Pope calls for global authority on the economy... (Incorrect)

[ladyattis]

l

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

[sicsempertyrannis]

Thats not Jeffery Tucker’s take on it.

[ladyattis]

Yes, I found corrections here, here, and here.

[Telpeurion]

I love how people try to spin a pro-state document into a defense of liberty. I think the christians around here need to take a time to reflect on their faith. Sure, there is a christian case for freedom, but a theme of coercion can be deduced from the same source. Oh, and if you are a true-blue catholic, its a bit blasphemous to be interpreting the holy see!

The only case that can be made is that the the Papal Pooch is a neo-liberal in the Wilhelm Ropke tradition, that is, one of those middle roaders who thinks there is a “third way”. Bah humbug.

[Nielsio]

Here is the whole text.

Caritas in veritate (June 29, 2009)

The conclusion starts out nicely:

Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. In the face of the enormous problems surrounding the development of peoples, which almost make us yield to discouragement, we find solace in the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ, who teaches us: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5)

Without God I know nothing, without Jesus I can do nothing? That’s not really empowering, Sir.

It’s really long, so I’ll just pick another snippet:

[..] the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State.

State competition, through favorable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labor market are a grave danger for the rights of workers? Que?

Also, the words federal reserve and gold aren’t in the text.

[ladyattis]

So, he’s not asking for a global economic dictator, but he still assumes some social democratic-like justice?

[DanielMuffinburg]

I going out on a limb here, but I’m gonna guexs that he didn’t originally write this in English. I would love to read the orignal text, because I wouldn’t be suprised if some socialist interpreter intentially change the meaning of that passage.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I found this interesting:

@Pope

On the one hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are violated in much of the world… Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness

[DD5]

If the Pope wanted to embrace the only moral political and economic system of Capitaism, then I think he would spell it out. I mean why is it so difficult to come out and say: I’m against involuntary servitude. If he is really not condemning Capitalism, is it not his duty to explain to his followers the nature of the coercive elements of the State vs. a free society?

Until then, he’s just like the rest of his predecessors, an anti-capitalist advocating an anti-life immoral message.

[laminustacitus]

@DD5

Until then, he’s just like the rest of his predecessors, an anti-capitalist advocating an anti-life immoral message.

I suggest you actually read the Catholic social encyclicals before you bother speaking - mabye you wouldn’t look that an idioit in that case.

[laminustacitus]

@Telpeurion

I love how people try to spin a pro-state document into a defense of liberty. I think the christians around here need to take a time to reflect on their faith. Sure, there is a christian case for freedom, but a theme of coercion can be deduced from the same source. Oh, and if you are a true-blue catholic, its a bit blasphemous to be interpreting the holy see!

Again, I suggest you actually know something about the subject matter before you speak.

[Nitroadict]

@laminustacitus

@Telpeurion

I love how people try to spin a pro-state document into a defense of liberty. I think the christians around here need to take a time to reflect on their faith. Sure, there is a christian case for freedom, but a theme of coercion can be deduced from the same source. Oh, and if you are a true-blue catholic, its a bit blasphemous to be interpreting the holy see!

Again, I suggest you actually know something about the subject matter before you speak.

Ehh, christianity does not have a very good record, imo, despite knowing many christians who do not follow said infamy in their practice of the religon (i.e. are not fundamentalists, do not advocate coercion, etc.).

I’m frankly surprised (although maybe this has happened, perhaps Schopenhauer) that someone before Nietzsche wasn’t as scathing to the religion as he was.

Then again, I don’t have a problem with those who do not impose it on me, per voluntaryism, so perhaps this is splitting hairs.

[laminustacitus]

@Nitroadict

Ehh, christianity does not have a very good record, imo, despite knowing many christians who do not follow said infamy in their practice of the religon (i.e. are not fundamentalists, do not advocate coercion, etc.).

In history, no faction is left with a good record - there will always be those who will tater even the greatest accomplishments.

[Juan]

Here’s an older one but not really old if put in historical context.

Libertas (June 20, 1888)

19. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.

(but the church is opposed to that)

21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith.

(but the state should offer ‘homage to the catholic god’)

We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State.

We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty.

If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared.

(so church and state are needed to safeguard the “noblest heritage of the human race”…whatever that is)

24. A like judgment must be passed upon what is called liberty of teaching.

From this it follows, as is evident, that the liberty of which We have been speaking is greatly opposed to reason, and tends absolutely to pervert men’s minds, in as much as it claims for itself the right of teaching whatever it pleases - a liberty which the State cannot grant without failing in its duty.

30. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced.

(but people are not free to think what they please - only what the church allows )

But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God,

(liberty is to obey church orders)

Next comes the system of those who admit indeed the duty of submitting to God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, inasmuch as all nature is dependent on His will, but who boldly reject all laws of faith and morals which are above natural reason, but are revealed by the authority of God; or who at least impudently assert that there is no reason why regard should be paid to these laws, at any rate publicly, by the State. How mistaken these men also are, and how inconsistent, we have seen above. From this teaching, as from its source and principle, flows that fatal principle of the separation of Church and State;

(you see the church fully supports the UNION of church and state)

42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.

(…)

Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintainedas to the origin and exercise of power.

[Cam_Nedland]

And I have a good guess as to who he wants to control the one-world government and one-world economy. Once a Nazi, always a Nazi.

I still am baffled by those on the right who claim that Christianity is somehow linked to the Western tradition of freedom and individuality. As far as religions go, Christianity is about as collectivist/authoritarian as you can get (with the possible exception of Islam, but that’s for another discussion).

[Cam_Nedland]

Really? I have never heard of a war waged in the name of Buddhism, Jainism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc.

[Cam_Nedland]

Hahahahaha, epic win!