Quix's Commentary On Pope Paul VI's 1967 Populorum Progressio RE: Globalism Implications

Quix's mysterious thought processes and the Vatican URL link given ^ | 26 MARCH 1967 AND 23 MAY 2009 | Pope Paul VI & Quix

[Quix]

Quix’s commentary on Pope Paul VI-th’s:

POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES

MARCH 26, 1967

FROM:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html

paragraph 13:

. . . But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty "of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel." (14) Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.

.

Qx:
A couple of things stand out to me in this paragraph. “. . . signs of the times.” That’s a rather Pentecostal phrase! LOL. I wonder what his thinking was as he chose that phrase. Or does it mean something different in Latin than it does to Pentecostals in English?

In English, to Pentecostals it equals “END TIMES” and the Biblical signs thereof. I’d think, HOPE, that the Vatican translators would KNOW that. If they didn’t and it slipped through, then their scholarship is not very impressive.

This term: “. . . a global perspective on man and human realities” is a bit fascinating . . . Certainly the Pope would have reason to consider his turf of global reach—quite reasonably, plausibly.

However, it also certainly fits globalism’s goals, wording and purview, as well. Whether this was deliberately done or not, the globalist puppet masters had to be pleased with that wording.

A New Humanism Needed

20. If development calls for an ever-growing number of technical experts, even more necessary still is the deep thought and reflection of wise men in search of a new humanism, one which will enable our contemporaries to enjoy the higher values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation, (17) and thus find themselves. This is what will guarantee man's authentic development—his transition from less than human conditions to truly human ones.

.

Hmmmmm “. . . a new humanism, . . .” Doesn’t sound that different than the Georgia Guidestones—the globalist’s ‘Ten Commandments.’

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

I’m not really that thrilled with the term “humanism.” Why would a Pope ‘need’ to use it. Humanism is NOT the objective of Believers in Christ. If anything, it should be “God-ism.” We are being conformed to HIS LIKENESS—if we are truly His Children.

“Humanism” is a satanic term in virtually all its modern uses. It is a seductive deception from hell. It pleases the flesh and flatters pride. It exalts man above or at least equal to God. I’m saddened to see the Pope use it.

The Use of Private Property

23. "He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

.

I’ve long pondered this issue. Biblically, in terms of Christian thought and practice, I mostly agree with the Pope. And, I believe that authentic Christians in most places in these END TIMES will end up sharing all things in common as they did 2000 years ago. And that those proudly, selfishly unwilling to do so will suddenly find themselves WITHOUT their goods and wealth AND HIGHLY LIKELY, without--outside the camp of God’s people.

HOWEVER, we can observe in the story of Peter and Ananias and Sapphira, that there was NO COMPULSION FROM the Disciples. It was VOLUNTARY.

I don’t see IN SCRIPTURE, per se, the “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his.”

Scripture indicates that—essentially—IN GENERAL—that Godly people are blessed of God. That can end up creating a false ‘vending machine’ mentality about God. However, the Promises of God are clear in Scripture and include being blessed materially for those who walk close to God. King David and Solomon are but two examples. Kenneth Hagin was Biblical in his teachings and practices on that score. Most of his ‘disciples’ have jumped off the cliff with it but he was not that far off, himself.

Yet, God does also seem to call some individuals to a life of material poverty and spiritual wealth. And, many believers would bankrupt their souls if God blessed them materially—idolizing things.

In fact, SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR that whether by the work of one’s hands or as manna from Heaven—ALL BLESSINGS COME FROM GOD. The rich man AND the poor man who construes it otherwise are both on thin ice, from God’s perspective.

And, I CERTAINLY BELIEVE that IF Christians had applied the—‘if you have two, give your brother one’ Biblical principle, the horrendous welfare system would never have gotten off the ground short of a globalist forced strong-armed thing. CHRISTIANS TOO have been far too materialistic in every Christian group and flavor. And the Church Universal and individual Believers have suffered great loss because of that.

Yet, it is NOT the stuff that’s evil—but the LOVE of the stuff that is damning idolatry.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." (23)

.

This begins to feel, again, like globalist tyrannical group-think, forced, coerced ‘charity’ a la the looming globalist Gestapo--forced conformity etc. As Shrillery said, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THINGS FROM YOU, FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

SCRIPTURE is quite different—GOD LOVES A CHEERFUL GIVER—NOT out of compulsion, social pressure [perhaps we could say—nor out of law]—but freely AS UNTO GOD. 2 Cor 9:7

.

The Common Good

24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.

.

Hmmmmm . . . that phrase again “The Common Good.” “LIBERATION THEOLOGY” . . . that ended up deepening the enslavement of the serfs—quite along globalist lines and agenda. “. . . demands their expropriation.” Perhaps morally. To do it as government fiat is tyranny.

Vatican II affirms this emphatically. (24) At the same time it clearly teaches that income thus derived is not for man's capricious use, and that the exclusive pursuit of personal gain is prohibited. Consequently, it is not permissible for citizens who have garnered sizeable income from the resources and activities of their own nation to deposit a large portion of their income in foreign countries for the sake of their own private gain alone, taking no account of their country's interests; in doing this, they clearly wrong their country. (25)

.

True enough. They do wrong their own country. And likely they wrong their own souls. However, freedom at some point and for quite a distance, still requires that they be accountable to God and His Body of Believers vs to government tyrannical fiat—imho. And, I think the Believers as a group in every group have let evil hearted fat cats get off with horrific stuff because we were respecters of persons in violation of scripture. This is evident in the RC delivery of The Lord’s Supper to the likes of Scuba Teddy et al.

Unbridled Liberalism

26. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.

.

While I might technically agree with him from a Biblical perspective . . . the limits must arise out of each individual’s relationship with God and NOT be a result of government fiat inserting itself between the individual and God.

Yet, the Pope seems to be setting up a kind of foundation for LIBERATION THEOLOGY GLOBALIST mandate for confiscating private property. That’s more than a little disturbing.

