Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[Benedictus]

* vomits, I think in the end be it capitalism or socialism we are all equally screwed over and are pawns at some level, *   If society were to go back to a Monarchy at least you would know who to blame when everything is horrible across the board instead of wondering which system is better.  And if the church should remain neutral to favoring either system, then why do we have a pope who seems to be leaning towards a very similar style that our president is using. Or is what the Pope suggesting merely being misunderstood and we should be looking for clarification else where  or from the Pope himself ...   I am really only familiar with Liberation theology in name, and that it has struggled with the church, as towards the actual " maintaining of power " that the Church probably does work to maintain, I don't know why, it is a power in name only.  The teeth of the church was either taken away or given up in ages past, so it seems if anything the church should only be worried about its' credibility .

 

And again if the Pope wants a redistribution of wealth, lead by example, clergy from the top down including in the Vatican / Rome  live on the wages of the poor and nothing more, what they have in surplus can be redistributed and then after that then the Pope can start get back to the world on demanding any kind of redistribution he would like to see.

Maybe you could read the Gospel of Mathhew -  the Beatitudes, and follow that up with Luke 6: 20-23. That matched with Bible texts dotted all over the place on injustices, Isiah, Amos, Micah etc go some way to show why Pope Francis takes the view he does. Walking alongside the poor and desperate in his home diocese as a priest probably went a long way to framing this as well!

The church has had immense power, even into recent times, in some countries. It's influence in Ireland up until fairly recently in historical terms is an example of that. It definately didn't always use that power well. It's current hold over the Philippines and parts of Africa is still very real. It still has teeth in some countries, despite some of its teeth being knocked out in other places.

Do priests have lots of income and wealth? Does the Pope even have lots of personal wealth? He is an office holder, not a royal with a legacy of personal wealth. He manages the estates and offices of the Vatican for future use. Secular priests don't take vows of poverty but I don't know any man who got rich off becoming a Catholic priest!

[Nihil Obstat]

You make it sound as if the Church having temporal power is necessarily bad. Am I misinterpreting you?

[Benedictus]

You make it sound as if the Church having temporal power is necessarily bad. Am I misinterpreting you?

 

I don't think it having power is necessarily bad. But being in power brings great responsibility (and conflict) and the church hasn't always handled its power well. A church that has power and abuses it does damage to itself, and to some extent, taints its primary message to the world. In that way it could be better if the church takes the role of servant,  allowing others to make those temporal wins and mistakes. It can then focus on its main job of bringing people to God.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Benedictus

[superblue]

Maybe you could read the Gospel of Mathhew -  the Beatitudes, and follow that up with Luke 6: 20-23. That matched with Bible texts dotted all over the place on injustices, Isiah, Amos, Micah etc go some way to show why Pope Francis takes the view he does. Walking alongside the poor and desperate in his home diocese as a priest probably went a long way to framing this as well!

The church has had immense power, even into recent times, in some countries. It's influence in Ireland up until fairly recently in historical terms is an example of that. It definately didn't always use that power well. It's current hold over the Philippines and parts of Africa is still very real. It still has teeth in some countries, despite some of its teeth being knocked out in other places.

Do priests have lots of income and wealth? Does the Pope even have lots of personal wealth? He is an office holder, not a royal with a legacy of personal wealth. He manages the estates and offices of the Vatican for future use. Secular priests don't take vows of poverty but I don't know any man who got rich off becoming a Catholic priest!

come on, you are trying to use scripture readings to suggest that it is some how suggesting a " redistribution of wealth " there is a giant difference between " injustices " and  redistributing wealth,  you also have plenty of scripture versus that regard work, Matthew 20/ the parable of the vineyard workers, and the worker who came to work at the end of the day did like an hour worth of work, got paid a days wages and everyone else pitches a fit and then what, at the end it reads something like why can't the employer pay what he wants and don't be jealous.

 

Now that parable alone one could argue if they really wanted to about the injustice of how men worked and labored in the sun all day for their pay and someone comes in last, gets to work in the shade for for probably less than half the time and gets a days wage, how is that not an injustice, but since God can do what God wants there is no arguing, but try that in todays world, good grief we hear constantly about equal pay rights being fought for women alone, not even touching on a plethora of other races in our population that feel the " injustice of pay " .

