Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[superblue]

So, to over simplify , socialism is okay as long as ...... ( fill in the blank  with what ever reason ) is that the sense that is coming out now ?

 

Russia just had a show pony vote for that piece of the Ukraine they over ran and surprise everyone voted to join Russia, so are we to take that at face value that it was honest and fair ? Or are we to think that perhaps a hand full of Russians did the voting...

 

 

interesting to see how Christ managed to maneuver out of politics, give to Caesar what belongs to him and too God what belongs to God, why did Christ stay out of politics, why didn't he preach or teach society to politically live a certain way... Any one ever read Matthew 17:27,  to avoid the drama of arguing or worse, Christ tells his disciple to go to the lake, catch a fish look n the mouth an take the coin an pay the tax for both of them... plenty of scripture versus on taxes, and how the tax collector is the bad guy, but political preference I can not see much one way or the other for choosing. Taxes in the bible seems about as political as it gets for us to figure out.

[Dr_Asik]

I also find it troublesome since no one can reasonably figure out where Christ stood politically, or say yes he would of wanted everyone to be in this category, and that all of his followers were this that or another party, then why should a Pope or any clergy be taking a political stance or view in general.  I do not see how one mixes politics and religion, it seems comparable to trying to mix oil and water and saying see they go together just fine and more over one makes the other better.

It would be rather futile to try to fit Jesus of Nazareth into any particular political orientation of a particular country 2000 years later. What he gave us was generally applicable moral ideals, for example charity and justice, and these should be taken into consideration in every matter of importance; I don't see why politics would not be included.

 

[Benedictus]

So, to over simplify , socialism is okay as long as ...... ( fill in the blank  with what ever reason ) is that the sense that is coming out now ?

 

Russia just had a show pony vote for that piece of the Ukraine they over ran and surprise everyone voted to join Russia, so are we to take that at face value that it was honest and fair ? Or are we to think that perhaps a hand full of Russians did the voting...

 

 

interesting to see how Christ managed to maneuver out of politics, give to Caesar what belongs to him and too God what belongs to God, why did Christ stay out of politics, why didn't he preach or teach society to politically live a certain way... Any one ever read Matthew 17:27,  to avoid the drama of arguing or worse, Christ tells his disciple to go to the lake, catch a fish look n the mouth an take the coin an pay the tax for both of them... plenty of scripture versus on taxes, and how the tax collector is the bad guy, but political preference I can not see much one way or the other for choosing. Taxes in the bible seems about as political as it gets for us to figure out.

 

The principle of Socialism is that those who produce the goods (the workers and majority) should hold the power. In Capitalism they are mere pawns, a means to an end for the one who get the profits. All else is window dressing and variation of implementation, good or bad. Not sure what Russia has to do wtih it. But they have a nationalistic, authoritarian and capitalist government!

Faith impacts and informs ones whole life, and so does economics and politics. If faith doesn't have anything to say on those things, be it to guide, to offer critique or otherwise then it's avioding its role to tackle injustice, evil and error. This doesn't mean the church should favour,  or not, certain political parties. It also shouldn't be critical simply because a certain politics doesn't serve to mantain its own power status quo. The latter is one of the aspects, in my view,  as to why the church has struggled with Liberation theology for many years

 

[superblue]

It would be rather futile to try to fit Jesus of Nazareth into any particular political orientation of a particular country 2000 years later. What he gave us was generally applicable moral ideals, for example charity and justice, and these should be taken into consideration in every matter of importance; I don't see why politics would not be included.

 

 

 

 

 

Well if we cant put Christ into a political category and if all that can be construed is that Christ merely gave people basically a common sense guide to morality , then exactly how in a political aspect is one to transfer those ideals into a political world, under any political banner, be it socialism , capitalism,  or which ever, with each category pointing the finger at the other as being the bad guy, and the other finger pointing at themselves being the better way to follow,  where does Christ come into the picture ? Because either Christ fits into all political categories as to how one should lead, and thusly any political party will suffice for civil leadership in the world and in turn be a morally good party to follow, or someone has to lose and Christ would favor one side more than the other either out of the lesser of two evils or perhaps as one being more closely inline to His teachings even though there are still flaws.

[superblue]

The principle of Socialism is that those who produce the goods (the workers and majority) should hold the power. In Capitalism they are mere pawns, a means to an end for the one who get the profits. All else is window dressing and variation of implementation, good or bad. Not sure what Russia has to do wtih it. But they have a nationalistic, authoritarian and capitalist government!

