I like how Fr. Sirico discusses the economic aspects of Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation. I would suggest that the gives those of us who make comments about others a model of doing so!
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Who is Pope Francis to pass judgements on Capitalism?
Seriously, I agree. Capitalism has improved the lives of people everywhere it has been allowed to function properly. The vaunted "poor" in this country were and are far better off than the poor in, say, Francis' South America. If capitalism were to be allowed to function by an administration and congress that really understood it, the lives of the poor would be even better…that is, if they wanted to work. But, liberal policies have taught them to be lazy, unproductive, criminal, and resentful of those who are motivated to improve themselves. Misguided Priests, Bishops, and various religious have been sucked right into the maw of the welfare mentality and class warfare. If people do not understand economics and finance, they need to keep their mouths shut. This includes Popes.
And those who do not understand or who reject the Church's clear (and challenging) teaching on economic justice should, likewise, refrain from opening their mouths.
So, who is rejecting that, Ignotus? How about Priests who refuse to answer simple direct questions about belief? Which is worse…rejecting a social teaching or rejecting the articles of the Creed?
Capitalism is the best system developed so far for providing a good standard of living for the greatest number. There are problems with it though such as out of control consumerism fueled by irresponsible use of credit. There is also the problem of Government. Although it must be acknowledged that some regulation and taxation is necessary, excessiveness in these areas can cause conditions to develop whereby captitalism does not function as optimally as it might.
The recently released Papal exhortation Evangelium Gaudium speaks to more than just economic concerns although the Holy Father does address those. Economic issues have a moral component and so it is a legitimate area of discourse for the Holy Father to comment on these. I don't think anyone should draw the conclusion that Pope Francis desires that capitalism is evil in and of itself and should be done away with.
The Holy Father does also write:
" This Exhortation is not a social document, and for reflection on those different themes we have a most suitable tool in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I heartily recomend. Furthermore, neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems. Here I can repeat the insightful observation of Pope Paul VI: “In the face of such widely varying situations, it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. This is not our ambition, nor is it our mission It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country”.
Pin/Gene - I have never rejected any article of the Creed. Never.
Your suggestion that I have rejected any article of the Creed is false - utterly false.
If you can find any passage I have written that says I reject any article of the Creed, please repost it. I will immediately recant and submit my resignation to Bishop Hartmayer.
I did not say that you had rejected any article of the Creed. I asked the question, "which is worse." However, regarding your response, "a hit dog hollers."
Come on, Gene. Isn’t that a little disingenuous? Pater Ignotus was putting your comment in context – the context provided by your numerous attacks on him in the past that are well known to regular readers of this Blog. I certainly read your comment here the same way he did.
So, maybe a hit dog does holler when you have hit him so much in the past. But doesn’t this mean he is also more likely to bite you?
I agree that it is good to see a model of thought-provoking and “civil” questioning of Pope Francis’s positions on the economy. But it is difficult to overlook the irony of Father Sirico, as a founder of the Acton Institute, quoting Lord Acton’s famous aphorism that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” to challenge the notion of “unfettered governments” as a riposte to Pope Francis’s concern about “unfettered markets” when Lord Acton himself had centrally in mind what he saw as the historical abuses of power within the Catholic Church and indeed was opposed to the declaration of papal infallibility announced at Vatican I?
10 comments:
Who is Pope Francis to pass judgements on Capitalism?
He didn't pass judgment on Capitalism. Nor have the American bishops nor the Church, in the past, done so.
Capitalism can be a "good." But goods, taken to an extreme or misused, can become moral evils. That's what Pope Francis is warning us against.
Seriously, I agree. Capitalism has improved the lives of people everywhere it has been allowed to function properly. The vaunted "poor" in this country were and are far better off than the poor in, say, Francis' South America. If capitalism were to be allowed to function by an administration and congress that really understood it, the lives of the poor would be even better…that is, if they wanted to work. But, liberal policies have taught them to be lazy, unproductive, criminal, and resentful of those who are motivated to improve themselves. Misguided Priests, Bishops, and various religious have been sucked right into the maw of the welfare mentality and class warfare. If people do not understand economics and finance, they need to keep their mouths shut. This includes Popes.
And those who do not understand or who reject the Church's clear (and challenging) teaching on economic justice should, likewise, refrain from opening their mouths.
So, who is rejecting that, Ignotus? How about Priests who refuse to answer simple direct questions about belief? Which is worse…rejecting a social teaching or rejecting the articles of the Creed?
Capitalism is the best system developed so far for providing a good standard of living for the greatest number. There are problems with it though such as out of control consumerism fueled by irresponsible use of credit. There is also the problem of Government. Although
it must be acknowledged that some regulation and taxation is necessary, excessiveness
in these areas can cause conditions to develop whereby captitalism does not function as
optimally as it might.
The recently released Papal exhortation Evangelium Gaudium speaks to more than just economic concerns although the Holy Father does address those. Economic issues have a moral component and so it is a legitimate area of discourse for the Holy Father to comment on these. I don't think anyone should draw the conclusion that Pope Francis desires that capitalism is evil in and of itself and should be done away with.
The Holy Father does also write:
" This Exhortation is not a social document, and for reflection
on those different themes we have a most suitable tool in the
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I heartily recomend.
Furthermore, neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems. Here I can repeat the insightful observation of Pope Paul VI: “In the face of such widely varying situations, it is difficult for us to utter a unified message and to put forward a solution which has universal validity. This is not our ambition, nor is it our mission It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country”.
Pin/Gene - I have never rejected any article of the Creed. Never.
Your suggestion that I have rejected any article of the Creed is false - utterly false.
If you can find any passage I have written that says I reject any article of the Creed, please repost it. I will immediately recant and submit my resignation to Bishop Hartmayer.
Waiting . . .
I did not say that you had rejected any article of the Creed. I asked the question, "which is worse." However, regarding your response, "a hit dog hollers."
Come on, Gene. Isn’t that a little disingenuous? Pater Ignotus was putting your comment in context – the context provided by your numerous attacks on him in the past that are well known to regular readers of this Blog. I certainly read your comment here the same way he did.
So, maybe a hit dog does holler when you have hit him so much in the past. But doesn’t this mean he is also more likely to bite you?
I agree that it is good to see a model of thought-provoking and “civil” questioning of Pope Francis’s positions on the economy. But it is difficult to overlook the irony of Father Sirico, as a founder of the Acton Institute, quoting Lord Acton’s famous aphorism that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” to challenge the notion of “unfettered governments” as a riposte to Pope Francis’s concern about “unfettered markets” when Lord Acton himself had centrally in mind what he saw as the historical abuses of power within the Catholic Church and indeed was opposed to the declaration of papal infallibility announced at Vatican I?
Post a Comment