• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Pope a Socialist?

Is the Pope a Socialist?

  • Total voters
    17
He's not a Marxist, if that's what you're asking.
 
Paschendale said:
The pope should definitely lead by example. He should take that billion dollars that the church is sitting on... and go spend half of it. Spend half of it on AIDS research or 100% effective birth control, or just building roads, schools, and hospitals in Africa.

I like the talk he talks, but now it's time to walk the walk.



Nope. Progress means doing it better. It's not an opposite of tradition. Tradition doesn't deserve that much credit. Good ideas stand of their own accord, not based on whether they're old or new.
Click to expand...

Legitimate redistribution requires remuneration. Hence it does not apply to goods which have their value in themselves, but only to the means of production. Hence their is no hypocrisy in not selling gold and artwork to donate money to charity.

You like when he talks about Hell?

Things were done better generally speaking in the past. Take the guild for instance, such a system provided real opportunity for economic advancement, whereas labor unions only allow a person to better their current state, not move up.
 
Paleocon said:
Legitimate redistribution requires remuneration. Hence it does not apply to goods which have their value in themselves, but only to the means of production. Hence their is no hypocrisy in not selling gold and artwork to donate money to charity.

You like when he talks about Hell?

Things were done better generally speaking in the past. Take the guild for instance, such a system provided real opportunity for economic advancement, whereas labor unions only allow a person to better their current state, not move up.
Click to expand...

I've just had an epiphany, and suddenly so much of the worldview you people hold has fallen into place for me.

You genuinely think things were BETTER in the past!

That must be it. That's the only possible logical reason I could see for holding such backwards and absurd political views.

But please, tell me. How were things better then? Were the shorter lifespans better? The extreme poverty of 99% of the populace? The inadequate healthcare for anyone, let alone the disadvantaged members of society?

Maybe you like the feudal economic model better -- I make stuff, the warlord steals it and hoards it in his castle? Or the guilds, which were essentially just Mediaeval and Renaissance monopolies that utterly stifled any competition, often by threats of death?

Maybe you preferred the vast and perverse grip on society held by the Catholic Church, with its long reputation for fair and equitable treatment to women, children, poor people, ethnic minorities, political dissidents, religious reformers, scientists, intellectuals, homosexuals, atheists and infidels?

Maybe you admire the abhorrent absolutist monarchical system, in which a few families held all of the wealth and power in a country, and there was no viable system for change, because democracy was as yet unheard of?

Maybe you just preferred the fact that being born into a Mediaeval society almost certainly meant you would never have to worry yourself with questions of politics, morality, religion, economics or society, because you were beyond a doubt going to be working in a wheat field from dawn till dusk with barely enough food to feed yourself, let alone your family.

I guess it was a simpler life.

Please, tell me, what is it that you prefer about the past?
 
Paleocon said:
He opposed liberation theology as a Cardinal.
Click to expand...

Not as strongly as non-Latin American members of the church. Plus, people evolve on certain issues - especially when non-militant redistribution of material wealth plays well as a marketing device as opposed to the less popular sex moralising.

Pope Francis' Sept. 11 meeting with Dominican Father Gustavo Gutierrez was an informal one, held in the in the pope's residence, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, and not listed on his official schedule. Yet the news that Pope Francis had received the 85-year old Peruvian priest, who is widely considered the father of liberation theology, has excited interest far beyond the Vatican's walls.

During the 1990s, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith conducted a lengthy critical review of Father Gutierrez's work, and required him to write and rewrite articles clarifying some of his theological and pastoral points.
Click to expand...

cont.:
CNS STORY: Under Pope Francis, liberation theology comes of age
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I've just had an epiphany, and suddenly so much of the worldview you people hold has fallen into place for me.

You genuinely think things were BETTER in the past!

That must be it. That's the only possible logical reason I could see for holding such backwards and absurd political views.

But please, tell me. How were things better then? Were the shorter lifespans better? The extreme poverty of 99% of the populace? The inadequate healthcare for anyone, let alone the disadvantaged members of society?

Maybe you like the feudal economic model better -- I make stuff, the warlord steals it and hoards it in his castle? Or the guilds, which were essentially just Mediaeval and Renaissance monopolies that utterly stifled any competition, often by threats of death?

Maybe you preferred the vast and perverse grip on society held by the Catholic Church, with its long reputation for fair and equitable treatment to women, children, poor people, ethnic minorities, political dissidents, religious reformers, scientists, intellectuals, homosexuals, atheists and infidels?

Maybe you admire the abhorrent absolutist monarchical system, in which a few families held all of the wealth and power in a country, and there was no viable system for change, because democracy was as yet unheard of?

Maybe you just preferred the fact that being born into a Mediaeval society almost certainly meant you would never have to worry yourself with questions of politics, morality, religion, economics or society, because you were beyond a doubt going to be working in a wheat field from dawn till dusk with barely enough food to feed yourself, let alone your family.

I guess it was a simpler life.

Please, tell me, what is it that you prefer about the past?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who "you people" are, but ok, I've been saying that since I joined here.

Scientific and medical advances are good, but that says nothing as to the moral character of the society.

The feudal system was good (and the lord owned the property, so it was hardly stealing), and it was a type of cooperative, although I do not advocate it's return as the circumstances which created it would not reoccur. The guilds promoted inter-class cooperation, and allowed a person to advance from a mere apprentice all the way to a master.

The Church's holding power was great. And are you aware of what things were like for women and children in Ancient Rome? Children were the property of their father and women could easily be divorced. The Church is very sympathetic to the poor, and didn't oppress ethnic minorities or legitimate political dissidents or religious reformers. The Church promoted science, ask Kepler, Fr. Copernicus, or the priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory.

I don't. Absolute monarchy is only a few hundred years old. The medieval monarchies were limited by the power of the Church and of the lords. Also, many places, such as the cantons of Switzerland or some Italian city-states, were republics. Furthermore local democracy existed even in monarchical countries.

Actually the medieval worker had much more free time than most modern workers.

What I prefer about the past was that it was moral, both individual people as well as society were Catholic, and we didn't have much of the insanity that characterizes the modern world.

Ben K. said:
Not as strongly as non-Latin American members of the church. Plus, people evolve on certain issues - especially when non-militant redistribution of material wealth plays well as a marketing device as opposed to the less popular sex moralising.



cont.:
CNS STORY: Under Pope Francis, liberation theology comes of age
Click to expand...

Meeting with someone does not require agreeing with them.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not sure who "you people" are, but ok, I've been saying that since I joined here.

Scientific and medical advances are good, but that says nothing as to the moral character of the society.

The feudal system was good (and the lord owned the property, so it was hardly stealing), and it was a type of cooperative, although I do not advocate it's return as the circumstances which created it would not reoccur. The guilds promoted inter-class cooperation, and allowed a person to advance from a mere apprentice all the way to a master.

The Church's holding power was great. And are you aware of what things were like for women and children in Ancient Rome? Children were the property of their father and women could easily be divorced. The Church is very sympathetic to the poor, and didn't oppress ethnic minorities or legitimate political dissidents or religious reformers. The Church promoted science, ask Kepler, Fr. Copernicus, or the priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory.

I don't. Absolute monarchy is only a few hundred years old. The medieval monarchies were limited by the power of the Church and of the lords. Also, many places, such as the cantons of Switzerland or some Italian city-states, were republics. Furthermore local democracy existed even in monarchical countries.

Actually the medieval worker had much more free time than most modern workers.

What I prefer about the past was that it was moral, both individual people as well as society were Catholic, and we didn't have much of the insanity that characterizes the modern world.



Meeting with someone does not require agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your ridiculous claim that the feudal system was good for anyone except the feudal lord. If that were true, why did peasants literally everywhere try to break free of their condition?

I am stymied by your inane claim that the Church promoted science -- why not ask Galileo?

I am flabbergasted by your appalling claim that everyone being Catholic was a good thing -- to my mind, this is literally Thought-Police level mind control.

But I am truly disgusted by your outrageous claim that the Church did not oppress the poor, the weak, women, dissidents, reformers and minorities. This is a truly perverse and sickening twisting of history, and you should be ashamed for having let such words be posted under your name.

The Church's long history of oppression starts with the dis-inclusion of women in rites, continues on towards widespread child abuse, and makes a detour for a bit of witch-burning on the side. The Church systematically crushed any attempts at reform, and it was so corrupt that even Catholic priests themselves started to take issue with the abhorrent and blatant money-grubbing. Relics? Absolution for payments? Purgatory? This is sickening, sickening stuff. Executing Jan Hus? Sickening. Attempting to execute Martin Luther? Sickening. Crushing the Peasants' Rebellion? Sickening.

The Thirty Years War was the most destructive conflict ever fought in Europe up until that point -- and what was the cause? The Catholic Church hated that anyone might not come under their control. Between Popes literally calling each-other the Antichrist to selling favours and Cardinal seats to their family members and friends, I am utterly stunned that you have any respect for the organisation whatsoever.

Has the Catholic Church in recent years done some charity work in Africa? Sure. The Church can be a charitable body -- nobody is denying that.

But the gall of someone saying the Church has always stood up for the poor and the oppressed?

You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Ad_Captandum said:
I am confused by your ridiculous claim that the feudal system was good for anyone except the feudal lord. If that were true, why did peasants literally everywhere try to break free of their condition?

I am stymied by your inane claim that the Church promoted science -- why not ask Galileo?

I am flabbergasted by your appalling claim that everyone being Catholic was a good thing -- to my mind, this is literally Thought-Police level mind control.

But I am truly disgusted by your outrageous claim that the Church did not oppress the poor, the weak, women, dissidents, reformers and minorities. This is a truly perverse and sickening twisting of history, and you should be ashamed for having let such words be posted under your name.

