Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Caritas in Veritate: 2009
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

 
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #16  
Old Aug 31, '09, 5:54 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 560
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Laaksonen View Post
I'll grant you a partial 'Touché' on that. I will argue, however, that this is strictly true only for discretionary goods. Necessities like food and clean water are all too often priced out of the market by many factors claimed to be purely economic but because of their (the goods) necessity are actually moral.
Economic laws of demand and supply do not differentiate for goods which some may consider neccessary and others discretionary. Imputed in the slope of the demand curve is an individual's determination of necessity or merely want.

An inelastic demand, a demand not much affected by price change, connotes one's demand for a necessity, whereas an elastic demand, a demand which rapidly dissipates if price increases or rapidly increases if price falls, connotes one's demand for a discretionary good. The prinicples of complimentarity and substituion hold for all slopes of aggregate demand curves and, therefore, for all goods whether one considers them necessary or discretionary.

Therefore, people, not "goods", discretionary or not, are "priced out of the market." The market, the intersection of aggregate demand and supply, sets the price or makes the market for the goods. At that price the market clears, that is, all the quantity-demanded equals the quantity-supplied.

If the intersection of supply and demand curves leaves some people "priced out of the market" then society has an obligation to determine 1) if the good is a necessity and 2) how to increase the quantity supplied in order that none go without. If the quantity-supplied cannot be increased, then society must determine if some have more than they need and re-distribute. If none has more than they need, society must ration. But these moral decisions are political, not economic.

Peace.
O'Malley
  #17  
Old Aug 31, '09, 11:35 am
nordskoven nordskoven is offline
Account Under Review
 
Join Date: July 7, 2004
Posts: 1,890
Religion: Catholic
Default Catholics have "real teeth" and don't use them.

Catholicism is a world-wide power that has been utterly neglected. One microcosmic example is Catholics who buy goods to donate at retail price. Insane. A non-profit buying club is a no-brainer. Learned helplessness, hopeless passivity, has been bred into moderns waiting for leadership from shepherds. John Paul II noted this logjam and urged the laity to take up the standard.

New Age researcher and pro-life attorney Constance Cumbey noted the effect of a world-wide food authority once proposed for the U.N. She said even if St. Francis of Assisi was put in charge, what would happen is: that either he would be corrupted by this authority and become Frank Assisi, food dictator; or would be quickly overthrown by forces of evil.

Cumbey also noted the suggestion of one United Nations N.G.O./non-govermental organization that offered to enforce world peace by seizing all arms. Then, Lucis Trust continued, they would only use weapons against world enemies as needed--giving as an example THE VATICAN! One may note the many mystics who have predicted the Vatican would be razed and the Pontiff killed. >Sigh<

The Pope should ask the Woman clothed with the Sun to help. Our Lady of the Rosary said the ONLY means to a period of world peace was the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by Peter in union with all bishops at one solemn, public time in their respective cathedrals. Hasn't been done to date..."We fight not against men, but against powers and principalities." Use the spiritual weapons of PRAYER, FASTING, ALMSGIVING to win. There is no "political" solution to this present darkness.
  #18  
Old Aug 31, '09, 3:19 pm
jjm3 jjm3 is offline
Observing Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2009
Posts: 1
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer View Post
## "[A] true world political authority" ? No thanks & NBL - those jokers at the EU are quite bad enough. Subsidiarity is exactly what they do not do anything to foster It's bad enough that the Catholic bishops of Europe are all EU-lovers As for the EU, it's a gigantic farce: it wastes billions of money, it's corrupt, it's irresponsible (in both senses), & it is power-hungry. The best thing that could happen to it, is for an ICBM to be dropped on it. Speed the day !

