Francis is willfully ignorant in terms of economics, wealth, and value creation. His welfare ideas are bog standard populist leftism that took every Latin American country that managed to get out of the third world back into it and kept the remainder from ever getting out in the first place.

Every single state that has thrown its power into the goals that he espouses has achieved wretched levels of corruption and poverty. History has proven repeatedly the themes that he espouses are paths to power for the most wicked tyrants ever chronicled.

If you want people with disabilities, low intelligence, etc., to not be left behind in society, the answer should be obvious to any person of Faith not pickled in postmodernism. It's called a family, and everyone born would have one but for horrible personal decisions that should be discouraged at every turn. Bergoglio might take a pause from wishing for statist safety nets and take a gander at the personal behavior encouraged by the Faith that he purportedly leads.

Let's consider the prospects of a disabled American child whose parents did not have him out of wedlock, completed at least a high school education, do not abuse drugs, and have not committed any felonies. Now look at the prospects of a Soviet peasant under a "system" where a bureaucrat determines your worth, or better yet, look at the prospects of a second child in rural China.

The answer to people that are unable to provide for themselves in a free market capitalist society are the people that have lived within a value system that places family bonds first and strongly discourages the types of personal decisions that lead to life long ruin. "Unrestrained" capitalism is only problematic to the extent that people can't control their own impulses and immoral people exploit them. Crony capitalism is the most constrained capitalism that there is, and is pretty much all any Latin American has ever seen in action.

In a government welfare state, the drug addled bum that just got out of prison for the fourteenth time is barfing on the doctor that you are waiting on to treat your disabled child. In a free market capitalist society, people that live a life of deferred gratification, discipline, and respect for the people around them have options.

There is no human idea or system that will remove struggle and suffering from this world before Christ returns, but actually living the Faith leads to much improved outcomes; most especially in the absence of utopians that want to dictate their citizenry's personal welfare at the point of a government rifle.

Thanks, that is interesting reading.

Fratelli Tutti (FT) deviates on some critical points from Rerum Novarum (RN):

1. RN is very careful to highlight the importance of individuals, family, and property and the absolute danger to these institutions posed by an expansive State: "The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error." Only under the most extreme circumstances of distress must this happen.

2. FT seems to want an expansive State role, even into the international/global realm: "Even when they take such essential steps, states are not able, on their own, to implement adequate solutions, "since the consequences of the decisions made by each inevitably have repercussions on the entire international community". As a result, "our response can only be the fruit of a common effort" to develop a form of global governance with regard to movements of migration." ... "What is needed is a model of social, political and economic participation "that can include popular movements and invigorate local, national and international governing structures with that torrent of moral energy that springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny" "

3. RN is careful to take a sober view on the lot of humanity during our brief life on earth: "In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it."

4. FT is much more progressivist/utopian in outlook: "The development of a global community of fraternity based on the practice of social friendship on the part of peoples and nations calls for a better kind of politics, one truly at the service of the common good. Sadly, politics today often takes forms that hinder progress towards a different world."

///

Chimpanzee's summary is excellent and I can't improve on that.

If you're interested I'd recommend checking out The Quest for Community (1953) by sociologist Robert Nisbet. Nisbet's thesis is that the rise of the modern State with ever-expansive powers has led to the erosion of traditional sources of community: Church, family, neighborhood, voluntary associations, etc. Rising rates of alienation, loneliness and mental illness are the result.

The irony is that the symptoms of modern society decried by the Pope are largely caused by the State, yet his solution is...more State.

Why does the Catholic church formally comment on the structure of states and economies? That doesn't seem like it's within their mission or expertise, it seems like a distraction or even a vanity to meddle in those sorts of things.

XUSCR said:

---

This assessment of the recent encyclical pretty much says it all:

https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-on-fratelli-tutti-abortion-politics-and-amy-coney-barrett/

---

There cannot be brotherhood among men, if it excludes the common Fatherhood of the One True God, One and Triune.

St John Chrysostom stresses that being in poor conditions in this live - even being a slave - in no way damages us spiritually or in our salvation. In his homily on 1 Cor 7:21 (as one example) he says "For if death hurt us not, nor scourges, nor chains, much less slavery." Who would argue, on the other hand, that being rich doesn't pose a challenge or a risk to our salvation?

Where is this idea to be found in the scriptures, or in the fathers, that governments are to be called on to address the poor, or poverty, as opposed to individual Christians? "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the Church?"

I have zero issue whatsoever with radical calls to action for Christians to care for the poor. St Basil the Great echoes St John the Forerunner when hesays "When someone steals another's clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor."

St John Chrysostom teaches the same, saying "I shall bring you testimony from the divine Scriptures, saying that only theft of others' goods but also the failure to share one's goods with others is theft and swindle and defraudation...To deprive is to take what belongs to another; for it is called deprivation when we take and keep what belongs to others. By this we are taught then when we do not show mercy, we will be punished just like those who steal. For our money is the Lord's, however we may have gathered it. If we provide for those in need, we shall obtain great plenty. This is why God has allowed you to have more, not for you to waste on prostitutes, drink, fancy food, expensive clothes, and all the other kinds of indulgence, but for you to distribute to those in needIf you are affluent, but spend more than you need, you will give account of the funds which were entrusted to you...for you obtained more than others have, and you have received it, not to spend it for yourself, but to become a good steward for others as well....to fail to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs. If we have this attitude, we will certainly offer our money, and by nourishing Christ in poverty here and laying up great profit hereafter, we will be able to attain the good things which are to come, by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ."

But to address this with governments is a great mistake and a source of unending trouble and evil in this world. It robs the faithful of the grace of almsgiving; it steals virtue from the people; it provides endless opportunity for corruption of the leaders (both inside and outside of the church!); it encourages envy, and greed, and coveting our neighbor's wealth by suggesting we ought to dictate what they do with their money. This kind of teaching should be avoided at all costs!

PabloSerna said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

This assessment of the recent encyclical pretty much says it all:

https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-on-fratelli-tutti-abortion-politics-and-amy-coney-barrett/

---

Within the first question, Archbishop Vigano lays bare his position on the encyclical,

"... twisted vision of this ideological manifesto that is in the service of the New World Order. Its slanted vision lays in psychologically prostrated submission to the requests of mainstream thought, while looking at the teachings of the Gospel with the myopic and embarrassed view of those who consider it unthinkable and outdated."

As I read his commentary, there was no sincere thought given to the deeper discussion Pope Frances raises regarding the socio-economic circumstances that face many people who are facing an unwanted pregnancy. As someone who faced such a circumstance at the age of 19, I can tell you that my religious upbringing didn't kick in like it should have. We made it, by the grace of God, shown through the people he sent our way.

That is what I took from this encyclical, that we need to do more, just like the Good Samaritan did for the traveler. I really think people like the Archbishop (and myself included) could use more time working among the poor. I think that was what Jesus was trying to say with those parables.

---

You can't be charitable to an unborn human that is intentionally dismembered and has its skull punctured and its brain sucked out. And if you vote for a candidate who supports such intrinsic evil then YOU are complicit. The first act of charity is to do no harm. Everything else is contingent on the object of the charity not being a murder victim.

I didn't comment on abortion and will not comment on abortion. I am addressing politics and economics.

That said, I don't really want to drag this out into a deep discussion on which set of economic prescriptions is best. I have strong opinions, but this isn't really the place for them.

Basically, it seems like the church is well within its purview to comment on bad outcomes such as poverty and oppression, but out of its lane when it comes to recommending policy. This pope in particular seems to get way out of his depth on a pretty frequent basis, so he's more likely to make things worse than better.