Continuing from yesterday, link here.
206. Economy, as the very word indicates, should be the art of achieving a fitting management of our common home, which is the world as a whole. Each meaningful economic decision made in one part of the world has repercussions everywhere else; consequently, no government can act without regard for shared responsibility. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find local solutions for enormous global problems which overwhelm local politics with difficulties to resolve. If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few.
More of the discredited central planning that is so beloved by bureaucracy here, disappointing but not unexpected.
208. If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology. My words are not those of a foe or an opponent. I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centred mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth.
OK, but the main problem with most of our economies is caused by government. I see no particular reason to suddenly think they would be a positive influence. It would be best if they stuck to being the government as prescribed by their citizens and got out of the way.
This one is different, those who know me, know I am not anti-Catholic. While I am not shy about criticizing when it is due, it behooves me to commend as well, and paragraph 214 is absolutely perfect
214. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or“modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?
I couldn’t agree more with this.
In paragraph 218 he writes
218. Peace in society cannot be understood as pacification or the mere absence of violence resulting from the domination of one part of
society over others. Nor does true peace act as a pretext for justifying a social structure which silences or appeases the poor, so that the more affluent can placidly support their lifestyle while others have to make do as they can. Demands involving the distribution of wealth, concern for the poor and human rights cannot be suppressed under the guise of creating a consensus on paper or a transient peace for a contented minority. The dignity of the human person and the common good rank higher than the comfort of those who refuse to renounce their privileges. When these values are threatened, a prophetic voice must be raised.
219. Nor is peace “simply the absence of warfare, based on a precarious balance of power; it is fashioned by efforts directed day after day towards the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect justice among men”. In the end, a peace which is not the result of integral development will be doomed; it will always spawn new conflicts and various forms of violence.
This wants for a definition of what the “common good’ is but, other than that there is little to disagree with. But then it is mostly platitudes, with little idea of how to get from here to there. No, I don’t either..
And in paragraph 232
232. Ideas – conceptual elaborations – are at the service of communication, understanding, and praxis. Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism and nominalism, capable at most of classifying and defining, but certainly not calling to action. What calls us to action are realities illuminated by reason. Formal nominalism has to give way to harmonious objectivity. Otherwise, the truth is manipulated, cosmetics take the place of real care for our bodies. We have politicians – and even religious leaders – who wonder why people do not understand and follow them, since their proposals are so clear and logical. Perhaps it is because they are stuck in the realm of pure ideas and end up reducing politics or faith to rhetoric. Others have left simplicity behind and have imported a rationality foreign to most people.
Ideas, like every form of property, serve those who create them, and in that service, help all people. This is basic economics, an idea comes from a man’s (or woman’s) mind, is developed by him, and is deployed. Some help mankind, some only help their creator, and some are detrimental to either or both. Life is messy like that
On Islam, in paragraph 253, he writes
253. In order to sustain dialogue with Islam,suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully
grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.
To which I am inclined to say, OK, but I see little sign that violent Islamic fundamentalism is not mainstream, and if it is not, perhaps Islam itself needs to restrain it, before defending our own people becomes paramount in our mind. Which, to a great extent is already happening.
There are some troubling things in here, some are quite troubling, we will address them in the next post. I should probably say, these posts are best considered as one, very long, article. I have split them up simply for convenience, both mine and yours.
We will continue in Part 3, and the full document is here. It’s no longer online but is now a PDF that you have to download.