Posted on 07/13/2009 3:55:19 PM PDT by NYer
Brian Griffiths, Lord of Fforestfach and vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International, says Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate offers the single best analysis of the current global economic crisis.
The language may be dense, but the message is sufficiently rewarding. The encyclical analyses modern capitalism from an ethical and spiritual perspective as well as a technical one. As a result it makes the Government’s White Paper on financial reforms published two days later look embarrassingly one-dimensional and colourless.
It is highly critical of today’s global economy but always positive. Its major concern is how to promote human development in the context of justice and the common good. Despite heavy competition from some of the world’s finest minds, it is without doubt the most articulate, comprehensive and thoughtful response to the financial crisis that has yet appeared. It should strike a chord with all who wish to see modern capitalism serving broader human ends.
High praise. Griffiths combs through the encyclical, and identifies Benedict's six strategies for balancing capitalism and human dignity. Jason Farago of Newser has helpfully summarized them:
This is an interesting list, but it raises questions. Catholic Social Teaching is a collection of principles, which are then applied by the individual to concrete situations. The pope is certainly free to make his own policy suggestions -- he's a head of state and a brilliant man -- but they don't carry the weight of the principles themselves.
For example, we who live in the First World are required by our faith to recognize our solidarity with those languishing in less developed countries, and work to help them. But increasing foreign aid to those nations may not be the best way to express that solidarity, and might actually do more harm than good (see Dambisa Moyo's work on the question).
Likewise, while we have an absolute moral obligation to treat workers humanely and pay them fair wages, increasing the power of trade unions may not be the best way to do that (and might very well have unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem).
Of course, it's tough to make these points in a Catholic venue without being waved off as a "dissenter from the right." Nevertheless, these are open questions and faithful Catholics are free to debate them, so long as they're genuinely commited to the social doctrine, and not acting out of political partisanship.
The Pope’s comments are rooted in liberalism, not the gospel.
Of course, John Calvin had more impact on America’s government and democracy than the Pope had...
Acts taught that, for a short time, folks sold everything they owned. Perhaps you believe that is the right thing to do - feel free to imitate it. Maybe the Pope thinks it is the right thing to do - if so, he needs to hold a garage sale.
Capitalism, IMHO, means I can earn a surplus which in turn allows me to give to the deserving poor. There are also undeserving poor, and I don’t give to them.
**Why can’t you see that “charity” must be something given freely from the heart for it to ever, EVER matter to God?**
So glad you understnad what Catholics believe here.
Infallibility is an interesting issue but I'm not sure what that has to do with the current encyclical. Nobody, including the Pope, is pretending that this was given under the seal of infallibility.
Has the subject changed?
Your original point was that the Pope's writing was not rooted in "true conservative thought", whatever that nebulous entity might be. My point was that it is based on the Gospel, which is not encompassed by any ideology derived from the human intellect, including, believe it or not, conservatism.
Lest We Forget - The Corporal Works of Mercy & The Spirtual Works of Mercy
1 Reform the UN to manage globalization? - is NOT IAW the Gospel, which assumes the depravity of man. This is why our founding fathers wanted decentralized government.
2 I don’t get high interest loans from banks. I get very reasonably priced loans from banks, or I go elsewhere. Banks aren’t evil until government takes them over.
3 Strengthened trade unions to protect workers? - a free market protects workers. Trade unions protect the lazy and indolent. There is nothing Christian about protecting the lazy by punishing the hard working.
4 “Greater aid to developing nations to combat the “scandal of inequality.”” Charity. Christian. Period.”
Nope. Greater aid means greater dependency. Paul - the Apostle so many Catholics criticize - taught that we should WORK for our needs - not wait for others to take care of us. Mexico has tremendous resources. It is crippled by prejudice and corruption. Given the Catholic Church’s influence, perhaps the Pope ought to work on straightening out Mexico before taking on the world.
If you believe that liberal claptrap about how we and other capitalists are oppressing the world, perhaps you should join DU.
Conservatism is rooted in the Gospel. That is why liberals hate the Gospel. The Pope has been suckered in by the social gospel liberals who want to look good to God by giving other people’s money to the poor.
If Obama had written this instead of the Pope, you would be blasting away.
You wrote:
“In the eyes of God, it is only good to practice stewardship if you are an individual, not a country.”
