Socialism and Catholicism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using your namesake, St Aquinas, perhaps you can explain why Catholic theology allows the military police to take your money at gunpoint to build beautiful parks, but condemns taking said money to help the poor. What you’re presenting sounds more like American conservatism under the guise of Catholicism. Perhaps you can explain why building parks at gun point is laudable while preventing a man from starving is to be condemned.

American conservatives have no issue with the military police building roads at gunpoint. They have no issue with them building parks at gunpoint. They have no issue with them accumulating nukes at gunpoint. …but building a hospital? Opening a soup kitchen? Then the cries of “socialism!” begin in earnest.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
The only role for the state is to ensure that economic exchanges are just and that respect for the dignity of each individual as a distinctly human moral agent is maintained.
Click to expand...
Who said so? The Preamble to the US constitution states that one overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “ promote the general welfare".
 
Last edited:
twf said:
perhaps you can explain why Catholic theology allows the military police to take your money at gunpoint to build beautiful parks, but condemns taking said money to help the poor
Click to expand...
I never said Catholicism condemns involuntarily giving money to help the poor. I simply said God doesn’t reward it.

I said Catholicism teaches voluntarily giving money to help the poor. If you don’t believe me read Matthew 25 and see what Jesus says happens to those who don’t voluntarily give. If you think Jesus is talking about people who don’t give at gunpoint (“I was hungry and you didn’t give me to eat at gunpoint”), then that’s news to me.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Catholicism does indeed value the individual, but also the collective. We are a communion… a community
Click to expand...
Never said they don’t value the collective, but its primarily individual since we’re assessed individually based on individual acts. When I go into confession I dont’ say “Bless me Father, for my community has sinned…, we sinned when we…”
 
Last edited:
Well that’s true, and I apologize if I assumed too much with your post… that said, if one, in a democracy, supports governmental policies one believes will help the poor, there is merit in that. Promoting a social security safety net doesn’t have to mean you don’t also give voluntarily.
 
Thanks, Harry, for your interesting reply, but a discussion of modernism is wandering off the point, and St Pius X’s oath against modernism, which harmed Catholic scholarship, was rescinded in 1967.

I have a priest philosopher friend who objects to the term ‘modernist’ generally as it means so many different thing, but he will allow it in architecture.

I again think of the words of Prof Joad ‘it all depends on what you mean by…’.

I also think of that great philosopher Humpty Dumpty.

“When I use a word Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

Definitions are important, as meanings can vary. Care is needed.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The only role for the state is to ensure that economic exchanges are just and that respect for the dignity of each individual as a distinctly human moral agent is maintained.
Click to expand...
Who said so? The Preamble to the US constitution states that one overriding purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “ promote the general welfare".
Click to expand...
And that by, generally, staying out of the way of “We the People” in pursuit of real happiness and the common good, not by entitled politicians taking on to themselves the authority to dictate the means to everyone else.
 
When you think about it, there are only 4 possibilities and in neither do you need Government

(1) Everyone is good - no government needed
(2) Everyone is evil - no government needed since it will be entirely comprised of evil
(3) Majority are good - no government needed since evil minority will use it to control the good majority
(4) Majority are evil - no government needed since evil majority will use it to exploit good minority.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
When you think about it, there are only 4 possibilities and in neither do you need Government
Click to expand...
The problem is that we do have government so we must do the best we can with what we have.
For decent people, the choice could not be more stark.
These TrueCons can either support a Republicans who’s cut taxes, created millions of jobs, boosted wages for the first time in decades, defends Israel, defends life, kills terrorists, turned America into an energy exporter, and nominates superb judges, or… They can further whore themselves for a self-proclaimed socialist openly promising to socialize healthcare, destroy the rule of law with a flood of illegal immigrants, strip every American of their health insurance, and use tax dollars to murder the unborn.
Like I said: For decent people, the choice is a simple one…
But Never Trumpers are not decent people. All that matters to them is media money and cable news fame, and these mercenary grifters know their grift as house-trained conservatives feted by the corporate media ends the moment they choose Trump over anyone, including Jurassic Communist.
Click to expand...
www.breitbart.com

Nolte: Bernie Sanders' Nevada Victory Another Humiliating Defeat for Never Trump

The big win last night by Bernie Sanders in Nevada just handed the hideous Never Trump coalition another resounding defeat.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
I meant to ask you - who do you think MSM Elites will support? You have Bernie and Trump so far and media seem to hate both of them. Chris Matthews comparing Bernie victory to Third Reich!! I have to think they’ll end up siding with Bernie but maybe not, since they know Trump won’t tax them at 90%.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Perhaps you can explain why building parks at gun point is laudable while preventing a man from starving is to be condemned.
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t so much the taking of money “at gunpoint,” as the extent to which that money is taken.

And not so much whether it is taken for building parks or helping the poor as when it involves using that money to buy the votes of the poor (and anyone else who wants to view themselves as “poor” for the sake of getting a cut.)

In other words the same leftists who loudly proclaim their intentions to help the poor seem to inevitably create a BIGGER poverty problem after they have helped than before.


And the same leftists who cite “the good of all citizens” are the ones who are not averse to ballot harvesting, oppose cleaning up voter rolls and positively favour granting non-citizens and illegals the right to vote (to say nothing of completely open borders.

 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
I meant to ask you - who do you think MSM Elites will support?..
Click to expand...
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Ex-Bill Clinton adviser: Bloomberg and Hillary cooking up ‘scheme’ for her to become Democratic nominee - Washington Examiner

A former adviser to President Bill Clinton speculated that Michael Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton are plotting a way for her to become the 2020 Democratic nominee even though she’s not in the race. “Here’s the deal that I think is going down. I think Hillary and Bloomberg have gotten together and...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
HarryStotle said:
And that by, generally, staying out of the way of “We the People” in pursuit of real happiness and the common good, not by entitled politicians taking on to themselves the authority to dictate the means to everyone else.
Click to expand...
That’s one way of looking at it. Not the only way, especially given modern economies.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
And that by, generally, staying out of the way of “We the People” in pursuit of real happiness and the common good, not by entitled politicians taking on to themselves the authority to dictate the means to everyone else.
Click to expand...
That’s one way of looking at it. Not the only way, especially given modern economies.
Click to expand...
You are correct, most modern economies must deal with the globalist elites attempting to commandeer their economies to be lucrative for the super-wealthy.

However, it appears to be working for President Trump who chose to deregulate, lower taxes and generally do a myriad of things to upend the globalist gravy train – which is why he is both much admired by the people and vilified by the political and globalist elites.
 
Aquinas11 said:
When you think about it, there are only 4 possibilities and in neither do you need Government

(1) Everyone is good - no government needed
(2) Everyone is evil - no government needed since it will be entirely comprised of evil
(3) Majority are good - no government needed since evil minority will use it to control the good majority
(4) Majority are evil - no government needed since evil majority will use it to exploit good minority.
Click to expand...
In case (3), if the majority are good, what is to prevent them from using the government to control the evil ones? Just because people are good does not mean they must act like a doormat and let evil people triumph.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In case (3), if the majority are good, what is to prevent them from using the government to control the evil ones?
Click to expand...
Well if they’re good, they wouldn’t seek to control others by force.

They’d likely use self defense to thwart any evil , which doesn’t necessitate a State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top