Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[TEPO]

Noted, but where has the Church condemned Distributism?

I never actually said it did. I’m saying that the Church condemns all economic ideologies as being specifically Catholic in nature. This includes Distributism, along with Socialism and Capitalism. None of them or any others can ever be specifically -Catholic- solutions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If the Church is giving guidelines then by the meaning of the word she is not specifying means. Opposition to “obscene wealth” and pollution hardly constitutes a road map of actions to take to resolve those issues. That’s the entire point here: the Church specifies the ends but leaves the determination of the means to the layman. As Dan Grelinger said, she does not give us the HOW.

There is no question about whether the Church has to say something infallibly for it to be obeyed: we owe assent to ordinary teachings as well … which is interesting but irrelevant given that the Church has no teachings on things like whether the minimum wage should be increased or eliminated, whether a border fence should or should not be built, or whether a government run health care system is or is not a moral obligation.

True. However (of course), there’s nothing to prevent the Church, on the local level or a grander level, to bring some of these points into lively discussion. For example, “obscene” (or merely “excessive”) wealth would be a good topic for discussion on the parish level. This came up for me in theology school, when I began to open my eyes to the everyday materialism around me: The fact is, unless and until we are hit personally by poverty (self, family member, or see it vividly in our local community), we tend to be oblivious not only to the urgency of others’ needs, but also to our own unintentional complacency.

By every stretch of the definition we live – especially those of us in metropolitan areas – within abundant wealth on an everyday basis. By this I mean the choices we have. Overwhelmingly, we have a surfeit of options to purchase, rent, enjoy – the vast majority of which are not essential for everyday needs. I’m not saying any of that is evil – it most certainly is not; it is merely neutral. It’s just that awareness of how much excess characterizes the First World helps us to become more conscious of how we live and how so may others are not able to live.

That is just one of many examples in which the laity of the Church could take initiative in opening up dialogue. It’s not always specific (social justice) measures which are at issue: mere awareness can result in individuals and communiities deciding to institute measures, create local or global initiatives, or merely become more conscious of waste or of what they have discerned is excessive consumption on their own parts.

Also, there’s nothing to prevent the laity from discussing more specifically topics like minimum wage levels, like the many issues involved in immigration – not to invent doctrine, but to get Catholics and other believers talking and listening about what is and is not social justice relative to particular measures and approaches.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I never actually said it did.

Not explicitly, but it comes extremely close: “Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9387066&postcount=37 ]

I’m saying that the Church condemns all economic ideologies as being specifically Catholic in nature.

This is correct only insofar as the Church is not specifically entrusted to provide any practical solutions of a technical nature. While it is true Socialism has been repeatedly condemned, Capitalism has been provisionally tolerated with crucial qualifications (cf. Quadragesimo Anno; Centesimus Annus).

This includes Distributism, along with Socialism and Capitalism. None of them or any others can ever be specifically -Catholic solutions.

Not necessarily. Unlike Socialism and Capitalism, such little-known alternative third-way economic systems as Distributism, Solidarism, and the Economy of Communion [in Freedom] are predominantly derived from the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.

 

[TEPO]

True. However (of course), there’s nothing to prevent the Church, on the local level or a grander level, to bring some of these points into lively discussion. For example, “obscene” (or merely “excessive”) wealth would be a good topic for discussion on the parish level. This came up for me in theology school, when I began to open my eyes to the everyday materialism around me: The fact is, unless and until we are hit personally by poverty (self, family member, or see it vividly in our local community), we tend to be oblivious not only to the urgency of others’ needs, but also to our own unintentional complacency.

By every stretch of the definition we live – especially those of us in metropolitan areas – within abundant wealth on an everyday basis. By this I mean the choices we have. Overwhelmingly, we have a surfeit of options to purchase, rent, enjoy – the vast majority of which are not essential for everyday needs. I’m not saying any of that is evil – it most certainly is not; it is merely neutral. It’s just that awareness of how much excess characterizes the First World helps us to become more conscious of how we live and how so may others are not able to live.

That is just one of many examples in which the laity of the Church could take initiative in opening up dialogue. It’s not always specific (social justice) measures which are at issue: mere awareness can result in individuals and communiities deciding to institute measures, create local or global initiatives, or merely become more conscious of waste or of what they have discerned is excessive consumption on their own parts.

Also, there’s nothing to prevent the laity from discussing more specifically topics like minimum wage levels, like the many issues involved in immigration – not to invent doctrine, but to get Catholics and other believers talking and listening about what is and is not social justice relative to particular measures and approaches.

These are great points Liz, in describing what should be done in regards to Catholic Social Teaching.

But I think this greater awareness that you talk about should never become a seperate doctrine from the moral teachings of the Church. Both Moral and Social teachings/doctrines stem from the common message of the Virtues.

In other words, I think Social justice will naturally flow from a greater awareness of the ideology of Virtuousness… Not the modern ideology of Tolerance. We cannot focus on Moral and Social teachings as being separable, because one cannot exist without the other… This is how I interpret Pope Benedict’s encynicals, as well as general Church teaching.

Anyways, I hope this makes sense -it’s getting late…

 

[TEPO]

SanctusPeccator;9387487Not necessarily. Unlike Socialism and Capitalism:

are predominantly derived from the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.

Yes, “derived from” Catholic teaching… But then again, Protestantism is also derived from Catholic teaching, however this doesn’t make it any more or less Catholic. To claim it does is bordering on heresy. Not saying that you have claimed anything of the sort, but there have been others here on CAF who have tried.

 

[TEPO]

Personally, I believe in multiple economic systems working side by side under one roof. After all, variety is the spice of life. The basis of freedom and free will… Who’s to say we can’t have every economic system imaginable working interdependently.?

(all being privatized of course)

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Yes, “derived from” Catholic teaching… But then again, Protestantism is also derived from Catholic teaching, however this doesn’t make it any more or less Catholic. To claim it does is bordering on heresy. Not saying that you have claimed anything of the sort, but there have been others here on CAF who have tried.

You are correct it is not humanly possible to formulate a pristine economic system in total conformity with Catholic Social Teaching. However, Distributism, Solidarism, and the Economy of Communion [in Liberation] are a quantum leap closer to a justly practical application than what Socialism and/or Capitalism has historically provided. This can be proven by considering the latest social encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI where he essentially gave a “thumbs-up” to the economic model undergirding the Economy of Communion:
“When we consider the issues involved in the relationship between business and ethics, as well as the evolution currently taking place in methods of production, it would appear that the traditionally valid distinction between profit-based companies and non-profit organizations can no longer do full justice to reality, or offer practical direction for the future. In recent decades a broad intermediate area has emerged between the two types of enterprise. It is made up of traditional companies which nonetheless subscribe to social aid agreements in support of underdeveloped countries, charitable foundations associated with individual companies, groups of companies oriented towards social welfare, and the diversified world of the so-called ‘civil economy’ and the ‘economy of communion’. This is not merely a matter of a ‘third sector’, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. It is to be hoped that these new kinds of enterprise will succeed in finding a suitable juridical and fiscal structure in every country. Without prejudice to the importance and the economic and social benefits of the more traditional forms of business, they steer the system towards a clearer and more complete assumption of duties on the part of economic subjects. And not only that. The very plurality of institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which is not only more civilized but also more competitive” (Encyclical Letter [of 29 June 2009] on Integral Human Development Caritas in Veritate, n. 46).

 

[TEPO]

You are correct it is not humanly possible to formulate a pristine economic system in total conformity with Catholic Social Teaching. However, Distributism, Solidarism, and the Economy of Communion [in Liberation] are a quantum leap closer to a justly practical application than what Socialism and/or Capitalism has historically provided. This can be proven by considering the latest social encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI where he essentially gave a “thumbs-up” to the economic model undergirding the Economy of Communion:
“When we consider the issues involved in the relationship between business and ethics, as well as the evolution currently taking place in methods of production, it would appear that the traditionally valid distinction between profit-based companies and non-profit organizations can no longer do full justice to reality, or offer practical direction for the future. In recent decades a broad intermediate area has emerged between the two types of enterprise. It is made up of traditional companies which nonetheless subscribe to social aid agreements in support of underdeveloped countries, charitable foundations associated with individual companies, groups of companies oriented towards social welfare, and the diversified world of the so-called ‘civil economy’ and the ‘economy of communion’. This is not merely a matter of a ‘third sector’, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. It is to be hoped that these new kinds of enterprise will succeed in finding a suitable juridical and fiscal structure in every country. Without prejudice to the importance and the economic and social benefits of the more traditional forms of business, they steer the system towards a clearer and more complete assumption of duties on the part of economic subjects. And not only that. The very plurality of institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which is not only more civilized but also more competitive” (Encyclical Letter [of 29 June 2009] on Integral Human Development Caritas in Veritate, n. 46).

I just don’t believe in having an economic monopoly in any shape or form. Non profit groups and charitable organizations could create something completely new to compete with the US backed dollar. They could create multiple monetary systems with seperate economic guidelines of their own. All of which could be interchangeable with the dollar. It’s not impossible and to depend solely on the dollar seems alike a future with little hope.

Course this is my own invention… But I think it has what it takes to pass the Catholic Social teaching standards.

 

[St_Francis]

I just don’t believe in having an economic monopoly in any shape or form. Non profit groups and charitable organizations could create something completely new to compete with the US backed dollar. They could create multiple monetary systems with seperate economic guidelines of their own. All of which could be interchangeable with the dollar. It’s not impossible and to depend solely on the dollar seems alike a future with little hope.

Course this is my own invention… But I think it has what it takes to pass the Catholic Social teaching standards.

When you have a mixture of business types, some are more able to do certain things than others. Simply in capitalism, I have seen branches of national stores drive locally-owned stored right out of business. In one instance, the big store underpriced and underserved the local store. When the local store went out of business, the big store raised the prices a lot, so the shoppers did not end up with a good deal.

So I think in a mixed economy, one form would end up dominating and we’d be right back where we started from.

 

[TEPO]

When you have a mixture of business types, some are more able to do certain things than others. Simply in capitalism, I have seen branches of national stores drive locally-owned stored right out of business. In one instance, the big store underpriced and underserved the local store. When the local store went out of business, the big store raised the prices a lot, so the shoppers did not end up with a good deal.

So I think in a mixed economy, one form would end up dominating and we’d be right back where we started from.

Capitalism will never go away. When businesses are willing to make products overseas at a fraction of the cost of what they would pay to build them at home, they make huge profits because they don’t lower their prices. They just keep the money.

To compete with Capitalism and its government backed dollar, there could be a new privatized monetary system that is not profit driven but rather people driven. Say a group of people bought an oil field. They could hire people to pump the oil but would pay them not in dollars but in “merics” (a made up term). Now at the same time, the oil gets refined paying employees in merics. There would be gas stations that sell the final product, but it can only be bought in merics… Outsiders who wanted to purchase the gas would have to cash their dollars in for merics before they purchased gas at an exchange machine attached to the store wall that looks an ATM.

But at the same time, the group who created this whole thing has counterparts across the nation buying old manufacturing companies that have gone under, such as a toilet paper manufacturing company, an old canning factory, appliance factories, they bought some old Chrysler and Plymouth auto factories, then some small steel mills in the Midwest, etc. now all of a sudden, people are seeing these meric exchange ATMs all over the place.

Those who are employed and receive the meric for pay, find that they have much more by purchasing with the merics they earned than they ever did with the dollar, because the meric is based on a non profit ideology. They pay no taxes either because their currency is not a government creation -it is private. Even the homeless have become employees in the new economy, because it’s gaining speed now. All profits are literally divided up and passed down to the employees, except for what is needed for insurance and overhead. Those on the top are not rich, and neither are those on the bottom.

While this all goes on, the capitalist economy is forced to lower rates, but as a result -it now must completely outsource all of its labor across the globe. As a result it boosts the economies in new regions it’s never gone to before, like places in Africa, on it’s quest to find the cheapest labor it can. This results in equalizing the world economy.

All the while, US citizens in America have the option to work for merics or dollars. Non citizens may only work for dollars.

 

[Elizabeth502]

These are great points Liz, in describing what should be done in regards to Catholic Social Teaching.

But I think this greater awareness that you talk about should never become a seperate doctrine from the moral teachings of the Church. Both Moral and Social teachings/doctrines stem from the common message of the Virtues.

In other words, I think Social justice will naturally flow from a greater awareness of the ideology of Virtuousness…

Something weird happened this morning. My response to this post disappeared, TEPO. I posted it, it appeared on the thread, and then vanished, though it was inocuous and certainly not controversial. I’ll repost from memory.

Perhaps because of the “late” hour you mentioned, you didn’t notice the part in my previous post where I mentioned that social justice discussions should not be an attempt to create specific doctrine outside of the principles the Church has laid out.

That said, your mention of Virtue is a great point, and one we often miss in the implied connection between individual Christian spirituality and what should be one of its outcomes: social justice. Christian spirituality, including the constructive pursuit of virtue in our effort to root out our individual vices, tends naturally to be focused on the self. We can and should be focused on our personal efforts toward holiness, but that in turn tends to keep our focus on our narow. direct day-to-day relationships. (The micro level.) The macro level is the extension of this, and it’s something that doesn’t come up enough in our consciousness. (It too often becomes “forgotten,” not out of malice but because it is often “invisible” compared to our more visible deficiencies.)

The Christian who is making an effort to grow in the virtue of charity should guide himself and herself toward a macro awareness, as well as a micro one.

 

[someperson555]

Where are the Catholic guidelines for implementing distributism? From an authoritive source, please. I know that the proponents of distributism claim that they developed the theory based on Catholic doctrine, but I have not seen any official Catholic Church teaching that it is the only licit economic system, nor guidance on how to introduce it into the world today. Those are the necessary HOW questions that must be answered for something to move from simply an ‘idea’, to something that is possible.

Secondly, I do not support obscene wealth and true environmental pollution. Those are not requirements in any economic system, including capitalism.

Saying capitalism system has failed to accomplish social justice is like saying getting up out of bed in the morning has failed to accomplish social justice. Sins against social justice are caused by people, independent of the economic system that exists.

And finally, you are duplicitous. You seem to support distributism, but then you suggest support for two things that are in opposition to distributism. You say no individual has a right to own a natural resource, but distributism holds land ownership as a critical right, land being our most important natural resource. Subsidiarity, a very prominent part of Church social justice doctrine, is counter to your suggestions that the state must control the economy. Unless you mean the economy of a close neighborhood.

distrinutionism is a theory which professes that the means of production should be spread out across the people as widely as possible therefore making everyone self-sufficient.

in my opinion distributionism was a good try by the catholic church to establish social justice, but its too reactionary. distributionism has a few errors in its philosophy. i support non-marxist forms of socialism instead. so i dont support distributionism since its too conservative.

i meant that individual people do not have a right to own a natural resource which is used for production (like oil, water, forests, etc) also, individual people do not have a right to own important commodities such as healthcare. but i wholeheartedly support personal property like a house and car.
and the state has a moral responsibility to control the economy. do you think a corporation should be allowed to produce cars which pollute the environment? do you think planned obsolescence should be allowed? do you think outsourcing should be allowed?
this is why we need the state to control the economy. to prevent immoral bussiness practices. and catholic social doctrine even encourages moral state control.
a good example is with pollution, we have the technology to implement totally environmentally safe energies, but we dont, because its not profitable for the capitali$ts.

what proponents of capitalism fail to see is that man is sinful, therefore unless all CEOs are angels appointed by God, capitalism will always fail.

 

[jay29]

You don’t need the government to fulfill the parable of the Sheep and Goats. Robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s vote is hardly charity. Charity is not measured by how much money you throw at someone either.

 

[TEPO]

Something weird happened this morning. My response to this post disappeared, TEPO. I posted it, it appeared on the thread, and then vanished, though it was inocuous and certainly not controversial. I’ll repost from memory.

Perhaps because of the “late” hour you mentioned, you didn’t notice the part in my previous post where I mentioned that social justice discussions should not be an attempt to create specific doctrine outside of the principles the Church has laid out.

That said, your mention of Virtue is a great point, and one we often miss in the implied connection between individual Christian spirituality and what should be one of its outcomes: social justice. Christian spirituality, including the constructive pursuit of virtue in our effort to root out our individual vices, tends naturally to be focused on the self. We can and should be focused on our personal efforts toward holiness, but that in turn tends to keep our focus on our narow. direct day-to-day relationships. (The micro level.) The macro level is the extension of this, and it’s something that doesn’t come up enough in our consciousness. (It too often becomes “forgotten,” not out of malice but because it is often “invisible” compared to our more visible deficiencies.)

