So the papal visit to the United States has even more people reaching above their pay grades, trying to interpret that the chief interpreter is really up to. Is Pope Francis a lefty, is he a traditionalist, will anything change on marriage? So far Bryan and the Jasons are stuck.
What I’m curious about is whether Pope Francis is a pastor who ministers the good news of Jesus Christ. Think about this. Yesterday in the Wall St. Journal William McGurn opined that the pope is mistaken in his understanding of poverty, that capitalism is far better for raising the prospects of the poor than other schemes. That seems sensible enough.
In on of the comments on McGurn’s piece, a defender of Pope Francis tried to explain for the infallible explainer:
William misses the whole point. The Pope isn’t saying capitalism is wrong, he is saying the greed of executives and stockholders is wrong. It isn’t enough to make a good salary, they have to make more than the executives at their competition. They have the attitude, what is the minimum we must pay to get someone to do the job competently and that is what we will pay. The attitude of sharing the wealth is foreign to most executives and stockholders. Stockholders are not satisfied with the return they get, they insist the returns must increase or I will take my money elsewhere. It is when greed takes over that capitalism fails.
Maybe this person also has a point. Capitalism isn’t evil. It’s people who abuse capitalism. Got it.
Here’s the thing, Pope Francis actually has the remedy for the greed of executives and stockholders. He has at his disposal the truth of the gospel (as he understands it), a Petrine ministry, and a sacramental system that could actually change the hearts and minds of New York City financiers. Imagine if instead of visiting political figures, the pope went to Wall St. and preached. Short of a Cornelius Van Til moment, imagine if he had Cardinal Dolan set up a bunch of meetings in the board rooms of corporate New York and he explained the sinfulness of the human condition and the possibility of grace in the sacraments (not to mention the assistance of the Blessed Virgin). Wouldn’t that be something a pastor would do?
Imagine this as well, not only could he point the world’s capitalists to a life of virtue, he also has the remedy for these folks should an insufficient number of them convert and follow Jesus. If the world continues to warm and catastrophe happens, Pope Francis is actually sitting on the goods for a good life in the world to come.
Not too shabby.
But popes don’t do this and this is one of the greatest problems of episcopacy — it removes ministers from their flocks, or makes the pastors of flocks that are beyond their capacities. If Tim Keller has trouble visiting all the people who belong to Redeemer PCA, imagine the pope’s challenge of visiting 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, in addition to evangelizing Wall Street’s financial tycoons.
Peter Steinfels, by the way, as a liberal Roman Catholic is not pleased by all the attention on Pope Francis since Steinfels believes that Roman Catholicism “is bigger than one man.” Well, Protestants have been saying that about Christianity for some time, though they have also said Christianity is all about the God-man, Jesus Christ. Even so, Steinfels is pointing in the direction of the serious flaws that come with episcopacy and especially one whose universal jurisdiction makes the ordinary efforts of priests look irrelevant. Talk about subsidiarity.
Even so, if as J. Gresham Machen said, ministers have something that the world can never give, isn’t that even more true (on Roman Catholic grounds) of the papacy? He has it all — truth, ministry, sacraments. And what do popes do? To the untrained Protestant eye, it looks like a modern encyclical merely becomes a conversation starter. It’s a jumping off point for the faithful (now much better educated than the immigrant church that paid, prayed, and obeyed) to show off their expertise.
And to answer his critics, Pope Francis says that he could affirm the Nicene Creed. Yes, he could do that. But why not teach it? Why not explain it? Why not take it to the executives of Wall Street, Berlin, London, Rome even?
This is one reason why I think the church has become modernist. Sure, you can say the Nicene Creed. But do you believe it? Even more, does it inform your ministry? But if you think you are a moral life coach for the world’s population, a source for thinking virtuously about human flourishing, the leader who will point the world’s systems to a better and more just way — if you think of this world as home rather than as a foreign land — then you very well might engage in all sorts of pious thoughts about the world system of finance and technology and not consider that if you saved more people from their sins and put them on a path to holiness, maybe this world would be a better place.
When you are accustomed to mixing it up with emperors, monarchs, and presidents, mixing with the ordinary laity — even the ones making guhzillion figures — looks, well, shabby.
I have wondered the same thing, too.
LikeLike
Who‘s listening anyway?
LikeLike
So why say that to bishops and not to Wall Street’s laborers?
LikeLike
Here’s the thing, Pope Francis actually has the remedy for the greed of executives and stockholders. He has at his disposal the truth of the gospel (as he understands it), a Petrine ministry, and a sacramental system that could actually change the hearts and minds of New York City financiers. Imagine if instead of visiting political figures, the pope went to Wall St. and preached.
I think you give Bergoglio too much credit. If he were to preach, what gospel would he preach? Would he preach the Gospel of Christ – the one that Paul (and Peter) preached? Or would he preach a different gospel?
LikeLike
But greed is the driving force of capitalism, it’s why we can always rely on it working…
LikeLike
It would be hilarious if one of those conservative Roman Catholics at a think tank (Arthur Brooks at AEI?) or university like Hillsdale would correct Francis as it pertains to economics. I wonder how humble Francis would be in such a situation?
As it pertains to the papacy, those criticisms directed to executives wanting to have more than others can be directed to the popes throughout history. Isn’t it enough to be first among equals (not that he is)? Does the bishop of Rome really need to exercise authority over every church in every nation? The attitude of sharing authority is foreign to popes and Roman Catholics in general, and it is that arrogance that contributes to harm. And due to this harm, true religion and unity fails to come to fruition.
I don’t buy that pretended humility from Francis. Let him confess to being no greater in authority to any other pastor in an official manner; if he does this, he will wow me.
LikeLike
Who does this sound like:
Not like this:
Preach the Word
LikeLike
Sad to see the Pope’s rep back off from previous statements about Capitalism. As for McGurn’s article, what do you expect from Wall Street Journal article? Does McGurn mention that the nation that has seen poverty alleviated the most is China? Or did McGurn mention that one of the reasons places like Korea has fared better than Latin America is because it didn’t rely on the IMF for loans, loans that come with conditions that hurt economies that wish to become independent? Did McGurn mention how the free market system was introduced into places like Chile or Argentina? BTW, the answer to both of them was a military coup followed by tyrannical rule.
Structurally speaking, because it consolidates wealth and power Capitalism relies on the exploitation of labor. Why? Because rewarding workers through wages alone makes their labor power into commodity. And once labor power is a commodity and that businesses will tend to buy commodities at one of the lowest prices, workers become disposable objects. And since workers are disposable, so are all who depend on them. Such a view does not recognize the intrinsic value of human life.
With globalization of the workforce has come, as expected with the “law” of supply and demand, a stagnation or drop in wages for jobs that can be performed both in other countries and here. That nations are losing sovereignty when their leaders sign trade agreements or join organizations like the WTO can be seen throughout most of the Americas from Canada to Central America.
So a lot can be said about the structure of Capitalism being wrong as well as the abuse of it being wrong.
LikeLike
DG, just tried twice posting something and it doesn’t seem to be going through. The second time it had no links, not sure what the deal is.
LikeLike
Kevin, are you using a laptop?
LikeLike
Lenovo running Linux (Ubuntu) – why?
LikeLike
“Ubuntu” was the theme of the world champion 2008 Boston Celtics. Other than that, we may inhabit different worlds. Like, you may bump into Bobby in your travels while I’m likely to see Ed the Janitor in mine. And that’s OK, other than Ed being a Yankee fan.
Anyway, on my unworthy laptop I lose a comment if I tap on the mousing square. I have to actually press the raised edge.
LikeLike
The pope teaches “progressive sanctification”. Only some few attain heaven by means of God enabling them to do enough good works. The rest of those not yet sanctified enough do not sleep—they go to purgatory.
http://heidelblog.net/2012/10/canonization-saints-and-christ-our-only-mediator/
Richard Gaffin, p 102, By Faith Not by Sight,–“This expression obedience of faith is best taken as intentionally multivalent…In other words, faith itself is an obedience, as well as other acts of obedience that stem from faith.”
Gaffin: “Typically in the Reformation tradition the hope of salvation is expressed in terms of Christ’s righteousness, especially as imputed to the believer…however, I have to wonder if ‘Christ in you’ is not more prominent as an expression of evangelical hope…” p 110
Gaffin—When the prepositional phrase “without works” is taken adverbially, that is, as modifying the verb “justifies,” then the statement “faith without works justifies,” is true. When “without works” is taken adjectivally, that is, with the noun “faith,” that is, “without-works faith,” then the same statement is false.”
LikeLike
http://heidelblog.net/2013/06/how-many-mediators/
We can only wonder at the audacity of people who think they are “Reformed” but who are not talk about “eternal security”. To be truly confessional, we don’t talk about God’s preservation of the saints without balancing that out with warnings about the perseverance of “obedient faith” which is never alone.
“Justification in Galatians”, p 172, Moo’s essay in the Carson f (Understanding the Times)—Nor is there any need to set Paul’s “juridicial” and “participationist” categories in opposition to one another (see Gaffin, By Faith Not By Sight, p 35-41). The problem of positing a union with Christ that precedes the erasure of our legal condemnation before God ( eg, making justification the product of union with Chris) CAN BE ANSWERED IF WE POSIT, WITHIN THE SINGLE WORK OF CHRIST, TWO STAGES OF “JUSTIFICATION”, one involving Christ’s payment of our legal debt–the basis for our regeneration–and second our actual justification=stemming from our union with Christ.”
LikeLike
“This expression obedience of faith is best taken as intentionally multivalent…In other words, faith itself is an obedience, as well as other acts of obedience that stem from faith.”
wow
LikeLike
Muddy –
“Ubuntu” was the theme of the world champion 2008 Boston Celtics. Other than that, we may inhabit different worlds. Like, you may bump into Bobby in your travels while I’m likely to see Ed the Janitor in mine. And that’s OK, other than Ed being a Yankee fan.
There are a lot of cultural references going on here which, I’m afraid, are lost on me. Yankees, no prob. I’m pretty sure Boston Celtics are basketball. The rest is references to the Wire? I’d watch it if it were on Netflix.
Anyway, on my unworthy laptop I lose a comment if I tap on the mousing square. I have to actually press the raised edge.
I’ve lost a number of comments due to fat-finger error and not copying the post to the clipboard before attempting submission, but in this case the submission is going through (if I try a second time I get a duplicate posting error)- it is just being blocked.
DG, do you see the post in your filter? Can you at least confirm you are seeing my Q?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Westboro guys are pretty harsh and divisive in their preaching and rebuking and exhortation. Get your seal of approval? Mr. Phelps Goes to Washington?
Mark,
“The pope teaches “progressive sanctification”. Only some few attain heaven by means of God enabling them to do enough good works.”
RCism teaches those in heaven (or purgatory) have attained that only because of the unmerited infusion of love, faith, and hope given to them at justification.
LikeLike
Someone who cared enough to watch the pope’s little talk to Congress said he mentioned Jesus zero times. Civic religion. Useless.
LikeLike
Cw,
Here’s some other events the pope was involved in at DC:
Midday Prayer With U.S. Bishops at St. Matthew’s Cathedral
Junipero Serra Canonization Mass at Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
I think Jesus was mentioned there. Why is it presumed Francis is going to give the same types of messages to different audiences or in all contexts? Do your pastors give a sermon when they attend a school board or city council meeting?
LikeLike
The usual embarrassing dummies guide to ☭ communism
LikeLike
No Gospel at all
Imagine the punishment of a teacher in the next life who basically had half the world paying even some attention and nothing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ
LikeLike
James Young, Nope.
So it’s either ethereal encyclicals that everyman interprets his own way or Westboro Baptist?
Have you heard of church history?
LikeLike
James Young, the first pope was pretty clear about preaching Jesus wherever he went (except when Paul had to smack him down).
Why set the bar so low for an office so high?
Ross Douthat is more explicit that the pope.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Great – so setting Francis’ “Harsh and divisive language does not befit the tongue of a pastor, it has no place in his heart … Although it may momentarily seem to win the day, only the enduring allure of goodness and love remains truly convincing.” against Paul’s statement is a dichotomy you don’t even buy.
