Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.
The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy is run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations.
Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketeers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system.
The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
Benedict said "there is an urgent need of a true world political authority" whose task would be "to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
This post from #24 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2289051/posts?page=24#24
DEAR DEAR MARK,
THANK YOU for your kind comments about my intellectual honesty. I certainly try.
I won't trouble you or myself ATT with a paragraph by paragraph reply.
I will note . . . I have read, as you know, the encyclical before this one in its entirety. I think your points are consistent with that one, too.
I do plan to read this entire encyclical when I can manage it and comment paragraph by paragraph.
Yes, there are many lofty sentences and paragraphs far in abundance above the troubling ones--as far as I can tell from what's been said and you have written.
However, they do not, for me, mollify the troubling ones for the following reasons:
1. The NWO folks say most of those lofty things as well--as justification for their tyranny--of course while pretending they have nothing to do with tyranny. It's a bit like the Soviets claiming all their tyranny was necessary on the road to the idyllic utopia of "pure Communism."
In fact, even in your paragraphs about the lofty points, some of the wording was very disturbingly almost identical to the wording in some of the NWO documents . . . some such docs decades old. In fact, I can't, at the moment, think of one of your paragraphs about the lofty content that I have NOT read in essential form in some NWO document that I've read the last 45 years or so.
2. YES, the NWO folks also talk out of both sides of their fingers. I'm sorry to have to use that phrase with you but that's how I read both sorts of documents. It's a bit like a velvet covered brick or a rabbit fur glove over an iron fist. They even have their version of subsidiarity wherein they claim that local Nations, government entities will have the freedom to do as they wish as long as they don't trouble the common good etc. etc. etc.
However, with their control of individuals down to implanted ID/locator chips . . . and police empowered & charged to be prosecutors, judge, jury and executioners on the spot . . . I'm still not impressed with such a notion of subsidiarity.
3. Some of the Pope's lofty phrases seem identical to me with the ones of the NWO folks rationalizing and justifying reducing the population to 200 million; insuring a global currency; managing international trade very wholesale and integratedly; dividing the world into 10 governmental regions (interestingly--consistent with Biblical prophecy about the global government);
Sure, evidently, many of the Pope's lofty statements would be in contradiction to many of the ruthless tyrannical goals and schemes--and certainly methods--of the NWO. BUT THE SAME IS TRUE OF THEIR OWN DOCS.
4. It boils down to . . . essentially . . . smoke screens and white-wash . . . distracting from the ruthless tyranny with visions of more utopian wonders--always "in love" and "in truth" and "for the children" and for "the survival of humanity" and for the "survival of the planet."
5. EVEN IN THE HIGHLY UNLIKELY EVENT that the NWO folks would come out with a document tomorrow applauding this one of the Pope and agreeing carte blanche with every sentence the Pope signed-on to . . . a somewhat plausible event . . . it would be a cruel farce. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch because their own documents have said so many of the identically same things.
6. YET, ANYONE TRUSTING SUCH A DOCUMENT would be akin to those trusting Chamberlain about Hitler and Hitler's early statements about Hitler's own plans and goals. It would be lofty words with the gestapo waiting in the wings for a wholesale different kind of enforcement awaiting close at hand.
7. SO, I'M SORRY. I remain keenly and highly sobered and aghast at the encyclical. To me, still, all the talk about the lofty sentences and paragraphs is akin to talk about how beautiful the fabric is on the deck chairs of the Titanic.
!!!!WRONG!!!! wholesale yet again.
1. I am a fiercely supportive Christian regarding the universal catholic Body of Christ represented by authentic believers in virtually every Christian group and organization.
2. I am fiercely against hogwash, heresy, evil, hypocrisy, gross contradiction, UNBiblical destructiveness . . . whether I find it in my own local congregation, the Vatican/ Roman Catholic organization, the man in my mirror or any other congregation or Christian organization.
3. I realize that’s a challenging realization too lofty for some folks to wrap their biases around.
4. Contrary to your rubber dictionary:
DISAGREEMENT is NOT equal to hate etc.
You wrote:
“1. I am a fiercely supportive Christian regarding the universal catholic Body of Christ represented by authentic believers in virtually every Christian group and organization.”
I see no evidence of that. What I see - and what you show - is a disdain and hatred for Christ’s Church.
“2. I am fiercely against hogwash, heresy, evil, hypocrisy, gross contradiction, UNBiblical destructiveness . . . whether I find it in my own local congregation, the Vatican/ Roman Catholic organization, the man in my mirror or any other congregation or Christian organization.”
No. What you do is attack in a kneejerk way anything or almost anything that is Catholic. That’s why you’re in this thread attacking what you have no even read. Admit it, you have not read the encyclical, do not claim to understand it, yet you attack it right away. I’ve seen you do this before. You act like an anti-Catholic. You post like an anti-Catholic. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
“3. I realize that’s a challenging realization too lofty for some folks to wrap their biases around.”
You are - at the very least - no less biased than anyone else here. The difference here is that your bias is unreasoned. Again, here you are attacking something you’ve never read. How reasonable is that? Is that how an unbiased person acts?
“4. Contrary to your rubber dictionary:DISAGREEMENT is NOT equal to hate etc.”
