Poponomics: God Cribbing from Lenin?

August 26th, 2009

Strangest Bedfellows Outside of California

I got a disturbing email today. I don’t keep up with developments in the Catholic Church, but it looks like the Pope has put out a 141-page document calling for central control–with enforcement power–of the world’s economies. And he wants it to be based on altruism, which means socialism. The document came out in July.

This is dangerous development. To people who think the Pope’s infallibility goes beyond religion, and there are hundreds of millions of them, it makes it seem as though God is a socialist. If God is a socialist, he is even more forgiving than we thought, considering how socialists have always treated him.

Whatever the Pope’s authority may be in matters of religion, he clearly is not the person to ask about economics or politics. Imagine the shape the United States would be in, if we had to pay taxes determined by the envious citizens of other nations. This is exactly what socialists and hostile Muslims in other countries want. The socialists want to harness our wealth, but they would end up destroying our power to create it. The Muslims know it would ruin us; that’s exactly why they’d be behind it. Isn’t this pretty much what goes on right now, in the UN?

He seems to think the sin of greed caused our economic problems, and he feels that “greed” equals “capitalism.” He is apparently unaware that Bill Clinton and the Democrats forced lenders to take on borrowers who were certain to default, or that these bad loans are the single biggest reason for our current problems. The free market was working pretty well before Fannie Mae wrecked it. And the damage was done in the name of social justice. Exactly the same policy the Pope is recommending. He doesn’t seem to understand that people in positions of power do not operate altruistically just because it’s in their job descriptions. Maybe he needs to review the biographies of a few of his predecessors, to understand the possible contrast between a man’s title and his actions. Popes have failed where he expects politicians to succeed.

One of the great things about Jesus is that he was never a political leader. The disciples were just like the Pope. They wanted it all now. Jesus disappointed them, and when he died, they thought they had failed. They thought religion would provide them with a perfect world government and an all-powerful king who would humiliate and punish the Romans. Jesus understood that true righteousness can’t be imposed from above. It’s strictly grassroots. He didn’t live to punish the Romans and rule on earth. He died to rule in our hearts and in heaven.

God told the prophet Samuel that it was a mistake for Israel to have a king, because kings would be very harsh. I think the message can be extrapolated to apply universally. Governments are corrupt and disagreeable, because they are human institutions. This is apparently man’s punishment for choosing secular rule. Government isn’t something to trust and rely on. It’s something to dominate, limit, and treat with the same respect–if you can call it that–you would give a rattlesnake. The Third Reich wasn’t a business. It was a government.

Satan told Jesus all government was in his power, and it appears to be true, because Jesus did not deny it. If the Pope gets his wish, we’ll just end up with UN-style corruption augmented with Soviet-style power. The result will be totalitarianism plus poverty. You can’t have freedom or prosperity unless property rights are protected. When you control the money, you control everything. Central economic control is the same thing as central government. Period. Saying you want to control a person’s money but not his life is like saying you only want to put one of his thumbs in a vise. Like the thumb, the money will enable you to control the entire man. Ask Robert Byrd or Nancy Pelosi. This is how they got control of the states.

I can’t understand how the Pope can be this naive. Is it because of his cloistered lifestyle? Does he even have a checking account? What if the prevailing government is Muslim and persecutes Catholicism? What if it’s socialist (clearly what he prefers) and continues the socialist tradition of trying to abolish religion? And if we are forced to do charity, on pain of being jailed for disobeying the law, where is the virtue in giving to the poor? Is their maintenance more important than the existence of true charity? If man’s material needs were more important than free will and the righteousness that comes from using it correctly, God would have arranged the world a lot differently. Jesus flatly stated that we would always have the poor with us. He had all of God’s resources behind him, yet there were poor people–many of them Jews–while he lived. That tells us something about his priorities.

Where have socialism and Catholicism ever gotten along? Who paid for the Vatican? Who funds Catholic charities? Who made the Catholic Church the biggest landowner in New York City? Not socialism. Not a central world government. It was God-fearing individuals, making willing contributions. Who will replace their money when the Pope’s system goes into effect and kills all the golden geese? Who will keep churches open? Who will pay for monasteries and convents? Fidel Castro used to force priests to do manual labor, because they were considered parasites. Picture the Pope holding a dirty shovel. Nobody wants to see that.

I am trying to sit on my tendency to criticize denominations, but this story needs more exposure, so I’m writing about it. Some Christians think the Catholic Church is headed in a very bad direction, much as it is widely believed (even among Jews) that Judaism was a mess two thousand years ago. Perry Stone has hypothesized that it may be moving in the very direction the Pope’s writing indicates: toward the establishment of a central authority that will enforce some extremely misguided policies.

I try not to get too excited about eschatology, because for 2000 years, it has been proven wrong about as consistently as, oh, raising taxes to end poverty and stimulate growth. It tends to be right about generalities and wrong on details. But it’s unnerving to see the Pope write something which tends to support the speculation. There are a whole lot of Catholics in the world, and it would be a bad thing if they became convinced that central government would benefit mankind and please God. To me, central government smacks of the Tower of Babel. I think there is a reason man has never managed a political unification. I think God will not permit it until the end of the world, and when he does, it will not be so he can commend it.

I would really like to know what the Pope thinks of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. That would firm up my opinion of him, whether for good or bad.

18 Responses to “Poponomics: God Cribbing from Lenin?”

  1. Gayle Gallagher Says:

    Brilliant commentary. Where did you pick up this information? I surf news all day and didn’t see it anywhere. If true, this is the forging of yet another nail in freedom’s coffin. Also, how can I isolate an entry (such as this one) and share it on Facebook. Or would you rather your readers not have this option?

    Thanks for your endless vigilance on matters such as these.

