Posted on 07/13/2009 3:55:19 PM PDT by NYer
Brian Griffiths, Lord of Fforestfach and vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International, says Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate offers the single best analysis of the current global economic crisis.
The language may be dense, but the message is sufficiently rewarding. The encyclical analyses modern capitalism from an ethical and spiritual perspective as well as a technical one. As a result it makes the Government’s White Paper on financial reforms published two days later look embarrassingly one-dimensional and colourless.
It is highly critical of today’s global economy but always positive. Its major concern is how to promote human development in the context of justice and the common good. Despite heavy competition from some of the world’s finest minds, it is without doubt the most articulate, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the financial crisis that has yet appeared. It should strike a chord with all who wish to see modern capitalism serving broader human ends.
High praise. Griffiths combs through the encyclical, and identifies Benedict's six strategies for balancing capitalism and human dignity. Jason Farago of Newser has helpfully summarized them:
This is an interesting list, but it raises questions. Catholic Social Teaching is a collection of principles, which are then applied by the individual to concrete situations. The pope is certainly free to make his own policy suggestions -- he's a head of state and a brilliant man -- but they don't carry the weight of the principles themselves.
For example, we who live in the First World are required by our faith to recognize our solidarity with those languishing in less developed countries, and work to help them. But increasing foreign aid to those nations may not be the best way to express that solidarity, and might actually do more harm than good (see Dambisa Moyo's work on the question).
Likewise, while we have an absolute moral obligation to treat workers humanely and pay them fair wages, increasing the power of trade unions may not be the best way to do that (and might very well have unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem).
Of course, it's tough to make these points in a Catholic venue without being waved off as a "dissenter from the right." Nevertheless, these are open questions and faithful Catholics are free to debate them, so long as they're genuinely commited to the social doctrine, and not acting out of political partisanship.
The financial leaders have had time to digest B16’s encyclical.
Folks, the high praise was given for liberal stances the Pope has assumed.
This is not a credit to either of these mentioned people.
Ironic that Goldman Sachs is about to report huge profits in the next day or so....
I was thinking similar things.
Related thread (same day news):
Goldman Executives Sold $700m of Stock (Uh Oh!)
I guess it's your prerogative to declaim on all matters under the sun as if with authority, but you don't flatter yourself by doing so.
High-priority bump. Been looking forward to this.
1. Reform of global institutions, including the UN, for “the management of globalization.”
2. More widespread sources of wealth: not just banks but mutual societies, credit unions, and other new forms.
3. Strengthened trade unions to protect workers in the global market.
4. Greater aid to developing nations to combat the “scandal of inequality.”
5. Action on climate change, for economic and religious reasons.
I'll grant only number six, because that is rooted in conservative thought.
We're waiting...
doesn't the air get stagnant in that box?
The Pope just got nod from a global fascist wannabe. As a Catholic, I find this path of unintended consequences quite unsettling. I’m not going to world government with the Pope.
Why can’t the Vatican simultaneously publish a summary of their encycical that the man in the’pew’ can understand.At this point I would say that most Catholics believe that the Pope supports one world government as does Al Gore.
Maybe all, maybe none. Who cares?
The Pope's writings are rooted in The Gospel of Jesus Christ not "conservatism". The Church's teachings on morality long predate mere political movements such as conservatism, liberalism, socialism or communism.
The Gospel does not fit into a nice political box and the Church has at least some issues with all of the major political ideologies, including capitalism.
Read Acts.
"And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. 45 Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need.
Acts: 2:44-45
Oh no! Socialism!!
Oh, give me a break. So, you are one of the Catholics that believe everything the Pope does, regardless of talking on Scripture or otherwise, is infallible?
I thought that even the Catholic church said such thoughts were heresy, with the Pope only infallible on godly matters, not the rest.
Get real.
Wow!
CWR Round-Table: Caritas in Veritate (Web exclusive)
Editorial: Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for One-World Government and New World Order
Caritas in Veritate: language in paragraph 67 [Vanity]
Why does Pope Benedict talk about Humanae vitae in the new encyclical? [Catholic Caucus]
[Caritas in Veritate] Father Fessio: A New Framework for Social Justice [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
A Capitalist or Anti-Capitalist Encyclical? [Caritas in Veritate]
Caritas In Veritate (Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical)-Full Text
Pope's New Encyclical Speaks Against New World Order [Catholic Caucus]
On the 3rd Encyclical (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Best Pro-Life Quotes from Pope Benedict XVI's New Encyclical
Encycli-bites for reading “Caritas in veritate”
In new encyclical Pope Benedict slams population control, urges openness to life
The New Encyclical [Cairtas in Veritate -- Love and Truth] {Ecumenical]
AP, Reuters Go Full Tilt in Spinning Latest Writing of Pope
Caritatis [sic] in Veritate: papal encyclical calls for new moral approach to global economy (CWN)
Supreme Knight criticizes use of Pope's encyclical for political agendas
Benedict XVI explains gifts and limitations of free market economy
Benedict XVI Tightens Up the Church's Social Teaching
Excerpts from Pope Benedict XVI New Encyclical "CARITAS IN VERITATE" (CHARITY AND TRUTH)
Love for others requires involvement in politics, pope says
You wrote:
“Oh, give me a break. So, you are one of the Catholics that believe everything the Pope does, regardless of talking on Scripture or otherwise, is infallible?”
Where did marshmallow mention infallibility? Criticize what he said all you like, but why do you have to falsely claim he said something he never said in that post?
What marshmallow said - and he is absoultely right on this - is that the pope’s comments are rooted in the gospel not modern political conservativism. Look at what you posted:
“1. Reform of global institutions, including the UN, for “the management of globalization.”
Is it conservative? No. But is it compatible with the gospel message of charity? Yes.
“2. More widespread sources of wealth: not just banks but mutual societies, credit unions, and other new forms.”
To me that seems incredibly conservative - people doing it for themselves rather than waiting for high interest loans from corporate banks. What’s more conservative than doing it yourself and helping your neighbors?
“3. Strengthened trade unions to protect workers in the global market.”
The Church has been teaching that since the first days of trade unions - that’s well over a century of constant teaching and that means the Church has been very conservative in her teaching by changing nothing. That may not be the conservatism you want, but it is Christian nonetheless.
“4. Greater aid to developing nations to combat the “scandal of inequality.””
Charity. Christian. Period.
“5. Action on climate change, for economic and religious reasons.”
This is the only one I think is more of passing thing just because we know that climate change is natural more than manmade. The principle, however, of having some sort of coordinaed plan for dealing with the possible effects of climate chage makes perfect sense. Again, for the sake of charity is nothing else.
I think what is at work here is this: many of the anti-Catholics here, like yourself, have replaced Christianity in their hearts and minds with another gospel that is as much rooted in political conservativism as it is in Protestantism. Because of that many of you believe traditional Christian beliefs and practices are not Christian at all because they do not fit into a recently developed political conservatism. By the way, that political conservatism is largely a product of this continent. It would be almost entirely unrecognizable to the Protestants of 16th or 17th century Europe. There are mamy good points to it, but I long recognized two things about it:
1) As a fullfeathered thing, it doesn’t neessarily work everywhere and always because it is so American, and
2) I should never confuse it with Christianity itself. Always remember what CS Lewis warned us about in the Screwtape Letters: we shouldn’t pursue a Christianity that is: Christianity and...(add whatever you want here).
Why can’t you see that “charity” must be something given freely from the heart for it to ever, EVER matter to God? A government taking from someone to give to another is not holy and it gives no one “points in Heaven,” nor is it righteous.
You need to read The Pilgrim’s Progess, Vlad, to understand that the only thing helped Christians survive on this continent was not Communism, but individual responsibility for taking care of one’s own plot of land. They first tried Communism, but it allowed everyone to sit on their laurels to let others do the work. When they subdivided their land to the individual families, they had plenty.
You seem to think the environmental thing is not quite serious. However, remember, if your Pope said it, that must mean it is Christian, righteous, good, and right, correct? That is basically how you’ve defended the other items in the list.
Get real.
You wrote:
“Why can’t you see that “charity” must be something given freely from the heart for it to ever, EVER matter to God?”
I don’t see what I’m talking about as in conflict with that. I have no problem giving to (even taxes!) to keep children from starving to death, for instance.
“A government taking from someone to give to another is not holy and it gives no one “points in Heaven,” nor is it righteous.”
Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and so on is a good act even if done by governments in the name of their people. It would be best if this were done by individuals, but some tasks are so massive that that is almost impossible.
“You need to read The Pilgrim’s Progess, Vlad, to understand that the only thing helped Christians survive on this continent was not Communism, but individual responsibility for taking care of one’s own plot of land.”
No, Actually I don’t need to read Pilgrim’s Progress. 1) What you Protestants did here - and yes, they were all Protestants - that you call communism was doomed to failure and I already know that. But then again, I know the
Jesuit Reductiones were economically successful and offered the natives a far better life than what the Spanish slavers did. The Catholics succeeded where the Protestants failed. I wonder why?
“They first tried Communism, but it allowed everyone to sit on their laurels to let others do the work. When they subdivided their land to the individual families, they had plenty.”
Yes, they did. Then again in the Jesuit Reductiones they had pleny and apparently it was more “communist” then the earliest Protestant colonies.
“You seem to think the environmental thing is not quite serious. However, remember, if your Pope said it, that must mean it is Christian, righteous, good, and right, correct?”
Should not Christians practice good stewardship? Is is good, right and correct to practice good stewardship of the earth?
