What I find is that people who condemn and denounce organizations trying to help others, never offer any alternative solution.Motherwit:
You nailed it, friend. That must be what I think.
- Status
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Wow, sounds totally true! Can’t possibly be that when people try to offer alternative suggestions, they get shot down with a thousand different “what abouts” from those for whom totalizing secular government is the all-encompassing and only permissible answer.
At the moment, I’m too tired of it all. The world has made its bed and can lie in it. Let the children rule the nursery. We all die in the end and God will sort that out in heaven.
Last edited:
Again, there’s just claims with no substance.Motherwit:
Wow, sounds totally true! Can’t possibly be that when people try to offer alternative suggestions, they get shot down with a thousand different “what abouts” from those for whom totalizing secular government is the all-encompassing and only permissible permissible answer.
At the moment, I’m too tired of it all. The world has made its bed and can lie in it. Let the children rule the nursery. We all die in the end and God will sort that out in heaven.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I don’t care to offer substance anymore. Not right now, not politically. At the moment I literally would prefer to just watch the world learn its lessons the hard way.
Because resources can be freed up.
The first duty of any nation is to its own people, once they are secure you can move outside the borders.
[/quote]
So once you’ve freed up the money, what suggestion do you make for the global community other than a co operative global forum with a goal for the global common good? This is what the thread topic is focused on.
The first duty of any nation is to its own people, once they are secure you can move outside the borders.
[/quote]
So once you’ve freed up the money, what suggestion do you make for the global community other than a co operative global forum with a goal for the global common good? This is what the thread topic is focused on.
Last edited:
A case by case outreach program designed to provide means of production to those nations that lack it, so they can develop on their own with help, conducted by individual nations and states, not through a committee where backwards third party countries get a say.
[/quote]
Are you sure you want that? Trump didn’t.
The past three years and eight months have been tumultuous for U.S. development agencies, programs, and professionals.
Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, the U.S. aid community has seen three White House proposals to slash billions in foreign assistance, two additional attempts by the administration to rescind funding that Congress appropriated anyway, a murky “foreign assistance review” that aimed to divide the world between friends and enemies, attacks on multilateral institutions, politically-motivated funding cuts to some countries and politically-motivated humanitarian aid to others, emboldened versions of policies against abortion and family planning, and a combination of high-level vacancies and highly-controversial appointments to political positions within U.S. foreign aid agencies.
https://www.devex.com/news/disrupt-and-compete-how-trump-changed-us-foreign-aid-97955
That alternative is much more likely under the democrats.
[/quote]
Are you sure you want that? Trump didn’t.
The past three years and eight months have been tumultuous for U.S. development agencies, programs, and professionals.
Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, the U.S. aid community has seen three White House proposals to slash billions in foreign assistance, two additional attempts by the administration to rescind funding that Congress appropriated anyway, a murky “foreign assistance review” that aimed to divide the world between friends and enemies, attacks on multilateral institutions, politically-motivated funding cuts to some countries and politically-motivated humanitarian aid to others, emboldened versions of policies against abortion and family planning, and a combination of high-level vacancies and highly-controversial appointments to political positions within U.S. foreign aid agencies.
https://www.devex.com/news/disrupt-and-compete-how-trump-changed-us-foreign-aid-97955
That alternative is much more likely under the democrats.
R
ReaderT
Guest
That is true. The system was actually a well-balanced diarchy: the Emperor protected the Church, and the Church lent support/validity to the Emperor’s reign through their endorsement. If the emperor committed some great crime, he could be refused communion. (This happened with one emperor in the 800s, I believe).
Huh! I was not aware of that. That’s very interesting.
There are. There are also liturgical acts - all Greek Orthodox churches have 2 thrones; one used to be for the Emperor and the other for the Bishop (nowadays the Bishop just uses both).
Many Greek Orthodox monasteries on Mt. Athos still have the thrones where the Emperor used to sit and stand. When Vladimir Putin visited, that’s where he chose to stand:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
We do not need a world government to help other nations. We have enough problems as it is in our own country, in our own streets, with the poor and crime, etc. What makes you think this gigantic form of government will be better? It certainly wont be able to empathize better, what makes you think they will be able to end the worlds problems.
When? With the League of Nations? after World War I? I seem to remember us not even joining them…because it would, again, cause more problems for us.
modern? I don’t know where you think that is modern, I seem to think its a little more old school than most opinions. That aside, America was built on the blood and bones of those who wished to free themselves and their families from oppressive governments, who were far away, and taxed them for things they didn’t benefit from…kinda sounds exactly like the One World Order if you ask me. Except back then it was the British Empire.
Who essentially controlled the world back then.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. Regardless of perspective. Next question is - why would/does the Catholic Church support subsidiarity? I have no skin in this game, just trying to understand which is why I posed the OP. Again, thanks for the post, it is helpful in my quest to better understand.
I have to correct that explanation. Subsidiarity recognizes a number of levels of support for the human being in society, according to what the societies needs are. That includes right up to International organizations that can address the global common good. Here is a diagram to help.Theo520:
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for. Regardless of perspective. Next question is - why would/does the Catholic Church support subsidiarity? I have no skin in this game, just trying to understand which is why I posed the OP. Again, thanks for the post, it is helpful in my quest to better understand.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Interesting. It’s not controversial that Putin stood there when he’s not a consecrated monarch?
Incidentally, speaking of the tradition of Christian emperors enduring until very modern times, the Russians venerate the last Tsar as a saint… and the Catholic Church venerates the last Austrian Emperor as a Blessed… seen as a successor to the Western Holy Roman Emperors.
Incidentally, speaking of the tradition of Christian emperors enduring until very modern times, the Russians venerate the last Tsar as a saint… and the Catholic Church venerates the last Austrian Emperor as a Blessed… seen as a successor to the Western Holy Roman Emperors.
R
runningdude
Guest
Roughly half the world lives in a repressive regime or abject poverty. One world order would mean either everyone or no one would live under those conditions.
By mere statistical probability, it is no better than our current state. Given how every centrally planned society either collapsed, why would we trust such a model?
Do people not understand that what is being established is not a whole new government dissolving the sovereignty of each individual nation? I keep seeing this claim but nobody who is involved in the movement wants that at all. It defines a co-operative of nations based on good will and appreciation for the global common good. Do people understand that this is a proven force for everyone’s good? The European Union has shown that to be true. Compare the continent to it’s state in 1945. Who would have dreamed that such an dark and broken state could so quickly repair just by official co-operative good will?Mijoy2:
Roughly half the world lives in a repressive regime or abject poverty. One world order would mean either everyone or no one would live under those conditions.
By mere statistical probability, it is no better than our current state. Given how every centrally planned society either collapsed, why would we trust such a model?
- Status