Pro-life Catholic Who Attends Latin Mass Appointed As New UK House of Commons Leader

[JonNC]

by tithes:

Were tithes mandatory?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

JonNC:

Here, in the US, government is is subject to the constitution.

Are you speaking as a Catholic citizen here?

As an American citizen.

You aren’t speaking as a Catholic?

 

[PickyPicky]

Were tithes mandatory?

Yes indeed.

 

[JonNC]

This is a strictly ideological position with no data to support it. It is nonsense to think that giving help to those most in need somehow hurts them.

Giving help to those in need hurts no one. Requiring people to do so at government ‘s point of a gun hurts those from whom the property is taken.

But if that is your reasoning, why not come out and admit it, instead of alluding to non-existent statistical support that says that the more money you give to poor people the poorer they become.

America has poured $20+ trillion into the war on poverty. The percentage of those in poverty has not changed. Those people are not a “non-existent statistic “.
Meanwhile, the exploding percentage of children born into single parent families has exploded. For American blacks, it had gone from about 25% in the 50’s to about 70% today. Some more non-existent facts.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Emeraldlady:

JonNC:

Here, in the US, government is is subject to the constitution.

Are you speaking as a Catholic citizen here?

As an American citizen.

You aren’t speaking as a Catholic?

I’m not a Catholic in communion with the pope.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Were tithes mandatory?

Yes indeed.

Wow! So sad. One wonders where the concept of free will has failed.

 

[PickyPicky]

Were tithes mandatory?

Thus spake Britannica:

Despite serious resistance, tithing became obligatory as Christianity spread across Europe. It was enjoined by ecclesiastical law from the 6th century and enforced in Europe by secular law from the 8th century. In England in the 10th century, payment was made obligatory under ecclesiastical penalties by Edmund I and under temporal penalties by Edgar.

 

[Vouthon]

Not only that, but the Church’s charity was supported, (in England at least — I don’t know what happened elsewhere), by tithes: a national form of taxation whereby, as Jon would put it, the Church was

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) JonNC:

taking property from one person to give to someone else

St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Lazaro 2,5, cited in CCC 2446)

Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs

St. Ambose (De Nabuthe, c.12, n.53, cited in Populorum Progressio of Paul VI):

You are not making a gift of your possessions to poor persons. You are handing over to them what is theirs. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich.

In fact, the medieval church not only did this but there was an entire theological rationale for it. According to Cardinal Cajetan, the great commentator of the Summa, and other Thomistic glossers, the government can "take from someone who is unwilling to dispense from what is superfluous for life or state, and distribute it to the poor ".

To provide you with the full quotation:

“… Now what a ruler can do in virtue of his office, so that justice may be served in the matter of riches, is to take from someone who is unwilling to dispense from what is superfluous for life or state, and to distribute it to the poor . In this way he just takes away the dispensation power of the rich man to whom the wealth has been entrusted because he is not worthy. For according to the teaching of the saints, the riches that are superfluous do not belong to the rich man as his own but rather to the one appointed by God as dispenser , so that he can have the merit of a good dispensation… as Basil said, it belongs to the indigent …”

- Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), "Commentary o n the Summa Theologica," vol. 6, II-II, 118.3

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

See:

voluntaryist.com - Voluntaryism and Extreme Necessity

This theme was elaborated during the later Middle Ages…

This principle is the most radical formulation of the medieval belief that God had bestowed the earth upon all mankind for its sustenance. [6] This conclusion led to two co-ordinate positions:

[T]he first held that people in extreme necessity might rightfully take what they needed to survive, and that their taking such goods had nothing of the nature of theft; and the second, held that every person has the obligation to sustain the life of other people once his own needs have been met. [7] Gratian’s DECRETUM, a famous medieval tome compiled about 1140 AD, also expounded the view that the fruits of the earth belonged to all mankind. All things are common, that is, to be shared in time of necessity with those in want. … [W]e should retain for ourselves only necessities and distribute what is left to our neighbors in need. [8]

