| Vatican Engineered Victory for Pelosicare |
 |
 |
| Written by Cliff Kincaid |
| Monday, 09 November 2009 16:41 |
|
The group Catholic Democrats has hailed passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, and notes that the only House Republican voting for it, Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana, is a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian. "The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993," the group notes.
The evidence indicates that the Bishops-and the Vatican itself-are calling the shots behind the scene. In fact, as many media organizations are now reporting, they engineered the "compromise" that deleted abortion funding so the bill could pass the House. The Los Angeles Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, not only "conferred with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be sure the new restrictions were acceptable" but "consulted by telephone with a cardinal in Rome." CNN reported that, as a deal was being made between Pelosi and Catholic lobbyists, "Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic Bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes." Where is the media outrage over "the separation of church and state?" In this case, there is direct evidence of a foreign entity, the Vatican, actually passing judgment on legislation and, in effect, delivering votes for it. Few in the media, on the left or right, want to raise the issue, apparently fearful of being labeled "anti-Catholic." But the outcome of the legislation in the House demonstrates that while the Republicans don't have the votes to stop it, the Vatican has the votes to pass it. Could the same thing happen in the U.S. Senate? It is time for the major media to investigate how the officials of a major religious denomination, with its headquarters in Rome, are affecting the outcome of major pieces of legislation in the Congress of the United States. This is a matter of great importance because government-guaranteed "rights," in the Vatican's view, don't stop with health care. Man, the papal "Peace on Earth" document said, "has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood." As defined by the Catholic Bishops, this is a blueprint for a socialist state. The encyclical said that individuals have the right to private ownership of property but that this right "entails a social obligation as well." In this context, in a major story largely ignored by the major U.S. media, a London newspaper recently noted that L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, published an October 21 article by Georg Sans that praised the Marxist theory of alienation under capitalism. The article, published in Italian, said that the church "must be grateful" to Marx for explaining the concept of "alienated labor" and "surplus value." Sans also said that "a large part of humanity" remains alienated. The article was reprinted by an Italian communist website, complete with an image of Karl Marx flashing a "V" for victory sign. So-called "surplus value," which is said to amount to exploitation of workers under capitalism, is one of the major concepts of Marxism. It justifies the hatred of and violence against private property owners-the capitalists. "The doctrine of surplus value is the cornerstone of Marx's economic theory," stated V.I. Lenin. Surplus value may sound esoteric but the concept is absolutely necessary in understanding the appeal of Marxism and the basis for revolutionary activity. The notion of surplus value is supposed to reflect the amount of output that exceeds the cost of the workers to produce a commodity. By definition under Marxism, this "surplus value," the source of what is commonly called profit, constitutes exploitation of the workers. It is the basis for government control of the economy and elimination of the property owners once the workers supposedly take charge. The Vatican newspaper article is not a complete embrace of all aspects of Marxism. Sans, who teaches the History of Contemporary Philosophy at the Università Gregoriana, the first Jesuit university, is also critical of Marx's materialism and how Marxism has been applied in practice by Communist parties. He calls this "ideological abuse" and says that an understanding of mankind has to take into account man's spiritual nature. Sans says that, "The history of Marxism has taught us, however, that all attempts to introduce communism by force ended up in an injustice and an even greater misery." On the other hand, the article still puts the Vatican newspaper on the side of the Marxist philosophy of state control in the name of liberating the workers. "We must be grateful to the philosopher for the idea that man should be considered in light of the mode of production and form of economic management which predominate in society," he writes. However, as Thomas Sowell points out in his book, Marxism, the Marxist analysis ignores the value produced by the capitalists who exercised private property rights in creating the means of production and employing the workers in the first place. Hence, the Marxist concept of surplus value, Sowell argues, is "Plainly arbitrary and unsupported." It is essential to Marxist theory because the abolition of private property is a major plank in the communist platform. The Sans article doesn't just embrace the Marxist theory of alienation from the economy. On the matter of the natural environment, Sans expands this dubious theory to include another "aspect of alienation" which he said involves "man against nature." Sans condemned the "overexploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction" that are said to characterize industrial societies. Sounding like Al Gore, he explained, "No need to be materialistic to recognize that we must establish a degree of harmony between man and his natural environment. It is not simply to relate to a living space or obtaining food, but take account of the man who shall be a unity of body and spirit." He goes on to condemn the "overexploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction" that are said to result from such alienation. As noted by the London Times, "Professor Sans's article was first published in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit paper, which is vetted in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The decision to republish it in the Vatican newspaper gives it added papal endorsement." Kevin Clarke wrote a blog posting on the site of America magazine, the national Catholic Jesuit weekly, which declared, somewhat jokingly, "We're all Marxists now!" Jokes aside, the Vatican newspaper article is embarrassing to many Catholics, for the obvious reason that it exposes Marxist sympathies deep within the Vatican at a time when many Americans, including Catholics, are resisting the Marxist drive for total government control in the U.S. Embarrassment explains why so many conservative Catholic commentators have decided to ignore this Vatican embrace of the key component of revolutionary Marxism. To make matters worse, the astute "Reading the Maps" blog pointed out that "The explanation for the appearance of Sans' article may lie in an extraordinary but little-noticed Encyclical which the Pope issued in 2007 called Spe Salvi, or In Hope We Were Saved. Spe Salvi includes a long and surprisingly sophisticated assessment not only of the thought of Marx, but of the whole history of Western thought since the Enlightenment." The headline over the blog carried the headline, "Is the Pope a Marxist?" This papal Encyclical explained that the "dreadful living conditions" described by Friedrich Engels, the co-author of the communist manifesto, gave rise to the Marxist view that "the time had come for a new, proletarian revolution," in which "progress could not simply continue in small, linear steps" and that "A revolutionary leap was needed." The encyclical explained that "Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation-towards what Kant had described as the 'Kingdom of God.'" It went on, "With great precision, albeit with a certain one-sided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution-and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia." However, the Pope also said that Marx's "fundamental" error was that "he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter" and that "He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized." The Pope noted that Marxism did not lead to a "perfect world" but left behind "a trail of appalling destruction," which is a major understatement. Professor Paul Kengor notes that the seminal Harvard University Press work, The Black Book of Communism, was probably conservative when estimating only 100 million deaths at the hands of communist governments. On another level, the Pope argued that the "error" of Marx was his materialistic philosophy, which ignores man's freedom and assumed that "once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right." However, on economic matters, as we have seen in the health care debate, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, declaring on the basis of a papal encyclical that health care is a right that should be guaranteed by government. On the global level, Pope Benedict spoke forcefully in his own "Charity in Truth" encyclical, declaring that we need "a worldwide redistribution of energy resources," more foreign aid from rich to poor nations, and a "world political authority" with "teeth" working through the United Nations to bring this about. The "teeth" could include the global bank tax that was discussed at the recent meeting of G-20 finance ministers and central bankers. Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Trackback(0)
Comments (4)
  written by Andy, November 10, 2009 The Pope noted that Marxism did not lead to a "perfect world" but left behind "a trail of appalling destruction," which is a major understatement" A "trail of appalling destruction" is an understatement?? What should he have said? "A trail of really, really, horribly appalling destruction"? "A totally dispicable trail of the most appalling, really, really, badly appalling desctruction"? Calling this statement an understatement is the most labored, small, desparate thing I have seen in an opinion piece in a very long time. At the end of the prior commenters comments, "quibble" is a proper example of an understatement. The implication that the Sans article reflects the Vatican's views is central and essential to your piece. Besides, the article is highly nuanced and acknowledges that attempts to implement Marxist theory were disastrous. For someone to admit that the problems that Marx and Engles saw - poverty and harsh living conditions for workers - were actual problems that people should care about is in absolutely no way an endorsement of Marxism. The Catholic Church has made it abundantly clear that the SOLUTIONS that Marx espoused and that socialist and communist regimes have implemented are dead wrong and have led to "appalling destruction" (oh, for a better term that doesn't understate!!). This is a tortured, biased, molehill-into-mountain, labored stretch. Blech. I am a political conservative and will put my hate of Marxism up against anyone's and I still say Blech.
 written by Steve Smith, November 10, 2009
This article is utter drose.
