I'm not sure how that's elitist- I'd also say that the Dalai Lama has contributions to make in terms of moral philosophy- but start another thread.

Fair enough, I jumped to an assumption. Though I like the phrasing of the Dalai Lama statement over the Pope statement.

Fair enough, I jumped to an assumption. Though I like the phrasing of the Dalai Lama statement over the Pope statement.

You should know that Catholics only condescend to other Christians- our attitude towards non-Christians and even atheists is very warm. BTW I'm catching up to you in posts, I can't wait to be BGP's most incessant libertarian....

You should know that Catholics only condescend to other Christians- our attitude towards non-Christians and even atheists is very warm. BTW I'm catching up to you in posts, I can't wait to be BGP's most incessant libertarian....

I think you meant that in jest...but I actually find that to be quite true and would probably make an interesting thread of it's own.

 

I wouldn't get so anxious yet, if you've noticed I've been a lot more active in the last few weeks. Not much going on at work...but then again, you are a government employee. :sssh:

You should know that Catholics only condescend to other Christians- our attitude towards non-Christians and even atheists is very warm. BTW I'm catching up to you in posts, I can't wait to be BGP's most incessant libertarian....

 

If you go by that quiz the other day I have you both beat.

True. Back to topic, here is a relevant passage- UKMustangFan, as a Catholic who seperates his religion from politics, you may want to take a look (that is not supposed to come off as condescending, I'm just saying it is relevant to your viewpoint):

 

7. Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of “all of us”, made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society[4]. It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man's earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations[5], in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.

Quick thoughts on the bolded:

1. The first bolded passage is saying that individual charity is important, but you must factor charity into your political decisions as well. Now, this may be interpreted as a support for more welfare, but the way I see it, it is more about using your political influence to help the poor- and if I think that the welfare state is harmful to the poor, than I don't think that passage is necessarily a support for it.

 

2. The second bolded passage would address arguments (used very, very often on this site) in regards to protectionism that we should help our neighbor first- as the passage says, we have a duty to help the "whole human family", not just the ones at home.

If you go by that quiz the other day I have you both beat.

That's only because they didn't have a "militarist" category.

The encyclical also states:

 

The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.”

 

So "blasts capitalism" may not be an accurate way to describe it.

As a Catholic myself I feel I can ask these questions:

 

1. given the way the church has handled the perverted priest issue, does the Pope have any room to question any one's ethics?

 

2. I realize that greed is all a matter of whose ox is being gored, but doesn't the Vatican sit on all kinds of wealth? Would the accumulation of that wealth by the Vatican be considered greedy?

 

Just some questions for thought.

1. I wasn't bothered by the Pope's handling of the priest issue, but that's for you to decide. If the Pope isn't to speak on ethics, what should he speak about?

 

2. Are you implying that the Vatican (or the Catholic Church in general) isn't generous? The Catholic Church is as generous of an organization as there is in the world.

 

So was JPII. At least they admitted it.

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency. - John Paul II. He was anything but a socialist.

If you go by that quiz the other day I have you both beat.

 

I think I have you all beat....

Jesus was a capitalist. He said that if a man wants to eat then let him work. Jesus never spoke on anything that resembles equal distribution of assets. He also very specifically stated that the poor exist and will always exist. If the Pope is supposed to reflect Christ's values, then it would be silly for him to disagree with Christ's teachings.

Jesus was a capitalist. He said that if a man wants to eat then let him work. Jesus never spoke on anything that resembles equal distribution of assets. He also very specifically stated that the poor exist and will always exist. If the Pope is supposed to reflect Christ's values, then it would be silly for him to disagree with Christ's teachings.

 

Wasn't that Paul?

 

Jesus did say this parable which is interesting:

 

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

 

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

 

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.

"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

 

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

 

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

 

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

 

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Matthew 20:1-16

 

And the example of the early church is intriguing as well:

 

 

Acts 4:32-37

 

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

An article that politically conservative Catholics and all Protestants will like.

 

Now I repeat: only the most uncomprehending or superstitious Catholic would think the Pope’s authority over faith and morals granted him some kind of magical insight into the best model to pursue for Third World development. Were that true, then economics in general and development economics in particular should be abandoned immediately, since simple inquiries with the Pope would yield all the answers we might need.

 

This is why Pope Leo XIII once declared,

 

If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…. [M]en must realize in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…. [T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.

^ I love Leo XIII. He highlights why neither side of the political aisle seems to have any concept of what the Catholic Church is actually talking about. Rerum Novarum is a brilliantly penned encyclical that attempted to bridge the gap between laissez-faire capitalism and communism.

 

More for those on the political right, Rerum Novarum introduced to Catholic thought the idea of "subsidiary," the notion that matters are best handled by the smallest or least-centralised competent authority. It's a fascinating read.

 

For those on the political left, Pope Leo XIII has long been known for his special devotion to the poor or otherwise disenfrachised and was known as the "Worker's Pope."

 

These things are NOT irreconcilable.

"Above all, the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods," Benedict said. "Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers."

 

Those are actually very good words.

 

This seems to be his way of reminding those in powerful roles (like bankers) to remember their fiduciary responsibility and not be inflexible, inhuman slaves to margins in a spreadsheet.

Those are actually very good words.

 

This seems to be his way of reminding those in powerful roles (like bankers) to remember their fiduciary responsibility and not be inflexible, inhuman slaves to margins in a spreadsheet.

:thumb: The pope's role is to speak on issues of moral philosophy, especially on an individual level. The Chair of Peter does NOT grant him any superior knowledge on issues like economics (or any science).