I never said it was. Saying an entire people worship idols, however, when they don’t, or claiming the Catholic Church never destroyed ancient pagan idols when they did, however, is a sign of gross dishonesty...and I find it hard to believe that someone who would make such calumnies is not inspired by hate. Notice, I don’t claim false things about Protestants. I know many Anglicans and Lutherans and other Protestants who worship in chuches filled with statues, stained glass windows, etc. yet I would never think of lying and saying they worship idols because of that. You don’t think twice about it. Who here is really biased?
I have not read it. So are you saying the media spun this to make the Pope look bad?
Your confusing reality with ideals. First Christ said it was ok to be poor.. he also said it was ok to be rich. The most important thing was that you lived with his ideals.
The Pope has an idea that everyone should work on not “pretending to work”. I never said it would work in reality. But you have to understand the ideals behind it and that Pope is asking people to move towards those ideals.
That would indeed save more people from Hell by moving more people towards Christ’s ideals.
You are so jaded by reality it’s people like you who don’t understand “ideals” that tend to be the people to follow the crowd. “I must lie to get this job.” “If I don’t make this money anyway I can I can live the way I want.”
I don’t think it’s wrong to encourage people not to chase the money dream. If that means socialism so be it. And again for the 3rd time. The Pope’s only agenda is to encourage people to live to Christ’s ideals... not encourage America or any other country to be the best in the world or the richest in the world.
If you expect him to do anything other than that you are just silly.
Socialism, forced redistribution of wealth, and political allocation of capital by elite global "managers" are not on my ideals list.
I don’t think it’s wrong to encourage people not to chase the money dream.
I don't think that's wrong, either.
If that means socialism so be it.
May your chains rest lightly. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.
And again for the 3rd time. The Pope’s only agenda is to encourage people to live to Christ’s ideals... not encourage America or any other country to be the best in the world or the richest in the world.
Christs commandments have nothing to do with socialism.
Cordially,
Yet again we appear to have an inadequate shared vocabulary for anything in the same galactic cluster as dialogue.
God and the future will reveal truth aplenty.
It is comforting that you seem to have about 0.0000000% awareness of me . . . who I am, what I am, what I think, what I do. That’s comforting, INDEED.
Thanks for taking “making it personal” to new depths.
But doctor, the patient isn't sick in the first place, except for all the "cures" that he is forced to take.
Now, what if we don't want to take the prescription? I presume we're just supposed to sit down, shut up and take it anyway?
Cordially,
My tongue in cheek remark to Salvation was due to her habit of bombarding the forum with a lengthy list of Catholic Apologist Sites no matter the topic. Her sources and the MSM are equally objective.
2. Remember, There is no Encyclical which is so clear it cannot be explained, modified, or interpreted as required.
YOU do good work, Bro.
Thx.
You wrot:
“It is comforting that you seem to have about 0.0000000% awareness of me . . . who I am, what I am, what I think, what I do. That’s comforting, INDEED.”
Let’s see how someone could develop such knowledge. You said - falsely - that the Catholics never destroyed pagan idols and had idols themselves. You said it this way when I contradicted your false claims. You said in reply, “Actually, that assertion is quite wrong on both counts.”
I then mentioned to the contrary; “Nope. What I posted is irrefutably true. At Eschwege St. Boniface destroyed the statue of the idol Stuffo, for instance. And there’s the famous story of S. Sebastan urging Chromatius, the proconsul of Rome under the Emperor Diocletian, to destroy the idols in his home.”
How did you reply? Did you admit your error? Did you apologize? No.
You simply avoided commenting on your obvious error. So, how can someone know abut your character? Simple. You tell us.
You wrote:
“And that’s why so many thousands of Priests have left the Priesthood over the last few decades.”
Actually no. The vast majority of priests who have left the active priesthood did so to marry, not because they no longer believed in the priestood.
You wrote:
“Thanks for taking “making it personal” to new depths.”
I recognize the obvious: people act on what is “personal”. You are the way you beause, at least in part, of what’s inside you. We can pretend otherwise, well, you can, I can’t. I always deal with reality.
>> “Again, your scenarios do not interest me. Also, you could at leats pick somethig relevant. Ghengis Khan died in the 1220s or so. He started out as a onqueror. That’s not exactly an elected or even appointed office.”
OK Let’s take a more recent (if shopworn) example: Adolf Hitler. Duly elected bad guy. Did he stop being a ruthless murderer due to the principle of subsidiarity? Did he ever heed any admonition from the Pope?
I am not attacking the Pope, or Catholics. I am saying that this call for a “World Authority,” and imagining that any such authority would be subject to ANY principle completely ignores human nature.
Period.
If you want to go beyond that (with me) bring it on.
DG
You wrote:
“But doctor, the patient isn’t sick in the first place, except for all the “cures” that he is forced to take.”
So say you, but other doctors disagree.
“Now, what if we don’t want to take the prescription?”
Get a second opinion. Just don’t call the first doctor liar or lie about what he said or wants. Is that too hard?
“I presume we’re just supposed to sit down, shut up and take it anyway?”
Try alternative medicine. See how that works for you. Or you could just try wishful thinking: envision yourself as healthy. Gee, did it work?
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.