Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[NotreDame]

Also, to talk as though the condemnation of socialism was just some peculiar personal opinion of Pius XI at a particular time is quite simply false.

 

The Church has been speaking out against socialism since soon after the modern socialist movement began, beginning with Pope Pius IX in 1849, and continuing with every single Pope after him to Benedict XVI.  That's ten different Popes over a span of over 150 years!

 

(This page has a list of some of statements by these Popes against socialism.)

 

I may be wrong, but I think it's safe to say that all the popes were referring specifically to Marxist socialism and their objection to that belief system was foundational, not something temporal or cultural.

[StMichael]

I have major issues with these statements.

 

We cannot find collective salvation via the government, and this is simply the influence on Pope Francis' life whereby socialism is confused with Christianity. If he called on the governments to unshackle the Church to do its work (ie. orphanages in the US, work with the poor, etc.) I would understand, but having the government take from me and redistribute, not sure what the thinking is here.

 

The UN, a useless body, dedicated to a red agenda is no place to turn to. Why the leader of Christ's Church would look to them is baffling.

 

It is up to the individual, not the collective to assist. 

 

I find myself scratching my head with many of Pope Francis' statements and can only hope something is lost in translation.

 

 

 

 

Pope demands "legitimate redistribution" of wealth

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis is calling for governments to redistribute wealth to the poorest and for a new spirit of generosity to take hold.

Francis made the appeal during a speech Friday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who are meeting in Rome this week.

The pontiff has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.

On Friday, he called for the United Nations to promote an "ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor and a new spirit of generosity that also addresses the root causes of poverty and hunger.

He called for "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140509/eu-rel--vatican-un/?utm_hp_ref=sports&ir=sports

 

http://time.com/94264/pope-francis-redistribute-wealth/

===================================

questions, comments, words of wisdom? do those staunch conservative catholics here see this as a change in social teaching? it shouldn't be seen that way, to anyone who's familiar with the history of catholic social teaching, as ive posted about here many times. but it is a lot more vocal and specific in teaching than usual coming from a pope.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2014 by StMichael

[Benedictus]

With all due respect, as a Catholic I'm much more interested in what the Church teaches than on what you personally happen to think.

 

Also, to talk as though the condemnation of socialism was just some peculiar personal opinion of Pius XI at a particular time is quite simply false.

 

The Church has been speaking out against socialism since soon after the modern socialist movement began, beginning with Pope Pius IX in 1849, and continuing with every single Pope after him to Benedict XVI.  That's ten different Popes over a span of over 150 years!

 

(This page has a list of some of statements by these Popes against socialism.)

 

I would consider opposition to socialism a consistent teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

And note also how Pius XI begins his condemnation by speaking in the "royal we" - "We make this pronouncement . . ."  When a Pope uses this language, it means he is making a formal statement representing the teaching of the entire Church, not merely voicing his own personal opinion.

Not everything a Pope says, or even a series of them, is necessarily 100% binding. It is relavant, but not on the same level as a creed, scripture or dogma. If you want to claim you can tick off that you affirm everything a Pope has ever said then that's up to you.

I'd imagine there are some dodgy Papal commments and documents out there that you'd not want to cherry pick to support your own opinions.  I'd prefer to understand 'why' the Popes say such things, taking the context of history and politics into account. I don't just agree with things because somone else in authority says its so, especially when it's not within their remit of specialism.  If others don't choose to do that, then well, that's up to them.

Socialism also isn't one set of ideas, it includes a range of views and theories. These haven't been set in stone as dogmas - there has been progress, reevaluation and changes of emphasis since many of those Popes set out their points. But you're still using them to knock modern movements and ideas, including those that aren't marxist leninist in focus.

[Benedictus]

 

 

How so?

 

Contrary to what some liberal theologians may try to tell you, the Church has not reversed Her opposition to the modernist heresies.  Those condemned ideas which make up modernism remain just as heretical and contrary to the Faith now as when they were first officially condemned.

Theological and moral truth does not change with the times, but remains constant.

 

And if you believe the Church has no actual teaching authority regarding Faith and morals, then, quite frankly, there's no sense in being Catholic.

 

OK- you keep telling yourself these things. Someone will eventually tell you the emperor isn't wearing any clothes! You can debate the letter of the documents, but the theological and liturgical landscape is a very different place. They are influenced very much by modernist ideas, regardless of whether they claim to or not. This even extends to architecture as well.  In some respects we could say postmodern, postliberal and other trends have got fairly comfortable as well. I don't think they're necessarily good either, but I'm surprised you don't seem to notice it or read between the lines.

In terms of faith and morals - I never said the church had no actual teaching authority. Again, it could be said we've not even been talking about a faith or moral issue per se. I think you've jumped ahead of yourself.

[NotreDame]

Socialism also isn't one set of ideas, it includes a range of views and theories. These haven't been set in stone as dogmas - there has been progress, reevaluation and changes of emphasis since many of those Popes set out their points. But you're still using them to knock modern movements and ideas, including those that aren't marxist leninist in focus.

 

As I've read the popes' comments on socialism, they were specifically talking about Marxist socialism.  They have all been consistent in their comments and criticisms, usually citing one another.  Given that many of their criticisms were laid out quite clearly numerous times across multiple encyclicals and multiple pope's, it's fair to consider it church teaching, no?

[Benedictus]

As I've read the popes' comments on socialism, they were specifically talking about Marxist socialism.  They have all been consistent in their comments and criticisms, usually citing one another.  Given that many of their criticisms were laid out quite clearly numerous times across multiple encyclicals and multiple pope's, it's fair to consider it church teaching, no?

 

Well, does all teaching have equal weight, authority and relevance?  Many would say there are different levels, some that are essential and others which, well, obviously aren't. Some may well hold scripture, creed, and dogma with the same weight as tradition, encyclicals, teachings or papal views on celibacy, miracles, contraception or, dare I say, latn mass usage. I'm not one of them, and I don't think most people are either. It seems to me the church doesn't either. If so why would any teaching need to be made a dogma?  Last I checked people aren't asked if they are Socialists before being baptised.  They also aren't excommunicated or expected to confess it to a priest. It remains to be seen if God gives capitalists elevated place in heaven on that basis. :think:

Edited June 14, 2014 by Benedictus

[NotreDame]

Well, does all teaching have equal weight, authority and relevance?  Many would say there are different levels, some that are essential and others which, well, obviously aren't. Some may well hold scripture, creed, and dogma with the same weight as tradition, encyclicals, teachings or papal views on celibacy, miracles, contraception or, dare I say, latn mass usage. I'm not one of them, and I don't think most people are either. It seems to me the church doesn't either. If so why would any teaching need to be made a dogma?  Last I checked people aren't asked if they are Socialists before being baptised.  They also aren't excommunicated or expected to confess it to a priest. It remains to be seen if God gives capitalists elevated place in heaven on that basis. :think:

 

I'm not the most qualified person on this board to discuss this subject, but as I understand it, dogma and moral teachings are two different things, both part of the magesterium, both authoritative.  Encyclicals would be authoritative and require submission of the intellect and will.
 

[Perigrina]

Some excerpts from Donum Veritatis regarding the teaching authority of the Church:

 

16. By its nature, the task of religiously guarding and loyally expounding the deposit of divine Revelation (in all its integrity and purity), implies that the Magisterium can make a pronouncement "in a definitive way" (14) on propositions which, even if not contained among the truths of faith, are nonetheless intimately connected with them, in such a way, that the definitive character of such affirmations derives in the final analysis from revelation itself.(15).

What concerns morality can also be the object of the authentic Magisterium because the Gospel, being the Word of Life, inspires and guides the whole sphere of human behavior. The Magisterium, therefore, has the task of discerning, by means of judgments normative for the consciences of believers, those acts which in themselves conform to the demands of faith and foster their expression in life and those which, on the contrary, because intrinsically evil, are incompatible with such demands. By reason of the connection between the orders of creation and redemption and by reason of the necessity, in view of salvation, of knowing and observing the whole moral law, the competence of the Magisterium also extends to that which concerns the natural law.(16)

Revelation also contains moral teachings which per se could be known by natural reason. Access to them, however, is made difficult by man's sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium (17).

 

 

17 ... One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.

 

23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

 

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

 

I recommend reading the entire encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Edited June 14, 2014 by Perigrina

[Socrates]

I may be wrong, but I think it's safe to say that all the popes were referring specifically to Marxist socialism and their objection to that belief system was foundational, not something temporal or cultural.

 

If you read his encyclical, Pius XI seems to be condemning all forms of socialism, including more "moderate" forms of socialism, not only doctrinaire atheistic Marxist communism.

Though I suppose it could depend on what exactly one means by the word "socialism."

 

Early in the thread, John Ryan explicitly identified himself as a "Marxist communist" (his words, not mine).

Benedictus has never really defined the socialism he advocates.

[Socrates]

Not everything a Pope says, or even a series of them, is necessarily 100% binding. It is relavant, but not on the same level as a creed, scripture or dogma. If you want to claim you can tick off that you affirm everything a Pope has ever said then that's up to you.

I'd imagine there are some dodgy Papal commments and documents out there that you'd not want to cherry pick to support your own opinions.  I'd prefer to understand 'why' the Popes say such things, taking the context of history and politics into account. I don't just agree with things because somone else in authority says its so, especially when it's not within their remit of specialism.  If others don't choose to do that, then well, that's up to them.

Socialism also isn't one set of ideas, it includes a range of views and theories. These haven't been set in stone as dogmas - there has been progress, reevaluation and changes of emphasis since many of those Popes set out their points. But you're still using them to knock modern movements and ideas, including those that aren't marxist leninist in focus.

 

Since the Popes have consistently and constantly condemned socialism in encyclicals and other official statements for the century and a half after socialism first became an issue, I would say this teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and not to be lightly blown off.

 

It seems you take a rather minimalistic approach to the Catholic Faith.  As Catholics, we should try to "think with the mind of the Church," rather than look for the bare minimum we can believe and remain "good Catholics."

 

I've certainly seen nothing in the real world to convince me the popes were all wrong about socialism.  Rather, their words have proven prophetic.

And it might be useful for clarity's sake if you'd explain exactly what kind of socialism you think is such a wonderful idea.

[Socrates]

OK- you keep telling yourself these things. Someone will eventually tell you the emperor isn't wearing any clothes! You can debate the letter of the documents, but the theological and liturgical landscape is a very different place. They are influenced very much by modernist ideas, regardless of whether they claim to or not. This even extends to architecture as well.  In some respects we could say postmodern, postliberal and other trends have got fairly comfortable as well. I don't think they're necessarily good either, but I'm surprised you don't seem to notice it or read between the lines.

 

You're using a looser meaning of the term "modernist" than the popes who condemned theological/philosophical modernism were.  They weren't talking about "modernist" art, architecture, literature, etc. (most of which is godawful, but that's another discussion), but about specific false ideas, which they explicitly stated and condemned.  

Pius X lists some of these false modernist ideas in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

 

These ideas still remain contrary to orthodox Catholic Faith.

 

And, yes, there are plenty of theologians and priests in the Church who are teaching heresy, as well as plenty of liturgical abuse.  

This does not make such things right and in accord with Church teaching.

At one point in Church history most bishops subscribed to the Arian heresy, but it was still heresy.

Just because something is widespread in the Church does not mean it conforms with Catholic orthodoxy.

 

 

In terms of faith and morals - I never said the church had no actual teaching authority. Again, it could be said we've not even been talking about a faith or moral issue per se. I think you've jumped ahead of yourself.

 

 

Modernism, particularly with regards to theology, very much involves faith issues.

[Benedictus]

You're using a looser meaning of the term "modernist" than the popes who condemned theological/philosophical modernism were.  They weren't talking about "modernist" art, architecture, literature, etc. (most of which is godawful, but that's another discussion), but about specific false ideas, which they explicitly stated and condemned.  

Pius X lists some of these false modernist ideas in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

 

These ideas still remain contrary to orthodox Catholic Faith.

 

And, yes, there are plenty of theologians and priests in the Church who are teaching heresy, as well as plenty of liturgical abuse.  

This does not make such things right and in accord with Church teaching.

At one point in Church history most bishops subscribed to the Arian heresy, but it was still heresy.

Just because something is widespread in the Church does not mean it conforms with Catholic orthodoxy.

 

 

 

Modernism, particularly with regards to theology, very much involves faith issues.

 

I was thinking of both. Many of the issues outlined in by Pope Pius X are current issues, maybe more so now.


 

[Benedictus]

Since the Popes have consistently and constantly condemned socialism in encyclicals and other official statements for the century and a half after socialism first became an issue, I would say this teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, and not to be lightly blown off.

 

It seems you take a rather minimalistic approach to the Catholic Faith.  As Catholics, we should try to "think with the mind of the Church," rather than look for the bare minimum we can believe and remain "good Catholics."

 

I've certainly seen nothing in the real world to convince me the popes were all wrong about socialism.  Rather, their words have proven prophetic.

And it might be useful for clarity's sake if you'd explain exactly what kind of socialism you think is such a wonderful idea.

 

In terms of strands ecosocialism and democratic socialism would have ideas worth exploring; change through working coooperatives, unions and cooperation between stakeholders, nations and groups as core fundamental ideas. People before profit, that type of thing :flex2:

Yes, it's important to think with the church, in the mind of Christ. Whether the church is thinking, rather than being a slave to circumstaces and history, is another debate. It needs constant challnge to up its game! There's lots of abstract talk and references to mythology, natural law, philosophy and this sort of thing. But there is not enough engagement with fields of knowledge beyond this. I'd like to see more dialologue and work to show this 'thinking' is going on, which requires listening, not just repeating what the church feels it needs to say.

