Thank you for this informative posting.

It makes no difference if this statement is not a doctrine of the Church -the Catholic “social justice” crowd and the leftist will treat it as such because it justifies – them and their politics. This is not unlike Cardinal Bernardin’s “Seamless Garment” speech at Fordham University December 1983, and you know how effective that was in getting Catholics to work for the sanctity of human life and a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, some 52,000,000 murdered babies later.  This “non-doctrine” will be used to bring about even more class warfare and eventually, maybe even next year, warfare in the streets leading up to a dictator - Obama.

The world government of economics has already fallen.  The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion brought out a good historical piece…the Bretton Woods gold standard was removed by President Nixon, and that institutions dealing with credit began to abound, while revenues did not.

The prior administration claimed the government had plenty of money to finance sub-prime so everyone could own their own home.  This administration wants to create government jobs, and is not focusing on effective means of building revenue.

We need to develop sources and means of revenue.  We have so many people, and less and less jobs in a highly technical world.  Africa wants to contribute to the world market, but is struggling to get its foot in the door.  However, foreign companies are coming in to draw on its assets, with cheap labor and questionable worker practices….Fair Trade is a way to begin development in poorer countries.

But it looks like the world economy has gotten too complex, too computerized with transactions being done in an instant making it impossible for human supervision, and we are facing some kind of world correction. 

The young are inheriting the debt who voted this administration in.  If there is a dictatorship coming, it will only cause more social unrest.

Pray and do penance and live the Gospel….

Why was this document even made public, if the only portions of it that are Magisterial come from previous Magisterial teaching, which is already known to the general public?

I can’t help but think that this is a kind of “leading from behind,” in which Cardinal Turkson knows perfectly well that his “note” would be used by leftist organizations all over the world to advance the cause of socialism and to further the cause of government centralization of functions that are more properly performed at the local level, and where at all possible by private—not governmental—initiative. 

Oh, yes, of course, the “note” acknowledges, repeatedly, the principle of subsidiarity—but this acknowledgment is pro forma, in my opinion. 

The document was released publicly, after all; and I think that that fact alone speaks volumes as to the intended effect, which predictably is very different from the stated purpose. 

After all, to what purpose is a non-Magisterial, non-instructional document?  Is the purpose at all—on the face of it—to instruct the faithful?  Well, no!! It isn’t!! After all, this is NOT an “instruction,” NOR is it a “Magisterial teaching”, is it now?  Oh, no!! 

Oh, no? 

No, the effect—which I believe was very much intended by the good Cardinal—was deliberately to provide “fodder” for the leftist media the world over—to lend the Church’s “imprimatur” to the radical movements that believe in forcibly (=at the point of guns, if need be) redistributing wealth.

The good Cardinal Turkson knew perfectly well that this document—whatever you want to label it—would be used by leftist media.  That was exactly the intended effect.  Turkson is “going around” the Pope with this document to advance his own leftist agenda.  Turkson is, I suppose, therefore, a socialist; and one who is frustrated by the hierarchy’s refusal to endorse this kind of Marxist/leftist “dogma.”  Therefore, he simply went around the Pope. 

I count the public issuance of this “non-instructional” document to be an act of defiance by Turkson.  He’s a socialist; the Pope is not; therefore, “we will be our OWN Magisterium” by giving the media just enough propaganda—which always contains a kernel of truth—to make it appear to the uninformed general public that the “Church” thinks Occupy Wall Street is a good thing!!!

Just by coincidence, I have been reading “Capitalism and Freedom” and “Money Mischief” by Milton Friedman. He makes the point that centralization of authority and decision making provides a central point of failure for monetary and economic policy. In engineering, a central point of failure means that one weak point can bring the entire concept to its knees. The main benefit of true capitalism where uncoerced, informed buyers transact with oncoerced, informed sellers is that both parties win. They both make a profit or they would not enter into the transaction. The only true purpose of government action in a free market is to ensure the two points of “uncoerced” and “informed” to prevent fraud and coercion.
-
In money mischief, he points out numerous cases over the years where various governments have for the best (and sometimes worst) of motives interfered in the money markets. The results were usually in an entirely unexpected (by the decision makers that is) direction.

The Church used to teach the concept of subsidiarity. The idea that government decisions should be made at the lowers level of government possible so as be close to the ones affected. They need a corollary concept that governments should not make decisions if individuals can make decisions on their own.

If the Greek or Italian governments cannot make good decisions then they should go bankrupt. While in the short term, this will cause upset, in the long term, people only learn common sense from the consequences of their decisions. Thinking that an international bureaucracy will have any wisdom for actions affecting the better running of the Greek economy is like thinking that a doctor in Rome can have customized wisdom for the individual treatments of 100,000 different individuals scattered around Italy each of whom are different ages with different diseases and different exercise backgrounds and different diets and corollary diseases. One size simply cannot fit all. That is why the centralized Soviet Economy fell. It was not for lack of experts. It was because no matter how expert one is, you cannot replace the localized, even if slightly lesser, wisdom of the doctor/pharmacist/physical therapist and their patient on the spot.

The reason the Greek economy is failing is because the Greek government adopted many of the principals of the Soviet government. Others cannot bail this out. The Greeks must learn what to do and WHAT NOT TO DO on their own. Putting an international grandpa in charge will not avail except to spend and waste funds and quite probably make the situation of the Greeks worse. The international grandpa will do no better then the IMF has done in the past.

Friedman books were fascinating and I am glad I pulled them off the shelf at the library last month. They are mostly about common sense.

David Gibson

To David Gibson:  The Church did not “used to teach the concept of subsidiarity”; it still does.  Even Cardinal Turkson’s document acknowledges, repeatedly, the concept of subsidiarity.  See my posting, above.  I don’t believe that it is calumny at least to question Cardinal Turkson’s motives for the publication of this document, which easily could have been an internal, non-published working document.  Because the document does not pretend to have the force of an instruction, much less a Magisterial pronouncement, why release it at all to the general public?  The Church already has many, many public, Magisterial statements about the organization of human affairs, not a one of which espouses a globalized monetary system.  If I question Cardinal Turkson’s motivation, is my skepticism warranted based upon past performance of Cardinals and Bishops?  I think so!!

When a Vatican statement agrees with the conservative point of view, then it is part of the ordinary magisterium.  If not in agreement, then it is just a bad idea.  Talk about “cafeteria Catholics”.

@Kathleen

“The prior administration claimed the government had plenty of money to finance sub-prime so everyone could own their own home.”

A rule change was proposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the last year of George W. Bush’s 1st term that would “jeopardize” the more lenient requirements for “local communities (to) gaining access to private capital.  “(T)he proposal would allow mid-size banks to choose a loosely defined ‘community development activity’ rather than the current requirement of providing comprehensive community development activities needed by low - and moderate - income communities.” (“USCCB - Office of Media Relations, 9/22/04 entitled: Proposed Changes in Community Development Regulations Would Hurt Low Income, Rural Communities, Say USCCB Official”) The purpose of the rule change was not to “hurt” anybody…it was to tighten the mortgage lending requirements to stabilize the lending institutions. 

And from the Congressional Record in 1st year of his 2nd term:

“FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate

May 25, 2006

“Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

“The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

“The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

“I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

“I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.”

The legislation was defeated by the Democrats, as was all efforts by the Republicans to get the Dems to tighten those Community Redevelopment regs.

To “FLAMEN,” regarding your cynicism… I cite for you Jimmy Akin’s own conclusion, based upon detailed analysis of the Canons relevant to the promulgation of Magisterial teachings:

“In view of the foregoing, it would appear that the PCJP note does not itself represent an act of the Magisterium.”

Flamen:  did you even bother to READ THROUGH Akin’s analysis? 

I accuse you of cynicism, because you apparently believe that when “conservatives” agree with any document issued by the Church, it is to be regarded as having the force of Magisterial teaching, but that otherwise (i.e., a so-called “liberal” document), conservatives (a term which I suppose you are using in the political sense of the term) immediately dismiss any document issued from the Vatican.  This is a rankly cynical view of the very way in which faithful Catholics view Church teaching.

Speaking for myself, a political conservative (as the term is known in America), I would say that I always place Magisterial Church teaching above any political process. 

Furthermore, I submit, FLAMEN, that perhaps you didn’t actually read Cardinal Turkson’s “note,” which repeatedly calls for the principle of subsidiarity to govern remedies to the world’s myriad economic injustices (and there ARE many)!! 

MY point, posted above, clearly addresses my own concern about the motivation prompting Cardinal Turkson’s issuance of this “note,” given that—by Canon Law—this “note” has NO Magisterial effect other than that which incidentally derives directly from previously issued Magisterial documents.  What is the point of this press release by Cardinal Turkson?  Is it to “instruct” the Faithful?  Well, no, not really—not if it does not carry the force of the Magisterium. 

No, my own concern is that Turkson is pre-meditatedly, deliberately trying to influence political processes by giving the APPEARANCE of some sort of “official Church sanction” to what in the Western world are known as radical-leftist wealth-redistribution programs. 

The means for the accomplishment of a better distribution of the world’s material goods is open for discussion, true. 

But somehow, to me at least, it seems that Cardinal Turkson knew that the Church’s stance solidly in favor of subsidiarity would be completely overlooked and/or hidden by mainstream media, whose solidarity with the radical leftists is well known. 

I ask: 

Were the mainstream media’s headlines all about “Subsidiarity Precludes Collectivist Intent of Protestors”??? Well, no!!  That kind of headline, supporting subsidiarity, goes against the collectivists’ utopian dreams. 

But I think that the headlines garnered in the media about the Church supposedly supporting the radical protestors’ dreams of Marxist re-distribution schemes are exactly what Turkson and his ilk truly wanted.  They got what they wanted—headlines that screamed, basically, that the Church is supporting Marxist redistribution schemes supported by the Occupy Wall Street Crowd.  Therefore, I question Turkson’s true motivation—- more than so-called political conservatives, it is Turkson whose views of a collectivist utopia shine through in the press coverage given to his un-needed press release.  It is Turkson, I believe, who is putting his own personal socialist, collectivist, political agenda above the true goals of our Faith.  So, who is the REAL CAFETERIA CATHOLIC?  TURKSON, OR THIS CORRESPONDENT??? OR, PERHAPS, YOU, DEAR FLAMEN??

The recent “note” isn’t magisterial, but the encyclicals it quotes are radical enough.  This is true of many recent encyclicals:  whether it’s Paul VI preaching the Gospel of life in Humanae Vitae, or Benedict XVI preaching the Gospel of charity in Deus Caritas Est, Christ speaks through the Church to bring not a smug peace, but a sword that cuts us to the heart.

Preach the Christian truth about contraception, abortion, marriage, or subsidiarity, and our culture labels you a right-winger. Preach the Christian truth about social solidarity with the poor, the imprudence of capital punishment under modern conditions, or the implications of just war theory, and our culture labels you a left-winger. 

American Catholics sin greatly when we snipe at each other from within Democratic liberal or Republican conservative ideologies.  We are called to be Christians first, patriots second, and partisans rarely, if at all. 

Catholic liberals are tempted to downplay the culture of life; Catholic conservatives are tempted to ignore the Church’s social teaching.  It’s hard to be the only pro-lifer in a room full of your fellow Democrats, or the only opponent of the idolatry of the market in a room full of your fellow Republicans.  This tempts us to ignore the parts of the Church’s teaching that might force us to challenge our friends, and replace it with our own “cafeteria” choices that line up with our preferred political party, so we can have what appears to be a “seamless” worldview.  How better for Satan to divide American Catholics against each other?

Let’s be charitable to one another in this thread.  Let’s be Christians.

Thank you Irenist - I have tried to figure out what to say about the incessant attacking by one side of the other - and then Catholics of either side wonder why their message is falling on deaf ears and being reduced to fodder for the “dreaded” MSM.  Let me echo your pleas - be charitable and Christian and I might add be thoughtful and not emotional.

I think the note can be considered as “talking points” encouraging dialog amongst those of us with vocations in fields of techne (scientifically developed economy) or poiesis (politics as art of the possible, H/T Machiavelli) in service to the common good (which includes a ‘yield’ to heaven, ie earthly enterprises—business or politics conducted in the public square—may not allow souls to perish, souls are to flourish and pass onto their eternal reward. Its not polite (or just) to draw attention to sinful conduct (in public), thus these “talking points” allow us to examine our consciences, a dose of analysis on causes, another dose exploring outcomes. Those with particular responsibility for goods held in common (private corporate CEOs/public community leaders) have to reconcile their actions in the same radical simplicity as a bank reconciles our checking account ledger. The “bubble” is a threat since deflating it can be negotiated or not, the former requires courage to face the facts, the latter risks enormous material harm to mostly innocent bystanders (employees, stockholders, citizens, dependants).

This is a gift-wrapped anniversary present to the G20 designed to appeal to their human instinct for goodness and truth, in the hope they will pursue a creative and pleasant path out of the crises, for if they do not then the unpleasant chaos of the logic of nature will takes its cosmic course. 

Think of subsidiarity as a sense instrument - a patient with a chronic pain familiar to him knows when to seek balm from a applying home-made poultice or sipping an herbal infusion, the risks associated with aches of overworked or ageing limbs is foreseeable and manageable on an individual level.

With an unfamiliar acute pain he needs the subsidium of a nurse or radiologist who can diagnose a broken bone or infectious abscess involving a risks unforeseeable or unmanageable on an individual level.

The problem with Milton Freidman’s views on so-called free markets is his inconsistent advocacy of banks: he treats them differently than all other entrepreneurs. His promotion of fractional reserve currencies and FIAT central banking remove the ability to distinguish the risks as foreseeable or manageable as determined by the price signal associated with particular economic means (poultices and herbal teas are abundant and cheap, the investment is low risk, while clinics and x-ray machines are priced much more dearly since the investment involves much higher risks). His theories only go so far, be careful advocating his POV as a solution.

To my correspondents, above: I refer you today to George Weigel’s piece in NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281654/desperate-churchmice-george-weigel?pg=1
Since when is robust discussion considered “sniping”? 
I rest my case with Weigel’s articulate statement.

This is another occasion of trying to rationalize the liberalism that has been coming out of the Vatican. If the Pope does not agree with this document and it is not in accord with Church teaching then he needs to remove the people who published it and publicly refute it. But he won’t. This is along the lines of Vatican Radio praising Cherie Blair as “a faithful Catholic” and L’Osservatore Romano praising President Obama and stating he is not pro abortion. And the list of dissent from Church teaching and the scandal that it causes goes on. Just last week a pagan priest said a prayer to a pagan god in a consecrated church in Assisi in the presence of the Pope. No statement was issued stating this was done without papal knowledge. All of these things are scandalous but we are always being told these things are not the beliefs of the Pope. Yet they keep happening and nothing is being done to correct them. One has to wonder maybe it’s because they really are what he believes…..

BOULETBOULET - I am glad you rest your case on Weigel’s diatribe - articulate it is, robust discussion it is not - it is Weigel again making an attempt to be holier than the Pope and wiser than all of us.  His presentation is what is wrong with conservative thought at this time - no ability to reflect only the ability to attack and attack and ridicule.  And Thomas - who appointed you the arbiter of what is appropriate for an inter-faith meeting or for that matter stating that you know the Pope’s mind?  The concept of meeting with one another and recognizing that God created us all and it our duty to lead people to God seems foreign in your comments. 
But why waste my breath - I can see that you have made up your minds regardless of facts and thought.

As a member of the Knights of Columbus and Patriotism being one of the 4 pillars of our fraternity, I found this document very disturbing since as an American we are often considered a capitalist society, even though we are a REPUBLIC.  With that said, this country and our capitalist tendencies have done more for the poor and the broken and infirm than any other nation in history.  In our search for equality and social justice the target on my Nation’s back if very large and it’s far too easy my European brothers that authored this portray of capitalism as intrinsically evil.  I must tell them, it’s not, like any system it’s people in the system that are.  However, the trade-off is far worse and as can been seen across Europe, socialism is not the answer. And, I might say neither is a one world government.

As a conservative, I’m sick and tired of the knee-jerk assumption that “conservatives want to ignore the Church’s social justice policies.”

NO, WE DO NOT.

But neither do we believe that socialism, communism, or the nanny state is a good way to put Christian social justice policies into effect. Because we don’t, however, that makes us “lack compassion”?

Well, then, we’re in good company. St. Paul said, “If a man does not work, neither should he eat.” Was he a conservative, then, who ignored Christian social justice? Hardly.

But all around us, we are surrounded by weepy souls insisting that no matter how much someone abuses the system, no matter how illegal their residency may be in any given land, no matter how much legitimate work and effort and time has gone into someone else’s prosperity, and no matter how little any of these recipients plan to give back to the community that so guiltily and earnestly feeds them…we as Christians still owe them “more.”

NO, WE DO NOT.

Yes, I know we are to “turn the other cheek,” but there is nothing in ANY Christian social teaching that, either by direction or implication, says that charity has to be on ONE side only. We are to be servants OF ONE ANOTHER; that means that when you can give back, you are OBLIGATED to do so. We are to provide for our own (or be, as Scripture says, “worse than an infidel”); nowhere in Scripture or Catholic social teaching are we excused from taking care of our OWN responsibilities. So where does taking care of one’s own come in when one preys on guilty consciences of those who happen to work hard and succeed?

Conservatives have been painted as un-Catholic and uncaring long enough. It’s time to stop the smear campaign and realize we’re just as caring as liberals are…in fact, in real dollars, we’re MORE caring than liberals are. (Look it up.) And it’s time to stop lambasting conservatives under the guise of “Church social teaching.” Yes, we have to provide for the poor…and yes, we must not neglect our brothers and sisters in the pursuit of material pleasure. But let’s not confuse that with any “ism” that is merely a thinly disguised attack on anyone who’s willing to work, and earn, their own living. Honest work and honest economic benefit ought to be praised, not vilified. Everyone benefits from it, the poor included.

When the bishops start understanding THAT, maybe more of us will pay attention to the rest.

JB

Janny:

Don’t worry about it.

Yes, it’s true, some people still repeat the notion that conservatives don’t care for the poor, despite the fact that in the U.S. at least, conservatives give (on average, and with exceptions) roughly twice as much to the needy as left-liberals do, measured both as a percentage of their incomes and in absolute-dollar terms…and this is true at in every income bracket. Conservatives also volunteer more, give blood more often…in short, they care more, if one measures caring by deeds instead of by mere words.

But you must remember not to berate your left-liberal brethren for their insistence that failure to agree with welfare-state proposals indicates a miserly, uncaring attitude. It is false, but many of them don’t know this. In fact, the privacy of one’s income tax returns (and the usual conservative cultural attitude of not talking about one’s acts of charity, which I am to a degree violating in writing this) means that many left-liberals are simply unaware that conservatives regularly outstrip them in generosity to the needy.

And, for those that are aware, there is another problem. You see, the Church stopped selling indulgences way back in the 1500’s. Yet, as the numbers indicate with significant clarity, left-liberals are personally miserly to the poor, at least in comparison to conservatives. This has to weigh on their consciences, and they cannot assuage this guilt by merely going to confession, because then they’ll have to hear the bit about firmly intending an amended life—and as any tithing conservative will tell you, that’s expensive! So support for welfare-state policies allows them to “buy an indulgence” which offsets their miserly personal conduct on the cheap, without having to change anything long-term.

It is, in fact, a particularly inexpensive indulgence for the great benefit it provides:

(a.) Those purchasing it can justify any amount of stinginess by it;

(b.) Progressive income taxation means that unless they have very high incomes, the actual increase in their own taxes will be relatively small, and they can feel secure in thinking that if their own taxes have gone up, well, so have everyone else’s;

(c.) Their public activism for bad government constitutes “working for justice,” so it allows them a certain degree of self-righteous self-congratulation as they begin to picture themselves as crusaders for justice;

(d.) High-income-earners (not, mind you, the folk who are wealthy, because they don’t usually earn much in wage form; no just the high-income-earners, which is a different and less wealthy group of people) will pay the lion’s share of the difference. Since non-wealthy left-liberals are frequently eaten up by envy and resentment, this makes them feel better for “sticking it” to anyone who’s better off than they are;

(e.) Wealthy left-liberals who support both welfare-state policies and progressive income taxation get the benefit of appearing to be self-sacrificial inasmuch as they seem to be voting against their own interests…although really wealthy folk like Warren Buffett will hardly be affected since their wealth is in the form of securities and they have barely any annual income;

(g.) And all of this deftly circumvents the need to write a check out of one’s own checkbook solely for the purpose of helping one’s neighbor, which (any conservative will tell you) can sometimes be a bit painful and therefore requires a strong act of willful self-discipline. It also allows one to delegate charitable giving to the government, and thereby avoid any nitty-gritty issues of walking among the poor and figuring out who’s a scammer and who’s really in need.

So, Janny, considering all the attractiveness of left-liberal politicking, can you really blame them? Considering how their mutual approval for one another reinforces them, and how contempt for those with different ideas about how government should act allows them such smug feelings of superiority, the temptation must be nearly overwhelming. It may not be a temptation to which you yourself are prone, but show some grace for those of your brothers who wrestle with it.

Wow!!! The Pontifical Council’s article really got the “George Will” followers and the aptly labeled “conservative” Catholics really riled up, didn’t it?

But what got those folks so mad - some simple statements about an imbalance of financial (and moral?) status throughout the world resulting in “haves” and “have nots”! Does anyone out there responding so far doubt that poverty, health issues, and, ruthless and financially selfserving dictators, etc., exist in our world society? The “dictators” may not even be the principal problem - we all need to look inward at the lack of forceful intervention by well off/financially stable national governments to help those both at home and elsewhere in the world who cannot help themselves, and, I am not talking here about the current self-derived financial situation in Greece.

