Started By
Message

re: Pope Demands “ Legitimate Redistribution ” of Wealth Per Drudge.

Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:15 pm to
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119316 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:15 pm to
quote:

I love nearly everything about it, but I cannot be a party to the promotion of the evil of forced redistribution of wealth.


I agree with this.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46611 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:17 pm to
quote:

The False Prophet of Revelations has to be the antithesis of a real Prophet. He has to lead a world wide religious organization ( only Islam is comparable and I can't really see the rest of the world giving in to sharia law ) and only the catholic worldwide church fits the bill.

So, this charismatic leader must “bend his ways” if he wants to bring all the world under his umbrella. So he is socialist in many of his way, and also he knows he must trianglate to get all the world under his domminion. He excepts all the social agenda's of the left and then destroy all other religions and claims that the Beast is the messiah.


That's a whole lotta crazy right there
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119316 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:19 pm to
quote:

add this to the bunch


Thanks.

It makes me so when the secular media runs with statements from the pope with no basis in what Catholic life means. We are free. We are free to choose good or evil. Forced anything does not jive with Catholic teachings.
Posted by LeonPhelps
Member since May 2008
8185 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:19 pm to
None of these links deny that the Pope called for legitimate distribution of wealth by the State or put it into a different context. They just try to minimize that as not being the focus of the speech. I read the transcript and, while not the focus of the speech, the Pope does say the government should redistribute wealth. I will have to think very long and hard on this and pray about it. I have a tough decision to make. This man is supposed to be Christ's representative on Earth and, while Papal Infallibility is not invoked here, we are supposed to believe he is the highest word on Christ among living men.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56330 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:21 pm to
The only time so called forced redistribution of wealth should be allowed is if someone is so poor that they will likely die if they don't have someone give them something. He can forcefully get food, or money so that he can survive.

But the goal of government is promote the common good of all. If there is someone who is disadvantaged in society and is struggling to live the government or private individuals should find a way to help out that person. I don't think giving someone money and going away is the best way to do things, but the government does need to take taxes, to be able to sustain itself.

The liberal idea of redistribution of wealth, by overtaxing the rich, not taking the poor and giving them handouts Is not promoted by the Church, and may be preached against, but I can't think of an specific times where she has done this. There are some instances where society would call on the government to do something that looks like the redistribution of wealth but it simply is the government trying to promote the common good.
Posted by Tiguar
Montana
Member since Mar 2012
33131 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:23 pm to
Protestants win again! Enjoy your progressive pope.
Posted by LeonPhelps
Member since May 2008
8185 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:25 pm to
quote:

The only time so called forced redistribution of wealth should be allowed is if someone is so poor that they will likely die if they don't have someone give them something. He can forcefully get food, or money so that he can survive.

But the goal of government is promote the common good of all. If there is someone who is disadvantaged in society and is struggling to live the government or private individuals should find a way to help out that person.


The "Common Good" is one of the scariest words in political rhetoric. I disagree with your view that forced redistribution of wealth is ok in extreme circumstances. There is not a single circumstance it is ok in. If someone is so poor they will likely die and their local community will not support them of their own free will through charitable giving and support, then that person is simply SOL. The government has no right to swoop in and steal from one person to give to another...not ever.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:25 pm to
I am speaking of the False Prophet.

READING COMPREHENSION

I don't know which Pope it will be but I am on the look out for these tendancies I just described.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56330 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:27 pm to
quote:

None of these links deny that the Pope called for legitimate distribution of wealth by the State or put it into a different context. They just try to minimize that as not being the focus of the speech. I read the transcript and, while not the focus of the speech, the Pope does say the government should redistribute wealth. I will have to think very long and hard on this and pray about it. I have a tough decision to make. This man is supposed to be Christ's representative on Earth and, while Papal Infallibility is not invoked here, we are supposed to believe he is the highest word on Christ among living men.


some of them do actually address that go back and look at the links.

I wouldn't leave the Church on one abstract comment on redistribution of economic benefits.

read the section on economics in this
[link=(
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html)]LINK[/link]

quote:

The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favourable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.[733] Solidarity without subsidiarity, in fact, can easily degenerate into a “Welfare State”, while subsidiarity without solidarity runs the risk of encouraging forms of self-centred localism. In order to respect both of these fundamental principles, the State's intervention in the economic environment must be neither invasive nor absent, but commensurate with society's real needs. “The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function”.[734]

352. The fundamental task of the State in economic matters is that of determining an appropriate juridical framework for regulating economic affairs, in order to safeguard “the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience”.[735] Economic activity, above all in a free market context, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. “On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services”.[736] To fulfil this task, the State must adopt suitable legislation but at the same time it must direct economic and social policies in such a way that it does not become abusively involved in the various market activities, the carrying out of which is and must remain free of authoritarian — or worse, totalitarian — superstructures and constraints.