  2. Anna Says:

    It is apparently no accident that most of catholic countries are not as economically successful as Protestant countries are.
    Look at South and Latin America and compare to USA or Canada.
    Somebody please tell the Pope that socialism violates
    10th commandment: “Do not covet”.

  3. aelfheld Says:

    Doesn’t saying the result of following the Pope’s suggestion would be “totalitarianism plus poverty” indicate that there are situations where totalitarianism doesn’t breed poverty? I don’t know of any totalitarianism that wasn’t, when all was said and done, poorer than its contemporaries.

  4. jeremy Says:

    I’ve always thought it was interesting that God’s rules for society in the Old Testament were actually extremely socialistic. Like the year of Jubilee, for example, and all the land-ownership rules. And yet that was all part of what Jesus freed us from when he freed us from the Law. And just like with everything else from the Law, under Love now, we’re held to a much higher and more difficult standard now that we’re free and not forced to comply.
    Law required an eye for an eye – easy. Love requires turning the other cheek. Law required giving ten percent. Love requires…. (fill in your blank here). Interesting to think of the whole written Law in this way, from the rules about shellfish all the way up through the rules about how to treat widows and orphans, thinking about what we know of God’s overall intent for his children. His approach changed, but his desires have not.

  5. Steve H. Says:

    I don’t consider ten percent “extremely” socialistic. We have had federal income tax rates of over 90%. For that matter, by their very nature, tithing and many of the other obligations were not socialist at all. Socialism takes by force. The Bible appears to indicate that many of the obligations it prescribes were left up to individual believers, without enforcement.
    .
    It is always a mistake to confuse government-mandated giving with giving prescribed by religion. It excuses the kind of discredited, counterproductive, immoral business the Pope seems to be pushing for.

  6. Steve H. Says:

    Gayle, it’s very nice of you to say all that. I can’t remember how I came across this article. As for Facebook, I would prefer that people not take my writing from me by publishing it elsewhere.

  7. Gayle Gallagher Says:

    I understand about Facebook. And I don’t believe anything can be “shared” (the new button added to “print” and “email” to most articles these days) without publisher/author info going with it to the shared site.

  8. gerry from valpo Says:

    Recovering Catholic (12 years in the private Catholic education system) here. The reason the church owns so much property is due to many members donating land to the church in their wills after death. The church really doesn’t want any more land because it takes up too much administrative manpower. As far as the church promoting socialistic behavior, hell yeah. We’ve known that for decades. That’s nothing new. But they never were active politically as far as I know.

  9. Steve_in_CA Says:

    Gerry, I submit Father Michael Pfleger as a priest who is politically active in Socialist matters. I also seem to recall quite a few Catholic Piests in Central America 20 years ago who were also very political with a socialist bent. Political activism and Catholic (as well as all other) clergy have been close partners since the time of Constantine.

  10. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    Gayle, click “permalink” on the post. This will show you a web page consisting of only that post. Copy the address of that page, heck here it is: http://toolsofrenewal.com/?p=4181 and reference it from your Facebook page.

  11. gerry from valpo Says:

    Submit all you wish and don’t forget the pedophiles priests.
    .
    I did not leave the church the church left me.

  12. J.M. Heinrichs Says:

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

    And, as an encyclical, I don’t think papal infallibility is being invoked.

    Cheers

  13. Virgil Says:

    Imagine in a few years Bill or sHrillary running the UN and using the current or a future pope to commandeer the Catholic Church and make it the “official” world religion…all the while explaining the consfication of our time and money in the name of divine charity services.

  14. Steve H. Says:

    People tend to think that a person who is good at one thing is good at everything. This is why Albert Einstein’s backward and simplistic ideas about politics get respect.

  15. km Says:

    Steve H. – Doctors are famous for this error of imagined omniscience. When I (briefly) worked at a firm that did stocker broker malpractice defense work, I was stunned at how totally dumb – yet utterly arrogant – so many doctors were (they were the ones often suing the brokers).

  16. Arcs Says:

    Steve, until you read the encyclical, avail yourself of this one fact: whoever penned the email you received saying that the Church is calling for a one-world government did not read the encyclical either.

    Or couldn’t understand the 8th grade level words, more likely.

  17. Steve H. Says:

    It’s good to have the source in front of me. Troubling nuggets:
    .
    “The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed
    .
    Sounds a lot like, “Marxism didn’t work because the wrong people were in charge,” doesn’t it?
    .
    More bad news:
    .
    “The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens. It should be added that at present it is possible to achieve improved energy efficiency while at the same time encouraging research into alternative forms of energy. What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest.”
    .
    Who oversees this redistribution? Any power that can do this is effectively a one-world government. It will be able to issue commands no nation can resist. Call it what you wish.
    .
    Uh oh:
    .
    “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138], if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”
    .
    That sure looks like central authority.
    .
    Oh, boy. He wants labor unions to export their doctrine:
    .
    “The global context in which work takes place also demands that national labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries where social rights are often violated. The protection of these workers, partly achieved through appropriate initiatives aimed at their countries of origin, will enable trade unions to demonstrate the authentic ethical and cultural motivations that made it possible for them, in a different social and labour context, to play a decisive role in development.”
    .
    Are you sure you read this thing? It’s basically a fairy tale that offers no concrete or discrete instructions. “We should all be better and stop having faults and make the world really good” sums it up. Here’s the bit about creating a central financial authority, which is tantamount to a central government:
    .
    “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”
    .
    Here’s your smoking gun:
    .
    “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”
    .
    If anything, the article was too mild.

  18. Clark Says:

    Steve, how in the world would altruism be in any way related to socialism? There is nothing in it whatsoever about sharing control/ownership of capital or the means of production, nothing about increasing government control of anything, and nothing even approaching totalitarianism. Period.