“That is basically how you’ve defended the other items in the list.”
Again, is it good to practice good stewardship? Yes or no?
“Get real.”
Coming from you that’s hilarious.
Get real and answer this question: Is it good to practice good stewardship? Yes or no?
In the eyes of God, it is only good to practice stewardship if you are an individual, not a country.
I knew it! International Finance is nothing but a Welsh Conspiracy!
The Pope’s comments are rooted in liberalism, not the gospel.
Of course, John Calvin had more impact on America’s government and democracy than the Pope had...
Acts taught that, for a short time, folks sold everything they owned. Perhaps you believe that is the right thing to do - feel free to imitate it. Maybe the Pope thinks it is the right thing to do - if so, he needs to hold a garage sale.
Capitalism, IMHO, means I can earn a surplus which in turn allows me to give to the deserving poor. There are also undeserving poor, and I don’t give to them.
**Why can’t you see that “charity” must be something given freely from the heart for it to ever, EVER matter to God?**
So glad you understnad what Catholics believe here.
Infallibility is an interesting issue but I'm not sure what that has to do with the current encyclical. Nobody, including the Pope, is pretending that this was given under the seal of infallibility.
Has the subject changed?
Your original point was that the Pope's writing was not rooted in "true conservative thought", whatever that nebulous entity might be. My point was that it is based on the Gospel, which is not encompassed by any ideology derived from the human intellect, including, believe it or not, conservatism.
Lest We Forget - The Corporal Works of Mercy & The Spirtual Works of Mercy
1 Reform the UN to manage globalization? - is NOT IAW the Gospel, which assumes the depravity of man. This is why our founding fathers wanted decentralized government.
2 I don’t get high interest loans from banks. I get very reasonably priced loans from banks, or I go elsewhere. Banks aren’t evil until government takes them over.
3 Strengthened trade unions to protect workers? - a free market protects workers. Trade unions protect the lazy and indolent. There is nothing Christian about protecting the lazy by punishing the hard working.
4 “Greater aid to developing nations to combat the “scandal of inequality.”” Charity. Christian. Period.”
Nope. Greater aid means greater dependency. Paul - the Apostle so many Catholics criticize - taught that we should WORK for our needs - not wait for others to take care of us. Mexico has tremendous resources. It is crippled by prejudice and corruption. Given the Catholic Church’s influence, perhaps the Pope ought to work on straightening out Mexico before taking on the world.
If you believe that liberal claptrap about how we and other capitalists are oppressing the world, perhaps you should join DU.
Conservatism is rooted in the Gospel. That is why liberals hate the Gospel. The Pope has been suckered in by the social gospel liberals who want to look good to God by giving other people’s money to the poor.
If Obama had written this instead of the Pope, you would be blasting away.
You wrote:
“In the eyes of God, it is only good to practice stewardship if you are an individual, not a country.”
Israel practiced stewardship over the Temple and the sacrifices there for all of the world. I think someone could easily make an argument that what is spoken of in Deut. 10:14-15 is about a special stewardship role for ancient Israel. The idea that only individuals must practice stewardship also goes against the very idea of the US constitution - the government has the stewardship role of defender of the republic from foreign invaders.
The US and other countries that are not theocracies are obviously not the same. Yes, each must maintain its borders, but this is not “holy” nor “righteous” before God. It just is what it is, a human construct that is amoral before God, just as a condom is amoral—it is inherently neither good nor bad, it is in how it is used by a person that the person is able to sin or glorify God with it.
We disagree. The encyclical is a Gospel tour de force. Most can't even grasp it.
Of course, John Calvin had more impact on America’s government and democracy than the Pope had...
Unfortunate, if true. For to the extent that America's government deviates from authentic Catholic teaching, the more rapidly and drastically will it eventually crumble and fail.
Acts taught that, for a short time, folks sold everything they owned.
I missed that bit about "a short time"....LOL! Do you have a quote for that? A most inconvenient piece of Scripture isn't it? What happened after the "short time"? Did they all go their own ways and become millionaires?? Scripture is for all time not a short time.
Perhaps you believe that is the right thing to do - feel free to imitate it. Maybe the Pope thinks it is the right thing to do - if so, he needs to hold a garage sale.
There's no question it is the right thing to do and the Catholic Church already donates enormous sums to the poor. There are entire religious orders who do nothing else, such as Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, for instance. We're criticized for that too from liberals who assert that we should be changing structures and society not offering charity. We can't win.
Capitalism, IMHO, means I can earn a surplus which in turn allows me to give to the deserving poor. There are also undeserving poor, and I don’t give to them.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with both the encyclical and Catholic teaching. The Church sees nothing wrong with earning a profit and making an honest living. Naturally it does place limits on the ways a profit can be earned and it also asserts that profit is not an end in itself.
When people who are in Christ give from their hearts, this can glorify God.
Nothing else does.
“I missed that bit about “a short time”...”
Then I suggest you do some reading. Or perhaps you believe that was the norm for the entire early church, and...when did it change?
Some of it is. The Gospel far surpasses any human ideology.
Let me know when you can sign off on that passage from Acts.
That is why liberals hate the Gospel. The Pope has been suckered in by the social gospel liberals who want to look good to God by giving other people’s money to the poor.
The Pope is nobody's sucker. He's the lone voice of sanity. You have been suckered into thinking that American style capitalism is synonymous with the Gospel. It isn't.
If Obama had written this instead of the Pope, you would be blasting away.
Unlike most of the unbalanced Freepers who haunt this site I give credit where it's due. I actually agree with some of the things which Obama says and does. They're considerably outweighed by the negatives, of course, but I'm not obsessed by the man in the same way many on this site are.
Congratulations. We're in agreement. The Pope agrees, also.
Catholic teaching in a nutshell.
Where did you get the idea that the Pope wants forced redistribution of wealth by Big Brother?
You wrote:
“1 Reform the UN to manage globalization? - is NOT IAW the Gospel, which assumes the depravity of man. This is why our founding fathers wanted decentralized government.”
They were not perfect men themselves. And reforming the UN is not inherently unchristian.
“2 I don’t get high interest loans from banks. I get very reasonably priced loans from banks, or I go elsewhere. Banks aren’t evil until government takes them over.”
Elsewhere? You mean like a credit union? Perish the thought!
“3 Strengthened trade unions to protect workers? - a free market protects workers. Trade unions protect the lazy and indolent. There is nothing Christian about protecting the lazy by punishing the hard working.”
In the 19th century, when America was supposedly far more Christian than now, workers were horribly abused. How exactly did the free market protect them? You go ahead and read the Sadler Report from England and tell me that the free market at the time protected workers. http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111sad.html
“Nope. Greater aid means greater dependency.”
Not if it is the right kind of aid.
“Paul - the Apostle so many Catholics criticize...”
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where? What Catholics? Do you mean liberals who call themselves Catholics (CINOs)? In the Catholic Church we’re just finishing the Year of St. Paul - did you know that?
“- taught that we should WORK for our needs - not wait for others to take care of us.”
True. Then again the apostles also did this:
Acts 4: 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.
And in Philippians 4: 14 Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress. 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. 20 Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.
So Paul commends the charity of an entire church.
“Mexico has tremendous resources. It is crippled by prejudice and corruption. Given the Catholic Church’s influence, perhaps the Pope ought to work on straightening out Mexico before taking on the world.”
You clearly have no idea of what you’re talking about. Mexico is run by oligarchs who seized the country in the 19th century. These same oligarches supported the government when it made Catholicism ILLEGAL and murdered priests an looted parishes. Did you know any of this?
“If you believe that liberal claptrap about how we and other capitalists are oppressing the world, perhaps you should join DU.”
You’re not being consistent. Capitalists corrupt the world too because they too are capable of evil. It is not only liberals who corrupt the world. Most men do. The founding fathers, for instance, were slave owners. I keep that in perspective and realize they were men of their times. But I cannot deny that that was inherently racist, EVIL and unchristian. You apparently have no problem with it because those slavers were all cheery capitalists and decentralists. If that is “liberal claptrap” then Christianity has a real problem....and so do you.
You wrote:
“Do you not know that “ancient Israel” was a theocracy, basically one large church (synagogue)? This is not too unlike the Vatican of today.”
I do not believe ancient Israel was a theocracy so much as a tribal society turned into a kingdom with a strong supportive and formative religion. The priests did not rule Israel. That would have been a theocracy. The mullahs CONTROL AND RULE Iran.
“The US and other countries that are not theocracies are obviously not the same. Yes, each must maintain its borders, but this is not “holy” nor “righteous” before God.”
But it is stewardship in principle nonetheless.
“It just is what it is, a human construct that is amoral before God, just as a condom is amoral—it is inherently neither good nor bad, it is in how it is used by a person that the person is able to sin or glorify God with it.”
And yet we know Israel was a holy nation and operated
according to a holy law. It was a national steward in the worship of the Lord.
“Mexico has no official religion, and the Constitution of 1917 and the anti-clerical laws imposed limitations on the church and sometimes codified state intrusion into church matters. The government does not provide any financial contributions to the church, and the church does not participate in public education.
The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89% of the total population, 47% percent of whom attend church services weekly. In absolute terms, Mexico has the world’s second largest number of Catholics after Brazil.
About 6% of the population (more than 4.4 million people) is Protestant, of whom Pentecostals and Charismatics (called Neo-Pentecostals in the census), are the largest group (1.37 million people).”
Mexico is a mess. If the Catholic Church wants to make political and economic pronouncements, it seems like a good place to start.
If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.
Free markets mean that if you don’t want your job - leave. If you aren’t willing, that is your choice. And if an employer is endangering its employees, then you can work to get laws changed - and they were.
Compare that to unions - rewarding the lazy and punishing the hardworking. No thanks.
You wrote:
“The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89% of the total population, 47% percent of whom attend church services weekly. In absolute terms, Mexico has the world’s second largest number of Catholics after Brazil.”
But the government and oligaries are decidedly anti-Catholic. The Church cannot change the government structures that insist on maintaining those oligarchies. And in America too we are insisting on maintaining those oligarchies by refusing to enforce our immigration laws.
“Mexico is a mess. If the Catholic Church wants to make political and economic pronouncements, it seems like a good place to start.”
And do you think the government there is listening? Do you think the oligarchies there are listening? Pray tell show me how.
“If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.”
No, I don’t think you would.
“Free markets mean that if you don’t want your job - leave. If you aren’t willing, that is your choice.”
And if ALL of the jobs are the same in terms of abuse? Seriously, you’re dreaming nonsense if you think the Sadler Report did not accurately report the situation ALL OVER THE UK.
“And if an employer is endangering its employees, then you can work to get laws changed - and they were.”
They were changed - after murders, arsons, street fights, riots and, oh yeah, unions were formed.
“Compare that to unions - rewarding the lazy and punishing the hardworking. No thanks.”
Unions got the laws changed. Plain and simple. They used street muscle often to make it happen. That’s just plain history.
Everyone who voluntarily works for another chose to be in that circumstance. Both parties believe they get the better end of the deal.
What don’t you understand, Vlad?
“If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.”
No, I don’t think you would.
Please do not tell me what I would do or not. I know myself.
Did you see the report where, along with abortion, the Pope raised immigration with Obama? I’m guessing he wasn’t on the side of strict enforcement of the laws...
I’m not sure I’d hold up the UK as an example of free markets. Their society was and is hierarchical.
People making choices. Freedom. FREE Republic. Think about it.
Why is it ironic? Please explain.
Did they not recieve American taxpayer money?
You wrote:
“Everyone who voluntarily works for another chose to be in that circumstance.”
Voluntarily? If you are poor, have no transportation, and there is only one type of business in town (all abusive) how much freedom do you really have? Again, read the Sadler Report and then come back and tell me about “voluntarily”.
“Both parties believe they get the better end of the deal.”
No. Many people believe they get what they need to barely survive in such a situation - especially in the 19th century.
“What don’t you understand, Vlad?”
Your ignorance. Again, have you ever read the Sadler Report or is that yet another factual work with which Protestant anti-Catholics don’t equate themselves?
Think about it. This is your situation:
Joshua Drake, called in; and Examined:
You say you would prefer moderate labour and lower wages; are you pretty comfortable upon your present wages?
—I have no wages, but two days a week at present; but when I am working at some jobs we can make a little, and at others we do very poorly.
When a child gets 3s. a week, does that go much towards its subsistence?
—No, it will not keep it as it should do.
When they got 6s. or 7s. when they were pieceners, if they reduced the hours of labor, would they not get less?
—They would get a halfpenny a day less, but I would rather have less wages and less work.
Do you receive any parish assistance?
—No.
Why do you allow your children to go to work at those places where they are ill-treated or over-worked?
—Necessity compels a man that has children to let them work.
Then you would not allow your children to go to those factories under the present system, if it was not from necessity?
—No.
Supposing there was a law passed to limit the hours of labour to eight hours a day, or something of that sort, of course you are aware that a manufacturer could not afford to pay them the same wages?
—No, I do not suppose that they would, but at the same time I would rather have it, and I believe that it would bring me into employ; and if I lost 5d. a day from my children’s work, and I got half-a-crown myself, it would be better.
How would it get you into employ?
—By finding more employment at the machines, and work being more regularly spread abroad, and divided amongst the people at large. One man is now regularly turned off into the street, whilst another man is running day and night.
You mean to say, that if the manufacturers were to limit the hours of labour, they would employ more people?
—Yes.
Mr. Matthew Crabtree, called in; and Examined.
What age are you?
—Twenty-two.
What is your occupation?
—A blanket manufacturer.
Have you ever been employed in a factory?
—Yes.
At what age did you first go to work in one?
—Eight.
How long did you continue in that occupation?
—Four years.
Will you state the hours of labour at the period when you first went to the factory, in ordinary times?
—From 6 in the morning to 8 at night.
Fourteen hours?
—Yes.
With what intervals for refreshment and rest?
—An hour at noon.
When trade was brisk what were your hours?
—From 5 in the morning to 9 in the evening.
Sixteen hours?
—Yes.
With what intervals at dinner?
—An hour.
How far did you live from the mill?
—About two miles.
Was there any time allowed for you to get your breakfast in the mill?
—No.
