Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[ERose]

How are those absent in oriental civilization as it wasn’t significantly influenced by the Church or Christianity in general.

Primarily I am speaking of Western Civilization, were the Church had the most influence. That being said one can now see a heavy influence of Western culture over in the orient now and these days can they not?

 

[Black_Rose]

Primarily I am speaking of Western Civilization, were the Church had the most influence. That being said one can now see a heavy influence of Western culture over in the orient now and these days can they not?

My original point was that those features can indeed develop without the influence of Christianity as evidenced by the flourishing Chinese civilization during the Tang Dynasty.

 

[ERose]

My original point was that those features can indeed develop without the influence of Christianity as evidenced by the flourishing Chinese civilization during the Tang Dynasty.

The west also had jump starts that didn’t go any where. Only after the Judeo-Christian Philosophy took in in the west that science prospered. Also I wanted to note that universities and hospitals are Catholic inventions as well. In the West all judical systems are based upon the judeo-christian idealogy. Women rights would not have happen either if it wasn’t for the Church’s teaching on the equality of women.

 

[Black_Rose]

The west also had jump starts that didn’t go any where. Only after the Judeo-Christian Philosophy took in in the west that science prospered. Also I wanted to note that universities and hospitals are Catholic inventions as well. In the West all judical systems are based upon the judeo-christian idealogy. Women rights would not have happen either if it wasn’t for the Church’s teaching on the equality of women.

Define “woman’s rights”! Why should one attribute woman right’s to the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Why did a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles (a common right wing meme) did not initially have the right to vote for woman? Why was it reserved only for white property owners? Woman’s suffrage was only a recent political innovation, and was not the productive of pervasive Christian influence.

Perhaps you know more about history than I do. Perhaps you have some unappreciated historical knowledge about the significant role that the Catholic Church supposedly played in pioneering woman’s suffrage in European and American political systems since you made a historical claim meaning that you assume the burden of supporting it with accepted historical knowledge.

 

[ERose]

Define “woman’s rights”! Why should one attribute woman right’s to the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Why did a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles (a common right wing meme) did not initially have the right to vote for woman? Why was it reserved only for white property owners? Woman’s suffrage was only a recent political innovation, and was not the productive of pervasive Christian influence.

Perhaps you know more about history than I do. Perhaps you have some unappreciated historical knowledge about the significant role that the Catholic Church supposedly played in pioneering woman’s suffrage in European and American political systems since you made a historical claim meaning that you assume the burden of supporting it with accepted historical knowledge.

Don’t confuse secular government with religion. Before Christianity took root in the minds and souls of the West, women were considered property. The same as an ox or mule or horse. In Catholicism, women have always been viewed as being equal to men in every aspect except for the priesthood. That being said that many, many women have been canonized as saints. In convents it is women not men that oversee the convents. Women have rebuked popes when they have been wrong. In fact the greatest saint in Christiandom is no other than Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Concerning the original voting laws of this country, the reason why the husband was the one that voted is because his vote represented his family’s vote and not just his alone. That mentality over the years became corrupted and women’s liberation was needed.

 

[Black_Rose]

Don’t confuse secular government with religion. Before Christianity took root in the minds and souls of the West, women were considered property. The same as an ox or mule or horse. In Catholicism, women have always been viewed as being equal to men in every aspect except for the priesthood. That being said that many, many women have been canonized as saints. In convents it is women not men that oversee the convents. Women have rebuked popes when they have been wrong. In fact the greatest saint in Christiandom is no other than Mary the Mother of Jesus.

Concerning the original voting laws of this country, the reason why the husband was the one that voted is because his vote represented his family’s vote and not just his alone. That mentality over the years became corrupted and women’s liberation was needed.

You do have to remember that there was a strong confluence of government and religion before the Enlightenment. Of course, you statements can be formulated to yield testable hypotheses. During the reign of Theodosius I (347-395), Trinitarian Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire while it officially became tolerated after Constantine I (272-337) Edict of Milan in 313. Do you know any primary sources that highlight the contrast of the perception, treatment, and status of women before and after the reigns of Theodosius and Constantine ?

