The Vatican is getting pretty radical in its old age. Their Justice and Peace Department issued a report today entitled: “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority.” It’s kind of far to the left.
It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.
Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said: “The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. “We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”
The Wall Street traders are wondering why in the hell they should be worried about the interests of humanity. They’re trying to make a buck.
This is all just PR. They still care way more about abortion and it’s the issue they’ll all vote on. So this is just a PR stunt.
fuck it, we need all the help we can get. This kind of moral support is stuff priests can say to their congregations, building support in working class communities that might otherwise lean right.
it’s a good thing.
Calvin has not yet encountered a good thing.
Thanks a lot, Boo!! Are you Catholic? Have you been in a Catholic Church in the past 10 years(at the least)? Do you know anything about the guy who was just appointed the new Archbishop of Philadelphia? While Brendan is right, talk is cheap coming from the Catholic Church. Speaking of which, Greg Mitchell made a great comment on the Twitter machine this weekend. Seen any Catholic priests at the Occupy protests in Philly or elsewhere?
You clearly haven’t, Calvin.
Economic justice – in Church terminology, “preference for the poor” – has been a staple of sermons for decades.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Catholic priest who wasn’t left-wing on economic issues.
While I agree with you — and I certainly see that liberalism in the Catholic population writ large — I think Calvin’s point should still be noted. The Koch Brother’s actually care about civil liberties a lot, and they donate hefty sums to the ACLU. The problem is that while they care about them, they care about their ability to pollute and make money a hell of a lot more. Libertarians “care” about civil liberties, but if it comes down to the most committed civil libertarian who also happens to be in favor of some left-wing economic ideas cough Russ Feingold cough, they will vote for the person who’s more concerned with the purse. Thus, The Bishops will lobby for the Republican in almost every circumstance.
Listen chief, I used to be an altar boy. I used to have to go to church every Sunday until I graduated high school. If they are so left-wing economically, why do they beseech their congregations that abortion is the biggest threat to mankind? Do you ever watch/listen to propaganda outfits like EWTN? I have!! They’ll put Man-on-Dog on every week, but won’t allow Blue Dogs on. If they are so left-wing, why aren’t they at OccupyPhilly or other such Occupy sites? Why did the church try to deny communion to Democrats(like the former Speaker) who are pro-choice?
You’re probably younger than I am. I remember the pre-abortion days, back in the 60s and early 70s, when the Catholic Church was involved in social justice and priests and nuns openly participated in anti-war marches and civil rights protests. My high school had an Inner City Club which tutored poor kids. We had weighty discussions about the obligations of the well-to-do toward the poor and it was considered shameful to be materialistic and unconcerned about the welfare of others.
The social encyclicals going all the back to Rerum Novarum in the 1870s have always promoted social justice and from the start declared the obscene accumulation of wealth by a few while the working people are left in penury to be sinful and offensive to the notion that all people deserve decent pay for their work and the opportunity to raise their children in good homes with adequate clothing and food.
Not to mention the Berrigan brothers. And Sister Rachel at my old high school, St. Mary’s Academy in Alexandria, Virginia, who was just the coolest nun of all.
Calvin. on some rainy day you should go back and read your last 1000 comments and see what percentage of them can be considered positive and what percentage negative. If you find a percentage of positive comments higher than 0.05% I will be astounded.
This being an American-centered political blog, O.05 percent positive sounds within the MOE as a reflection of reality. Are we now to look forward to sermons on Positive Thinking in this heretofore outpost of rationality?
Whatever. It is not rational to take a look at every bit of good news and think, “yes, but in what way does this suck?”
It’s like telling someone you’re going to be a father and they say, “Oh, that’s gonna cost a lot.”
That’s Calvin’s approach to everything.
I don’t want to pick on him, but the routine has rubbed me a little raw.
So it’s a routine? Let me guess. You don’t read Atrios any more? Is his “routine” getting old, also, too? I am not supposed to be cynical about politicians that climbed aboard the austerity train, despite prominent Nobel Prize winners telling them .. well .. just remember what the current Mayor of Chicago is credited with saying to the wrong people. Why shouldn’t I be cynical when I see Fluffyhead on TV having a left/right debate between fascist Jack Welch and GOP wanna-be Harold Ford, Jr.? Why shouldn’t I be cynical when it takes the Occupy movement to shed light on the plight of the 99%? There was a dedication just recently for a memorial of a certain legendary figure. Other than John Lewis, do any of the politicians in attendance know any of MLK, Jr’s speech or what he believed in? Considering the vast sums of money we are pissing away in the Middle East and elsewhere, I don’t think so. And I might as well sum it up with that. Should I be cynical, or a realist, about the spiritual death staring this country in the face?
you should be less relentlessly negative.
