CREEDE HINSHAW: Pope Francis draws criticism for remarks about capitalism

Restraints do not only refer to laws, at least the kind written down for me to peruse and write memos on. Restraints can be things like customs, or our consciences. They are the values that should be imprinted by our Faith. I think many of us have bought into the fallacy that just because something is legal to do, it means doing it is necessarily moral. For example, California has no usury laws. There is nothing (with a few exceptions) legally restraining me from lending $5,000 to my neighbor at an interest rate of, say, 50% per annum and enforcing the terms. But it is an extremely immoral thing to do, so I shouldn’t do it. The problem is that in our culture, people tend to look for an anti-usury statute, and realizing there is none, think that it’s perfectly fine to make loans that in an earlier era would have been societally condemned as exploitative and usurious. That is capitalism without any sense of restraint. In other cases, the reason the left (the right as well, on things like abortion for example) pushes for more regulation is because they want to fill in the void of restraint when people lost their moral compasses that restrained them from rapacious behavior.

I think I had already made the case for Catholic/Christan values in Post 15.

I do advocate more economic freedom, more individual freedom, just more freedom in general.
St Paul I think still makes the case for freedom best with his line “Freedom to sin…God Forbid!!”.

When America was set up, the point of making a government based on secular values was that the people would still be a God fearing people. If the government is going to be smaller, and exercise less constraints on people, that means that a lot of the restraining must come from within.
Entering into an era where people look to the law only as the means to decide right from wrong is a very different path than the path of freedom were people were expected to restrain themselves according to their faith in God.

Do you always speak to people in this tone? If you do, then I can’t dialogue with you. I’m not allowed to respond in kind. Even if the Holy Rule allowed it, I wouldn’t want to do so. A gentleman is always a gentleman, even on a forum.

I am not sure exactly what you mean.

There was no tone at all being expressed toward either you or Cojuanco, who I essentially 100% agreed with. I think he probably had missed that post where he essentially repeated what I had said, so I pointed it out to him to show him that I was in full agreement.

As for your post, there was no essential disagreement with it either. I did not parrot it back to you, but merely added my own perspective.

It is rather upsetting to me that you have accused me of not being a gentleman for merely entering in a discussion with you. Since I assuredly was not offering you criticism in any way for your post, but merely pointing out my own point of view, it seems that it is my point of view that you find offensive.

So I most assuredly will not enter into a conversation with you again, since you obviously have no love for me whatsoever.

I am truly sorry I have offended you, and I assure you it will not happen again.
These will be my last words to you JReducation.

Good bye and may God bless you wherever you go.

Here’s a start:

  1. No monopolies. I’d love to bypass or scrap OPEC, for starters :smiley:

  2. Reasonable environmental standards. What I mean are things along the lines of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.

  3. An appreciation for a minimum wage.

What bothers me the most about this being mandated is that those who call for ridiculous numbers is that they don’t seem to understand that more people will just be out of work if say everyone MUST earn $15 an hour.

Plus, high minimum wages price out younger kids—mostly minorities.

  1. Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Laws

  2. No government cronyism—no bailouts, no government start-ups like Amtrak.

The Creed Hinshaw article you saw fit to post was pure PC and somewhat arrogant and preachy. Moreover, it misrepresented Scripture as well as the pope and Rush Limbaugh, the latter to the point of crudely flirting with calumny.

As is usually the case with articles by the Religious Left, it merely slimed Capitalism of all stripes, without distinction, and without offering an alternative economic system for America. One might as well read offerings by Sojourners.

If that weren’t enough, when Darryl1958 presented calm, civil and factual rebuttals to some of the stale Leftist propaganda, you had the gall to rebuke him and insult him.

If you can’t stand a civil retort, and don’t want a debate, don’t post on this forum.

Thanks for sharing. Right on spot as always. :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit