The elites fooled you good! No wonder they do so well, all the suckers think they’re gonna get a slice in the ‘next’ life, what a joke!

If it was only implied, however, that we DO share… and not that ownership of private property is wrong, that would not be any departure.

Another departure would be if it were actually suggested that soclaism or communism are right paths, as again, in justice they are wrong.

But I may have misunderstood the statements of today’s pope or the implications thereof… If all he’s really trying to say, is that we should look after the poor, then obviously there would be nothing wrong with that.

Problem is, however golden the intentions, you can’t “modernize” reality or truth. If it’s true, it does not change. 2+2=4 was true from the garden of Eden, to today, and always will be. Even the pope has not the power (according to Catholic doctrine) to alter the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way from what they have always been, and always must be, because they are truths (therefore not subject to change, just like the rest of reality).

This article… assuming it’s true… would be a perfect example of that radical departure in (personal, not the Church’s actual) teaching, spirit or thought of some, from the Church’s official teachings, for the last 2,000 years… in this case, on material and social justice.

Pope Leo XIII wrote the reality down in his encyclical Rerum Novarum (on capital and labor):

“4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover,
emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly,
saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of
individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

6. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own… it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.

7. This becomes still more clearly evident if man’s nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which
he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man’s needs
do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of
providing for the substance of his body…”

I suggest everyone find Rerum Novarum and read it, if they want to know the true Catholic position… quite interesting, and refreshingly sane! (And Catholic!) Pope Leo XIII had a lot of interesting things to say about our current state of affairs, in fact…

I have become a firm believer in returning to primitive ways of living and being. We honestly need little else other than food, water, clothing and shelter. (I’m still a bit iffy on the clothing need; We could do without and be OK if we could get everyone to not sexualize certain body parts…)