LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I have no idea. You are one who is expressing criticism of government programs on the basis that they constitute redistribution.
- Status
K
KSU
Guest
Redistribution, as used in the article at issue in this thread, ricochet.com/main-feed/Americ…With-the-Devil , is the commonly understood forced taking from one class and giving to another, compatible with the socialist movement. It is anti-Catholic because of the indisputable fact that Socialism/Communism is anti-Catholic. Thus the reason for the article.
It is both sad and instructive to see some Catholics try to twist and spin the meaning of redistribution to some kind of Catholic philosophy of Charity supported by the Church and its Saints. But it is the national election silly season after all.
It is both sad and instructive to see some Catholics try to twist and spin the meaning of redistribution to some kind of Catholic philosophy of Charity supported by the Church and its Saints. But it is the national election silly season after all.
A
ACCT
Guest
The gospel of socialism is envy. Our socialist government covets the goods of its citizens. It is time to replace this U.S. government that breaks both divine and natural laws.
M
max37
Guest
Wow - this turned into the same argument where many were trying to trap Christ until he answered,
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”
D
David_Castlen
Guest
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Well, obviously we are both in the dark. I suppose the wise man would part company to find someone with a light. Adios.
May God bless you
David Castlen
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
When I said “redistribution of wealth” I meant it in this (socialist) way: In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it."
The Bishops don’t (and haven’t) supported this. To some extent, redistribution of wealth is good. the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/24/redistribution-of-wealth-a-catholic-perspective/
K
KSU
Guest
"Wow - this turned into the same argument where many were trying to trap Christ until he answered,
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” —max37
First, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” is not the subject of this thread. (And, BTW, Christ never gave a yes or no answer, did He? Remember, Christ Himself instructed us to say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no, so there is a lot more to His reply than meets the eye.) Many well intentioned people through the years have misinterpreted Christ’s reply too broadly.
Second, do you really think Christ was telling our bishops to just be quiet and pay for Caesar-mandated abortion services, contraceptives and sterilizations for Catholic hospitals, schools, orphanages?
“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” —max37
First, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” is not the subject of this thread. (And, BTW, Christ never gave a yes or no answer, did He? Remember, Christ Himself instructed us to say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no, so there is a lot more to His reply than meets the eye.) Many well intentioned people through the years have misinterpreted Christ’s reply too broadly.
Second, do you really think Christ was telling our bishops to just be quiet and pay for Caesar-mandated abortion services, contraceptives and sterilizations for Catholic hospitals, schools, orphanages?
A
ajaxbogs
Guest
KSU-Good insights throughout this blog!
Interesting how many Catholics use the excuse of “helping the poor” to justify their continual tradition of voting for the pro-abortion political party. They lack the courage to look behind the party & to alternatives. A sad fact is that the pro-death party’s methods leave the poor is worse shape than if the poor were left alone by government.
Its been shown hands down that conservatives (in general) voluntarily give way more to charity than liberals (who want to forceably redistribute wealth). Ironically, conservatives are often labelled “greedy” to make these liberals feel better.
C
Contarini
Guest
Please support this claim. It seems to be a bit of particularly heretical Protestant nonsense which some Catholics have bought into.
Governments have the responsibility to provide for the common good. Charity consists of caring for one another both individually and communally. This is the historic stance of the Church. Mr. Rahe is simply peddling secular right-wing ideology and is radically at odds with orthodox Christianity.
The Church has lost much of its moral authority not because it champions communal action to care for the poor, but because it is increasingly seen as having sold out to right-wing Republicanism, caring only for those moral issues that happen to support that particular secular agenda.
Edwin
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I’d say from what I’ve read online that people just vote Democrat without thinking about the issues because that’s what they’ve always done and they’ve always thought Democrats were looking out for them and everyone else, while Republicans only looked out for those greedy corporations and the rich.
Too bad that’s not the case (for their sake).
K
KSU
Guest
Per Deus_ lo_vult: “Charity, as stated above, is an individual responsibility, it can never be satisfied by lobbying for increased government spending on social welfare programs.”
Per Contarini: "Please support this claim. It seems to be a bit of particularly heretical Protestant nonsense which some Catholics have bought into.