I mean, what the fuck does Meet the Press have to do with the Catholic Church issuing a report that is supportive of the Occupy Wall Street movement?
Speaking of MLK, it’s like bringing up his infidelity every time someone mentions one of his accomplishments. Anyone who does that gets kind of annoying after a while.
What do they have to do with each other? More evidence that our political process is not just broken, but busted beyond fixing. And that our political leaders, apparently, have no knowledge, or concept, of history.
some of us have good reason to be pessimists.
or as I like to call us, “realists”.
While I have a different take on the catholic church’s official stance on the economic crisis than calvin does, it is also true that the catholic church has been problematic what with the denying communion to democrats who support abortion rights, their support for scary opus dei shit, and their utterly despicable and unholy role not only in raping children, but in hiding and protecting the rapists.
i am under no illusion about the Vatican, but i applaud this statement on the economy.
You stated what I was doing at the same time. I’m just less trusting than you. As we have learned, talk is cheap. Actions do speak louder than words. And I haven’t seen any actions from the church in a long time that they really care that much about economic justice.
I’m a realist. Most of the criticism I get from my readers comes out of my realism taking precedence over progressive orthodoxy.
I can also be downright ornery, and I have been a black mood for about a month.
But I try to talk about the positive as often as I can, and to at least take a peek at the bright side even of most downer events.
I think, for starters, I don’t always make it clear how low my expectations are. When I hear people say that they are disappointed in the Obama administration, I really have trouble relating to that at all. I mean, yes, there are areas where I’m really upset that they didn’t change course or they even put more muscle into bad ideas.
They’ve made some unforced errors, too. But I knew even on election night that we’d never get much more than whatever Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson would allow. I am not disappointed by that. At least, not as it relates to the administration.
So far I’m getting the things that are most important to me. First, I got a people-powered nominee who bought into a small donor model and used brainpower to take down the establishment DLC candidate. I knew he shared my values because of his shared experiences and background. Raised in a multiracial, multiethnic environment. A New Yorker and and Bostonian and Chicagoan by choice and temperament. Progressive, urban, and academic values, plus the added experience of being black in America.
He got health care done, even without President Snowe’s support. He got Wall Street reforms done with 60 votes. He ended DADT and passed a Hate Crimes Bill. He ended the crack/cocaine sentencing disparity. He took on the credit card companies and created a consumer protection agency. He expanded the SCHIP program. He kicked the banks out of the student loan business.
When pirates fucked with us, they were dead. Bin-Laden was tracked down and shot down like the dog that he was. He went to Cairo and told Arabs that he supported their democratic aspirations. A year and half later, the dictators in Yemen, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are gone, and the Syrian bastard is hanging on by his teeth. He bucked the military and is pulling all our combat troops out of Iraq. He hasn’t started a war with Iran.
Look, I could go on, listing both good and bad things. But you have to stay optimistic. We’re a rotting empire run by a bunch of greedhead assholes, and we finally have a smart, decent man in charge. I’d like to keep it that way and not but 80% of my energies (or 99.5%) into talking about how everything sucks.
And this is why I keep coming back here. Do I see Obama doing everything I want? No. Did I think I was going to get everything I want? Also no. Has he done everything I thought was possible? Again, no. But has he done a whole hell of a lot better than I expected. Yes.
Bravo. Thank you.
Yeah, I can see how that applies. Noting that PBHO has achieved some fairly astonishing feats legislatively, considering the opposition, can create a false impression of glossing over the disappointments that we all have, or even of being an apologist for some of his unfathomable behavior.
I generally share the views you present here. Probably my biggest area of disagreement (and I’m not even all that sure as to how significantly we disagree) is my belief that the President should have taken the fight to the GOP a long time ago. Imo it was well established long ago to anyone who takes politics seriously that the GOP is playing an unprecedented and cynical game of obstruction, and are going to keep doing so until the public at large catches on, which they won’t do without a great deal of emphatic and aggressive stating of the obvious–something like what he’s doing with the bus tours.
