yep, he did.

.

Ender
11-30-2013, 03:22 PM
Are those of us who work until July to pay for the US welfare/warfare state considered downtrodden?


You are whatever you think you are.




Yep, he did.


Nope- he didn't.

One more time:

Here is what Pope Francis is saying:

First he sets up the realities of today’s world- something we talk about continually on this forum. How there is no escape and basically how the common man is becoming excluded: “those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

THEN he says that in this context, some are still defending the trickledown theories because they are assuming that ALL economic growth is a result of greater prosperity and social inclusion. The Pope then says that this exhibits a real naïve ignorance about the purpose of those who hold economic power and control the current system.

Dr.3D
11-30-2013, 04:23 PM
I'm not Catholic but Pope Francis is the first Pope I have looked at with some deep respect. He didn't start the church but now he heads it and his deep compassion for the downtrodden is amazing. I would like to see him stick around awhile and see where his leadership takes the church.

And for those of you that keep spouting the "anti-capitalism" rhetoric, Pope Francis never says what you are insisting he is saying.
There is only one head of the church and He is Christ.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (KJV)

Ender
11-30-2013, 04:27 PM
There is only one head of the church and He is Christ.

i am not speaking theologically but politically.

I am a non-denominational minister under a Vow of Poverty; I am well aware of who is who.

Dr.3D
11-30-2013, 04:56 PM
i am not speaking theologically but politically.

I am a non-denominational minister under a Vow of Poverty; I am well aware of who is who.
In my opinion, every Christian should minister to the non-denominational Church of God. This means he should serve the church and not try to inflate his stature as being some kind of leader.

Ender
11-30-2013, 05:12 PM
In my opinion, every Christian should minister to the non-denominational Church of God. This means he should serve the church and not try to inflate his stature as being some kind of leader.

In this we agree.

However there is a man who has been declared Pope of the Catholic Church who might might make some significant political differences within his jurisdiction. This I find very interesting and hopeful.

heavenlyboy34
11-30-2013, 05:15 PM
There is only one head of the church and He is Christ.
I agree with this^^ One of the major differences between the Western(Roman) and Eastern Church.

erowe1
11-30-2013, 06:03 PM
It's the Pope's native language and the one he is most comfortable communicating in. I assume he would write something as important as his first apostolic exhortation in his native language....the official language for the apostolic exhortation is Latin, though.

I wouldn't assume he would write it in Spanish, nor that he wrote it by himself. I don't know though.

Ender
11-30-2013, 07:01 PM
I wouldn't assume he would write it in Spanish, nor that he wrote it by himself. I don't know though.

The original text is in Spanish.

erowe1
11-30-2013, 07:18 PM
The original text is in Spanish.

Thanks.

How did you find that out? I tried and couldn't find that info.

Ender
11-30-2013, 07:45 PM
Thanks.

How did you find that out? I tried and couldn't find that info.

jmdrake actually found it for me. :)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/fr...audium_sp.html

erowe1
11-30-2013, 08:21 PM
jmdrake actually found it for me. :)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/fr...audium_sp.html

Yeah, that's the Spanish version. But where does it say that's the original?

Ender
11-30-2013, 10:35 PM
Yeah, that's the Spanish version. But where does it say that's the original?

Well, since this is what Pope Francis speaks, one would only assume that the original is in Spanish.

PRB
11-30-2013, 11:08 PM
Thou Shalt Not Steal...always seems to fall by the wayside, no?

And the fact that nothing lifts people out of poverty faster than a robust, thriving, free market economy?

I guess that's lost as well.

Yeah, the best way that'll happen is open borders, no taxes, no tariffs and more imported goods, more offshore outsourcing of labor.

acptulsa
12-01-2013, 05:50 AM
Yeah, the best way that'll happen is open borders, no taxes, no tariffs and more imported goods, more offshore outsourcing of labor.

The only thing that ever made any of that attractive to any corporation is our insane federal legal code. Scrap the whole code--strip us right down to the Constitution on the federal level and start over--and offshoring will lose all appeal in an instant.

Teenager For Ron Paul
12-01-2013, 01:44 PM
;)

PRB
12-01-2013, 01:56 PM
The only thing that ever made any of that attractive to any corporation is our insane federal legal code. Scrap the whole code--strip us right down to the Constitution on the federal level and start over--and offshoring will lose all appeal in an instant.
sorry, how is offshoring going to lose its appeal?

erowe1
12-01-2013, 02:09 PM
Well, since this is what Pope Francis speaks, one would only assume that the original is in Spanish.

Like I said in the post that you replied to above, I wouldn't assume that.

He's also fluent in Italian and Latin. And I doubt that he wrote it by himself.

Ender
12-01-2013, 02:42 PM
Like I said in the post that you replied to above, I wouldn't assume that.

He's also fluent in Italian and Latin. And I doubt that he wrote it by himself.


I would assume that it was originally in Spanish and that he wrote it. Why? Because it is much more readable in Spanish and much more universal. It does not hit capitalism or any kind of "ism". The main goal is Christ's 2nd great commandment, which is to love your brother as yourself.

The translation has tinges of a political agenda which leads me to believe that he did not participate in the translation.

erowe1
12-01-2013, 02:47 PM
I would assume that it was originally in Spanish and that he wrote it. Why? Because it is much more readable in Spanish and much more universal. It does not hit capitalism or any kind of "ism". The main goal is Christ's 2nd great commandment, which is to love your brother as yourself.

The translation has tinges of a political agenda which leads me to believe that he did not participate in the translation.

First of all, that sounds like you're saying that the Spanish version must be the original one because it's the one that says what you want it to say.

Second of all, the English version is from the Vatican. So if it has a political agenda, it's the Vatican's political agenda (i.e. the same people who gave us the Spanish version). The reason they have all the versions they do is that no one is universal enough by itself.

Third of all, is what you're saying here even true? What are the specific differences between the Spanish and the English versions? And while we're on that subject, what do the German, French, Italian, and Latin versions say at those points?