Evangelii Gaudium

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I am curious to know what our Catholic conservatives think of Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium. Particularly, the very progressive and explicitly political rhetoric therein. This is remarkable in that it makes the explicit connection to political arrangement, as opposed to only charity.

For example: With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.” [Emphasis added.]

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. [Emphasis added.]

Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

…and much more. To summarize the notions expressed above: To not redistribute wealth to the poor–and this is aimed at policy-makers, not donors to charity–is to steal from the poor, and economic inequality is the result not of laziness or personal failure but of capitalism itself.

Now, I suspect that some people might want to argue that that’s not what’s being said here. But it is, very plainly, and if Barack Obama had said any of these things, it would be chalked up to more Communist babble from the Red Tyrant in the Oval Office. So I’m not interested in arguing over that.

My question is: How does a Catholic conservative, or, even more difficult, a Catholic libertarian, respond to words like these when they come from God’s emissary? Now, this doesn’t meet the criteria for infallibility, and I’m not implying otherwise, but is it not difficult to hear “your guy” talk like this? Does it give you pause?

Note that this isn’t anything like gloating, as I have no stake in the matter and am about 3 miles to the right of Francis, at least on these issues.

2

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

3

[quote]Sloth wrote:
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[/quote]

Francis has gone well beyond this. As I mentioned in my previous post, any politician says this stuff, he gets lambasted here on TN.

4

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[/quote]

Francis has gone well beyond this. As I mentioned in my previous post, any politician says this stuff, he gets lambasted here on TN.[/quote]

For anybody still wondering, my quote was from Hayek, Road to Serfdom. Libertarians/classical liberals should recognize the Author and the work. Though they may have forgotten the passage.

One thing is for sure. The Pope isn’t a minarchist/anarchist libertarian. Anybody who has paid attention, knows I’m not either.

Now, the thing is, the Pope isn’t the politician who is enacting specific policies. And a number of folks (I’m sure it’s the majority) here aren’t Catholic. So I don’t think they really care.

Anyway, the quotes above offer no specific policy solutions. That would be for the politicians and citizens to hash out. Another important thing to keep in mind is that this doesn’t attempt to specify at what level (if and when) any political/public action should take place. Subsidiarity can not be forgotten (as context) when reading this. It is an important part of Catholic social teaching.

However, to offer a bit of context. He would also appear to warn against the permanent welfare state. Noting that he isn’t espousing an “irresponsible populism.”

  1. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the worldâ??s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.[/i]

Soooo, I’m cooking up some supper at the moment. Sorry if this is a bit…unfinished. I’ll add more later tonight or after Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving PWI!

5

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world�?�¢??s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

[/quote]

Thanks for the well thought-out post. The part you emphasized is important, but I think the clause immediately following speaks more to his point, at least insofar as his other writings and speeches can be thought of as representative. “Welfare is a temporary solution, but the root problems need to be addressed.” This is, in fact, one of the most oft-repeated lines in liberal circles. As is the focus on income inequality–especially the focus on income inequality as a consequence of structural aspects of the system as opposed to the same as a consequence of individual failure.

In all, my larger point–and what you say about him not being a politician is very true, though he is making political arguments that are rather explicit–is that, “social” issues (abortion) aside, this is the rhetoric of a voter who voted blue in the last election–moreso than one who voted red, anyway–and in fact it’s an almost perfect match with much of what was emphasized by the libs during the 2012 campaign.

The thing that I can’t wrap my head around is how this affects someone who is bound by faith to Francis and yet hates notions like these.

6

And happy Thanksgiving!

7

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

  1. The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173] no solution will be found for the world�??�??�??�?�¢??s problems or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

[/quote]

Thanks for the well thought-out post. The part you emphasized is important, but I think the clause immediately following speaks more to his point, at least insofar as his other writings and speeches can be thought of as representative. “Welfare is a temporary solution, but the root problems need to be addressed.” This is, in fact, one of the most oft-repeated lines in liberal circles. As is the focus on income inequality–especially the focus on income inequality as a consequence of structural aspects of the system as opposed to the same as a consequence of individual failure.

