Stuff I still don't get

[fakename]

I suppose that the Church has taught principles of social justice and such and has consequently left prudential judgement up to the laity but logically, since prudence is a matter of morals they could theoretically give a correct answer to any moral/ethical issue. So my first question is in the social teaching what is left to individual decision and what is not?

Secondly, if the church only has solid or at least pretty firm ground in matters of faith and morals why is it that (and I stress in my opinion) it seems that the Ordinary Magisterium sometimes writes about technical issues? I use this excerpt from Mater et Magistra as an example: " But the common good also requires the public authorities, in assessing the amount of tax payable, take cognizance of the peculiar difficulties of farmers. They have to wait longer than most people for their returns, and these are exposed to greater hazards. Consequently, farmers find greater difficulty in obtaining the capital necessary to increase returns." isn’t the latter part of the quote a technical commentary and wouldn’t denying it be incurring a theological censure as a statement “close to heresy”? Also doesn’t the above requirement of the common good also hinge on technical fact?

 

[manualman]

Since the earliest days of the Church we’ve recognized that Jesus didn’t intend for his Church to be, itself, a government. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” is more than an answer to a trick question about taxes!

For one thing, it is crucial to keep the temporal power of the Church to as little as necessary to reduce the motive for corruption. As it stands right now, you’d have to be crazy to WANT to be pope (there’s nothing in it for the office holder). That’s probably a good thing!

By teaching principles and leaving the application of those principles to the state to implement is the original “separation of powers” that rather predates Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Brendan]

I suppose that the Church has taught principles of social justice and such and has consequently left prudential judgement up to the laity but logically, **since prudence is a matter of morals **

Prudence is a natural virtue, not a moral action.

It is, in essence, knowledge of what is and what can (or should) be done.

Knowledge is morally neutral, it is not either a decision nor an action.

Hence prudence is morally neutral. HOW one excercises prudence can be morally good, neutral or evil.

it seems that the Ordinary Magisterium sometimes writes about technical issues?

Correct, that would be an excercise of prudence, and thus can fall within the realm of moral teaching. If the knowledge was certain, then the morality of an act based on that knowledge can be addressed.

the latter part of the quote a technical commentary and wouldn’t denying it be incurring a theological censure as a statement “close to heresy”?

No, because the knowledge itself might be in error.

 

[DrMindBender]

4chan.org/b/

 

[Vince1022]

I suppose that the Church has taught principles of social justice and such and has consequently left prudential judgement up to the laity but logically, since prudence is a matter of morals they could theoretically give a correct answer to any moral/ethical issue. So my first question is in the social teaching what is left to individual decision and what is not?

Here is what is not:

usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml