Most of Libertarian philosphy does follow Catholic teaching - not most Libertarians. Read the ACTON series, better yet Tom Woods, evern better yet Fr. Sirico’s current book “In Defense of Free Markets” and the very very very best by Bastiat “The Law”. Oh! one last one Centisimus Annus - I think it was written in 1991 by our late great Pope
I have not read Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard address, but, having read all three volumes of his “Gulag” series and other works of his, I don’t think he would have intended to say that people in general are more virtuous in the old Soviet Union than in the West. I think he would be more saying that those who persevered in the Soviet Union are more virtuous than those in the West who, though believing, are flabby in their virtue.
I give you Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard Address, one of the greatest speaches of all times:
A priest historian friend of mine said that “the writings of the constitution where mainly based on some of the writings of st. Robert bellarmine and some of it on Plato etc…” ( each of the founders according to him had access to a book of his works)
Your response still begs the question as Daniel Carroll never received any ecclesiastical condemnation for signing the U. S. Constitution. Also, his brother (later appointed the first Catholic bishop of the United States) was favorably received by the Holy See when he reported to Rome on the conditions of Catholics in the new nation on 1 March 1785. Two examples strongly refuting the implicit claim that the establishment of the United States was the conscious product of Masonic influence.
So Catholics in the First French Republic were right to accept the anticlerical Civil Constitution of the Clergy? Your comment seems to display a startling ignorance reverential obedience has always been required of non-infallible acts of the Magisterium: “To this paragraph belong all those teachings *on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Commentary [of 30 June 1998] on the Concluding Formula of the ‘Professio Fidei’, n. 10).
Granted, such as quoting any pertinent ecclesiastical pronouncements on the alleged incompatibility of the original meaning of the U. S. Constitution with the Deposit of Faith.
Also, his brother (later appointed the first Catholic bishop of the United States) was favorably received by the Holy See when he reported to Rome on the conditions of Catholics in the new nation on 1 March 1785.
So, just because one is not condemned for proceeding forward on a green light does not logically signify the action is subsequently approved?
“Many people” is not the topic of discussion; rather, it’s the particular examples of Daniel and John Carroll. Again, can you kindly provide any ecclesiastical sources stating the Holy See specifically disapproved the actions of these two patriots?
or vica versa
No, can you caustically provide ANY sources stating the Holy See specifically approved the actions of these two patriots regarding the revolution.
Except drivers are not condemned for proceeding forward on a green light…
Gather you inadvertently neglected to read the earlier comment on the rules of argumentation? When a disputant advances a claim, they are required to produce objective evidence to support their personal opinion. Any disputant making a negative claim (such as yourself) cannot logically prove nonexistence. qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm ] A concrete example would be someone who erroneously believes the moon must be made of green cheese based upon negative evidence (cf. Austin J. Freeley & David L. Steinberg’s Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, p. 119). Since you have surmised the Holy See did not approve of the actions of Daniel and John Carroll, you are obligated to provide substantiation.
Your response manifests an inherent contradiction: if one were to hypothetically accept your claim the U.S.A. was established as a conscious result of Masonic influence, this would obviously fall within the parameters of the underlined independent clause. Since Pope Pius VI clearly condemned the government of the First French Republic, why did he not do so with the U.S.A.?
How to you conclude that I understand that the Holy See DID NOT approve of the actions of Daniel and John. I never said the Pope approved or did not approve.
How in the world do you think I understand the US had any relations to the Masons. I have no opinion nor any information and have said nothing to the effect relating to Masons. Although, I must tell you I like their uniforms.
The clarification from the last sentence certainly helps. Otherwise, what other inference would the audience draw from reading your earlier statement? “No, can you caustically provide ANY sources stating the Holy See specifically approved the actions of these two patriots regarding the revolution.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9384866&postcount=104 ]
Then you categorically disagree with the comments posted by Bartolome Casas? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9342490&postcount=47 ]
The British government simply imposed taxes that some of the people in the 13 colonies did not like.
Yes, it justifies it.
No, you have been deceived. Pay attention to the meaning of liberty. Thousands of us have died in order to protect that liberty. It was given to us by God. We will not give it up at any price. You should take a real history course and learn what really happened.
Yes they were. Read a history book
Yes, it justifies it. The Brits imposed arbitrary and punishing taxes which we simply could not tolerate. Among other gross violations of human dignity.
No, you have been deceived. Pay attention to the meaning of liberty. Thousands of us have died in order to protect that liberty. It was given to us by God. We will not give it up at any price. You should take a real history course and learn what really happened.
If life under the British colonial administration was so intolerable; how come our colonial neighbors across the Great Lakes had no problem whatsoever with it?
The situation was completely different. If you reference earlier posts on the historical events surrounding the revolution, it becomes much clearer. The people in Canada were treated much better than the colonists were, because they did in fact make a bloody insurrection under the British once, which the British did not want repeated. Perhaps you can cross-reference the horrendous treatment of the Irish and the citizens of India under the British. Besides this, America was a colony, which meant that everything the Americans bought was made by the British, so they had no economic freedom, and everything that the Americans had to sell was to be bought only by the British, by law. A lot more went into that, but I think a little research shall make it clearer.
Sadly, I think many Americans suffer from a severe lack of patriotism, which has had detrimental effects on society at large, but I may be wrong about this. I really wanted to ask what inspired you to be a monarchist? I find the entire idea fascinating, and would like to know what caused the thinking, what you believe the benefits of monarchy to be, and just why you like monarchism (is this the correct term?) in general. Thank you.I fervently believe that the American Revolution was sinful rebellion against lawful authority.
We Americans just get blinded by patriotism sometimes. We fail to notice how while Canada managed to peacefully both gain independence and abolish slavery, the USA had to fight a bloody war in each case. Maybe, just maybe, we were wrong and they were right.
And no, this doesn’t make me a “liberal”. I’m just a reactionary monarchist so far to the right that modern-day “conservatives” don’t know what to make of me.
One arguement for a philospher king: The philospher king is making a decison based on morals; the elected one is making a decision based on election counts.
