C
catholictiger
Guest
the question is does this form of taxation allow the government to promote the common good.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Seeker
**Also, what do you tell all the Catholics who have political views that conflict with Church teaching? Should they be asked to leave the Church? **
If their political views are contrary to what Christ preached, I tell them to have the humility to submit to the authority of the Church Christ founded. Approving and supporting hellish perversions of morality will save neither society nor their own immortal souls.
Thomas Aquinas, at the age of fifty, on his way to Rome to be queried yet again by a pope, fell deathly ill and was taken in at a nearby Cistercian monastery. After receiving the Last Rites, he uttered the following act of faith: “Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
Would that all theologians, especially the self-anointed ones, could be so humble!
**Also, what do you tell all the Catholics who have political views that conflict with Church teaching? Should they be asked to leave the Church? **
If their political views are contrary to what Christ preached, I tell them to have the humility to submit to the authority of the Church Christ founded. Approving and supporting hellish perversions of morality will save neither society nor their own immortal souls.
Thomas Aquinas, at the age of fifty, on his way to Rome to be queried yet again by a pope, fell deathly ill and was taken in at a nearby Cistercian monastery. After receiving the Last Rites, he uttered the following act of faith: “Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”
Would that all theologians, especially the self-anointed ones, could be so humble!
T
TEPO
Guest
It’s hard telling not knowing -I guess it depends on how one perceives the “common good”. For me personally, the common good is best achieved by supporting moderacy -not only as a concept but as in the people who live moderately such as the middle class.
I don’t believe in over-rewarding either the rich or the poor, but rather giving the middle class more breaks, which is not the path our current system has put into place. Instead, our current system is focusing exclusively more for the rich and the poor, which represents the Democratic and Republican parties.
In my mind, moderation is key… In all ways. To live Modestly is to live virtuously and that’s where the rewards should lie. If there were a Libertarian Party that could promise this, Through either taxation or other means, then I would consider that as promoting the common good.
T
TEPO
Guest
…today, corporations are outsourcing work to make wild profits while the middle class becomes poor. This is not a common good.
…today the poor are given housing, free healthcare and all kinds of other freebies while the middle class retirement age is expecting to increase from 67 to the 70’s and 80’s in the near future. This is not a common good.
Will the Democratic or Republican parties be able to solve these problems…? No, they are the problem.
Would a Libertarian party be able to solve these problems…? I don’t know.
…today the poor are given housing, free healthcare and all kinds of other freebies while the middle class retirement age is expecting to increase from 67 to the 70’s and 80’s in the near future. This is not a common good.
Will the Democratic or Republican parties be able to solve these problems…? No, they are the problem.
Would a Libertarian party be able to solve these problems…? I don’t know.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Seeker,
You’re really in no different a situation than most people are. Most of us will find our political views challenged by Church teaching, to some extent or another. For most of my adult life, I have been a New-Deal/Great Society liberal. To a significant extent, I still am. However, where I have modified my views about the appropriate role of the government in society, it has largely been due to studying the Church’s social teaching, which rejects some of the positions I once held, and no doubt rejects positions I still hold. The Church’s social teaching challenges aspects of just about every political philosophy that I can think of, and it specifically rejects some of them, in particular socialism. BTW, I am not unsympathetic to the reasons why you find libertarianism to be appealling. I share your dislike of coercion, and your love of freedom. However, in the face of human selfishness, and sinfulness in general, some degree of coercion and restrictions on personal liberties are necessary.
T
TEPO
Guest
What about Corporate Taxes…? Do Libertarians typically believe in those?
S
St_Francis
Guest
I did not say that God is the government. *We *are the government. Even in a monarchy, even in a tyranny, we can still contribute spirtually through our prayers and sacrifices.
I am a parent. For 20 years I have been reflecting on the nature of authority.
The Pope is the spiritual authority of the entire world as the Vicar of Christ. The Church is the spiriatual government. And the Church gives spiritual penalties.
Even you as a libertarian suggest that the minimized government lock up serial killers and CEOs who commit fraud–and that requires “violence.” Even in the minimalist libertarian government, people deserve to be paid for their labor–*this is obligatory, *not optional, hence taxes.
The problem that Libertarianism has, and the reason I propose that it is based on “Enlightenment” principles is that like all the other idealistic -isms, libertarianism believes that if the perfect environment is set up, people will behave the way they want them to. All the utopias are like this. You said yourself earlier in the thread that limited-government libertarianism was a stepping-stone to free-market anarchy… just as Marx said that socialism was a stepping-stone to the *government-less *situation of pure communism.
The Church views people as they truly are, affected by original sin or concupiscence. People have strengths but they also have weaknesses. The various political proposals coming out of the so-called Enlightenment share an erroneous view of human nature, believing in the perfectibility of people, believing the nurture over nature, believing in a rationality which simply does not exist.
As a result of a *true *understanding of human nature, the Church accepts that nothing in this human-run world will ever be perfect, and for this reason understands that some governing is necessary. And governance without the ability to use force is totally meaningless. Authority *must *have the ability to force compliance when necessary or laws become mere suggestions and *chaos, *not peace, will reign.
The “state” is not some entity Out There, completely disconnected from human action–the state is composed of human beings who go to far from time to time, absolutely.
However, if you think that there is no peace and order in the US, you have obviously isolated yourself so much from anything referring to other countries like Somalia or parts of Latin America or war zones that you have no comprehension of what lawlessness actually looks like.
And yet at the same time you are ignoring what warlord-run areas look like, you seem to be obsessed with finding cases of police abuse. Guess what! Police abuse cases make the news *because *they are such a small percentage of the contacts between police and non-police. Every *day *there are *thousands *of interactions between the police and non-police *which are not abusive. *
I would agree with you that our (US) government has currently gone too far and is now stifling business to some extent, but this is to be expected from time to time as human beings tend to swing around and hit extremes. The libertarian ideal, I would suggest, is the opposite extreme, too little to our current excess.
However, the order and stability we have had in this nation has allowed this nation to become a leader in technological development. Does one see technological development coming out of Somalia? No. Why? Because there is chaos and fighting for power. That is what you get when there is no government, not some calm establishment of free-market insurance companies.
Well, Christ does not want an abusive and violent state; however, you are claiming that government is *inherently abusive, and it is here that you are wrong.
Government must be authoritative because it is the authority. However, government must also not descend into totalitarianism, which the Church condemns.*
I never said libertarians are anti-Catholic, I said the philosophy came from thinking which was anti-Catholic, at the very least exhalting Man and Reason over God, and at times directly anti-Catholic.
continued below
S
St_Francis
Guest
continued from above
Moreover, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to include another group of people, esp since they agreed with only very narrowly with one libertarian idea.
The Church does not teach that all government is good ipso facto; that is not the problem with libertarianism. However, the Church teaches that government has a different aim than that proposed by libertarianism, and the Church teaches that we are obliged to contribute to the common good, sometimes in the form of taxes. Nowhere in Church teaching is it at all proposed that taxes are theft in and of themselves.
And your point is…? There are also prominent Catholics who think that legalized abortion is all right, too.*
Moreover, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to include another group of people, esp since they agreed with only very narrowly with one libertarian idea.
Of course not. I think they should bring their thinking into alignment with Church teaching.
The Church does not teach that all government is good ipso facto; that is not the problem with libertarianism. However, the Church teaches that government has a different aim than that proposed by libertarianism, and the Church teaches that we are obliged to contribute to the common good, sometimes in the form of taxes. Nowhere in Church teaching is it at all proposed that taxes are theft in and of themselves.
T
Threep
Guest
Yeah, I can’t disagree with that. The more Catholic the better aye?
Well that’s pretty much some of the main arguments in support of it. Most all of our current political “leaders” are not fit to lead, and most only care about themselves. Plus they gain massive egos upon reaching such positions of power.
Ooooh, I bought that book a while ago, and will definitely read it soon.
S
St_Francis
Guest
We have shown you how the Church thinks about taxation in several different ways throughout this thread. All that you have done is to reiterate that taxes are a form of theft. You seem to have completely ignored the explanations we have given you. You have not asked any questions about what we have written, nor asked for clarification of any points. Nor have you shown anything which points to the Church’s being in agreement with this idea that taxation is a form of theft.
So maybe the problem is not with the teaching of the Church but with your apparent unwillingness to consider the position of the Church. I suggest this based on the very limited evidence of your comments in this thread, so I apologize if I am assuming too much, but it just seems that you have read very little of what *the Church *teaches on these topics.
T
TEPO
Guest
Ryan,
It pains me that you consider yourself a Liberal. Don’t you agree that Liberals and Conservatives are both radical positions…?
I think of you as more of a Moderate like myself. We can’t afford to continue to allow our two party system to convince us that there are only two types of voters… The Moderates, who are the middle class voters, deserve a right to exist too… Not to mention we need our own party as well. We can’t afford to be ‘divided and conquered’ any longer.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Much of the economic liberalism I have embraced since I was a teenager, I still do, but not all of it. I suppose I am really more of a political eclectic, since, depending on the issue, I can be anywhere from radically liberal, to moderate, to conservative.
However, I agree with much of what you have written. I’m very unhappy with our current two-party system, as I believe that each party is increasingly controlled by its more extreme elements, while more moderate, reasonable members are being marginalized. I’m not really sure what will be the cure to this problem, as the two main parties have designed a system that makes it difficult for other parties to prosper.
B
Brendan
Guest
Probably in the same way that they interpret St. Paul is saying that tolls are due when we cross bridges and drive on turnpikes.
Likewise taxes are due to support the civil efforts in maintaining the Natural Law (which is the purpose of civil government under Catholic theology)
.
R
Reep
Guest
I too was once quite righteous in avenging evildoers and I spent many years helping put the “condemned” into those “rightfully” existing prisons. Eventually, the futility of it overwhelms. For those that hurt others, it is a sad, inescapable reality. In my very last jury trial as a prosecutor, I sent a murderer to prison for the rest of his life. It was a pure tragedy for everyone involved.
For so many others–whose conduct is immoral or simply disapproved by society–a prison cell is unjustified evil because it causes far more harm than it can possibly prevent. Prison cells are not for mere sinners; they should be limited to those who harm others.
Freedom is not the “ultimate good,” but it is a necessary condition for us to choose the ultimate good. Can you be saying that God’s gift of freedom to Satan was evil because Satan chose wrongly?
How about the freedom God gave to the good angels? Was the freedom of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael evil? After all, they didn’t have any violent governments around to make them choose the good? If someone had* forced* them to be good, how could we even claim that they were good?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Reep
Can you be saying that God’s gift of freedom to Satan was evil because Satan chose wrongly?
God’s gifts cannot possibly be evil. One of God’s gifts is our desire to be free to live in a society that is not rotten to the core, as ours has become. If we are able to stop evildoers from having their way, that freedom is all the more possible.
**In my very last jury trial as a prosecutor, I sent a murderer to prison for the rest of his life. It was a pure tragedy for everyone involved. **
I don’t understand what appears to be regret on your part. Are we to throw over the rule of law for the rule of sentiment?
**How about the freedom God gave to the good angels? Was the freedom of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael evil? After all, they didn’t have any violent governments around to make them choose the good? If someone had forced them to be good, how could we even claim that they were good? **
They were subject to God’s law. They obeyed. It was because Satan did not believe in any law to curb his freedom that he chose to disobey. Face it, Satan was a libertarian.
Can you be saying that God’s gift of freedom to Satan was evil because Satan chose wrongly?
God’s gifts cannot possibly be evil. One of God’s gifts is our desire to be free to live in a society that is not rotten to the core, as ours has become. If we are able to stop evildoers from having their way, that freedom is all the more possible.
**In my very last jury trial as a prosecutor, I sent a murderer to prison for the rest of his life. It was a pure tragedy for everyone involved. **
I don’t understand what appears to be regret on your part. Are we to throw over the rule of law for the rule of sentiment?
**How about the freedom God gave to the good angels? Was the freedom of Michael, Gabriel and Raphael evil? After all, they didn’t have any violent governments around to make them choose the good? If someone had forced them to be good, how could we even claim that they were good? **
They were subject to God’s law. They obeyed. It was because Satan did not believe in any law to curb his freedom that he chose to disobey. Face it, Satan was a libertarian.
R
Reep
Guest
It’s not regret. I the early years, I admit I would leave a criminal jury trial with a sense of triumph. Eventually I began to see that there was nothing to celebrate. The victim could not be brought back. The family could not be made whole. And the defendant had–of course–ruined his own life while destroying theirs.
To protect the public and punish a killer or a robber is honorable work, but that does not keep it from being difficult and ugly work. I would do it again, but I would never again be willing to prosecute the many victimless crimes that being a prosecutor involves.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Reep
**but I would never again be willing to prosecute the many victimless crimes that being a prosecutor involves. **
I am not aware that there are crimes without victims. How would such crimes exist?
**but I would never again be willing to prosecute the many victimless crimes that being a prosecutor involves. **
I am not aware that there are crimes without victims. How would such crimes exist?
S
St_Francis
Guest
As Catholics, we need to also consider the spiritual harm done to others. For example, pornography is apparently an evil wicked business in which many are taken advantage of and abused in the process of making money through tempting others to sin. Should we *ignore *the spiritual harm done to others? Or should we allow all these people their “freedon” to become enslaved to sin? And should we ignore spiritual harm, which can lead to eternal death, while prosecuting mere physical harm?
The pr
S
St_Francis
Guest
Oh, dear, I hit the wrong button there…
Anyway, the problem with unfettered liberty is that those among us who are weak succumb to the lack of structure, and they succumb to enslavement–a *loss *of freedom to be good. The government is thus not doing what the Church teaches is its duty to the citizens. Why should the government ignore those who are weak, those who have not been given the gifts of fortitude or good upbringings? We just throw them to the wolves because the wolves are spiritual?
The more I learn about libertarianism, the less Catholic it seems.
Anyway, the problem with unfettered liberty is that those among us who are weak succumb to the lack of structure, and they succumb to enslavement–a *loss *of freedom to be good. The government is thus not doing what the Church teaches is its duty to the citizens. Why should the government ignore those who are weak, those who have not been given the gifts of fortitude or good upbringings? We just throw them to the wolves because the wolves are spiritual?
The more I learn about libertarianism, the less Catholic it seems.
R
Reep
Guest
Let’s start by pretending your question is not disingenuous. Whenever I defend someone for felony drug possession and they are found guilty, a pre-sentence report is prepared by the government. In the report there is always a section labeled “Victim?” Typed in to the answer space are these words: “No identifiable victim.” Sometimes half of our criminal dockets are consumed with crimes that have “no identifiable victim.”
http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NoCrime.jpg
- Status