Update: Prof. Medaille writes to correct my misrepresentation of his LifeSiteNews article. I misunderstood a link he posted on my Facebook page as his response to the PCJP note. He clarifies the issues in the comments. My apologies to him for getting this wrong.
+
University of Dallas theology prof, John Medaille has an excellent article on LifeSiteNews about the recently published and controversial note from the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, "Life and family issues underlie all economic issues in global debt crisis."
+
University of Dallas theology prof, John Medaille has an excellent article on LifeSiteNews about the recently published and controversial note from the Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, "Life and family issues underlie all economic issues in global debt crisis."
Prof. Medaille is an advocate of distributism. I admit to not knowing much about this economic philosophy, but it has a number of heavy-hitting brains behind it.
Give it a read and let me know what you think.
Follow HancAquam & Check out my Wish List --------->
Well, Father, I do appreciate the link, but the title was perplexing.My article was NOT a response to the Justice/Peace Commission note. It had absolutely nothing to do with it; like the Tedeschi article, it was about other issues. My response to the "note" was in the link in my first post on this thread. It is a total misrepresentation of my article and Tedeschi's article to present them in this way.
ReplyDeleteHere are the facts, not that anyone seems interested in facts anymore: The huge cross-border flows of money, credit, and commodities ARE regulated, HAVE ALWAYS been regulated, WILL ALWAYS be regulated; you cannot move that much wealth around without a combination of formal and informal controls. The only question is whether they will continue to be regulated by the most powerful forces in their own selfish interests, or whether they will be regulated in behalf of the common good, as Benedict demands in CinV.
Because they pointed to the real world, the Bishops have been treated as if they were a cabal of Bolsheviks, rather than teachers of the Truth specifically charged by the Pope with dealing with these matters. The Sandro story just lacks any credibility, and is borne out by no other source that I can locate (if you have another one, please let me know.) I really tend to doubt that the Secretary of State has so little control over affairs of this type; it would certainly be a departure from the modern history of the Vatican.
John, no one disputes that the flow of money is always controlled. You rightly note that the flow is usually controlled by those who do so for selfish reasons. However, turning the flow over to an international "authority" in no way guarantees that those same interests won't continue to be served. In fact, if history is any predictor, those interests will control the international authority for their selfish ends and use the political power inherent in the authority to accomplish far more nefarious ends. Supra-national bodies run roughshod over local gov't's and inevitability lead to bloated, expensive bureaucracies that do little more than perpetuate the illusion that they are desperately needed. There is simply no reason to believe that an international authority such as the one proposed in the PCJP will do anything at all for the common good.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the Holy Father in CV is calling for a truly Catholic understanding of how goods and money are distributed and used. And I understand that he's not calling for something like a U.N. style bank. I've said so many times on this blog. However, the note from the PCJP proposes just such a thing, ignoring the fact that it was international bodies like the IMF that got us into the mess we're in.
I'm not sure which bishops you're referring to. The PCJP note wasn't produced by bishops. It was written and published by a dicastery in the Curia. I suppose one or two bishops had a hand in its composition, but even that doesn't raise the note above its inherent magisterial authority.
The PCJP is not being criticized for its teaching on notions of Catholic social justice. It's being criticized for overstepping its proper limits and pretending to be competent in suggesting concrete solutions in the political realm. No one pointing out this failure can be accused of ignoring or denying the principles of Catholic social justice. And the PCJP (and its defenders) really can't complain when it is attacked on political grounds.
I must dissent from all the points you made.
ReplyDelete1. There are 16 bishops on the commission, not "one or two."
2. While it is true that an international body does not guarantee justice regulation, the lack of one guarantees unjust regulation.
3. The difference comes in how the regulatory bodies are constituted and how they grow.
4. Hence the note calls for slow and organic growth beginning with agreements between countries based on the principles of solidarity.
5. To suggest that the Church has neither competence nor authority in these matters is to accept the modernist division of authority that marginalizes and trivializes the Church.
6. This view has been rejected time and time again by the Church. IN fact, a good deal of our history is a battle against forces who would seek to limit the Church in her UNIVERSAL authority to teach.
7. The Magister article should be considered pure fantasy until someone can find a hint of corroborating evidence.
8. I went through this exact same battle--almost in the same terms--When Caritas in Veritate was issued. Remember the famous Weigal article, another exercise in ideological fantasizing?
This seems far more likely than Magister's fantasizing:
ReplyDeletehttp://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/did-cardinal-bertone-really-disown-the-document-on-economic-reform/
John, I posted that piece yesterday. Who knows? It might be. Though I know the Vatican is not run the anything near the efficiency of a US corp.
ReplyDeleteJohn @12.46,
ReplyDeleteYou're begging the question entirely. No one (especially me!) is denying that the Church has universal authority to teach the faith. The question is: if and to what degree does this note from a curial dicastery represent "the mind of the Church"? The PCJP is not the Church nor is the solution it proposes de fide.
This is not an argument about ideologues wanting to ignore the Church b/c they disagree with her social justice choices...though I know that happens. This is about faithful Catholics noting the proper magisterial authority of a curial dicastery and placing the teaching of that dicastery in that context.
John @12.46,
ReplyDeleteYou're begging the question entirely. No one (especially me!) is denying that the Church has universal authority to teach the faith. The question is: if and to what degree does this note from a curial dicastery represent "the mind of the Church"? The PCJP is not the Church nor is the solution it proposes de fide.
This is not an argument about ideologues wanting to ignore the Church b/c they disagree with her social justice choices...though I know that happens. This is about faithful Catholics noting the proper magisterial authority of a curial dicastery and placing the teaching of that dicastery in that context.