Israel practiced stewardship over the Temple and the sacrifices there for all of the world. I think someone could easily make an argument that what is spoken of in Deut. 10:14-15 is about a special stewardship role for ancient Israel. The idea that only individuals must practice stewardship also goes against the very idea of the US constitution - the government has the stewardship role of defender of the republic from foreign invaders.
The US and other countries that are not theocracies are obviously not the same. Yes, each must maintain its borders, but this is not “holy” nor “righteous” before God. It just is what it is, a human construct that is amoral before God, just as a condom is amoral—it is inherently neither good nor bad, it is in how it is used by a person that the person is able to sin or glorify God with it.
We disagree. The encyclical is a Gospel tour de force. Most can't even grasp it.
Of course, John Calvin had more impact on America’s government and democracy than the Pope had...
Unfortunate, if true. For to the extent that America's government deviates from authentic Catholic teaching, the more rapidly and drastically will it eventually crumble and fail.
Acts taught that, for a short time, folks sold everything they owned.
I missed that bit about "a short time"....LOL! Do you have a quote for that? A most inconvenient piece of Scripture isn't it? What happened after the "short time"? Did they all go their own ways and become millionaires?? Scripture is for all time not a short time.
Perhaps you believe that is the right thing to do - feel free to imitate it. Maybe the Pope thinks it is the right thing to do - if so, he needs to hold a garage sale.
There's no question it is the right thing to do and the Catholic Church already donates enormous sums to the poor. There are entire religious orders who do nothing else, such as Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, for instance. We're criticized for that too from liberals who assert that we should be changing structures and society not offering charity. We can't win.
Capitalism, IMHO, means I can earn a surplus which in turn allows me to give to the deserving poor. There are also undeserving poor, and I don’t give to them.
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with both the encyclical and Catholic teaching. The Church sees nothing wrong with earning a profit and making an honest living. Naturally it does place limits on the ways a profit can be earned and it also asserts that profit is not an end in itself.
When people who are in Christ give from their hearts, this can glorify God.
Nothing else does.
“I missed that bit about “a short time”...”
Then I suggest you do some reading. Or perhaps you believe that was the norm for the entire early church, and...when did it change?
Some of it is. The Gospel far surpasses any human ideology.
Let me know when you can sign off on that passage from Acts.
That is why liberals hate the Gospel. The Pope has been suckered in by the social gospel liberals who want to look good to God by giving other people’s money to the poor.
The Pope is nobody's sucker. He's the lone voice of sanity. You have been suckered into thinking that American style capitalism is synonymous with the Gospel. It isn't.
If Obama had written this instead of the Pope, you would be blasting away.
Unlike most of the unbalanced Freepers who haunt this site I give credit where it's due. I actually agree with some of the things which Obama says and does. They're considerably outweighed by the negatives, of course, but I'm not obsessed by the man in the same way many on this site are.
Congratulations. We're in agreement. The Pope agrees, also.
Catholic teaching in a nutshell.
Where did you get the idea that the Pope wants forced redistribution of wealth by Big Brother?
You wrote:
“1 Reform the UN to manage globalization? - is NOT IAW the Gospel, which assumes the depravity of man. This is why our founding fathers wanted decentralized government.”
They were not perfect men themselves. And reforming the UN is not inherently unchristian.
“2 I don’t get high interest loans from banks. I get very reasonably priced loans from banks, or I go elsewhere. Banks aren’t evil until government takes them over.”
Elsewhere? You mean like a credit union? Perish the thought!
“3 Strengthened trade unions to protect workers? - a free market protects workers. Trade unions protect the lazy and indolent. There is nothing Christian about protecting the lazy by punishing the hard working.”
In the 19th century, when America was supposedly far more Christian than now, workers were horribly abused. How exactly did the free market protect them? You go ahead and read the Sadler Report from England and tell me that the free market at the time protected workers. http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111sad.html
“Nope. Greater aid means greater dependency.”
Not if it is the right kind of aid.
“Paul - the Apostle so many Catholics criticize...”
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where? What Catholics? Do you mean liberals who call themselves Catholics (CINOs)? In the Catholic Church we’re just finishing the Year of St. Paul - did you know that?
“- taught that we should WORK for our needs - not wait for others to take care of us.”
True. Then again the apostles also did this:
Acts 4: 32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
And in Philippians 4: 14 Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress. 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. 19 And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. 20 Now to our God and Father be glory forever and ever. Amen.
So Paul commends the charity of an entire church.
“Mexico has tremendous resources. It is crippled by prejudice and corruption. Given the Catholic Church’s influence, perhaps the Pope ought to work on straightening out Mexico before taking on the world.”
