Is the catholic church stuck in the middle ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter philipl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stpurl said:
but I think their hearts are in the right place.
Click to expand...
But it is over and over and over and over and over (I could type this thousands of times) This isnt the first and I doubt the last time I will hear it. I dont think the church understands the middle class. The church is so focused on the poor it fails to see just how important the middle class is in this world
 
No it does not. The Church has saints that were royalty, peasants, and every socioeconomic level in between. The Church does not teach that being wealthy makes you immoral. Heck, having a few nice things does not make you immoral.

I suggest finding another parish if your priests pander to the SJW mentality.
 
I wouldn’t mind the church returning to a middle ages paradigm.

But I sure wouldn’t want to live in the Middle Ages and have to deal with an abscessed tooth lol
 
philipl said:
The more I think about it I think it is true…
Click to expand...
Could this be because you don’t spend any time reading social justice encyclicals?

I don’t want to be harsh, but I don’t know how anyone reaches the conclusions you listed by thinking unless thinking means “making stuff up instead of actually investigating the evidence for and against the premise.”
philipl said:
I am not writting some white paper that needs peer review. This is nothing more than a discussion group. Not even that it kinda like after dinner chats.
Click to expand...
You’re the one that including the premise that thinking was involved, friend.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, it’s based on his fallacious opinion that the Church only caters to poor peasants and prefers to keep people poor.

That’s just my current understanding of this mystery. If anyone else has a different interpretation please respond!
 
Historically, the RCC has moved very, very slowly in addressing issues and doctrine in light of contemporary situations. That has changed somewhat in the current era of instant internet communication. I think there might be a bit of truth in the OP’s thread, but I don’t think it is as massive as one might first get the impression from the title of the thread. As others have said, let the OP make his case. There may be some truth in it, then again…
 
philipl said:
I am saying the church is more comfortable dealing to the poor.
Click to expand...
So was Jesus. As He noted, it’s harder for the rich to get their mind off their money and focus on Him. Also, the poor need more help with stuff like food, water and shelter so they don’t die.

Your point is?
 
I think you make some fair points there but don’t see the connection with the ‘Middle Ages’.

In the Middle Ages tens of thousands of monasteries and religious houses were set up across Europe with priests, nuns and brothers rolling up their sleeves and clearing and planting land, developing wine and coffee and mining and husbandary and cheese etc and creating communities through hard work.
 
philipl said:
I am saying the church is more comfortable dealing to the poor.
Click to expand...
Look in some ways I agree. I would like to see the church support business and capitalism which lifts the poor financially rather than being stuck in a distributive mode of thought which keeps the poor in their place. Especially nowadays that state redistribution that relies on forcing a section of the population to work year after year and hand over their fruits to a class of people of people defined as poor does have some serious ethical questions to consider and answer IMHO.
 
philipl said:
The church wants to go back to a time when 95% of the population lived a subsistence lifestyle and the other 5% were Aristocracy, warriors(knights), and clergy. The focus of the 95% was the church and trying to survive.
Click to expand...
Preposterous.

The biggest testament to the Church’s modernity, or at least a major attempt at it, is the Second Vatican Council. Which as a Catholic I find disagreeable, but is the biggest reason why today you and other people who don’t know better can’t accuse the Church of “being stuck in the Dark Ages.”
 
abucs said:
I would like to see the church support business and capitalism which lifts the poor financially rather than being stuck in a distributive mode of thought which keeps the poor in their place.
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen the church be un-supportive to either business or capitalism.
At the same time, it is not the mission of the church to run around starting business enterprises other than those needed by, say, a monastery to support itself.
It is the church’s job to support and teach what Jesus taught. Jesus’ teachings included a lot of distributive stuff.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’ve not seen the church be un-supportive to either business or capitalism.
Click to expand...
Not seeing them being unsupportive is not the same as them being supportive.
Tis_Bearself said:
At the same time, it is not the mission of the church to run around starting business enterprises other than those needed by, say, a monastery to support itself.
Click to expand...
In places like the Philippines and in large sections of the poor Catholic world I think it should be, similarly to its mission in medieval Europe with its monasteries. (for which it should be applauded).
Tis_Bearself said:
It is the church’s job to support and teach what Jesus taught. Jesus’ teachings included a lot of distributive stuff.
Click to expand...
As long as we remember there is a difference between a personal choice to help someone and a state enforcement of taking from others for whatever reason, including redistribution.
 
Last edited:
I have seen individual parishioners start mentoring programs to teach business and vocational skills to those who want and need it. There are ministries that can be created to help the needy that focus on other ways of helping than forking over money. This however is more of a lay ministry.
 
I’ll bite, and give the op a little support.

He could be alluding to open borders and a redistribution of wealth.

The end result if these policies were adopted completely would not be that dissimilar to what the op is arguing.

If this is the op’s view, I get it. I don’t agree, but I do not disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top