Posted on 03/14/2013 6:19:02 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
The Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has called for an ethical response to solve the problem of social debt, saying that, not only do terrorism, repression and murder violate human rights, but also extreme poverty and the “unjust economic structures that give rise to great inequalities.”
Social debt is “immoral, unjust and illegitimate,” the cardinal said, emphasizing that this is especially true when it occurs “in a nation that has the objective conditions for avoiding or correcting such harm.” “Unfortunately,” he noted, it seems that those same countries “opt for exacerbating inequalities even more.”
Argentineans have the duty “to work to change the structural causes and personal or corporate attitudes that give rise to this situation (of poverty), and through dialogue reach agreements that allow us to transform this painful reality we refer to when we speak about social debt,” the prelate said.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Which is why the continuous attacks on private property.
The rest of the place is a mishmash of semi-systems, ancient traditions with no standing in law, as well as non enforcement.
Mexico encumbers it all with land tenancy laws that hurt the poor and help the rich ~ that was part of the Revolucion's land reform ~ it kinda' backfired so you end up with more concentration of ownership than before the Revolucion. Part of that, though, is their need to compete in agriculture with the US, else cheap American crops would swamp their country.
I keep my eye on this just in case any real news pops up but ever since the Commies were demonstrated to have no use for the poor either, you don't hear their Socialist brethren hyping any sort of land reform ~ or enforcement of titles.
Should that wealth not be what God wants for mankind? What was that about poverty being a violation of human rights? If capitalist splendor is what God wants for mankind then the Pope has his work cut out for him. He should not be taking the wealth away from those who are blessed, but teaching the poor and oppressed how to earn a better living.
Quite true of the Commies; ask any Russian. For the Leftists, the “poor” are to be used for their nefarious ends. They’re seen as a tool.
What does it really matter whether he is to the left of “Hugo Chavez” or to the right of “Ronald Reagan” on economic issues? The majority of Americans (and it’s been my experience, even a majority of American Catholics), really don’t give a rat’s rump what the Pope says if they bother to listen to him speak at all. That’s not meant to be slam at the man or the Papacy, just a statement of fact.
Those guys believed the poor should be punished and took serious action to punish them. We weren't involved and, again, we're not Royalists.
For a Christian: The Lord is our Provider.
If we submit to the Lord, and work hard, the Lord will bless us.
A wealthy man has been blessed by the Lord. Who are we to judge how he obtained his wealth? If he obtained his wealth through nefarious means, that is between him and the Lord.
We are commanded to work, as unto the Lord; support our families; and share with those in need from compassion. God will also provide for those in need, as they learn to serve Him.
No where does scripture suggest a right to TAKE form the more fortunate, only that we should be generous to those in need.
For a Marxist/Liberation Theology adherent: The State/society has an inferred ‘contract’ to provide for the members/subjects. The rich have too much, and must have obtained it by exploiting the worker. Those who will not share their wealth with the poor are greedy. Their greed justifies taking their wealth by force.
So a Christian works for his wealth, which is provided by God, and shares with the poor out of compassion.
A Marxist depends upon the social contract for his wealth, the State is his provider, and he takes from the ‘rich’ out of envy.
Sorry for needing so many words to explain such a basic concept.
Actually, no apologies necessary, well stated sir or madam.
> My understanding of Christian teachings (as imperfect and incomplete as it is) suggests that Christ was,to a degree at least,a “socialist”.
Never in 3779 verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, does Christ assert that the third party of government should confiscate wealth from party A and give it to party B.
Not only that, but in these 3779 verses, Christ makes ZERO statements concerning how the state and society and community should organize the civic affairs of men with men, in politics or economy or any worldly, civic, manner.
Christ is silent on school boards, city councils, tax rates, neighborhood associations, the Fed, the Laffer Curve, dog catchers, government loans, and all other civic matters and arrangements of men with men.
Christ is interested SOLELY in the salvation of souls.
> He made very clear His expectations regarding charitable endeavors
Yes. Christians are to give. Everything belongs to God. The poor man you see on the street is Christ, and you are measured by how you treat Christ. You are to give up EVERYTHING and follow Christ.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
You forget, there really are some just plain bad people who aren’t going to be “transformed” because all they care about is themselves.
Sounds like something Ronald Reagan would say.
“Shoes of the Fisherman” Anthony Quinn
Use the riches of The Church to care for them.
It doesn’t say ”don’t worry about the poor”. The passage to which you refer is a complex and nuanced moment, when Mary Magdalene annoints the feet of Jesus ( as an indication of his approaching death). Pharisees rebuke the woman, and Jesus, saying that the money for the costly ointment would be better spent on the poor. Jesus answers, ”the poor we will always have with us, but I am here just a little while.”
Yes there is extreme poverty but somehow their leaders live in golden palaces. It is not America’s fault of world proverity as we have shown and told the world what to do and vast, vast amounts of our treasure has been taken from us to prop up those leaders that live in those palaces as opposed to demanding our treasure, if allowed to be taken from us should go directly to the people, not those peoples government.
ok
The big deal here, given the availability of land, was to issue the smallest grant in terms of 1,000 arpents!
The grantee ~ which might have been a government agent at a Villa Real (yup, St. Louis wasn't the only one of those), would subdivide it into 10 arpent sites which were just big enough to feed a horse and family ~ plus, they'd cut roads in there to provide for circulation around the townsite.
One place in Illinois not far from Champaign, going South, was enclosed in a stockade fence all the way around ~ with towers in the corner to fight invaders.
The Spanish may well have provided title to the properties but when they pulled out of the region after the end of Queen Anne's War they took the records ~ whatever they were ~ with them. I suspect many of them still exist.
In some cases I have been able to identify an earlier Spanish resident of one of these grants simply by looking to see who the first fellow was to file for a title under the American government. These guys are ALL hispanic! The French, with a different system, chose to file claim with the US government and wait 25 years for a title. The Spanish went right to the government's land agents to make their claims.
Obviously all the earliest settlers knew about land titles and the power they gave an individual. Even the Oneida were as exacting as the Spanish in their own land grants ~ look up a guy named Allen who was the first settler of Rochester ~ trace his story back to the grants the Oneida gave him. They were far from primitive savages.
From the earliest times American land title systems have protected the poor from the rich, and the rich against each other.
This guy sounds like he might be to the corporatist states what JPII was to the communist states.
Social corporatism (a modern fascism) while pretending to be sensitive to the needs of the poor actually ruins their lives by making them dependent on the state.
In reality, since the fascist state has an elite group running things and an elite leader over them, it is really nothing more than a modern form of serial emperors in an aristocratic empire.
That is: Obama and the liberal hierarchy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.