You clearly have no idea of what you’re talking about. Mexico is run by oligarchs who seized the country in the 19th century. These same oligarches supported the government when it made Catholicism ILLEGAL and murdered priests an looted parishes. Did you know any of this?
“If you believe that liberal claptrap about how we and other capitalists are oppressing the world, perhaps you should join DU.”
You’re not being consistent. Capitalists corrupt the world too because they too are capable of evil. It is not only liberals who corrupt the world. Most men do. The founding fathers, for instance, were slave owners. I keep that in perspective and realize they were men of their times. But I cannot deny that that was inherently racist, EVIL and unchristian. You apparently have no problem with it because those slavers were all cheery capitalists and decentralists. If that is “liberal claptrap” then Christianity has a real problem....and so do you.
You wrote:
“Do you not know that “ancient Israel” was a theocracy, basically one large church (synagogue)? This is not too unlike the Vatican of today.”
I do not believe ancient Israel was a theocracy so much as a tribal society turned into a kingdom with a strong supportive and formative religion. The priests did not rule Israel. That would have been a theocracy. The mullahs CONTROL AND RULE Iran.
“The US and other countries that are not theocracies are obviously not the same. Yes, each must maintain its borders, but this is not “holy” nor “righteous” before God.”
But it is stewardship in principle nonetheless.
“It just is what it is, a human construct that is amoral before God, just as a condom is amoral—it is inherently neither good nor bad, it is in how it is used by a person that the person is able to sin or glorify God with it.”
And yet we know Israel was a holy nation and operated
according to a holy law. It was a national steward in the worship of the Lord.
“Mexico has no official religion, and the Constitution of 1917 and the anti-clerical laws imposed limitations on the church and sometimes codified state intrusion into church matters. The government does not provide any financial contributions to the church, and the church does not participate in public education.
The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89% of the total population, 47% percent of whom attend church services weekly. In absolute terms, Mexico has the world’s second largest number of Catholics after Brazil.
About 6% of the population (more than 4.4 million people) is Protestant, of whom Pentecostals and Charismatics (called Neo-Pentecostals in the census), are the largest group (1.37 million people).”
Mexico is a mess. If the Catholic Church wants to make political and economic pronouncements, it seems like a good place to start.
If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.
Free markets mean that if you don’t want your job - leave. If you aren’t willing, that is your choice. And if an employer is endangering its employees, then you can work to get laws changed - and they were.
Compare that to unions - rewarding the lazy and punishing the hardworking. No thanks.
You wrote:
“The last census reported, by self-ascription, that 95% of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics are 89% of the total population, 47% percent of whom attend church services weekly. In absolute terms, Mexico has the world’s second largest number of Catholics after Brazil.”
But the government and oligaries are decidedly anti-Catholic. The Church cannot change the government structures that insist on maintaining those oligarchies. And in America too we are insisting on maintaining those oligarchies by refusing to enforce our immigration laws.
“Mexico is a mess. If the Catholic Church wants to make political and economic pronouncements, it seems like a good place to start.”
And do you think the government there is listening? Do you think the oligarchies there are listening? Pray tell show me how.
“If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.”
No, I don’t think you would.
“Free markets mean that if you don’t want your job - leave. If you aren’t willing, that is your choice.”
And if ALL of the jobs are the same in terms of abuse? Seriously, you’re dreaming nonsense if you think the Sadler Report did not accurately report the situation ALL OVER THE UK.
“And if an employer is endangering its employees, then you can work to get laws changed - and they were.”
They were changed - after murders, arsons, street fights, riots and, oh yeah, unions were formed.
“Compare that to unions - rewarding the lazy and punishing the hardworking. No thanks.”
Unions got the laws changed. Plain and simple. They used street muscle often to make it happen. That’s just plain history.
Everyone who voluntarily works for another chose to be in that circumstance. Both parties believe they get the better end of the deal.
What don’t you understand, Vlad?
“If 89% of Mexicans were Southern Baptists, I’d be saying the same thing to the SBC.”
No, I don’t think you would.
Please do not tell me what I would do or not. I know myself.
Did you see the report where, along with abortion, the Pope raised immigration with Obama? I’m guessing he wasn’t on the side of strict enforcement of the laws...
I’m not sure I’d hold up the UK as an example of free markets. Their society was and is hierarchical.
People making choices. Freedom. FREE Republic. Think about it.
Why is it ironic? Please explain.
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.