Popes Bashing

[dairygirl4u2c]

the cc has never outright condemned the free market as inhernetly flawed, like it has condemned pure socialism. but it's said plenty to put it down.
not that modern liberalism is okay, or that obamanation is alright, etc.
so can't it be said, that at least in some situations, the free market isn't good, and even that the government must do something about it?
these quotes aside from saying 'government officials, it's your duty', speak about rights, not charity etc, which implies government to enforce the rights.

[quote]Quote

QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that [b]every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth[/b]. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, [b]including the rights of property and free trade[/b], are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

QUOTE
[b]Government officials[/b], it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to [b]make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures[/b], in order to bring about development and to save the peace

QUOTE
"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. [b]It is for the public authorities[/b] to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "

QUOTE
…it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:[b]the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.[/b]

QUOTE
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that [b]wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner[/b]. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: [b]an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition[/b], a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. [b]Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.[/b]

QUOTE
To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality.

The [b]preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime[/b]. It necessarily follows that [b]each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live[/b], and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

QUOTE
property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.

From this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.

QUOTE
[b]Legislation is necessary[/b], but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

QUOTE
In other words, [b]the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations[/b]. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results.

QUOTE
Given these conditions, it is obvious that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and progress.

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences.[/quote]


sure, it's a good point that they outright condemned socialism. but once that's established, hounding on the point isn't doing much, it's just stating truisms after awhile, stating the obvious.
the true work lies in reconciling the 'liberal' statements of popes with their ban on socialism. how should this endeavor be played out?
sure, the earliest works started out by saying 'pure socialism is bad', and then later works started defining, albeit vaguely, how capitalism isn't always so hot either, and that there's some sort of middle ground that the government should help encourage.
sadly, some people never get past pointing out that socialism in its pure form or thereabouts, is inherently wrong.

Edited May 27, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i often argue, also, that we should distinguish between when private charity is warranted, and government. i make this line, by saying, if society is fundamentally flawed, a decent abled person can't find a job, government involvement, merely down on their luck or etc, private charity.

i point out how the commands in the bible to tend to the poor, even if not addressed to the government, is at least analogous to the government, given the bible doesn't say teh government can't be involved at least sometimes. (and the popes say that they can and should be, here)

then also, it'd seem, when the lines of all these things begin to blur, as they will- that we defer to the poor, given them the benefit of the doubt. and this 'deference' isn't just an idea of mine alone-

[quote]The option for the poor or the preferential option for the poor is one of the basic principles of the Catholic Social Teaching tradition. The phrase option for the poor was used by Fr Pedro Arrupe, S.J. in 1968 in a letter to the Jesuits of Latin America.

As a developed theological principle it was first articulated by Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez, O.P. in his landmark theological book, A Theology of Liberation, the principle is rooted in both the Old and New Testaments and claims that a preferential concern for the physical and spiritual welfare of the poor is an essential element of the Gospel.

This principle was articulated by the Catholic Bishops of Latin America at both Medellin and Puebla, as well as by several popes, particularly Pope John Paul II.

[/quote]

it's hard for me to understand how some conservatives think they're in such hot standing, just because pure socialism or there abouts is inherently wrong, or even just cause they point out that our current government is too close to that- when they dont even address how to do the work the government is apparetnly called to do.

Edited June 4, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Pope Paul VI's 20th-century encyclical "Populorum Progressio" (on the Development of Peoples), however, is a manifesto against capitalism. "Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition," he says, "will not ensure satisfactory development." .... Quoting St. Ambrose, Paul writes, "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."[/quote]

Edited September 4, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sternhauser]

[quote]"[b]every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth[/b]. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, [b]including the rights of property and free trade[/b], are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation." [/quote]

This is not unlike saying, "Every man has the right to free speech. All other rights, including the right to defend oneself with the best means in existence, and the right to worship, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation."

Rights, by their very nature, [i]cannot[/i] contradict each other.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 4, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote]Pope Paul VI's 20th-century encyclical "Populorum Progressio" (on the Development of Peoples), however, is a manifesto against capitalism. "Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition," he says, "will not ensure satisfactory development." .... Quoting St. Ambrose, Paul writes, "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."[/quote]

So according to Pope Paul VI, almsgiving is not an act of charity. It is an act of justice.

~Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

i would agree with that pope, at least as you characterize him. it's not about charity, it's about 'rights' and 'justice'.
i like to distinguish though, there are tmes for charity,. if a man has the capablity of getting ahead, and society's structures are fundamentally sound.... he's ust down on his luck and needs a hand. if society's structures are fundamentally flawed, as exist now and definitely woudl exist without the currents laws etc..... then it's a matter of 'justice and 'right', and it's not charity per se.

i should qualify 'boot straps', distinguishments 'charitable bootstraps' and 'entitlement bootstraps'. see i like to talk about 'boot straps' to the poor. 'if we're goig to say pull yourself up from your bootstraps, we need to ensure they ahve bootstraps to begin with.'

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute or unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities"

You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich." (#23)[/quote]