Hello, Edwin, my Episcopalian friend. I see you are up to your old tricks of attacking Catholic thought with some strange, unsupported accusations, and then requiring the person you are attacking to prove you are wrong.
As Liberals know, but don’t practice, proper procedure when attempting to destroy someone’s assertion is to show the assertion to be incorrect by something akin to statements by accepted authority (perhaps the Bible or CCC) logic and/or facts, not just wild, offensive accusations.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
Per Contarini: "Please support this claim. It seems to be a bit of particularly heretical Protestant nonsense which some Catholics have bought into.
"Governments have the responsibility to provide for the common good. Charity consists of caring for one another both individually and communally. This is the historic stance of the Church. Mr. Rahe is simply peddling secular right-wing ideology and is radically at odds with orthodox Christianity.
“The Church has lost much of its moral authority not because it champions communal action to care for the poor, but because it is increasingly seen as having sold out to right-wing Republicanism, caring only for those moral issues that happen to support that particular secular agenda…
Edwin”
Hello, Edwin, my Episcopalian friend. I see you are up to your old tricks of attacking Catholic thought with some strange, unsupported accusations, and then requiring the person you are attacking to prove you are wrong.As Liberals know, but don’t practice, proper procedure when attempting to destroy someone’s assertion is to show the assertion to be incorrect by something akin to statements by accepted authority (perhaps the Bible or CCC) logic and/or facts, not just wild, offensive accusations.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
D
didymus
Guest
The “pact with the devil” goes back a long way.
In the beginning Americans & their gov’t were actively anti-Catholic and we needed our own charities. Ven. Fr. Michael McGivney founded the K of C as an insurance plan because children of destitute Catholic families were taken and adopted out to protestant families when the wage-earner died.
Fast forward. The Church becomes more accepted, an important voting bloc and richer. The welfare state still not being invented yet the gov’t works with private charities of all kinds, including religious and the Bishops figure its their job to make sure their flocks get their piece of the pie.
Comes the 60s with the Great Society, Vatican II, a huge loss of respect for all religious institutions.
So at the same time nuns and other religious (who have been doing the grunt work) are fleeing to be replaced by laity and non-Catholics, tons of cash are flowing into Catholic charities thru gov’t programs “in partnerships”. Now, of course, the hand that feeds is biting. Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business and may be forced out of the hospital business.
I work for a “Catholic” charity which is basically a subsidiary of the State Dept of Social Svcs but w/o the pay & benefits of state workers (scabs, if you will). Surprise! our bishop was one of the last to sign the USCCB’s letter of protest over the HHS mandate.
My theory: just get out of the charity business and eschew all gov’t $$$. I work at a “Catholic” shelter, as I said basically run by the State. In town there is another shelter run by a tiny evangelical congregation which depends totally on donations, not a dime from any agency or corporation. The city has tried to get them out (fire codes & such) but God has kept them going.
I’d suggest the same model. Forget hospitals, agencies, &c. Adoptions? Lawyers to arrange private ones. Instead of hospitals, free clinics. Et cetera.
Of Course would have to step up and donate a lot more, both in money and work to keep such projects going. Both Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said that in future the Church will have to be smaller and more faithful.
I have a sort of "“yeww” reaction to little storefront churches, but I know they do a lot of good work because their people taking tithing (and fellowship) seriously.
If we are “reduced” to storefronts, so be it.
In the beginning Americans & their gov’t were actively anti-Catholic and we needed our own charities. Ven. Fr. Michael McGivney founded the K of C as an insurance plan because children of destitute Catholic families were taken and adopted out to protestant families when the wage-earner died.
Fast forward. The Church becomes more accepted, an important voting bloc and richer. The welfare state still not being invented yet the gov’t works with private charities of all kinds, including religious and the Bishops figure its their job to make sure their flocks get their piece of the pie.
Comes the 60s with the Great Society, Vatican II, a huge loss of respect for all religious institutions.
So at the same time nuns and other religious (who have been doing the grunt work) are fleeing to be replaced by laity and non-Catholics, tons of cash are flowing into Catholic charities thru gov’t programs “in partnerships”. Now, of course, the hand that feeds is biting. Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business and may be forced out of the hospital business.
I work for a “Catholic” charity which is basically a subsidiary of the State Dept of Social Svcs but w/o the pay & benefits of state workers (scabs, if you will). Surprise! our bishop was one of the last to sign the USCCB’s letter of protest over the HHS mandate.
My theory: just get out of the charity business and eschew all gov’t $$$. I work at a “Catholic” shelter, as I said basically run by the State. In town there is another shelter run by a tiny evangelical congregation which depends totally on donations, not a dime from any agency or corporation. The city has tried to get them out (fire codes & such) but God has kept them going.
I’d suggest the same model. Forget hospitals, agencies, &c. Adoptions? Lawyers to arrange private ones. Instead of hospitals, free clinics. Et cetera.
Of Course would have to step up and donate a lot more, both in money and work to keep such projects going. Both Bl John Paul II and Pope Benedict have said that in future the Church will have to be smaller and more faithful.
I have a sort of "“yeww” reaction to little storefront churches, but I know they do a lot of good work because their people taking tithing (and fellowship) seriously.
If we are “reduced” to storefronts, so be it.
K
KSU
Guest
Originally Posted by KSU “Second, do you really think Christ was telling our bishops to just be quiet and pay for Caesar-mandated abortion services, contraceptives and sterilizations for Catholic hospitals, schools, orphanages?”
Per max37: “No. Don’t know how you made that leap. Nothing I said even hinted at such a position.”
It’s not much of a leap because it makes no difference to a payer whether mandated payments are called taxes, fees or direct or indirect premiums. If they are mandated by the government as a “pay or go to jail” proposition, then I don’t care what the payments are called. I don’t think the bishops do either. Nor do many other people, which is why it may be an issue in the case now before the Supreme Court.
Do you really believe that Christ’s “Render unto Caesar” reply means that Catholic hospitals, etc. should pay premiums for abortifacients, etc. simply because Caesar said so? Anyway, I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
I didn’t want to get into this above because who can read the mind of God, but I believe it’s one reason why Christ didn’t give a simple yes or no reply to the trick question put before Him. His reply, “The things that are Caesar’s”, is a very complex subject.
Per max37: “No. Don’t know how you made that leap. Nothing I said even hinted at such a position.”
It’s not much of a leap because it makes no difference to a payer whether mandated payments are called taxes, fees or direct or indirect premiums. If they are mandated by the government as a “pay or go to jail” proposition, then I don’t care what the payments are called. I don’t think the bishops do either. Nor do many other people, which is why it may be an issue in the case now before the Supreme Court.
Do you really believe that Christ’s “Render unto Caesar” reply means that Catholic hospitals, etc. should pay premiums for abortifacients, etc. simply because Caesar said so? Anyway, I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
I didn’t want to get into this above because who can read the mind of God, but I believe it’s one reason why Christ didn’t give a simple yes or no reply to the trick question put before Him. His reply, “The things that are Caesar’s”, is a very complex subject.
A
ACCT
Guest
There is nothing good about redistribution of wealth. Socialism is and always will be a failure.
I expect that the dollar will lose 50% of its value within the next 4 years when the global debt crisis hits Washington in the face. The socialists have created a world without God and that world is falling apart. Socialism is passing. The only thing that will be left standing is the glory of God.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I agree with everything you wrote except the first sentence. I found this on another forum:
Redistribution of wealth doesn’t necessarily mean excessive taxation on the rich to give to the poor or any socialist way of thinking. (Although I am for progressive taxation but that’s a different topic.
)
D
David_Castlen
Guest
The worse part of us (Catholics) getting in bed with the government is that we hve sold oujr heritage to be provdiers… One of the best schools in the country Hiillside doesn’t take a penny fromt the government in any way shape or form… I give mone to our church and reluctantluy (because I love our parish priest) I will be giving money to the Bishops… You can be no more right my friend…
M
max37
Guest
Usually when I say “no” I don’t have to answer twice.
Anyway, I’m very interested in what the supreme court may or may not come up with when they spend 6 hours on this issue this week. I just watched 2 constitutional law professors debate and take questions on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. They were very bright and both approached their objections from totally different angles. I shouldn’t make any judgements but I don’t have much faith in our supreme court.
D
David_Castlen
Guest
Why not, they did a great job on abortions
- Status