Did you take it before you left your home?
—Generally.
During those long hours of labour could you be punctual; how did you awake?
—I seldom did awake spontaneously; I was most generally awoke or lifted out of bed, sometimes asleep, by my parents.
Were you always in time?
—No.
What was the consequence if you had been too late?
—I was most commonly beaten.
Severely?
—Very severely, I thought.
In those mills is chastisement towards the latter part of the day going on perpetually?
—Perpetually.
So that you can hardly be in a mill without hearing constant crying?
—Never an hour, I believe.
Do you think that if the overlooker were naturally a humane person it would still be found necessary for him to beat the children, in order to keep up their attention and vigilance at the termination of those extraordinary days of labour?
—Yes; the machine turns off a regular quantity of cardings, and of course, they must keep as regularly to their work the whole of the day; they must keep with the machine, and therefore however humane the slubber may be, as he must keep up with the machine or be found fault with, he spurs the children to keep up also by various means but that which he commonly resorts to is to strap them when they become drowsy.
At the time when you were beaten for not keeping up with your work, were you anxious to have done it if you possibly could?
—Yes; the dread of being beaten if we could not keep up with our work was a sufficient impulse to keep us to it if we could.
When you got home at night after this labour, did you feel much fatigued?
—Very much so.
Had you any time to be with your parents, and to receive instruction from them?
—No.
What did you do?
—All that we did when we got home was to get the little bit of supper that was provided for us and go to bed immediately. If the supper had not been ready directly, we should have gone to sleep while it was preparing.
Did you not, as a child, feel it a very grievous hardship to be roused so soon in the morning?
—I did.
Were the rest of the children similarly circumstanced?
—Yes, all of them; but they were not all of them so far from their work as I was.
And if you had been too late you were under the apprehension of being cruelly beaten?
—I generally was beaten when I happened to be too late; and when I got up in the morning the apprehension of that was so great, that I used to run, and cry all the way as I went to the mill.
Mr. John Hall, called in; and Examined.
Will you describe to the Committee the position in which the children stand to piece in a worsted mill, as it may serve to explain the number and severity of those cases of distortion which occur?
—At the top to the spindle there is a fly goes across, and the child takes hold of the fly by the ball of his left hand, and he throws the left shoulder up and the right knee inward; he has the thread to get with the right hand, and he has to stoop his head down to see what he is doing; they throw the right knee inward in that way, and all the children I have seen, that bend in the right knee. I knew a family, the whole of whom were bent outwards as a family complaint, and one of those boys was sent to a worsted-mill, and first he became straight in his right knee, and then he became crooked in it the other way.
Elizabeth Bentley, called in; and Examined.
What age are you?
—Twenty-three.
Where do you live?
—At Leeds.
What time did you begin to work at a factory?
—When I was six years old.
At whose factory did you work?
—Mr. Busk’s.
What kind of mill is it?
—Flax-mill.
What was your business in that mill?
—I was a little doffer.
What were your hours of labour in that mill?
—From 5 in the morning till 9 at night, when they were thronged.
For how long a time together have you worked that excessive length of time?
—For about half a year.
What were your usual hours when you were not so thronged?
—From 6 in the morning till 7 at night.
What time was allowed for your meals?
—Forty minutes at noon.
Had you any time to get your breakfast or drinking?
—No, we got it as we could.
And when your work was bad, you had hardly any time to eat it at all?
—No; we were obliged to leave it or take it home, and when we did not take it, the overlooker took it, and gave it to his pigs.
Do you consider doffing a laborious employment?
—Yes.
Explain what it is you had to do?
—When the frames are full, they have to stop the frames, and take the flyers off, and take the full bobbins off, and carry them to the roller; and then put empty ones on, and set the frame going again.
Does that keep you constantly on your feet?
—Yes, there are so many frames, and they run so quick.
Your labour is very excessive?
—Yes; you have not time for any thing.
Suppose you flagged a little, or were too late, what would they do?
—Strap us.
Are they in the habit of strapping those who are last in doffing?
—Yes.
Constantly?
—Yes.
Girls as well as boys?
—Yes.
Have you ever been strapped?
—Yes.
Severely?
—Yes.
Could you eat your food well in that factory?
—No, indeed I had not much to eat, and the little I had I could not eat it, my appetite was so poor, and being covered with dust; and it was no use to take it home, I could not eat it, and the overlooker took it, and gave it to the pigs.
You are speaking of the breakfast?
—Yes.
How far had you to go for dinner?
—We could not go home to dinner.
Where did you dine?
—In the mill.
Did you live far from the mill?
—Yes, two miles.
Had you a clock?
—No, we had not.
Supposing you had not been in time enough in the morning at these mills, what would have been the consequence?
—We should have been quartered.
What do you mean by that?
—If we were a quarter of an hour too late, they would take off half an hour; we only got a penny an hour, and they would take a halfpenny more.
