Liberal Catholics

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='07 May 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1273247859' post='2106296']
Capitalism is by definition a liberal economic system. Liberalism has been condemned by the Church.
[/quote]

Please provide the source or document where the Church has condemned the Free Market.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 May 2010 - 02:46 AM' timestamp='1273301163' post='2106819']
Please provide the source or document where the Church has condemned the Free Market.
[/quote]

I never said the Church had condemned the Free Market; I said the Church had condemned liberalism. The Free Market is, again, by definition, a liberal economic system. No one denies that. I know that you have seen documents condemning liberalism because you usually use them to condemn progressivism.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='08 May 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1273301541' post='2106825']
I never said the Church had condemned the Free Market; I said the Church had condemned liberalism. The Free Market is, again, by definition, a liberal economic system. No one denies that. I know that you have seen documents condemning liberalism because you usually use them to condemn progressivism.
[/quote]

So no you do not have a source where the Church has condemned the Free Market. If you want to connect dots you have to provide proof. Where is that? You want me to assume that the idea and practice of a Free Market which has existed long before Liberalism existed is also condemned with Liberalism. If the Free Market is in fact liberal then the Church has in fact condemned the Free Market by name, so provide that proof.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?Itemid=48&id=3525&option=com_content&task=view"]Economics As Science: A Catholic Defense of the Free Market[/url]
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
4/29/08


Put forth a robust defense of the free market as the most morally and materially satisfying economic system and you invite all manner of invective and accusation. What are you, some kind of dissenter?

Not so fast. Although the documents of modern Catholic social teaching normally begin with Rerum Novarum (1891), students should instead start with Pope Leo XIII's Quod Apostolici Muneris(1878), an encyclical entirely devoted to socialism, in order to understand that socialism and the free market are not being described as equally objectionable. For while socialism is per se condemned, the market is criticized only for alleged abuses.

Nor could the Church condemn the market in and of itself, since it rests on the inoffensive principle of peaceful, non-coerced exchanges between rightful property owners. Breathless claims to the contrary notwithstanding, that is all the free market amounts to. With Leo XIII having described the rights of property as "inviolate" in one encyclical and "sacred and inviolable" in another -- phrases the Left has spent the past century trying to explain away, I might add -- the Church would have to acknowledge the essential justice of a market economy at some level, even if she might for whatever reason still have complaints to register here and there.

The authority of the bishops in the Church, including the supreme pontiff himself, involves matters pertaining to faith and morals. Important as that authority is, it is mere superstition to think it confers upon them an expertise in secular disciplines. It is one thing to enumerate general principles or worthy goals, but it is quite another to propose the specific policies that are most likely to achieve those goals, or even to avoid policies that may wind up frustrating them. These latter skills necessarily involve a working knowledge of the mechanics of the discipline in question.

Several years ago, Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, New Jersey, made something like this point himself with reference to economics:

For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, "I do not care about the poor." If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.

In other words, there is far more room for legitimate debate on these questions than some people seem prepared to concede.

Another claim is that Catholic free-marketeers have defined the sphere of faith and morals too narrowly, and that the popes' statements about the economy are a legitimate subset of those areas of life over which they have been given divine authority to instruct the faithful. The popes, this argument goes, have every right to speak out on economic matters since such things are not utterly distinct or removed from moral concerns.

This argument, too, misfires. No one denies that economic activity carries a moral dimension. The pope is obviously well within his rights to condemn theft or fraud, or to instruct the faithful on the need to be generous with their wealth. He may likewise condemn government policies that involve oppression and injustice, such as burdensome taxation or inflation of the money supply. Thus, no one is saying that action in the economic sphere (or, for that matter, the medical or any other sphere) is exempt from moral evaluation.

The point is that the cause-and-effect relationships that constitute the theoretical edifice of economics are not a matter of faith and morals. They do not fall within the range of subjects on which a Catholic prelate is endowed with special insight or authority. Catholic laity cannot head up petition drives against them. They are simply facts of life. Facts cannot be protested, defied, or lectured to; they can only be learned and acted upon. There is no use in shaking our fists at the fact that price controls lead to shortages. All we can do is understand the phenomenon, and be sure to bear it and other economic truths in mind if we want to make statements about the economy that are rational and useful.

[url="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3525&Itemid=48&limit=1&limitstart=1"]Continue...[/url]

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 May 2010 - 02:56 AM' timestamp='1273301783' post='2106830']
So no you do not have a source where the Church has condemned the Free Market. If you want to connect dots you have to provide proof. Where is that? You want me to assume that the idea and practice of a Free Market which has existed long before Liberalism existed is also condemned with Liberalism. If the Free Market is in fact liberal then the Church has in fact condemned the Free Market by name, so provide that proof.
[/quote]

The Church did not condemn every liberal institution or system by name.

As I said before, I'm honestly trying to understand. The free-market grew out of the ideas of liberal thinkers who were condemned by the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='08 May 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1273301952' post='2106833']
The Church did not condemn every liberal institution or system by name.