In all, my larger point–and what you say about him not being a politician is very true, though he is making political arguments that are rather explicit–is that, “social” issues (abortion) aside, this is the rhetoric of a voter who voted blue in the last election–moreso than one who voted red, anyway–and in fact it’s an almost perfect match with much of what was emphasized by the libs during the 2012 campaign.

The thing that I can’t wrap my head around is how this affects someone who is bound by faith to Francis and yet hates notions like these.[/quote]

This is a good thread that I’d like to try to spend a little time on. When I can do it justice though. Still, and briefly, libertarians aren’t going to be able to stomach this at all.

Liberals (progressives being more accurate) can’t celebrate because (while not covered here) Catholic thought places emphasis on moral issues associated with poverty (broken homes vs the traditional family structure, etc.). That is, more than one facet of poverty is dealt with. And, again, saying there can and should be political movement on the issue, doesn’t prescribe the level it should occur at. States rights advocates can take this exact message and argue that it is best handled at the state level, for instance. Or, even more local. As opposed to a national ‘plan.’

Conservatism, as I see it, doesn’t idolize the state or the market. For both business and government–the smaller, the more local, the better. That’s the best way I can see to sum it up. Here and there I’ve tried to kick off Conservatism vs Libertarian discussion. As a Conservative I often see the comment “Conservatives (meaning to include themselves) need to drop the social arguments and stick with fiscal ‘conservatism.’” By fiscal conservatism they generally mean fiscal liberalism. A liberal economy in the classic sense. Often meaning the complete dissolution of the welfare state.

This is completely backwards. The direction of our culture has not produced–heck, it’s even eroded–a people willing and able to embrace such a thing. This would have to change first. And hate it as they may, this means moralizing. Family, Church, Community. The individual, not so much. You need a civic backbone to alleviate the fear of being alone in your weaknesses. Or, the state WILL step in. And it will be welcomed.

Man, that was sort of vomited out in a jumble. Hopefully someone got something out of that mess. Rushing too much. Big day tomorrow, obviously.

8

In short. Strong families, communities, Churches (yes, sorry), help us in need. When even they, as strong as they might have become, can’t shoulder the burden, the state might step in. But even then the default level is always the local level. Only after every other political level has been exhausted do we then consider a federal response. Subsidiarity.

Furthermore, at every level actual welfare seen as temporary. Most of the action taking place in training/education, etc.

9

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I am curious to know what our Catholic conservatives think of Francis’ first Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium. Particularly, the very progressive and explicitly political rhetoric therein. This is remarkable in that it makes the explicit connection to political arrangement, as opposed to only charity.

For example: With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.” [Emphasis added.]

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. [Emphasis added.]

Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

…and much more. To summarize the notions expressed above: To not redistribute wealth to the poor–and this is aimed at policy-makers, not donors to charity–is to steal from the poor, and economic inequality is the result not of laziness or personal failure but of capitalism itself.

Now, I suspect that some people might want to argue that that’s not what’s being said here. But it is, very plainly, and if Barack Obama had said any of these things, it would be chalked up to more Communist babble from the Red Tyrant in the Oval Office. So I’m not interested in arguing over that.

My question is: How does a Catholic conservative, or, even more difficult, a Catholic libertarian, respond to words like these when they come from God’s emissary? Now, this doesn’t meet the criteria for infallibility, and I’m not implying otherwise, but is it not difficult to hear “your guy” talk like this? Does it give you pause?

Note that this isn’t anything like gloating, as I have no stake in the matter and am about 3 miles to the right of Francis, at least on these issues.
[/quote]

Well to do it any service you must actually read it. Not what CNN or some other media says it says, out of context. I have read most of it, not all of it though. I did cover the parts in question.