I well recognize the term has fallen into disuse, but whatever happened to what should be a universal Catholic concern for the “Common Good”? One responder referred to the work of Cardinal Bernadin but in a disparaging manner. Whatever your theological/political disposition may be, the man, his memory and his work deserves better, especially from someone who apparently considers oneself a Catholic.

Anyway, most of you responders need to go back and read the Pontifical Council statement again. Maybe the second time around we’ll get its’ message instead of getting so overly scrupulous about whether it has a magisterial capacity to it or not.

Edward Kelly:

I think you’ve mistaken the reaction of the more politically conservative Catholics to the whitepaper or “note”.

The vast majority of them agree with the whole of the whitepaper up until the specific policy suggestions begin. They agree because they believe so firmly in advancing the “Common Good.” This is what keeps them nodding happily as they work their way through the document.

But then they reach the specific policy suggestions, and their eyes pop out and their jaws drop and the groans begin, because the specific policy suggestions represent exactly the same kinds of policy suggestions which created or exacerbated so much of the imbalance, so many of the financial problems of “have nots,” so much poverty, and so on.

From a conservative perspective, therefore, the document reads a little like the Council complaining that too many people suffer from pallor and muscle weakness and iron deficiencies and blue lips and tingling fingertips and toes…and that the recommended cures are bloodletting and leeches.

Or, to use a different analogy: It would be like a whitepaper suggesting that there may be a problem with some priests making sexual advances to boys, and recommending keeping the matter quiet and moving them to different dioceses as the best way to fix the problem.

In short, there is no lack of appreciation of the problems, and no loss of concern for the “Common Good”; in fact conservatives are comparatively more attuned to this than their left-liberal neighbors, as evidenced by their greater charitable giving.

But there is a serious disagreement about whether the concrete steps listed in the whitepaper would help or hurt. The Pontifical Council obviously believes they would help; conservatives are confident they would be disastrously harmful.

And that, by-the-way, is why it is pertinent whether the Council note is at all “magisterial” or not. For, if (hypothetically) it were within the infallible charism of a pope to infallibly know whether Economic Policy X would help or hurt the economy, and if the pope then taught infallibly that Economic Policy X would help, then that would be an oracle from God. If the conservatives disagreed, they would be disagreeing with God’s assessment, not a man’s. And that would be a very good reason for them to reconsider!

So, conservatives, if they are faithful Catholic, must note who is saying it, and in what form, and on what topic, to make sure that if they disagree, they are not flouting the authority of the Magisterium.

But in this case they clearly aren’t. We have a minor dicastery (not the pope) speaking about the kinds of political and diplomatic actions which produce economic health (not faith and morals) in a note (not an encyclical or dogmatic constitution or bull). Prior to the specific recommendations there are some things which are quoted from magisterial documents and thus are more authoritative…but the conservatives aren’t disagreeing with any of that.

It is only the “U.N. version of the Federal Reserve” notion at which the informed mind so powerfully balks. It really outrageous dunderheadedness on the level of trying to solve circulatory problems with a bloodletting, or clerical pedophilia and ephebophilia with a “cover-up and shuffle-off” policy. Thus the aggrieved reaction.

And the aggrieved reaction is made more pronounced by the fact that media types will inevitably confuse such pronouncements with infallible declarations, and, noting that the suggestions made in the note are obviously dunderheaded, they’ll say, “This goes to show exactly how ‘infallible’ popes really are, doesn’t it! Haw, haw, haw!” Faithful Catholics have a hard enough time defending the Church when she is right (which is to say: in her Magisterial teachings on all matters of faith and morals). But this kind of thing doesn’t make that any easier.

In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

from “Europe and Its Discontents” by Benedict XVI
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—-50

Not a magisterial document, but a summary by someone more expert in Catholic Social Teaching than Mr Akin or the Republican Party.

It all depends Who your primary loyalty is to. A challenge to both Left and Right.

@Janny: I hope you weren’t bleating on behalf of all those beleagured Catholics working as stock jobbers jacking up the price of basic necessities such as oil and others toiling in the hidden offices of hedge fund managers, etc. Anybody who participates in that racket, whereby they jack up the prices of things people absolutely need, especially in many urban areas in the cold northeastern states as we approach the winter months deserve all the damn “there’s your goats” treatment they have coming to them. And to borrow FDR’s famous “c’mon” call of 1936, if anybody hates my remarkss, I welcome that hatred so it’ll be out in the open for everybody to see the contempt that hatred shows for their fellow man and woman, especially those in the far lower statistical rankings of the 99 percenters income wise. And yes, I’m one of them.
  I used to be among the Catholic conservatives, economically speaking years back. In fact I even used to write a column about economics for a diocesean paper about social justice from a conservative perspective. Guess what ... LIFE, plus the not-so-mirthful experience of watchng decades worth of intellectually deceitful conduct by the ever so erudite Catholic conservative Americans who posture themselves off as a semi-official tut-tut’n lay magisterium on all things concerning the economy when in fact they didn’t have the damn guts to say what it’s all been about all along…the continual screwing over of the average American wage earner for the ever continual enrichment of an economic elite that’s become ever more arrogant and fattened. All the while they have the gall to lecture down those who are less fortunate as they are; even if some of the damn rich who are getting by on lower effective tax rates were practically born on third base as trust fund babies.
  Yes, I welcome the scorn and outright hatred of anybody who dares to defend the one percenters and all their filthy rationalizations. And for anybody who’s not in that one percent catagory yet who still finds no shame or enough dignity to stop abasing themselves at the feet of these arrogant bums, they’ll receive yet another round of contempt from the other direction, and deservedly so.

