Why the popes had a problem with free market capitalism

December 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It is no secret that probably a majority of Catholics in the United States who consider themselves faithful to the Church's magisterium and traditions are at the same time adherents of what is properly called neoliberalism, a position that calls for an economy with as little regulation as possible, a political stance known in the United States as conservatism. However, the main tenets of this understanding of politics and economics not only are not rooted in Catholic thought, they are in stark contradiction to it. They are products of the 18th-century Enlightenment, in fact they are a species of liberalism, as is recognized in most countries of the world, where that term is used to designate the Enlightenment view of society that arose in rebellion against the Christian civilization of the Middle Ages.

This is a viewpoint about both politics and economics, for it is the political question which underlies the economic. In fact, they concern one of the most fundamental questions about government. Does government exist only to restrain and punish evildoers? Hence does it have little or no positive role to play in society? Is it correct to say, as a contemporary adherent of this view, Fr. Robert Sirico, expressed it, "So long as individuals avoid forceful or fraudulent actions in their dealings with one another, government is to stay out of their business"? (Acton Notes, vol. 8, no. 1, January 1998, p. 1)

In contrast to this view, Catholic thought recognizes a positive role for the state, as we can see in the writings of the Roman pontiffs on social matters. Pope Pius XI, in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, discussing the earlier encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, rejects the view that governmental authority is limited only to restraining or punishing evil doers.

With regard to the civil power, Leo XIII boldly passed beyond the restrictions imposed by liberalism, and fearlessly proclaimed the doctrine that the civil power is more than the mere guardian of law and order, and that it must strive with all zeal "to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, should be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity." (no. 25)

And more recently Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens of May 1971, wrote,

Political power, which is the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body, must have as its aim the achievement of the common good. While respecting the legitimate liberties of individuals, families and subsidiary groups, it acts in such a way as to create, effectively and for the well-being of all, the conditions required for attaining man's true and complete good, including his spiritual end. (no. 46)

Of course, the Church has never advocated a statist or totalitarian society. It is one of the unique aspects of Catholic thinking on the social order that it rejects both the notion that the unrestrained selfish strivings of sinful humanity necessarily promote the general welfare, and on the other hand, that the primary responsibility for the ordering of economic life rests with the government itself. Instead, regulation, as much as is feasible, should be undertaken by lower and smaller groups or bodies charged with promotion of the common good. This is the famous principle of subsidiarity, a principle, however, often misunderstood to mean that for-profit entities should be the main actors in an economy.

If one reads Pius XI's two great encyclicals that deal with economic matters, Quadragesimo Anno and Divini Redemptoris, he will see that the pope is calling for a revival of something like the medieval guilds, not of course in the sense of limiting technology to the level of the Middle Ages, but in order to call into being organizations or societies whose aim is to ensure that the economy functions both efficiently and justly. These modern guilds or occupational groups would have as their aims the prosperity of their own industries, the provision to the public of a quality product at a fair price, and the just remuneration of everyone involved in the production process.
(cont)lifesitenews.com/opinion/why-the-popes-had-a-problem-with-free-market-capitalism

Attached: monopoly_capitalism_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg (810x500, 30.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spectator.org/the-communist-cardinals-of-pope-francis/
voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-labor-mobility-problem.html
voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/darkstream-free-trade-is-evil.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Pic related is why

Attached: jews and papists.jpg (624x294, 25.78K)

The church of Roma has pretty much assert itself in terms of authority, just read about the Easter controversy in the early church, and one of the ways you can establish dominance power over people is the manipulation of economics. You should read the Rerum Novarum if you really desire to understand more about the Catholic market.

Thats because the Pope Franny is a filthy commie.

spectator.org/the-communist-cardinals-of-pope-francis/

Jews invented capitalism and capitalism is why jews have so much power over the modern world. Capitalism is gay and jewish

The hyper-globalist/"free" trade we have today is not capitalism.

Makes no sense, because Protestants (under Calvin specifically) went poz and embraced usury wholesale.. then his adherents went full poz and welcomed Jews in places like the English and Swiss banks.. which, in turn, moved into America. These three, in turn, enslaved everyone to credit and Jewry.

capitalism is the default status of trade between two people before an oppressor third party interjects, like the state

alex jones tier argumentation

Alex Jones is a Zionist. I'm trying to get you
AWAY from usury. Calvin sanctioned usury. It's a matter of record. Only the worst popes succumbed to that (Borgias and the like).

