Replies

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.

Thank you. Your observations are written in a wonderful way. I also think the “pope” calling for UN control with TEETH in it is most disturbing.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral?

I believe that used to be known as Slavery.

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let’s think about socialism.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need, by reaching into one’s own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation. I don’t believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Suppose for a moment you were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the poor of the world funds for food ok you do not have to suppose since this is being done and has through the threat of imprisonment (IRS failure to pay taxes) Americans have been forced for years to do just that. This mechanism makes the particular victim (victim=American taxpayers) invisible, but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

The Pope’s shocking endorsement of a “World Political Authority,” which has prophetic implications for some Christians who fear that a global dictatorship will take power in the “last days” of man’s reign on earth, comes shortly after the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis issued a call for global taxes and more powerful global institutions. U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel D’Escoto, a Communist Catholic Priest, gave a speech at the event calling on the nations of the world to revere “Mother Earth” but concluded with words from the Pope blessing the conference participants.

That Communist Priest reminds me of another Greenie Hitler!

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/the-green-nazi-hell-and-americas-future/

But there must be more. He says that “...more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard.”

This statement seems to be an urgent call for fulfilment of the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals, which involve an estimated $845 billion from the U.S. over a ten-year period.

What the Pope is advocating still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.

Sounding like Al Gore, the Pope said that one pressing need is “a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.” I reiterate Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate.

Some really perverted socialists. Read the August Review article.

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/general/
the_socialization_of_america_20090701124/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81349

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pope-endorses-world-political-authority/