Worried about the new document from Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace..

[MoNiCa4316]

I guess it depends how you define "one world government." Subsidiarity in a nutshell means the smallest or most local unit of society should generally address any problems or issues (the most local being the family), and greater units would only address problems if the smaller units couldn't.

So subsidiarity doesn't rule out one international governing body ("one world government"), it merely defines the parameters of its role in relation to other governments. The medieval ideal, when Christianity was at its peak influence, was one universal Church and one universal temporal government, within the bounds of subsidiarity. Issues that couldn't be addressed by the family, were addressed by the lord. Those greater than the competence of the lord (or disputes between Lords, etc.) were handled by the Count. Then came the Duke, then the King, and finally the "one world governor," the Emperor.

That model of "one world government" is perfectly fine and seems to be what is suggested in Caritas in Veritate. However, an absolutist "one world government" which claimed competency for itself in all matters without regard for the proper responsibilities of the lower units would not be acceptable. As I mentioned before, the problem with current suggestions of an international system of governance is that those who would most likely run it seem mostly interested in governing in a way that is incompatible with the acceptable model.

thanks! that makes sense. So maybe it depends on the type of government. It seems to me like the "new world order" type of government (if it came into existence) would be one that would control people from the top, persecute Christianity, etc. Maybe it would not look like control to most people, but would still be control. I'm not certain how currency fits into this, or why so many people think there would be only one type of currency...maybe if there would be the antichrist, that would be an easy way for him to have total control. There would probably be no subsidiarity.

 

[WarriorAngel]

1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.

1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.

 

[Fantine]

Why does the whining and complaining of all the conservatives keep reminding me of a particular Gospel story?

Luke 18:18-23, to be specific.


22.When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23.But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.
24.Jesus looked at him (now sad) and said, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

 

[AMDG]

Why does the whining and complaining of all the conservatives keep reminding me of a particular Gospel story?

Perhaps because you believe that stating the truth--that these leaked opinion papers are not Catholic magisterial teaching and are not binding on Catholics--is simply "whining and complaining"?

 

[isshinwhat]

Perhaps because you believe that stating the truth--that these leaked opinion papers are not Catholic magisterial teaching and are not binding on Catholics--is simply "whining and complaining"?

QFT

 

[Davidnic]

Why does the whining and complaining of all the conservatives keep reminding me of a particular Gospel story?

Because you like to lump conservative into a group and generalize them so you feel better than them? If not it is how you are coming across. Generalizing everyone and coming across more holier than thou than Sarah Palin at a "Whose got the biggest bus with my name on it convention."

I think you are boogeymaning and generalizing conservatives too much as heartless. Sometimes they just feel that helping people should be done differently, that does not make them cardboard cut out monsters.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yup.

 

[isshinwhat]

+2 on David's comment.

 

[isshinwhat]

It's an official Vatican document that you choose to disagree with. Openly distancing yourselves from Vatican ecomonic policy. Your choice. We'll still let you in our club, despite your flawed economic thinking...

You enjoy trolling, don't you?

 

[MKJ]

If Distributism is in place correctly and following Catholic principles (which it always must) then intervention is only necessary at the lowest level.

In cases of natural disasters where someone would say that government intervention is not necessary; that would be against Distributism done properly.

The Outline of Sanity by Chesterton is a good read.

Your numbers fantine do not take into account the other effects of Distributism that would end the pseudo monopoly on the means of production which would make sure most people could provide their own food and/or market it themselves at a vastly lower rate than the numbers you quote.

So in a Distributionist model more people have the means to provide for themselves. And those who can not will benefit from the charity of others and the government working together in a capacity that does not make either the sole provider who becomes overstressed and inefficient at helping.

As I said, for people of goodwill and a shared conscience for those in need...it is not should we do, but how would it be done best.

I think you are underplaying the possibility of legitimate roles for higher levels of government in a distributist system. Any actual possibility ofd having a distributist system would require ledgislation at the level of the state, for starters. There are many cases where higher levels of government can have a role in making the activities of lower levels possible. And subsidiarity says power should inhere at the lowest appropriate level. For issues that really do have a global significance, that may be at a very high level. I'm personally very tired of waiting for the guys down south to stop sending their acid rain to my trout streams, for example.

I find it very annoying that people want to push subsidiarity while ignoring the common good, justice, and solidarity. That's what is annoying about much of the conservative reaction.

 

[Colin]

You are showing yourself ignorant again, Fantine. Pontifical Commissions have also recommended the Church relax its stance on contraception, stating that it is not intrinsically evil

Sorry but you are showing yourself ignorant again .

No Pontifical Commissions have said any such thing , ever !