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "international imperialism of money."(26)

.

This is indeed a paradox. Liberalism as currently practiced and, actually, as practiced for many decades . . . has been mostly about CONFISCATION of private property for WASTEFUL government bureaucracy and globalist tyranny types of programs.

And, it is the globalists and their tyrannical world government that will be the ultimate most intense imperialism—with a very deified materialism morphing into satan worship. It is more than a little odd that the Pope comes off speaking such memes, such phrasing, such themes.

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

.

That’s a lofty ideal. Though I can’t think of a Scripture, per se, that espouses it. “. . . can never be condemned enough ;” sounds like Communistic tyranny, to me.

I don’t recall a single Scripture condemning riches, per se. Riches can easily keep a rich man out of Heaven. A rich man who shuts up his heart to the needs of the poor is in trouble with God. However, we are talking about heart attitudes first and foremost and deeds secondarily. The idolatry is the root issue.

However, Christians of all flavors have demonstrated far too much [any is too much] of such idolatry—shutting up their hearts against the poor . . . Being given far too much to selfishness. Ignoring God to work extra hours for a bigger TV screen, a flashier car, more expensive Nike’s etc.

Reform, Not Revolution

30. The injustice of certain situations cries out for God's attention. Lacking the bare necessities of life, whole nations are under the thumb of others; they cannot act on their own initiative; they cannot exercise personal responsibility; they cannot work toward a higher degree of cultural refinement or a greater participation in social and public life. They are sorely tempted to redress these insults to their human nature by violent means.

.

QUITE SO. However, most such situations have been and are set up by the globalists over the last century plus. Siding with their priorities, motivations, goals will only worsen such things. The globalists are collecting to themselves MORE of the world’s wealth at the expense of the poor and are determined to not just leave folks poor—but to exterminate them--massively.

31. Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters. The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results.

.

Thankfully, he does see the truth of that! Praise God for that!

Programs and Planning

33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

.

Sounds like Shrillery, Biden, Puhlousey, Scuba Teddy and OThuga again. Bring Heaven to earth by government fiat. Won’t happen. Would NEVER succeed. Heart change is required else all other systems and means descend into hell. And ONLY Christ engineers heart changes.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man's basic human rights.

.

Is this a milk-sop in behalf of “private initiative?” Sounds rather weak along-side the other assertions.

Basic Education

35. We can even say that economic growth is dependent on social progress, the goal to which it aspires; and that basic education is the first objective for any nation seeking to develop itself. Lack of education is as serious as lack of food; the illiterate is a starved spirit. When someone learns how to read and write, he is equipped to do a job and to shoulder a profession, to develop selfconfidence and realize that he can progress along with others. As We said in Our message to the UNESCO meeting at Teheran, literacy is the "first and most basic tool for personal enrichment and social integration; and it is society's most valuable tool for furthering development and economic progress." (36)

.

Sounds lofty. HOWEVER, UNESCO is a globalist organization that has been tirelessly seducing the world in behalf of globalism and globalist goals for many decades.

AND, EDUCATION was designed more than 100 years ago as a primary way of destroying the family and delivering the new Gestapo to the globalist masters untainted by God, religion and parental influences. Certainly I’m for education—God fearing education. I assume the Pope was, too. Yet, why this praise, seemingly, for UNESCO. Was he that ignorant of UNESCO’S aims? I doubt that.

We also rejoice at the good work accomplished in this field by private initiative, by the public authorities, and by international organizations. These are the primary agents of development, because they enable man to act for himself.

.

Thankfully, he included “private initiative.” HOWEVER, he seemed to give the lion’s share of support for ‘public authorities and INTERNATIONAL organizations.’ International organizations have been main tools of globalism for many decades. The Pope MUST have known that. If he was too ignorant to know that, then the Vatican information gathering and analyzing apparatus was still in kindergarten or chronically drunk on their rears.

IF he knew that—as he should have—and still ended up supporting INTERNATIOINAL ORGS, more or less carte blanche--then he’s complicit in globalism plain and simple.

Population Growth

37. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God's law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)

.

This whole section is MOST CURIOUS. He seems—SEEMS to tread a thin line here. He doesn’t actually violate RC dogma—but he sure seems to come close. He sure seems to walk as close as possible to globalist constructions on population and to globalist goals, aims and methods. Disturbing.

A Full-Bodied Humanism

42. The ultimate goal is a fullbodied humanism. (44) And does this not mean the fulfillment of the whole man and of every man? A narrow humanism, closed in on itself and not open to the values of the spirit and to God who is their source, could achieve apparent success, for man can set about organizing terrestrial realities without God. But "closed off from God, they will end up being directed against man. A humanism closed off from other realities becomes inhuman." (45)

.

I was glad to see this paragraph. However, along-side all the others, it comes across as a bit of a weak milk-sop.

True humanism points the way toward God and acknowledges the task to which we are called, the task which offers us the real meaning of human life. Man is not the ultimate measure of man. Man becomes truly man only by passing beyond himself. In the words of Pascal: "Man infinitely surpasses man." (46)

.

This, comes across to me as an upside-down way of putting it. GOD in Christ-redeemed RELATIONSHIP WITH MAN results in individuals becoming TRULY HUMAN as God designed them to be. Humanism—even “True Humanism” doesn’t point to God, imho. Humanism as a term, as a concept is still tainted—to me--with its origins in hell.

Three Major Duties

44. This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation: 1) mutual solidarity—the aid that the richer nations must give to developing nations; 2) social justice—the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations; 3) universal charity—the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and where the progress of some is not bought at the expense of others. The matter is urgent, for on it depends the future of world civilization.

.

This sounds quite lofty. However, it’s almost straight globalist dogma. It’s full of globalist euphemisms—beginning with ‘the brotherhood of man.” “ . . . to build a more humane world community.”

Who could be against that? Any thinking person aware of THE MEANS and the eventual structure of the purported ‘HUMANE” WORLD community. There’s that emphasis on HUMANISM and WORLD again. Disturbing.

Aid to Developing Nations

45. "If a brother or a sister be naked and in want of daily food," says St. James, "and one of you say to them, 'Go in peace, be warm and filled,' yet you do not give them what is necessary for the body, what does it profit?" (48) Today no one can be unaware of the fact that on some continents countless men and women are ravished by hunger and countless children are undernourished. Many children die at an early age; many more of them find their physical and mental growth retarded. Thus whole populations are immersed in pitiable circumstances and lose heart.

.

Quite so. And, it IS the Body of Christ’s duty and privilege to help rectify such situations, conditions etc. And we have failed far too much at that task.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALSO SUCCEEDED at correcting such, FAR MORE THAN globalist government efforts have.

Joya is still working on getting me the 2nd half. So I’m going to go ahead and post this much. I’ll add the 2nd half later or tomorrow, Lord willing and the Creek Indians don’t rise up.

Joya’s impression of the last half is that it’s much MORE full of globalism than this half. God have mercy.

Satan’s seductions have been very skillful and comprehensive for millennia. And, he no doubt targeted the Vatican from early on. . . . as he has and does any even possibly authentic expression of Christianity. Sigh.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Marysecretary]

That’s kinda what I think UFO’s are.

[Marysecretary]

AMEN, JesusBmyGod. We do have to be aware of deception.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[marbren]

I am just beginning to imagine how great the great deception might be!

[Quix]

Good.

That’s the purpose of this thread . . . fostering that kind of prayerful insight.

Blessed Be The Name of The Lord.

[Quix]

Given your unmitigated and uncalled for assault,

I won’t bother with responding to the rest of your post.

There is ample evidence that globalism has growing Vatican support in one way or another.

Words are less important than deeds in such matters.

G’Day.

[Mad Dawg]

I'm afraid you're not going to like this, but here goes.

The general principle is: It's not the light's fault that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light. Further, the devil's doing so does not mean we should embrace darkness.

Most of my comments are like what I wrote about humanism. It's not humanism's fault that atheists and secularists try to wrench a system of thought out of its base of Divinely bestowed human dignity. THEY try to build dignity on its self, as though they were trying to use an attic as a foundation. We, by contrast, think that without God's initial act and his redemption man is a corrupt horror. As "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," so fallen man and his corrupted dignity are dreadful and vile.

That's to set the tone and style of my disagreement. And here's a bit of pedantry. I think one can plausibly contend that by the time of our Lord's ministry, it was widely thought in Jewish circles that money given to the poor was, kinda sorta like, money lent to God. Jesus says to the rich young man, sell all you have, give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me.

But back to vocabulary and context. Populorum Progressio is not written in a vacuum. From Rerum Novarum to Centessimus Annus popes are clear and firm in their repudiation of socialism. One of the reasons the so-called "Liberation Theology" can be clearly seen by an obedient Catholic to be wrong is precisely that it accentuates those texts which might suggest socialism while eliminating those which repudiate it.

In other news:
Of course, the phrase "the signs of the times" is used by our Lord, and while it vibrates with eschatological overtones, it is not, to us feelthy papists, restricted to "end times" in its meaning and use.

We had "global" before the baddies started using and abusing it. It's implicit in "catholic".

During WWII there was a soldier in our army whose name was Adolf Hitler. When asked if he'd thought of changing his name, he said, "Let him change his name!" That's the way I want to respond. That media and academic cultures largely ignore, except to disparage, Catholic discourse is no reason for us to change our vocabulary every five minutes. Those who want to imagine us as tangled in nefarious and intricate schemes of wold domination would only take our changing lingo as a sign of deviousness.

So. Everyone with more than enough has a duty to consider his neighbor. And certainly one aspect of the parable of the good Samaritan is that we are to MAKE neighbors by showing mercy. This appears to be Divine Law.

To some extent governments instituted by men have a proper role in penalizing excessive stinginess and in encouraging the showing of mercy. (In living memory there was no limit on the amount of charitable giving one could deduct from income before computing tax! Now there is a limit because the government is busily imitating Nebuchadnezzar.)

Further, it is not only Divine Law but raw political observation that if I have a fruitful orchard, be its walls never so high, and all around me is famine, I cannot as a Christian claim absolute title to the fruit; AND, no doubt, I would not be able to enforce such title if I had it.

A benefit of a classical edumication is one tends to take a longer view. To me, the 18th century is "recent" even "modern". And with that view, it was all too recent that some scoundrel capitalists thought nothing of paying laborers less than what would keep them alive, because there was a surplus of laborers. That memory leads to talk about the need for some mechanisms of oversight. All government is the wrath of God on human sinfulness. "Minimum Wage" laws and abusive trade unions are the wrath of God on miserly capitalists. They are no more virtuous than the Assyrians and the Babylonians, but they are what God raises up to punish the sinfulness of his people.

Once you have governments, you will have abuses. I don't think Paul VI or any other pope was or is so naive as to think otherwise.

So the pope communicated with UNESCO. So what? While we probably won't convert 'em by talking to 'em, we certainly won't convert them if we don't talk to them. If UNESCO has some money which is supposedly to be used for education, I'd expect someone from the Vatican to be making suggestions about where and how to spend it. We didn't endorse the pagan Clovis of the Franks, we converted him. And that involved being cordial.

So, in general, I think you are attributing to us More confidence in secular government, whether national or international, than we have. I don't think Paul VI, who took so much abuse for Humanae Vitae, can by any stretch of the imagination be seen to be skating on the edge of his own orthodoxy in the words on population. And it is true that while general "overpopulation" is not the problem the doomsayers think it to be, there are a LOT of families a round the world which would do well to use reason before they have sexual intercourse. We do not agree with the "quiverful" teaching. There is a role for family planning, but as Paul clearly says in the passage you quote, marriage and procreation are inalienable rights. (more follows.)