Hasn't he heard that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" ? The EU proves that to the hilt. What he's asking for is something even more unmanageable, incompetent, & ghastly. Maybe he should put his own house in order before lecturing politicians
Commenting on the Holy Father's letter about Love in Truth, the writer above suggests dropping ICBM's on the people in Europe. Whether the vision expressed by Pope Benedict is ultimately practical (and "ultimately" for the church of Jesus Christ is NOT measured in mere years or even in decades), it is completely disgraceful for a supposed Catholic to suggest wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people because the EU wastes money! This is exactly the type of speech that is so harmful today -- it is the speech of the tyrant, demeaning the speaker surely but also diminishing all of us who happen to read it. Please keep flush this type of sewer thinking down to where it belongs.
  #19  
Old Sep 1, '09, 5:16 pm
catholicsuffer catholicsuffer is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2009
Posts: 85
Religion: DONOTKNOW
Default Re: Catholics have "real teeth" and don't use them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nordskoven View Post
Catholicism is a world-wide power that has been utterly neglected. One microcosmic example is Catholics who buy goods to donate at retail price. Insane. A non-profit buying club is a no-brainer. Learned helplessness, hopeless passivity, has been bred into moderns waiting for leadership from shepherds. John Paul II noted this logjam and urged the laity to take up the standard.

New Age researcher and pro-life attorney Constance Cumbey noted the effect of a world-wide food authority once proposed for the U.N. She said even if St. Francis of Assisi was put in charge, what would happen is: that either he would be corrupted by this authority and become Frank Assisi, food dictator; or would be quickly overthrown by forces of evil.

Cumbey also noted the suggestion of one United Nations N.G.O./non-govermental organization that offered to enforce world peace by seizing all arms. Then, Lucis Trust continued, they would only use weapons against world enemies as needed--giving as an example THE VATICAN! One may note the many mystics who have predicted the Vatican would be razed and the Pontiff killed. >Sigh<

The Pope should ask the Woman clothed with the Sun to help. Our Lady of the Rosary said the ONLY means to a period of world peace was the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart by Peter in union with all bishops at one solemn, public time in their respective cathedrals. Hasn't been done to date..."We fight not against men, but against powers and principalities." Use the spiritual weapons of PRAYER, FASTING, ALMSGIVING to win. There is no "political" solution to this present darkness.
We can all help our Queen and Mother by donating to charity. My favorite charity is Mother(Blessed) Teresa of Calcutta. I donate to her order in New York. There are many more Catholic Charity organizations. This is one thing that the Catholics do very well and will help world peace, stability, and order. Feed the hungry and you have fed Christ.
  #20  
Old Sep 12, '09, 12:38 pm
Melvin Melvin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 241
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
His Holiness lays down no particular law. As is proprer, he confirms that the Church offers no means, no technical sollutions. Such solutions, flawed though they may initially be, must come from the laity. What his Holiness does properly teach are the ends that such a technical solution must strive to meet. These ends are spelled out in the lines immediately following his calling for a world political authority:
  • need[s] to be regulated by law
  • to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity
  • to seek to establish the common good
  • to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
  • need[s] to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights
  • the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums
  • the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization
  • the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres
  • to [establish] the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres

If we are to take the Pope to task, let us at least task him on what he has written in particular, not in general. Economics, the allocation of scarce resources, has a moral dimension and his Holiness is quite informed on that dimension of the dismal science and teaches us about it with authority.

Peace,
O'Malley
Rather, let us decry that a man who is supposed to understand the sinfulness of the unregenerate man (not to mention the constant struggle against sin by most of us who have been regenerated through baptism) seeks to put what amounts to absolute power in the hands of atheist politicians, Islamic radicals, and modern communists. After all, who else does he think would actually control his "world financial authority?"

Melvin
  #21  
Old Sep 13, '09, 5:35 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 560
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melvin View Post
Rather, let us decry that a man who is supposed to understand the sinfulness of the unregenerate man (not to mention the constant struggle against sin by most of us who have been regenerated through baptism) seeks to put what amounts to absolute power in the hands of atheist politicians, Islamic radicals, and modern communists. After all, who else does he think would actually control his "world financial authority?"

Melvin
Two of your three categories do not fit the pope's qualifications for possessing political or financial authority. Recall the Christian tenets: he who would lead must serve, he who would be first shall be last.

