Church

The Pope Can Make All of Us More Thankful Today, Says Shikha Dalmia…

|

…in the Washington Examiner, by stopping his yammerings against capitalism.

In a speech this week he went on yet another anti-capitalistic rant, claiming that the

Pope

"opinion" that "economic growth, encouraged by the free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness" has "never been confirmed by the facts."

This shows, notes Dalmia, that the Pope pays no attention to Bono, which is a sign of good taste.

His judgement, however, is another matter. It seems the Pope hasn't put down his copy of Das Capital to actually look at the world around him in quite a while. If he had, he'd not only notice how it has raised living standards in countries where it has (sort of) been tried (and these don't include his native Argentina and his new home, Italy). He'd also notice how these (semi) capitalistic countries keep the Catholic Church and its charitable mission going. She writes:

Capitalism puts more discretionary income in the pockets of people to devote to charitable pursuits. It is hardly a coincidence that America donates over $300 billion annually toward charitable causes at home and abroad, the highest of any country on a per capita basis.

The church itself is a big beneficiary of this capitalist largesse, with its U.S. wing alone contributing 60 percent to its overall global wealth. Some of this money comes from donations, but a big chunk comes, actually, from directly partaking in capitalism: The church is reportedly the largest landowner in Manhattan, the financial center of the global capitalism system, whose income puts undisclosed sums into its coffers.

So the new pope needs to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds his institution and its work. Otherwise, neither he nor the poor in whose name he is speaking will have much to be thankful for.

Go here for the whole thing.

Happy Thanksgiving.

NEXT: If You Were Out Shopping on Thanksgiving, You Wouldn't Be Reading This Right Now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The RC Church has been anti-capitalist since St. Peter stood on his head on Vatican Hill.

    1. I’d like a remote-control church.

  2. Why is this so f-ing hard for people to understand?!?!

    1. Because they have been taught from birth that “greed” is bad and that “caring” is good.

      So anyone who “cares”, no matter how evil the consequences of their actions, is superior to someone who is “greedy”.

      1. They have been taught that seeking to improve one’s own material well-being is “greed”, while coveting the resources of others on behalf of “the needy” is “humanitarian”.

      2. The Vatican lecturing anyone about greed is the ultimate in cognitive dissonance. No entitie EVER in the history of the world has shown more greed and willingness to get rich at the expense of the poor ane ignorant than the catholic church and their poi ty headed hypocrites. Screw the pope.

        1. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion (aside from Chick tracts)?

          1. Tetzel

          2. Wow. How is that not obvious to anyone who has ever read a history book.

          3. How about selling indulgences? What about the massive and expensive Cathedrals that were built, often using money extracted from the poor?

    2. Because critical thinking is hard.

      Because thinking for yourself, as opposed to letting someone else tell you what to think, is hard.

      Yes; I am a pessimistic, cynical bastard.

    3. They don’t want to.

      “There’s none so blind as those who will not listen.”

      Thinking is hard work. Maintaining principles is hard work but long term satisfying. Spewing emotion without thinking is easy but so unsatisfying that it calls for frequent repeats.

  3. The church at one point also owned almost an entire side of Commonwealth Ave in Boston, from which they collected massive rents protected by their non-profit status.

  4. Since when does any red-blooded American let Popery influence his political views? If you don’t want the Pope dictating abortion policy, then he doesn’t get any say on tax rates, either. As JFK put it “I believe in an America… where no public official either accepts or requests instruction on public policy from the Pope.”

    As usual, the hypocrisy of the Pope knows no bounds. Francis isn’t saying anything new for the Church here- Popes have been spouting empty social-democratic platitudes for well over a century.

  5. “Instructions say, let the bird chill in the sink for a few hours. No problem.”

    http://bit.ly/189CdzA

  6. Alt-text: another victim of Vatican II.

  7. So, being not a RC and all, generally I don’t really give a shit about popes. Always pay some attention, though, since there are so many RC’s in the world – so worth seeing where they’re coming from.

    This one, however, I was liking pretty well up to now. Now – typical ignoramitard religious “leader”.

    Too bad. Happy ‘murcan Thanksgiving, Reasonoids!

  8. Greed is not a good thing. Caring is Good. But you guys are right when you say that the consequences are caring need to be looked.

    The way the POPE sees it, we did build our entire society based on one of the Seven Sins. Give the Guy a Break. Remember, Jesus Chris is the first Communist. You all can Google Matthew 19:24.

    Nonetheless, and my friends here WILL NOT AGREE,NOTHING addressed the poverty matter more effectively than TWO things Capitalism and Some New Deal Policies. Pretty much the entire Western world uses BOTH. Capitalism in which its citizens own property and own businesses.

    We had capitalism since the early 1800s. The regular guys saw his quality of life improve significantly after 1940s when capitalism was tweeked with some social programs that really helped.

    I think we need Capitalism where you PROPERTY RIGHTS, Industry and ALL Business are owned by people. But having some social programs are pretty good.

    1. You all can Google Matthew 19:24.

      And you can Google Matthew 25:29.

      1. That’s not the same.

        I think what 25:29 says is that all should be resourceful and giving, both rich and poor.

        You can argue that those people in the projects and trailer parks doing nothing but living off the rest of us deserve the generations upon generations of poverty.

        But, what about the children?

        1. I think what 25:29 says is that all should be resourceful and giving, both rich and poor.

          “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.”

          I appreciate your creativity, but I find it hard to put your interpretation on the verse.

        2. Google Rush 21:12

    2. Remember, Jesus Chris is the first Communist.

      Huh, I seem to have missed the part where Jesus built Gulags and threw wealthy wreckers, hoarders, and Kulaks into jail for sabotaging his glorious Peoples’ Revolution.

      1. You Know, my brother-in-law was looking over my shoulder and has corrected me.

        Jesus Christ Preached charity in these passages, not the hording from the rich and the re-distribution.

        Although in the parable he criticizes the rich young man (and the rich, in general), his gripe is more with Charity than professing re-distribution.

        I stand corrected.

        1. Jesus never endorsed wealth confiscation and redistribution. At best he said that Christians should pay their taxes and not worry about it because their citizenship is in heaven. He never directly addressed the justness of the matter.

          In any case, a libertarian nation would tolerate a communist commune provided that it existed voluntarily. A communist nation would never tolerate any other system. Which sounds more Christ-like?

        2. The “rich young ruler” was relying on his own personal goodness to please God.

          It’s interesting that Jesus asked him if he followed the law with regard to the commandments that relates to one’s fellow man (murder, adultery, bearing false witness, stealing), but makes no mention of the commandments that deal with one’s relationship with God. The man naturally claims to have kept all those commandments since he was a youth.

          So when Jesus tells the man to “sell all his goods, and give to the poor”, He’s pointing out that the man is actually guilty of idolatry–he is not pleasing God with his life, and does not qualify for entrance into God’s kingdom.

          1. The disciple’s response is interesting. They were “very astonished”, and wondered who can be saved, if not a rich man. Part of the reason may be that wealthy people were the only ones with the time and resources to follow the Law of Moses. If the rich weren’t able to get into heaven, then there was really no hope at all. Jesus confirms this by asserting that with men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

            A secondary reason for the disciple’s astonishment may be that, per God’s promises, material blessing is bestowed on those who follow the Law. Logically, then, if a person is rich, then it means that God has blessed him for following the Law. Again, if a rich person doesn’t qualify for entrance to the Kingdom, then there is no hope for anyone else.

            This is NOT a passage promoting communism or some similar ideology.

            1. )This is NOT a passage promoting communism or some similar ideology.

              Ah Man

      2. +1

      3. What Alice meant is that Jesus was the first true Scotsman Communist.

        1. That’s funny.

    3. Property rights is the key phrase here. Hernando de Soto and the Instituto Libertad y Democracy have been hammering this point home for decades. And their work in Latin America has proven their argument time and time again.

    4. “Give the Guy a Break.”

      He is a fucking pinko…..so…..NO.

    5. Remember, Jesus Chris is the first Communist.

      Like most liberals, you’re confused about the difference between charity and forced redistribution.

      Jesus clearly said that the wealthy should give their money to the poor. Not once in his entire life did he ever say “give me your money, or my friends and I will arrest you, throw you in prison, and take it from you.”

      1. “Not once in his entire life did he ever say “give me your money, or my friends and I will arrest you, throw you in prison, and take it from you.””

        Unless you count the threat of Hell, that is.

        1. Unlike those material threats, the threat of Hell tolerates the subject’s perpetual procrastinating his compliance, which makes a (helluva) difference.

          1. Yes, it substitutes a finite consequence for an eternity of torture.

            1. Not “torture”, but rather the torment of personal shame and permanent loss of relationship with God. Which is still superior to existing in the presence of a Holy God while in an unredeemed state.

              “Heaven” for an unbeliever would be worse than “Hell”.

              1. That’s a controversial idea within Christianity, even within some sects of it.

        2. Giving your money to the poor would not save you from Hell.

          Jesus didn’t even tell “the wealthy” to give their money to the poor. He told one particular man, who approached him with a query concerning entrance to God’s Kingdom, to sell all his goods give to the poor, and that he would subsequently have “treasure in heaven”. The man’s disqualification was his idolatry. Jesus told him, basically, to destroy his idol, and then he could be saved from hell.

          1. The general complaint was that he may not have said “give me your money or else,” but he said “follow my rules for living or else,” which is even more pernicious. Even the government’s reach is limited to this world – which is significant if you think this world is all that exists, but even then it is a hard limit. You can escape the government by dying; this is apparently not so for God.

            He also accepted luxurious gifts and rebuked his disciples when they noted that those gifts might have been sold off to provide alms for the poor rather than being used in the devotion of a single being. That sounds a bit like another organization.

            1. …he said “follow my rules for living or else,”

              And? If, as I believe, God spoke the physical universe into existence, He then has homesteading rights to that universe, including the right to set the rules the inhabitants must follow.

              If a homeowner invites someone in, but asks that the guest not smoke in the house, and the guest immediately pulls out a pack of cigarettes and lights up, the homeowner has the right to throw the guest off his property.

              You can escape the government by dying; this is apparently not so for God.

              Incorrect; hell *is* escaping from God. Hell means you not having to endure God’s company, nor He yours.

              1. I wasn’t invited in, I appeared without the ability to refuse entry. Leaving the universe on my own terms (suicide) is also a sin. So we’re stuck. Besides, what you have proposed is that because God has the biggest gun, he gets to make the rules. That makes a certain amount of sense in some ways, but it isn’t moral.

                1. I wasn’t invited in, I appeared without the ability to refuse entry.

                  A fair point. On the other hand, one doesn’t get to flout the laws of his current location on the basis that he didn’t get to choose to be there in the first place. I was born in the USA without the ability to refuse entry, but I still must abide by the rules of the nation, as long as I decide to remain…

                  Leaving the universe on my own terms (suicide) is also a sin.

                  No more a sin than any other. Might as well continue in life, as it seems that God is content in the present to allow people to live their lives how they want. Unbelief is the only sin that really matters, in the end.

                  Besides, what you have proposed is that because God has the biggest gun, he gets to make the rules.

                  Not really. It’s more along the lines of “God created the universe, so He gets to set the rules for the universe”. It’s homesteading rights, not “might makes right”.

                  1. ” On the other hand, one doesn’t get to flout the laws of his current location on the basis that he didn’t get to choose to be there in the first place. I was born in the USA without the ability to refuse entry, but I still must abide by the rules of the nation, as long as I decide to remain…”

                    You can’t compare God’s ways to human systems if you hold to an omnipotent god. If God could have done it another way, it follows that he chose to do it the way it is. According to you that way is offering us the choice between the following:
                    -Living in this world in accordance with his rules
                    -Spending eternity in a condition that is torturous to us due to the way he made us.
                    This is not freedom. It is abject slavery. I believe slavery (to a variety of physical phenomena, if nothing else) is our natural condition, but it is monstrous to create people that way and pretend they are free and everything that happens to them is their own fault.

