![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaSeen on the Beliefnet B-Log:
And, posted by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
arisbe, this article on Catholic social teaching:
On this second article, these comments are spliced together and greatly edited from two comments made in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god:
The article made a very good point in showing that the way the Catholic Church has gone about making economic pronouncements from its "bully pulpit" takes it into potentially dangerous territory. In the Catholic Church there is effectively no two-way discourse; the Church is not a democracy.
What I've advocated in mixing theology with practical concerns like economic or political implications envisions a two-way flow of information and argument. That is, if theology has economic implications, then economics should have theological implications. The Church should not then promote potentially flawed economics simply because that is what is compatible with its theology; economic innovation may suggest that theological innovation is needed. But it does not appear (from my detached perspective) that this is compatible with the way the Church sees it.
It has been demonstrated time and again, in business and government, that when the people in the trenches have a clear means of questioning policies that come from above, the entire structure works more efficiently. The Church does not have an effective mechanism for this. (Again, that assessment comes from a somewhat detached perspective.)
The Church is structured as it is to avoid giving heresy a chance to take root; but the Church also plays at being an institution of the world. Protestantism allows more of a feedback loop, but Protestant denominations are much more prone to schism over "timely" issues, which suggests that there is no easy answer on how to implement the economic implications of theology.
People have used the Bible to predict the Second Coming and the end of the world. But John M. Brown is one of the first to rely on the Old Testament to hunt for oil in Israel, where others have tried and failed. "Over the last five years significant amounts of gas have been discovered off the shore of both Israel and Gaza," insists Brown, chairman of Dallas-based Zion Oil & Gas. Decoding verses from Deuteronomy, he is determined to look for black gold to the south of the Mount Carmel range, a region known as "the head of Joseph," and an area near the Mediterranean, a.k.a. "the foot of Asher."
How to pay for this holy flyer? Zion recently went public on Nasdaq in a best-efforts offering for 1.3 million to 7 million shares at $5 apiece. The kicker: Brown must pay a hefty 8% to 10% of the proceeds to the underwriters--no believers, they. The money will support drilling on sites licensed from the Israeli government. And if the first efforts bear no fruit? Brown seems ethereally unconcerned. Many of his backers are evangelical Christians who want him to succeed. Besides, we are entering the season of miracles.
And, posted by
arisbe, this article on Catholic social teaching:The approach found in many of the encyclicals has led the Church to attempt to impose on the economic order principles external to the science of economics, and thus, it promotes policies that are bound to fail, and that will bring disrepute to the Church, leading people to reject its teachings as unserious.... [T]he principles of economic activity are orderly and unchanging, and attempts to impose particular policies from outside of that system reflect a lack of comprehension or recognition of the reality of the economic order.
On this second article, these comments are spliced together and greatly edited from two comments made in
challenging_god:The article made a very good point in showing that the way the Catholic Church has gone about making economic pronouncements from its "bully pulpit" takes it into potentially dangerous territory. In the Catholic Church there is effectively no two-way discourse; the Church is not a democracy.
What I've advocated in mixing theology with practical concerns like economic or political implications envisions a two-way flow of information and argument. That is, if theology has economic implications, then economics should have theological implications. The Church should not then promote potentially flawed economics simply because that is what is compatible with its theology; economic innovation may suggest that theological innovation is needed. But it does not appear (from my detached perspective) that this is compatible with the way the Church sees it.
It has been demonstrated time and again, in business and government, that when the people in the trenches have a clear means of questioning policies that come from above, the entire structure works more efficiently. The Church does not have an effective mechanism for this. (Again, that assessment comes from a somewhat detached perspective.)
The Church is structured as it is to avoid giving heresy a chance to take root; but the Church also plays at being an institution of the world. Protestantism allows more of a feedback loop, but Protestant denominations are much more prone to schism over "timely" issues, which suggests that there is no easy answer on how to implement the economic implications of theology.