Just tossing out insults and words isn't going to do something. They have to have some meaning art least.

so capitalism never existed?


communist tier argument mate what we have now is pretty much capitalism just not your utopian version of it

It's not "utopia". The world had capitalism in every real and practical sense of the word, without creditors and Jews screwing it up. It wasn't a fantasy world. It actually existed. It'd be different if we were talking about World Peace, but this is nothing.

Hell, even after the Reformation, things didn't take the full bad turn right away. England still produced Shakespeare in the 1500s.. who loved his Geneva bible.. but also wrote the famous Merchant of Venice/Shylock story. His old world/Catholic sentiments still hadn't left him. But the seeds were planted already.

If not capitalism and if not socialism then what?

As I just said, capitalism in every situation is the default and it is only with state oppressors that you cease being "capitalist"

begome distributionist :DDDDDDDDDD

why is it different from socialism tho?

I'm not conflating you with alex jones, I'm saying that your line of reasoning makes unhelpful broad strokes based on a series of minority opinions to make this convenient narrative, like alex jones does

Look at the USA before the '90s if you want to see capitalism.

better, watch this on Hong Kong

OK.. That's fair. I'm not connecting the dots and it does come off like some Grand Conspiracy.

But the fact of the matter is that Calvin gave usury an imprimatur of sorts, and his followers rolled with it. And the only people in Europe at that time with widespread and lifelong experience in lending were Jews (because no one else wanted that job. It was considered sinful and lacking respectability). This eventually gave them a way in the upper echelons of society..and from there, they garnered influence.

I'm an ordoliberal, so…maybe that?

Socialism is fine without the philosophical aspects that usually accompany it (atheism, materialism etc)

...

Socialism is not fine as its predicated on theft

Because Jews made the free market and American is the Jew's/Masons' greatest creation.
Besides its a cancer because it doesn't care about the fellow man.
An example it's the health care in the US something that never existed in Europe.

European healthcare is arguably worse. Do you remeber what happened to Alfie Evans?

Capitalism needs property rights that are acknowledged by 99,9% of people, which requires some third party to officially state them, and with a monopoly of violence to prevent it from spiralling into settling ownership with AK-47's.
Buying a bike or doing a random job off Craiglist(which may or not be stolen, or illegal) is at best proto-capitalism.

Reddit tier rebuttal.

winnie the pooh brits. They will pay.
although that has nothing to do with health care. Euthanasia wasn't approved in my country thankfully winnie the pooh Northern Europe. They'll pay

voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-labor-mobility-problem.html

voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/darkstream-free-trade-is-evil.html

It basically goes like this.
Capitalism - rich few own means of production.
Communism - state owns means of production.
Distributism (Church approved system) - every human owns his own means of production.

It has literally EVERYTHING to do with a state run healthcare system. FFS that hospital is known for doing garbage like this all so they can harvest organs

You have to remember, it was the state that signed Alfie's death sentence.

No, that's where you're wrong. Capitalism is formulated in such a way with a "free market" that eventually wealth clusters in the hands of a few who they buy your governments so that they will scrap tariffs and then offshore your job. Capitalism is as vicious a failed experiment as Marxist-Lenism imho, but people are too propagandized to realize it.

You're confusing capitalism with globalism friend

Free market capitalism leads to a constant churn, but there are no free markets in the world. Government intervention leads to all the problems (such as licences, intellectual property laws, regulations), especially what's known as "crony capitalism".

Stop being lolbertarians. It's a system without morals, completely incompatible with Christianity

Because some Jewish politicians approved the killing of sick people.
Those sick winnie the poohs.

There is no difference between capitalism and globalism brother Christian, globalism is just the capitalist endgame, to destroy free markets and rule us in an authoritarian manner through our wallets. Please un-brainwash yourself.


All capitalism eventually becomes crony capitalism. The world is not an abode of righteousness, so eventually the dictum that money is power bears it's crooked fruit and that's all there is to it.

This

justify this

You're conflating property rights with enforcement. Example: babies have a right to life despite governments actively sponsoring their murder. The bible affirms individual ownership of property without mention of the state's involvement.

Why has nobody read this? It literally shows that free trade is globalism.

All you've shared is two an assertion and two links to hour long videos

here's a rebuttal to the first quote: free trade doesn't mandate that every worker must achieve maximum efficiency, only that there isn't a central planner organizing the economy in favor of laissez-fare

Nah. Not gonna accept that.

I'd be happy to read the argument presented in the two lectures if you want to summarize it

Most Catholics are nominal at best and do not seriously think about politics. To call conservatism within the U.S. simply neoliberalism is vague and disingenuous.

Because it’s not Materialist, right?