The Marxist Pope and Property Rights

[boxcar]

Private Property a ‘Secondary Right.’ He Couldn't Be More Wrong

Pope Francis’s criticisms of free-market capitalism don’t mesh well with available facts, empirical evidence, or a basic understanding of how economics actually works.

https://fee.org/articles/the-pope-ju...be-more-wrong/

I'm in total agreement with the writer's argument, except for one point wherein he stated:

There’s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion, and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel.

I beg to differ. This apostate pope has no true knowledge of the bible, which is the source of true religion both in terms of Faith and Practice. If this religious commie knew his bible and believed it, he would know that originally God gave the entire earth to Adam. Adam, as God's vice-regent, was to exercise dominion over the entire world, and because Adam was created in the image and likeness of his Creator, so like his Creator he was supposed to subdue the earth and bring order our of disorder -- order out of "chaos" in a manner of speaking, since Paradise did not extend beyond the borders of Eden. Adam's "great commission", therefore, was to expand the glory of Eden throughout the entire world.

Of course, Adam blew it; he sinned and he was expelled from the Garden of Eden. After the Flood, Noah and his descendants, too, failed to subdue the world and to expand and populate over the entire earth, and this resulted in divine judgment at the Tower of Babel.

But God was not be denied. He created a whole new nation out of the loins of one man: Abraham. And this "great commission" was passed on to Israel. Of course, Israel, too, failed dismally -- but what should not be missed with God's covenant people is that the Creator of the entire universe mandated private property ownership. The Law of Moses required that the Promised Land be divided among the twelve tribes, and that further each tribe was to divide their portion of the Land among the families. In fact, God made a really big deal about this because as the Israelites matured and settled in the Land, it didn't take long for them to become corrupt in their ways and the wealthy among them made a practice of defrauding land from their brothers, which angered the Lord greatly.

So, the moral to this little biblical saga is that God most certainly sanctioned ownership of private property -- both in the Old and New Testaments.

[dnlgfnk]

In Catholic social teaching, private property is a secondary right in the sense that creation is for the benefit of all- the "universal destination of goods". Property is the means to an end- the physical points to the spiritual. Falling under the heading of "subsidiarity", man operating ideally in the Spirit would imitate Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37, sharing freely... https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Ac2.44 ...

The critical difference is that unlike socialism, there is no call for the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of the means to production. As long as labor is kept separate from land, capital, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., labor is a slave to the will of those possessing the means.

Practically, economic politics ought to guarantee individual freedom and private property, moving towards small business, cooperatives, etc., while championing the family most of all, through local government whenever possible. Subsidiarity begins with the home.

I don't know if your source has interpreted Francis correctly or not, but under "3", he surely doesn't grasp the hierarchical distinction of the "secondary" goal of private property as the means to the primary goal of man's physical and spiritual flourishing. The rest then, is very much a straw man argument. I scarcely read Francis relative to the bulk of Catholic Tradition. However, John Paul II reiterated Leo XIII's statements in the 19th century at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, a century before Thomas Sowell has basically restated them.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Private Property a ‘Secondary Right.’ He Couldn't Be More Wrong

Pope Francis’s criticisms of free-market capitalism don’t mesh well with available facts, empirical evidence, or a basic understanding of how economics actually works.

https://fee.org/articles/the-pope-ju...be-more-wrong/

I'm in total agreement with the writer's argument, except for one point wherein he stated:

There’s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion, and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel.

I beg to differ. This apostate pope has no true knowledge of the bible, which is the source of true religion both in terms of Faith and Practice. If this religious commie knew his bible and believed it, he would know that originally God gave the entire earth to Adam. Adam, as God's vice-regent, was to exercise dominion over the entire world, and because Adam was created in the image and likeness of his Creator, so like his Creator he was supposed to subdue the earth and bring order our of disorder -- order out of "chaos" in a manner of speaking, since Paradise did not extend beyond the borders of Eden. Adam's "great commission", therefore, was to expand the glory of Eden throughout the entire world.

