Posted on 07/09/2009 3:24:48 PM PDT by NYer
Well, this isn't policy, it's Catholic social teaching which, over the years, has been hijacked for various purposes. It's never taught the way the encyclicals actually read.
In Caritas in Vertitate itself, Benedict states that this is a continuation of Rerum Novarum written by Leo XIII in 1891 and there were two others in between, one by Paul VI and one from JPII. All said basically the same thing - in order for markets and governments to work in serving all equally and justly, ethics and morality must be applied to everyday dealings and decisions. It's a warning against greed. There's no policy involved. Like all the others, this encyclical cannot be separated from the others. It's a continuous stream. The best thing to do is read them in order with some knowledge of what happened historically.
Still not finished, but I’m past the supposedly devastating paragraph 67, and I have to say, “Yeah, so what?” In the realm of ideals, an international political body such as the Pope imagines would hypothetically be a great thing, productive of much good.
The chance of such a thing’s happening in Real Life? Pope Benedict isn’t required to make it happen, or to not discuss it because it’s not expected by worldly reasoning. Just as I might wake up tomorrow and find all my family suddenly practicing the Golden Rule, the same is true of the whole world.
Your pope endorses the idea of capitalism as long as the state redistributes the wealth (profits) of the capitalists...He endorses democracy within levels...Similar to what we have in the US...BUT, without the sovereignty of the individual nations...He see it on a world scale...
Despite some of its structural elements, which should neither be denied nor exaggerated, “globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it”[104]. We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. 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. The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale
This fella want to bring is the Kingdom of God to the planet earth...He ain't going to make it...
He could have written this encyclical in one tenth the time and the size...If chock full of redundancies and wasted words...
Sure the concept of helping out the less fortunate is commendable but it is not something new...The US especially has an unsurpassed record of charity thru out the word...When people are forced to give where they don't want to, it is no longer charity...You can't force distribution of wealth and call it charity...Your pope is a little confused on that one...
Greed is a word that seems to be on the verge of being tossed around a lot by the left, to blackmail people with money into buying into any program they can come up with.
The idea is that anyone with money had to be either greedy to accumulate the money, or greedy to keep any of it. I say, hogwash! This mindset always precedes efforts to separate good men from their holdings.
To my way of thinking, anyone who advocates this ‘taking’, should be subject to something tantamount to being lined up against the village wall and shot. And just the attempt to denigrate based on wealth, should warrant a person or a group a stiff warning, that they are very close to crossing the line.
I do not think these writings do cross the line, but I would be very leery of writing on the subject of greed.
When you start talking about greed, there’s something you need to know up front. You can’t precisely define greed. You open a whole Pandora’s box when you encourage the public to think of people who are better of than themselves, are in need of judging. It gets real ugly real quick when this mindset is encouraged.
Our economic system encourages everyone to be creative, to develop their own wealth. That way people who aspire to become wealthy, are less likely to “HATE” people who have more than they do, because they intend to have more money than they presently do.
Loose talk about greed, is dangerous. I very rarely every address people as greedy. I have in some isolated instances, but it’s a real iffy thing to do.
Greed, when it becomes an all-consuming pathos (as in the case of,say, George Soros) involves more than just money. It's when it becomes the means of destruction of society and part of a power grab is when it's a problem. That's why I say that this is a statement against greed. There's no thinking of how it will effect others as human beings.
In my life, I have seldom known people who had wealth that didn’t spread it around. I’ll bet Soros spreads a lot of his money around. It’s just that we don’t like where he chooses to spread it.
I’m just not inclined to give anyone, and I man anyone license to decide who is greedy and who isn’t.
If a person has wealth and keeps every penny for his own use, that’s a personal choice I disagree with, but this is a nation where he is free to do that if he so chooses.
God forbid this nation EVER turn into a place where he can’t, because you and I will be the next ones they come after.
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.