The decretists saw no contradiction in maintaining the right to private property and the right of the poor to sustain their lives by taking from the wealthy. The man who accumulated goods beyond what he needed to live had no right to his wealth

A good write-up on this from a traditional Catholic perspective, by an Austrian priest and Cistercian monk called Pater Edmund Waldstein:

Robin Hood Economics

Edmund Waldstein, O. Cist writes, via Robin Hood and Thomas Aquinas, about the universal destination of goods and its application to contemporary economics. Can private property for Christians be justified?

www.plough.com

The implicit foundation of Robin Hood’s stealing from the rich to give to the poor is the perennial Christian teaching that the goods of the earth are given by God for the sustenance of all human beings. This is the principle that modern Catholic social teaching calls the “universal destination of goods,” and it issues an urgent challenge to us in our own time.

Saint Thomas holds that the use of goods has to remain common. By this he means that each person can only justly keep what he needs to live and appropriately fulfill his role in society. And each person is bound to give away all of his superfluous goods to those in need.

This is the justification of the “Robin Hood Principle” of “stealing” from the rich to give to the poor. It is not really stealing if the poor are in real need, and the rich are living in real superfluity. In the Rhineland, this kind of “stealing” is called fringsen after Cardinal Frings, the Archbishop of Cologne, who instructed his flock to “steal” coal from the coal yards of the railway companies when they were dying of cold after the Second World War.

Modern Catholic social teaching, beginning with Pope Leo XII in the nineteenth century, developed the principle of the universal destination of goods and applied it to the problems of modern economies. Thus, Pope Pius XI thought that the government has the duty of regulating private property to rectify unjust distribution. In 1952 Pope Pius XII taught that the universal destination of goods required prosperous countries to receive needy migrants from poor countries.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

JonNC:

Emeraldlady:

JonNC:

Here, in the US, government is is subject to the constitution.

Are you speaking as a Catholic citizen here?

As an American citizen.

You aren’t speaking as a Catholic?

I’m not a Catholic in communion with the pope.

I strongly feel you should make this clear in your debates.

 

[PickyPicky]

I strongly feel you should make this clear in your debates

Jon really has never disguised his faith tradition on this site in my experience. He has frequently used his knowledge of Lutheran and Anglican theologies to inform debates here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is a strictly ideological position with no data to support it. It is nonsense to think that giving help to those most in need somehow hurts them.

Giving help to those in need hurts no one. Requiring people to do so at government ‘s point of a gun hurts those from whom the property is taken.

The “point of a gun” nonsense is an attempt to argue for too much. The only way you can invalidate government programs for the poor paid for by taxes is by invalidating all government programs paid for by taxes. That would include public parks, highways, airports, not to mention public school and fire departments. They are all funded “at the point of a gun”. You have not cited any special feature of government programs for the poor that qualitatively distinguishes them from other government programs so that you could invalidate only the government programs for the poor.

But if that is your reasoning, why not come out and admit it, instead of alluding to non-existent statistical support that says that the more money you give to poor people the poorer they become.

America has poured $20+ trillion into the war on poverty. The percentage of those in poverty has not changed.

But their lives have improved over what it would have been with no aid.

Meanwhile, the exploding percentage of children born into single parent families has exploded.

That is indeed a problem. How is withholding aid to the poor going to help that problem?

 

[JonNC]

The implicit foundation of Robin Hood’s stealing from the rich to give to the poor is the perennial Christian teaching that the goods of the earth are given by God for the sustenance of all human beings. This is the principle that modern Catholic social teaching calls the “universal destination of goods,” and it issues an urgent challenge to us in our own time.

Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from government and gave to the poor. I’m all in for that.

 

[PickyPicky]

Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from government and gave to the poor. I’m all in for that.

That must be a different Robin Hood, then.

