The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

overall, popes have had an economic liberal bias

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 60588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




pope quotes


property does not constitute for anyone an absolute or unconditioned
right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does
not need, when others lack necessities"

You are not making a
gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him
what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you
have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to
the rich." (#23)

Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the
necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade,
are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder
it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation.
Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded
as an important and urgent social duty.

Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure
satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and
power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add
to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for
"directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35)
the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities
to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed,
and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task
to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "

has always understood this right within the broader context of the
right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.

the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in
particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there
underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than
any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner.
If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder
conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better,
he is made the victim of force and injustice.

What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.

labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary
for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self
preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or
characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is
bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who
acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's
labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live,
and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey.
Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal,
doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of
wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so
is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our
conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element
in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for
him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but
not in reality.

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work.
This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production.
Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in
the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise
exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and
their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot
even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate
title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in
the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve
labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the
achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal
destination of goods and the right to common use of them.

this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of
common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the
socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.

Legislation is necessary,
but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice
and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling
of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law
can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued
exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in
solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an
individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to
be answerable for the common good.

In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations.
Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not
affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an
incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially
developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no
longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country
to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce
unfair results.

Given these conditions, it is obvious
that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and
develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and
development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity
and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and

Interdependence must be transformed into
solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are
meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations
must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of
all peoples and with respect for the differences.


A papal economic liberal bias is a facade. The Vatican holds vast wealth and power of influence among many world leaders.
If the Vatican sold off all of it's lands and gave away all of it's riches, sacrificing everything like Jesus did, then I would believe they have an economic liberal bias.

Debate Round No. 1


them having wealth is no different than some rich people having wealth. it's not necessarily always the best thing or right thing to sell all you have and give it to the poor.

jesus did say, too, that it's sometimes right to spend money on things to give glory to God, instead of giving to the poor. such as when the lady was pouring purfume on Jesus's feet and he told the apostles not to stop her, even after they pointed out they could give the money to the poor.

con's argument is really the facade. it's a stereotype of an argument. the main point, that popes have an economic liberal bias is true, at the very least in teaching anyways, which is all 've been saying to begin with. even without regard to whether hthey could or should give their money to hte poor.

con loses this debate hands down, no matter which way you cut it.


The popes' facade of generosity is a giimmick to get more money our of people enslaved by catholicism who think they can earn God's favor. The Popes lose, hands down, no matter how much money sits on the seven hills of Rome.
Debate Round No. 2


con hasn't really said anything new in the last post, so reiterate my last post.


Pro has done nothing but promote the papal facade of generosity. Obviously Pro is himself a generous and kind person, probably giving a lot of money to the Catholic Church thinking it will buy God's favor as the Pope and his cronies line their pockets.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
While everything is made out of gold, they have the nerve to say this?

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really responded to Pro's points. He merely reiterated a few limited statements that he never actually supported. What little there was for Pro to respond to, he did. I'm awarding Conduct as Con didn't really participate in this debate, and arguments because his lack of real participation meant a lack of arguments, as well. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.