“the first pope was pretty clear about preaching Jesus wherever he went”
Part of preaching includes actions, not a legalistic “make sure Jesus is mentioned every sentence” – Westboro guys mentioned Jesus quite frequently, doesn’t mean they were preaching Jesus.
So I hope you don’t set the bar too low for yourself as an elder or your pastors – when officers of your church attend civic or secular meetings/functions, are they always preaching Jesus with a sermon? Why not?
LikeLike
Clete — water boy — it’s ok to be embarrassed. You’re among friends here. This is a safe place. Embrace the papal suck and wallow in it. We’re here for you.
LikeLike
CW,
Francis’ grasp of economics and the eeeevils of capitalism is how shall we put it … not great (from an RC – https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/21/if-pope-francis-wants-to-help-the-poor-h). I’m not a pure kool-aid drinker, needs to be watered down a bit.
LikeLike
Kent, CW Der Vereiniger,
No Gospel at all
Imagine the punishment of a teacher in the next life who basically had half the world paying even some attention and nothing about the Gospel of Jesus Christ
Strong inclination to agreement from this quarter (with caveat that that my private judgement in the matter counts for zilch).
Benedict also failed to mention Jesus at a talk to the UN sometime back.
Not good.
And I don’t think this argument is a good one: “They all know I’m the Pope and an advocate of Christianity, so I’ll give them a surprise and not act like the Pope or an advocate of Christianity.”
Damnable, modernist, heretical, depriving one of the papacy? I’m skeptical it reaches the threshold required by these claims.
But imprudence in one with a great charge, if that is indeed the right analysis, is serious enough.
LikeLike
Clete and Kev, we actually do feel your pain. Box wine might be your best option this week. #unficator
LikeLike
#TourDeFranzia
LikeLike
James Young, are you kidding? When do Protestant pastors get invited to rub shoulders with politicians? But when you are a temporal ruler who executes criminals for some of your history, you take on the antics of politicians.
Peter would be embarrassed. Yup.
And your apologies for Francis are weak. Where’s the audacity? Where’s the courage? Where’s speaking truth — which would be Jesus, right? — to power?
LikeLike
“When do Protestant pastors get invited to rub shoulders with politicians?”
Well in the case of Sharpton, Jackson, et al… when they need votes delivered. In case of Hybels, etc… when they get caught with their pants down, and Billy Graham when they need a nice photo-op. Other than that, not at all…
LikeLike
CVD –
What’s wrong with Francis’s economics?
I submit that it isn’t enough – by far – to prove that the Anglo-American system or some idealized version of it (Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, anarchosyndicalism) is better than Communism or Socialism.
LikeLike
Purpose dude got a TED talk and spent it obsequiously trying to convince those listening that Christianity had utility because it gave a lot to charity.
Total epic fail.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“When do Protestant pastors get invited to rub shoulders with politicians?”
Why limit it to addressing Congress or the UN or meeting with the President? You telling me Protestant pastors never interact with civic or political groups and organizations in their community, city, or state? Of course they do – whether it be in their official capacity or merely as a citizen. I don’t see them preaching sermons non-stop in either context.
Kevin,
Do you agree or disagree with the Reason article I linked to? Also, what is your view on climate change – do you think government intervention and regulation is needed?
LikeLike
James Young, when will a pastor ever have a stage like Pope Francis has? If he cares about lost souls, if he cares about his flock, what does he say then? Why should I care what he thinks about politics? He has no power thanks to Italy.
LikeLike
CVD –
Much greater disagreement than agreement. Although for many of the specific points, I don’t see a real engagement with the position Francis is advocating.
property rights must not be treated as “inviolable,”
We are stewards of creation. We have no unlimited right to ownership. Someone dying from hunger does have the right to take something from us, and we do not have the right to deny it. This does not interfere with the basic right to private property, which is fundamental, preceding the state. The state does have the right to take property from us (taxation) in some circumstances.
hold up as the ideal “cooperatives of small producers” over “economies of scale,”
c.f. arguments from human epistemology which appear in Hayek and Oakeshott with a dose of urbanism, an understanding of corporate indifference to localities (usually), and an understanding of what makes people love a place.
accuse the Western world of “scandalous level[s] of consumption,”
I’d need to read the statement in context, but I’ll continue to point at the US gov/Obama pressure on the Haitian gov to set the minimum wage in Haiti for Hanes/Levis workers at $.31/hr, half the min wage set by the gov all jobs. We don’t need jeans that cheap so we can save our pennies for more expensive shoes (which likely pay similar non-living wages), etc.
To advocate governments should behave this way does seem to me scandalous – to attempt to recognize immoral behavior as moral. The argument over whether a min wage is good or bad is an interesting but separate issue.
and assert that we need “to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits.”
c.f. impact on the family (working women) by prioritizing economic competition. Economic indicators should not be prioritized over all other factors when determining the health of a society. It is not meaningful to talk of a healthy economy when numerous other fundamentals of the society are not in order.
A slower economy can, in some circumstances, be a good thing for a society.
I’d like to see a policy goal (with associated indicators recognized) of a man being able to support a large family on a typical single income.
he chastised those who “continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.”
Economists (especially neoclassical) can defend this in theory, but they need to wake up and look at the world – there is all sort of preferential treatment given to industries and individual companies (barriers to entry, tax breaks, information shared). Free competition is absolutely not what we have in the US now.
Given that fact, even if “trickle-down theories” are basically correct in theory (quite possible), they will not produce that result in the real world due to gov favoritism (and other factors). Those who base policy on abstract theories without a regard for real results – i.e. who cause real harm to real people – ought indeed to be chastised.
Even more frustratingly, he asserted that such a belief in free markets “has never been confirmed by the facts.”
Ok, so where are the slam-dunk counter-examples? The British Empire and the US were built on protectionism. Hong Kong? Singapore? Interesting, but these are city states, not large countries fit uncontroversially to serve as policy experiments for the rest. Japan? I’m not so sure in non-economic markers it provides clear proof.
