Skip to comments.Pope says he is not a "Marxist" and it is not time to start "clericalizing" women
Posted on 12/15/2013 9:14:52 AM PST by NYer
click here to read article
I don’t even think that is true.
Man's Capacity for God
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",9 can have its origin only in God.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15
I don’t want to impose my values on a grand scale. I have no desire to rule over people.
I believe that there are a set of cultural and moral conditions that must obtain for political and economic freedom to be possible. And this moral condition is not ruthlessness. The loss of freedom that we are experiencing is a consequence of moral decay.
The funeral industry is still every bit the scam it was when Jessica Mitford exposed it...
This pope is giving so many off the cuff, unrehearsed interviews, that the Vatican - and he himself - is forced to do continuous damage control.
He has directly or indirectly insulted and/or belittled orthodox Catholics numerous times, be they pro-life, opposed to homosexual marriage, teachers and promoters of NFP, those who attend the Latin Mass, or simple faithful Catholics sending him spiritual bouquets of Rosaries.
He says not to judge others but then he oh so humbly speaks of others as
"Pelagian!""Mr and Mrs Whiner!""Triumphalist!"
"Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!"
"Sayer of prayers!"
"Querulous and disillusioned pessimist!"
"Children who are afraid to dance, to cry, afraid of everything, who ask for certainty in all things!"
"Closed, sad, trapped Christians who are not free Christians!" "Specialist of the Logos!"
"Functionary!""Self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian!""Restorationist!"
And what pray tell do we do with a Pope who says not to judge others out of one side of his mouth, then does exactly that out the other?
What about not breaking the bruised reed?
Who is more reviled in this world, more bruised, than orthodox pro-life, pro-family Catholics?!?
Sorry, criticize me all you want, I'm just following the lead of our Holy Father. My criticism if that is what it is, is pretty minor compared to his list above.
Time is looking to take back their award..
I respect you immeasurably. Thou I think in this you’re missing the forest for the trees.
God’s grace to You and Yours.
Half of all Catholics on FR want to interpret the Pope for us, spinning the man's words and telling us what the Pope "really" meant. Given his repeated speeches on the same subject, it made sense for the Pope himself to come out and clarify his thoughts, in case the Pope believes that he is being misunderstood. And now this has happened. How will this direct quote, found on this thread, be spun by Catholics more conservative than this Pope?
There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasnt speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Churchs social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.So with the Pope making himself clearly understood, we give him this response:
"Since the origins of modern capitalism around 1780, more than two-thirds of the worlds population has moved out of poverty. In China and India alone, more than 500 million have been raised out of poverty just in the last forty years. In almost every nation the average age of mortality has risen dramatically, causing populations to expand accordingly. Health in almost every dimension has been improved, and literacy has been carried to remote places it never reached before.
Whatever the motives of individuals, the system has improved the plight of the poor as none ever has before. The contemporary left systematically refuses to face these undeniable facts."
-- Robert Novak, from the thread Economic Heresies of the Left (Novak on Caritas in Veritate)
I’ve been waiting for this statement, frankly. It appears as though the Pontiff isn’t a Marxist because he says he’s not. Okay, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s true.
His repetition of his comments regarding trickle-down theory show that even if he isn’t a Marxist, he sounds a lot like Charlie Rangel. Is that a good thing? To suggest that trickle-down theory results in NOTHING EVER for the poor is demonstrably false, as your cite of Novak proves.
The free market has been vastly superior in raising people from poverty than any other system that has ever been tried.
That said, I would have liked to have seen the Pope refute the notion that governments should enact specific policies designed to promote equality. I know there will be posters who will claim he didn’t say that, but what he did say was that ‘policies should be enacted’ to achieve specific social ends which he named, and who enacts policies if not governments?
There is much that is admirable in what the Pope said otherwise (and yes, my Catholic brethren, I did read it). But economically speaking, perhaps it’s better if the Pontiff would simply let well enough alone and encourage everyone to aid the poor as Christ did in John 21 — through the Church of Christ, not through government.
The injurious effect of his comments can't be denied, and his biases come through loud and clear.
I believe in an apprenticeship model, and hire and develop employees this way. I deliberately have a few very junior people as well as senior people in my organization doing similar work. I work at a large company, but value small business and small government. I believe that big business generally prefers big government, and is often as much a threat to liberty as left-wing advocacy groups. None of this has a direct effect on my policy preferences.
IMO there's no such thing as being influenced in only one sphere. Cases in point:
A new European Central Bank study has also found that Catholics are more likely to favour sharing wealth and to support government intervention in the economy than are Protestants.....
[Max Weber] ....noted that societies which had more Protestants had a more highly developed capitalist economy and that, in societies with different religions, the most successful business leaders were Protestant. Weber also argued that Catholicism impeded the development of capitalism in the West, as did Confucianism and Buddhism in the East...."...relative to Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism has curbed preferences for redistribution and for government intervention in the economy.
-- from the thread Catholics 'more likely to back state economic intervention' [European Central Bank study]
Despite what one might think, economics is not morally or theologically neutral. Every business action supports a certain economic paradigm and in doing so, supports a certain and specific theology. Every businessperson needs to understand that taking a specific economic position gives insight into your view of theology, morality and God. These insights must be addressed because it will affect how you run your business....For a business owner, it could be whether you maximize your profits or how you compensate your employees, issues like that....Economics is certainly not morally or theologically neutral. To take a stance as a Marxist, Keynesian, or an Adam Smith Capitalist reveals insight into your view of man, God and redemption....
....These truths are not the same as capitalism. Yet capitalism is the one economic paradigm that is most congruent with Calvins teachings and the Biblical economic truths I mentioned....Calvin believed wealth cannot be evil because God chooses to bless some with wealth. But, whether wealthy or poor, Calvin and the Bible exhort us to be content with our economic positions in life and to live a life following his word, not chasing after wealth....People who think of Calvin as equating material prosperity with eternal destiny are misreading him. But if someone is in difficulty, then maybe that is where that person needs to be in this life for the sake of his eternal life. That may be an expression of Gods will.
-- from the thread How theology ties into economics
I agree with distributism in theory and for conservatives who truly understand it, I agree they would choose a more contemporary form of it. The larger the society, the more it’s principals are needed. Many conservatives think there is nothing wrong with lassiez faire capitalism. But today’s capitalism is driven by greed and power and takes on many totalitarian aspects. Is the capitalism that we have today better thans the socialism of today. Of course...it always has been. But greed has driven it beyond the pale of Christian ethics.
And if they weren’t loud and clear already, the latest news is he’s kicked out Cardinal Burke as member of Congregation of Bishops.
Really? Has someone posted a thread on this yet?
I don’t think so. I will.
I do a lot of poaching myself, and am ruthless about it.
The less experienced people in my shop are not “entry level” - they have at least 2-3 years of experience and a quantitative MS or PhD. We pay them well, and so I can select the best.
My policy preference is minarchy, a very small government.
I believe in liberty of contract, and also believe that Congress does not have the power to delegate legislative powers to the Executive. In short, most regulations put in place since 1933, Social Security, Medicare, EPA, OSHA, NCLB/Common Core, etc are unconstitutional and unlawful.
So if anything my policy preferences are staunchly free market, not distributist.
To paraphrase Edmund Burke: when men forget the laws of the heart, the laws go on the books.
Perhaps he will do what you are saying, but what will you think if he doesn't?
I'm thinking he made a mistake wading into any kind of economic debate with the words he chose, nothing more, nothing less than a simple mistake. Hopefully it will not be significant, or turn into something more sinister.
The statement maybe one of those nervous tics, akin to adding after a critical statement, "Some of my best friends are _____."
Assuming there was more to it than that, though, is he actually talking about those who are "actively promoting" Marxism?
As opposed to MINOs, say? College professors who like a certain vocabulary but aren't about to seize the state. Italians who vote for a post-Communist party because their parents voted for the Communist Party.
Former party members or disillusioned radicals who gave up on Communism or big state solutions but still can't repudiate some sliver of their former beliefs -- if only a name or label. Most of these people aren't in Rush's world or yours or mine, but I'd suppose it would be hard to avoid them in Italy.
Maybe the Mandela commotion provides a context for the discussion. For many people Mandela was still a Marxist to the day he died, but others would say that he wasn't by any means "actively promoting" Marxism in recent years.
Take Bergoglios comments and replace the word Marxist with Nazi. Are we having a different conversation? If so, why?
"Nazi" is more like "Stalinist" or "Leninist" -- too closely tied to actual murderous policies. I'd have a hard time saying that a Leninist or a Stalinist or a Nazi was actually a good person. Personally, I wouldn't say a Marxist was a good person, but the ambiguity is greater there.
I might say that you could find some good in someone who happened to be a Marxist or a fascist, if their Marxism or fascism were theoretical enough and not tied to actual murderous acts. I wouldn't say that someone like that was a "good person," but I don't know if the pope, who isn't the most skilled at media relations, would say that either if he had time to think it out.
This isn't something we come across everyday in the US, but in Italy, quasi-Marxists and quasi-Communists and quasi-fascists abound, and dealing with them might be difficult. Even outside Italy, Europe's Socialist Parties work in a democratic and capitalist framework, but have a lot of trouble figuring out what there relationship to Marx is, and just who Karl Marx really was, what he believed, and what relevance it might have to the present.
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.