 

It is a joke,

 

And give the Pope a medal for living along side the poor, and granted clergy are not making tons of money, he isn't doing anything new and more over isn't doing anything that catholics shouldn't already be doing; but when you have bishops living in plush conditions  and clergy living better than the people they are serving, it leaves a poor taste to the mouth to believe there needs to be a redistribution of wealth, either lead by example or don't, but don't pretend that clergy from the Vatican down are not living better than the poor, the ones they want to see this redistribution given to, while all they do is collect money and distribute that money instead of tightening their own belts.  Same goes to Obama, if he wanted to redistribute the money so bloody bad here in America, he should have taken a minimum wage pay for his position, and redistributed the salary of his seat to some other cause. An then written an executive order for the senate and congress to do the exact same. After that then he could have hopped on tv and told the rest of America that maybe they should too.

 

 

And  the only power you speak of, is in poor countries, and that power is the money being given to the poor, so that is the Vaticans only leverage , if they so choose to use it, but I don't see that happening as that would be too cruel. The Church has zero teeth, it was never meant to be a civil authority to any degree, if it were, it would have never down sized and given up so much military power when it had it back in the day.  More proof of the lack of respect and this imaginary aspect of power that the church has, is how  " women are being ordained as priests ",  now I realize that is a separate topic, but those that do go through with being ordained a priest, then become excommunicated from the RCC, and to them it means absolutely nothing, so unless one wants to start saying that the Church has the ability to be judge and jury and send people directly to hell, there is nothing there.  The church is not in the position of issuing laws, imposing penalties, zip.

[CrossCuT]

 

 

Taking direct aim at libertarian policies promoted by many American conservatives, the Honduran cardinal who is one of Pope Francis’ top advisers said Tuesday (June 3) that today’s free market system is “a new idol” that is increasing inequality and excluding the poor.

 

I definitely see how people view free market as an idol. They are more concerned about that than they are about feeding the masses. We have enough resources on this earth to feed, clothe, and house everyone. So why do we have so many living in poverty? Starving to death? Going without healthcare? Why?

 

Thats the real question that needs to be discussed. 

[superblue]

 

 

I definitely see how people view free market as an idol. They are more concerned about that than they are about feeding the masses. We have enough resources on this earth to feed, clothe, and house everyone. So why do we have so many living in poverty? Starving to death? Going without healthcare? Why?

 

Thats the real question that needs to be discussed. 

 

 

Why, because not enough people care to the degree to make sure everyone has the means to live comfortably, and more over God didn't create for us an easy life, poverty will never end in this life time, nor will it ever get to such a small percentage that people would be willing to accept. There is no utopia to made here on earth.  Everything you have stated was never anywhere promised to be given to humanity free of charge and at no cost to everyone, nor was it promised that everyone will have all these things.

 

If you want to point blame make sure to include me and you and everyone else around, when we see someone homeless and don't offer to take them into our home and give them shelter, because that is basically what we are asking our governments to do when we start demanding a redistribution of wealth , we are demanding that the government take something from us and give it to someone else free of charge. So instead of demanding others to do the morally right things Christ taught us to do, we should be doing them ourselves. We were not taught to go and demand from someone else to give to those in need, we were taught by Christ on what to do, and if we really were this upset over the " social injustices " in our world, then people would be more than willing to take the risks in life that come with taking a homeless person and providing for them to get back on their feet.

 

Instead we rely on flawed government programs to get people back on their feet and the results for such programs speak for themselves.   So there ya go, I heard that the current pope is no longer living in the standard papal quarters, perhaps that can be opened up for a homeless family to live in, or perhaps other places in the Vatican that are living quarters that are not being used can be given to the poor that need it to live in.

 

and then the response to that is Noooooooooooooooo ! blasphemy ! you hate the church, those living quarters are for visiting heads of state and clergy ! lmfao really ? give give give give give help help help help, and then when something isn't being used, or could be given up to help someone truly in need, a billion excuses pop up as to why it can't happen.

 

The cry for the redistribution of wealth is a giant crock of a joke.

Edited June 4, 2014 by superblue

[Socrates]

It depends on the specific way socialism is implemented as this can vary depending on what political/ economic trend and policy is adopted. Not all socialist systems remove the concept of personal property or private business. But it can progress that concept over time. I don't believe any Pope has an academic background in political theory or government. It has been said many times that Christianity can equally support various economic structures. But we can't ignore the political and economic systems the Vatican has supported, and also abused for personal gain in its history. 

 

 

Pius XI and other Popes make it clear that socialism cannot be "modified" or implemented in such a way that it is acceptable, but as long as it is socialism remains contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

While the Popes may not be infallible in every single economic prescription, they were not so ignorant of socialism and its principles and reality as you suggest.  The Church does not make such strong official condemnations idly, and when we consider both the roots of socialist theory and the horrific reality of socialist regimes around the world, it is clear the Popes had very good reasons for their strong condemnations of socialism.

 

 

If the economic system implemented has the desire and consent of the people then it can work for the common good. One of the biggest dupes of all time has been the wealthy and powerful stakeholders in the world tricking aspiring people that they can reasonably aspire to wealth and celebrity with hard work. It's a lie for the majority of people, and the media encourages people to lap these ideas up. If you can make people competitive against each other for wealth or status then they'll bid and conflict against each other to aspire for that dream.This stops people working together to 'wake up' and implement reforms.

It is difficult to reform economics and bring justice to people when the economic/political power is concentrated, even skewed, a specific way from the start. People with vested interests hold onto what they have (and pass it to their immediate 'peers') whilst simultaneously ignoring the privileges the system has handed them and the suffering this causes to others. It can be argued this is a collective moral sin.  The world cannot function anymore on charity and volunteers from the 'worthy' who take pity on the deserving poor, or manipulate them (or use them politically) when it suits for profit. The world needs something fundamentally different altogether.

 

 

In the real world, socialism has proven a miserable failure.  Real-life socialistic regimes are despotic hell-holes.

 

Actually, the biggest dupe of all time has been socialist leaders tricking people into thinking socialism will create an earthly paradise for all people, especially the working classes, when it reality it results in destroying freedom and impoverishing everybody except the ruling political class, which invariably rules despotically in its own interest, rather than actually serving the "common good."

 

While it's not perfect (no earthly reality ever will be), (comparatively) free economies have allowed for the creation of the most wealth creation for the most people of any economic system on earth.  In the real world, there is a strong correlation between the economic freedom of countries and those countries' economic prosperity. Economically free countries generally enjoy more prosperity, and less poverty.  

 

There's a reason millions of people from around the world leave their homelands to flee to "capitalistic" countries with greater economic freedom and opportunity such as America, rather than to socialistic countries.  This was particularly true back when America was more free-market than it is today, and our increasing move towards socialistic policies is lessening our desirability as land of opportunity.  

The truth is that many did come to America with very little, and were able through hard work to become rich and prosperous.  And many more were at least able to become considerable more successful and prosperous than they were.  No one said this was easy, but it is possible, and this kind of opportunity does not exist in socialist societies.

Increased economic freedom and freer markets in less developed parts of the world has also helped lift millions out of poverty and created a growing middle class.

 

If we truly want to help the poor, we would work towards creating more economic freedom and opportunity for economic advancement, rather than push for more of socialism's failed policies.

[Socrates]

The principle of Socialism is that those who produce the goods (the workers and majority) should hold the power. In Capitalism they are mere pawns, a means to an end for the one who get the profits. All else is window dressing and variation of implementation, good or bad. Not sure what Russia has to do wtih it. But they have a nationalistic, authoritarian and capitalist government!
 

 

 

I have trouble making sense of Superblue's posts myself, but for many decades Russia was in fact  the center of the despotic, socialist tyranny, the USSR.

 

Your socialist principles remain nothing but an impossible fantasy.

 

Marx and Engels themselves wrote of achieving the socialist revolution in the Communist Manifesto:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

 

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

 

 

 

Of course, in reality, the despotism, violation of property rights, and economically insufficient and untenable measures remain permanent.

 

Socialist theory is a fantasy built on lies.

Socialist reality is tyranny.

[superblue]

I have trouble making sense of Superblue's posts myself, but for many decades Russia was in fact  the center of the despotic, socialist tyranny, the USSR.

 

 

 

Nope you actually did make sense of it; I was just holding off on pointing out the obvious is all, you nailed what I was getting at. I just chose to point out things that the Pope / Obama / and anyone else could do if they really wanted to but just choose not too based upon everything you and I already stated.

 

 

 

It is though something that would have people scratching their heads though, a label of " Socialist Catholics / versus Capitalist Catholics. pft.

[CrossCuT]

and more over God didn't create for us an easy life, poverty will never end in this life time, nor will it ever get to such a small percentage that people would be willing to accept. There is no utopia to made here on earth.  Everything you have stated was never anywhere promised to be given to humanity free of charge and at no cost to everyone, nor was it promised that everyone will have all these things.

 

Zeus almighty what is coming out of your mouth? Are you listening to yourself? So basically you just made a really silly case for not doing anything good ever. Just because your small mind cannot convenience even the slightest possibility for a better world does not mean it is impossible. And why do people automatically throw out the words "utopia" when I suggest that maybe we can make this place less sucky to live in? So if perfection is unattainable why try?

 

Jesus said probably a million and a half times to take care of the poor...to help the needy and take care of the weak. Dont use God as an excuse to say/do dumb ish. 

 

 

 

 

If you want to point blame make sure to include me and you and everyone else around, when we see someone homeless and don't offer to take them into our home and give them shelter, because that is basically what we are asking our governments to do when we start demanding a redistribution of wealth , we are demanding that the government take something from us and give it to someone else free of charge. So instead of demanding others to do the morally right things Christ taught us to do, we should be doing them ourselves. We were not taught to go and demand from someone else to give to those in need, we were taught by Christ on what to do, and if we really were this upset over the " social injustices " in our world, then people would be more than willing to take the risks in life that come with taking a homeless person and providing for them to get back on their feet.

 

So you admit that youre failing in doing what Jesus said? So will you admit that your previous statement was false because you seem to believe that we are at fault by NOT helping others to make their lives better. I fully admit to it myself, but I am trying. You should try too. Taking people to my home is not going to help our global economic problems, dont be daft. Use your adult brain...youre just being difficult right now.

 

Redistribution of wealth is a loaded phrase that has lost its meaning in politics. People are so polarized that they are numb to what it is really intending to do. If youre going to sit here right now and try to tell me there is not tremendous wealth inequality in the united states then I will have to ask you to go read more and stop listening to Fox News. Right now we have the resources to support the entire population of the planet, yet people are in poverty. Why? Because our economic systems are failing. The one in the united states can no longer sustain itself and it will eventually collapse. 

 

As far as "doing things ourselves" why? Our faith is built on community, I should NOT have to sit here week after week trying to convince "good" Catholics to help the poor. It astonishes me. We should be doing this together! We should be united for the betterment of our world. Christ didnt go around preaching and tell his followers "Nah, bro! Im doing this myself!" He welcomed people! They helped him spread the good news!

 

People are upset about social injustice...but apparently you arent. It is quite remarkable that in this globalized world we are so unaware of the suffering around us. The news doesnt tell us much about it, our politicians are corrupt and greedy...so its left in our hands. We need to open our eyes.

 

 

 

 

The cry for the redistribution of wealth is a giant crock of a joke.

No, only people who are dim witted enough to not understand the real issues at hand view it that way. :(

We have the resources, the technology, and the spirit to do something. But our current economic system as well as all the past have failed. They have created poverty where it doesnt need to be as well as death and suffering. 

 

So if you want to crab and cross your arms in disdain, be my guest. But dont tell people its impossible. I want to find people with innovative minds...not people who have already given up. Go hide under a rock and allow the rest of us to make this place better if you dont care.

[Benedictus]

I have trouble making sense of Superblue's posts myself, but for many decades Russia was in fact  the center of the despotic, socialist tyranny, the USSR.

 

Your socialist principles remain nothing but an impossible fantasy.

 

Marx and Engels themselves wrote of achieving the socialist revolution in the Communist Manifesto:

 

 

Of course, in reality, the despotism, violation of property rights, and economically insufficient and untenable measures remain permanent.

 

Socialist theory is a fantasy built on lies.

Socialist reality is tyranny.

Next you'll be saying Hitlers National Socialist Party were really socialist as well  :think2: 
The idea that the poor can only advance through exposure to the market is a piece of false propaganda. Capitalists simply want to exploit the resources and time of even poorer people because they can make more profit and keep costs down. If any progress occurs in these countries these workers will be dead a fair time before it happens. By that time the companies will hop to the next poor country, and so on. Capitalism, especially through globalization, allows a rich country to gain benefits through its companies operating overseas. They know workers in their own countries are being undercut or put out of work as tasks are outsourced to places where people can't bargain and protect their rights,wages, hours or conditions. The 'free world', which often isn't so free on the ground unless you're talking capital, turn a blind eye to it for cheap imports. You're telling me the Popes wanted this system? Really!?

[superblue]

two back to back low brow responses, bravo. and blame your own education if you cant understand what I am saying.

[Socrates]

Next you'll be saying Hitlers National Socialist Party were really socialist as well  :think2: 

 

I'm not sure what exactly Hitler and the Nazis have to do with what I've said, unless you're just trying to prove the truth of Godwin's Law.

Or are you trying to say that Communists are not *real* socialists?  The truth is that communism is the purist form of socialism.  Are you saying that Karl Marx himself was not *really* socialist?

 

Please.  He's the man who (literally) wrote the book on socialism.

 

While you yourself may not subscribe to doctrinaire Marxist communism, claiming that Marxism is not really socialism is nonsense.

 

 

The idea that the poor can only advance through exposure to the market is a piece of false propaganda. Capitalists simply want to exploit the resources and time of even poorer people because they can make more profit and keep costs down. If any progress occurs in these countries these workers will be dead a fair time before it happens. By that time the companies will hop to the next poor country, and so on. Capitalism, especially through globalization, allows a rich country to gain benefits through its companies operating overseas. They know workers in their own countries are being undercut or put out of work as tasks are outsourced to places where people can't bargain and protect their rights,wages, hours or conditions. The 'free world', which often isn't so free on the ground unless you're talking capital, turn a blind eye to it for cheap imports. You're telling me the Popes wanted this system? Really!?

 

 

I never claimed everything is perfect or without abuse in the "capitalist" world (which is actually far from a true free market system).  Nothing ever will be in this fallen world, and everything real will fall far short when measured against imaginary utopian fantasies.

 

The truth remains that in the real world, it is in "capitalist" countries with freer economies that see the most people move up the economic ladder from poor to middle-class or wealthy, and that tend to have the highest standards of living overall.  Also, access to free markets has lifted more people out of poverty, and overall increased, rather than decreased, people's material standard of living.  There simply aren't a lot of rags-to-riches success stories coming out of places like North Korea.

 

You can rail against the alleged evils of "capitalism" all day long, but you've yet to show me a real-life example of a superior socialist society.

 

If socialism is indeed the cure for what ails us, then surely by now there must be somewhere in the world where a socialist system is a thriving success.  And since success tends to beget success, surely word would get out and people would flock to such a socialist wonderland.

 

The reality of course is that the socialist dream is an impossible fantasy, and socialism by its very nature (the forced redistribution of wealth) always involves despotism and violation of property rights.

 

But if you want to discuss pure fantasy, we can always discuss the works of J.R.R. Tolkien instead.  Much more entertaining and intelligent, not to mention far more rooted in reality.

[Socrates]

. . .  " Socialist Catholics / versus Capitalist Catholics. pft. . . 

 

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."

~ Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

[NotreDame]

Superblue / Benedictus - upload some avatars yo!  Using the default shows a real lack of commitment and if I'm going to read long posts from phatmassers I want to know they are in it for the long haul before I get invested.

[CrossCuT]

two back to back low brow responses, bravo. and blame your own education if you cant understand what I am saying.

 

No.

[superblue]

Superblue / Benedictus - upload some avatars yo!  Using the default shows a real lack of commitment and if I'm going to read long posts from phatmassers I want to know they are in it for the long haul before I get invested.

lol  avatars are the sign of commitment on here ?

[Nihil Obstat]

lol  avatars are the sign of commitment on here ?

Everyone harbours a vague mistrust of the faceless entity who denies us even the tiniest glimpse into his thoughts by means of a personalized avatar. It is like the guy who comes to a party and refuses to take off his coat. It is disorienting and somehow foreboding. :|

[Benedictus]

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."

~ Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

 

In his opinion at the time. As said before tehre were historical and social factors that motivated such a view, not all of them unwarranted. But I think he over extended his criticisms. He wanted to throw the baby out with the bath water.  I think that was a mistake, obviously. Hanging on the words and quotes of a Pope taken out of a specific time can lead to all sorts of contradictions and problems. They are relevant and should be considered, but they aren't binding scripture or dogma. If so then the church has some explaining to do about where it stands regarding those Popes who rejected modernism.

[CrossCuT]

lol  avatars are the sign of commitment on here ?

 

Why isnt your avatar blue?