How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

[TMC]

Yes and he is incorrect. The government does not have unlimited power to take private property.

You guys are arguing against a straw man. I never said that. I am actually merely quoting the Church.

You are partially correct and seem to be emphasizing the distributing of goods but the Church is balanced and also believes in the right to private property and man’s freedom to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

I am completely correct, it is you who are reading into my statements. The Church teaches respect for private property, but only where those rights do not impinge in the universal destination of goods doctrine. There is a balance there between the rights of the individual and the common good. The state has a role in maintaining that balance, and the power to step in and enforce it when needed. That enforcement can be by protecting private property rights, or it can be by forcing the redistribution of property. That is very different from American capitalism. It is also not socialism.

 

[TMC]

The short answer is “yes,” but that is a gross oversimplification. You are asking to distill hundreds of years of Catholic thought into a post on an internet board. The document I posted above, along with the Social Compendium of the Church, and the encyclicals published since then, are a good place to start.

 

[phil3]

there is truth and there is facts. If the church told priest to preach the church position on private property, you can forget about middle class and above Catholics.

Francis would have what he wanted, a poor church for poor people

 

[JimG]

Well, I’ll just be waiting in the vestibule for my shares of Google and Amazon stock along with the other stuff.

 

[phil3]

except their value will be less than zero dollars.

 

[phil3]

Nothing get distributed to anyone

there will be no smart phones unless you make them
there will be no gps unless you make them
there will be no mri unless you make them
there will be no Nike shoes or any other shoes unless you make them
there wont be any cloths unless you make them yourself.
this can go on and on. But the church seems to advocate for is a preindustrial world. I dont want to go back to that world.

Is there a way to add a signature to post? I want to add "Vulcans must be republicans. You cant live long and prosper under Democrats.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I guess what I see missing here in these posts, is adding that the Church also says this distributing of goods can not be against another person’s will, that is theft, and the community and it’s citizens on local levels are to cooperate and work with the local governments in ensuring everyone is provided for. It doesn’t say the big government can just take without just cause. Perhaps I am missing and TMC is saying this but based on some of this conversation and what I have heard other Catholics say, who do claim to be socialists, is that big federal government can just take and distribute people’s private property however they fit. That to me sounds like socialism.

Jesus also tells us in Scripture that we will always have the poor with us and that He loves a cheerful giver. I am bothered by so much depending on government to help the poor rather than individuals, especially Catholics, voluntarily reaching out and helping. Seems like kind of a shaking off of individual responsibility.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Once you take some of the property the billionaires have, you will have to do this over and over and over, so soon all the billionaires will become millionaires, then you have to start on the millionaires.

That all depends on how much the government taxes. As long as the billionaires continue to accumulate even more wealth, despite the taxes, we will not be in danger of billionaires becoming millionaires. But if it taxes too much, that could indeed happen.

 

[phil3]

You guys are arguing against a straw man. I never said that. I am actually merely quoting the Church.

I am reading those quotes that that is my take on them.

But there are only two Excathedra statement in the past two thousand years. these are the only teaching of the church that I can not question

 

[TMC]

there is truth and there is facts. If the church told priest to preach the church position on private property, you can forget about middle class and above Catholics.

Francis would have what he wanted, a poor church for poor people

LOL, you can’t be serious. This has been Church teaching for a very long time, and yet the Church abides.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

So here we are in America, burning down small businesses, putting people out of work due to this burning down of businesses and plus the virus, causing people to purchase even more from Amazon and Walmart and at the same time upset that Amazon and Walmart are making money due to America purchasing from them because they are fast and seem to have what we want in this fast paced world.

A good place to start might be to respect and shop from the small business owner, making your own whatever and doing without. All voluntary.

 

[TMC]

I guess what I see missing here, is adding that the Church also says this distributing of goods can not be against another person’s will, that is theft, and the community and it’s citizens on local levels are to cooperate and work with the local governments in ensuring everyone is provided for.

This is quite the rationalization. Yes, the Church teaches subsidiarity - that actions should generally be taken at the level closest to the people that is practical to achieve the goal. That is an important practical consideration as to what level of the government should act; it says nothing about the government’s power or authority to act. The Church also teaches that Governments have the moral authority to accomplish redistribution through governmental authority. I have seen no where that says that Government’s cannot take that action without individual consent - where does that come from?

Again, this is not socialism - this is Catholicism. And the fact that governments have this moral obligation and authority does not mean that individuals do not also have an obligation to aid the poor. That makes no sense and does not in any way arise from this teaching.

 

[TMC]

I am reading those quotes that that is my take on them.

But there are only two Excathedra statement in the past two thousand years. these are the only teaching of the church that I can not question

No teaching of the Church is optional. I am not saying you can’t dissent - that is between you and your maker. But it is not true that you can just opt out of all but two Church teachings. That would leave the Catechism pretty short!

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I have seen no where that says that Government’s cannot take that action without individual consent - where does that come from?

I’m not talking about individual consent. I am talking about unjust laws, again such as in socialism with the attempt to make everything equal, diminishing the rights to private property. In other words taking someone’s cell phone because their household has two and another household has one.

CCC 2409: Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment

There is just so much more to Catholic social teaching than the destination of goods by the government. I agree that the destination of good is a large part but the catechism also states:

For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property.

 

[Elf01]

I have routinely separated legal action from moral considerations. I have not said it recently, but I believe no woman should ever choose to abort her child. That is distinct from the government should outlaw abortion.

I don’t think anyone should own a slave. That is distinct from the government should outlaw slavery.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

@phil3

No teaching of the Church is optional. I am not saying you can’t dissent - that is between you and your maker. But it is not true that you can just opt out of all but two Church teachings.

While this is true it is best to make sure first you have a clear understanding of that teaching and in all charity, not just go by one person’s understanding of said Catholic teaching. It is misunderstandings that cause fear and division.

 

[whatistrue]

I don’t think anyone should own a slave. That is distinct from the government should outlaw slavery.

You are correct that they are distinct. One problem with the supposed equivalence you have set up is that more people agree that the government should outlaw slavery than believe that the government should outlaw abortion. This is not to say that morality is subject to a vote, but failing to recognize facts and take them into account in one’s strategy is a recipe for failure.

 

[Elf01]

You are correct that they are distinct. One problem with the supposed equivalence you have set up is that more people agree that the government should outlaw slavery than believe that the government should outlaw abortion. This is not to say that morality is subject to a vote, but failing to recognize facts and take them into account in one’s strategy is a recipe for failure.

When slavery was originally outlawed enough people didn’t like the idea to start a war.

 

[whatistrue]

When slavery was originally outlawed enough people didn’t like the idea to start a war.

The war actually started before slavery was outlawed anywhere in the US, simply on the basis that some feared it would be. And so what is your point and how does it relate to abortion?

ETA: Outlawed in the sense of becoming unlawful after having been lawful.

 

[phil3]

No teaching of the Church is optional. I am not saying you can’t dissent - that is between you and your maker. But it is not true that you can just opt out of all but two Church teachings. That would leave the Catechism pretty short!

The catechism needs to be shorter. You could take 100 “experts” on the catechism and no two of them would be able to understand it from front to back.

It is worst than the US tax code.

But I go right back to things you have said and quoted.

What you have posted seems to imply that without limitation the government has the moral authority to take private property and give it to another as long as “the common good” is used for the taking of private property.

But in fact here is a good article that explained the limits on “the common good”.

The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property — The Distributist Review