[Quix]

Will respond, hopefully shortly.

Here's the next installment:

Quix commentary continued.

A World Fund

51. A further step must be taken. When We were at Bombay for the Eucharistic Congress, We asked world leaders to set aside part of their military expenditures for a world fund to relieve the needs of impoverished peoples. (55) What is true for the immediate war against poverty is also true for the work of national development. Only a concerted effort on the part of all nations, embodied in and carried out by this world fund, will stop these senseless rivalries and promote fruitful, friendly dialogue between nations.

.

Again, an admirable goal. I don’t recall the nations rushing to comply.

And, actually, the globalists don’t really care about the ‘useless, unwashed, impoverished eaters.’ The globalists are gearing up militarily etc. to DESTROY masses of such peoples and even whole people groups. Their boss satan is all about death and destruction and cruelty.

However, in order to worm their way into every conceivable international angle and advantage toward increasing data collection, control and influence, they are certainly gifted at APPEARING as all magnanimous and humanitarian. I can imagine some globalist spokespersons graciously applauding the Pope’s points above.

52. It is certainly all right to maintain bilateral and multilateral agreements. Through such agreements, ties of dependence and feelings of jealousy—holdovers from the era of colonialism —give way to friendly relationships of true solidarity that are based on juridical and political equality. But such agreements would be free of all suspicion if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration. The member nations, who benefit from these agreements, would have less reason for fear or mistrust. They would not have to worry that financial or technical assistance was being used as a cover for some new form of colonialism that would threaten their civil liberty, exert economic pressure on them, or create a new power group with controlling influence.

.

“But such agreements would be free of all suspicion if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration.”

HERE WE GO AGAIN: “worldwide collaboration.” Sounds like a formal set-up. Sounds like global government. Sounds like OThuga and Shrillery.

53. Is it not plain to everyone that such a fund would reduce the need for those other expenditures that are motivated by fear and stubborn pride? Countless millions are starving, countless families are destitute, countless men are steeped in ignorance; countless people need schools, hospitals, and homes worthy of the name. In such circumstances, we cannot tolerate public and private expenditures of a wasteful nature; we cannot but condemn lavish displays of wealth by nations or individuals; we cannot approve a debilitating arms race. It is Our solemn duty to speak out against them. If only world leaders would listen to Us, before it is too late!

.

Plenty truth to the problems described.

However, the oligarchy has long had the power to remove, prevent such problems—and has CHOSEN not to. The prescription described, however, fits the oligarchy’s !!!!CONTROL!!!! plans precisely. It just conveniently leaves out the massive forced DEPOPULATION planned, scheduled.

Dialogue Between Nations

54. All nations must initiate the dialogue which We called for in Our first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam. (56) A dialogue between those who contribute aid and those who receive it will permit a well-balanced assessment of the support to be provided, taking into consideration not only the generosity and the available wealth of the donor nations, but also the real needs of the receiving countries and the use to which the financial assistance can be put. Developing countries will thus no longer risk being overwhelmed by debts whose repayment swallows up the greater part of their gains. Rates of interest and time for repayment of the loan could be so arranged as not to be too great a burden on either party, taking into account free gifts, interest-free or low-interest loans, and the time needed for liquidating the debts.

.

Sounds quite reasonable. It’s what happens with the globalist implementation of such schemes that matters.

The donors could certainly ask for assurances as to how the money will be used. It should be used for some mutually acceptable purpose and with reasonable hope of success, for there is no question of backing idlers and parasites. On the other hand, the recipients would certainly have the right to demand that no one interfere in the internal affairs of their government or disrupt their social order. As sovereign nations, they are entitled to manage their own affairs, to fashion their own policies, and to choose their own form of government. In other words, what is needed is mutual cooperation among nations, freely undertaken, where each enjoys equal dignity and can help to shape a world community truly worthy of man.

.

AHHHHH but the globalists NEVER do anything without extensive strings attached . . . it is THEIR WAY to not only meddle in the affairs of others but to CONSUME THEM TOTALLY—TO TAKE !!!!CONTROL!!!! Trying to get them to behave otherwise is futile. Seems a bit odd the Pope wouldn’t have known that even back then. The globalists had been at it AT LEAST 67 years by then.

An Urgent Task
55. This task might seem impossible in those regions where the daily struggle for subsistence absorbs the attention of the family, where people are at a loss to find work that might improve their lot during their remaining days on earth. These people must be given every possible help; they must be encouraged to take steps for their own betterment and to seek out the means that will enable them to do so. This common task undoubtedly calls for concerted, continuing and courageous effort. But let there be no doubt about it, it is an urgent task. The very life of needy nations, civil peace in the developing countries, and world peace itself are at stake.

.

Certainly so. Though, again, the globalists do not care about the suffering. They have long been planning greater and more devastating suffering, exterminations.

Equity in Trade Relations
56. Efforts are being made to help the developing nations financially and technologically. Some of these efforts are considerable. Yet all these efforts will prove to be vain and useless, if their results are nullified to a large extent by the unstable trade relations between rich and poor nations. The latter will have no grounds for hope or trust if they fear that what is being given them with one hand is being taken away with the other.

.

Certainly that alone is a serious concern. However, it’s not just the ‘taking away’ of goods or monies . . . it’s the wholesale !!!!CONTROL!!!! stuff that the globalists insist on and are artists at forcing on one and all.

And, frankly, the continuing cruel poverty that they have perpetuated so effectively for so many decades--when they had the means of removing it—is most hideous.

Growing Distortion
57. Highly industrialized nations export their own manufactured products, for the most part. Less developed nations, on the other hand, have nothing to sell but raw materials and agricultural crops. As a result of technical progress, the price of manufactured products is rising rapidly and they find a ready market. But the basic crops and raw materials produced by the less developed countries are subject to sudden and wide-ranging shifts in market price; they do not share in the growing market value of industrial products.

.

Quite so. And market fluctuations and pricing problems somehow seem to never get resolved very charitably. Greed seems to reign supreme. Yet the globalists are supposed to be HUMANITARIAN? Barf.

This poses serious difficulties to the developing nations. They depend on exports to a large extent for a balanced economy and for further steps toward development. Thus the needy nations grow more destitute, while the rich nations become even richer.

.

YUP. The globalists are artists at maintaining and worsening that status quo. Greed is one of their high priorities.

Free Trade Concept Inadequate
58. It is evident that the principle of free trade, by itself, is no longer adequate for regulating international agreements. It certainly can work when both parties are about equal economically; in such cases it stimulates progress and rewards effort. That is why industrially developed nations see an element of justice in this principle.

.

Seems to me this is another nod toward support of the globalist’s plans for a very controlled world economy.

But the case is quite different when the nations involved are far from equal. Market prices that are freely agreed upon can turn out to be most unfair. It must be avowed openly that, in this case, the fundamental tenet of liberalism (as it is called), as the norm for market dealings, is open to serious question.

.

Here, “liberal” is the opposite of what’s now under that label. Liberals now are thorough-going globalists quite openly. And they have absolutely no intention of FREE anything—least of all market exchanges.

Justice at Every Level
59. The teaching set forth by Our predecessor Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum is still valid today: when two parties are in very unequal positions, their mutual consent alone does not guarantee a fair contract; the rule of free consent remains subservient to the demands of the natural law. (57) In Rerum Novarum this principle was set down with regard to a just wage for the individual worker; but it should be applied with equal force to contracts made between nations: trade relations can no longer be based solely on the principle of free, unchecked competition, for it very often creates an economic dictatorship. Free trade can be called just only when it conforms to the demands of social justice.

.

Ahhhhh . . . ‘unchecked competition’ is now evil even in the Pope’s eyes. Globalism’s aims to marry a bastardized form of capitalism with a bastardized form of Communism rears its head again.

[Mad Dawg]

Forgive me if I am repetitious. I haven't followed the thread as closely as I might. AS for being scatter-brained, well there's not much I can do about that at this point ...

I wanted to remind you of the story of the toddler in the street and to use it to present the two principles (as I see it) of Catholic Social Doctrine, to wit: "solidarity" and "subsidiarity."

My mother used to joke, "What has posterity ever done for ME?" And one might say that neither the toddler in the street nor his parents have any claim on me. I daresay we all think there's something horribly wrong about that attitude.

WE say that just because the toddler is human, he has SOME claim on me. (But then, we say mercy is the perfection of justice; we say a lot of stuff.) Indeed he has some claim on the community.

The FIRST claim the kid has is on his parents. They should have provided care for the child which included keeping him out of the street. That is "subsidiarity." The, so to speak, "lowest" unit in the social pyramid, the unit "closest" to the child, is normally able and therefore normally responsible to protect the child. That "unit" failed, so the job if "giving the child what is due to him," namely protection, bumps up to the surrounding community, as represented by your humble servant. Since I was capable of protecting the kid, it would have been wrong for me to bump it up by calling 911. And, as is often the case, bumping it up to a needlessly higher level would mean the care would not have been as good.

I mean, I did not know the child. I could not respond to him individually, by saying something like, "That was a BAD thing to do," or "You're safe now," words which a parent would be better positioned to say.

The Police would probably have been even worse. If they got there in time before the kid was run down or kidnapped, they would have taken the kid to the station and involved social services, and there would have been a huge, upsetting, worrying, and expensive kerfuffle.

So, back to the orchard. If I, having food a-plenty, will not address the hunger of my starving neighbor, and if the community won't, then the government at one level or another will. And it won't be pretty, and it won't be well done. It'll be marginally better than having children drop dead of hunger at my doorstep.

None of this (at least none of which I am aware) addresses the problem of poverty pimps and those who make their living lying about hunger and homelessness so that those of us who can't or won't deal with things head on will pay them to take the problem off our hands.

But the average encyclical is pretty darn long anyway. Even a pope can't say it all or all at once ....

In any event, when a studious, or at least informed, and obedient Catholic reads Populorum Progressio he's reading with other encyclicals and with subsidiarity and solidarity in mind, and so is not so likely to fall into globalism, secular humanism or socialism as he might appear to be.

Okay. I'm tired.

[stfassisi]

“”Here, “liberal” is the opposite of what’s now under that label. Liberals now are thorough-going globalists quite openly. And they have absolutely no intention of FREE anything—least of all market exchanges. “”

Than you go on to try and take a snippet out of an encyclical and try and relate it, you have no idea what you're saying.

From Pope Leo XIII

Libertas

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

[Quix]

I like that you bothered to respond! LOL. Will see how I feel about your words!

The general principle is: It's not the light's fault that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light. Further, the devil's doing so does not mean we should embrace darkness.

.

OF COURSE! How could you think I’d ought but agree wholeheartedly?

Most of my comments are like what I wrote about humanism. It's not humanism's fault that atheists and secularists try to wrench a system of thought out of its base of Divinely bestowed human dignity. THEY try to build dignity on its self, as though they were trying to use an attic as a foundation. We, by contrast, think that without God's initial act and his redemption man is a corrupt horror. As "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," so fallen man and his corrupted dignity are dreadful and vile.

.

OF COURSE. Wholeheartedly agree again.

That's to set the tone and style of my disagreement. And here's a bit of pedantry. I think one can plausibly contend that by the time of our Lord's ministry, it was widely thought in Jewish circles that money given to the poor was, kinda sorta like, money lent to God. Jesus says to the rich young man, sell all you have, give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me.

.

QUITE SO. Wholehearted agreement, yet again. There is also a verse that explicitly says that those who give to the poor lend to God.

But back to vocabulary and context. Populorum Progressio is not written in a vacuum. From Rerum Novarum to Centessimus Annus popes are clear and firm in their repudiation of socialism. One of the reasons the so-called "Liberation Theology" can be clearly seen by an obedient Catholic to be wrong is precisely that it accentuates those texts which might suggest socialism while eliminating those which repudiate it.

.

I hope you’re accurate about that. It’s beginning to appear a bit like muddy water on that score, to me. Oh, I know . . . only the encyclicals etc. etc. etc. However, the Vatican has a host of ways of speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It’s doing so right now in terms of Communion for the likes of Scuba Teddy et al. I hope I end up agreeing with you on this score. It appears that I won’t. I’m seriously letting the evidence lead me on that issue.

In other news:
Of course, the phrase "the signs of the times" is used by our Lord, and while it vibrates with eschatological overtones, it is not, to us feelthy papists, restricted to "end times" in its meaning and use.

.

In the context of Christ’s assertion, it seems to me that HE meant it to apply to the END TIMES. Certainly in Pentecostal etc. vocabulary, it does.

We had "global" before the baddies started using and abusing it. It's implicit in "catholic".

.

I UNDERSTAND that y’all certainly construe yourselves as having had a long standing monopoly on the term. I certainly agree that the globalists have usurped a formerly decent term and thrown it to a cell in hell.

During WWII there was a soldier in our army whose name was Adolf Hitler. When asked if he'd thought of changing his name, he said, "Let him change his name!" That's the way I want to respond. That media and academic cultures largely ignore, except to disparage, Catholic discourse is no reason for us to change our vocabulary every five minutes. Those who want to imagine us as tangled in nefarious and intricate schemes of world domination would only take our changing lingo as a sign of deviousness.

.

That’s a valid point . . . to a point. WHEN the Vatican takes on phrases, projects, plans, schemes which are more or less lock-step in concert with the evil globalists—that is NOT a minor thing. White-washing such realities will NOT do. It will not do before God and it will not do before the thoughtful and prayerful faithful TO GOD.

So. Everyone with more than enough has a duty to consider his neighbor. And certainly one aspect of the parable of the good Samaritan is that we are to MAKE neighbors by showing mercy. This appears to be Divine Law.

.

AGAIN, I wholesale and wholeheartedly agree.

To some extent governments instituted by men have a proper role in penalizing excessive stinginess and in encouraging the showing of mercy. (In living memory there was no limit on the amount of charitable giving one could deduct from income before computing tax! Now there is a limit because the government is busily imitating Nebuchadnezzar.)

.

Not sure how much I agree with the above. In principle it would be easy to agree. In application, it has tended to turn out bad virtually every time . . . though certainly much good has also been done thereby. Guess I’d call it a mixed bag.

I still think that HAD all those CALLING THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS ACTED LIKE CHRISTIANS, the government wouldn’t have had any occasion nor success to pretend to be charitable.

Further, it is not only Divine Law but raw political observation that if I have a fruitful orchard, be its walls never so high, and all around me is famine, I cannot as a Christian claim absolute title to the fruit; AND, no doubt, I would not be able to enforce such title if I had it.

.

NO argument there either.

A benefit of a classical edumication is one tends to take a longer view. To me, the 18th century is "recent" even "modern". And with that view, it was all too recent that some scoundrel capitalists thought nothing of paying laborers less than what would keep them alive, because there was a surplus of laborers. That memory leads to talk about the need for some mechanisms of oversight. All government is the wrath of God on human sinfulness. "Minimum Wage" laws and abusive trade unions are the wrath of God on miserly capitalists. They are no more virtuous than the Assyrians and the Babylonians, but they are what God raises up to punish the sinfulness of his people.

.

FAR TOO TRUE.

Once you have governments, you will have abuses. I don't think Paul VI or any other pope was or is so naive as to think otherwise.

.

I assume you are accurate about that.

So the pope communicated with UNESCO. So what? While we probably won't convert 'em by talking to 'em, we certainly won't convert them if we don't talk to them. If UNESCO has some money which is supposedly to be used for education, I'd expect someone from the Vatican to be making suggestions about where and how to spend it. We didn't endorse the pagan Clovis of the Franks, we converted him. And that involved being cordial.

.

Isolated, I wouldn’t think that much about it and would more simply agree with you. When it begins to appear as a pattern of cooperation toward more than the white-washed aspects . . . it is worth being concerned about.

So, in general, I think you are attributing to us More confidence in secular government, whether national or international, than we have. I don't think Paul VI, who took so much abuse for Humanae Vitae, can by any stretch of the imagination be seen to be skating on the edge of his own orthodoxy in the words on population. And it is true that while general "overpopulation" is not the problem the doomsayers think it to be, there are a LOT of families around the world which would do well to use reason before they have sexual intercourse. We do not agree with the "quiverful" teaching. There is a role for family planning, but as Paul clearly says in the passage you quote, marriage and procreation are inalienable rights. (more follows.)

.

Good on him for that, then.

The Adamski video is troubling regarding two Popes reportedly on board with the ET’s as wonderful critters of helpful value to man. The quote that got me involved with this encyclical is also quite troublesome on the same score with Paul VI.

From where I sit—the evidence mounts that the Vatican is agreeing with the globalist oligarchy that the ET’s are wonderful, beneficial, pseudo-saviors of mankind in some sense.

THERE’S NO way to construe that other than as evil. Do you disagree with that assertion—ASSUMING the evidence is true?

[Quix]

Not sure when I’ll get to this one.

Thanks much.

BTW, your assaultive co-horts who demonstrate 0.00000000% understanding and/or comprehension of my statements, heart and attitude need not expect any reply from me. They deserve none. If they are your best examples of Roman Catholicism, then you are in more of a world of hurt than even I thought.

[Quix]

[Quix commentary continued]

60. As a matter of fact, the highly developed nations have already come to realize this. At times they take appropriate measures to restore balance to their own economy, a balance which is frequently upset by competition when left to itself. Thus it happens that these nations often support their agriculture at the price of sacrifices imposed on economically more favored sectors. Similarly, to maintain the commercial relations which are developing among themselves, especially within a common market, the financial, fiscal and social policy of these nations tries to restore comparable opportunities to competing industries which are not equally prospering.

.

Ahhhhh . . . yes. Quite so. And . . .

Therefore what regarding the shove the globalists are doing to all nations into 10 regional [Remember Biblical prophecy about 10 kings in the END TIMES?] governmental entities/common markets etc.??? Can you spell North American Union? Do you think Paul VI would view such positively or negatively were he still alive? Really—what’s your best guess?

One Standard for All
61. Now in this matter one standard should hold true for all. What applies to national economies and to highly developed nations must also apply to trade relations between rich and poor nations. Indeed, competition should not be eliminated from trade transactions; but it must be kept within limits so that it operates justly and fairly, and thus becomes a truly human endeavor.

.

Oh, the globalists are quite ‘egalitarian’ in one respect—ALL nations in a region will belong to the regional entity and WILL comply with all the trade agreements, laws etc. accordingly implemented from the dark cells of hell there-through. Ain’t that nice?

There’s even some assertions that they intend to reduce the masses of the 200 million global populace to be left to meager levels of wealth—gotta keep the serfs and slaves hungrily dependent, after all--while the elite wallow in outrageous levels of wealth. I don’t know how true that is. Hasn’t a lot of multiple sources supporting it, yet.

Now in trade relations between the developing and the highly developed economies there is a great disparity in their overall situation and in their freedom of action. In order that international trade be human and moral, social justice requires that it restore to the participants a certain equality of opportunity. To be sure, this equality will not be attained at once, but we must begin to work toward it now by injecting a certain amount of equality into discussions and price talks.

.

That last part sounds like it’s right out of the manual of the globalist plan. However, it’s more than a plan . . . ‘Asia’ has been tasked with producing a vast myriad of goods at the cheapest price. The rest of the world essentially sucks up to whatever the globalists have decreed is a fair price accordingly. Other regions have their specialties to offer the “global community” all in a wonderfully planned cozy existence. Ain’t it sweet! Barf.

Here again international agreements on a broad scale can help a great deal. They could establish general norms for regulating prices, promoting production facilities, and favoring certain infant industries. Isn't it plain to everyone that such attempts to establish greater justice in international trade would be of great benefit to the developing nations, and that they would produce lasting results?

.

Oh, DEAR ME! That’s even more straight out of the globalist manual. He sounds like a card carrying member of the Bildebergers. God have mercy.

The Obstacles of Nationalism . . .
62. There are other obstacles to creation of a more just social order and to the development of world solidarity: nationalism and racism. It is quite natural that nations recently arrived at political independence should be quite jealous of their new-found but fragile unity and make every effort to preserve it. It is also quite natural for nations with a long-standing cultural tradition to be proud of their traditional heritage. But this commendable attitude should be further ennobled by love, a love for the whole family of man.

.

OK, Mad Dawg, MarkOMalley—there’s no excuse for this level of sucking up to the globalist goals, definitions, wording, priorities. Trashing nationalism is a cardinal doctrine of globalism. For him to join in that is most troubling. I can’t think of a valid way to excuse this level of affirmation of a cardinal doctrine of globalism.

[Qx extra paragraphing here]

Haughty pride in one's own nation disunites nations and poses obstacles to their true welfare. It is especially harmful where the weak state of the economy calls for a pooling of information, efforts and financial resources to implement programs of development and to increase commercial and cultural interchange. . . . and Racism.

.

Sorry, he’s not making it better. Of course racism is horrid. Globalists are most horrid on the issue of racism. They have reportedly scheduled the wiping out of entire people groups . . . some say even the entire black race.

63. Racism is not the exclusive attribute of young nations, where sometimes it hides beneath the rivalries of clans and political parties, with heavy losses for justice and at the risk of civil war. During the colonial period it often flared up between the colonists and the indigenous population, and stood in the way of mutually profitable understanding, often giving rise to bitterness in the wake of genuine injustices. It is still an obstacle to collaboration among disadvantaged nations and a cause of division and hatred within countries whenever individuals and families see the inviolable rights of the human person held in scorn, as they themselves are unjustly subjected to a regime of discrimination because of their race or their color.

.

Quite so. Globalism is NOT a solution. Only a change in the heart of man solves racism. The Popeh, of all people, ought to know that.

Hopes for the Future
64. This state of affairs, which bodes ill for the future, causes Us great distress and anguish. But We cherish this hope: that distrust and selfishness among nations will eventually be overcome by a stronger desire for mutual collaboration and a heightened sense of solidarity. We hope that the developing nations will take advantage of their geographical proximity to one another to organize on a broader territorial base and to pool their efforts for the development of a given region. We hope that they will draw up joint programs, coordinate investment funds wisely, divide production quotas fairly, and exercise management over the marketing of these products. We also hope that multilateral and broad international associations will undertake the necessary work of organization to find ways of helping needy nations, so that these nations may escape from the fetters now binding them; so that they themselves may discover the road to cultural and social progress, while remaining faithful to the native genius of their land.

.

Sorry, but this is more—essentially—verbatim stuff from the globalist playbook. Mad Dawg, HOW FAR DOWN THE GLOBALIST ROAD would a Pope have to travel before you’d begin to go—ut-oh????

The Artisans of Destiny
65. That is the goal toward which we must work. An ever more effective world solidarity should allow all peoples to become the artisans of their destiny. Up to now relations between nations have too often been governed by force; indeed, that is the hallmark of past history.

.

Sounds so rosy and modern. Yet it’s diabolical to the core. FORCE is the hallmark of the globalists—through a variety of means. They are known for erasing off the planet whole families of those who threaten their efforts or methods.

May the day come when international relationships will be characterized by respect and friendship, when mutual cooperation will be the hallmark of collaborative efforts, and when concerted effort for the betterment of all nations will be regarded as a duty by every nation. The developing nations now emerging are asking that they be allowed to take part in the construction of a better world, a world which would provide better protection for every man's rights and duties. It is certainly a legitimate demand, so everyone must heed and fulfill it.

.

Yet again it sounds so wonderful yet is rooted in hell. Yet again this passage sounds like THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES and other white-washed versions of the globalist goals.

Worldwide Brotherly Love
66. Human society is sorely ill. The cause is not so much the depletion of natural resources, nor their monopolistic control by a privileged few; it is rather the weakening of brotherly ties between individuals and nations.

.

Quite so. And what is the solution Dear Pontiff?

Welcoming the Stranger
67. We cannot insist too much on the duty of giving foreigners a hospitable reception. It is a duty imposed by human solidarity and by Christian charity, and it is incumbent upon families and educational institutions in the host nations.

.

Quite so. And how is Christian Charity to be increased by a satanic oligarchy?

Young people, in particular, must be given a warm reception; more and more families and hostels must open their doors to them. This must be done, first of all, that they may be shielded from feelings of loneliness, distress and despair that would sap their strength. It is also necessary so that they may be guarded against the corrupting influence of their new surroundings, where the contrast between the dire poverty of their homeland and the lavish luxury of their present surroundings is, as it were, forced upon them. And finally, it must be done so that they may be protected from subversive notions and temptations to violence, which gain headway in their minds when they ponder their "wretched plight.'' (58) In short, they should be welcomed in the spirit of brotherly love, so that the concrete example of wholesome living may give them a high opinion of authentic Christian charity and of spiritual values.

.

Welll, Dear Pontiff, OThuga is well on the way to raising up a cadre of such young people as the new Gestapo to help him implement a greater breadth and depth of the globalist oligarchy’s tyrannical structure and aims. Is that what you had in mind? I’m sure he’ll teleprompter about how it’s thoroughly wrapped in Christian brotherly love.

Please remember to tell that to the tea party folks and the vets and the Christians who believe in the END TIMES when these youth knock on doors at 04:00 for involuntary trips to certain camps.

68. We are deeply distressed by what happens to many of these young people. They come to wealthier nations to acquire scientific knowledge, professional training, and a high-quality education that will enable them to serve their own land with greater effectiveness. They do get a fine education, but very often they lose their respect for the priceless cultural heritage of their native land.

.

Yes, those are all serious problems. However, the oligarchy doesn’t give a flip about cultural heritage except as it furthers their !!!!CONTROL!!!! aims. They are more into wiping out ALL THE “OLD’S” that might in any way hinder their NEW WORLD order.

69. Emigrant workers should also be given a warm welcome. Their living conditions are often inhuman, and they must scrimp on their earnings in order to send help to their families who have remained behind in their native land in poverty.

.

Wellllllllllllllll, we’ve seen how the oligarchy handles illegal aliens etc. vis a vis Mexico etc. Serfs and slaves are merely property to be manipulated according to larger globalist aims. Is that what you had in mind, Dear Pontiff?

[Mad Dawg]

I don't know WHAT your problem is! Every one knows you're WAY better looking than that fowl guy ....

Here's the problem, as I see it. The whole "conspiracy" argument, considered as a genre, is almost completely unassailable. It cannot be shown to be false, and so it cannot be shown to be true.

I don't know all that much about Paul VI. If there were some way to show one thing or another, I'd put serious loot on his not wanting to skirt on the edge of the Humanae Vitae dogma for which he suffered so much.

But it could all have been part of a sneaky plan.. Similarly with my appeals to the context of the almost dialogue of social encyclicals from Leo to JPII. I see a context. I see PAUL VI stressing that one cannot NOT have a global outlook on social problems, and suggesting that there are eleemosynary and governmental outfits in place which might be used for charity on a grand scale. I could even say that I think his hope in those outfits was misplaced.

But I can't, I don't have the time -- no one has the time -- to track down and prove or disprove any deathbed meetings or sub rosa communications. It can't be done.

It also takes right much time to read all the social encyclicals ... to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. I can't say I've done it all. I have usually gone in and cherry picked becuase I had a class to prepare or something.Of course, my "side" of the argument is set up by the position we adopted previously, to take very much amiss suggestions that Paul VI was a crypto-globalist. We can't PROVE he wasn't. But you can't PROVE I'm not a committee of Protestant Practical Jokers.("Psst! Calvin, shut UP!""No YOU shut up Zwingli!" "Quiet! He'll hear us!")

So I think probably the best thing to do is to lay out your argument, to state your thesis as clearly as you can, and then duck into the bunker, because in the heat of battle, sometimes we all forget to aim at the argument and start aiming at the guy making it.

[Mad Dawg]

From where I sit—the evidence mounts that the Vatican is agreeing with the globalist oligarchy that the ET’s are wonderful, beneficial, pseudo-saviors of mankind in some sense.

If it were so, it would be wicked and frightening.

About the gummint appropriating stuff or directing its allocation: I THINK that some degree of it is assumed in the notion of "eminent domain." And, of course, we now see how those who think themselves our betters can abuse eminent domain to take property from Naboth to give it to a friend of Ahab's. But, that doesn't mean eminent domain is bad, it means people are.

IF there were truly a famine and if I had a store of food, I can see in principle that the government could exercise domain over it, while giving me what it was pleased to call "just compensation." And I say that fully aware that, especially as events are running right now, the government is all too likely to abuse that power.

As to globalism, that's precisely the kind of thing that gives the scholarly me a headache. I would want - hey, I know, I want a graduate student or two of my very own. The heck with the 13th amendment. Can one BUY a graduate student?

Anyway, on the one hand, it is good for nations to cooperate in good causes. On the other hand, nations are generally a bunch of jerks. I think the job of the Church is, among other things, to encourage everyone to play nice, while also advocating subsidiarity - in other words, Belgium should keep its mitts out of the affairs of Virginia.

But we know there will be abuses. Once you admit the need for government, you've admitted that we are in a pickle.