Regardless of whether or not the Pope is correct in his views is he misusing his influence as a religious leader to spread his own ideology?
Isn’t “using his influence as a religious leader to spread his ideology” pretty much his job description?
A remark I read the other day where the Pope had stated " “Unregulated Capitalism” is destroying the environment. Unregulated anything will destroy the environment, presently capitalism is the largest economic force so it naturally will be the most destructive to the environment. But in all fairness any thing that can have such far reaching environmental should be regulated. It sounds like he is getting ready to start a war with capitalism.
The comment I am referring to was being reported second hand so I guess it is possible the pope never said it.That is what I hope to see debated, I feel he should not get too far into politics.
I don’t really understand the OP’s question. Is the implication that leaders should only address their own followers? So Obama should never speak to any other nation’s people on any topic?
I, for one, am absolutely electrified by the recent encyclical - even as an atheist from generational Protestant roots. (Okay, the Mrs comes from a nominally Cat’lic family, very few of whom are practicing.) But not as much for its condemnation of climate change and so forth, or even the (more predictable) damning of unbridled capitalism as one of the engines of climate shift - but for something buried a little deeper that old Frank clearly understands as the real danger.
This may be a watershed moment in global economic thought.
I recommend reading the actual document and not relying on news, analysis or second-hand comments. It’s not that long and the religious parts can be skimmed. This guy’s got something to say to all of us, and I cheer him for having the vision to do so. (Instead of basically hiding in the Vatican and grumping about loss of Catholic influence, as his predecessors of recent decades have done.)
For the most part I am ecstatic over the Popes calling attention to global problems. I happy is he taking a hard line. I have some fear that his political leaning,( even though it would be obvious anyway through his messages) should be less direct. Any system is bad if unregulated, unregulation should be the target.
Is that just when he gets too far into politics that you don’t agree with? Because the RCC has been all up in my politics for a long time.
It is one of those situations like defining porn, a chief justice said " He can’t define it, but he knows it when he sees it" . It reminds me of Monica Lewinsky, she caved to an abuse of power. I see the pope taking an unfair advantage of his religious appointment so can promote his own ideologies. He never campaigned on his philosophies to go through an election. It seems like cheating to me.
Thing is, in this case it is not his ideology, what we have here is a case of the church listening to science.
I was not going to be involved on this until it was clear what was the complaint against the pope about, I was not surprised about what it was.
On one hand the Pope is out of touch by ignoring that family planning (that includes contraceptives) is an important factor to prevent the destruction of the environment, OTOH many popes before him did talk before about protecting the environment, so this complaint against the pope is late.
The criticism here seems to originate with the propaganda that climate change deniers continue to spew furiously.
I actually do like his message. I found one single thing he said to be offensive. This is tricky because I agree with what he said but not the implications it has. He said that unbridled capitalism is the enemy. He also said greed, and dishonesty and some other things were wrong which I have zero problem with. He is telling the people of the world that Capitalism is bad, even though he said unbridled capitalism. What system would be better if it were also unbridled?
Straw men are not better either.
Again the point was about unbridled capitalism, capitalism with some limits is not out of the question.
As a religious leader he should have at a very minimum expanded on that. A lot of people just heard capitalism.
Some people hear what they want to hear in order to justify their attacks.
QFT
I have to add here that China (yes, they are controlled by communists but they are allowing a lot of unbridled shit) and India are finding that an ecology that is going to the toilet also means lost opportunities and lost jobs thanks to rivers becoming poisoned or drying up, who knew those things are not conductive to developing a good capitalist economy? Well, seems that the Republicans when they started the EPA realized that human angle a long time ago. The current crop of Republicans seems to be coming from Mars.
The thing they seem to be fearful is that some jobs will be affected. But, dealing with ecological problems does not mean that the world economy will end, the economy just modifies and it can continue to grow indeed as history showed already when efforts to control human refuse with modern plumbing, to control acid rain, to control CFC’s, limiting phosphates in our rivers, etc. were done. Nations like China and India are finding that indeed doing the right thing is also the right thing for capitalism.
Is this an assumption on your behalf, or is there a specific group of people you have in mind?
It is an assumption on my behalf.
The debate is really not about the issues he is bringing up as much as it is should a person like the Pope who was simply appointed as the head of a large religion have so much influence over non religious affairs. He could have just as easily had opposite views.
That’s their problem.
I’m going to guess that you didn’t read the recent Encyclical in which the Pope clearly lays out his views. I’m with Amateur Barbarian on this – it’s definitely well worth a read. It’s really quite a beautiful document. I’ve only got through part of it but I can tell you this:
[ul]He is not the first Pope to take a position on the environment – Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI before him all issued similar statements, though none so complete and eloquent.
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]His scientific comprehension and accuracy is commendable – see for instance paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 in which he discusses Climate as a common good.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The word “capitalism” appears nowhere in it, neither “unbridled” nor “unregulated” nor any other kind. Indeed in paragraph 129 he says, “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.” He is not anti-business or anti-capitalism. Is that a clear enough “expanding” on your issue?[/li][/ul]
I will make it a point to read that, I love the message. I am just questioning whether or not a pope can abuse his power if he goes too far.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has worked for any length of time without dictatorial control; it is what all systems slide into without such iron control. I conclude it is the natural economic system of at least the present epoch.
But it turns into a rapacious predator unless it’s restrained. I have no problem with Francis saying that for all to hear. We have (all) worshipped “Business” as a god for far too long.