[raybbr]

another take on the encyclical.

[Natural Law]

Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church would take a universal as opposed to national view of world events or that it would advocate a charitable association within all of its members? If you are you should look up the word “Catholic” and reread the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain.

[Salvation]

**The Pope Is a Liberal. Who Knew?**

You are spinning left just like the media you posted. Have you read the entire document?

I really doubt that Politico writer has either. Otherwise they would not be making this statement.

[Servant of the Cross]

A seriously flawed misreading of this document and this Pope. I guess if the Left can’t make the “rottweiler” label stick, they’ll do even worse and call him “liberal”. Good luck with that.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to watch the fireworks

[mojito]

I admire this Pope, and the Catholic Church as a whole.

But no one should make the mistake of believing that, as an institution, the Church is devoted to promoting individual liberties, or preserving economic liberty.

[Uncle Chip]

Hmmm — sounds like he has been reading material from the left side of the Vatican Library.

[tiki]

This is what I hate about many supposed conservatives, they scoff at the news, knowing they are being fed a line but when those same liars write stuff they want to believe, they fall for it hook, line and sinker.

[stockpirate]

Boy, the Catholicbots were here yesterday claiming this document isn’t socialist, one even stated that you had to be a Catholic and have a Catholic mind in order to understand why iisn’t supporting socialism.

[Mount Athos]

I like this Pope, I think there is much in this document that is a thoughtful and ordinary extension of Christian thought into modern day issues.

Yet I am deeply troubled by several sections (35-41) that repeatedly use the word "redistribution". Please look at these quotes from the encyclical and ask yourself if this is what the Christian church has taught for 2000 years?

35. “But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy...”

This encyclical is not merely saying that individuals should freely choose to give to the poor, as in the parable of Lazaraus and the rich man. It is talking about "distributive justice and social justice for the market economy". I don't recall any parable where Jesus tells Caesar that he should order the centurions to go to the market, seize money from the wealthy merchants transactions and redistribute it to subsidize less wealthy merchants and buyers.

Unfortunately people who talk a lot about "distributive justice" and "social justice" today look to coercive socialist government models with progressively more crushing levels of taxation and punitive means to enforce their own (unchristian) vision of piety. Such people will find a lot of encouragement in this document. We have a sad modern history with such redistributive governments that are active in controlling markets "for justice".

I'm not saying the writers had this in mind, I give them the benefit of the doubt and the Catholic Church certainly has excellent anti-communist history and credentials. But they failed to draw adequate distinctions here and used overbroad words like "redistribution" that give succor to oppressive socialist models.

The later section waving problems of bigger government away with "subsidiarity" is a wholly inadequate fig leaf. Why not more clearly limit the scope of "redistribution" and why not directly address the suffering on a grand scale that previous well-intentioned government interventions have caused? Where is the reflection on the dangers and commonly unchristian results of the greater government involvement this document calls for? Where does it explain why this greater government involvement that they are advocating won't have such problems?

36.”Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”

Here the encyclical decries government inaction, and calls for greater government market intervention to create "justice" with "redistribution". Lost are the real world lessons that corruption, injustice and oppression often coincide with greater government involvement.

Some examples of governments that pursued justice through greater intervention in the market include Cambodia, North Korea, Stalin's USSR, etc... These are extreme examples but there are many more examples of greater government intervention leading to more suffering and a less Christian outcome. These are not well addressed by this document. Maybe the encyclical should have tread more carefully in bemoaning government inaction in the market?

37.”Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics...”

Why does it need redistribution? Maybe they have wandered well beyond a natural extrapolation of Christian teaching, don't you think? If the scope of what they are talking about is caring for the most needy and impoverished, they should say so, instead of broadly advocating "redistribution"!

I really like the section where they say that individuals should reflect on their behavior at every level of commerce. Our individual actions affect lots of people. It's when the document veers from individual piety to collective that they wander afield. When the document starts explicitly advocating greater government involvement, "redistribution" and "market justice" they are on dangerous ground.

[what's up]

The Pope spoke out on the WOT on more than one occasion.

I knew he leaned liberal long ago.

[TomOnTheRun]

I’m not exactly sure that I believe this pope has made a blind leap to the wrong side of the Gospels or history with this document. Seeing it through the lense of American political constructs of liberal and conservative dogma seems myopic and overly limited.

[Antoninus]

Another cherry-picking article. Yawn.

Why do these people insist on ignoring the parts of the document where the Pope scores on international socialism and government corruption?

[MEGoody]

Sorry, Mr. Pope, but we seem to disagree on a few things.