Friday, January 27, 2012

Dave in Davos


The Prime Minister’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos was passionate, lucid and forthright. He firmly nailed his theses to the door, and told his fellow European leaders to desist from the ‘madness’ of their incessant regulations and red tape which are stifling growth. He didn’t quite say they were all as mad as a hatter/fish/march hare/box of frogs, but he won’t have made many friends with his patronising and lecturing tone. Take this, for example:
In the name of social protection, the EU has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs. The Agency Workers Directive, the Pregnant Workers Directive, the Working Time Directive. The list goes on and on. And then there’s the proposal for a Financial Transactions Tax. Of course it’s right that the financial sector should pay their share. In the UK we are doing exactly that through our bank levies and stamp duty on shares... But look at the European Commission’s own original analysis. That showed a Financial Transactions Tax could reduce the GDP of the EU by 200 billion euros cost nearly 500 thousand jobs and force as much as 90 per cent of some markets away from the EU. Even to be considering this at a time when we are struggling to get our economies growing is quite simply madness.
His solution?
Look at America. Or the United Kingdom...
And there we have the Prime Minister’s incomprehension / unawareness / intolerance of the EU’s Catholic-interventionist-corporatist model versus the Anglo-Saxon-Protestant one of free markets and liberty. Perhaps PPE doesn’t cover it, but you’d think the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would grasp that the ‘madness’ is not political, but religio-philosophical.

The EU is intrinsically structurally autocratic, cohesive, Catholic and corporatist. It is was inspired principally by two Papal Encyclicals, namely Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931), and is consequently concerned with solidarity, the single market and the social chapter. It advocates close co-operation between employers and workers, with the State overseeing wages, working conditions, production, prices and exchange. By eliminating competition, the system is meant to promote social justice and order. This, to any Anglo-Saxon Conservative with a grasp of the Protestant work ethic, constitutes unnecessary regulation and red tape. It is the antithesis of free markets, liberty and a sovereign legislature.

And so, while the Prime Minister spouts on about the need for deregulation and less state interference to fuel competition and spur growth, our EU partners believe the solution lies in more regulation and more interventionism to yield a greater social justice. David Cameron urges a liberal economic model; our EU partners urge ever closer cooperation and the pooling of economic and social sovereignty.

The EU is the answer to everything: the State is the author of not only all that is good, noble, right and true, but of everything. It is the State which must fill the gap, for while the market creates the wealth, only the State can ensure social justice. The UK/US Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model has manifestly failed, they aver: and the solution is the social doctrine of Europe's social-market economies, which need to be guided by cross-border regulation, which must be subject to the global government of the international community.

This is not ‘madness’ to our EU partners; it is logic. The Mother State is our saviour, and she yearns for her recalcitrant children to return to her breast. She must nurture and care for them, for only she knows what’s best. This is global Socialism – unadulterated, unrelenting, unaccountable and undemocratic. It is indeed ‘madness’, but not at all to those who believe the UK/US economic model is a repugnant, dog-eat-dog world of corporate selfishness with the social ethic of a Vegas casino.

As Margaret Thatcher observed, the EU is about Socialism ‘by the back Delors’. It is a tragedy that David Cameron keeps the front door and all the windows wide open to it. Therein lies the madness.

75 Comments:

Blogger Sam Vega said...

Cameron says
"a Financial Transactions Tax could force as much as 90 per cent of some markets away from the EU..."

That's really telling them, Dave. And Persil washes whiter. Than, erm, some less white things....

27 January 2012 at 10:42  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

A somewhat biast analysis of the religio-philosophical teachings of the Catholic Church seemingly the driving force of the EU.

You cannot sum up Catholic teaching by reference to the Papal Encyclicals 'Rerum Novarum' (1891) and 'Quadragesimo Anno' (1931). The Church's social teaching is a critiques of ideologies of both the left and of the right: liberalism, communism, atheism, socialism, libertarianism, capitalism, and fascism. These particular encyclicals have to be read with an awareness of the times and climate in which they were written.

Since the 1930's a series of other teachings have been made starting with those from Pope Pius XII. These have been followed by 'Mater et Magistra Pacem in Terris', by Pope John XXIII, 'Dignitatis Humanae Gaudium et Spes' from Vatican II, 'Populorum progressio' from Pope Paul VI, 'Centesimus Annus' 'Laborem Exercens' and 'Sollicitudo Rei Socialis' by from Pope John Paul II and most recently 'Caritas in Veritate' by Pope Benedict XVI.

To sum all this up by suggesting it somehow results in a "structurally autocratic, cohesive and corporatist State" is simplistic. Yes these teachings advocate co-operation between employers and workers. However, they do not call for the State to directly control wages, working conditions, production, prices and exchange, in the way implied. Rather the State should promote social justice by seeing all interests are served. And they most certainly do not advocate the removal of competition!

To imply Catholic teaching rests on a view that: "The Mother State is our saviour, and she yearns for her recalcitrant children to return to her breast. She must nurture and care for them, for only she knows what’s best." is simplistic. That it leads somehow to "global Socialism – unadulterated, unrelenting, unaccountable and undemocratic." is fantasy!

The Catholic Church does indeed see capitalism as failing the vast majority of people. And one has to agree the the UK/US economic model is rapidly becoming, if it has not already become, "a repugnant, dog-eat-dog world of corporate selfishness with the social ethic of a Vegas casino."

For those interested, here is a list of the Encyclicals:

Rerum Novarum (1891)
Quadragesimo Anno (1931)
Mater et Magistra (1961)
Pacem in Terris (1963)
Dignitatis Humanae (1965)
Populorum Progressio (1967)
Humanae Vitae (1968)
Octogesima Adveniens (1971)
Laborem Exercens (1981)
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987)
Centesimus Annus (1991)
Evangelium Vitae (1995)
Deus Caritas Est (2005)
Caritas in Veritate (2009

27 January 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

'To imply Catholic teaching rests on a view that: "The Mother State is our saviour, and she yearns for her recalcitrant children to return to her breast. She must nurture and care for them, for only she knows what’s best." is simplistic.'
Quite true, but the RC Church is itself necessarily totalitarian, the Mother who is our saviour yearning for her recalcitrant children etc.. The EU, having sprung out of Catholic totalitarianism, is now becoming a rival or successor to the Church, with the same, but secularized, pretensions. Heaven knows there is quite enough totalitarianism creeping in in our own country, without our subjugating ourselves to the EUSSR.

27 January 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Rather the State should promote social justice by seeing all interests are served.

Could you please explain the meaning of that statement? You could start by explaining this often used but never defined term, 'social justice.' I know what justice is, but I don't know what 'social justice' is.

carl

27 January 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I'm kind of squirrelly about politicians banging on about getting the government off the back of business. In fact, to buisness people, ALL taxes of ANY kind, no matter how light are draconian; ALL workplace protection, no matter how reasonable, is rigid, top-down communism; ALL emplyees are paid too much; ALL holiday allowances are ridiculous and ALL environmental and health protection schemes massively intrusive.

This is a product of the classical liberal belief that society rests upon the market, not the other way around. The result is a kind of economic narcissism whereby people who set up in business believe they no longer owe any allegience to state, nation or society, but rather the other way around. Since the notion that market is prior to society (actually a Marxist idea) is taught as established fact at the universities, and since far more people go to university than actaully have the intellectual capacity to benfit from being there, the "business-interests-uber-alles" creed becomes a kind of societal white noise which nobody questions.

That effect is then increased by full-time, professional, career politicians like Cameron and Milliband who are, essentially, supermarket managers going through the till rolls at the end of each business day, seeing what's selling and then stocking the shelves with that product the next day. Since they envisage the second half of their career arc as sitting on a couple of dozen highly lucrative boards of directors, they are not going to tell business people to shut their pie holes and make a contribution, are they?

27 January 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Albert said...

I have to say, it is rather odd for a member of a Christian tradition which is subordinated to the state, to claim that Catholicism is statist. From the time of the French Revolution onwards, the underlying theme has been Catholicism and state in a kind of conflict. This didn't happen in England, because the CofE was already safely subordinated to the state, which is why it is so ineffectual and lacking in direction now that neither the state nor the country is particularly Christian.

Anyone still seriously convinced that the Catholic Church is necessarily totalitarian should read Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. Not only will the reader find his myth exploded, but he will also see how the English state in the 19th Century was far more totalitarian than Catholicism. Any who still isn't convinced, need only look at the liturgical state of the English Catholic Church and compare it with how the Holy Father wants things to be done.

In the meantime: here's the most statist thing I've heard: "gay marriage". Who's proposing it? The Conservatives, of course. And who's opposing this statist imposition? The Catholics Bishops. Is the CofE?

27 January 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

A somewhat biast analysis

Ha-ha-ha - and this from a clown who likes to criticise others on their spelling - what a deluded prat!

27 January 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "And there we have the Prime Minister’s incomprehension / unawareness / intolerance of the EU’s Catholic-interventionist-corporatist model versus the Anglo-Saxon-Protestant one of free markets and liberty."

I've never really thought of the EU as being 'Roman Catholic' but there are definite similarities; in particular a sort of inherent paternalism in the organisation and the infantilisation of individuals.

27 January 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dreadnaught I am pleased that you have picked up on this spelling by Dodo. He was somewhat vicious to me once (Correctly so I might say) on a previous posting. I too have seen several others in his notes. I tend to give him a fools pardon as those who live in green houses should not throw stones and he must have been somewhat incensed today.

27 January 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Phil said...

It seems to me that the EU is a mix of good and bad, like everything else really. I hate the way it seems to have it in for Christianity but I think that a bit of mild persecution may be God's way of making our faith stronger. It worked before!

I do share the concern of Corrigan. Read a history book of 1830s/40s Britain to see what sort of lives unfettered Capitalism, gave most of the poor.

Most people who seem to advocate this (free market)approach with most vigor, often work for one of the larger state regulated industries, e.g. The Military. I am not sure I want to go back to private enterprise armies. Well not yet anyway!

27 January 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

His Grace hits the nail exactly on the head with this article.

Dodo:”To sum all this up by suggesting it somehow results in a "structurally autocratic, cohesive and corporatist State" is simplistic. “
But it's right Dodo.

“Yes these teachings advocate co-operation between employers and workers. However, they do not call for the State to directly control wages, working conditions, production, prices and exchange, in the way implied. Rather the State should promote social justice by seeing all interests are served. And they most certainly do not advocate the removal of competition”

Try telling this to the Germans!

The EU mania for controlling with oppressive rules and regulations applied with military precision to everyone so that we all live a robotic controlled regulated life that they think is good for us is all very Germanic. Their passion for control and precision is getting out of hand, but I don't think they will listen to Dave. We are going to have to back up Dave's words with actions.
They can't cope with anything that is not regulated to the hilt, and everything you do must be authorised, signed & stamped by the regulating office otherwise you cant do it. Their way or the highway and that is not right.

27 January 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Owl said...

While I can agree with most of your artcle YG, there I a couple of things that occur to me.

The catholic church has drawn the line on a number of subjects which will keep the Catholic church and the EU permanently separated. For example, abortion, same sex marriage or stem cell research to name but a few. Probably the biggest dividing line is the status of the individual soul which is paramount to the CC (even though this has caused problems down through the centuries) and the abolition of the individual within the EU's dream of only having collectives, except their elite selves of course.

I mean, how is the Catholic church expected to save a collective soul?

The other point is that "our Dave" is posturing with his demands and he will, of course, receive them. He and his spin boys will then tell us that "super Dave" has now saved 500'000 jobs and trillions of pounds. What a victory.

As the EU has been so compliant and loves us Brits so much, all "saint Dave" has to do is sign that little document (new constitution) which is the least he can do as a victorious superman cum saint and soon to be godhead.

Moral of the story:

Angie gets her way and guess what, it didn't cost her a penny, she just made the status quo expensive
and *god Dave" played his part perfectly.

Angie gives Dave a pat on the head.

It only cost us our freedom.

27 January 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

carl said ...

"You could start by explaining this often used but never defined term, 'social justice.'"

Ask an easy question, why don't you?

The premise is that we are all responsible for each other as members of God's family. It sees God as having intended the goods of creation for us all and that everyone has a right of access to these goods to meet their needs.

This means a situation where the collection of social conditions that make up a society srr that it is possible for everyone to achieve their full potential. It means each social group taking account of the rights and aspirations of other groups and of the well being of everybody, not just themselves. The job of the State is to harmonising these various interests so that everyone shares in the benefits of creation and has sufficient to meeet their basic needs.

27 January 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger Jon said...

Corrigan - you talk as if all business people get together and plot to overthrow the welfare of society through the the propagation of an evil force called "the market". I'm a businessman. We pay our employees what we think they deserve - they work hard, and are justifiably proud of what they achieve. I'm proud of the jobs that our business has created and the work we do together.

If someone comes along and offers one of our employees more money to work somewhere else, then we'd be disappointed, but c'est la vie - that's free markets.

But I just spent a morning trying to correct mistakes made by inland revenue. A whole morning this week, on top of many days over the last few months. This is time away from winning new business, ensuring our existing clients are happy and helping to train our employees. This is red tape - it serves no economic purpose and is down to the byzantine complexity of our tax system and the inability of even our tax inspectors to understand it.

As to the rest of your point - it's all just political philosophy you've absorbed somewhere along the way and utterly irrelevant to real life. Try starting a business, and employing your first member of staff and then come back here and tell me you're ok with red tape. Otherwise, you just don't know what you're talking about.

27 January 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - where does our responsibility end? If someone is profligate and wilfully refuses to work, is it our obligation to support them, come what may?

I'm sure there's something in one of Paul's letters which says something to the effect of "if someone won't work, they won't eat". How do you reconcile this?

One of the reasons I believe in a proper reform of the welfare state is that it doesn't take good enough care of the people in our society who need it - the elderly, the disabled, and children born into poverty are all ill- served by our state machinery at present. This is social injustice in my view.

But as to some of my relatives who simply can't be bothered to work - I feel no obligation to pay for their laziness (save the fact that I can be arrested if I refuse!)

27 January 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Jon said ...
"Dodo - where does our responsibility end? If someone is profligate and wilfully refuses to work, is it our obligation to support them, come what may?"

I think the answer lies in the way you've framed your question. Of course if someone is wilfully profligate and lazy it isn't your responsibilty or anyone else's to support them, come what may. That wouldn't be socially just, now would it?

27 January 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Marie
I'm not saying the EU isn't the things claimed by Mr Cranmer, just that he's exaggerating the part played by Catholic social teaching.

More regulation and more interventionism, with economic and political union, do not necessarily follow from Catholic social teaching.

The EU may be a "structurally autocratic, cohesive and corporatist State"/ It is NOT a Catholic State. To imply this is simplistic.

27 January 2012 at 17:44  
Blogger Phil said...

Marie

I live and work in Germany. (For the past 10 years). I don't recognize the stereotype you describe, popular I know but not the reality. However, I do know of some over regulated countries, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, France and yes the UK. These are only the ones I know something about. I think the Germans have a bad press because generally they are not corruptible.

(and yes they are still trying to take over the world etc)

The last bit was a joke in case you were about to agree!

Just one point the Germans are (supposedly) over regulated, strong Unions etc. But hey they are successful.

Low Crime, high wages, pleasant environment, nice palce to live and work.

Work out that conundrum!

27 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"It is NOT a Catholic State. To imply this is simplistic."

To infer this from the above post is even more simplistic. Please address the terms 'solidarity', 'single market', 'social chapter' and 'social justice', instead of frothing about what you think has been said. The caricature is, as ever, entirely of your own fabricating imagination.

27 January 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. We have the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’ again. Did you know this is a fallacy. What you have in Europe is the Northern work ethic. The further away from the equator you go, the harder you must work to live. It’s why Stavros in Greece can knock off mid afternoon to drink ouzo outside while Jock has to work 90 minutes more to collect firewood for his cottage.

The EU a Catholic plot. Now this wouldn’t be because the prominent founders were Catholic does it ? You do tend to get a large number of Catholics on the continent. But to say their politics are dictated by their religion, a bit far fetched.

Papal encyclicals responsible for everything that’s happened ? Nonsense ! The Pope will express his opinion, but as he is no earthly prince, that’s what they are, opinions.

The EU was spawned in the closing years of the 1940s. After all, nobody wanted to see another European war again, so who could blame them. Of course, the initial closeness of trade agreements soon took on a life of its own, and here we are today. It’s that all controlling ‘life’ you need to throttle, not a Europe in peace.

It was a good speech read out by Cameron. Clearly it’s not BY him. Would that Cameron and the author swap jobs for a bit. Wouldn’t be for too long, just the next 4 years…

27 January 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You have defined 'social justice' as ...

...a situation where the collection of social conditions that make up a society [srr] that it is possible for everyone to achieve their full potential.

I see. So this doesn't help much. What is 'full potential?' Who decides when it has been achieved? Who is responsible for achieving it? What if the 'full potential' of A is mutually-exclusive with the full potential of B?

carl

27 January 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Mr Cranmer said ...
"The caricature is, as ever, entirely of your own fabricating imagination."

Oh, I don't think so. Your statement is clear:

"The EU is intrinsically structurally autocratic, cohesive, Catholic and corporatist. It is was inspired principally by two Papal Encyclicals, namely Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931), and is consequently concerned with solidarity, the single market and the social chapter."

It is one of your long running themes to link the ills in this country to the Catholic inspired EU. And all stemming from a document written in 1931, a time when there were major failings in capitalism and communism and facism were sweeping Europe. This Encyclical was a response to the Great Depression of 1929, the demise of democracy and the rise of dictators in Europe. It called for a unity between capital and labour, arguing that ownership brings social responsibilities.

Quadragesimo anno ('Reconstruction of the Social Order') charged that capitalism's free competition was destroying itself, with the state having become a "slave" serving its greed. It also pointed out that whilst the lot of workers has improved in the Western World, it has deteriorated elsewhere. It warned against a communist solution because communism condones violence and abolishes private property. Instead, labour and capital needed each other and a just wage was necessary so workers could acquire private property, too. It argued that the state had a responsibility to reform the social order, since economic and socil affairs cannot be left to free enterprise alone.

After World War II, European integration was driven primarily by a desire to overcome extreme forms of nationalism which had devastated the continent - not by Catholic social teaching.

Did the Vatican write the subsequent Treaty of Rome? Or the Maastricht Treaty? Or the Treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon?

27 January 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Did the Vatican write the subsequent Treaty of Rome? Or the Maastricht Treaty? Or the Treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon?"

What a facile and absurd question. No, of course not. But show us where they depart and deviate from Catholic Social Doctrine.

And you didn't address His Grace's rather specific question, concerning the origins of the EU's concepts of 'solidarity', 'single market', 'social chapter' and 'social justice'. Do you understand the distinction between philosophy and politics?

27 January 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

carl

The answers to questions about potential, rights, needs and responsibilities is where an inclusive political system kicks in. The focus would be on mutual responsibility, as members of God's family, intending the goods of creation being accessible to all.

As I said, each social group, with its different interests, will take account of the rights and aspirations of other groups. Social justice comes from a genuine focus on the well being of everybody, not just the most powerful. The State's function is to harmonise various those interests so that everyone shares in the benefits of creation and has sufficient to meeet their basic needs.

27 January 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Mr Cranmer

I believe it falls on you, having made the assertion, to show just where the EU treaties actually originate in a Catholic document dating from 1891 and 1931. Also, I think you need to show how the EU concepts of 'solidarity', 'single market', 'social chapter' and 'social justice' flow from
Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo anno.

And 'politics' is you do playing around with Catholic 'philosophy' to suit your own purposes.

27 January 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil 17:46
“(and yes they are still trying to take over the world etc)”
Many a true word said in jest Phil! Lol I do agree!

Things have probably changed a bit since I lived and worked in Munich but I'm still in touch with family and friends there, and yes they are successful, very hard workers that thrive on meticulously calculated, military style routines and lifestyles. I found they lack humour and spontaneity.
They have a regulated success and yes they are not corruptible. And they take great joy in putting us poor Brits to shame. They are also hard, cold and boring on the whole.

I did see the difference between what his Grace defines as “ the EU’s Catholic-interventionist-corporatist model” and “the Anglo-Saxon-Protestant one of free markets and liberty. Give me free markets and liberty any day as that implies that you can reach the stars if you wish. Too much regulation of potential does not suit our economy.

Britain has been trying desperately to fit in with the EU all these years whilst quietly dying inside. (innovation seeping away, we've lost an awful lot of our creative people, immigration swamping us with third world backward cultures,all in order to be able to fit in with the EU ideal that does not really suit our ways.

27 January 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Albert said...

I can't help noticing that Dr Cranmer's responses to Dodo are distinctly paradoxical.

I'm sure that Catholic Social Doctrine is not perfect, but as far as I recall, when I was in the CofE there was no social doctrine, in the sense that there was no serious reflection on politics and economics in the light of the Gospel. (This is hardly surprising, since there was very little reflection on anything, in the light of the Gospel.)

This is not to say that there were not a lot of politics and economics in the CofE, it's just that they were largely disjointed from the Gospel. They either seemed to stem from clergy who had become so liberal that they had largely lost their faith and had resorted to socialism to cover their spiritual nakedness, or they were Tories of the type who never even attempted to think through their economic doctrines in the light of the Gospel.

Moreover, I note with interest, that Cranmer does not address my point about the Conservatives and "Gay marriage". Surely this is statism at the highest degree? Apparently, the Conservatives think they have jurisdiction even over divinely appointed institutions. And where has this statism come from? Clearly not from Catholicism. And who supports the party of this extreme statism? Why Dr Cranmer, of course. But given the history of the English Reformation, how could he not?

27 January 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. But show us where they depart and deviate from Catholic Social Doctrine.

Does any of this matter; whether it does or not is irrelevant. Over 20 years ago, this would have been a luxury question - Ivan was eyeing us up. The EU is an entity whose time was over when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That’s when it should have been wound up. To attribute the creation and operation of the EU on Catholic doctrine is, lets just say, redundant. It’s still here now, and we must leave it PDQ.

27 January 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Albert said...

the Anglo-Saxon-Protestant one of free markets and liberty

We really need to separate these two things. Protestantism is traditionally so statist that it subordinates the "church" to the state.

27 January 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dodo,

In your poly-nominal guises, you are the most tedious communicant upon His Grace's blog. Anyone with a modicum of objective discernment could and would readily acknowledge the papal origins of the social teaching which underpins the EU. It is a political reality which you choose to obfuscate beneath religious invective. You persist in knee-jerk reaction to defend your infallible Magisterium, come what may, irrespective of the historic facts. It is not incumbent upon His Grace to justify anything: he writes as he pleases. He merely asks his communicants to reason and question after Socrates, not after successive popes.

27 January 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

"It is not incumbent upon His Grace to justify anything: he writes as he pleases."

Indeed, as is your priviledge.

Rome was not the architect of the EU. The truth of the Gospel, calling on us all to accept responsibility for one another's welfare, may have been one of the driving ideas but this is not an exclusively Catholic idea.

And, for your information, the Magisterium can teach the truths of the faith infallibly and non-fallibilly. So far as I'm aware, neither Rerum Novarum (1891) nor Quadragesimo Anno (1931) are infallible.

As for the "poly-nominal guises" comment, its beneath the dignity of the office you purport to have once held.

27 January 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Cranmer

Anyone with a modicum of objective discernment could and would readily acknowledge the papal origins of the social teaching which underpins the EU

So why did you take issue with Dodo accusing you of saying the EU is a Catholic State?

But I agree, the EU takes inspiration from Catholicism. The fractious EU is far too united to be inspired by the CofE.

27 January 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Phil said...

Marie

Oh you lived in Bavaria! That explains everything! (Before I get an Email from his grace for straying off the point there is a Catholic point here)

These must be the most generous and cheerful nutters on the face of God's earth!

For all of you live outside Germany. In Bavaria God chose them first, then Austrians, then a long way down the list of importance are other Germans and finally the rest of mankind.

Germans are not Bavarians and certainly not vice versa.

Neither ready for world domination just yet!


For all of you live outside Germany there is a law that this from the view point of the Bavaria God chose them first, then Austrians, then a long way down the list of importance are other Germans and finally the rest of mankind.

27 January 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"As for the "poly-nominal guises" comment, its beneath the dignity of the office you purport to have once held."

Bless uou lad, You've made Ernst's friday.

'I know a fat ole RC, he’s always on our blog
A fat old, jolly red-faced birdie, his comments are a slog
He’s too fine for a jesuit, he’s never known to frown
And everybody on this blog says he is the craziest nut in town!

*Haaaaah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Oooh Haaaaah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha*

E S Bloey ;-)

27 January 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good grief, it’s E.xtra S.enile Blofeld + Widdles. Message from Matron old dear. Your suppository is ready, and your favourite nurse is waiting and already has her hand in the plastic glove...

27 January 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 January 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 January 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I thought 'social justice' was supposed to inform politics, and not be shaped by it. Everything you have said so far is process-oriented. From what I can tell, social justice has no form or content. It simply emerges from the fog by the interaction of 'groups' who take account of each others best interests. All you have presented so far is a collection of platitudes strung together. But what do those platitudes mean? You haven't provided any tangible definition at all.

Let's ask a very specific question. What is a 'just wage?'

carl

27 January 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger William said...

Albert said

"In the meantime: here's the most statist thing I've heard: "gay marriage". Who's proposing it? The Conservatives, of course. And who's opposing this statist imposition? The Catholics Bishops. Is the CofE?"

yes

27 January 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

carl

Catholic teaching on this will grate with your Protestant ethic as it covers employment and state intervention.

Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII, in 1891, set out some basic principles.
"If a worker receives a wage sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife and his children, he will, if prudent, gladly strive to practice thrift; and the result will be, as nature itself seems to counsel, that after expenditures are deducted there will remain something over and above through which he can come into the possession of a little wealth."

Vatican II Gaudium Et Spes stated:
"Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."

'Laborem exercens' by John Paul II, addresses at length the issue of just renumertion for work done.
"It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man's work is properly remunerated in the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely, the principle of the common use of goods. In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships within it between capital and labour, wages, that is to say remuneration for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become accessible to the worker through the wage which he receives as remuneration for his work. Hence, in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly.

"This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives."

So, in brief, it means each employer should pay people enough to live on and if they will not or cannot the state should intervene in some way to change this.

27 January 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

So, in brief, it means each employer should pay people enough to live on and if they will not or cannot the state should intervene in some way to change this.

So the wage a man is paid is at some point divorced from the value he provides to the marketplace. He may not be able to provide X dollars of value but he must be paid at least X dollars in salary. Is this just to his employer? When you raise the minimum cost of labor, you decrease the demand for labor. Is this just to the marginal worker who becomes unemployable because the demand for labor falls too low? Assume these minimum wages prevent the business from operating at a profit. If the employer reacts by moving his facility to a lower cost labor market, has he acted unjustly? Would justice rather demand he go out of business?

What is a 'comfortable' standard of living? If a business relocates to China, and improves the standard of living for its Chinese workers to 'comfortable' relative to their previous existence, has it acted justly towards the new workers? Has it acted unjustly towards it old workers? If a man has a 'just wage' job, should his wife be allowed to occupy a 'just wage' as well? Is it it unjust for a single family to occupy two such slots in a market with reduced labor demand? If a man is single, does he justly deserve less money than a married man? Can person X be justly displaced by person Y regardless of person X's merit simply to establish person Y in a 'just wage' job? I could go on and on.

There are a multitude of indirect causes and effects that make these desisions utterly impossible. You cannot dictate the things you wish to dictate simply because you desire a more equitable outcome. There is a distinct disconnect between means and ends. The ends may be noble, but there are no means available to achieve it. You will do far more damage trying to manage the problem than you would by leaving it alone. The Soviet Union's economy only functioned at all because it could study the West and set prices accordingly. You can't just impose fiats on the economy and not produce catastrophic side effects. This is why socialism always - always - fails. The problem of economic planning is just too complex.

carl

28 January 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Ernie

A couple of ryme before bed-time.

Have you heard that some fish can breathe air?
Happy fish out of water? That's rare.
But Dodo the fish
Comes on land at his wish.
All the other fish think that's unfair.


And one especially for you.

Blind Ernie, as one might surmise,
Is a fish with nonfunctioning eyes.
He will often be found
In a cave underground,
Which I doubt comes as no surprise.

28 January 2012 at 00:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OiiG
Psyche 2??

Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is a mental illness that involves the sufferer experiencing (at least) two clear identities or personality states, also called alters, each of which has a fairly consistent way of viewing and relating to the world.

The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about, the environment and self).
At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior. (Where's Father Merrin when you need him?)
Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.(You forgetting that WE know you suffer this dis-ease lad.)

Your psychiatrist must need his/her head examining if he/she does not realise the goldmine lying on the couch (and lying continually on this blog) and the potential bestseller awaiting a draft and a blockbuster movie setting.

Trust thus helps, old fruit, you poor old soul/s.

One noggin, 3 malnourished brain cells and a host of personalities in dire need of exorcism..must be like a family of illegal immigrants squashed into a bedsit in Tower Hamlets.

Toodle pip old boy. Pass on my love to everybody/alters. HeHeHe

Laters.

Ernst.

28 January 2012 at 00:41  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Deleted by a blog administrator? Was neither offensive, nor particularly strong worded.

Oh well, on we move. At least you've read it.

28 January 2012 at 00:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the DID dude

Dear bird

You are to Rhyme what Rabbie Burns is to poetry! (Only your 'ilk' think it's brill)

Ernst 'o solo mio' Blofeld

Nighty Night old sport.

28 January 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

carl

You're not seriously saying there is not enough money in the USA to provide a decent standard of living for all your citizens? That it is just for a minority to live excessively whilst others cannot afford food and shelter? That its acceptable that the vast material wealth of your country benefits a few at the expense of the many?

How could businesses run without the structure of a state? Who provides the necessary conditions for economic growth and the infrastructure for the economy? And who pays for all this?

Accept the principle that God intended the goods and the natural resources of this planet for the benefit of everyone and certain things follow. Accept that a society needs to establish the conditions for families to thrive and certain things follow.

Cold, hard, unfettered capitalism has repeatedly demonstrated that it lacks the morality and the decency to meet the physical, moral and spiritual needs of people. The just wage is one mechanism for ensuring everyone benefits from the wealth and resources of this planet.

And this isn't socialism. It isn't about the state owning the means of production. The Catholic ideal is based on a property owning democracy where everybody has sufficient money not only to live well but also to invest in business themselves.

28 January 2012 at 00:55  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Lakester

I had the opportunity to read it too. You clearly touched a nerve. Shortky after, I had a post deleted which was inoffensive too.It merely referred to the personal ad hominem used against me. Oh well, such is life and the powe of the blog controller.

Dodo - "the most tedious communicant upon His Grace's blog"

28 January 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. It’s heartening to see you’re still alive and almost kicking...

How’s the tobacco denial going ? You know the Inspector warned you that complete abstinence would see you off. Still, here you are, though from what you post, it can’t be said you’re the better for it. But do keep buggering on old fellow ...

28 January 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger Oswin said...

Your Grace @ 20:25 : how we cheered! ''...the most tedious communicant...'' hahahahaha how I admire your exquisite reserve! :o)

28 January 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Oswine

You O you swine, sir. Pierce my heart!

28 January 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 01:01 : yep, what else could you do, but wear it as a banner! I'd have loved to have seen your face, when it first hit you between your eyes. Ah, the perfect end to the night. Tedio Dododocus...a duck's quack for all seasons.

28 January 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 01:54 : well, I've only recently returned from 't'pub; it cheered me greatly. (Northumbrian licensing hours Rule Ok!)

28 January 2012 at 02:09  
Blogger Graham Combs said...

As a convert from Anglicanism (Episcopal Church division) to Catholicism, I have to admit that there is a conflict within the Church. Certainly here in the United States. We are seeing this particularly in regard to Catholic hospitals and Catholic health care professionals and the episcopacy opposing Federal regulations demanding that all forms of "reproductive services" be provided. No exceptions. I was always troubled by Catholic professionals and members of the hierarchy who supported this bill "with reservations." The current conflict was predictable as summer rain. I realize now that I will always have a tense relationship with the Church when it comes to her tolerance for a statism that has never been in the interests of the faithful.

28 January 2012 at 03:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

What I am saying is that it is easy to type up an Encyclical calling for a 'just wage' but it is impossible to implement such things in real life because of unintended consequences. This is the disconnect between means and ends to which I referred. You talk in platitudes. You deal in abstracts. But if you would try to install such things in real life, you would suddenly find that you have a billion interconnected strings to pull, and no real idea about how they interact.

You say "Surely there is enough money in the US to provide everyone a decent living." But you don't seem to realize that the money isn't all in the hands of the government and distributed to people as an allowance. That's why you ignored all the questions I asked. You don't have any practical answers because you don't have a practical program. You have an image of a desired end-state and a miracle-producing black box to produce that end-state given nothing but your good intentions.

In truth what happens when you fiddle with the market is that you end up privileging one known group at the expense of several unknown groups. Not everybody loses. It's called patronage and it reflects political power. No, people know how to use the market to extract good for specific people - especially powerful people. But to produce some broad and totally undefined concept like justice? How is it going to do that? You can't even tell me if the increase of business in China is just or not.

carl

28 January 2012 at 05:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: link

That's a terrible argument by Dr John Sentamu. Dictatorial? Lol. I mean, I can understand why he opposes the change and I can see the religous reasons but he's trying for a wider appeal there. Also, we really ought to get those bishops out of the House of Lords, they really don't belong there or have anything of value to add.

28 January 2012 at 07:59  
Blogger len said...

It is sad and somewhat ironic to see those(Catholic communicants) who once having swallowed the lie then doing all sorts of mental and spiritual gymnastics trying to defend it(against all reason.)

'If only we could see ourselves as others see us!.'
The point in question;
What role does the Papacy play on the European political stage? Here are some facts - I will let the Catholics speak for themselves: "Many non-Catholics fear us as a political organisation, and are afraid that the Catholic Church will dominate and rule; we are working quietly, seriously and I may say effectively, to that end." (The Catholic magazine The Missionary, June, 1909, p. 69.)

The Roman Catholic Church elevates itself above everybody, claiming to be the source of all power and authority on Earth. We see this statement being confirmed in the following quote: "While the state has rights, she has them only in virtue and by permission of superior authority, and that authority can only be expressed through the Church (the Catholic); that is, through the organic law, infallibly announced and unchangeably asserted, regardless of temporal consequences." (Catholic World, Vol. XI, No. 64, 1870.)
The entire EU system is of Catholic origin. It rules according to the so-called subsidiary principle ("The Maastricht Treaty", p. 4, and the Catholic Church's Catechism, p. 470). This word comes from the Latin "subsidium", meaning "to help". This model of governing means that you try to solve conflicts at a local level. If not totally successful, your case moves up, to the centre in the system. Thus, the parties involved must ultimately conform to the rules of the power elite.

We can better understand this model when we know that the subsidiary principle was put forward by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical of 1891, in which he tells how the world should be ruled, the model being the subsidiary principle. This principle was repeated one hundred years later by Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Centessimus Annus. This is an hierarchical model of rule, where the elite with the pope at the top is the legislative authority. Moreover, this is also the model of the European Union - Catholic "democracy"!

28 January 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I think the word you are searching for is subsidiarity not subsidiary. But the point you make is a fair one (if only you were making it). If the EU were really working alone Catholic principles it wouldn't be able to interfere so much with local states.

28 January 2012 at 09:35  
Blogger Albert said...

William @2343,

I am delighted to see that Dr Sentamu has spoken against so -called "gay marriage". However, I think my position was correct at the time I wrote it! Prior to that interview, published last night, all I could see was the CofE defending it's own interests "We don't want to be forced to "celebrate" "gay marriages".

Sentamu's suggestion that "Gay marriage" will make Cameron a dictator is of course quite correct. Cameron's action would be based on the principle attributed to Mussolini : Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. Because "gay marriage" legislation requires the rest of us to acknowledge "gay marriage" it effectively sets up a thought crime.

But in any case, Sentamu will be undermined before the weekend is over, by some other Anglican cleric - probably Giles Fraser.

28 January 2012 at 09:45  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

carl said ...

" ... if you would try to install such things in real life, you would suddenly find that you have a billion interconnected strings to pull, and no real idea about how they interact."

Are you saying that the Church ought not to teach Biblical precepts for living our lives according to the Gospel? Surely the issue about implementation od such principles is the business of politicians and the experts they have at their command?

"You don't have any practical answers because you don't have a practical program.

The point is that if the principal is accepted then then the process of finding the answers and developing the program can begin. In an ideal world each employer would take to heart the message that his business is concerned not only with profit margins but he also has a responsibility to provide a wage sufficient for his employees to support their families and save for his future. They woould take to heart too the need, with government regulation, issues such as health and safety and holidaay provision.

"You have an image of a desired end-state and a miracle-producing black box to produce that end-state given nothing but your good intentions."

It's a requirement to have an image of the kind of society the Gospel calls us to, surely? Or, are you saying the Gospel has no relevance when it comes to the free-market?

"In truth what happens when you fiddle with the market is that you end up privileging one known group at the expense of several unknown groups."

That's why politics is such a complex business. It's an itterative process, a never ending search for the answers and adjustments as the various factors are taken into account. How can businesses compete and remain in business; how can they provide safe environments for their workforce; should the state provide pensions or individuals; should the state set a minimum wage and at what level; should the state redistribute wealth through taxation from one section of society to another? The questions go on and on. The point is, what drives th questions. A search for "social justice" or an assumption that the market left to itself will, by its "invisible hand" ensure the well being of all?

Do remember the context of these Encyclicals. They are principles for general applicability, not just for western advanced economies. They apply equally to India, China, Brazil and other developing economies.

I didn't answer all the questions in your earlier post because I don't know the answers.

If the principles are accepted I'm sure there is a way through this morlal maze. Don't forget the role of the state in providing 'family allowances', medical and education services in all this. These mechanisms can be used to supplement employee wages according to need and to redistribute wealth. Not in a socialist, the state takes charge sense, but in a search for "social justice" based on the principles outlined. A key theme in the Encyclicals, for example, was redressing the requirement for women to have to work, thus denying them the ability to stay at home to raise their children.

As for the world economy and international capitalism, well that's a whole other ball game. The exploitation of workers in nations such as China and India and the implications for competitiveness in more developed countries, is surely one of the great challenges facing the western economies at the moment. The same goes for the oil producing countries where wealth is retained in the hands of the few and not widely shared for the benefit of all.

As I've said, they are high level principles that have been put forward, based on the Church's understanding of the Gospel of Christ. They are universal, world wide principles. Are they achievable? I think so.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?"

28 January 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest Len

I wonder what our dear Nichodemus makes of your whitterings!

You really have missed the point of the Encyclicals. They put forward basic Christian principals for governance of the worlds wealth and resources, written at a time when capitalism was exploitative and Europe was descending into the chaos of communism and fascism. They are not about world rule, numpty!

28 January 2012 at 11:26  
Blogger Phil said...

Carl

In your brave new world where money is the only god.

What happens in your world to those who do not have “value” the, disabled, the unlucky, the widows and the orphans?

Yes I think that families should be valued and encouraged so paid more. (My father received a 25% pay rise from his boss, just because he was getting married. – Yes it was a private company and yes it is still making good money). I think we should reward people for making the right decisions in their lives.

Think back to capitalist Britain in 1830, children and adults working 12 – 15 hours a day, to maximise profits for the few that lived in mansions. Conditions only improved by the intervention of the state, factory acts etc. Read the books about that time, people, improved yes, but generally not significantly by their own efforts but usually only by the intervention of a patron.

The Catholic Church always has had a concern for the poor (No I am not a Catholic) and “fairness” in society, no I will not define it, but I think that everyone knows what I mean and it is not an unjust goal to aspire to.

I go back to my adopted country Germany. It works, it is not perfect, but dare I say it a lot better than dog eat dog America to live in and raise a family.

Anyway what is the story of Ananias and Sapphira for if it is not a warning not to worship money as a god. Many who propound complete capitalism, including many Christians, sadly money is their real god.

It seems to me Carl that your world is just as evil as the one (Europe) you despise.

28 January 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Surely the issue about implementation od such principles is the business of politicians and the experts they have at their command?

But you're not advocating socialism. Just so we're clear on that.

Don't forget the role of the state in providing 'family allowances', medical and education services in all this. These mechanisms can be used to supplement employee wages according to need and to redistribute wealth. Not in a socialist, the state takes charge sense, but in a search for "social justice" based on the principles outlined.

Ah. The difference is clear. Wealth is re-distributed by the state, but not in a "state takes charge" sense. Instead the state must ... what ... make suggestions backed by force of law. But this is in no sense the 'state taking charge.' Do you honestly believe that the political process is less open than the market to manipulation and corruption and deliberately distorted outcomes? Do you think that the legislators will all gather as if in Eden to "search for social justice?" Politics is the art of rewarding one's friends at the expense of one's enemies. That's what men do.

At least you have admitted that 'social justice' is a process without form or content. This whole discussion started with a request to define 'social justice' and I haven't seen one yet - other than as a sort of 'end of history' vision of the World. So I asked for a definition of "Just wage" and I got general principals about how much a man should be paid based upon his need for income. But that isn't what I want to know. I want to know the amount of money that must be paid to Bob so that Bob receives a "just wage." And, I am told "Surely that is for government experts to decide - not in a socialist sense but as a search for "social justice." Isn't that where we started?