                    “It’s more along the lines of “God created the universe, so He gets to set the rules for the universe”. It’s homesteading rights, not “might makes right”.”

                    This is the same thing. You are saying that ultimate might makes ultimate right. Either way, you are indisputably saying that God forced us into his world without our consent and punishes us if we choose not to abide by the rules we never agreed to. This is not a God worthy of worship, this is Ariel Castro.

                    1. Which rules do you find onerous?

                    2. The specifics hardly matter for this discussion; we are talking about whether it is right to enforce the rules in this manner, not whether the rules are good.

                      Though the rule that amounts to “Worship me in this lifetime or burn for eternity” is somewhat onerous – at least for the bulk of humanity.

                    3. Though the rule that amounts to “Worship me in this lifetime or burn for eternity” is somewhat onerous – at least for the bulk of humanity.

                      In the Hebrew tradition, there is no eternal torment of hell – you just get to die and not experience eternity in the presence of God. That’s a pretty fair deal.

                2. “Besides, what you have proposed is that because God has the biggest gun, he gets to make the rules.”

                  No, the argument is because God made the universe, and everything in it, including you, it is His possession, and He does make the rules. God, is not simply the big bully of the universe of theoretical equals, which seems to be how you think it should work. Also, your spirit is immortal, so suicide is not even an option.

  9. Granted, the Pope isn’t libertarian. But that doesn’t justify calling him a Marxist, not with the numerous anti-Marxist pronouncements of the Vatican.

    He’s recurring to a long tradition of Catholic social teaching, which you may disagree with, but it’s not Marxist or socialist, cracks about Das Capital notwithstanding.

    While the rest of the world was swooning over socialism (including the National kind), communism, and fascism, the Church was setting its face against it – and was viciously criticized for doing so.

    Really, it’s like saying, “libertarians, eh? Ah, you’re just like Ayn Rand” or Paul Ryan or Bill Maher.

    Here is the specific proposition denounced by the Pope:

    “economic growth, encouraged by the free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness” has “never been confirmed by the facts.”

    Is anyone prepared to defend the idea the economic growth *inevitably* causes more justice and inclusiveness?

    1. Really, you should check out what liberal academic historians and intellectuals (overlapping Venn diagrams there) say about the Church’s anti-socialism and anti-Communism – resisting the Communist assassins in Spain, resisting Communist infiltration in labor unions, supporting the anticommunist campaign in the US, working shoulder-to-shoulder with the US to stop a Communist takeover of Italy, inspiring the resistance to the communists in Poland and Eastern Europe.

      The liberal academics have been apoplectic about the Church opposing the wave of the future – glorious socialism!

      The Church helped *prevent* Das Kapital from being a textbooks in schools throughout the world.

    2. Is anyone prepared to defend the idea the economic growth *inevitably* causes more justice and inclusiveness?

      Define “inclusiveness”

      1. Define “inclusiveness”

        I’d define it as a consequence of equality of opportunity, but that’s just me.

        1. What government policies get in the way?

    3. Eduard van Haalen|11.28.13 @ 12:32PM|#
      “Granted, the Pope isn’t libertarian. But that doesn’t justify calling him a Marxist”

      You’re right. It’s not that he isn’t a libertarian. It’s his Marxist sentiments and pronouncements that justifies calling him a Marxist.

      1. They are NOT Marxist, he’s asking for more charity. Not that we abandon Free Market Capitalism.

        1. So he is simply saying what the Salvation Army has been saying.

    4. Is anyone prepared to defend the idea the economic growth *inevitably* causes more justice and inclusiveness?

      Yes. Compare every wealthy country on the planet to poor countries. In which of those two groups do you find the less racist, less sexist, and more tolerant countries?

      The least tolerant rich country is probably more tolerant than every poor country in the world. Most of our ‘justice’ and ‘inclusiveness’ is the direct result of our living in a cocoon of wealth.

      In fact, the Pope has the causation exactly backwards. The church behaved abhorrently in the days of global poverty. Once the West became wealthy, the church was basically dragged screaming into a more tolerant world.

      The Church did not make the West moral. The wealth of the west moralized the Church.

      I also don’t know how the Catholic Church’s historical pronouncements against Communism are in any way relevant to the current Pope. Pope John Paul II could be a wonderful crusader against totalitarianism and the current Pope could still be a socialist stooge.

      It’s not as if every Pope has the same beliefs or opinions.

      1. It’s not as if every Pope has the same beliefs or opinions.

        I think your point misses the mark at little in the fact there within the Canon Law of the Church, there does exist something similar to precedent. So what a previous Pope said does have some bearing on what a current Pope says.

        Of course, a Pope, speaking ex cathdera, can wake up one day and toss all that shit out the window, but then you end up with Mel Gibson’s dad crouched, butt naked, in a shack, gibbering at the top of his lungs that the Jews have taken over the Holy See.

      2. The church behaved abhorrently in the days of global poverty.

        How so?

        1. By deliberately keeping people ignorant and trapped in grinding poverty.

          1. And they did this…through the universities it established? Through the monks who preserved great works of literature and science which would otherwise have been lost?

            You could just as well do what you accuse the Pope of doing – blaming capitalism for the grinding poverty still existing in the world, even in capitalist countries.

            1. And they did this…through the universities it established? Through the monks who preserved great works of literature and science which would otherwise have been lost?

              Actually, the Muslims did most of the preserving of great art and science while the Catholic West was a third rate hovel unworthy of even being considered alongside the intellectually advanced Muslim states or the Byzantine Empire.

              During the crusades, even the Christian Byzantines considered the Normans and other crusaders to be barbaric savages.

              Most of those ‘great works of literature and science’ were preserved by Muslim intellectuals, passed through the lands of the Byzantines and were then rediscovered by secular humanists in Italy after the Byzantine Empire’s collapse resulted in intellectuals from Constantinople fleeing west. The Church, meanwhile, attempted to halt the spread of any of those ancient works of literature and science that they that they deemed too heretical.

              1. “Most of those ‘great works of literature and science’ were preserved by Muslim intellectuals”

                Strictly speaking, Nestorian Christian intellectuals who established themselves in Muslim territories after exile from the Byzantine Empire.

                1. Since the Nestorians (at the time) were not Catholic, this isn’t Papist apologetics.

              2. The Index of forbidden books (which your link describes) was set up in the wake of the Reformation, after the era you’re discussing.

              3. I found this book about Irish monastic involvement in the preservation of Western culture enjoyable. I read it before my intense study of historiography, so I may not have been as critical as I would be now.

                How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role From the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe

                Surprisingly it doesn’t involve the enormous consumption of alcohol.

      3. Wealth and morality aren’t so intertwined. And Catholicism has no place to talk about morality.

        A very, very tiny facet: Recently, the LGBT community held what’s known as the transgender day of remembrance – a memorial for people who were killed for being trans/trans perceived. Of the 100 that were memorialized most came from Catholic South America (with Brazil topping the list).

        Now the Pope wants to talk about justice?

        1. Were any albino monks seen in the vicinity when these transgender people were killed?

          And I guess the monk-assassing were too busy in Latin America to attack the trans community in Poland, Ireland, and other non-Latin Catholic countries.

          1. leads are still being followed. Gotta check with Dan first….

    5. So your defense of his writing is that he made a weak assertion with no applicable value? Yes, we’re aware that humans and their institutions are not perfect. But do some institutions perform better than others?

    6. Yes Eddy, I am.

  10. Meanwhile, I keep seeing yard signs opposing coal exports, with the tag line, “We can do better”. What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    White upper class liberals in Montana are perfectly content to impoverish Chinese and Indian peasants in order to stoke their feelings of smug self worth, apparently.

    1. I didn’t know there was coal in Montana.

      1. Huh, they mine more out West than in the Appalachians.

  11. ps- FUCK THE POPE.

  12. I think the Pope is asking the Western and Wealthy world to help out the poor people. The problem is, especially countries Latin America and Africa is NOT Capitalism. The problem is really corruption and Crony Capitalism and the lack of safety nets. Us in the West giving and giving and giving doesn’t help.

    Take Haiti for example, the neighboring country of where I was born. Many charities give, and the government takes and actually charges the peasants. Papa and Baby DOC actually would export some of the food sent there until CARE and UNITED WAY started stricter monitoring.

    World poverty is a sad thing, but even a big flaming liberal like me finds it pretty hard to blame Capitalism.

    1. Alice Bowie|11.28.13 @ 12:44PM|#
      “I think the Pope is asking the Western and Wealthy world to help out the poor people.”

      “Bono: “Capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid”
      […]
      “”Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.””
      http://blog.independent.org/20…..-than-aid/
      He could learn something before opening his yap.

      1. Look, the man has been cooped up with a bunch of dudes in robs for decades. Like Obama, he knows NOTHING about running businesses, helping others grow outside of spirituality, and the good that comes out of capitalism.

        1. Which is a good reason to shut up.

    2. I think the Pope is asking the Western and Wealthy world to help out the poor people. The problem is, especially countries Latin America and Africa is NOT Capitalism. The problem is really corruption and Crony Capitalism and the lack of safety nets.

      How on Earth would a ‘safety net’ work in a country with a per capita GDP of $500.

      Where would the money for this magic safety net come from?

      I do agree with the rest of your post though.

      1. The safety net in poor countries is known as “extended family”.

  13. “never been confirmed by the facts.”

    Catholicism, integral part of the fact-based community since the Dark Ages.

    1. See Pope Francis’ treatise, “The Fact-Based Case for Miracles”. The RC church is SO part of the fact-based community…

  14. This shows, notes Dalmia, that the Pope pays no attention to Bono, which is a sign of good taste.

    Neither a fan nor a hater of U2, but Bono has done far less harm in this world than the religious leader of a billion people who encourages them to be well stuffed cows in a socialist herd. Fuck Francis.

    1. I am not ready to say “FUCK Francis.”

      I think he is in the step towards the right direction on just about EVERYTHING, except this topic.

      Perhaps Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Richard Branson should give the Pope a visit and have a Pow-wow.

      Just keep Donald Trump out it. Francis definitely ask for COMMUNISM.

      1. There is a verse related to this that is the reason I say ‘fuck Francis.’ In essence it means that the higher your station in life the greater is your need to take higher things, weighty matters, seriously. What we have today is an unserious man in the role of the pope. Who goes out of his way to preen, who bends like a weed to popular opinion, who they seem to have only put there to put the church back on the road from a decline caused by being out of step with the rest of society. It is not his job to put clown shoes on and entertain, and make people like him. If he believes there to be any truth at the bedrock of his throne he would not be behaving like this. I may be an atheist joker but I expect better out of a pope.

    2. See above, Killaz. Bono has had a ‘conversion’.

      1. I have to respect him for actually looking at reality, realizing he’d made a mistake, and publicly changing his ways. The great thing about that is he was certainly perceived by lots of people as someone who really wanted to help the world’s poor, so people who would brush us off may be willing to listen to him.

        1. Exactly, which means ultimately he will do much more for the greater good than the pope.

  15. On the one hand, I fail to see how Oprah Winfrey making $260 million, or Brad Pitt making only $35 million, promotes justice and inclusion.

    On the other hand, I fail to see how that causes people to starve to death on the streets.

  16. The Church needs something to provide context for these Papal remarks, as Bishop Dupanloup provided context for *Quanta Cura* and the associated documents.

    Without pretending that the Church is an ecclesiological Mises Institute or Reason Foundation, I can at least point out that lefty intellectuals to this day clutch their pearls at these denunciations of socialism – again, most intellectuals’ attacks on the Church have been because of its resistance to socialism, not because it didn’t go far enough:

    From Leo XIII – “To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community”

    1. Bl. John Paul II – [as well as commending the above words] – “Pope Leo foresaw the negative consequences ? political, social and economic ? of the social order proposed by “socialism”, which at that time was still only a social philosophy and not yet a fully structured movement. It may seem surprising that “socialism” appeared at the beginning of the Pope’s critique of solutions to the “question of the working class” at a time when “socialism” was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the “question of the working class” of the time ? all the more so when one considers the terrible situation of injustice in which the working classes of the recently industrialized nations found themselves.”

      http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..us_en.html

      1. The only reason the Catholic Church gave a runny shit about communism, and particularly soviet style communism, is because it was inherently secular, and being one of the largest holders of wealth on the planet, they stood to lose a lot materially as well.

  17. This Thanksgiving, give thanks for….Mormon Women Bare, where Mormon women pose nude or semi-nude to protest church policies on modesty.

  18. In a speech this week he went on yet another anti-capitalistic rant, claiming that the Pope “opinion” that “economic growth, encouraged by the free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness” has “never been confirmed by the facts.”

    I can understand why the Church has an ingrained hatred for the market. All of these two thousand years, following in the teachings of Jesus, they have been tending to the poor. However, that is far as it ever went. Giving them food and shelter, and the few smarter ones, a role in the organization, but not much else. Capitalism comes along, creates the very concept of a middle class of well off people in mass with wealth that rivaled nobility, creates a working class that is far well off than the serfdom they ascended from, and there is the church only doing what it has always done which amounts to virtually nothing, especially in comparison to capitalism. All they have is a solvent for poverty, whereas capitalism had the cure. All of these two millennia they have been doing it wrong, feeding into the cycle of poverty instead of ending it, and that’s got to hurt.

    1. The Pope dismissing something because it has never been confirmed by the facts… I wonder how he deals with spirituality if this is his litmus test.

    2. Good point Killaz. Well put.

    3. “Capitalism comes along”.

      It’s amazing how that “just happened”.

      1. Canon law, thankfully, was not enforceable in most of Europe on secular institutions. Much of the conflict between the nobility and the Church was over attempts at its expansion. Or else, such matters essential to capitalism such as interest rates (in the Muslim world get around this with fees for service) would not have been advanced to create the market efficiencies the pre-modern world lacked even as it was technologically improving. To give the Church credit for such things as the chartering of cities and guilds as that linked article does is specious at best as those were also the functions of the nobility (notice the names of states on the East Coast?).

        Cont.

        1. The Cistercians, who eschewed the aristocratic and sedentary ways of the Benedictines and, consequently, broke farther away from feudalism, became famous as entrepreneurs.

          According to the Wikipedia:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercians

          The monastery church of Cluny Abbey, the largest in Europe, had become wealthy from rents, tithes, feudal rights and pilgrims who passed through Cluniac houses on the Way of St. James.[5] The massive endowments, powers and responsibilities of the Cluniac abbots had drawn them into the affairs of the secular world, and their monks had abandoned manual labour to serfs to serve as scholars and exclusively “choir monks”.[5]

          So that claim in your link is directly contradicted.

          They mastered rational cost accounting,

          Yes, after the Arabs invented it.

          plowed all profits back into new ventures, and moved capital around from one venue to another, cutting losses where necessary, and pursuing new opportunities when feasible.

          While serving in the Church that denied others this very right. Quite inventive.

          1. Your jadedness is…unattractive.

            From the article you linked:

            It was as agriculturists and horse and cattle breeders that the Cistercians exercised their chief influence on the progress of civilisation in the Middle Ages. As the great farmers of those days, many of the improvements in the various farming operations were introduced and propagated by them, and this is where the importance of their extension in northern Europe is to be estimated. They developed an organised system for selling their farm produce, cattle and horses, and notably contributed to the commercial progress of the countries of western Europe. To the wool and cloth trade, which was especially fostered by the Cistercians, England was largely indebted for the beginnings of her commercial prosperity.[19]

            1. Until the Industrial Revolution, most of the technological advances in Europe were made in the monasteries.[85]

              That…that doesn’t make any sense. Everybody knows that Christians are anti-science boobies who don’t have any part in developing new technologies.

            2. Your jadedness is…unattractive.

              You link to an article designed to overstate the role of canon law in the establishment of civil, commercial law, and expect my sentiments to harmonize with your own? That’s galling.

              As a brewer, I have a high regard for the orders in their technical mastery. Know more than a little about their impact on early technology as I’ve read the book mentioned in the first article on the medieval industrial age quite some time ago. I even credit them for the redevelopment of civilization after the collapse of the Roman Empire to a great extent. However, the development of capitalism came at odds with the established order, both church and nobility would find reason and cause to inhibit it. It is not accident it took the Reformation and its Enlightenment ideology to get us the final push into the modern industrial world.

          2. Yes, after the Arabs invented it.

            Modern double-entry accountancy was first described by Luca Pacioli. If that name doesn’t sound Arab, it’s because it isn’t.

  19. It’s not as if every Pope has the same beliefs or opinions.

    I thought the Pope was God’s very own little fingerpuppet. God’s earthly mouthpiece. The Pope’s word is God’s word.

    Right?

  20. One of the Pope’s Argentine critics, denouncing the kind of education he provided to future priests:

    “What was the position Bergoglio had then regarding Liberation Theology?

    “Completely against it. In fact, as Theology students, we had never studied a single book by, for instance, Gustavo Guti?rrez, one of the founders of Liberation Theology, of by [Leonardo] Boff, or by Paulo Freire, with his studies on an education that is not a cultural “dependency” [of the “imperialistic powers”]. In Philosophy, we had read little, very little, of Heidegger and Kierkegaard, one single chapter of Thus Spoke Zarathustra… Not to mention Marx, Engels, Sartre, Foucault, the Post-Moderns, etc. Nothing that could contradict Catholic doctrine or dogmas. All that under strict orders of Jorge Bergoglio.”

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.c…..wards.html

    This is meant as a *cricitism!*

  21. One thing I would write in the Pope’s defense is that he is challenging myths about poverty. Here is one myth

    For those without knowledge of basic economics, poverty is not defined
    in terms of absolutes
    . It has nothing to do with absolute measures of subsistence, or health, or quality of clothing or standards of living. It is simply based on income percentiles; if you rank financially in the bottom third of the population, then you are below the poverty line (the exact placement of the poverty line may vary from country tocountry).

    To put this concept in stark relief, consider this: if
    everybody in North America experiences a tenfold increase in wealth over the next 30 days, the number of people living below the poverty line won’t change one iota. The “poor” grocery store clerks might have 6000 square foot homes and Porsches, but the “rich” people would have 30,000 square foot homes and McLarens (insert whatever ostentatious displays of wealth you prefer, if you’re not into cars).

    In other words, a
    general increase in the standard of living cannot possibly eliminate
    poverty, no matter how high that increase is.

    The above is, of course, complete and utter bullshit and defies common sense.

    1. I am not sure if he is explaining that in defense or as a criticism.

      Of course what he is talking about is the evil inequality that the proggies are always yammering on about.

      1. Why is inequality evil?

  22. The Pope hates the free market for the same reason the proggies do. A free market allows everyone to empower themselves, thus dispersing power across society instead of concentrating it the way a centrally planned, top down organization does.

    I told the church to go fuck itself when I was 12 and my feelings on the matter have not changed in almost 40 years.

  23. If I ever return to Christianity, it will not be to Catholicism. This pope has pretty much ensured that for me.

  24. Any comment on the socialism-bashing I quoted above?

    I’m not saying the Popes are going to be invited guests as LP conventions, but doesn’t it count for something that they set their faces against the collectivist isms of the day, when it was fashionable to support one or more of these isms, and when whole countries were organized in accordance with same?

    George Orwell was a socialist, but he’s remembered for his attacks on Communism. The Popes went a step beyond Orwell and vehemently denounced socialism.

    Getting denounced by socialists, Communists, fascists and Nazis alike was a rare achievement – who knows, without the Church the LP might be banned by the Ministry of Love.

  25. Don’t be a Cardinal of the Kremlin !

    It’s never too late to vote antipope:

    Write in John XXIV at your next conclave !

  26. lol the pope cracks me up man.

    http://www.Ano-VPN.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.