Obama, Ayn Rand, or Pope Benedict? Who’s got it right?

Without reading this, I’m just gonna take a wild guess that the “right” one is NOT O’BamBam.

Ugly Ann.

Since when does popular consent dictate Catholic doctrine? Since when does anyone with the name Kennedy in their hyphenated ID get to be vicar of Catholic morality? As my grandmother, a good and true Irish Catholic in Boston said in 1959: “Hell no I won’t vote for Jack Kennedy for president. With all the good Catholics in this country why would we want to embarass ourselves with that amoral son of a bootlegger?”

Back in those days, people told it like it was.

Well, I haven’t had a chance yet to read the Pope’s encyclical, but I suspect that this version is more accurate than the MSM’s pretence that the Pope is an economic Socialist.

Yes, we have a duty to help the poor. But the way to do it is NOT to give all our money to the government in taxes so they can squander 95% of it and misuse the other 5%. The way to do it is through private charitable giving and helping your neighbors.

At the present time, charitable giving is WAY DOWN, because Obama is wrecking the economy and sucking up all the spare money for his pork projects. And whatever goes to the poor will be spent so as to encourage single mothers, illegitimate children, and welfare dependency, so there will always be a large underclass on the Democrat plantation.

That is not Christian charity, needless to say.

Since when does popular consent dictate Catholic doctrine?

Never has, never will -- to the anathema of all lefties, esp. those who pretend they themselves are Catholics.

from Rand’s Fountainhead:

Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived, and he lifted darkness off the earth.

Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid. But they won.

No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered.

His truth was his only motive.

His work was his only goal.

His work — not those who used it.

His creation — not the benefits others derived from it — the creation which gave form to his truth.

He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.

The creator stands on his own judgment; the parasite follows the opinions of others.

The creator thinks; the parasite copies.

The creator produces; the parasite loots.

The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature; the parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice.

The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others — that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.

Look at history: Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots — without personal rights, without person ambition, without will, hope, or dignity.

It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: “The individual against the collective.”

Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism, the principle of man’s “inalienable rights.” It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value, and as his highest virtue his self-respect.

Pope’s New Encyclical Speaks Against New World Order
Lifesitenews.com ^ | July 8, 2009 | John-Henry Westen
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070812.html

Newspapers, blogs, talk-shows on radio and television are full of discussion over Pope Benedict XVI’s supposed call for a “new world order” or a “one-world government.” These ideas are, however, neither based in reality nor a clear reading of the Pope’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the release of which yesterday spawned the heated discussion.

The Pope actually speaks directly against a one-world government, and, as would be expected from those who have read his previous writings, calls for massive reform of the United Nations.

Confusion seems to have come from paragraph 67 of the encyclical, which has some choice pull-quotes which have spiced the pages of the world’s news, from the New York Times to those of conspiracy theorist bloggers seeing the Pope as the Anti-Christ.

The key quote which has led to the charge reads: “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; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”

However, in paragraph 41, the Holy Father specifically differentiates his concept of a world political authority from that of a one-world government. “We must,” he says “promote a dispersed political authority.” He explains that “The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development.”

Later in the encyclical (57) he speaks of the opposite concept to one- world government -subsidiarity (the principle of Catholic social teaching which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority) - as being essential. “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity,” says the Pope.

Another of the key quotes which is being extracted for shock value from the encyclical is this: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

Since long before his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger has vigorously fought the United Nations’ vision of a ‘New World Order’. As early as 1997, and repeated subsequently, Ratzinger took public aim at such a vision, noting that the philosophy coming from UN conferences and the Millennium Summit “proposes strategies to reduce the number of guests at the table of humanity, so that the presumed happiness [we] have attained will not be affected.”

“At the base of this New World Order”, he said is the ideology of “women’s empowerment,” which erroneously sees “the principal obstacles to [a woman’s] fulfillment [as] the family and maternity.” The then-cardinal advised that “at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians - and not just them but in any case they even more than others - have the duty to protest.”

Benedict XVI in fact repeats those criticisms in the new encyclical. In Caritas in Veritate, the Pope slams “practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.” He also denounces international economic bodies such as the IMF and World Bank (without specifically naming them) for their lending practices which tie aid to so-called ‘family planning.’ “There is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures,” says the encyclical.

Any vision of a proper ordering of the world, of international economics or political cooperation, suggests the Pope, must be based on a “moral order.” That includes first and foremost “the fundamental right to life” from conception to natural death, the recognition of the family based on marriage between one man and one woman as the basis of society and freedom for faith and cooperation among all peoples based on principles of natural law.

More:

Nothing has changed. bttt

1963:

Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963

“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.

In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.

Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.

There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.

Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”

“Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.

And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.”

“Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=4#4

<>

Pope John Paul II, and now Pope Benedict XVI teach that the individual Christian’s responsibilities toward God fall in this order:

“..an authentic...theology: [is] one that puts

[1] God and the life of the spirit first,

[2] direct charitable care of others second,

[3] and only then draws consequences for a just social order.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=7#7

<>

More:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=3#3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2245094/posts?page=5#5
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=9#9

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2288576/posts?page=11#11

Sad statement on the state of “liberal” Catholicism when they’d rather agree with a Marxist than with the Pope.

I believe James (4:4) had something to say about those who would rather be friends with the world.

Rand forgot something.
God is only real “creator”. Rand’s lie, like all the other lies, places Man in the place of God.

Thank you for your posts, which give a lot of information on this subject.

I would add that when Pope Benedict visited President Bush in the White House, he made it clear that he had a pretty good idea of the American Constitutional experiment, and also that he approved of it.

It should be clear enough that the problem with the EU is that it is not a representative government. It gives the people of the various countries of Europe little or no chance to vote for or against their bureaucratic masters in Brussells, who are constantly instructing and commanding them what to do.

That is not justice. And a New World Order would be much worse. There would no longer be free citizens with a meaningful vote, or government answerable to the people.

Pope Benedict has often criticized the EU, and he has criticized its constitution, in particular for its failure to acknowledge that Europe has been Christian from the time of its foundation. But the authors of the constitution refused to acknowledge that.

Sorry, I meant #12 for you and hit the wrong Post button.

Thanks for your comments!

To read more on this subject by the commentator below — Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, and others, see HERE: http://www.acton.org/

WSJ OPINION
JULY 13, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718187188120189.html

The Pope on ‘Love in Truth’
Anyone seeking a repudiation of the market economy will be disappointed.
By ROBERT A. SIRICO (president and co-founder of the Acton Institute http://www.acton.org/ )

In his much anticipated third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Pope Benedict XVI does not focus on specific systems of economics — he is not attempting to shore up anyone’s political agenda.

He is rather concerned with morality and the theological foundation of culture.

The context is of course a global economic crisis — a crisis that’s taken place in a moral vacuum, where the love of truth has been abandoned in favor of a crude materialism.

The pope urges that this crisis become “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.”

Yet his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism.

Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here, despite press headlines following the publication of the encyclical earlier this week.

People seeking a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy won’t find it here.

But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon.

Caritas in Veritate is an eloquent restatement of old truths casually dismissed in modern times. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity.

Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.” But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. “The Church,” he writes, “has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society.” Further: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations.”

The market is rather shaped by culture. “Economy and finance . . . can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”

The pope does not reject globalization: “Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development.” He says that “the world-wide diffusions of prosperity should not . . . be held up by projects that are protectionist.” More, not less, trade is needed: “the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.”

The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt.

“The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,” the pope firmly states, “and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.

’ She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance . . .” Benedict is profoundly aware that economic science has much to contribute to human betterment. The Church’s role is not to dictate the path of research but to focus its goals. “Economic science tells us that structural insecurity generates anti-productive attitudes wasteful of human resources. . . . Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs.”

He constantly returns to two practical applications of the principle of truth in charity.

First, this principle takes us beyond earthly demands of justice, defined by rights and duties, and introduces essential moral priorities of generosity, mercy and communion — priorities which provide salvific and theological value.

Second, truth in charity is always focused on the common good, defined as an extension of the good of individuals who live in society and have broad social responsibilities.

As for issues of population, he can’t be clearer: “To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view.”

Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution.

Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange.

To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf.

This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation.

Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought.

Caritas in Veritate is a reminder that we cannot understand ourselves as a human community if we do not understand ourselves as something more than the sum or our material parts; if we do not understand our capacity for sin; and if we do not understand the principle of communion rooted in the gratuitousness of God’s grace.

Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people.

[I interject: Which is exactly what America’s Framers said - click my screen name for details.]

Father Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute. http://www.acton.org/

God is only real “creator”.

That is patently untrue. God gave man intellect so that he aslo can create. Man is merelt unable to create substance out of nothing.

In the context of the passage that was posted. It is absolutely true.

Man does not own his creations because God owns them, Man only creates by borrowing from God. Everything we have is borrowed from God, and we are merely stewards put in charge of care taking. Any time Man gets the idea that somehow he owns anything, he’s heading down a dangerous path.

Man gets the idea that somehow he owns anything, he’s heading down a dangerous path.

"Free Will" is an important part of the mix. It is independent of God, but where some caution might be prudent.