Part 1 of 3:  Embracing the little known “apostolate of friendliness” is a practical way to increase forum-interaction quality in heated liberal vs. conservative posts. Its practice is also the way to real success by our USCCB re their pre-Election-year Baltimore Meeting of November 14 -16, for we sheep need much better than PCJP “note-level” information from our bishops as we face a threatening 2012!  An inspiring reference on the little known “apostolate of friendliness” is given below.
.
American bishops will continue to display a nation-damaging deficiency in this apostolate 1) until they acknowledge there are guilt-tripping ways to misuse the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and 2) until they teach us sheep how and when to use prudential judgment by means of instructive example-cases. Those need to illustrate how different conclusions can legitimately be reached by good Catholics, especially for complex problems involving intrinsic and non-intrinsic evils in contexts where some decisions could indefinitely-threaten “subsidiarity” — a key societal principle for preserving blessed freedom by maintaining local-governing control.
.
Regarding the top three sacred societal principles held by the Church, subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good, the USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” (FCFC, its link below) unintentionally misleads Catholic voters by mentioning “subsidiarity” ONLY ONCE in its 36 pages and then only very sketchily and with crucial omissions in paragraph 48.. 
.
48. uses the weak “should” and makes big-government seem to be the ready friendly rescuer.  In their very brief single-sentence paragraph, the “common good” gets mentioned in an air of optimism. However, the typical Catholic voter who never heard of subsidiarity before is not reminded in FCFC of ugly historic reality - even now dangerously playing out in Europe - that big-government policies can be the *very reason* why the intrusion on local government takes place. Such an omission plus other under-informing of the sheep in paragraph 48. are in no way like the Good Shepherd! There are 36 pages and *lots* of picture space in FCFC!
.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
.
pdf has its own ‘Find” window at top right-middle so you can quickly check things said here by entering numbers, single terms or phrases; type in paragraph numbers like 48.  or the term   subsidiarity for example, and don’t use quotes or added symbols. The adjacent drop-down indicator allows repeat checks on the same term or phrase until it finds no more occurrences.
.
Yes, the USCCB is obliged by Good Shepherd example to address the above mentioned 1) and 2).  Good teachers give instructive examples especially when there is wide ranging abilities to learn amongst the student sheep. Why should we lose freedom for lack of helpful education? In
stark contrast with “subsidiarity”, the “common good” principle gets 20 mentions in FCFC plus clear defining on page 31 and “solidarity” gets nine mentions with good clarity thus inducing *biases* in average Catholics on what is important. What was worse in 2008 was that the national USCCB “Bulletin Insert” (the only widely read official short-version of FCFC) has ZERO (!) mention of subsidiarity!!
.
We have the right and indeed the duty to posterity to persist in asking the USCCB:  WHY is “subsidiarity” made so little known to Catholics? It is as if the society-crushing history of the 20th and early 21st centuries is forgotten by the USCCB.  And those who forget are bound to repeat it. Friendly Shepherds don’t do that to their sheep.
.
Hence the apostolate is required not only in us sheep who at times lack charity and become judgmental in our posting but also in our Shepherds. Having to face battles in 2012 that gravely threaten the Republic itself, we sheep need more than PCJP “note-level” type information.
.
What is now most troubling in 2011 shortly before the USCCB Meeting is the question of how do USCCB President Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and his brother bishops overcome THE problem stemming from their decision to keep the SAME problematic 2007 FCFC teachings for 2012 – which therefore remain the source for any Bulletin Insert summarizing FCFC for 2012—and prevent another 2008-type Bulletin Insert from misleading Catholic voters again in 2012?
.
What is in everyone’s favor is that we are not talking about doctrinal errors; so, there is a relatively easy solution. The USCCB simply needs to write much more clearly (as Archbishop Chaput said in late 2008) and more completely in the revised Insert on the *few* non-doctrinal yet-voter-problematic areas.  The three areas of mistakes in the 2008 Insert are treated in Parts 2 & 3.  The WORST case would be having no revision thus to default to the SAME problematic FCFC source that will put the entire American flock in great jeopardy in 2012. We pray for our bishops to help their flocks.
.
This link provides one beautiful example of effectiveness inherent in the almost forgotten “apostolate of friendliness”. Now more than ever we need to apply it broadly in our stressful interactions.  Chaput wrote in October 2008, “Real Pluralism” (the good kind) demands that people of strong beliefs write “respectfully … energetically and without embarrassment”. One can do that with humility while shunning judgmentalism and hate.
.
http://www.vincentians.ie/pdfs/colloque/Colloque Volume 45.pdf
.
Once inside the pdf article with its built-in “Find” feature, enter *without using quotation marks*— apostolate of friendliness—and then consider reading (pages 244 -245) on both sides of that highlighted phrase.  Choice du jour: join and spread the apostolate!

Part 1 of 3:  Embracing the little known “apostolate of friendliness” is a practical way to increase forum-interaction quality in heated liberal vs. conservative posts. Its practice is also the way to real success by our USCCB re their pre-Election-year Baltimore Meeting of November 14 -16, for we sheep need much better than PCJP “note-level” information from our bishops as we face a threatening 2012!  An inspiring reference on the little known “apostolate of friendliness” is given below.
.
American bishops will continue to display a nation-damaging deficiency in this apostolate 1) until they acknowledge there are guilt-tripping ways to misuse the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and 2) until they teach us sheep how and when to use prudential judgment by means of instructive example-cases. Those need to illustrate how different conclusions can legitimately be reached by good Catholics, especially for complex problems involving intrinsic and non-intrinsic evils in contexts where some decisions could indefinitely-threaten “subsidiarity” — a key societal principle for preserving blessed freedom by maintaining local-governing control.
.
Regarding the top three sacred societal principles held by the Church, subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good, the USCCB document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” (FCFC, its link below) unintentionally misleads Catholic voters by mentioning “subsidiarity” ONLY ONCE in its 36 pages and then only very sketchily and with crucial omissions in paragraph 48.. 
.
48. uses the weak “should” and makes big-government seem to be the ready friendly rescuer.  In their very brief single-sentence paragraph, the “common good” gets mentioned in an air of optimism. However, the typical Catholic voter who never heard of subsidiarity before is not reminded in FCFC of ugly historic reality - even now dangerously playing out in Europe - that big-government policies can be the *very reason* why the intrusion on local government takes place. Such an omission plus other under-informing of the sheep in paragraph 48. are in no way like the Good Shepherd! There are 36 pages and *lots* of picture space in FCFC!
.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf
.
pdf has its own ‘Find” window at top right-middle so you can quickly check things said here by entering numbers, single terms or phrases; type in paragraph numbers like 48.  or the term   subsidiarity for example, and don’t use quotes or added symbols. The adjacent drop-down indicator allows repeat checks on the same term or phrase until it finds no more occurrences.
.
Yes, the USCCB is obliged by Good Shepherd example to address the above mentioned 1) and 2).  Good teachers give instructive examples especially when there is wide ranging abilities to learn amongst the student sheep. Why should we lose freedom for lack of helpful education?
In stark contrast with “subsidiarity”, the “common good” principle gets 20 mentions in FCFC plus clear defining on page 31 and “solidarity” gets nine mentions with good clarity thus inducing *biases* in average Catholics on what is important. What was worse in 2008 was that the national USCCB “Bulletin Insert” (the only widely read official short-version of FCFC) has ZERO (!) mention of subsidiarity!!
.
We have the right and indeed the duty to posterity to persist in asking the USCCB:  WHY is “subsidiarity” made so little known to Catholics? It is as if the society-crushing history of the 20th and early 21st centuries is forgotten by the USCCB.  And those who forget are bound to repeat it. Friendly Shepherds don’t do that to their sheep.
.
Hence the apostolate is required not only in us sheep who at times lack charity and become judgmental in our posting but also in our Shepherds. Having to face battles in 2012 that gravely threaten the Republic itself, we sheep need more than PCJP “note-level” type information.
.
What is now most troubling in 2011 shortly before the USCCB Meeting is the question of how do USCCB President Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and his brother bishops overcome THE problem stemming from their decision to keep the SAME problematic 2007 FCFC teachings for 2012 – which therefore remain the source for any Bulletin Insert summarizing FCFC for 2012—and prevent another 2008-type Bulletin Insert from misleading Catholic voters again in 2012?
.
What is in everyone’s favor is that we are not talking about doctrinal errors; so, there is a relatively easy solution. The USCCB simply needs to write much more clearly (as Archbishop Chaput said in late 2008) and more completely in the revised Insert on the *few* non-doctrinal yet-voter-problematic areas.  The three areas of mistakes in the 2008 Insert are treated in Parts 2 & 3.  The WORST case would be having no revision thus to default to the SAME problematic FCFC source that will put the entire American flock in great jeopardy in 2012. We pray for our bishops to help their flocks.
.
This link provides one beautiful example of effectiveness inherent in the almost forgotten “apostolate of friendliness”. Now more than ever we need to apply it broadly in our stressful interactions.  Chaput wrote in October 2008, “Real Pluralism” (the good kind) demands that people of strong beliefs write “respectfully … energetically and without embarrassment”. One can do that with humility while shunning judgmentalism and hate.
.
http://www.vincentians.ie/pdfs/colloque/Colloque Volume 45.pdf
.
Once inside the pdf article with its built-in “Find” feature, enter *without using quotation marks*— apostolate of friendliness—and then consider reading (pages 244 -245) on both sides of that highlighted phrase.  Choice du jour: join and spread the apostolate!