The Christian who is making an effort to grow in the virtue of charity should guide himself and herself toward a macro awareness, as well as a micro one.

I wish I didn’t have to, but I must disagree. If the Virtues were based on a micro-level, what is it that prevents them from evolving into macro, as they were intended to…? Since it can only be vice that places greater or less emphasis on one virtue over another, we should be able to agree that only through a proper understanding of Gods Virtues will we ever be truthfully “Graced” with Gods Charity of Love. Therefore we must accept all the Virtues as equal in importance. Charity cannot exist on its own without truth (the other virtues). …And we cannot produce true Charity on our own. True Charity is a gift that can never ever be fabricated outside the virtues… It is impossible.

From Caritas In Veritate
*
“5. Charity is love received and given. It is “grace” (cháris). Its source is the wellspring of the Father’s love for the Son, in the Holy Spirit.”

“. A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance. In other words, there would no longer be any real place for God in the world. Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human development of universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.”
*

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

in my opinion distributionism was a good try by the catholic church to establish social justice, but its too reactionary. distributionism has a few errors in its philosophy. i support non-marxist forms of socialism instead. so i dont support distributionism since its too conservative.

I understood that distributism was created by Catholics trying to put Catholic teaching into an economic system, not a theory created by the Catholic Church. Your source, please, that the Catholic Church created the theory of distributism?

Why is conservatism bad? It sounds like a good thing, something we can’t get too much of.

i meant that individual people do not have a right to own a natural resource which is used for production (like oil, water, forests, etc) also, individual people do not have a right to own important commodities such as healthcare. but i wholeheartedly support personal property like a house and car.

Distributism is based on individual ownership of resources, natural and manmade, that are the source of production. What you say clearly confirms you are no fan of distributism, as you say. I am curious, why did you deflect the conversation to it, initially feigning support, if you do not really support it?

and the state has a moral responsibility to control the economy. do you think a corporation should be allowed to produce cars which pollute the environment? do you think planned obsolescence should be allowed? do you think outsourcing should be allowed?.

The state is not a moral being. How can an amoral being have a moral responsibility. The state is only a creation of mankind, just like a business, corporation, or guild. Wouldn’t it be the same thing to say that in a capitalistic system, businesses have a moral responsibility?

Secondly, you use the term economy, and then you give examples of things that are not economy.

this is why we need the state to control the economy. to prevent immoral bussiness practices. and catholic social doctrine even encourages moral state control.
a good example is with pollution, we have the technology to implement totally environmentally safe energies, but we dont, because its not profitable for the capitali$ts.

what proponents of capitalism fail to see is that man is sinful, therefore unless all CEOs are angels appointed by God, capitalism will always fail.

Consider this very, very, very important point. It is using your same logic, and it is paramount in this discussion. “What proponents of socialism fail to see is that man is sinful, and therefore unless all members of the state are angels appointed by God, socialism will always fail.”

And haven’t we seen that in EVERY practice of socialism.

Please be obective and open your eyes. There is NO perfect system when there is no perfect mankind. Socialism’s evil is in its concentration of almost complete power over the people into the hands of the few. That is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church (not just some Catholics) teaches that socialism is an evil to be avoided.

You have not answered my question, therefore, how you can be a commited Catholic and a commited socialist. You have to pick one to be commited to, as they are in natural opposition.

 

[TEPO]

We must never forget that Love/Charity is one of the seven Virtues. Not claiming that anyone here has… Just pointing out that the virtues are indeed macro to the highest level.

…And to allow Charity to become illuminated by the light of Tolerance becomes vice in and of itself. This is a trap that I myself have stumbled on repeatedly. It’s important to make the distinction…!

 

[someperson555]

I understood that distributism was created by Catholics trying to put Catholic teaching into an economic system, not a theory created by the Catholic Church. Your source, please, that the Catholic Church created the theory of distributism?

sorry, i misspoke, it wasnt created by the catholic church, it was developed by catholic thinkers based on catholic social teaching. although if you read rerum novarum, it does pretty much give an outline of distributionist philosophy.

Why is conservatism bad? It sounds like a good thing, something we can’t get too much of.

conservatism is bad because it is based on the belief that mankind is unimprovable, therefore conservatives just want to maintain the status quo and fight against any change. although the liberalist world view isnt any better either, their world view is that progress cannot be defined.
this is why a socialist world view is the best of the three. since socialists believe that progress is both attainable and definable.

Distributism is based on individual ownership of resources, natural and manmade, that are the source of production. What you say clearly confirms you are no fan of distributism, as you say. I am curious, why did you deflect the conversation to it, initially feigning support, if you do not really support it?

i never said i 'supported it", but i did say its preferable to the typical conservative solution. as i said, its a good first step, but ultimately it is still lacking.

The state is not a moral being. How can an amoral being have a moral responsibility. The state is only a creation of mankind, just like a business, corporation, or guild. Wouldn’t it be the same thing to say that in a capitalistic system, businesses have a moral responsibility?

the state’s morality depends on the type of government, and the people in charge. a democratic government is indeed amoral, but an autocracy can be very moral. that is why an autocracy is preferable to a democracy, its a good idea for a autocratic state to control the economy, since its better to have one moral person in charge than to take your chances with hundreds of corporations, hoping that their hearts will soften.

im not saying all corporations are bad, but unfortunately the majority are. they just focus on self-interest. they rarely ever consider the common good.

Secondly, you use the term economy, and then you give examples of things that are not economy.

Consider this very, very, very important point. It is using your same logic, and it is paramount in this discussion. “What proponents of socialism fail to see is that man is sinful, and therefore unless all members of the state are angels appointed by God, socialism will always fail.”

And haven’t we seen that in EVERY practice of socialism.

Please be obective and open your eyes. There is NO perfect system when there is no perfect mankind. Socialism’s evil is in its concentration of almost complete power over the people into the hands of the few. That is one of the reasons that the Catholic Church (not just some Catholics) teaches that socialism is an evil to be avoided.

first of all, you are refering to state socialism. which is a system of state monopoly over the means of production. i never said i supported this type of socialism. in fact the reason i dont support it is because it is very much like capitalism, right now under capitalism the majority of wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, it was the same under the USSR except these corporations were owned by the state. the role of the government should not be to own the means of production, but to intervene whenever and wherever it deems necessary.

You have not answered my question, therefore, how you can be a commited Catholic and a commited socialist. You have to pick one to be commited to, as they are in natural opposition.

you have to realise there are many types of socialism, the type that was implemented in the USSR was just one type. although even that type was ultimately better than feudalism. it helped russia and china industrialise. before state socialism, russia was a backwards feudal nation, but the soviets industrialised it in a matter of years. and Mussolini also did wonders in italy. italy was living in the year 1200 before the fascists took power, but after the fascists came to power the italian economy greatly improved. im not saying i support everything these people said, but honestly, they did a lot more good than the western liberal democracies.
and is the catholic church really more incompatible with socialism than with feudalism or capitalism? at one time slavery was even incorporated into the canon law, am i really to believe that slavery is more compatible with catholic social teaching than socialism?

 

[TEPO]

the role of the government should not be to own the means of production, but to intervene whenever and wherever it deems necessary.

:

This is just your opinion gathered from your own personal experiences… How can you prove that this would be the greatest common good for all?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I wish I didn’t have to, but I must disagree. If the Virtues were based on a micro-level, what is it that prevents them from evolving into macro, as they were intended to…?

Huh? That’s precisely what I said. Why are you arguing with me? Or, with whom are you arguing? Because it couldn’t be with me.

 

[TEPO]

Huh? That’s precisely what I said. Why are you arguing with me? Or, with whom are you arguing? Because it couldn’t be with me.

Oh gosh, I’m totally sorry for that…
I guess it just wasn’t that clear to me that that was the point you were trying to make. Maybe it was the sentence where you said : "Christian spirituality, including the constructive pursuit of virtue in our effort to root out our individual vices, tends naturally to be focused on the self. We can and should be focused on our personal efforts toward holiness, but that in turn tends to keep our focus on our narow. direct day-to-day relationships. (The micro level.) ", that confused me somehow…? I thought you were trying to say that the virtues are naturally focused on the self -implying that there needs to be something more done in regards to focusing more intensely on charity…:doh2:

I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I’m sure the original post was the one you would have rather kept. I know because that has happened to me before.