The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

the popes have an economic left 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 30591
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)




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.


Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate.

Read more:

This is independant of Vatican Gold Reserves which which are held at The Vatican Bank

Mr. Cipriani described the Vatican bank as a financially cautious organization that has €6 billion ($7.48 billion) in assets, including gold reserves at the U.S. Federal Reserve. The bank invests less than 5% of its portfolio in riskier securities like stocks, Mr. Cipriani said.

The Pope is, quite possibly, the richest man in the world, and despite the rhetoric, they have a very right leaning bias.

Debate Round No. 1


there's a difference between theory and practice. what you are talking about is the hypocritical nature of the popes, the practice. i am clearly referring to what the popes teach in theory... in that regard, liberal.


There is a difference between theory and practice.

Clearly, as I have listed out their actual wealth and investments, and my opponent has listed a series of quotes around a philosophy not followed by actual popes, I have demonstrated practice while my opponent has victim to rhetoric of a false nature.

Nothing my opponent has presented here thus far represents an argument. and I may forego future rounds if this trend continues in the interest of brevity.
Debate Round No. 2


"I have demonstrated practice while my opponent has victim to rhetoric of a false nature."

the only rhetoric is you spouting about crooked popes, common stereotypes etc. it's rhetoric cause it rants and doesnt address the point.

yes you have clearly shown practice. if mom says eat your vegetables to everyone and i use quotes to demonstrate this, and she herself doesnt eat them, it's safe to say generally that mother is pro vegetables for people eating there vegs generally. you could split hairs about her being not pro vegetables simply because she herself doesnt do it, but it's missing the clear point, that what im referring to is her official position for the wider audience etc.

not only has opponent engaged in useless rhetoric, opponent missed the obvious points here.

if oppoenent leaves the debate it's only because her position is incoherent, without basis, indefensible.


I've said nothing of the moral or ethical nature of popes other than to make note that in the area of wealth accumulation, they do not practice what they preach.

My opponent stated that Popes have a bias toward the left (which I assume means liberal) regarding their economics. While I don't know what this means, exactly, I assume it would have something to do with following the words that my opponent has attributed (unsourced/undocumented) to "popes" (who knows which one/s?).

As I have demonstrated, which this rhetoric put forth by the Catholic Church sounds wonderful, they almost own more proprety than God, Himself. Certainly, they are conservative in all their investment practices, which would be associated with the right, not left.

My opponent has slopped a bunch of unsourced rhetoric on the screen and has mistaken that for an argument. I have demonstrated that his resolution is false.

He has refuted nothing I have put forth. Clearly, I am the victor in this debate. I therefore encourage you to vote for my opponent. I don't need the actual win to know I won. Let the other guy have it.

Good day.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
alwaysmorethanyou - nice...thank you.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
I want you to have the win. I won the debate. The formal vote is meaningless to me.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
u seem insecure with yourself. (aside from the whole missing the point debating style) u might want to work on that.
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
no...that one was awful enough. I'm done with this topic.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
If you like, after this debate we can hold our own
Posted by malcolmxy 3 years ago
Nonsesnse? I'm pretty sure I accurately assessed The Vatican' wealth, and that doesn't even touch on the diocese.

Please, after the debate, explain what non-factual information I've posted.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
Great. Now we have two people spouting nonsense about the Church.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
If no one accepts this (or the contradiction on infant baptism) by the end of the week, I certainly will take one or the other (I have something of a full plate till Thursday)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 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: The resolution mentions a bias, which is "an inclination of temperament or outlook" and not a matter of actual practice. Con entirely misses the point of the debate and thus arguments must go to Pro. I will also deduct conduct for the cockiness at the end. Of course you think you won: you think you are right. Voters, however, will award points to whoever they consider put forth the better argument.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Malcolm didn't have paragraph problems. Pro didn't cite any sources and thus I have discounted her arguments; in any event Con showed that their rhetoric and conduct doesn't match up.
Vote Placed by Skynet 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate topic, poor execution by both parties. Pro provided a lot of substance, but didn't back it up with a single source, and Con successfully baited Pro into a petty insult match. Pro did not define her resolution well enough and Con exploited that resulting in an inconclusive debate. I agree with Pro on this one, but the solitary point falls to Con.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, it looks like Con won this one.