Pope Francis is far from changing statements in this document or on this subject. If he were to go against very important Catholic Social Doctrine, such as the right to private ownership, the freedom in the marketplace, etc. he would have to make it VERY VERY clear.

All the pope is doing here is restating a Catholic Social doctrine principle of Preferential option for the poor. It is possible that the Pope didn't realize the significance this one phrase would make him look like, or it's a bad translation. But is far from making Pope Francis economical the same as Obama and company.
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 3:29 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119316 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:28 pm to
Ed Morrissey over at hotair offers up a good explanation IMO. Believe me, I'm struggling with this "legitimate redistribution" comment too.

quote:

In this case, the term “legitimate” is a limiting factor when redistribution is placed in the context of the Gospel story of Zacchaeus. Who was Zaccheaus? He was a tax collector — an agent of the government — who overtaxed and profited from his cheating. In Luke 19, Jesus’ visit to Jericho inspires this sinner and cheater to repent when Jesus extends an invitation to join him. What does Zacchaeus do in response? He proclaims his intent to redistribute his ill-gotten gains back to those whom he defrauded, and to willingly and privately share his wealth with the poor. ”And Zacchae’us stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.”

In this exhortation, Francis links legitimate redistribution — ie, social benefits that almost every nation distributes in some form or another — with the larger efforts in the private sphere. Francis calls more for the conversion of the heart in private transactions in this exhortation more than any change in public policy. Much like conservatives like to profess in other contexts, Francis argues here that culture is upstream of politics. If we change hearts to be more generous and less attached to the hoarding of wealth as Jesus did with Zacchaeus, then there will be less need for governments to redistribute by force.

This may not be the most conservative or libertarian expression of economic policies, but it’s basic Catholic teaching on economics for decades, if not centuries. The lesson of Zacchaeus isn’t that government should seize more private property, but that private citizens should convert to a greater love of God and therefore have more solidarity with the poor. Those who oppose social-benefit programs will still find fault with Francis on this point, and there’s plenty of room for debate as to what constitutes “legitimate” efforts in that sphere. It’s clear, though, that he wasn’t calling for widespread and massive confiscation of wealth by governments. In fact, the story of Zacchaeus points out the dangers and injustice that result from that kind of policy.

Just remember — when the media provides only small soundbites of Pope Francis, it pays to read the entirety of his remarks, and to know and understand the teachings behind them.
Posted by LeonPhelps
Member since May 2008
8185 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:29 pm to
quote:

Pope Francis is far from changing statements in this document or on this subject. If he were to go against very important Catholic Social Doctrine, such as the right to private ownership, the freedom in the marketplace, etc. he would have to make it VERY VERY clear.

All the pope is doing here is restating a Catholic Social doctrine principle of Preferential option for the poor. It is possible that the Pope didn't realize the significance this one phrase would make him look like, or it's a bad translation. But is far from making Pope Francis economical the same as Obama and company.


This is actually helpful. I appreciate you posting excerpts from the doctrine. I will cling to your last paragraph like a lifesaver in the ocean to avoid leaving the Church.
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46611 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

I don't know which Pope it will be but I am on the look out for these tendancies I just described.


There's no way you ACTUALLY believe this right?

I mean, I know you say you do but in your heart of hearts you dont truly believe in the mark of the beast, the seven seals, the false prophet and all that jazz...right?
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56330 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

I'm struggling with this "legitimate redistribution" comment too.



I think most people are, but with my knowledge of Catholic Teaching, my knowledge of what past Pope's and documents have said, I know it isn't want the liberal or conservative media is suggesting.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56330 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:31 pm to
This has been fun but I got to get ready to go to a friends graduation which is a decent drive away, and I got stuff to do before I leave. have fun discussing this. I'll be back tomorrow.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:34 pm to
Brother, you can say what you want, but if you knew the bible you would kmow that is straight from Jesus Christ's mouth.

Revelations was a REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST to John the disciple.