As I said before, I'm honestly trying to understand. The free-market grew out of the ideas of liberal thinkers who were condemned by the Church.
[/quote]

The Church has not condemned the Free Market. End of story.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 May 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1273302287' post='2106841']
The Church has not condemned the Free Market. End of story.
[/quote]

No, it's not that simple. Can you really not see that the free-market is a liberal economic system? And that liberalism has been condemned over and over again by the Church? If you accept the Church's condemnation of liberalism how can you also accept one of the fruits of liberalism?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='08 May 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1273302529' post='2106845']
No, it's not that simple. Can you really not see that the free-market is a liberal economic system? And that liberalism has been condemned over and over again by the Church? If you accept the Church's condemnation of liberalism how can you also accept one of the fruits of liberalism?
[/quote]

Pretty much it is, Free Markets have existed long before the rise of liberalism, even classical liberalism. [i]The Church cannot condemn the Free Market in and of itself, since it rests on the inoffensive principle of peaceful, non-coerced exchanges between rightful property owners.[/i]

[Jesus_lol]

edit: nevermind, i thought i knew what aalpha was talking about and was trying to mediate a conflict that didnt exist.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='08 May 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1273301944' post='2106832']
[url="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?Itemid=48&id=3525&option=com_content&task=view"]Economics As Science: A Catholic Defense of the Free Market[/url]
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
4/29/08


Put forth a robust defense of the free market as the most morally and materially satisfying economic system and you invite all manner of invective and accusation. What are you, some kind of dissenter?

Not so fast. Although the documents of modern Catholic social teaching normally begin with Rerum Novarum (1891), students should instead start with Pope Leo XIII's Quod Apostolici Muneris(1878), an encyclical entirely devoted to socialism, in order to understand that socialism and the free market are not being described as equally objectionable. For while socialism is per se condemned, the market is criticized only for alleged abuses.

Nor could the Church condemn the market in and of itself, since it rests on the inoffensive principle of peaceful, non-coerced exchanges between rightful property owners. Breathless claims to the contrary notwithstanding, that is all the free market amounts to. With Leo XIII having described the rights of property as "inviolate" in one encyclical and "sacred and inviolable" in another -- phrases the Left has spent the past century trying to explain away, I might add -- the Church would have to acknowledge the essential justice of a market economy at some level, even if she might for whatever reason still have complaints to register here and there.

The authority of the bishops in the Church, including the supreme pontiff himself, involves matters pertaining to faith and morals. Important as that authority is, it is mere superstition to think it confers upon them an expertise in secular disciplines. It is one thing to enumerate general principles or worthy goals, but it is quite another to propose the specific policies that are most likely to achieve those goals, or even to avoid policies that may wind up frustrating them. These latter skills necessarily involve a working knowledge of the mechanics of the discipline in question.

Several years ago, Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, New Jersey, made something like this point himself with reference to economics:

For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, "I do not care about the poor." If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.

In other words, there is far more room for legitimate debate on these questions than some people seem prepared to concede.

Another claim is that Catholic free-marketeers have defined the sphere of faith and morals too narrowly, and that the popes' statements about the economy are a legitimate subset of those areas of life over which they have been given divine authority to instruct the faithful. The popes, this argument goes, have every right to speak out on economic matters since such things are not utterly distinct or removed from moral concerns.

This argument, too, misfires. No one denies that economic activity carries a moral dimension. The pope is obviously well within his rights to condemn theft or fraud, or to instruct the faithful on the need to be generous with their wealth. He may likewise condemn government policies that involve oppression and injustice, such as burdensome taxation or inflation of the money supply. Thus, no one is saying that action in the economic sphere (or, for that matter, the medical or any other sphere) is exempt from moral evaluation.

The point is that the cause-and-effect relationships that constitute the theoretical edifice of economics are not a matter of faith and morals. They do not fall within the range of subjects on which a Catholic prelate is endowed with special insight or authority. Catholic laity cannot head up petition drives against them. They are simply facts of life. Facts cannot be protested, defied, or lectured to; they can only be learned and acted upon. There is no use in shaking our fists at the fact that price controls lead to shortages. All we can do is understand the phenomenon, and be sure to bear it and other economic truths in mind if we want to make statements about the economy that are rational and useful.

[url="http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3525&Itemid=48&limit=1&limitstart=1"]Continue...[/url]
[/quote]
Thomas Woods writes good stuff!

Aalpha, if you're really interested in this stuff, I'd recommend reading Woods' [i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i]. He goes into it very thoroughly.
There's nothing wrong with a free market economy (which is in fact the most effective economy), only with the idea that actions in the market should be free from any moral constraint.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Holly3278' date='03 May 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1272932465' post='2104556']
Jesus would and probably is very disgusted by this. They're making a mockery of the sacred Mass by doing this retarded and disgusting stuff.
[/quote]

Jesus isn't disgusted with anything.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' date='09 May 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1273381218' post='2107506']
Jesus isn't disgusted with anything.
[/quote]
That is not correct.

Lukewarm Catholics make Him vomit.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I just have to give my personal witness.

I realized recently that God gave rock & roll to ME, and my world has been completely rocked ever since. God gave rock & roll to everyone, but he also gave rock & roll to each one of us individually.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHBwryfycvk[/media]

[Bennn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 May 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1273381292' post='2107508']
That is not correct.

Lukewarm Catholics make Him vomit.
[/quote]


Book of Revelation. Good point. Those letters to the seven churches of Asia are truly a gest of Jesus trying to save His people from the liberalism of their time. He continually condemned Nicolaïsm, which was notorious for it's glorification of fleshly pleasures. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Jesus is not some angry God, waiting for every moment to punish us. But neither is He a hippie who only cares about 'feeling good' without the least concern for eternal truth.

Why? Because He Is the Truth.

Pax Domini,
Ben

Edited May 9, 2010 by Bennn

[dairygirl4u2c]

classic liberalism, is that which supports unrestrained markets. even the popes have criticized unrestrained markets as 'liberalism', cause historically, that's what was considered 'bad'. only recently has liberalism been changed.