The fine was much more considerable than the loss of time?
—Yes.
Were you also beaten for being too late?
—No, I was never beaten myself, I have seen the boys beaten for being too late.
Were you generally there in time?
—Yes; my mother had been up at 4 o’clock in the morning, and at 2 o’clock in the morning; the colliers used to go to their work about 3 or 4 o’clock, and when she heard them stirring she has got up out of her warm bed, and gone out and asked them the time; and I have sometimes been at Hunslet Car at 2 o’clock in the morning, when it was streaming down with rain, and we have had to stay until the mill was opened.
Peter Smart, called in; and Examined.
You say you were locked up night and day?
—Yes.
Do the children ever attempt to run away?
—Very often.
Were they pusued and brought back again?
—Yes, the overseer pursued them, and brought them back.
Did you ever attempt to run away?
—Yes, I ran away twice.
And you were brought back?
—Yes; and I was sent up to the master’s loft, and thrashed with a whip for running away.
Were you bound to this man?
—Yes, for six years.
By whom were you bound?
—My mother got 15s. for the six years.
Do you know whether the children were, in point of fact, compelled to stop during the whole time for which they were engaged?
—Yes, they were.
By law?
—I cannot say by law; but they were compelled by the master; I never saw any law used there but the law of their own hands.
To what mill did you next go?
—To Mr. Webster’s, at Battus Den, within eleven miles of Dundee.
In what situation did you act there?
—I acted as overseer.
At 17 years of age?
—Yes.
Did you inflict the same punishment that you yourself had experienced?
—I went as an overseer; not as a slave, but as a slave-driver.
What were the hours of labour in that mill?
—My master told me that I had to produce a certain quantity of yarn; the hours were at that time fourteen; I said that I was not able to produce the quantity of yarn that was required; I told him if he took the timepiece out of the mill I would produce that quantity, and after that time I found no difficulty in producing the quantity.
How long have you worked per day in order to produce the quantity your master required?
—I have wrought nineteen hours.
Was this a water-mill?
—Yes, water and steam both.
To what time have you worked?
—I have seen the mill going till it was past 12 o’clock on the Saturday night.
So that the mill was still working on the Sabbath morning?
—Yes.
Were the workmen paid by the piece, or by the day?
—No, all had stated wages.
Did not that almost compel you to use great severity to the hands then under you?
—Yes; I was compelled often to beat them, in order to get them to attend to their work, from their being over-wrought.
Were not the children exceedingly fatigued at that time?
—Yes, exceedingly fatigued.
Were the children bound in the same way in that mill?
—No; they were bound from one year’s end to another, for twelve months.
Did you keep the hands locked up in the same way in that mill?
—Yes, we locked up the mill; but we did not lock the bothy.
Did you find that the children were unable to pursue their labour properly to that extent?
—Yes; they have been brought to that condition, that I have gone and fetched up the doctor to them, to see what was the matter with them, and to know whether they were able to rise or not able to rise; they were not at all able to rise; we have had great difficulty in getting them up.
When that was the case, how long have they been in bed, generally speaking?
—Perhaps not above four or five hours in their beds.
Beaten, forced to work for 14 hours, no alternatives, no money, no rest, and you think that was all voluntary?
You wrote:
“Please do not tell me what I would do or not. I know myself.”
Learn to read. I said, “No, I don’t think you would.” That’s my opinion about what you would do. It is not me telling you what you would do. That would be, “No your wouldn’t.”
Learn to read.
“Did you see the report where, along with abortion, the Pope raised immigration with Obama? I’m guessing he wasn’t on the side of strict enforcement of the laws...”
Maybe not. I don’t think Jesus would be either. He said, “Blessed are the poor...” not “Blessed are the native born only.”
“I’m not sure I’d hold up the UK as an example of free markets. Their society was and is hierarchical.”
So is ours. Hierarchy does not negate a free market. Their “hierarchy” - and you’re not using the proper term anyway; you mean “class system” - doesn’t in itself interfere with their free market. After all, almost all of those abusive factory owners came from the middle class and not the upper class. Most of the upper crust wouldn’t be caught dead owning mills or shops. Their wealth was grounded in land ownership. That’s why today most of them are land rich, but cash poor.
“People making choices. Freedom. FREE Republic. Think about it.”
I did and this is what I concluded - just like everyone who lived in the 19th century I today recognize the obvious: people in early industrial society were not nearly as free as we are today. They were less mobile, less wealthy, less educated and often had dramatically fewer choices. Many had no real choice at all.
Ancient Israel was a Theocracy. As a matter of fact, the Jews (not the State of Israel but all Jews) are theoretically a Theocracy today--a Theocracy in exile. And if there is a G-d (and you and I believe) and if He is the "King of the Kings of the Kings" (as you and I believe), then the universe is a Theocracy.