“Rise up,” he seid, "thou prowde schereff,
Buske the and make the bowne;
I have spyed the kynggis felon,
For sothe he is in this town.

"I have spyed the false felon,
As he stondis at his masse;
Hit is long of the," seide the munke,
"And ever he fro us passe.

"This traytur name is Robyn Hode,
Under the grene wode lynde;
He robbyt me onys of a hundred pound,
Hit shalle never out of my mynde.”

https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/robin-hood-and-the-monk

 

[dvdjs]

In 1952 Pope Pius XII taught that the universal destination of goods required prosperous countries to receive needy migrants from poor countries.

Great posts. Thank you.
I wanted to keep this one handy - since there is so much shade cast here upon those who might be called economic migrants, even as we enjoy full employment. I wonder if you have a reference to the 1952 teaching.

 

[JonNC]

Vouthon:

In 1952 Pope Pius XII taught that the universal destination of goods required prosperous countries to receive needy migrants from poor countries.

Great posts. Thank you.
I wanted to keep this one handy - since there is so much shade cast here upon those who might be called economic migrants, even as we enjoy full employment. I wonder if you have a reference to the 1952 teaching.

Yes. I’m sure the pope had in mind the basic “right” of potentially tens of millions of foreign nationals to travel here and receive welfare benefits from the American taxpayers.
That, of course, is the prescription for a revolt of said taxpayers.
Perhaps an end to the welfare state, which above is ostensibly defended by St. John Chrysostom, who of course, understood that modern progressivism would expect government largesse to be provided for “reproductive rights” and “gender rights”, would make such migration more acceptable. That’s how my great grandparents arrived. They received help from neighbors and relatives, not from the taxpayers.

When we turn charity and compassion over to government, which is neither charitable nor compassionate, we get what it dishes out.
And we deserve it.

So the foundational questions are:

1. what is the maximum amount that government should be permitted to take from any one taxpayer?
2. what is the maximum number of foreign nationals that should be permitted to enter the United States?

These must be specific, particularly on taxation, because we are at the point where the receivers of government largesse will outnumber this who pay in, and will therefore be able to abuse that relationship.
Or maybe that’s what St. John Chrysostom has in mind.

 

[PickyPicky]

So the foundational questions are:

Not in judging Mr Rees-Mogg’s voting record they aren’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

dvdjs:

Vouthon:

In 1952 Pope Pius XII taught that the universal destination of goods required prosperous countries to receive needy migrants from poor countries.

Great posts. Thank you.
I wanted to keep this one handy - since there is so much shade cast here upon those who might be called economic migrants, even as we enjoy full employment. I wonder if you have a reference to the 1952 teaching.

Yes. I’m sure the pope had in mind the basic “right” of potentially tens of millions of foreign nationals to travel here and receive welfare benefits from the American taxpayers.
That, of course, is the prescription for a revolt of said taxpayers.

This is a straw man argument. By arguing for slightly more consideration for economic migrants, one is not necessarily arguing for outlandish benefits subsidizing said migrants, many of whom could support themselves just fine without any welfare, if only given a chance to be here and contribute to society.

 

[JonNC]

This is a straw man argument. By arguing for slightly more consideration for economic migrants, one is not necessarily arguing for outlandish benefits subsidizing said migrants, many of whom could support themselves just fine without any welfare, if only given a chance to be here and contribute to society.

It is not a straw man. Answer this: how many, Leaf? How many can we handle? Be specific. And if they can do it without assistance, put a 5 year moratorium on any kind of government assistance, starting when they arrive.
They could contribute to their own country, too, if those countries allowed for individual rights, limited government, and free markets.

 

[Vouthon]

. I wonder if you have a reference to the 1952 teaching.

Of course, the following apostolic constitution:

Exsul Familia Nazarethana - Papal Encyclicals

INTRODUCTION The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all … Continue reading →

www.papalencyclicals.net

Excerpt:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Those words were first addressed to the United States bishops, incidentally…