Dissent From Catholic Social Teaching: A Study In Irony - Inside The Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t, nor I believe he considers his opinion or anything his for the case to be placed at equal level or standard as that of a Pope, on the contrary, and it has often been the case when he is cited giving that impression.
I haven’t read that book but snippets, since you cite him so often and I remember what Monsignor Ruggero had to say about him so kind, it is concerning that he would resist any hierarchical recommendation when he himself has spoken about how the Church is often referred to despectively as that “ hierarchical Church”. Maybe the book sheds more light and does justice to his rounded thoughts.
So at this point, it is his person and figure , and respecting him,that I am more concerned about because the impression one gets is he doesn’t take hierarchy seriously. And I don’t believe that is the case.
 
Last edited:
Why a minimum wage cut would be made?
First, not all why’s are equal.
The first minimum wage law was held unconstitutional by SCOTUS , because it denied workers their right to work for slave wages.
Over the years the WHYS have been very creative. Of course the quotes I cited above point that pattern out. Kierkergaard pointed this out so well 200 years ago.
Christian revelation is very clear. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON. It is a major theme in the in scripture and unequivocal in church tradition. The idea about how is not a loophole supporting greater concentrations of wealth in a few.
Capitalism has led to our secular reality. Disposable people includes disposable unborn.
 
Catholic social doctrine remains. It conflicts with naked Capitalism. This is a fact.
Capitalism has led to secularism and relativism–. They are one and the same. Abortion is a natural consequence. Back in 73 when Roe was issued Protestant America was essentially pro choice. Historically, if they still could control the voting polls effectively, likely they remain pro choice.
Catholic social doctrine is generally ignored by those aware of it. Which I imagine represents few Catholics.
Like love your enemy, the silent reaction is," are you kidding."
I am not going to read quotes or continue to cite authoritative Church text, because it is considered," are you kidding."
 
Last edited:
Blaming free enterprise is an old tactic.
Using a phrase like ‘naked capitalism’ only describes an institution
with no laws to govern things like equal opportunity.
Mass murder, and contributing to it’s purveyors is an extreme moral evil.
You can cherry pick all the documents you want, neither The Holy Bible nor
Catholic Social Doctrine therefore condemns free enterprise as an institution.
~
Using terms like ‘pro choice’ when it means legalized mass murder of helpless human beings distorts that one group exerts its power over the weak for gain. It used to be unthinkable for the most part in modern society until propaganda for empowering humankind’s various failed social agenda’s seduced an anesthetized attitude. Dr. Bernard Nathanson after he repented admitted to the gross distortions sold to the public, (many still used today), to form a culture of mass murder mentality using palatable terms for this. And it is no coincidence that Joseph Stalin legalized not protecting these helpless children just after 1920 in the emerging Soviet Union. It is oppression against those who cannot speak for themselves. And these days much propaganda against pro life groups by educational, media, and other venues. The arguments justifying these things distill down to emotionally based arguments, and mass murder does not help the human condition, nor the psyches of those duped into it at all.
~
Most human beings desire justice for all. I feel bad for those seduced into
blaming free enterprise which in and of itself is not good or evil; it is what
particular fallible, sometimes even selfish people do with it. The propaganda against it in specifics developed with many terminologies since the mid to late 1800s. What would you do outlaw it?
 
Last edited:
The original Gramce, Frankfort, and Fabian socialism deliberately set out on a playing at heart strings propaganda war gradually in every institution in the open societies of the West. Most who gave into a moral relativistic mind set,
did not even know they were being manipulated. They started in Columbia University and spread out.
One of their main tools was to paint teaching about virtue of the Judaeo Christian ethic too much is ‘judgmental.’ This worked well since we are all sinners and suffered because of well meaning fallible persons in families;
and even outright hypocrites. It was a gradual process, almost imperceptible to change the pursuit of the ideals of The Judaeo Christian Ethic to a type of ‘hands in the air,’ ‘don’t judge me with your morality.’
Some even paint the compassion of Jesus Christ as soft on sin because He sat with sinners. A false Christ. We are supposed to convey the Gospel with Grace filled concern for others, and charitable speech, not a compromising attitude for kind of so called ‘new’ humanitarianism.
~
This started deliberately to weaken the West.
 
Last edited:
I am pro life and I have no particular reason to endow Protestants with the term pro choice in 1973. Sola Scriptura had not raised a biblical passage from the time of Martin Luther until 1973 identified by the holy spirit in support of life.
My point is simple. Capitalism led to the rise of secularism. As David Bentley Hart says, they are virtually two sides of the same coin.
Abortion is a phenomena of modern secularism.
And to get right to it, the church has its social doctrine. And it is not Laissez- faire capitalism. Not since Genesis, Exodus, the Sermon on the mount or now. It is not benign. As Kierkgaard said two centuries ago the ongoing trick then and now is to feign ignorance.
The Catechism quotes Like:
" He who has two coats , let him Sha with him who has none and who has food must do likewise."
Saint John Chrysostom said:
NOT TO ENABLE THE POOR TO SHARE IN OUR GOODS IS TO STEAL FROM THEM AND DEPRIVE THEM OF LIFE. THE GOODS WE POSSESS ARE NOT OURS BUT THEIRS.").
TO my surprise even real property is not owned under Catholic Social doctrine in True fee simple. But it makes sense, we were gardeners in Genesis, not the landlord.
And my point is we cannot ignore.
 
graciew said:
I don’t, nor I believe he considers his opinion or anything his for the case to be placed at equal level or standard as that of a Pope, on the contrary, and it has often been the case when he is cited giving that impression.
Click to expand...
That citation had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of popes. It was an explanation of the theological meaning of the term “prudential”, and it is either accurate or inaccurate. If you think it was the latter I’d like you to explain what he got wrong. That seems a fairly straightforward concept and I seriously doubt that one of this country’s most eminent theologians was flummoxed by it.
Maximus1 said:
Why a minimum wage cut would be made?
First, not all why’s are equal.
Click to expand...
Let’s start with the fact that I used the minimum wage solely as an example to make an entirely different point. Except for those very few issues that deal with intrinsic evils (abortion, euthanasia…) I could choose literally any other political issue and make exactly the same point.

You cannot tell solely from the position a person takes whether he is acting morally or immorally. To make that determination you have to know a person’s motivation, and to assume his motives are immoral (i.e. that he has rejected CST) is itself the sin of rash judgment.

2477 He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor
 
Ender said:
That’s because abortion is intrinsically evil, and may never be supported for any reason.
Click to expand...
It is not the only evil. No moral value is negotiable, as the Pope reminded us. Adultery is also a grave evil, yet we do not make it illegal. Two of the sins that cry to heaven are social justice evils. That is why I see a disconnect between saying that the law must address abortion, but maybe not adultery, and then let everyone act individually in other areas of mortal sin. It makes no more sens than saying the question that the original poster posited is not what this thread is about. It gives one a headache.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
It is not the only evil. No moral value is negotiable, as the Pope reminded us.
Click to expand...
This is not about generic moral values, and even less about questioning their validity. It is solely about applying them in particular situations. The values themselves are non-negotiable. Applying them, however, is an entirely prudential matter.
Adultery is also a grave evil, yet we do not make it illegal.
Click to expand...
The church (especially Aquinas) has addressed the question of not making illegal everything that is evil. It is not the issue here.
That is why I see a disconnect between saying that the law must address abortion, but maybe not adultery, and then let everyone act individually in other areas of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
That I have not said or suggested any of this indicates the difficulty you are having refuting what I did say. I’ll say it again in case you’d like to respond to my actual comments.
  1. The application of moral doctrines in concrete situations is prudential. That’s the meaning of the term.
  2. One cannot claim that a person is dissenting from CST just from a prudential choice he has made.
  3. To judge a person’s choice to be contrary to CST without knowing his motivation is to commit the error of rash judgment. It is also to fail the fundamental obligation of charity.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, I think it ashamed that the life position is perpetually argued this way.
Truth is the entire Gospel is full of actual references by Christ to our elements of Catholic Social Doctrine.
It requires that one live according to the Gospel. A rigorous transformative text and practice.
Abortion is not mentioned.
In 2019, " simple belief" " I am pro life" serves as some equivilent to the Gospel in and of itself.
I think it a very important issue, but I think it a sparce substitute for the Gospel.
Not because it isnt important. It is.
I say that because for 99% of us being pro life does not cost a dime. Does not require a drop of commitment or hardship. One need not give up anything or add anything. No skin in the game personally. On a scale of SCROOGE to Miser, you can be a zero charitable, and zoom from last to first in piety simply by " declaring.
One need not do anything for the least. It is uncanny that this lifestyle tracks precisely those who say they don’t follow our social policy. Pure indulgent consumerism, hording and social Darwin ethic. Only the abortion issue by simply declaring, makes you top " Catholic. "
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that those Catholics who oppose or who do not support strongly a legal ban on abortion are criticized, but that those who oppose or who do not support strongly Catholic social justice are not criticized.
Click to expand...
I am saying I believe in consistency. If one believes it is the role of the government to codify that which is good into laws, then do not use the argument it is not the job of the government to pass laws reflecting morality. Somethings may or may not be a good idea, or may or may not work, but it still should be considered as legitimate.
 
Well, what you sight does not condemn free enterprise.
The moral justice imperative that property is for the common good applies to everyone as, for example,
the Epistle of James exhorts both ‘employers’ and ‘employees’ using modern terms instead of the
terms used in their economy. What caused secularism (described in false idol worship in ancient Israel)?
It certainly wasn’t the institution of private ownership of property with contracts to care for families for
seven years who worked on your property with God’s Commandment to treat them well.
Free enterprise in and of itself did not cause the rise of moral relativist radical secularism.
The seducing power of the glamour of sin did. And it was a deliberate act to go after the Judaeo Christian
Ethic, by those who propose radical secular humanism.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
I have to say, I think it ashamed that the life position is perpetually argued this way.
Click to expand...
Well I am not in the least surprised that your position is argued with complete disregard to anything I’ve actually said.
 
That just flies in the face of history.
You want to argue ," what’s the alternative?" Fine!
 
I do not want to discuss any more as I stated.
Fr. Pacwa, Bishop Sheen who backed up Bella Dodd gave
and others like Dietrich & Alice von Hildebrand gave credible evidence to what I claimed.
I highly recommend watching ‘A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ which gives in a docudrama
some elements of this history.
You claims of free enterprise is to blame for radical secularism are not substantiated at all.
Peace, I mean peace. I’m not against you personally,
but the claims you make are nothing new.
Have a blessed evening. Heartfelt well wishes to you and your family.
 
Last edited:
Crocus said:
Dissent From Catholic Social Teaching: A Study In Irony - Inside The Vatican
Click to expand...
That paper seems to be waste of perfectly good ink. I got halfway through it, and couldn’t find a single specific example of such dissent. He seems to take it as given that it’s the same thing as opposition to leftist policies, which is a load of nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Peace to you also. My posts were not intended or directed at you either.
I will not add to what I have written other than to cite DAVID Bentley Hart whose learned publications on this subject are the modern theological gold standard.
These are
MAMMON ASCENDANT-- Why Global Capitalism is Inimical to Christianity, First things, June/ 2016.
WHAT IS BEYOND CAPITALISM- A CHRISTIAN EXPLORATION, By David Bentley Hart Plough Weekly
WHY WE NEED DAVID BENTLEY HART, The American Conservative, Oct 12 2017
DAVID BENTLEY HART ON CAPITALISM, by Challan Mike, Internet Monk Sept/ 2019.
There is enough citation and analysis here for a lifetime.
 
Let’s examine the issue of motivation.
" As he was setting out on a journey , a man ran up, knelt down before him and asked him,’ Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’"
Jesus answered him," why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
You know the Commandments…
( Listed).
He replied and said to him," teacher, all of these I observed from my youth."
Jesus looking at him,loved him and said to him," You are lacking I one thing. Go sell what you have, and give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me."
At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
Jesus looking around said to his deciples," How hard is it for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God…Mark 10:17-24.
Jesus then offered his famous Eye of the needle statement.
If your point is Prudential judgement, intent, and rash judgement, save it. Jesus didn’t need a psychoanalysis of intent here.
Strictly following the Gospel, this is it.
 
neophyte said:
That paper seems to be waste of perfectly good ink. I got halfway through it, and couldn’t find a single specific example of such dissent. He seems to take it as given that it’s the same thing as opposition to leftist policies, which is a load of nonsense.
Click to expand...
Do you think that Catholics support or dissent from the social justice encyclicals? I am also interested in whether Catholics are exposed to them, by reading themselves, hearing in homilies, bishops letters perhaps inserted in weekly bulletin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top