The word "Theocracy" means "rule by G-d." "Rule by priests" would be, I believe, "hierocracy." Of course Iran claims to be a Theocracy because it is based on the assumption that islam is the true religion; however, by definition, G-d does not rule--and there is therefore no true "Theocracy"--in any state governed by a false religion.
I have never understood the Calvinist fondness for the law of the jungle in economics but once again, Protestants merely follow the logic of the original chr*stian movement to its ultimate conclusion. If Luther said there were "two kingdoms," one ruled by G-d and one by man, if Protestant religion has limited itself to the soul only and left all other matters up to secular law or "the people," this is only because J*sus once said "render unto Caesar."
Authentic Biblical religion is not "religion" as we today understand it because there was no separate part of life known as "religion" at all--instead Halakhah (the laws of G-d) governed everything from business to legal torts to animal sacrifices. The idea of G-d being restricted to a certain sphere outside of which He is a tyrant (G-d forbid!) is the common patrimony of all the branches of chr*stendom. This is because G-d is no longer the Master of All but someone Who lurks on the fringes offering "the gift of salvation." The Biblical G-d offers no such "gift." He rules, absolutely!
Marshmallow, has said that he is not one of those unhinged FReepers who object to everything Obama does. I am perhaps (most ironically) the only FReeper who doesn't condemn islam for being "theocratic," for seeking to govern and regulate all areas of life, and for wanting to convert the whole world. This is what religion is. Those conservatives who are so horrified by this worldview do not possess a genuine pre-modern religious outlook but a gutted post-enlightenment one.
And before anyone here tells me to "move to Iran," I must reiterate that the problem with islam is that it is a false religion. But I merely point out that true Biblical religion is in fact (like islam) statutory rather than salvational.
Chr*stian salvationalism was the beginning of modern secularism.
You wrote:
“The word “Theocracy” means “rule by G-d.” “Rule by priests” would be, I believe, “hierocracy.”
True enough. I don’t think we meant “rule by God”. I think we were using the term as it is usually used today in common literature. Hence my references to mullahs and not God.
Agreed and understood, old friend.
Just this evening I visited a couple of secular conservative web sites that advocate a kind of organic "palaeoconservatism" but without the theological basis (something about "the inherited wisdom of the ages" or something like that). Anyway, one of the essays linked on one of these sites makes the point that the "religion" advocated by most religious conservatives today isn't really "religion" in the traditional sense at all, but a post-enlightenment denatured remnant that resides in the private sphere alone and whose function is the smooth working of society. And while I most definitely reject islam outright, I have always been somewhat horrified by some of the enlightenment-based anti-islamism on FR.
Some American conservatives base their entire religious outlook on the Founding Fathers rather than the alleged sources of their faith.
ZC,
By the way, do you know of a really good traditional verse-by-verse commentary on Genesis? Bruce Watke’s seems good and I believe he takes it as a strictly historical account: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Commentary-Bruce-K-Waltke/dp/0310224586/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247619423&sr=1-1
I can’t seem to find anything else (I can’t claim to have looked incredibly hard yet though). Any info you culd provide would be appreciated!
Another classic commentary is that of RaMBa"N (not to be confused with RaMBa"M, who apparently never wrote an actual Bible commentary). Translations of his commentary are also available, including (I believe) from ArtScroll.
For more modern commentators there is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (nineteenth century), who has been quoted both for and against Darwin (you may not like him, though, as I believe he says that Adam and Eve were created mortal, which may actually be the peshat) and the recently deceased Sefaradi scholar Rabbi 'Aryeh Kaplan (who is supposed to have been some sort of Theistic evolutionist who subscribed to the "gap theory," though I am not that familiar with his work; but he is a well respected authority and I have never claimed that there were not evolutionists among Orthodox Jews). You can do searches on either of these by merely "googling" their name along with "Chumash commentary."
ArtScroll also has a Chumash commentary that distills many of the classical Rabbinic sources. I believe it's "The Stone Chumash."
One to avoid--that of the nineteenth Century Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, the Irish-born J.H. Hertz, which makes far too many accommodations with modern scholarship for no apparent reason and also for the internal contradiction of accepting higher criticism of the Prophets while rejecting it outright (for dogmatic reasons alone) for the Torah.
One commentary I'd like to read--and one you'd probably not be interested in--is the Ba`al Turim which consists exclusively of remez commentary--that is, commentary on acrostics, sizes and shapes of letters, etc., rather than on the peshat of the text.
I hope this helps.
I think so. If they did, they probably didn't need it. And last I heard, there was talk of returning it.
Does that prove that there is irony in earning a profit and appreciating the wisdom of the Holy Father at the same time?
Earning a profit when you require taxpayer money to save you from oblivion and then within a 4-5 month period, produce profit numbers of $2+ billion....no, no irony in that at all.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.