I'm confident the church structure does this, just privately. I'm sure it will move forward, just slowly. In this era the speed may be enough to hold the current mindset of a 20th century generation passing through. But it doesn't seem to be working in large numbers for those reaching maturity in the current age. We are starting to see the fallout as this comes more evident; anxiety is setting in as Catholics pull into different directions for answers and parishes are closed. If there was adequate leadership the laity wouldn't have to try and figure this out for themselves, which will bring error and confusion in unncessary proportions. There are already clerical organisations causing stirs in various countries, tired of the lack of honesty about what's known and what's said by the church. Whether this was a small part in why Pope Benedict stood down is another debate.

[Socrates]

In terms of strands ecosocialism and democratic socialism would have ideas worth exploring; change through working coooperatives, unions and cooperation between stakeholders, nations and groups as core fundamental ideas. People before profit, that type of thing :flex2:

 

I don't have a problem with labor unions in theory (whether labor unions actually always work in the best interest of their members and society as a whole is a different story, but also a different topic).  The Church has always been a strong supporter of the right of workers to form unions and guilds (I believe Pius XI even writes of this in the same encyclical I quoted), and does not consider unions the same as socialism.

I likewise have no problem with people forming voluntary coops and such.

 

It's the State using coercive force to forcibly redistribute the wealth and property of others that I (and the Church) take issue with - something that is always a feature of the socialist state in practice, and which necessarily involves the violation of property rights and granting undue tyrannical power to the State.

 

 

Yes, it's important to think with the church, in the mind of Christ. Whether the church is thinking, rather than being a slave to circumstaces and history, is another debate. It needs constant challnge to up its game! There's lots of abstract talk and references to mythology, natural law, philosophy and this sort of thing. But there is not enough engagement with fields of knowledge beyond this. I'd like to see more dialologue and work to show this 'thinking' is going on, which requires listening, not just repeating what the church feels it needs to say.

I'm confident the church structure does this, just privately. I'm sure it will move forward, just slowly. In this era the speed may be enough to hold the current mindset of a 20th century generation passing through. But it doesn't seem to be working in large numbers for those reaching maturity in the current age. We are starting to see the fallout as this comes more evident; anxiety is setting in as Catholics pull into different directions for answers and parishes are closed. If there was adequate leadership the laity wouldn't have to try and figure this out for themselves, which will bring error and confusion in unncessary proportions. There are already clerical organisations causing stirs in various countries, tired of the lack of honesty about what's known and what's said by the church. Whether this was a small part in why Pope Benedict stood down is another debate.

 

 

All that is much too vague to give much substantial response to - though it seems the bottom line is that you think Church teaching is wrong and needs to be changed to be brought more in line with your own opinions, and those of like-minded lefty-progressive types.

 

Based on your other posts (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), I'm guessing it's more-or-less the usual "progressive Catholic" agenda - more left-wing politics, "gay marriage," changing the old teachings on sexual morality, womyn priestesses, modernist theology, etc.  You know, Sing a NewChurch into Being, and all that funky jazz.

 

Thing is, the Episcopalians, and other more liberal branches of the Anglican Communion have already taken that route and we know it's just doing wonders for them.

 

A church that merely "baptizes" whatever ideas are politically correct and fashionable at the moment is worthless and irrelevant.

 

And I have no idea if it's part of what you're suggesting, but the idea that making the Church more "liberal" is the cure for the various sex and other scandals that have plagued the Church is nonsense.  Many of the worst offenders (such as Archbishop Weakland and Card. Mahoney) were extremely liberal and progressive.

[StMichael]

In terms of strands ecosocialism and democratic socialism would have ideas worth exploring; change through working coooperatives, unions and cooperation between stakeholders, nations and groups as core fundamental ideas. People before profit, that type of thing :flex2:
 

 

Sorry, this is off-topic...

 

Socialism has never displayed anything positive for the individual like that of free market. In fact, it always grows into absolute power to the government over the individual. When you consider unions and the issues they create we often forget what are they creating? A monopoly on the workforce, be it teachers unions, UAW, etc. Has the teachers union assisted in creating a better school system? Do they do everything possible to ensure they are the only benefactors of the taxpayers hard earned money? Do they believe in competition? When we move to the UAW, did they allow for their host to compete? Did they not end up getting taxpayer money? Did not the order of creditors (secured versus unsecured) not get turned on its head by the current administration? 

 

There is no benefit in this day and age to unions. None. Do we see unions at Google or Apple? We certainly should not see government unions (although we do) as who are they unionizing against? The taxpayer.

 

And socialism is in direct conflict with democracy. "Democracy attaches all possible value to each man, while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” - de Tocqueville