LikeLike
How the Pope can critique capitalism with a straight face is utterly beyond me. There is not a richer, more financially sophisticated private institution on the face of this little blue planet than the Vatican. If the Pope was so concerned with the poor he could make a small start by removing all of the gold overlay in the Vatican or the many cathedrals world-wide and start the diaconal work of helping the poor in significant ways. Of course it could divest itself of part of its roughly $7.5 billion in assets to address the ills of global poverty, or the environmental issues that seem so important to Francis.
How the Papacy can deride the gross accumulation of wealth while sitting on top of one of the worlds largest private fortunes is truly bewildering. Yet another reason why it is so hard to take modern Rome seriously at all.
LikeLike
Calvin—-Civil government does not merely see to it that men breathe, eat, drink, and are kept warm, even though it surely embraces all these activities when it provides for their living together. It does not, I repeat, look to this only, but also prevents idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against religion from arising and spreading among the people; it prevents the public peace from being disturbed; it provides that each man may keep his property safe and sound; that men may carry on blameless intercourse among themselves; that honesty and modesty may be preserved among men. In short, it provides that a public manifestation of religion may exist among Christians 4/20/3
Protestant magistrates also attempted to eradicate “the Devil’s minions”
Click to access 1997jun.pdf
…. in 1597, executed an anabaptist named Anna Utenhove, although this time they buried her alive instead of burning her…
LikeLike
Perhaps there are different kinds of “capitalism”. There’s the kind which Bono and Pearl Jam criticize, the kind that causes poverty. And then also there’s the kind of capitalism which makes Bone and Pearl Jam so rich….
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/29/facebook-posts/critics-say-elizabeth-warren-lives-54-million-mans/
LikeLike
Jed –
How the Pope can critique capitalism with a straight face is utterly beyond me. There is not a richer, more financially sophisticated private institution on the face of this little blue planet than the Vatican.
The accumulation of wealth as such is not a problem, just the failure to use it rightly. Many use their money to put people deeply into debt, or for speculative purposes which are unhealthy for them (wall street slot machine).
If the Pope was so concerned with the poor he could make a small start by removing all of the gold overlay in the Vatican or the many cathedrals world-wide and start the diaconal work of helping the poor in significant ways. Of course it could divest itself of part of its roughly $7.5 billion in assets to address the ills of global poverty, or the environmental issues that seem so important to Francis.
He could, but that would be a partial denial of the role of beauty, to tamper with the communicative ability of the works, to do damage to our cultural patrimony. In many cases it would also be quite expensive, requiring removal, packing, shipping, re-installation of something functional but less expensive.
The RCC does an enormous amount for the poor worldwide, always has, always will. The great works in Rome and worldwide serve a purpose as well. It can do more than one thing at once.
What would a transferal of those billions really accomplish, anyway? Would they be distributed in a way that is actually useful? Would the money remain with the formerly poor? Seems unlikely to me – I imagine accumulation by strongmen aligned with selected Western business interests. Same-old same-old.
How the Papacy can deride the gross accumulation of wealth while sitting on top of one of the worlds largest private fortunes is truly bewildering. Yet another reason why it is so hard to take modern Rome seriously at all.
If it’s “truly bewildering,” then perhaps you are misreading what is being said. To pick the simplest possible example, if a fortune is acquired through injustice, it is the injustice that is criticized, not the fortune.
LikeLike
Jed,
Really – 7.5 billion will solve poverty? Aid doesn’t work – read William Easterly or Dambisa Moya – western nations have given African trillions of dollars since 1950, no luck – it fosters dependency and corruption rather than development. And the Vatican’s treasures are a public good for the world to enjoy for generations – you really want to carve up all that art and history for private collectors to hoard? Come on.
LikeLike
Darryl,
On one hand, “when will a pastor ever have a stage like Pope Francis has? ”
but on the other, “Why should I care what he thinks about politics? He has no power thanks to Italy.”
I guess world leaders aren’t getting the memo since he keeps getting invited to the stage. Yeah and JP2 had no political influence or effect thanks to Italy. What?
“If he cares about lost souls, if he cares about his flock, what does he say then? ”
I see – because he didn’t preach a sermon to Congress, that means he doesn’t care about his flock. The pope’s career and pastoring consists of more than his DC visit, that same visit where he actually is doing preaching in other contexts (such as, oh I dunno, a mass).
LikeLike
Kevin,
I appreciate the fact that as a RC you are going to disagree with my assessment here:
He could, but that would be a partial denial of the role of beauty, to tamper with the communicative ability of the works, to do damage to our cultural patrimony. In many cases it would also be quite expensive, requiring removal, packing, shipping, re-installation of something functional but less expensive.
This was a bit of tongue in cheek criticism of what is a real problem I have with Rome. They beautifully adorn their buildings, but the true beauty for the Christian is the spiritual adorning of the inner temple that we are called to do both corporately and individually. Every church body struggles with hypocrisy and degrees of corruption, but to the outsider the prevalent gilding that Rome projects only heightens the sense of hyprocrisy to outsiders.
The apocryphal statement attributed to Aquinas speaks to the problem of spiritual amnesia when a fellow priest commented to him on the stairs of the Vatican “We certainly cannot say ‘silver and gold we have not'”, to which Aquinas replied “Neither can we say ‘In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise and walk.'” The vast accumulated wealth of the Vatican coupled with Francis’ criticisms of capitalism create a very real credibility problem for how Rome is viewed from the outside.
I am not a redistributionist, but Francis’ rhetoric suggests this at points – if he was fully consistent, before he called on governments and capitalistic institutions, it might come across better if he put his money where his mouth is. I get that Rome has and does much for the poor as well, but the way Francis inserts himself into non-ecclesial matters opens the door for this kind of criticism.
I agree more with your statements on wealth than Francis’. Part of the problem is the vaguery and platitudes he employs allows anyone to hear what they want to from the Pope. It comes across to this Protestant as a rhetorical ploy to say something that sort-of challenges the status-quo without saying anything substantial or pointed in the first place.
LikeLike
Clete,
Really – 7.5 billion will solve poverty?
Absolutely not, poverty will never be fully solved until Christ’s return. But, as the head of a multi-billion dollar organization that is calling on governments and economic institutions to address the problem, shouldn’t the Pope’s first concern, if he is being consistent with his own rhetorical platitudes, to ensure that Rome is doing all it can to address the problem.
Of course, he could just tend to his own house and stop inserting himself in affairs that have no spiritual bearing on his own communion – especially in better addressing the needs of the hundreds of millions of third world RC’s who do live in true poverty. Would a Billion or two do some good there? Or should the Vatican Bank maintain flush coffers for a rainy day?
LikeLike
Well you can debate what *will* solve poverty, but it is worth noting that neoliberal economic policies and free(er) trade have dramatically improved well being across the globe over the past half century. For example, the fraction of people living in abject poverty has declined from 40% to 14% of the world’s population since 1981 (think before Thatcher and Reagan could unleash their radical economic agenda on the world). Further since 1950 global life expectancy has jumped 50% (47yrs to 70yrs) – mostly due to better life saving vaccinations, hygiene, and dramatic reduction in hunger – thanks mostly to modern neoliberal economic policy. The data is pretty clear here.
Folks like to assume that you can get all the great technological advances and wealth generation (for the poor) without capitalism. No one has figured out how. Innovation and distribution of goods and services is largely dependent on someone somewhere finding a way to make a lot of money out of doing it. The progress over the past century has been real progress and it has lifted a lot of people out of misery. The proposals offered by the current pope and opportunistic politicians (restricted trade, wage constraints, price controls, etc…) if broadly adopted would reverse this trend.
LikeLike
sbd,
Milton Friedman made your exact point some 40 years ago
LikeLike
Make that sdb
LikeLike
Jed
” to ensure that Rome is doing all it can to address the problem.”
http://www.economist.com/node/21560536
“Little is known about the Catholic church’s finances outside America… But America, not least thanks to its bankruptcy procedures, provides a slightly clearer window on the church’s finances… The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1m people…. The church is the largest single charitable organisation in the country. Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010, of which 62% came from local, state and federal government agencies.”
sdb,
Agreed.
LikeLike
James Young, if aid doesn’t work, then why so many RC charities?
LikeLike
James Young, so I see you’re not full on the kool aid yet.
LikeLike
James Young, right, so why won’t selling off assets do more good? Why not endow RC charities by giving up the art and refinement secured by some of the least holy popes in RC history.
LikeLike
sdb
Posted September 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
Well you can debate what *will* solve poverty, but it is worth noting that neoliberal economic policies and free(er) trade have dramatically improved well being across the globe over the past half century. For example, the fraction of people living in abject poverty has declined from 40% to 14% of the world’s population since 1981 (think before Thatcher and Reagan could unleash their radical economic agenda on the world). Further since 1950 global life expectancy has jumped 50% (47yrs to 70yrs) – mostly due to better life saving vaccinations, hygiene, and dramatic reduction in hunger – thanks mostly to modern neoliberal economic policy. The data is pretty clear here.
Quite. The Vatican had a prescient point on social justice during the Industrial Revolution, but it’s now 150 years behind–or at least the Peronist Francis is. “Capitalism” in Argentina is a lot like capitalism in 1850, but that’s not all there is to it worldwide these days, as sdb illustrates.
“Be fruitful and multiply” is still the Judeo-Christian dynamic, or should be. The “sustainable” left is well-described in Matthew 25:24-30.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Development economists like Easterly and Moya don’t say aid is absolutely useless. They do say it is useless – actually worse, counterproductive – in eliminating poverty and to place too much emphasis on it is wrongheaded, hence their criticism of Jeffrey Sachs and all his celeb followers and the like. And not all RC charities are devoted only to immediate aid – many are focused on long-term sustainable development solutions – charity is a very broad umbrella, one should distinguish between humanitarian aid and development aid, along with distinguishing between the phases of relief, rehabiliation, and development. People suffering from an earthquake or tornado need immediate relief, but that won’t raise a nation out of poverty. And this is not limited to secular viewpoints – missionary-focused books such as When Helping Hurts and Toxic Charity echo similar principles. This is part of the reason I cited not just the charity the Economist article pointed out the RCC is involved in, but also the finances it devotes to sustaining institutions that employ over a million people.
“right, so why won’t selling off assets do more good? Why not endow RC charities by giving up the art and refinement secured by some of the least holy popes in RC history.”
Now we need to define “good”. The art of the Vatican is a priceless cultural good (and I contend helps to glorify God – I know, I know, we should just hold all churches in school gyms and cafeterias) that should not be treated as a scrapyard to stir up some money that is a drop in the bucket (again, see all the examples in history where massive aid has done jack squat in pulling people or nations out of poverty) – it should be safeguarded so that future generations can enjoy and be inspired (and perhaps helped moved to conversion) by it. Christ and the Apostles didn’t turn Jerusalem or Rome into social welfare havens.
LikeLike
Look Clete, I am not the one advocating redistribution or “solving” the poverty problem. There are present market structures that both help eliminate poverty and help sustain it, the best thing to do would be to address those structural issues and let rising tides raise all ships. The one who is advocating qasi socialist notions of addressing poverty is Papa Frank himself – his Jesuit slip is showing on this one.
What I am saying is if he is so intent on addressing global poverty he is sitting on a mountain of wealth that could make inroads to the kinds of policies and institutional action that he is hinting at. Of course he could drop the critique of capitalism and encourage RC’s to attend Mass regularly and utilize the means of grace that Rome claims to be the treasury of, and begin to address the problems in his own house. So far his papacy is using Obama’s script sans teleprompter – propound lofty leftist ideals that he knows the church has no interest in instilling – it makes the otherwise antagonistic liberal media drool over the prospect of changes in Rome that will never happen, and if they did it would mean Rome has made a complete break with the past and has ceased to criticize Modernism, but embraced it under the promising banner of progressivism.
There are a few traditional/conservative RC’s who see Francis for what he is, and they are rightly alarmed. What I find most curious is how many otherwise faithful RC’s who are either cupping their ears or their eyes, or both and acquiescing to Francis because of the absolute power of the Bishop of Rome and merrily pretending that he is leading Rome in a good direction. The CtCers are so ripped on the kool-aid that their red mustaches have now become a permanent feature. I wonder where you land on the issue of Francis, and how much kool-aid you have to drink before you see what your Supreme Pontiff is doing with your church.
LikeLike
James Young, sounds like you know as much about economics as your holy father. Probably more.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted September 24, 2015 at 5:32 pm | Permalink
Darryl,
Now we need to define “good”. The art of the Vatican is a priceless cultural good (and I contend helps to glorify God – I know, I know, we should just hold all churches in school gyms and cafeterias) that should not be treated as a scrapyard to stir up some money that is a drop in the bucket (again, see all the examples in history where massive aid has done jack squat in pulling people or nations out of poverty) – it should be safeguarded so that future generations can enjoy and be inspired (and perhaps helped moved to conversion) by it.
_______________
D. G. Hart
Posted September 24, 2015 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
James Young, sounds like you know as much about economics as your holy father. Probably more.
…
James Young [Dr. Hart seems to have no use for internet anonymity unless it’s one of his sycophants, then it’s just groovy]:
You’re talking to people who believe God digs spartan churches and even worse music. Beauty does not move them.
Your point about the power of beauty–true beauty–that proper Christian art and music points only to the glory of God, is a very moving one, if one has ever been moved. The poor will always be with us. Why does the widow give her mite to God rather than to someone more poor? [There is always someone more worse off than you!]
From a disgruntled non-observant Roman Catholic, our own vd, t:
He left out Edgardo Mortara.
LikeLike
Ross forgets (via Rod) that Americans have a fascination with monarchy:
How else do you explain West Wing?
LikeLike
Ross’ NYC counterparts are unimpressed (some of us saw John Paul II in 1979):
LikeLike
Rusty channels vd, t:
LikeLike
Matt laments a missed opportunity:
LikeLike
John Fea thinks concerns like Matt’s (and mine) are silly:
LikeLike
vd, t, pushes back John Fea:
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m on a roll. You really should not speak of my private religious life, though, Dr. Hart, because you have no personal knowledge of it; neither is it anyone’s business but my own.
But yes, my studies of Protestantism here at Old Life have been worthwhile. I hope you agree I’m stating your case fairly. I continue:
LikeLike
@tvd
You wrote, “is it anyone’s business but my own”. I’m inclined to agree, but it is curious that earlier you dismissed George Will’s comment because of his religious views (“he’s an atheist, so who care’s what he has to say”, or something along those lines I think is how you put it). So if Will’s religious views colored your views of his commentary, why shouldn’t your religious views color my view of your commentary here?
LikeLike
sdb
Posted September 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
@tvd
You wrote, “is it anyone’s business but my own”. I’m inclined to agree, but it is curious that earlier you dismissed George Will’s comment because of his religious views (“he’s an atheist, so who care’s what he has to say”, or something along those lines I think is how you put it). So if Will’s religious views colored your views of his commentary, why shouldn’t your religious views color my view of your commentary here?
Which is why I prefer not to make my personal religious life grist for the mill.
As for Will, perhaps I was unfair, but
vd, t, your personal religious life is showing, as is your liberal secular private-public dualism.
Way to speak truth to power.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted September 25, 2015 at 9:52 pm | Permalink
vd, t, your personal religious life is showing, as is your liberal secular private-public dualism.
Way to speak truth to power.
Dr. Hart, your unblemished record of cluelessness never fails to astonish and amuse.
Dualism is your thing, anyway.
LikeLike
Hey, Butch, over at Fea’s place, they’re playing your song. Go gettem, tiger. Speak some truth to power, show us how it’s done.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3161423914008824685&postID=8679765999415206690
LikeLike
vd, t, you act like the Crusades and Inquisition are unimportant, yet you are a blogger at a site about the American founding.
Does history matter or not? I guess it depends on when you are public and when you are private.
Must be fun to be your own pope.
LikeLike
Why does this sound like Mermaid and Susan?
A pastor who ministers without mentioning Jesus? Oh, that’s right. HE!’s the Vicar of Jesus.
LikeLike
What about sticking up for all those Roman Catholic institutions in the U.S. that the Obama administration has been provoking?
LikeLike
What a pope said to a political body twenty years ago:
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted September 26, 2015 at 8:44 am | Permalink
vd, t, you act like the Crusades and Inquisition are unimportant, yet you are a blogger at a site about the American founding.
Does history matter or not? I guess it depends on when you are public and when you are private.
Must be fun to be your own pope.
They have nothing to do with what I wrote, and your use of them is infantile.
LikeLike
vd, t, have you been studying with Dr. Bradley?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted September 26, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
vd, t, have you been studying with Dr. Bradley?
Go speak truth to power, tough guy. They’re expecting you.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3161423914008824685&postID=8679765999415206690
LikeLike
Darryl,
Yes Francis is no JP2. But Im sure if he had delivered that speech youd still diligently find something to criticize and imply he doesnt care about his flock because … well, you know Catholic.
LikeLike
James Young, and I’m sure that no matter what Pope Francis says, you’ll be cool with that. yup.
#somuchfortheromancatholicintellectualtradition
LikeLike
Was recommending Thomas Merton instead of Jesus audacious? The apologists must think so:
LikeLike
And to think the church used to have an Index of Books. Now?
LikeLike
So you boycott the Pope for not having the right politics?
#showmejesus
LikeLike
From the responsive reading this morning (and the Bible):
“Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”
LikeLike
Merton, the Index, some congressman. How desperate, Dr. Hart, gnawing at the ankles of the Catholic Church like this on a beautiful Sunday morning. Cheer up, Butch.
LikeLike
vd, t, and here I thought the church’s problems — Inquisition and Crusades — were so yesterday. I didn’t bring up Merton. Your public holy father did.
I get it. You distance yourself from Merton and the Mass in private.
LikeLike
Crabby for Christ is what’s so yesterday. New motto: Lighten up, Francis.
Try it, Butch. It’s a beautiful day.
LikeLike
Do we need the current holder of the Petrine ministry to say this?
Isn’t this what the folks at Front Porch Republic have been saying for a decade?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted September 27, 2015 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
Do we need the current holder of the Petrine ministry to say this?