And the things I just described to you was the Revelation of Jesus to John.
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 3:39 pm
Posted by Roger Klarvin
DFW
Member since Nov 2012
46611 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:39 pm to
I know exactly where its from. I can cite the exact chapters and verses for all of, because unlike most I actually did the assigned readings back in Sunday school and memorized verses and all that business.

My question had nothing to do with the source material, my question was whether or not you, as a 21st century thinking person, actually believes it.
Posted by Bunsbert Montcroff
Phoenix AZ / Boise ID
Member since Jan 2008
5514 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 4:00 pm to
quote:

This is actually helpful. I appreciate you posting excerpts from the doctrine. I will cling to your last paragraph like a lifesaver in the ocean to avoid leaving the Church.

stop for a second to consider what the term "redistribution of wealth" means.

i am sure that some kind of maoist nightmare scenario comes to mind immediately, but progressive taxation and social welfare programs are also examples of the redistribution of wealth.

as catholic tiger has pointed out, these ideas have a tradition in the church, going back to rerum novarum (the poli board would no doubt place leo xiii, the "worker's pope" to the left of che guevara) and on through quadragesimo anno and mater et magistra. a concern for social justice, the responsibility of states to provide welfare to their citizens, and the preferential treatment of the poor have all been a part of modern catholic social doctrine. but the mere word "redistribution" (if that was the word he used) is enough to drive you out of the church?
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
68711 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 4:09 pm to
quote:

our will


51% = our?
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 4:10 pm
Posted by LeonPhelps
Member since May 2008
8185 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 4:11 pm to
quote:

progressive taxation and social welfare programs are also examples of the redistribution of wealth.


Which are abhorrently evil as denying a man the full benefits of his labors and instead giving a portion of it to another. I can think of no single more evil act than this other than abortion.

quote:

going back to rerum novarum (the poli board would no doubt place leo xiii, the "worker's pope" to the left of che guevara) and on through quadragesimo anno and mater et magistra. a concern for social justice, the responsibility of states to provide welfare to their citizens, and the preferential treatment of the poor have all been a part of modern catholic social doctrine.


The Church has done a lot of very disturbing things in its past. There was even a brothel run out of the Vatican for a single pope's term (no longer counted as among the popes). But I thought the Church I belonged to today did not advocate for governments stealing from one group of people to give to another but instead believed in the rights of the individual and promoted charitable giving and a love for our fellow man of our own free will.
Posted by S.E.C. Crazy
Alabama
Member since Feb 2013
7905 posts
Posted on 5/9/14 at 4:51 pm to
Let me let you in on a secret Klav. We Christians have the power of God's holy spirit, but the spirit is bound by sin, disobedience and unbelief. Jeseus stated " greater things shall you do than I "

The reason you can't or don't believe our testimony is 3 fold, 1. Satan spread out thousands of false religions to confuse you, just as a mazt of a thousand ways out would confuse you, so you would DISCOUNT THE REAL PATH as hyperbole and lies. So anytime I witness to people like you about spiritual things God has shown me or about being in and living in God's holy spirit, Satan has already made you believe we are crazy liars.Just like the muslims and all other religions.

2. Christian means Christ like, Jesus said all those who call themselves by my name are not of me. Few there be that find the way, and in the end Jesus said he would spew out those that are lukewarm and comand those to depart from me for I never knew you. So why compare all " Christians " as if all people who call themselves Christians are actually Christian. If Jesus had took your approach he would have looked at the scribes and Pharisees and gave up.

3 Once Satan has confused you, hecan attack you with likeminded thinkers, giving your viewpoint credibility in your own mind.

When you see a real miracle, you mock it.

Jesus Christ showd me a vision, I was running and God's audible viice told me the " Man of Sin is here " That was 1986.

I walk in the holy spirit of God, it is God in us, and you think a person doesn't know the difference between our own worldly spirit and God. HERE is Satan's trick, thousands of false religions have confused you.

You might read and memorize versus, but only the holy spirit can reveal God's word and ways to us.

I can explain the book of Daniel and the book of revelation, the False Prophet is a religious figure that makes ALL to serve the Beast ( a Roman dictator like the world has never seen) Sitting in 7 hills ( Rome ) with 10 heads ( 10 kingdoms )


Everything the bible says is going to come to pass is coming to pass.

Sleepy, my best friend of 40 years died yesterday when a Toyota Prius pulled in front of his motorcycle yesterday at a greenlight ( 15 year old kid turned right in front of him.

I have seen spiritual things, have been in the spirit and can assure you that Jesus Christ is real.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram