M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Why not then tell us the difference?
- Status
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Most happily
We realize that the act of giving through charity enriches “us”, the giver. The Lord said we would always have our poor. The poor are the true Ambassadors’ of Christ…not us, who give.
Instead of giving to the poor for the their sakes, we have yet to realize that in giving, we ourselves are the ones enriched. For it is in giving we receive.
Based on this premise, the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, our country could be “healed”.
It is precisely because we are made in the image and likeness of God, the dignity of all individual persons is to create.
Work is in and of itself the ability of one to “create”. We have taken the art/creativity of persons, and industrialized ourselves…peg holed…and looked for the government to bail us out, when we have failed with Capitalistic greed.
I would suggest it is high time we return to charity in the sense of seeing mans dignity. Food, shelter and work’ in its sense of creativity is a right of all men, given to them from God.
Charity understands that our land, our wealth does not belong to us. Our own lives are a gift from God.
Charity feeds our souls because it is done because of love. It “is” love.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
And how does that differ from humanitarian aid? Scale?
“I cannot give what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice.”
–Benedict XVI
“I cannot give what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice.”
–Benedict XVI
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Rerum Novarum…Leo XIII
Give a man a fish…you feed him for a day…Teach a man to fish…you feed him for a lifetime.
True Charity. A grand scale!
Give a man a fish…you feed him for a day…Teach a man to fish…you feed him for a lifetime.
True Charity. A grand scale!
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
The Churches’ stance on social justice is laid out in Rerum Novarum…
On the above request to lay out the difference between charity and humanitarian aid, and NOT be caught up in a word play, these following words of Holy Mother Church from the encylical spiritually revolutionary to me…I hope you enjoy the encyclical and take the time to read it in its’ entirety…just a few thoughts:
On the above request to lay out the difference between charity and humanitarian aid, and NOT be caught up in a word play, these following words of Holy Mother Church from the encylical spiritually revolutionary to me…I hope you enjoy the encyclical and take the time to read it in its’ entirety…just a few thoughts:
- Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles;[9] that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ – threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord[10] – and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men’s minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one ills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. “It is lawful,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence.’’[11] But if the question be asked: How must one’s possessions be used? – the Church replies without hesitation in he words of the same holy Doctor: “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the apostle saith, ‘Command the rich of this world . . to offer with no stint, to apportion largely’.”[12] True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, “for no one ought to live other than becomingly.”[13] But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. “Of that which remaineth, give alms.”[14] It is duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity – a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving – “It is more blessed to give than to receive”;[15] and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself – “As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me.”[16] To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. “He that hath a talent,” said St. Gregory the Great, “let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor.”[17]
- As for those who possess not the gifts of fortune, they are taught by the Church that in God’s sight poverty is no disgrace, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in earning their bread by labor. This is enforced by what we see in Christ Himself, who, "whereas He was rich, for our sakes became poor’’;[18] and who, being the Son of God, and God Himself, chose to seem and to be considered the son of a carpenter – nay, did not disdain to spend a great part of His life as a carpenter Himself. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?”[19]
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Rerum Novarum is just the start. I have read it and about a dozen or so others which is why I like the Compendium that sort of catagorizes by subject so we can see the balance.The Churches’ stance on social justice is laid out in Rerum Novarum…
A
Annie39
Guest
Would you please translate what you wrote into English?
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
There is a difference between our secular emphasis on individualism & equality and the Biblical & Roman Catholic emphasis on community & preferential option for the poor. Is wrong for Catholics to try to force those concepts on the secular state?
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
You mean like voting for a pro-choice candidate for any reason?
A
Annie39
Guest
Thank you Michael. Please quote from those documents anything that contradicts Rerum Novarum.
Annie
A
Annie39
Guest
Your reply sounds like a Non sequitur to me. Would you explain what you mean?
Annie
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
There will not be anything that contradicts Rerum Novarum. Why would you think that?
I simply refer to it as a treasury of social teaching, which is what this thread is all about.
I mean there are plenty of Catholics who feel that voting for a pro-choice candidate for any reason is a mortal sin.
A
Annie39
Guest
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Spoken with true secularism.
The Biblical and Roman Catholic emphasis predates any system of greed we are now seeing, seeing secular style that is. Thing is…this Biblical and Roman Catholic style, per se’ worked.The info. provided in Rerum Novarum could very well have been written today.
Amazing, it pertains specifically to today, and will pertain to all times because once we stray from that which is true social justice, we fall into what we have had in the past, and what we have today: from Rerum Novarum, 59:
Is it not rash to conjecture the future from the past. Age gives way to age, but the events of one century are wonderfully like those of another, for they are directed by the providence of God, who overrules the course of history in accordance with His purposes in creating the race of man. We are told that it was cast as a reproach on the Christians in the early ages of the Church that the greater number among them had to live by begging or by labor. Yet, destitute though they were of wealth and influence, they ended by winning over to their side the favor of the rich and the good-will of the powerful. They showed themselves industrious, hard-working, assiduous, and peaceful, ruled by justice, and, above all, bound together in brotherly love. In presence of such mode of life and such example, prejudice gave way, the tongue of malevolence was silenced, and the lying legends of ancient superstition little by little yielded to Christian truth.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Ok then,
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
How do you suggest it be done today?
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.
How do you suggest it be done today?
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Oh. I fully support the pro-choice position of parents being able to choose how to educate their offspring. I am 100% against the murderer of babes in the womb. What issue in your opinion trumps abortion?
Annie, possibly laws that attempt to prohibit us from acting in accordance, within Catholic institutions the truth you have laid out within your quote!
again, Rerum Novarum:
Annie, possibly laws that attempt to prohibit us from acting in accordance, within Catholic institutions the truth you have laid out within your quote!
again, Rerum Novarum:
- And here we are reminded of the confraternities, societies, and religious orders which have arisen by the Church’s authority and the piety of Christian men. The annals of every nation down to our own days bear witness to what they have accomplished for the human race. It is indisputable that on grounds of reason alone such associations, being perfectly blameless in their objects, possess the sanction of the law of nature. In their religious aspect they claim rightly to be responsible to the Church alone. The rulers of the State accordingly have no rights over them, nor can they claim any share in their control; on the contrary, it is the duty of the State to respect and cherish them, and, if need be, to defend them from attack. It is notorious that a very different course has been followed, more especially in our own times. In many places the State authorities have laid violent hands on these communities, and committed manifold injustice against them; it has placed them under control of the civil law, taken away their rights as corporate bodies, and despoiled them of their property, in such property the Church had her rights, each member of the body had his or her rights, and there were also the rights of those who had founded or endowed these communities for a definite purpose, and, furthermore, of those for whose benefit and assistance they had their being. Therefore We cannot refrain from complaining of such spoliation as unjust and fraught with evil results; and with all the more reason do We complain because, at the very time when the law proclaims that association is free to all, We see that Catholic societies, however peaceful and useful, are hampered in every way, whereas the utmost liberty is conceded to individuals whose purposes are at once hurtful to religion and dangerous to the commonwealth.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Micheal,
This is where “all” heads put together, stand together. Who would I be to re-invent the wheel?
EVERY miracle our Lord procured returned members to society. We we’re meant to be communal!
I propose the answer was put forth in 1930’s when a man, namely Peter Maurin co-founder of the Catholic Worker movement saw this same problem and the remedy was that of our Early Christianity, namely returning to the land.
With all the current talk of “shares” for this, stock for that, shares and more shares, his remedy was the plow share. And it was communal.
A return to land…also referenced in Rerum Novarum…a return to the land in the commonwealth of community living…persons eat, when they work.
The distribution of land, not wealth, will allow the laborer to work, produce, have his dignity, and the unemployed then become employed, and the community of workers, vs the community of half way houses and community of soup kitchens thrive. NOT that these should dissipate, but they would see their number significantly decrease with the numbers returning to work.
The Amish and the Mennonites have adopted a truly “living” way of the Gospel. Simply because they never underestimated the power of the land to provide. The recognition that this land is a gift of God, and if respected and treated as such…through the means of Gods gift it does not fail to provide.
Do not view this as archaic. Review the ideas of Peter Maurin. I believe it would work, and actually it IS working today, as we speak!
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
No issue trumps abortion.
But there is also proximity of influence to think about. Roe v Wade was back in 1973. Since then we have had 5 “pro-life” presidents in office for 24 years not including Jimmy Carter. And from 2003 to 2006 nominal “pro-life” Republics controled House, Senate and Presidencey. What did it get us? History has shown that basing all hope on a “pro-life” candidate or office holder who can do almost nothing to change established law is a ineffective. Even a supreme court justice will honor Stare decisis, the legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. Judging a candidate by that one issue oversimplifies the discernment of voting since there are so many other issues and policies that office holders have much greater, if not total, proximity of influence. That being said, I admit that many of those policies can involve “availibility” of abortion services. But there are other issues over which whoever is president has a great deal of control that must be considered in the discernemnt.
I think the Catholic position is that it is a grave sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate because that candidate is pro-choice.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Yes, I like it. We also see it sometimes in our community gardens. People cultivating their own food and doing very well.
- Status