There was a time when one neighborhood store had everything one needed for personal and family life. The products may not have been cleverly displayed, or offered much choice, but there was a personal bond between the shopkeeper and his customers.
Isn’t this what the folks at Front Porch Republic have been saying for a decade?
No doubt, but nobody gives a shit about the phony conservatives at FPR, except liberals who use you as ammunition against the Republican Party.
[I happen to agree with the sentiment. But left-wing scum talk big but don’t buy local either.]
LikeLike
vd, t, if only the FroPos were as principled and civil as you:
Heck, with high-toned uplift like that, you should be pope.
LikeLike
Everytime this pope opens his mouth, he shows the bankruptcy of the papacy. Yeah, it’s sad that our society has lost many of the community bonds it once had, but those community bonds aren’t going to save you.
It’s just absolutely ridiculous. Why do Christians as a whole think they have any business commenting on things of which they have no knowledge? Francis isn’t an economist or an expert in climate change, but that’s what he’s running his mouth on. No wonder the true conservatives in the RCC are asking themselves what kind of pope this is.
And the papacy is supposed to be an essential mark of Christianity? What’s wrong with people?
LikeLike
If The Fonz can sell reverse mortgages why can’t The Pope sell religion? You guys are so critical.
LikeLike
Robert: “What’s wrong with people?”
that people like people who say what they like to hear ?
Pope uses popularity to chart new direction for church & US: “But he urged American Catholic leaders to create a church with the warmth of a “family fire,” avoiding “harsh and divisive” language and a “narrow” vision of Catholicism that he called a “perversion of faith.” …Over the long haul, there are connections,” Kupke said, “and with Francis, in so many ways, he’s saying things that people here like.”
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-uses-popularity-chart-direction-church-us-051025139.html
LikeLike
Robert, it is interesting how the RCC can get away with so much corny religion in ways others can’t. But does your point about shutting up on issues beyond a pastor’s pay grade apply to Reformed ones untutored on jurisprudence (and those tutored but unauthorized) blathering on about Planned Parenthood and Obergefell? I only ask because some seem put out with Francis for not taking the opportunity to condemn their favorite bad guys.
LikeLike
Zrim,
But does your point about shutting up on issues beyond a pastor’s pay grade apply to Reformed ones untutored on jurisprudence (and those tutored but unauthorized) blathering on about Planned Parenthood and Obergefell?
I would say it depends on whether the Bible actually addresses those topics or not. Admittedly, the Bible doesn’t specifically address Obergefell or Planned Parenthood, but it is rather clear on homosexuality being a sin even for nonbelievers, as well as on abortion.
So I’m not really sure what you mean by blathering. Can a pastor say that Obergefell is contrary to God’s law? Sure. Can he say it was wrongly decided according to the Constitution? That’s more iffy, though he can certainly cite the actual experts in jurisprudence who believe what the court did was unconstitutional. Starting with the four SC dissenting justices. Should he talk about the civics of the matter at all? Insofar as he can ably do so to prepare his people for gospel ministry, sure. Insofar as he makes overturning Obergefell key to “reclaiming America,” no and not just for theological reasons. America has never been a Christian theocracy.
LikeLike
Robert, would you connect the dots between “the civics of the matter” and “prepare his people for gospel ministry”?
LikeLike
Muddy,
Well for one, prepare his people to deal with apologetic or practical issues that may arise. Should Christians rail against Obergefell in reaching the masses? What does Obergefell say about the Christians’ relation to the state and how one obeys it? What does sanctification look like when you have to witness to the gospel to people that hate you for being a “heterosexist bigot and enemy of humanity”? There are any number of issues in which people have to be as wise as serpents while remaining as innocent as doves.
LikeLike
Honestly, chances are that if a pastor starts to specifically talk about Obergefell he will likely say something wrong and/or ridiculous. But if the idea of being a cultural minority is new to a congregation – if the people have to be weaned off the idea of Christians being power brokers – then the pastor will have to repent of that omission in his prior preaching and begin to prepare the flock.
LikeLike
Heck, with high-toned uplift like that, you should be pope.
As long as he wears the same sunglasses as his avatar, I am all for it. It’s about time we get a Californian in the Holy See. Tom would be the most interesting Pope in recent memory for sure. I suppose that would mean he would have to attend mass and all… minor detail though.
It’d be charism of the people at it’s very best, and most ironic.
LikeLike
Honestly, chances are that if a pastor starts to specifically talk about Obergefell he will likely say something wrong and/or ridiculous. But if the idea of being a cultural minority is new to a congregation – if the people have to be weaned off the idea of Christians being power brokers – then the pastor will have to repent of that omission in his prior preaching and begin to prepare the flock.
Well said Mudsworth. Why is this concept so hard? Evangelicals as a conservative voting block is quickly becoming a thing of the past – especially among Millennials who are either leaving evangelicalism behind altogether or souring on the admixture of religion and politics. The clout of Fallwell and Robinson and the Moral Majority with the intellectual influences of Schaffer and Colson are relics of a bygone era. The ascendancy of Trump in the GOP has tapped into the only emotion the religious right has anymore – undirected rage at the loss of their Great America. Trump lacks the more compelling religious rhetoric and imagery of a Reagan, and by all accounts he is a extremely nominal mainliner.
While the religious right seeks to re-assert itself at the table of cultural power-brokers, which will likely not happen now and the chances will only diminish over time, President Trump (if that eventuality surfaces) will go on being the political and social cartoon figure he has always been. The only truly compelling reason to vote for Trump is that both parties traditional bases will hate him so much, and despise him for exposing the farce of American politics that nothing of substance will get done. America is at its best when it isn’t being legislatively transformed.
LikeLike
But if the idea of being a cultural minority is new to a congregation – if the people have to be weaned off the idea of Christians being power brokers – then the pastor will have to repent of that omission in his prior preaching and begin to prepare the flock.
Indeed and agreed.
LikeLike
The recent reports from the Values Voters Summit supports this quite strongly I think. On the SSM front, the response by the business community in Indiana and Walmart in Arkansas have made it pretty clear that evangelical voters are on their own.
LikeLike
Robert, if you make those kinds of qualifications then I’m not sure what’s wrong with Francis taking up his pet issues. He could just as easily say he’s not agitating for pious revolución but prepping his people for gospel ministry (whatever that means). Francis can cite economic and environmental experts just as easily as Reformed pastors can cite Constitutional experts, etc.
So I’ll see your point but raise an eyebrow. Maybe everyone who presumes to speak for heaven should sit down and shut up about earth (at least in public)?
LikeLike
sdb,
Great find, the one commenter on the article summed it up well:
It is only a matter of time before a Republican presidential candidate will say to the religious right as Eisenhower said to the Robert Taft faction in 1952, “You have led us down to defeat in two elections,” and then adds “Go away and bother us no more.”
LikeLike
Zrim/Muddy,
“chances are that if a pastor starts to specifically talk about Obergefell he will likely say something wrong and/or ridiculous”
“Francis can cite economic and environmental experts just as easily as Reformed pastors can cite Constitutional experts, etc. ”
Yup.
Robert,
“Everytime this pope opens his mouth, he shows the bankruptcy of the papacy. Yeah, it’s sad that our society has lost many of the community bonds it once had, but those community bonds aren’t going to save you.”
I missed where he was tying restoring community bonds to salvation – one of the central planks of Francis’ papacy has been the concept of encounter – it is not surprising he might focus on that at times which no more detracts from the gospel then the biblical exhortations to serve our neighbor do.
To piggyback others’ points, when Reformed pastors blather on about Obergefell and the constitution or American jurisprudence and whether it’s the law of the land or not, I don’t automatically think they’re reducing the gospel or salvation to one’s view of the Supreme Court’s ruling, nor do I think if they blunder on their legal or constitutional “analysis” they picked up by reading a few articles over the weekend that made them some expert, they show the bankruptcy of their leadership.
LikeLike
Turns out Pope Francis didn’t know what he was doing:
LikeLike
So the pope meets a lot of people? What’s one more with Kim Davis?
LikeLike
I might quibble with “automatically”, but otherwise I am concerned about pastors who use the pulpit to go on about politics reducing the gospel to one’s view of the SC (or politics more generally). You can see this quite explicitly in some of the more progressive mainline circles. While I am much more sympathetic to the politics of the typical evangelical pastor, I am not at all certain that “turning toward Egypt” (so to speak) is any more justified from the right than from the left.
I do as it goes right to credibility. If they are willing to opine authoritatively on something they know nothing about, why should I take them at their word about other things I can’t verify (or at least verify as easily)? It also goes to honesty and integrity. If a pastor tries to pass himself off as an authority on something he isn’t really an authority on, then he is being dishonest.
LikeLike
DGH, attempt at a world record for the backstroke re: the meeting with Kim Davis, but his words on the plane seem pretty clear.
While this sort of thing always seems to bring out the clarifying spokesmen, I refuse to believe that PF is some sort of naif when it comes to the USA. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511151/Pope-Francis-PR-genius-Greg-Burke-ex-journalist-belongs-Opus-Dei.html
He knew exactly what he was doing and the ambiguity was absolutely intentional.
LikeLike
You know what would be really audacious? If Pope Francis would stop speaking out of both sides of His mouth:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
In the Fall of 2013 a well-known Catholic intellectual from South America, a highly recognized university professor, Lucrecia Rego de Planas, who knows Bergoglio well and who worked with him, among other things, gave a portrait of the man.
“Bergoglio wants to be loved by everyone and please everyone. In this sense one day he will talk on TV against abortion and the next day he will bless the pro abortionist in the Plaza de Mayo; he could give a marvelous talk against the Masons (Masonic Order) and, an hour later, eat and drink with them at the Rotary Club…….this is the Cardinal Bergoglio whom I know close up. One day busy in a lively chat with Bishop Aguer about the defense of life and the liturgy and the same day, at dinner, having a lively talk with Mons. Ysern and Mons. Rosa Chavez about base communities and the terrible obstacles that are presented by the Church’s dogmatic teachings. One day a friend of Cardinal Cipriani and Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga speaking about business ethics and against the New Age ideology and little latter a friend of Casaldaliga and Boff speaking about the class struggle and the “richness” of Eastern techniques which could contribute to the Church.”
The Vicar of Christ a people pleaser? Cause that’s what Jesus was all about.
This pope is a gift that keeps on giving to the Reformation.
LikeLike
Dan, absolutely and infallibly ambiguous.
LikeLike
So if Pope Francis did believe in conversion, he might have proclaimed the Tridentine gospel:
If you need to convert to practice a Christian marriage, don’t you need conversion to live green?
LikeLike
Forget the Francis Effect. Try the pope effect:
Imagine what he would say about those who talk about infallibility more than about the papal office.
LikeLike
And please tell us how much Pope Francis thinks like all those poor people in the undeveloped world:
Westerners being western and running the world from the West.
LikeLike
What if Pope Francis had preached Christ the way an NBA coach did?
LikeLike
You mean the pope would envy protestants like Dick Nixon going straight to heaven (no resurrection needed) while the souls of Romanists wait in purgatory for enough indulgences (Holy doors give you some)?
http://www.cwrc-rz.org/romancatholicsalvation.html
LikeLike
John Macarthur–“Death is not our enemy because it takes us right to where we want to be”-
I Thessalonians 4: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ WILL RISE first.
Hebrews 11: 38 The world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and on mountains, hiding in caves and holes in the ground. 39 All these were approved through their faith, but they did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, so that THEY would not be made perfect without US
I Corinthians 15: We will not all fall asleep,
but we will all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye,
AT THE LAST TRUMPET
For the trumpet will sound,
and the dead WILL BE raised incorruptible,
and we will be changed.
53 For this corruptible must be clothed
with incorruptibility,
and this mortal must be clothed
with immortality.
54 WHEN this corruptible is clothed
with incorruptibility,
and this mortal is clothed
with immortality,
THEN
https://mikewittmer.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/going-to-heaven/
LikeLike
What happens when the interpreter in chief won’t interpret?
Bug, not feature.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the point of having a pope to avoid diversity of opinion among committee members?
Do apologists notice the bugs?
LikeLike