The Universal Destination of Goods

[ecce_ego]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a7.htm)

2402 “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”

How do we reconcile this with capitalism, the blasphemous ‘corporate entity’ (a creation of man), and the fact that so many Catholics are against the appropriation of goods for the use of all?

 

[Individual138]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a7.htm)

2402 “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”

How do we reconcile this with capitalism, the blasphemous ‘corporate entity’ (a creation of man), and the fact that so many Catholics are against the appropriation of goods for the use of all?

Would disagree. “So many Catholics aren’t against the appropriation of goods for the use of all” … they’re just against having government be the appropriator or decision-maker as to the needs of people. Especially when history has shown that those in government aren’t very good stewards of other people’s assets. So called “charity” via government has little on-going value. It’s mainly politically driven. Charity is meant to be from people to people; not from people to government who in turn selects the receipient based mainly upon what’s politically correct.

 

[ecce_ego]

Would disagree. “So many Catholics aren’t against the appropriation of goods for the use of all” … they’re just against having government be the appropriator or decision-maker as to the needs of people. Especially when history has shown that those in government aren’t very good stewards of other people’s assets. So called “charity” via government has little on-going value. It’s mainly politically driven. Charity is meant to be from people to people; not from people to government who in turn selects the receipient based mainly upon what’s politically correct.

So you believe we do not live in a Democracy? That the people’s will is not served by their elected officials? Do you believe that government should only legislate in the minorities favor? Because if the people vote for the ‘appropriation of goods’ in the form of taxes, is that not what the people want? Democrats completely control the White House. Obviously, thaqt is exactly what the people wanted.

 

[diggerdomer]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s2c2a7.htm)

2402 “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.”

How do we reconcile this with capitalism, the blasphemous ‘corporate entity’ (a creation of man), and the fact that so many Catholics are against the appropriation of goods for the use of all?

It doesn’t need to be reconciled with capitalism, in theory, but it needs to be kept in mind and held up as a guiding principle and value by Christians regardless of what particular economic/political environment they live in.

 

[ecce_ego]

It doesn’t need to be reconciled with capitalism, in theory, but it needs to be kept in mind and held up as a guiding principle and value by Christians regardless of what particular economic/political environment they live in.

Yes, this also condemns communism and the denial of the right to private property

 

[Individual138]

So you believe we do not live in a Democracy? That the people’s will is not served by their elected officials? Do you believe that government should only legislate in the minorities favor? Because if the people vote for the ‘appropriation of goods’ in the form of taxes, is that not what the people want? Democrats completely control the White House. Obviously, thaqt is exactly what the people wanted.

The USA is a republic form of government, ie. representative. Were it a true democracy, every issue would be voted upon by the people. As to your question as to how government folks should legislate, they should legislate based upon moral and stewardship grounds. That is, as if they’d be judged immediately by higher being for their decision. Being judged by political party wonks or the media is at best a waste of time. Citizens don’t vote for the appropriation of goods in the form of taxation, politicians do. And sadly most vote based upon political party ideology or what’s politically correct. Sadly most in government have sold their souls to their political party. Has been said that the 1st 535 people in any city’s telephone directory would do a better job that those elected to Congress. Not surprised because most in Congress and in the government bureaucracy are unemployable outside of government. Sadly their incompetence seems to be superceded by their dishonesty.

 

[ecce_ego]

The USA is a republic form of government, ie. representative. Were it a true democracy, every issue would be voted upon by the people. As to your question as to how government folks should legislate, they should legislate based upon moral and stewardship grounds. That is, as if they’d be judged immediately by higher being for their decision. Being judged by political party wonks or the media is at best a waste of time. Citizens don’t vote for the appropriation of goods in the form of taxation, politicians do. And sadly most vote based upon political party ideology or what’s politically correct. Sadly most in government have sold their souls to their political party. Has been said that the 1st 535 people in any city’s telephone directory would do a better job that those elected to Congress. Not surprised because most in Congress and in the government bureaucracy are unemployable outside of government. Sadly their incompetence seems to be superceded by their dishonesty.

I understand that we live in a Democratic Republic. So I’m interested in who you think SHOULD appropriate goods for the poor. Me? If I broke into your house and appropriated your turkey sandwich because I was hungry, I guarantee you would immediately run to the big, bad, immoral government and have them try, convict, and imprison me for theft. And trust me, anyone who votes Democrat knowingly votes for taxes and social programs. We are not stupid enough to think that our taxes will not increase as our support of the less fortunate and helpless increases.

As to your question as to how government folks should legislate, they should legislate based upon moral and stewardship grounds.

So you are neither a Republican or Democrat? Because the only ‘moral’ ground Republicans have is on the abortion issue, and they (the politicians) really don’t want abortion to be illegal- otherwise they would lose a powerful tool to sway voters like yourself away from the party that Catholics have traditionally supported. The Masons and Protestants love seeing Catholics vote Republican. They love seeing us line up with the fanatical Swaggart Protestants who run the Republican party and sign our Catholicism away. Why did the ‘moral’ party not do a single thing about abortion when they were in complete control of the white house for 6 years? And did you forget about how Pope JPII AND Benedict have called the Iraq invasion ‘unjust’? Where was the ‘moral’ ground, then? You don’t think the government should be given authority over the governed, as Jesus recommends in the Bible?

 

[Individual138]

I understand that we live in a Democratic Republic. So I’m interested in who you think SHOULD appropriate goods for the poor. Me? If I broke into your house and appropriated your turkey sandwich because I was hungry, I guarantee you would immediately run to the big, bad, immoral government and have them try, convict, and imprison me for theft. And trust me, anyone who votes Democrat knowingly votes for taxes and social programs. We are not stupid enough to think that our taxes will not increase as our support of the less fortunate and helpless increases.

As to your question as to how government folks should legislate, they should legislate based upon moral and stewardship grounds.

So you are neither a Republican or Democrat? Because the only ‘moral’ ground Republicans have is on the abortion issue, and they (the politicians) really don’t want abortion to be illegal- otherwise they would lose a powerful tool to sway voters like yourself away from the party that Catholics have traditionally supported. The Masons and Protestants love seeing Catholics vote Republican. They love seeing us line up with the fanatical Swaggart Protestants who run the Republican party and sign our Catholicism away. Why did the ‘moral’ party not do a single thing about abortion when they were in complete control of the white house for 6 years? And did you forget about how Pope JPII AND Benedict have called the Iraq invasion ‘unjust’? Where was the ‘moral’ ground, then? You don’t think the government should be given authority over the governed, as Jesus recommends in the Bible?

“Goods” for the unfortunate should come from individuals. That’s true caring and charity. Handouts via the government to whomever they deem appropriate is not charity as it comes with a price from the beneficiary. To caste a meaningful vote in most political races in this country requires one “to be” a Democrat or a Republican. Were everyone to vote strictly by party lines, the Democrats win because they have the greater registration. My advise is to never vote for a political party candidate but rather vote based upon issues. Realize most politicians are controlled by their political party so you select the one who smells the least. And then stay on his/her rearend daily (at least his overstaff bureaucratic political patronage hired staff members. As to what the media name-tagged “religious right” say about Catholics jumping into bed with them on political issues, so what? Media members say a lot of things and have a way of reinventing history for their own convenience.

 

[Brendan]

I(the politicians) really don’t want abortion to be illegal- otherwise they would lose a powerful tool to sway voters like yourself away from the party that Catholics have traditionally supported. ?

So what would your response be to someone who stated that the Democratic party doesn’t really want racism to be removed, otherwise they would lose a powerful too to sway voters?