Faith impacts and informs ones whole life, and so does economics and politics. If faith doesn't have anything to say on those things, be it to guide, to offer critique or otherwise then it's avioding its role to tackle injustice, evil and error. This doesn't mean the church should favour,  or not, certain political parties. It also shouldn't be critical simply because a certain politics doesn't serve to mantain its own power status quo. The latter is one of the aspects, in my view,  as to why the church has struggled with Liberation theology for many years

 

 

 

* vomits, I think in the end be it capitalism or socialism we are all equally screwed over and are pawns at some level, *   If society were to go back to a Monarchy at least you would know who to blame when everything is horrible across the board instead of wondering which system is better.  And if the church should remain neutral to favoring either system, then why do we have a pope who seems to be leaning towards a very similar style that our president is using. Or is what the Pope suggesting merely being misunderstood and we should be looking for clarification else where  or from the Pope himself ...   I am really only familiar with Liberation theology in name, and that it has struggled with the church, as towards the actual " maintaining of power " that the Church probably does work to maintain, I don't know why, it is a power in name only.  The teeth of the church was either taken away or given up in ages past, so it seems if anything the church should only be worried about its' credibility .

 

And again if the Pope wants a redistribution of wealth, lead by example, clergy from the top down including in the Vatican / Rome  live on the wages of the poor and nothing more, what they have in surplus can be redistributed and then after that then the Pope can start get back to the world on demanding any kind of redistribution he would like to see.

[Proletarian]

Two words: Rerum Novarum. It's all there. Socialism sucks. Laissez-faire capitalism sucks. There's something in between that we need to find. The Glenn Beck listeners need to stop calling the middle-ground seekers communists, and the Huffington Post readers need to stop calling all middle-ground seekers fascists. There's a place in between. Let's find it together.

[Nihil Obstat]

Two words: Rerum Novarum. It's all there. Socialism smells of elderberries. Laissez-faire capitalism smells of elderberries. There's something in between that we need to find. The Glenn Beck listeners need to stop calling the middle-ground seekers communists, and the Huffington Post readers need to stop calling all middle-ground seekers fascists. There's a place in between. Let's find it together.

IMO, political solutions are not typically a middle ground, but rather in a rejection of sorts of the entire spectrum and a moving 'up' rather than laterally. Pragmatically we are often forced to compromise in lateral moves between extremes, but I do not believe that these compromises represent true solutions.

[Proletarian]

Good point. When I said there was a place in between, I should have said there was another alternative. It doesn't necessarily lie somewhere on the line drawn between the two extremes.

[Nihil Obstat]

A while back, for my own general use, I transcribed a chapter from Trojan Horse in the City of God by Dietrich von Hildebrand. This is the source from whence I draw my own opinion of that particular topic.

 

 

Trojan Horse in the City of God

Dietrich von Hildebrand

 

Pages 19-25

Thesis - Antithesis

 

When expressing our deep concern over the grave errors widespread among progressive Catholics, we sometimes meet with the response, "Well, this had to come. It is a strong reaction against former errors, abuses, and shortcomings. After a certain time, this reaction will lose its virulence and the right position will be reached."

Such an attitude seems to use very unsatisfactory because it is based on a false conception of the process by which man enlarges his conquest of basic metaphysical and moral truths. And, more serious yet, the consolation this response offers betrays a complete misunderstanding of the unique development in the detailed formulation of divine revelation of the infallible Church.

We shall deal with the former error first.

 

Truth is not a mean between extremes:

 

The erroneous notion that truth is acquired when the pendulum goes from one extreme to another and finally comes to rest in the middle is based on a popular interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. But even in its esoteric form (and whatever may be its application to the rhythm of history), this dialectic certainly does not describe the process by which truth is attained. The final synthesis need by no means be any closer to truth than the thesis or antithesis.

Obviously we are not here concerned with the case of a clearly erroneous thesis, the contradictory antithesis of which is necessarily true. For example, the claim that objective truth does not exist is an outright error. Its contradictory antithesis - namely, "There is objective truth" - is true. In this case, a synthesis of thesis and antithesis is out of the question since the two propositions are contradictories. But our subject concerns contraries: propositions that can both be erroneous.

The popular understanding of the Hegelian dialectic is that it is inevitable for the human mind to go to one extreme, then to react toward the opposite extreme, and finally to reach truth which lies midway between the two extremes.

