FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Williamson Column 2/13/2010
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXXXV (Feb. 13, 2010) :  MANE,  THECEL...

Should a Catholic bishop leave to one side matters of economics on the grounds that he should keep to matters of religion ?  By no means !  What a narrow view of religion one must take in order not to see that economics, or the art of managing the material goods necessary for life, is entirely governed by the view one takes of life, and the view one takes of life depends on religion. For how can religion (or its lack) be adequately understood except as the total view of life by which a man binds himself (or refuses to be bound) to the God who gave him his life?


If multitudes of men today think that economics have nothing to do with God, it is only because beforehand they think that he is either non-existent or insignificant. And supposing that there is an after-life, think they, then Hell is either non-existent ("We all go to Heaven") or unimportant ("At least all my friends will be there", they joke). Upon which presuppositions follow the shift from the economics of yesterday, economics of thrift, to those of today, spendthrift economics.

Yesterday, do not spend more than you earn. Save, and do not borrow, to invest. Do not solve debt with more debt. Today, it is patriotic to spend. Everybody will be prosperous if you spend regardless of what you earn. Do not save, because idle money benefits nobody. By all means borrow to make profitable investments. And if your debts turn sour, borrow more to get out of them.


These eat-drink-and-be-merry economics were intellectualised in particular by the highly influential British economist, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), who once famously said, "In the end we all die". By the 1970's President Nixon (1913-1994) was saying, "We are all Keynesians now". And since the 1970's the Keynesian build-up has been continuous all the way to the 2000's orgy of lending, borrowing and spending, made possible only by the people's having given up on the old common sense of not spending more than you earn, and of shunning debt - "Owe no man anything but to love one another", says the Word of God (Rom. XIII, 8), and "The borrower is servant to him that lendeth" (Prov. XXII, 7).

Right now the world is enslaving itself to the money-men, the orgy is collapsing, and the collapse is by no means over. Unemployment is far higher than the politicians can afford to admit, yet still they garner votes by promising jobs and free lunches for the people. The politicians have encouraged these unreal expectations by which they rise to power but on which they will not be able to deliver. The people are about to rise up, are rising up, in anger. The politicians will have to start foreign wars to take the people's mind off domestic troubles.. War is around the corner, to be followed, if God permits, by the usurers' World Government. All because the people thought that God had nothing to do with life, and life nothing to do with God.

But see Daniel V, 5-6 and 24-28 !  The Lord God has our number ("Mane"), we have been weighed in his balance and found wanting ("Thecel"), our fun-land is over ("Phares"). It remains for us to take our medicine.                   


Kyrie eleison.


(02-15-2010, 08:35 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]Should a Catholic bishop leave to one side matters of economics on the grounds that he should keep to matters of religion ?  By no means !  What a narrow view of religion one must take in order not to see that economics, or the art of managing the material goods necessary for life, is entirely governed by the view one takes of life, and the view one takes of life depends on religion. For how can religion (or its lack) be adequately understood except as the total view of life by which a man binds himself (or refuses to be bound) to the God who gave him his life?

He is right. Behind the economy always there are moral issues, and bishops had to take stand on the moral issues.

Also we shall keep in mind that the last judgment will be about the social justice (Matt 25) which is the chief moral issue behind the economics.

Simple common sense says you don't spend more than you earn.

Economics is the art of trying to avoid this basic principle and come out ahead.
(02-15-2010, 09:15 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: [ -> ]Simple common sense says you don't spend more than you earn.

The present debt budget of the Western governments is definitely sinfull, selling out free countries to be slaves of the usurers. This is the main reason why it is grave sin to vote for any Republican candidate: they are the chief sellers.

However the quoted statement in itself is not absolute truth. This would prevent many good people to get proper education in borrowing money, to get house for mortgage, or start a bussiness lending money. As a principle one can borrow, if the result pays off the principal and the interest.

As for the borrowing sinfull is:

- to request interest in usure level (as the credit card companies are doing)
- to lend money below the cost (inflation and administrative cost) as the FED those keeping artificially low rates
- to allow the principle that the successfull inverstors can go away with their money, and those who failed are bought by the expense of the taxpayers
(02-15-2010, 10:58 AM)glgas Wrote: [ -> ]This is the main reason why it is grave sin to vote for any Republican candidate: they are the chief sellers.

You are completely foolish. It's not the Republicans that have voted for bail out after bail out and government take over of private industry.

The only thing the Republicans are selling is freedom from the government. So, if I were to concede your point that it's a grave sin to vote for Republicans it's even more of a grave sin to vote for demoncrats. Since this is a 2 party system, and since one party or the other is going to win the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils.

(02-15-2010, 12:09 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]...demoncrats...

Is that spelling deliberate, or Freudian? :D