Part 2 of 3:  Sadly, here are three extremely troubling, interrelated problems behind paragraph # 48 in the 2007-2008, 36 page “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” (FCFC) which is still being used in 2011 and intended—unchanged—also for use in *super-crucial* 2012:  1) 48’s *token* coverage of “subsidiarity” in FCFC,  2) its further downplaying to ZERO coverage (!) of subsidiarity in the much more widely read 2008 Bulletin-Insert created to condense “Faithful Citizenship” for rank and file Catholic parishioners and 3) in September 2009, only 8 months after the president’s inauguration, subsidiarity becomes an ‘unwanted child’ of sorts—under USCCB auspices(!) – via a shocking USCCB article (links below) which, in truth, is the natural consequence of 1) & 2) above.
.
The really worrisome problem is that the downplaying of “subsidiarity” seems to be permeating the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which, thankfully, is not the Catholic Church’s Magisterium just as The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (PCJP) is also not the Magisterium. Hence we can *expect* occasional problems from both.
.
However, in 2012, survival of the American Republic is at stake and so the USCCB not only owes American Catholics in general MUCH better *education-friendliness* for facing 2012 but also owes our soldiers and courageous citizens *meaningful* gratitude. Such is owed those in harm’s way today and all the way back to our Founding days, lest the American Catholic bishops betray humanity’s hope for responsible freedom across the globe.
.
GREAT mistake #3 for the USCCB occurs in the influential article below by a well intentioned spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in September 2009.
.
http://old.usccb.org/mr/entre_amigos/2009/EntreAmigosSeptember09Eng.pdf
.
In case the “old.usccb” site fades, here is the article published outside the USCCB site:
.
http://www.speroforum.com/a/20550/Bishops-measured-support-for-health-care-reform
.
As a volunteer for several thousand hours to aid the poor in various ways I empathize with the problems of the poor which at times, however, can be unduly costly because of lack of cooperation and other problems within diverse categories of dependency.  So, it was initially good to see in the above article, first the declaration that Catholics cannot blindly support proposals without first measuring them against the THREE named top *fundamental principles*:  subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good. That sounded great!
.
But precisely at article’s end, the writer, understandably overwhelmed by empathy as reflected in her first few paragraphs, dives strongly into “compromise on the proper role of government” and *jettisons* THE one “fundamental* principle – “subsidiarity”— designed by God for fending off big-government takeover that can deny blessed freedom to posterity for generations unless we *effectively* resist in our times. What underscores the mistakenness in the surprise ending is her last comment implying almost coldly that dropping “subsidiarity” is the price of keeping “solidarity” & the “common good”.
.
Look. We face grave national danger in the 2012 elections. How many readers think loss of “subsidiarity” – loss of local governing control – is the right price? Please note that this Jettisoning of “subsidiarity” fits with what USCCB bishops mistakenly laid as de facto groundwork for what happened in 3).
.
As Archbishop Chaput wrote in October 2008, “Real Pluralism” (the good kind) demands that people of strong beliefs write “respectfully … energetically and without embarrassment”. One can do that with humility while shunning finger pointing, showing anger, judgmentalism and hate. So, Being friendly does not equate to being timid, most especially when one’s whole nation, our gift of being a Republic, can be made so dysfunctional from unwise spending/debt /regulations/business-incentive policies that takeover by a government hostile to “subsidiarity” is no longer a mere hypothetical.

Part 3a of 3:  In 3a we examine some highly significant background happenings likely to affect the 2012 Election and related to the USCCB General Assembly in Baltimore, November 14 -16.  In Part 3b, we focus on specific problem areas in the unintentionally misleading 2008 Bulletin Insert whose final status seems in doubt.
.
In 2012, it is crucial that we coherently present/defend Catholic principles in strong-yet-friendly ways. In Parts 1 & 2 the “apostolate of friendliness” was cited as an important type of personal-decision—a practical way to improve heated debating interactions. It resides within the beautiful doctrine of the Communion of Saints which can include us who are not yet saints and which happily is *not* limited to Catholics.
.
In his Presidential Address to the USCCB General Assembly, Archbishop Timothy E. Dolan made this friendship-statement to all American Catholic flocks and to *other* citizens: “There’s nothing we love to do more than helping our people, and everybody else, get to know Him and her (the Church) better. *That’s our job description.*” (emphasis added)
.
That gives at least hope – pending similar brother bishops’ inclinations – for correcting at least the serious 2008 Bulletin Insert’s voter-perception problems that inadvertently helped elect Barack Obama. No doctrinal errors are involved.
.
Though USCCB Legal Counsel Anthony Picarello says that our bishops are free to teach Catholic truth (when not naming candidates) in the so-called “marginal case” of a Church-teaching being on the side of one of the candidates, he could only say a legal challenge “probably wouldn’t hold up in court”. It’s the uncertainty in “probably” that might induce the USCCB to hold back out of concern for possible damage to many Catholic charities.
.
However, if clarifications to the 2008 Bulletin Insert are made in remaining 2011 (only ~ 32 days to go), then the threat is total nonsense because they are made before the Election year itself.  Of course it’s still nonsense if we legitimately update during Election year; however, harassment suits can spawn.
.
But now there seems to be a *strange new legal factor* accompanying the recently revised USCCB site. If you select from the USCCB site-list a valid diocesan website to visit, you get stopped with a message that your decision means you automatically leave the USCCB site and that the USCCB “assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse, the [diocesan] website, its content, or sponsoring organizations.”
.
Given such advisements, can it be that there are new legal threats to Catholicism in America that we sheep ought to know more about—and very soon? Or could such “distancing” from individual bishops’ sites be indicators there will be *no single nationally disseminated Bulletin-Insert in 2012*?  Perhaps, instead, only special individual diocesan Inserts *IF* the local bishop deems it is needed? And if he does not so deem, we know from Parts 1 & 2 that the default IS then to the same problematic 2008, 36 page “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” – a document needing critically better explanation in some voter-perception areas but otherwise good. If there is no revised *national* Bulletin Insert for historic 2012, the USCCB will have again put significant influence in the hands of the same “Catholics” who led many others to vote Obama into office!
.
Given Archbishop Dolan’s message about every bishop’s “job description”, I shall inquire this week because TOO MUCH is at stake in 2012 – the Republic & blessed freedom itself—to just quietly allow a second term President Obama because too many Catholics would neither uphold ALL THREE principles, subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good, nor vote with proper understanding due to misleading information in a non-clarified document.
.
At this writing a number of individual bishops may not be able to provide a clarified Insert in the time remaining thru-December 2011, given multiple year-end problems. So it seems best that a suitable USCCB staff provide the corrections which can be commented on and voted on before December 31—via emails. If “subsidiarity” can be temporarily suspended (3b), so can USCCB bylaws, in emergencies.