"The Pope noted that Marxism did not lead to a "perfect world" but left behind "a trail of appalling destruction," which is a major understatement." Need I say more? What an utterly ridiculous statement.
 written by arsenio, November 10, 2009
[Site Admin Moderator: Yes, you reached the 404 error page when you either miss typed the address or some other info you entered incorrectly. The "other" article is still UP, and has not been un-published. We are not censoring "gatekeepers", RightSideNews has control over content and if we did not want it to be on our site, we would not have published it in the first place.
Regarding whether your "other" comment was published or not, that is the Site Admin's decision as each comment is read before being published. Things that will get a comment removed/not published would be profanity, vulgar innuendo, personal (unsubstantiated) attack, off topic comment, any comment promoting another website or service (spam), or the basic spittle-flecked rhetoric, some the site itself won't publish because they are too long. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment] 404 Written by www.rightsidenews.com Thursday, 08 October 2009 00:00 You may have reached this page in error as the article you are looking for has been moved or archived. Please go to our Right Side News Home Page and use the Search Box to locate the title of the article you are interested in. Please sign up for our free weekly newsletter below.. *This info above is what I got when I went back to your article :http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911087208/editorial/catholic-bishops-help-pa*s-pelosicare.htm Cliff you've stuck a nerve! All the Jesuits, and their government enablers will try by hook or by crook to deman you, and accuse you of being a conspiracy theory psychiatric case; at least you're not a U.S. Army Doctor! Strange bed fellows are all around us. They are manipulating the news, the controlled media, even governments, which their specialty. We're being bamboozled, and horn swaggled by this emperial congres with a nefarious agenda to impose a tyrannycal authoritarian system with the blessing of the Vatican and the U.S. Conference (Congress) of Bishops. I'll attempt again to post this article in support of you a*sertations; Just like I did when featured your previous article on the bishops: I do not expect your gatekeepers to allow my post to appear on your article's comments. Arsenio, Maranatha. Those that swear by the principle of Ordo Ab Chao will be defeated by the Kiing of Kings.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Monday, 09 November 2009 16:48 |
In a story about why the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, the Los Angeles Times noted that the Roman Catholic Church considers healthcare a basic human right, "a position the church has articulated since 1963, when it was included in a papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII." Indeed, healthcare is declared a right in the "Peace on Earth" encyclical. That is also the basis of Obamacare.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Login Form
 |
 |
Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter
|
|
As you point out, the Church teaches that government has a responsibility to ensure that people's basic human needs are met and human dignity is respected. It does not say, however, how they should be guaranteed. A traditional understanding of Christianity could (at least theoretically) just as well support an authoritarian 'nanny state' that provides them directly or a loose laissez-faire state in which everyone feels motivated to help his next-door neighbor out of a tough spot. Christians can agree that miserable living conditions should be prevented even when they disagree about how best to do so.
(Of course, there are limits to the political flexibility. A Catholic couldn't vote for a politician who tolerates the killing of millions of babies, the exploitation of millions of workers, or the involuntary abolition of private property, unless the alternatives were even worse.)
So, religious beliefs about one's goals are one thing, and political beliefs about the implementation are quite another. I wish the press would stop confusing the two.
_ _Now, on your charge of 'foreign influence', I have to disagree with you. Bishops are under no obligation to obey the Pope when he speaks on matters outside of faith and morals. Must they hear him out? Yes. But they can and often do disagree. The US bishops are, after all, American citizens, and the Pope a European. Likewise, pastors and parishoners are not bound to do as the bishops suggest when they speak as a private citizens.
_ _And a minor quibble- L'Osservatore Romano is not the Pope. It's not the Vatican. It's not the Church. It's a newspaper. If the Washington Post were to report that a congressional aide wants us to bomb Cuba, that would not constitute a foreign policy decision.