We must distinguish the two propositions that are implied in this idea: first, that history comprises a dialectical movement in which one epoch reacts diametrically against the preceding one with a resultant movement to the center position; second, that this endpoint of the movement of the pendulum, this means between two extremes, constitutes the truth or at least a progress in the discovery of truth. It is with this second proposition that we are primarily concerned.

It assumes, for instance, that when in one epoch authority is overstressed, it will be followed by a strong reaction which emphasizes freedom and tries to do away with authority. After these two extremes of the pendulum, the resultant position will be in the center and justice will therefore be done to both authority and freedom.

Now, the idea of the mean as the happy medium applies to many instances of rational choice. For example, food should be neither too salty nor saltless; the temperature in a room should be neither too hot, nor too cold. When, however, it comes to the exploration of truth, to philosophical controversies, to antithetical approaches to the world, or to opposed world views, the theory of the happy mean does not apply.

 

Extremes are not incomplete truths:

 

In these questions the truth lies above the two extremes, not between them. In every extreme there is a wandering from the truth into error. Although the reciprocal extremes seem to be completely antagonistic, they actually share the same crucial error. The true position differs from both extremes much more than they differ from each other.

For example, in the period of liberal individualism the reality and value of community was to a great extent overlooked. This conception of man was later replaced by an overemphasis on community which reduced the role of the individual to a mere part of a whole and made his value dependent on his contribution to the community. In contrast to the nineteenth century, the mentality of the first half of the twentieth century emphasized community to the detriment of the individual person. The ideals and ideas of collectivism made great progress, especially after World War I, quite apart from the fact that Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism were sustained by brutal force in various parts of Europe.

Now, the point for our purposes is that individualism and collectivism are not two extremes between which lies the truth. In reality, the individual person and the community are so linked that it is impossible to do justice to the real nature of the person or the community whenever one is emphasized at the expense of the other. If we lose sight of their deep interrelationship we necessarily blind ourselves even to the nature and rank of the one that is overstressed. Extremes are not incomplete truths. Contrary to the widespread belief, individualism does not overrate the value and dignity of the individual person, nor does collectivism overrate the community. On the contrary, both actually lose sight of the true essence, value, and dignity of the person and the community.

Far from being a doctrine that at least does justice to the value of the individual man, individualism is rather the result of a denial of the essential features of the human person. In a process that began in the Renaissance, the conception of the person was progressively stripped of its essential features. Numerous truths were denied: first, man's being ordered to God and his destiny of eternal union with Him; then, the immortality of the soul; then, the capacity for an authentic knowledge of reality; then, the substantiality of the soul; then, free will, and so on. The process began with the ambition of making man into a God and ended by making him a more highly developed animal or even a bundle of sensations. It is not surprising that in the course of this drift, man's essential capacity to enter into deep communion with others and to build a community with them was forgotten.

A similar destructive result followed from the reaction to individualism in the idolization of the community. All understanding of the nature of true community was lost and a mere collective (conceived after the pattern of material substances) was substituted for it.

Since individualism and collectivism are not, therefore, merely one-sided emphases on the individual or the community but rather distortions of the very entities they erect into idols, the truth can never be a mean between them, to be reached when the pendulum comes to rest in the middle or when a moderate individualism is combined with a moderate collectivism. The error which is at the basis of both ideologies can be overcome only by rising above the level on which these positions are antagonistic and discovering a truth above them that cannot be regarded as a synthesis of prior thesis and antithesis.

This truth will differ much more from both than they do from each other. If we consider the elaboration of the unique value of the individual person in Augustine's Confessions and the exposition of the glory of communion and community in his City of God, we see that the true view of the individual person and the community is in no way a mean between individualism and collectivism.

This example, to which numerous others could be added, may suffice to show that the above-mentioned theses and antitheses are not incomplete truths, but caricatures and misunderstandings of the nature and value of the entities they would exalt.

 

Overreaction to error does not yield truth:

 

It is therefore a serious mistake to belittle the grave errors which have crept in among many Catholics by interpreting them as natural reactions to former errors and to console oneself with the anticipation that a resolution of action and reaction will eventually reach the truth in the center.

The illusion of the progressive Catholics is yet more simplistic. They believe that the reaction against former errors or shortcomings is itself the attainment of truth.

