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

[Vouthon]

Is this your commentary?

See my quotation above from Cardinal Cajetan. This natural right was deemed capable of ecclesiastical or legal enforcement with penalties (i.e. excommunication if by a church court).

Cardinal Cajetan, one of the greatest commentators on St Thomas, suggested in the early sixteenth century, that if an individual were unwilling to help the poor out of his superfluous wealth, he could be forced by the State to do so; the State would here be acting in the interests of justice in removing the administration of his goods from one who had shown himself unworthy (In 2-2, I18, 4).

According to medieval Christian theory, superfluous wealth was held in stewardship for the relief of the poor . “Whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law , to the succouring of the poor .” (146, II, II, q. 66, art. 7)

I’ll direct you to a scholarly source:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1051779?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

From Natural Law to Human Rights​

Journal of Law and Religion

Vol. 14, No. 1 (1999 - 2000), pp. 77-96 (20 pages)

Published by: Cambridge University Press

As is well known, the scholastics in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries defended the view that the rich have an obligation to share their goods with the poor…For example, the canonist Laurentius, who says that when the poor person takes from another under press of necessity, it is "as if he used his own right and his own thing."

Moreover, as Tierney goes on to show, this came to be recognized as a right which could be adjudicated at law.

Alongside the formal judicial procedures inherited from Roman law the canonists had developed an alternative, more simple, equitable process known as "evangelical denunciation."

By virtue of the authority inhering in his office as judge, a bishop…could provide a remedy without the plaintiff bringing a formal action.

From about 1200 onward several canonists argued that this procedure was available to the poor person in extreme need. He could assert a rightful claim by an "appeal to the office of the judge."

The bishop could then compel an intransigent rich man to give alms from his superfluities, by excommunication if necessary. The argument gained general currency when it was assimilated into the Ordinary Gloss to the Decretum Gratiani (Code of Canon Law of the Church)

If the bishop determined that this course of action was necessary, the rich person could in theory do nothing but hand over the funds for the relief of the poor or else could be prohibited from receiving the sacraments (and in the Middle Ages, excommunication was serious business).

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

It’s interesting. I asked mainly in response to

(i.e. no ‘credit’ in virtue accrues to them by fulfilling their obligations, in the same way as it does from acts of charity).

Which I obviously should have quoted.

 

[Vouthon]

Ah, OK - thank you for clarifying (I thought you were questioning my sources for the entire idea).

Please read here from Father Ryan Erlenbush, priest of the Diocese of Great Falls. He explains it well:

Stealing from the poor

18 th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Luke 12:13-21 The rich man of this Sunday’s Gospel is blessed with a bountiful harvest. Rather than th...

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com

Likewise, however, whenever anyone is lacking in basic necessities (food, water, shelter, medical care) he has a right to whatever excess wealth is present in his community. Thus, the excess food in your fridge and in mine, belongs to the poor. The excess money in your bank account and in mine, belongs to the poor. It is no alms to give to the poor from our excess wealth, we only restore to them what had belonged to them by divine right.

All men have a right to maintain the necessities of their own existence – and this includes saving a little something for the future – to hoard any wealth beyond this, is to commit the sin of theft. It is always a sin and, when the injured party is a poor man, it is always mortal…What we are talking about here is the obligation which the rich have to give to the poor. All their excess luxury must be given to the poor, so long as there are poor to give to. This is pretty clear from Paul VI (cited at the end of the article).

As he explains, the church does not consider it to be a meritorious act of almsgiving to give from our excess wealth to the poor, inasmuch as we are only restoring to them what is theirs by right and which we are the steward of. Its a debt we owe them by natural law, as opposed to selfless giving.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

This is a different argument, and does not explain why your previous argument was not a straw man, as I explained.

As for your new arguments:

JonNC:

Answer this: how many, Leaf? How many can we handle? Be specific.

This is known as a deflection - where the debater raises a question that other than the question being debated. The best response is to ignore a deflection.

JonNC:

And if they can do it without assistance, put a 5 year moratorium on any kind of government assistance, starting when they arrive.

I’m sure many of them would take you up on your offer, so confident are they in their ability.

JonNC:

They could contribute to their own country, too, if those countries allowed for individual rights, limited government, and free markets.

Another deflection.

 

[JonNC]

This is known as a deflection - where the debater raises a question that other than the question being debated. The best response is to ignore a deflection.

No. It isn’t. It’s a legitimate question. If we are going to allow a flood of foreign nationals, we need to know how many we can handle.
My conjecture is Democrats project enough to have an electoral majority.

I’m sure many of them would take you up on your offer, so confident are they in their ability.

Only those that can should be permitted, then?

Another deflection.

Not at all. It is recognizing the fact that many progressives want to bring those forms of government here: government power over individual rights, strict control of the means of production.
Avoiding the questions is the deflection.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps, the real question is what Rees Mogg is going to do about resolving the problems of the United States?

 

[JonNC]

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.

Define slightly. Be specific.

 

[niceatheist]

It’s up to Congress to decide how many migrants are allowed in and how high taxes will be an what those taxes will be spent on.

Have you ever taken a civics course?

 

[JonNC]

It’s up to Congress to decide how many migrants are allowed in and how high taxes will be an what those taxes will be spent on.

Have you ever taken a civics course?

Have you not participated in a discussion with others about policy? Or do you think only rulers should do that?

 

[Kaninchen]

Q: Who would have thought that a thread about Mogg The Younger would start off American rows about American obsessions?

A: Anybody with the faintest experience of CAF.

 

[Kaninchen]

On the other hand, my dear Carnelian, there could be the curious incident of the American Conservative in the night . . .

 

[Kaninchen]

I thought Nero Wolfe was sort of 1930s?

 

[PickyPicky]

All those sinister Asiatics in Limehouse. Living on welfare, no doubt. Opium dens ruining our youth. Just how many can we take? Just like the southern border. Wall, that’s what London needs. Well, another wall then…

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh, what larks PickyPicky!

 

[PickyPicky]

Oh, what larks PickyPicky

PippyPippy, I think you must mean,

 

[Kaninchen]

I read mountains of crime fiction - I watch very little TV - and have always done so (I’d read the entire Holmes by the time I was 10), I’ve got over 2000 detective novels on my Kindle account.

I did love the Hammett, Chandler, Archer classic American stuff as well.

Other than crime fiction and non-fiction, I’m not terribly ‘literate’, with mainstream fiction, I seem to spend my time wondering when they’re “going to get on with it?”

 

[PickyPicky]

I don’t find it difficult to connect Rees-Mogg and Victorian England. Natural pair of topics I’d have thought.

 

[Kaninchen]

Rees Mogg would have made a wonderfully annoying character in a Blackadder series set in any era. Mind you, Corbyn makes me think of the boring prophet in Life of Brian.

 

[Kaninchen]

We didn’t have them, coolness wasn’t something our teachers embraced, would have interfered with selling fear of failure as the main motivation.

 

[Kaninchen]

The thing is that they really are kind of character stereotypes, it works for them though.