You are getting mixed up with the "Study Commission" set up by Pope John XXIII , and enlarged by Pope Paul VI to look into the issue of birth control .

The Study Commission was in no way a Pontifical Commission .

In other words , get your facts right before you add any more rubbish to that which is already on OBOB .

Please do not denigrate Pontifical Commissions by attributing to them views which they have never expressed .

 

[S.ilvio]

I think you are underplaying the possibility of legitimate roles for higher levels of government in a distributist system. Any actual possibility ofd having a distributist system would require ledgislation at the level of the state, for starters. There are many cases where higher levels of government can have a role in making the activities of lower levels possible. And subsidiarity says power should inhere at the lowest appropriate level. For issues that really do have a global significance, that may be at a very high level. I'm personally very tired of waiting for the guys down south to stop sending their acid rain to my trout streams, for example.

I find it very annoying that people want to push subsidiarity while ignoring the common good, justice, and solidarity. That's what is annoying about much of the conservative reaction.

Well said that lady...

Truth is every European country's Catholic Church leadersip openly support a Social Welfare and healthcare system directly funded by income tax system where those who earn the most, pay the most...

 

[Davidnic]

I think you are underplaying the possibility of legitimate roles for higher levels of government in a distributist system. Any actual possibility ofd having a distributist system would require ledgislation at the level of the state, for starters. There are many cases where higher levels of government can have a role in making the activities of lower levels possible. And subsidiarity says power should inhere at the lowest appropriate level. For issues that really do have a global significance, that may be at a very high level. I'm personally very tired of waiting for the guys down south to stop sending their acid rain to my trout streams, for example.

I find it very annoying that people want to push subsidiarity while ignoring the common good, justice, and solidarity. That's what is annoying about much of the conservative reaction.

Government has a responsibility to the common good when it must act in ways beyond the ability of the individual. So I have no problem with legitimate roles for a federal government at high levels in a distributist system...as long as those roles follow genuine common good. A realistic healthcare system supported by the Federal government would be a good example. Mean of production should be shared between the citizens. Welfare should be divided between private charity and government aid.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Why does the whining and complaining of all the conservatives keep reminding me of a particular Gospel story?

Luke 18:18-23, to be specific.


22.When Jesus heard this he said to him, "There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23.But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.
24.Jesus looked at him (now sad) and said, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

Fantine, I honestly don't understand how any of this has anything to do with being rich. I'm conservative and I'm not rich.

 

[underheaven]

Your bigotry is profound. Conservatives oppose such things precisely because we see it as an advancement of an ideology that brings universal poverty. You live your life in an almost constant state of delusion where you see things based only on their surface appearance, but inside it's all very ugly I'm afraid.

The only 'poor 'are those who are lacking in 'grace',whether they have money or not. Being Irish
living in the U.K. for many years I voted socialist because all my history and instincts made me
hate the English establishment,and I could 'see' the lies they always told about the Irish,and history
in general. However I have come to respect the English business acumen,and realistic sense
of society,which has produced a modern thriving economy which gives employment and
education to millions who arrive there. France is a suberb country which has been socialist
in it's overall policy for30 years,and now the cracks are showing
especially where the socialists are strong [weak really].Things look shabby ,people lose interest
in community,politics,neighbours.The state takes care ,why bother ? There is gradual but real
loss of 'vibrant intelligence',which comes from being involved in active business,community etc,
people hang onto security,believe they have a 'right to it',and are terrified of the future ,since
they have never known insecurity.I am a grandmother,and am ready for my next challenge,having
had a nice rest in France,and because until recently security was an unknown in my young days.
But I must state here that capitalism as it has become in it's extreme is degrading much of society,
and individuals,and to God we will be accountable for how we treated those whom we employ,at home
or abroad.

 

[isshinwhat]

Sorry but you are showing yourself ignorant again .

No Pontifical Commissions have said any such thing , ever !

You are getting mixed up with the "Study Commission" set up by Pope John XXIII , and enlarged by Pope Paul VI to look into the issue of birth control .

The Study Commission was in no way a Pontifical Commission .

In other words , get your facts right before you add any more rubbish to that which is already on OBOB .

Please do not denigrate Pontifical Commissions by attributing to them views which they have never expressed .

What I said was correct. The "Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family and Births," which was tasked with the study of contraception after the convening of the Second Vatican Council, was a Pontifical Commission. It was not a Pontifical Council, which the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace - the topic of his thread - is. Both Pontifical Commissions and Curia Agencies, such as Ecclesia Dei, are part of the Roman Curia,

Reference the following:

Ecclesiastical Commissions are bodies of ecclesiastics juridically established and to whom are committed certain specified functions or charges. They are:

I. Pontifical;
II. Roman Prelatitial;
III. Diocesan.

I

Pontifical commissions are special committees of cardinals created by the pope for some particular purpose, e.g. for the proper interpretation and defence of Sacred Scripture (see BIBLICAL COMMISSION), for historical studies (see ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY), for the codification of the canon law (see LAW), for the supervision, correction, etc. of the liturgical books of the Roman Church, e.g. the Breviary, Missal, Pontifical, Ritual, etc. (see BREVIARY; LITURGY), for the restoration and perfection of ecclesiastical music (see GREGORIAN CHANT), for the reunion of dissenting churches (see EASTERN CHURCH), for the preservation of the Faith (see ITALY; ROME).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ecclesiastical Commissions

The Vatican's website has the following profile for the PC for J&P.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE



ORIGIN

The Second Vatican Council had proposed the creation of a body of the universal Church whose role would be "to stimulate the Catholic Community to foster progress in needy regions and social justice on the international scene" (Gaudium et Spes, No. 90). It was in reply to this request that Pope Paul VI established the Pontifical Commission "Justitia et Pax" by a Motu Proprio dated 6 January 1967 (Catholicam Christi Ecclesiam).
Two months later, in Populorum Progressio, Paul VI succinctly stated of the new body that "its name, which is also its programme, is Justice and Peace" (No. 5). Gaudium et Spes and this Encyclical, which "in a certain way... applies the teaching of the Council" (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, No. 6), were the founding texts and points of reference for this new body.
After a ten-year experimental period, Paul VI gave the Commission its definitive status with the Motu Proprio Justitiam et Pacem of 10 December 1976. When the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus of 28 June 1988 reorganized the Roman Curia, Pope John Paul II changed its name from Commission to Pontifical Council and reconfirmed the general lines of its work.

It can be compared and contrasted with the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei's profile here:

Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"




The Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" was established by John Paul II with the Motu Proprio of 2 July 1988 with the "task of collaborating with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church".

By virtue of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiffs, the Pontifical Commission exercises the authority of the Holy See over various institutes and religious communities which it has erected which have as their "proper Rite" the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite and observe the previous traditions of the religious life.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

 

[underheaven]

Well said that lady...

Truth is every European country's Catholic Church leadersip openly support a Social Welfare and healthcare system directly funded by income tax system where those who earn the most, pay the most...

But the euro is now in serious trouble,and most countries are in the middle of making huge 'cuts' in social welfare'? It was Good for a While,but the new generation coming up will have a terrible burden as they begin their lives. The elevated Irish and French welfare systems [more the Irish]cannot be sustained ,and it is a disgrace that there are so many who never ever work, while others work till they drop, paying for the former. A universal social welfare system as a 'fall back ' is good ,not as a way of life, as it has become.

 

[Michie]

Because you like to lump conservative into a group and generalize them so you feel better than them? If not it is how you are coming across. Generalizing everyone and coming across more holier than thou than Sarah Palin at a "Whose got the biggest bus with my name on it convention."

I think you are boogeymaning and generalizing conservatives too much as heartless. Sometimes they just feel that helping people should be done differently, that does not make them cardboard cut out monsters.

It's bigotry. A pattern shown in every single thread.

 

[MKJ]

Government has a responsibility to the common good when it must act in ways beyond the ability of the individual. So I have no problem with legitimate roles for a federal government at high levels in a distributist system...as long as those roles follow genuine common good. A realistic healthcare system supported by the Federal government would be a good example. Mean of production should be shared between the citizens. Welfare should be divided between private charity and government aid.

Well, I agree with you. And yet we keep hearing "subsidiarity subsidiarity subsidiarity" with no talk about justice or the common good. Any true Christian system has to have all of those things - individualism is not an acceptable model and people pursuing individualist agendas will not somehow magically create a moral economic system. And that is what those protesting, and I think the document in question here, are suggesting - that our economic system is based on a structure that is bound to lead to injustice because if misses part of what it means fundamentally to be human.

I don't think that the line is really between social liberals and conservatives myself - those people are all more or less on the same page, goal wise - they recognize both individuals and the community as integral and inseparable. The divide is between those groups and the neoliberals who these days seem to be dominating conservative circles.

 

[underheaven]

If you want compassionate economics become a distributionist, it is the only economic view that meets Catholic social standards. Monopoly Capitalism is just as bad as Socialism from the Catholic perspective. As Chesterton said: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

When the means of production are more evenly dispersed between the people, not in the hands of a few...be it corporations or the state...then Capitalism can work with compassion and limited state social programs can target the needy.

Yes as far as I know in Germany there are more medium sized companies,well organized, with decent conditions,and they are the most thriving in Europe.So capitalism ,with humanity and common decency,makes common sense.