The Church's long history of oppression starts with the dis-inclusion of women in rites, continues on towards widespread child abuse, and makes a detour for a bit of witch-burning on the side. The Church systematically crushed any attempts at reform, and it was so corrupt that even Catholic priests themselves started to take issue with the abhorrent and blatant money-grubbing. Relics? Absolution for payments? Purgatory? This is sickening, sickening stuff. Executing Jan Hus? Sickening. Attempting to execute Martin Luther? Sickening. Crushing the Peasants' Rebellion? Sickening.

The Thirty Years War was the most destructive conflict ever fought in Europe up until that point -- and what was the cause? The Catholic Church hated that anyone might not come under their control. Between Popes literally calling each-other the Antichrist to selling favours and Cardinal seats to their family members and friends, I am utterly stunned that you have any respect for the organisation whatsoever.

Has the Catholic Church in recent years done some charity work in Africa? Sure. The Church can be a charitable body -- nobody is denying that.

But the gall of someone saying the Church has always stood up for the poor and the oppressed?

You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

What?

Because he publicly called the Pope a simpleton.

No one was punished for thinking wrong thoughts. And the private practice of other religions was tolerated.

The Church didn't oppress those groups, save public opponents of the Church's doctrine.

Not allowing women to be clerics? That's oppression? Child abuse? Are you referring to the recent sex abuse scandals? The paranoia about witches arose during the later renaissance period, when religious faith was in decline. And there were legitimate reformers who didn't have trouble. What's wrong with relics? Payment was not required for absolution. Purgatory still exists. Excessive punishment and one betrayal of immunity do not suffice to make the Middle Ages on the whole bad, BTW, if Luther said some of the things he said in modern England, he would be arrested. Crushing rebellion is sickening?

There were a few bad Popes, that doesn't affect the Church's legitimacy.

I should be ashamed of being Catholic? How many Catholic governments have killed over one hundred and ten million people?
 
Ben K. said:
Of course it doesn't. But in the context of what he's saying these days, he does appear to agree with the message.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Distributism?
 
Paleocon said:
Are you familiar with Distributism?
Click to expand...

Yes. The Christian democrat parties of Europe are heavily influenced by it and are economically left wing in practice. Redistribution and anti-trust is the sum total of distributism that the Pope talks about, which is just as applicable to socialism.
 
Ben K. said:
Yes. The Christian democrat parties of Europe are heavily influenced by it and are economically left wing in practice. Redistribution and anti-trust is the sum total of distributism that the Pope talks about, which is just as applicable to socialism.
Click to expand...

Which parties actively seek to implement it? And how are they left-wing?
 
All true Christians are Socialist to some degree.
Any person who claims to be a Christian but blindly opposes Socialism, has also blindly become a Christian.

The Pope is a good Christian. Possibly the best Pope in history at being a Christian. It is merely coincidental that his views and the teachings of Jesus happen to resemble socialism.
 
Painter said:
All true Christians are Socialist to some degree.
Any person who claims to be a Christian but blindly opposes Socialism, has also blindly become a Christian.

The Pope is a good Christian. Possibly the best Pope in history at being a Christian. It is merely coincidental that his views and the teachings of Jesus happen to resemble socialism.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Paleocon said:
And this is why the statements if the Pope have to be interpreted in the context of him being the leader of the Catholic Church. Many in the blogosphere have speculated that he favors Catholic Distributism (which is neither capitalist not socialist).

When he advocates for legitimate redistribution, he means legitimate redistribution. As an example, government break up of monopolies, which should involve an equitable remuneration.

Also note that Distributism supports broad ownership of the means of production (whereas socialism supports government ownership). It also supports eliminating the inherent opposition between employers and employees, which is inherent in both capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...


He's not calling for property to simply be arbitrarily taken. Rather he likely is speaking of the means of production.

Legitimate redistribution requires just compensation, so taking items such as artwork or gold that have their value in themselves would be pointless.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you got this below section but it is not part of my quote.

And this is why the statements if the Pope have to be interpreted in the context of him being the leader of the Catholic Church. Many in the blogosphere have speculated that he favors Catholic Distributism (which is neither capitalist not socialist).
Click to expand...
 
Paleocon said:
Which parties actively seek to implement it? And how are they left-wing?
Click to expand...

Before I go searching for political party manifestos, how about you cite one thing that the pope has said about economics that can be attributed to distributism but not to socialism.
 
rocket88 said:
The Pope takes his cues from the Gospel and the teachings of Christ. He doesn't really care about the politics of the situation.

It's really only interesting from the perspective of the American right vs. left paradigm (which in most other places would be the moderate left vs. less moderate left). You see it here in this thread with comments about the "left" having "Papal woodies." Their feelings are hurt that he's not one of them.
Click to expand...

He certainly lives up to his namesake though.
 
votemout said:
Do not listen to the pope he is no more then a figure head that the powers that be use to control a largely false "religion".
Click to expand...

Aren't they all? False that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom