We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day In the next few days Pope Benedict plans to issue his second encyclical – the most authoritative statement a pope can issue – which apparently will focus on social and economic inequity in a globalized economy. In the statement, he is expected to denounce the use of tax havens as socially-unjust and immoral in cheating the greater well-being of society.
According to the Times (UK) newspaper, the statement may have been inspired by a recent request to the Vatican by Romano Prodi, the Italian prime minister, who urged church leaders to speak out on tax evasion.
– The delightful Corporate Accountability and Workplace website. Quite right, too. What higher moral authority could there possibly be than a Prime Minister of Italy?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Leo XIII started this (back in 1891 – on the advise of Cardinal Manning).
I wish Popes would stop talking about economics, as they do not know much about it.
Although, as Dr Neil Woods (an Austrian school economist as well as Roman Catholic writer) points out, no Pope (including Leo XIII) has ever claimed Papal infallibility for their economic opinions.
As Murry Rothbard (amongst many others) pointed out debates among Roman Catholics about economics are very old indeed.
For example, in the 8th and 9th centuries some important Catholic writers (perhaps under the influence of Charles the Great) wrote that the “just price” was that which was set by the state (that made a judgement about what was “fair” and so on), but Catholic writers and the law they influenced in Bavaria held that the “just price” was that which was arrived at without force being used or threatened by either buyer or seller (and that “fairness” was not a matter for the law).
“But Bavaria soon fell to Charlemagne” (788).
But this did not settle the matter. There were at least as many Catholic writers in the Middle Ages who defined the “just price” and “just wage” as that which was arrived at without force or the threat of it (by either buyer or seller, employer or employee) as there were Catholic writers who supported statism.
And this carried on in to quite modern times – at least till Leo XIII decided to get involved (as I have said, under Cardinal Manning’s advice).
It would be well for Popes to stay out of these disputes.
As for “low tax” (i.e. places where taxes are not quite so disgustingly high as they are in other places) being “imoral” this is very much in line with E.U. plans (no wonder Mr Prodi is involved).
“Imoral” to have top rate income tax at say 20% (what it is Guernsey – before the 1930’s income tax in the Channel Islands was ZERO and it was almost zero till 1940, the modern tax rate is a wartime supertax) rather than 40% (as it is in Britain).
So it is “imoral” not to allow the government to take, by threat of violence, almost half a person’s income.
Pass the sickbag.
Hmm…it’s immoral to use “tax havens” to minimize what you render unto Caesar? OK, Your Holiness, the Catholic Church will now pay property taxes on its churches, income taxes on its income, Social Security taxes on its payroll, and those who donate money to it can no longer deduct that from either their taxable income or taxable estates. Fair’s fair, Benny. Don’t go talking about other people’s taxes until you start paying some yourself.
I remember reading one of Ayn Rand’s better non-fiction pieces arguing that the Second Vatican pronouncement on economics was one of the most evil documents in recent history. I thought AR was being a bit over-the-top, but now I am not so sure……
I may have to fully convert to being a Jedi.
And this coming from an outfit that has managed to secure thousands of Italian properties owned by the Vatican to be except from Italian tax?
No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. – Lord Clyde
There is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands. – Billings Learned Hand
The Pope can bugger off.
When His Holiness pays the payroll taxes on his staff, the property taxes on his church, his followers stop deducting their church donations, and when the wealthiest non-governmental entity in the world uses its wealth for that purpose, then he gets to flap his soup cooler.
Jesus may have broken bread with tax collectors, but he did not encourage them to continue being tax collectors.
Yeah, Your Popeness. You want to talk about evading the temporal laws and temporal authority? Let’s talk about you and your predecessor preventing priests from reporting to the police or other temporal authorities when other priests have sex with children. That’s right, Pope. Some of YOUR PRIESTS HAD SEX WITH CHILDREN, which is IMHO a slightly worse sin than evading taxes.
Ask me if I have an opinion about this. 🙂
Of course, the Vatican is a ministate, and so can set it’s own taxes. My own brand of libertarianism favours small states.
So long as he is just expressing an opinion, we have to tolerate his ignorance of economics, and just accept that not all opinions have the same value. These days, papal bulls are no more valued than other kinds of bull.
If we want an orderly Universe, we must get the Pope to ban more things! For instance, the recent claim by German scientists that they got light to ‘go faster than the speed of light’, would be most distressing, if true. Even if they just meant that they had proved that light uses worm-holes in Spacetime, it would be better if they couldn’t! Let’s outlaw that! There’s nothing wrong with the old speed of light! 300,000km should be fast enough for anyone!
Any more anomolies that the Pope can ban, whilst we’re here?
Now if only we could hear an Imam or Mullah declare that payment of taxes are an affront to Allah …
Jack Olson – very good.
Yes indeed Roman Catholic Church staff and institutions (NOT based in the Vatican – based in the very countries that the Pope is talking about) pay no taxes at all.
Neither do the other churches – which may help explain their leftist economic opinions.
J.P.
Most of Vatican II was not about economics it was about such things as messing up services. Instead of a universal language (Latin) everyone would use their local languages (and, no, not everyone speaks English) – which means (if this is not rolled back) that eventually the “Universal” (i.e. the Catholic) Church will break down (a latter day Tower of Babel).
Also there were other nasty things – for example the priest would not longer face the altar, they would face the congregation. So people would no longer be worshipping God – they would be worshipping each other and themselves (like some Californian encounter group).
Also Church disipline was hit. Local branches of the Church were allowed to do much more of “their own thing” with less oversight and visitations from Rome – and as Sunfish points out sometimes “their own thing” included child sex (in theory Bishops were supposed to prevent this – but in practice Bishops had actually appointed a lot of the priests involved, and even when there was a strong Bishop the post Vatican II “Bishops conferences” bureacracy prevented a lot of oversight).
The Roman Catholic Church has never been wildly happy with the police comming in, and there were a lot of abuses even before Vatican II – but afterwards it was “anything goes” (nuns turning up at Woodstock, homosexual priests having “relationships” with underage boys, nuns and priests running guns to El Salvador and other places – you name it, and it was done). The traditional role of a priest is NOT to bugger little boys, take drugs, and plant bombs in the name of “social justice”, “liberation theology” and the “third world”. Traditional Catholics need to get a grip on these people (a grip on their throats).
There have even been efforts (in many nations) to destroy traditional Church music and destroy (or remove) art in many churches. Even Martin Luther was not in favour of such destruction (as anyone can see if you visit one of the more conservative Lutherian churches). The Vatican II people seem to be following the destructive path of John Calvin as regards music and art (although Calvin would not approve of their morals or their theology, or rather their politics pretending to be theology). Indeed sometimes they have even replaced Church music with pop music and replaced serious art with “modern art” (even Calvin would not have done such things).
Even historical records are not safe. Say you wish to make the P.C. case that the Roman Catholic Church was pro Nazi and supported the mass murder of Jews in the 1940’s. If the Church authorities in your country risked their lives to save Jews this is not good for your case – so getting rid of the records is a good move.
“You are going to far Paul” – no I am not. For example, Pope Pius XII personally ordered the hiding of thousands of Jews in Italy (including in the Vatican itself) – see Michael Burlegh’s “Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Queda” (Haper Collins, 2006) for the real history of the Roman Catholic Chuch and the National Socialists (both the good parts and the bad parts, also a warning once Michael Burleigh gets outside of Europe his level of knowledge falls greatly).
Yet most people (who have heard of him at all) know of Pius XII as “Hitler’s Pope” – and many “progressive Catholics” have been involved in creating that impression.
To be fair the present Pope despises Vatican II (and regrets his involvement in it back in the early 1960’s), but he can not say that openly (the Church does not make big mistakes you see) – so it is a matter of gradually trying to roll it back.
On economic statements:
I seem to remember that Pope Paul VI (a man whose photographs clearly show the mental anguish he was in most of the time), was pushed into producing a statement that Western taxpayers should be forced not only to hand over vast sums of money to domestic Welfare States, but also to various “third world” countries as well (I think this was in 1967).
I do not agree that these statements are totally unimportant (as nick g implies) – they help create a certain atmosphere (a “metacontext” as Perry would say) – and it is not a good one.
Sounds like Robert Mugabe agrees with this theory.
Can I suggest we wait to see what he has to say before condemning him, rather than what web sites think he might say?
Still – this is the sign of an intelligent web site; we have had 12 posts and only one of them has managed to get from the topic of tax havens to paedophiles. And no-one has yet blamed him for causing AIDS. Impressive stuff.
Thank you, Mr. Marks.