Here's what really happens.

Bob is part of a politically powerful labor union, so Bob gets a "just wage" as determined by Bob's relative clout in the political process. Bob's employer passes on the cost to his customers. But customers aren't so enamored with the new price and decide to find a new supplier. As a result, Bob's employer loses market share and 30 people (none of whom are Bob) lose employment. In addition, suppliers to Bob's employer lose volume and they reduce staff. Bob however is raking in the money.

Meanwhile, across the sea, a competitor of Bob's employer notices the cost increase and seeks exploit the market advantage. (The competitor is hiring btw. But that isn't the kind of wealth re-distribution envisioned by the state.) Bob's employer starts to feel the competitive disadvantage and so seeks some market protection from the state. Bob's labor union thinks that would be a great idea as well. (Bob's employer also starts looking a production facilities elsewhere but it doesn't say that out loud.) The state thinks about imposing a tariff to protect Bob's company but fears a trade war. So it gives a bunch of money to Bob's employer. Bob keeps raking in the money.

We have re-distributed wealth from the general taxpayer to Bob and Bob thinks it quite just. But was it really? Bob wasn't overly cognizant of the collateral impacts of his just wage. He just wanted a comfortable living. And he received it.


This short ridiculously simplistic summary of the American Auto industry was brought to you by the letters 'U', 'A' & 'W.'

carl

28 January 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Yes I think that families should be valued and encouraged so paid more. (My father received a 25% pay rise from his boss, just because he was getting married. – Yes it was a private company and yes it is still making good money). I think we should reward people for making the right decisions in their lives."

That is really weird.

28 January 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

carl said ...

"Do you think that the legislators will all gather as if in Eden to "search for social justice? Politics is the art of rewarding one's friends at the expense of one's enemies."

So, it seems, is economics, industrial bargaining and world trade! You've also represented this as the driver of international politics too.

This may be the way things currently operate but its a system supported by your free market, pluralistic-liberal ideology. You live in a country where your citizens claim to be Christian, as do most of your senior business and political leaders. You must see the how the Protestant ethic is proving to be dysfunctional yet it is stillheld up as the only way to go.

Are you saying Christian principles cannot possibly enter economic life? That they simply wouldn't work because man is not like that? How pessimistic!

28 January 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Are you saying Christian principles cannot possibly enter economic life?

I am saying that you know neither the changes you would need to implement to effect the end state you desire, nor how those changes if actually implemented would in fact operate in practice. So you have no means to connect the changes to actually achieving the desired end state. You are like a man who says "Justice demands a brain transplant. Surely its nothing more complicated than re-connecting those nerves things."

Political liberalism thrives on the presumed integrity of its intentions, but intentions don't produce results. It's not enough to dream great dreams. You have to figure out how to instantiate them in the real world without doing more harm than good. All I have heard from you is fulmination & arm-waving about how an undefined impossibly abstract vision of 'social justice' must be realized. But when I ask you 'How?' you fall silent, except to say it will be done by government intervention in a 'non-socialist' manner.

You don't know where you are going, and you wouldn't have any idea how to get there if you did know, but you are convinced that it is a moral imperative to make the effort. Forward into the darkness! And here's hoping you don't leave too much destruction in your wake.

Well, at least your intentions were good.

carl

28 January 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

sarl

Now that's not exactly reasonable!

There are a lot of initiatives in place already inspired by the desire for a more just society.

In the UK, for example, we have the minimum wage, universal child benefit paid to families, income tested family credit, universal old age pensions, targeted benefits for those with illnesses or disabilities. In addition, there is free public education and free health care. Add to this more progressive taxation, rather than regressive, and you have key elements in place for ensuring all people enjoy the benefits of the wealth of the nation.

The debate is about how much and how far these developments should go and how the manage the 'law of unintended consequences' you referred to earlier. The economy has to be managed and not harmed by all this. Capitalism , in operating in ideal way would push wealth down to all people inside of concentrating it in the hands of the few. In this respect it appears to be failing (again) and this has to be addressed.

So,I don't think its quite a leap in the dark. Its not revolutionnary - Catholics don't do revolution but see things in terms of decades, even centuries. Civilisation as we know it has come to an end by seeking to create a fairer and more just society where all benefit from the world's resources.

28 January 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger len said...

Dodo 'Catholics don't do revolution'

Ha!.

Catholics have supported how many wars?.You really should check your history before that old knee starts jerking!.

2 February 2012 at 08:12  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

The Christian Church has supported various struggles in history. Name one you are concerned about.

In terms of its teaching, and that's I was talking about, the Church moves slowly. Yet again you have failed to understand the printed word!

Do you ever have anything to say on any issue? Here we discussing the Church's part in relieving poverty and commenting on principles that should underpin the actions of a State. And what do you contribute? Some weird, out of context, negative remark about the Catholic Church!

Really you are a prejudiced, small minded person wrapped up in your own narrow world.

3 February 2012 at 00:30  
Blogger len said...

Dodo read your History and do try and stop that knee jerking!.

3 February 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len

No examples then? Thought not. And nothing to say on poverty or how the State might help society reflect Christian principles? Thought not.

Hollow words, just empty hollow words.

4 February 2012 at 01:04  
Blogger len said...

Dodo the dilapidated, The MOST important thing to change Society is to preach the true Gospel.

You insist on preaching the 'church'which is counter productive.

Now who is the stumbling block to the advancement of the rule and reign of Christ?.

5 February 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Chief Priest len

God you are hopeless!

The question is how you live according to biblical principles and how you teach others to apply the message of the Gospel.

Do you just live behind closed doors with your 7 cats and ignore people and the world around you?

5 February 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Sometimes I wish I just did just live behind closed doors with my cats ....wife and family of course.

But the truth is I am a very busy person ..too busy.. If you had but noticed I have very little time to post of His Grace`s esteemed blog.

6 February 2012 at 00:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

You post aplenty - it just means very little and you avoid key questions because you have no answers.

6 February 2012 at 15:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older