You asked in a post a few weeks back if we were happy that we have a fight on our hands now, and to answer for my part, yes I am, although it may be a little too late, and wish he’d find it in him to name the GOP explicitly instead of blaming “congress,” because that gives the lazy and cowardly undecideds an excuse to play it safe and blame “both sides.”
I wasn’t happy with your early characterization of OWS either, although I take the point that it’s an unfortunate bit of timing in that it takes attention away from the Jobs bill fight. The trouble though is that there’s never a convenient time for massive demonstrations in this political climate because GOP outrages are never-ending. At least it’s not going on during the presidential election (although who knows?). If they had waited until later it would certainly have created other problems.
Anyway, the realism is welcome. I think the black mood you mention is affecting all of us to some degree or other. It’s like the outrage exhaustion of the Bush years, coupled with the inability (or in some cases, apparent unwillingness) of the Obama administration to do much to reverse the damage, has hardened into a gloomy patina that’s difficult for encouraging news to crack through, while simultaneously setting tempers on edge. This last month or so seems to be characterized by a lot more anger than I’ve seen here in recent memory.
I don’t even buy the claim that the Catholic Church has been problematic about giving communion to politicians who support abortion rights. A couple of bishops flaking out in the United States does not make it Catholic Church project. The Pope himself has given communion to French President Sarkozy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, known pro-choice politicians in Europe. You’d think if it was a Catholic Church priority, the Pope would be in on it too.
Just because people and the media make noise about the Church vs. abortion thing does not mean that it is the central focus of Church activity. If Calvin had actually gone to church once in a while, he would have noted that abortion almost never comes up in sermons, while the poor and the economically disadvantaged are always being talked about.
Not new — go back a century to Rerum Novarum, or 25 years to the American bishops’ pastoral letter ‘Economic Justice for All’.
The notion that the collective prosperity of all is based upon the individual pursuit of gain has never been looked upon with favor in Catholic circles.
True. It’s still fun watching holier-than-thou right-wing American Catholics splutter (e.g., Bill Donahue of the Catholic League, any number of NRO regulars, etc.) every time one of these statements comes out.
It’s a nice wish, and consistent with many Vatican statements. However, urging Wall Street cannibals to sit down and think about the damage they do to humanity is hardly a radical prescription. They will mend their ways to the extent that government forces them to, and no more.
My problem with Vatican economic justice pronouncements is that they state many lofty goals but only if achieving those goals don’t involve “socialism”. If voluntary cultural/intellectual change is the only answer, the Catholic Church is far down my list of likely enablers. But kudos to them for at least seeking to change consciences in the right direction.
The Catholic Church’s definition of socialism is more the classic one, not the one we find on poorly spelled signs by Medicare dependent Tea Partiers. The church is and always has been fine with the notion of taxes to support social programs, labor and trade unions, and rules for living wages and worker safety. Look at Rerum Novarum or Quadragesimo Anno, the two earliest social encyclicals, and you’ll see such things being discussed. The Church is certainly not opposed to government sponsored social welfare programs of any kind and in fact has frequently chastised governments and the rich for failing to see their obligation to provide such things.
The supranational authority is, of course, the Catholic Church itself.
with universal jurisdiction.
How else for the Universal Church?
As a Catholic who has been involved with the social justice movement in the Church as well as with lay Catholic organizations such as Catholic Worker I have to say:
The great amount of social justice work by Catholics that occurs is done quietly and without fanfare. There certainly needs to be more and the upper middle class churches in the burbs are missing out. Abortion is highlighted by the Church too much. But abortion issue is also overly highlighted by corporate and other media. The slow, dedicated work by Catholics for social justice will seldom get any attention.
The Church has had a strong social justice bent for decades and this is a timely peace of good news.
But abortion issue is also overly highlighted by corporate and other media.
Does the big, corporate media include EWTN? Before the 2008 election, every time I turned on EWTN, that clown Raymond Arroyo was talking to Man-on-Dog Santorum. Seeing as EWTN considers itself the TV station of Catholics here, they don’t like Democrats one bit, and they are whole hog on the “Abortion is the greatest threat to the world, ever!!” bandwagon.
‘Lefty RCC?’ I’ll get on that bandwagon when the Big CHeese in Rome asks Washington to tax the churches. and that’s nothing compared to their bloodsucker status in Italy.