Of course, Adam blew it; he sinned and he was expelled from the Garden of Eden. After the Flood, Noah and his descendants, too, failed to subdue the world and to expand and populate over the entire earth, and this resulted in divine judgment at the Tower of Babel.

But God was not be denied. He created a whole new nation out of the loins of one man: Abraham. And this "great commission" was passed on to Israel. Of course, Israel, too, failed dismally -- but what should not be missed with God's covenant people is that the Creator of the entire universe mandated private property ownership. The Law of Moses required that the Promised Land be divided among the twelve tribes, and that further each tribe was to divide their portion of the Land among the families. In fact, God made a really big deal about this because as the Israelites matured and settled in the Land, it didn't take long for them to become corrupt in their ways and the wealthy among them made a practice of defrauding land from their brothers, which angered the Lord greatly.

So, the moral to this little biblical saga is that God most certainly sanctioned ownership of private property -- both in the Old and New Testaments.

2 Corinthians 8:13-15

13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:

14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In Catholic social teaching, private property is a secondary right in the sense that creation is for the benefit of all- the "universal destination of goods". Property is the means to an end- the physical points to the spiritual. Falling under the heading of "subsidiarity", man operating ideally in the Spirit would imitate Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37, sharing freely... https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Ac2.44 ...

But...if everyone on the planet would do that, mankind would still be in want and need! If everyone is at or near the poverty level, then who is going to take care of those in more dire need?

And if socialism is such hot stuff, why didn't God institute that brand of civil government for Israel!? But instead God insisted that all Israelite families own property and pass that property down to heirs!

The critical difference is that unlike socialism, there is no call for the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of the means to production. As long as labor is kept separate from land, capital, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., labor is a slave to the will of those possessing the means.

Practically, economic politics ought to guarantee individual freedom and private property, moving towards small business, cooperatives, etc., while championing the family most of all, through local government whenever possible. Subsidiarity begins with the home.

I don't know if your source has interpreted Francis correctly or not, but under "3", he surely doesn't grasp the hierarchical distinction of the "secondary" goal of private property as the means to the primary goal of man's physical and spiritual flourishing. The rest then, is very much a straw man argument. I scarcely read Francis relative to the bulk of Catholic Tradition. However, John Paul II reiterated Leo XIII's statements in the 19th century at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, a century before Thomas Sowell has basically restated them.

I don't know either. I just know Socialism certainly was not promoted in scripture.

[myohmyjustify]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But...if everyone on the planet would do that, mankind would still be in want and need! If everyone is at or near the poverty level, then who is going to take care of those in more dire need?

And if socialism is such hot stuff, why didn't God institute that brand of civil government for Israel!? But instead God insisted that all Israelite families own property and pass that property down to heirs!

I don't know either. I just know Socialism certainly was not promoted in scripture.

Neither is a Jesuit education in Scripture but unfortunately Catholics get both from Pope Francis.

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

In Catholic social teaching, private property is a secondary right in the sense that creation is for the benefit of all- the "universal destination of goods". Property is the means to an end- the physical points to the spiritual. Falling under the heading of "subsidiarity", man operating ideally in the Spirit would imitate Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37, sharing freely... https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Ac2.44 ...

The critical difference is that unlike socialism, there is no call for the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of the means to production. As long as labor is kept separate from land, capital, entrepreneurial spirit, etc., labor is a slave to the will of those possessing the means.

Practically, economic politics ought to guarantee individual freedom and private property, moving towards small business, cooperatives, etc., while championing the family most of all, through local government whenever possible. Subsidiarity begins with the home.

I don't know if your source has interpreted Francis correctly or not, but under "3", he surely doesn't grasp the hierarchical distinction of the "secondary" goal of private property as the means to the primary goal of man's physical and spiritual flourishing. The rest then, is very much a straw man argument. I scarcely read Francis relative to the bulk of Catholic Tradition. However, John Paul II reiterated Leo XIII's statements in the 19th century at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, a century before Thomas Sowell has basically restated them.

Quote above on point.

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism” (Catechism, 2425).

Socialism severely curtails rights to private property. The Church, on the other hand, upholds the individual’s right to private property (Catechism, 2401).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by myohmyjustify

Neither is a Jesuit education in Scripture but unfortunately Catholics get both from Pope Francis.

Yeah, I know. The Church of Rome just couldn't keep to the simplicity of the gospel. They had to complicate it. They had to add to and subtract from scripture to come up with their own unique doctrines.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But...if everyone on the planet would do that, mankind would still be in want and need! If everyone is at or near the poverty level, then who is going to take care of those in more dire need?

And if socialism is such hot stuff, why didn't God institute that brand of civil government for Israel!? But instead God insisted that all Israelite families own property and pass that property down to heirs!



I don't know either. I just know Socialism certainly was not promoted in scripture.

Well, I think the ideal represented in Dt 15:4 is consistent with Acts 2;4;... https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Dt15.4

...That everyone would be at poverty level is speculative, and questions God's providence according to the passages I have cited. I know the ideal is not achievable practically, yet one must strive to "be perfect" personally and internally. I have distinguished between Christian "subsidiarity" and socialism clearly enough, I believe. If not, here is an essay from Acton, whom your source also cited, addressing both Catholic and Reformed thought...

https://www.povertycure.org/learn/is...n/subsidiarity

..."Notably, Scripture almost always speaks of caring for needs as a form of service to one another. From a biblical perspective, tangible generosity takes place in the context of a personal relationship. This means that money and physical resources are not seen as the primary solution to social problems. [That is, "secondary"-italics are mine] The start of the solution to social problems in Scripture begins with the acknowledgment that we exist in relation to God and to one another, and that it is a great responsibility and privilege to care for needs around us in the most effective manner".

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if socialism is such hot stuff, why didn't God institute that brand of civil government for Israel!?

Because there is no god. Scripture was written by men, not by a god, nor inspired by a god.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

This means that money and physical resources are not seen as the primary solution to social problems.

Not seen by whom?

"Money can't buy happiness but the rich suffer in comfort." - Eric Sevareid.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not seen by whom?

"Money can't buy happiness but the rich suffer in comfort." - Eric Sevareid.

I quoted the essay, and the response follows the statement you're objecting to. "We exist in relation...to one another".

One might ascertain from that that the primary solution to social problems starts with a decision, an attitude about money and resources.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah, I know. The Church of Rome just couldn't keep to the simplicity of the gospel. They had to complicate it. They had to add to and subtract from scripture to come up with their own unique doctrines.

Sure.

It all comes down to the contrast between infused and imputed grace. Catholic doctrines flow from the concept of infused grace. Imputed grace means Christ was a nominalist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Well, I think the ideal represented in Dt 15:4 is consistent with Acts 2;4;... https://biblia.com/books/nasb95/Dt15.4[

...That everyone would be at poverty level is speculative, and questions God's providence according to the passages I have cited. I know the ideal is not achievable practically, yet one must strive to "be perfect" personally and internally. I have distinguished between Christian "subsidiarity" and socialism clearly enough, I believe. If not, here is an essay from Acton, whom your source also cited, addressing both Catholic and Reformed thought...

https://www.povertycure.org/learn/is...n/subsidiarity

..."Notably, Scripture almost always speaks of caring for needs as a form of service to one another. From a biblical perspective, tangible generosity takes place in the context of a personal relationship. This means that money and physical resources are not seen as the primary solution to social problems. [That is, "secondary"-italics are mine] The start of the solution to social problems in Scripture begins with the acknowledgment that we exist in relation to God and to one another, and that it is a great responsibility and privilege to care for needs around us in the most effective manner".

Yes, Deut 15:4 is consistent with Acts 2. Good cite! But I'll elaborate more on that text tomorrow.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, Deut 15:4 is consistent with Acts 2. Good cite! But I'll elaborate more on that text tomorrow.

Easy, Box. I was merely waiting for Remington and had some time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Sure.

It all comes down to the contrast between infused and imputed grace. Catholic doctrines flow from the concept of infused grace. Imputed grace means Christ was a nominalist.

Well...we won't rehash that issue here. If you're up to it, we can do that on the Religious thread.