It’s a very spiritual document and must be read in that light. And it covers a lot of ground. But what the pope was talking about was the exhortation and worshiping of ‘false gods’ of money , celebrity and institution which excludes and rejects people from their natural rights. He wasn’t talking about the institution as much as people’s faith in it. That it’s people’s end all, be all.
Challenging the taboo of capitalism and daring to attack it’s faults is, well taboo. It’s not perfect. Nobody should think it is. And striving to improve it is not a bad thing. He also attacks socialism as a ‘soothing force’ that lull people into thinking that they have ‘done their job’ with the poor and that they do not have to do anymore because they paid money into the system. Of course the liberal media leaves that part out.
He attacks anything that separates us from Christ and doing his work and being lazy about doing his work and spreading the true gospel by living it.
It’s an extremely well written and coherent document, but it is a bit long.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf

He challenges us, those of us who think we are Christian, to do more and not let anyone or anything stand in our way of doing what is right.

10

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[/quote]

Francis has gone well beyond this. As I mentioned in my previous post, any politician says this stuff, he gets lambasted here on TN.[/quote]

The pope isn’t a politician. And any politician who says this stuff would be rightly lambasted for mixing too much church into the state. The separation of the two is essential. The mixing of the two, as history bares out is an impediment to the spiritual.

His essential message to states is that they should not put impediments to the spiritual. The spiritual should be free to do the work that the state cannot and in many cases should not be involved in.

His main message to states is to get out of the way, whatever system is the impediment. His message to the people in the systems is do the work of Christ and don’t use the system as an excuse for not doing it.

11

[quote]Sloth wrote:
In short. Strong families, communities, Churches (yes, sorry), help us in need. When even they, as strong as they might have become, can’t shoulder the burden, the state might step in. But even then the default level is always the local level. Only after every other political level has been exhausted do we then consider a federal response. Subsidiarity.

Furthermore, at every level actual welfare seen as temporary. Most of the action taking place in training/education, etc.
[/quote]

I like this. A lot.

12

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
In short. Strong families, communities, Churches (yes, sorry), help us in need. When even they, as strong as they might have become, can’t shoulder the burden, the state might step in. But even then the default level is always the local level. Only after every other political level has been exhausted do we then consider a federal response. Subsidiarity.

Furthermore, at every level actual welfare seen as temporary. Most of the action taking place in training/education, etc.
[/quote]

I like this. A lot.[/quote]

Appreciate it. Though, this is most definitely not an original thought on my part.

13

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health.

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."[/quote]

Francis has gone well beyond this. As I mentioned in my previous post, any politician says this stuff, he gets lambasted here on TN.[/quote]

The pope isn’t a politician. And any politician who says this stuff would be rightly lambasted for mixing too much church into the state. The separation of the two is essential. The mixing of the two, as history bares out is an impediment to the spiritual.

His essential message to states is that they should not put impediments to the spiritual. The spiritual should be free to do the work that the state cannot and in many cases should not be involved in.

His main message to states is to get out of the way, whatever system is the impediment. His message to the people in the systems is do the work of Christ and don’t use the system as an excuse for not doing it.[/quote]

Pat, you’re projecting your own modern American “conservative” ideology onto the church. Catholicism fought laicism for over 1500 years. Separation of church and state is anathema to Catholicism - at least prior to Vat II. Ultramontanism has been the driving political force of Catholicism since Charlemagne. It became increasingly reactionary and radical in response to the Reformation. The Spanish Civil War was essentially a continuation of the wars of the Reformation - Catholicism(Nationalists) versus secularism and Protestantism(Republicans).

Conservatism is to liberalism as Catholicism is to Protestantism.

14

If anyone is interested in authentic Catholic conservatism I’d highly recommend Joseph de Maistre’s The Pope:

I haven’t read the original but I’m familiar with it via the works of other authors.

15

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…a Catholic libertarian…
[/quote]

There’s no such thing.