It is a most absurd form of naiveté to proclaim the currently reigning antithesis to errors of a former epoch as a victory of truth and a sign of remarkable progress. Of men with illusions about their own reactions to former epochs one could say - to vary a remark Talleyrand is said to have maid to the Bourbons - that they have forgotten everything and learned nothing. By looking back at previous centuries they could easily discover that the various antitheses were in no way better than the preceding theses. But this is not done. They usually submit to the illusion that the present antithetical reaction to something in the preceding epoch is a breakthrough to truth.

 

Truth is above the rhythm of history:

 

Our progressives tend to absolutize the views of the present age. We shall discuss below the task of the true philosopher in any age, and especially in our age - namely, to free himself from the rhythm of a more or less automatic reaction and ascend to the truth which is above all antagonisms between present and former epochs. Unfortunately, some philosophers today see the mission of philosophy to be the conceptual formation of the trends and tendencies that are "in the air" in their own age. Thus, they play the present off against the past (and can enjoy thereby feelings of contempt for previous ages), instead of pursuing their true vocation as philosophers by seeking truth above the rhythm of history.

 

The Church's essential nature never changes:

 

But it suggests far greater spiritual and intellectual confusion to attempt to submit to this alternating rhythm the Church in Her supernatural nature as the Mystical Body of Christ, in Her infallible magisterium, and in the stream of grace granted t humanity through the sacraments.

The unfolding of the plenitude of divine revelation over the centuries in a movement from the implicit to the explicit is just the opposite of a rhythm of thesis and antithesis which swings from one extreme to another. It is rather an organic growth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in which, in the process of preserving one and the same divine revelation from all errors and heresy, the glorious deposit of Catholic faith is given a more and more explicit formulation.

Notwithstanding their differences in personality and historical circumstances, the saints of all centuries manifest the same quality of holiness, the same transformation in Christ. In the diverse personalities of such saints as St. Peter, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Vincent de Paul, the Curé of Ars, or Don Bosco, we find the same flavor of holiness, the same glorious reflection of the Sacred Humanity of Christ, the same sublimity of a supernatural morality that surpasses any mere natural morality, even the most noble one of Socrates.

 

The Church's human dimension is affected by history:

 

But the Church also has a human, natural aspect. Insofar as it is a human institution composed of frail men, it, too, is exposed to the influence of this alternating rhythm of history. Therefore the Church has the continual mission of rejecting all such influences and representing anew to humanity the untarnished plenitude of divine and authentic Christian life - that is, the real message of Christ to all men.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Yeah, good call. I think democracy is kind of overrated anyway. :|

 

I make the jokey mellow face, but I am not really joking.

 

Democracy: The political system that killed Jesus.

[Benedictus]

* vomits, I think in the end be it capitalism or socialism we are all equally screwed over and are pawns at some level, *   If society were to go back to a Monarchy at least you would know who to blame when everything is horrible across the board instead of wondering which system is better.  And if the church should remain neutral to favoring either system, then why do we have a pope who seems to be leaning towards a very similar style that our president is using. Or is what the Pope suggesting merely being misunderstood and we should be looking for clarification else where  or from the Pope himself ...   I am really only familiar with Liberation theology in name, and that it has struggled with the church, as towards the actual " maintaining of power " that the Church probably does work to maintain, I don't know why, it is a power in name only.  The teeth of the church was either taken away or given up in ages past, so it seems if anything the church should only be worried about its' credibility .

 

And again if the Pope wants a redistribution of wealth, lead by example, clergy from the top down including in the Vatican / Rome  live on the wages of the poor and nothing more, what they have in surplus can be redistributed and then after that then the Pope can start get back to the world on demanding any kind of redistribution he would like to see.

Maybe you could read the Gospel of Mathhew -  the Beatitudes, and follow that up with Luke 6: 20-23. That matched with Bible texts dotted all over the place on injustices, Isiah, Amos, Micah etc go some way to show why Pope Francis takes the view he does. Walking alongside the poor and desperate in his home diocese as a priest probably went a long way to framing this as well!

The church has had immense power, even into recent times, in some countries. It's influence in Ireland up until fairly recently in historical terms is an example of that. It definately didn't always use that power well. It's current hold over the Philippines and parts of Africa is still very real. It still has teeth in some countries, despite some of its teeth being knocked out in other places.

Do priests have lots of income and wealth? Does the Pope even have lots of personal wealth? He is an office holder, not a royal with a legacy of personal wealth. He manages the estates and offices of the Vatican for future use. Secular priests don't take vows of poverty but I don't know any man who got rich off becoming a Catholic priest!

[Nihil Obstat]

You make it sound as if the Church having temporal power is necessarily bad. Am I misinterpreting you?

[Benedictus]

You make it sound as if the Church having temporal power is necessarily bad. Am I misinterpreting you?

 

I don't think it having power is necessarily bad. But being in power brings great responsibility (and conflict) and the church hasn't always handled its power well. A church that has power and abuses it does damage to itself, and to some extent, taints its primary message to the world. In that way it could be better if the church takes the role of servant,  allowing others to make those temporal wins and mistakes. It can then focus on its main job of bringing people to God.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Benedictus

[superblue]

Maybe you could read the Gospel of Mathhew -  the Beatitudes, and follow that up with Luke 6: 20-23. That matched with Bible texts dotted all over the place on injustices, Isiah, Amos, Micah etc go some way to show why Pope Francis takes the view he does. Walking alongside the poor and desperate in his home diocese as a priest probably went a long way to framing this as well!

The church has had immense power, even into recent times, in some countries. It's influence in Ireland up until fairly recently in historical terms is an example of that. It definately didn't always use that power well. It's current hold over the Philippines and parts of Africa is still very real. It still has teeth in some countries, despite some of its teeth being knocked out in other places.

Do priests have lots of income and wealth? Does the Pope even have lots of personal wealth? He is an office holder, not a royal with a legacy of personal wealth. He manages the estates and offices of the Vatican for future use. Secular priests don't take vows of poverty but I don't know any man who got rich off becoming a Catholic priest!

come on, you are trying to use scripture readings to suggest that it is some how suggesting a " redistribution of wealth " there is a giant difference between " injustices " and  redistributing wealth,  you also have plenty of scripture versus that regard work, Matthew 20/ the parable of the vineyard workers, and the worker who came to work at the end of the day did like an hour worth of work, got paid a days wages and everyone else pitches a fit and then what, at the end it reads something like why can't the employer pay what he wants and don't be jealous.

 

Now that parable alone one could argue if they really wanted to about the injustice of how men worked and labored in the sun all day for their pay and someone comes in last, gets to work in the shade for for probably less than half the time and gets a days wage, how is that not an injustice, but since God can do what God wants there is no arguing, but try that in todays world, good grief we hear constantly about equal pay rights being fought for women alone, not even touching on a plethora of other races in our population that feel the " injustice of pay " .

 

It is a joke,

 

And give the Pope a medal for living along side the poor, and granted clergy are not making tons of money, he isn't doing anything new and more over isn't doing anything that catholics shouldn't already be doing; but when you have bishops living in plush conditions  and clergy living better than the people they are serving, it leaves a poor taste to the mouth to believe there needs to be a redistribution of wealth, either lead by example or don't, but don't pretend that clergy from the Vatican down are not living better than the poor, the ones they want to see this redistribution given to, while all they do is collect money and distribute that money instead of tightening their own belts.  Same goes to Obama, if he wanted to redistribute the money so bloody bad here in America, he should have taken a minimum wage pay for his position, and redistributed the salary of his seat to some other cause. An then written an executive order for the senate and congress to do the exact same. After that then he could have hopped on tv and told the rest of America that maybe they should too.

 

 

And  the only power you speak of, is in poor countries, and that power is the money being given to the poor, so that is the Vaticans only leverage , if they so choose to use it, but I don't see that happening as that would be too cruel. The Church has zero teeth, it was never meant to be a civil authority to any degree, if it were, it would have never down sized and given up so much military power when it had it back in the day.  More proof of the lack of respect and this imaginary aspect of power that the church has, is how  " women are being ordained as priests ",  now I realize that is a separate topic, but those that do go through with being ordained a priest, then become excommunicated from the RCC, and to them it means absolutely nothing, so unless one wants to start saying that the Church has the ability to be judge and jury and send people directly to hell, there is nothing there.  The church is not in the position of issuing laws, imposing penalties, zip.

[CrossCuT]

 

 

Taking direct aim at libertarian policies promoted by many American conservatives, the Honduran cardinal who is one of Pope Francis’ top advisers said Tuesday (June 3) that today’s free market system is “a new idol” that is increasing inequality and excluding the poor.

 

I definitely see how people view free market as an idol. They are more concerned about that than they are about feeding the masses. We have enough resources on this earth to feed, clothe, and house everyone. So why do we have so many living in poverty? Starving to death? Going without healthcare? Why?

 

Thats the real question that needs to be discussed.