Peace,
O'Malley
  #22  
Old Sep 13, '09, 5:42 pm
catholicsuffer catholicsuffer is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: April 11, 2009
Posts: 85
Religion: DONOTKNOW
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
Two of your three categories do not fit the pope's qualifications for possessing political or financial authority. Recall the Christian tenets: he who would lead must serve, he who would be first shall be last.

Peace,
O'Malley
He is qualified to do as the Spirit directs him, if it be political or financial authority then it is as it is. He serves well the Christian Faithful through his leadership, he is last because he puts his flock first by tending to their needs.
  #23  
Old Sep 14, '09, 5:39 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 560
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by catholicsuffer View Post
He is qualified to do as the Spirit directs him, if it be political or financial authority then it is as it is. He serves well the Christian Faithful through his leadership, he is last because he puts his flock first by tending to their needs.
I don't understand your comment.

The three categories the poster offered as leaders were: "atheist politicians, Islamic radicals, and modern communists." My point is that Stalin and Bin Laden, examples of the first two categories, do not fit the pope's qualifications. The third category may.

The heads of all Catholic religious orders are modern communists (they take the additional vow of poverty). I don't think the pope excludes from leadership positions laymen who have contempt for individualism and materialism.

Peace,
O'Malley
  #24  
Old Sep 14, '09, 10:57 am
Arandur Arandur is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2008
Posts: 1,482
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by o_mlly View Post
If the intersection of supply and demand curves leaves some people "priced out of the market" then society has an obligation to determine 1) if the good is a necessity and 2) how to increase the quantity supplied in order that none go without. If the quantity-supplied cannot be increased, then society must determine if some have more than they need and re-distribute. If none has more than they need, society must ration. But these moral decisions are political, not economic.
But "society" can't agree on anything, and is typically very inefficient when organized (through government) to do anything. Which tends to lead to the more efficient but less just rule of the few (oligopolies of various types). Inefficiency and injustice is the natural consequence of departure from the principle of subsidiarity.

You gave a good description of some principles of economics and how they affect availability for people. However, what I didn't see from your explanation was that price is the natural measure for demand of a good and by itself encourages regulation of supply to meed a necessary demand. As long as government is fulfilling its role of preventing fraud, requiring the proper inclusion of externalities into cost, and otherwise keeping itself out of the cost equation (through burdensome, perverse, or unnecessary regulation), the price mechanism will produce sufficient supply of necessities.

Charity is our personal responsibility to make up for transitional gaps and distribution problems. A limited welfare state can aid in this as well, but welfare is the least preferred option because it is the most prone to corruption, perversion, inefficiency, and injustice.

So is the "true world authority" going to be a redistributivist welfare state, or a government preventing fraud, regulating the inclusion of externalities, and preventing unnecessary government burden and subsidy? A singular authority would fail miserably at each of these and effect the very harms it purports to relieve.

If these roles are fulfilled properly the least necessary authorities (according to the principle of subsidiarity) they will be done most properly. The subsidiary approach still fits the "true world authority" comment, in that I think "true" merely implies that proper roles of government need to be "truly" embraced by authorities that are "truly" arrayed according the the principle of subsidiarity.
  #25  
Old Sep 14, '09, 7:19 pm
Gottle of Geer Gottle of Geer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 12, 2004
Posts: 11,638
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjm3 View Post
Commenting on the Holy Father's letter about Love in Truth, the writer above suggests dropping ICBM's on the people in Europe. Whether the vision expressed by Pope Benedict is ultimately practical (and "ultimately" for the church of Jesus Christ is NOT measured in mere years or even in decades), it is completely disgraceful for a supposed Catholic to suggest wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people because the EU wastes money! This is exactly the type of speech that is so harmful today -- it is the speech of the tyrant, demeaning the speaker surely but also diminishing all of us who happen to read it. Please keep flush this type of sewer thinking down to where it belongs.
## Never heard of rhetorical exaggeration ? Look around the forums - you may find less than lovely sentiments expressed by others too. I disapprove of a lot of things I read - but that does not give me the right to criticise posters for those particular sentiments. I stand by what I said: & if people in the US can be strongly critical of the UN, then by God others can be critical of those crooks & wastrels in the EU.

Some of us have to live under EU jurisdiction, even though the EU is prodigiously corrupt & wasteful. Just be thankful you're free of them. The cosying-up of the European bishops to those crooks, pornographers & enemies of freedom is the last thing one expects from Christian bishops - but it's a fact. Appeasing the EU is a game only a fool plays - and there are plenty of them in British politics or wearing mitres. You're not affected by the diktats of Brussels - you're protected from those characters by the width of an ocean. Well, some of are not.

Why should anyone do what the Pope wants if it is going to threaten his own country ? If the Pope gives advice that is bad for this country, too bad for him Britain comes first - not the Church or the Pope or any such nonsense. If this is not wrong for folk in the US, it is not wrong for us untermenschen in Europe. The Pope does not rule Britain - the Queen does. We are not his property, any more than we are a fifty-first state of the US. What does the Pope know of the problems of a national economy ? Why do Popes presume to direct & judge those of whose work they know nothing ? Let him cleanse his own diocese and Church, & not lecture others; they don't lecture him: you don't see Prime Ministers offering Mass - but you see Popes telling politicians how to govern.
  #26  
Old Sep 15, '09, 9:50 am
o_mlly o_mlly is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Posts: 560
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The $64,000 question from Benedict's encyclical, and other Vatican goings-on [John Allen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
But "society" can't agree on anything, and is typically very inefficient when organized (through government) to do anything. Which tends to lead to the more efficient but less just rule of the few (oligopolies of various types). Inefficiency and injustice is the natural consequence of departure from the principle of subsidiarity.
If the societal problem is of such a scale that the resources of the affected community are unable to resolve, then the principle of solidarity must be invoked. Subsidiarity does not mean that all problems ought to be resolved at the local level; only the problems that can be resolved. In solidarity, properly applied, subsidiarity is never violated. If solidarity leads to an ineffecient resolution, say of a famine, then I submit such ineffiency is a lesser evil than starvation.

No economist would argure that unregulated oligopolies and monopolies are efficient markets. Unregulated, such markets underproduce goods and services to effect higher prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
You gave a good description of some principles of economics and how they affect availability for people. However, what I didn't see from your explanation was that price is the natural measure for demand of a good and by itself encourages regulation of supply to meed a necessary demand. As long as government is fulfilling its role of preventing fraud, requiring the proper inclusion of externalities into cost, and otherwise keeping itself out of the cost equation (through burdensome, perverse, or unnecessary regulation), the price mechanism will produce sufficient supply of necessities.
I take it that you, therefore, support regulation that is not "burdensome, perverse, or unnecessary." So do I. If such regulation is desireable then price alone, therefore, is not sufficient to insure adequate supply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
Charity is our personal responsibility to make up for transitional gaps and distribution problems. A limited welfare state can aid in this as well, but welfare is the least preferred option because it is the most prone to corruption, perversion, inefficiency, and injustice.
It is not charity that "make[s] up for transitional gaps and distribution problems." It is the virute of justice. As St. Amborse made clear and Benedict confirms, charity does not begin until the demands of justice have been met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
So is the "true world authority" going to be a redistributivist welfare state, or a government preventing fraud, regulating the inclusion of externalities, and preventing unnecessary government burden and subsidy? A singular authority would fail miserably at each of these and effect the very harms it purports to relieve.
I think his Holiness made clear, as I have previously posted, that such a world authority is regulated by laws and has the total development of the human being as its objective. Because it has not yet happened is insufficient to claim that it cannot happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arandur View Post
If these roles are fulfilled properly the least necessary authorities (according to the principle of subsidiarity) they will be done most properly. The subsidiary approach still fits the "true world authority" comment, in that I think "true" merely implies that proper roles of government need to be "truly" embraced by authorities that are "truly" arrayed according the the principle of subsidiarity.
In Catholic thinking those who are in authority serve the needs of those to whom their care has been assigned.

Peace,
O'Malley
 

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Caritas in Veritate: 2009

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8448Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: jerrythetrucker
5139CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: hopeful01
4423Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3731Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3312Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3279Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3222Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3107For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:44 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.