Counting Cats, your suggestion that the Pope “bugger off” has an eery ring, since the Catholic Church at least in the USA has discovered that over the past forty years dozens of its priests DID bugger off, usually with altar boys. Statutes of limitation have prevented the prosecution of most of their crimes but the Church has lost tens of millions of dollars in civil damages over hundreds of cases. At least one large diocese in Los Angeles has declared itself bankrupt from the damages assessed. Imagine the chagrin of a donor who finds out that his charity has gone to pay not for missionary work or the relief of the poor but for damages to the victims of child molesting priests. At least, he got to deduct his donations from his income tax, which fact means that all other taxpayers, who had to pay more taxes to make up for the donor’s charitable deductions, are indirect financial victims. All this, to help pay for the crimes of priests whose residences are exempt from property tax, which those of the charitable donors and all the other taxpayers are not.
So, Uncle Ben, may I suggest that you not complain about other people’s resort to tax havens until your own employees, including those who molest children, no longer live in them?
And then Jack Olson comes along to lower the tone of ther debate, not to mention take it off topic again.
I passed a burning bush this morning.
Bleeding hell a burning bush I thought!
What can this mean?
And lo the bush that was burning but not consumed
spoke to me-
RAB. Tell my Pope on Earth that he knowest not his arse from his elbow about Economics and would be wise to shut up.
So I said why do you keep doing this Lord?
Passing your messages on to inappropriate people in unusual ways and places, I mean.
Now fuck off and google up the Pope’s email address like the rest of us , you senile old fool!
Oh and by the way I dont believe in you.
Thank you, Paul. That historical background highlights the nature of the problem we are dealing with—the continued reliance for guidance on how to live in the real world on a group of people who, by definition, despise that world, and long for another, unknowable and mystic, realm of the spirit.
If someone says to me that they hate the flesh, and only endure life on this earth in order to join in a mystical union with some unearthly entity after death, why, then, would I ever consider their opinions as to the proper course of living in this reality?
As is fairly obvious from the catastrophic history of the human race, we have been listening to the wrong people for quite some time.
As an aside, my recollection from various stories I have read about the state of Italy’s tax situation is that wholesale tax evasion is rampant and pervasive at all income levels. I would imagine that situation has something to do with this, as the papacy, and the RC church in general, are unfailingly Italian and European in their views and judgements.
Odd how the ethical dicta from on high so often track the political and economic opinions of the surrounding culture. Given the lack of economic freedom in Europe’s autocratic and aristocratic history, which the church has religiously supported and affirmed, it is not surprising that the current dogma is loyally socialist and statist.
RAB, belief has nothing to do with it. you have seen the Lord, so you now KNOW that GOD exists!
God probably gets some amusement from watching us and our efforts to avoid what He says.
What’s the difference between his holyness, the Pope, and the rest of the clueless politicians ?
I actually think the issue of priestly kiddy-fiddling is very relevant here. I seem to recall Christ saying something about motes and beams.
The Catholic Church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting it and eventually providing some rather qualified apologies. They didn’t confess without the courts getting involved (it took phrases like “class-action”) which is hardly very Catholic now is it? Even now we don’t know how wide and how high up the chain was the complicity and “damage control”.
But then expecting transparency from the Catholic Church is like expecting decisiveness from the Anglican Church.
That I suspect Jacob goes some way to answering your question.
A last couple of thoughts. What about the tax spent on war, stem cell research, NHS abortions, free contraceptives, Gay Pride marches. What if said tax avoider gave the money he saved to Catholic charities? Haven’t the Catholics taken to selling indulgences again?
PS. Last time I saw a burning bush it was on an extremely drunken German lass. Truly I have looked upon the face of stupidity. Gawd bless ya Youtube!
Paul, as for Calvin on art, I’d take the legacy of Elizabethan and Jacobean England overwhat what was going on in the papist world (with the exception of Venice) any day of the week.
“But the Renaissance..”, Vatican II did not destory the Renaissance, the Counter-Reformation saw to that amply. And after that, virtually nothing but centuries of sub Pontormo assaults on taste and decency.
People seem shocked by the Pope’s stand as far as we individuals go but another for the Church. Can anyone name one Prime Mover of people that doesn’t suffer from a raging case of the ‘double standards’? The sickest part is the fantasy addled ‘Prime Moved‘ that accept the double standard as right and proper. Is there any such dialectic formed by a glaring double standard that isn’t basically theistic?
“I remember reading one of Ayn Rand’s better non-fiction pieces arguing that the Second Vatican pronouncement on economics was one of the most evil documents in recent history.”
That article is entitled “Requiem for Man”, and it’s chapter 24 of “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”.
She was referring to Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical, “Populorum Progressio”, which you can read here.
To say the typical Catholic theologian despises the world God created or even does not think people just enjoy life is just plain wrong. That was far more commonaly the position of their “heretic” enemies (even back in the Middle Ages – indeed before).
Even on economics as Rothbard and many other writers have pointed out their were more pro free market Catholic writers than then their were anti free market ones.
Of course some Catholic monarchies followed demented economic policies (for example France and even more so Spain) but even in these very countries Catholic writers (including high ranking clerics and theological writers) could be found attacking these economic policies in the strongest terms.
The economic ideas of such people as Phillip II of Spain (and those who came after him) and Louis XIV did not come from Catholic doctrine – or even majority Catholic opinion.
Of course things have gone badly lately (partly since Leo XIII, even more so since Vatican II), but there are still plenty of good Catholic writers (not just writers who happen to be Catholics) – Dr Thomas E. Woods (I apologize for typing “Neil” above) is an obvious example.
For those interested in the present state of play (as it were), I suggest you have a look at the following:
Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy.
A book of essays (by ten writers) put together by Philip Booth and published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (London) this year.
They are not all as good as Woods (who has written interesting books on this subject), but it is far from all doom and gloom.
The mistake is for Popes to rush in to an area in which they have no specialist knowledge. Of course they are always careful not to claim infallibilty in the area of economic policy – but that is not good enough.
If a Pope makes a formal statment this is likely to be treated (by many) as part of formal doctrine – no matter how many careful statements that it is not formal doctrine are made.
By the way, this would also be the case with a free market minded Pope.
For example, I am firmly opposed to many government schemes – but I do not want to see a formal statement from a Pope about how they do not make economic sense.
“You are missing the point Paul, the Pope is saying that avoiding tax is bad on MORAL grounds”.
But that is because he thinks that the consequences of this action are going to be bad (less money for the “community” not accepting “community responsibilities” and so on).
Those who take a different view of the consequences are going to take a differen moral view.
And, of course, there are some people who sometimes do not base their moral positions on consequences at all.
Not just people like me (it could be argued that as I tend to assume that the consquences of any action or inaction are going to be bad, OF COURSE I sometimes do not base my moral positions on the consequences), but even less negative people.
For example, – the Pope himself (in his published writings).
“To say the typical Catholic theologian despises the world God created or even does not think people just enjoy life is just plain wrong.”
One might have to know the “typical Catholic theologian” at hand in order to judge that, but there can be no question but that there are whole centuries and epochs of Catholic literature from which that very idea can be the only reasonably drawn conclusion.
No question whatever.
Does anyone know offhand where Milton Friedman recorded his thoughts on transubstantiation and the virgin birth?
It was the same book as where Hayek endorsed celebrating Mass in Swahili, all the world over.
I think my point stands, though: Given the effort that the Church has spent on avoiding the temporal laws and temporal authorities, and on sheltering its own from the same, Benny Sixteen looks like a real prick for deciding that I’m immoral for wanting to keep more of my money for me. Even if he had some legitimate claim on what I did with it, avoiding a tax liability is a rather smaller sin than certain other things I could name but won’t.
What was that about better to have a lead weight tied around one’s neck and cast into the sea? Compared with Jesus hanging out with tax collectors, but sure not encouraging them.
At any rate, I don’t think the Church management hates the world. They sure seem to like to pile it up for themselves. Wouldn’t bother me so much, except for them being smarmy hypocrites about it. Kinda like if Senator John Edwards claimed to be a priest of some kind.
Of course, if the pope had made some remarks about the free market beeing moral, we would have applauded. Maybe even converted to Catholicism.
Of course, Jacob, that would have meant effectively that he thinks governments have no mandate to steal from their citizens, and that people should be left to their own devices as long as they don’t harm others. There is a difference, isn’t there? Besides, his actual remarks imply to me that he delegates at least some of the Church’s moral authority to the governments. Prodi, or Bush or Brown, for that matter, as divine kings?
“he delegates at least some of the Church’s moral authority to the governments”
Isn’t that what the Catholic church has always done ?
The divine right of the Kings, correct. The Catholic church survived a long, long time by being on the side of the King.
I don’t think, though, that the existence of the church was threatened by Prodi…
I also don’t remember having read in the bible about tax equalization… so the Pope thought his personal beliefs are of divine origin, and need to be shared with all believers.
I am not a Roman Catholic (I do not think that celebacy is sensible in the parish clergy, as opposed to the “religious” the monks and nuns, and I wish to see much greater proof as to why the Bishop of Rome should have some special status above that of any Archbishop) – but you have just got the history wrong Billy Beck.
Whatever some sexually frustrated priest may have said or done, the official doctrine has always been that the world is created by God (and, although fallen, is GOOD) and that people should enjoy life. Bright colours, art, music, good food – all these have (by the great majority of Catholic theologians) been seen as good things (not bad things).
Yes they should be enjoyed in moderation (Aristotle has for many centuries been a big influence on Catholic thought), but enjoyed most certainly.
To hold otherwise is to misunderstand not just theology – but also religous history (the history of more than a thousand years of conflicts between the Roman Catholic Church and some other groups).
I hope we are not going to go back to Washington Irving style Catholic baiting – with Roman Catholic theologians being (quite falsely) being held to think that the world was flat (and so on and so on…..).
Isn’t that what the Catholic church has always done ? Yes, and? Maybe you should read your original comment again?
Alisa
My original comment did not discuss the Roman Catholic attitude to natural science – although, contrary to popular opinion it has normally (not always) been quite favourable.
On economics I made the point that most Catholic writers (although not all) had, over the last thousand years or so, been favourable to free markets. Although things had got worse since Leo XIII (under the influence of Cardinal Manning) decided to get involved. And a lot worse since Vatican II.
The present state of the debate in the Roman Catholic Church is better understood by specialists in this area (such as Dr Thomas Woods) than by me.
However, once a Pope has made a statement on a matter this does tend to effect things – even if it is a misinterpretation of the statement that is being used.
For example, in the 1960’s William F. Buckley (and his brother) were both told that they could not support economic freedom because the Church had denouced it.
Actually no Pope had done that, but once statements were made it was easy for them to be used for that purpose.
I believe a certain Byzantine Emperor above told us we should read the full statement before commenting on it.
WHAT NONSPECIALIST DOES THAT?
What happens is that the Church administrators (the “Bishops Conferences” and so on) put out an “interpretation” of the statement, and it always tends to be as statist an “interpretation” as possible.
Hence my original comment that Popes should keep out of this debate.
As, by and large, they did before Leo XIII got involved.
Then there would be nothing for progressive administrators and media Catholics to “interpret”.
Paul, I am sorry: my comment was addressed to Jacob, and it was very sloppily typed. I’ll give it another shot below:
Jacob, you wrote:
Yes, and? Maybe you should read your original comment again?
“…but you have just got the history wrong Billy Beck.”
I most certainly have not, sir. Now, you tell me how much citation from history would be adequate to making the point, and I will start quoting.
Alisa,
My point was that while in the past the Catholic church had good existential reasons to side with the government (i.e. the King) – it has less good reasons now. In the past a King (or a state – see France) could harass the church or expropriate some of it’s vast estates, nowadays there is no danger that Mr. Prodi will harm the church if it refuses to speak out on taxes.
So the Pope did not make pragmatic calculations, like they did in the past when they sided with the state. This time it was an expression of private ideological opinion.
Right, and Michael and others here are doing the same – what is the problem?
BTW, in case my point was missed, this is your original comment to which I was referring:
Stephen Jay Gould addressed this. One of the Popes (one of the Urbans, maybe?) issued a statement that the Church took no position on evolution vs. literal creation, and in that statement offered an uneasy truce, where he hoped that the scientific community would stay out of theology.
I guess it makes sense. As hard as the Jesuits have argued in support of using logic, it would not be easy for them to add an “except in this case” footnote to questions about the natural world.
In the contemporary US, most of the hostility to science comes from one or two particular Protestant sects instead. (Except for the hostility that comes from the green crystals-and-auras people, that is)
Here is the problem: Michael isn’t a Pope as far as I can tell. A Pope should be more careful in expressing a private opinion. There are people who believe that his opinion is inspired by God, and it’s the official doctrine of the Church.
What the Pope did is:
1. He uttered a private opinion in a field he isn’t very knowledgeable of (economics).
2. A field unrelated to religion.
3. He did it in his official capacity as Pope (i.e. – not in a private conversation)
This is wrong.
What I said here is, that despite the Pope not being an authority on economics we would have liked a positive utterance.
OK, it sounded to me as if you were implying that “we” were being hypocritical, and that is what my original comment was about.
O.K. Billy Beck.
First refute the first volume of Murry Rothbard’s history of economics (which argues, amongst other things, that the Roman Catholic thinkers of the past thousand years were not all or even majority hostile to freedom).
There are many other books on this subject (for example the popular “Christians for Freedom” which is a defence of some of the scholastics).
When you have done that, we can turn to other subjects.
For example, the Roman Catholic view of the natural sciences in the Middle Ages (mixed, not uniformally hostile).
Or the Roman Catholic view of art, music, good food, bright colours and so on (again mixed – not uniformally hostile).
I repeat that I am not and have never been a Roman Catholic.
“When you have done that, we can turn to other subjects.”
Excuse me, Paul, but the subject here is the Church’s ethical view of human life on this planet here and now, and Rothbard’s estimation of the Church’s politics has nothing to do with that. And I would thank you to note that I have not indicted the Church so generally as you’re insinuating. Please read again what I said, because it’s true. Even a cursory glance at the history can prove it.
“Or the Roman Catholic view of art, music, good food, bright colours and so on (again mixed – not uniformally hostile).”
That’s exactly right. It’s not. And that means that it is by no means uniformally benevolent, either, and it is exactly that not-uniform throughout two millenia of history. However, there can simply be no question but that there are any number of responsible Church authorities whose known ideas offer no other conclusion than that human beings would be better off not living here at all, which fact has always begged the question — to me, at least — why they didn’t just blow their brains out and have done with it.
Ah, I see I have misunderstood you Billy Beck.
You were really talking about the idea that life in Heaven will be better than life in this world.
But that is not just a Roman Catholic belief – all Christians (and Jews and Muslims) believe that.
“So why do they not blow their brains out”.
Well it is a doctrine that suicide is forbidden (many Muslim scholars seem to have reinterpreted that in recent decades – but they are careful to not actually use the word suicide). Although the idea that suicide is a “mortal sin” which will punished by going to Hell, is rather hard to reconcile with a good and loving God (after all many good people have killed themselves – are they all going to Hell?)
And there is the idea that this life is a gift from God and that it can be a learning experience.
However, I suspect that there is also the nagging fear that Heaven does not exist.
There is also the problem of how one kills oneself.
Even a bullet in the head is not always effective – and if one fails life is even worse (due to the injury).
Of course even people who do not believe in Heaven kill themselves.
Life is rather unpleasant (to put it mildly) for many people. To suffer for a purpose (in the hope that ones life will get better – or for the sake of ones children) makes sense, but to cling to life for no purpose at all is a different thing.
“You were really talking about the idea that life in Heaven will be better than life in this world.”
Yes, sir. That’s the thing.
“But that is not just a Roman Catholic belief – all Christians (and Jews and Muslims) believe that.”
No, I know that, but my entree to the matter here angles from Rand’s condemnation of the 1967 encyclical by Paul VI. It really is a pretty sophisticated analysis of the logic of the thing, referring to that idea.
I stand corrected Billy Beck.
I made the classic mistake of not thinking carefully about what you wrote before I went in to “type, type” mode.
I also made the same mistake with Mr Jennings original posting – not reading it all (at least not REALLY reading it all).
For example, I have only just noticed the joke at the end. Mr Prodi as a moral authority.
Of course Mr R. Prodi (Prime Minister of Italy and ex President of the Commission of the European Union) was a K.G.B. contact for many years. There are a lot of people in jail with better morals than him.
Sometimes (in spite of the Pope, not because of him) the Roman Catholic Church is still a “progressive” parady of the sort that Ayn Rand would have written.
For example, last Sunday I turned on the radio and a Roman Catholic service came on – accept….
Accept that the service was under the control of the head of “anti racism” (some sort of priestess I think) and started with tribal drums and talk in a central African language.
Sadly I doubt that the “Progressive Catholics” responsible for this farce understand that even the tribe concerned would despise them for stunts like this.
Still it is a good example of Rand’s point about the ultimate “progressive” socialists ending up falling back to the level of the tribe, and not even regarding it as a fall.
Interestingly the Latin Mass comes back (if people press for it) next Sunday.
It will no longer be named after Trent – but will be called the “John the XXIII Mass” as he was Pope when the last minor changes were made to the Latin Mass (1962).
John the XXIII is, of course, one of the heros of the “liberals” so this name will joke in their throats.
Who says that Pope Benedict does not have a sense of humour.