 

[jewells17]

Define “woman’s rights”! Why should one attribute woman right’s to the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Why did a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles (a common right wing meme) did not initially have the right to vote for woman? Why was it reserved only for white property owners? Woman’s suffrage was only a recent political innovation, and was not the productive of pervasive Christian influence.

Perhaps you know more about history than I do. Perhaps you have some unappreciated historical knowledge about the significant role that the Catholic Church supposedly played in pioneering woman’s suffrage in European and American political systems since you made a historical claim meaning that you assume the burden of supporting it with accepted historical knowledge.

Why is there still slavery in Africa? Of all places on the planet that you would think would rise up against it…it would be Africa. Why are Arabs being allowed to enslave and murder black people in Sudan? Why are souls trying to be born into this earth being murdered in the womb before their little feet even get the chance to hit the floor and make a difference in this world? You seem like you don’t get it that life is not always fair…regardless of geography, religion, race, gender or the time in history you are born. Pray the rosary and God bless you.

 

[Abu]

Limbo
I do not accept that the Catholic church (which members of it?? Is it truly a unity? I think not) is infallible in every matter of morality. This issue is far from agreement by all Catholics - that the church is infallible in all matters of morality.

Perhaps you are unaware that one of Christ’s chosen one’s, Judas, betrayed Him; that in the time of the Apostles dissenters arose – 2 Pet 3:16: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

The doctrine and dogma of Christ’s Catholic Church is not dependent on the “agreement” of “Catholics”. Christ entrusted His authority to Peter and His successors. One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses the fact well, for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki S.J.,The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

 

[Monk21]

I am not aware of any European Country that has a flat tax. Could you tell us where this paradise on earth is? And why, pray tell, did you leave such a paradise for the USA?

Good post Zenblue;
There are approx. 20 countries in Europe that have a flat tax system.

I too get upset with people who have not experience things in life, yet they are experts.
I was a manager for the Jesuits for 14 years and developed many friendships with Jesuits who worked in foreign as well as 3rd world countries. I have had foreign bishops visit my home with Jesuit friends. I also was a good friend of a top aid to president Kennedy and Johnson. We talked mostly on foreign affairs.
I do not boast of these things I only talk of what I know.

 

[estesbob]

Good post Zenblue;
There are approx. 20 countries in Europe that have a flat tax system.

I too get upset with people who have not experience things in life, yet they are experts.
I was a manager for the Jesuits for 14 years and developed many friendships with Jesuits who worked in foreign as well as 3rd world countries. I have had foreign bishops visit my home with Jesuit friends. I also was a good friend of a top aid to president Kennedy and Johnson. We talked mostly on foreign affairs.
I do not boast of these things I only talk of what I know.

Then you should have no problem telling which countries they are. Hopefully you are not talking about the VAT-which is IMPOSED in **addition **to an income tax . That would be like saying all New Yorkers pay the same rate of tax becuase they all pay the same rate of sales tax.

I would not think there would be much to brag about if one was a foreign policy advisor to Kennedy and Johnson. I would think one would go out o their way not to mention it.

 

[Monk21]

Then you should have no problem telling which countries they are. Hopefully you are not talking about the VAT-which is IMPOSED in **addition **to an income tax . That would be like saying all New Yorkers pay the same rate of tax becuase they all pay the same rate of sales tax.

I would not think there would be much to brag about if one was a foreign policy advisor to Kennedy and Johnson. I would think one would go out o their way not to mention it.

Look it up on the net, if you want to know. Just type in “Countries with a flat tax system”
You are such a bundle of conservative joy.
We talked abt what went on, not what some people think went on.
How Americans went to Viet Nam on a lie by Johnson over the Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened. The lie confirmed by McNamara who talked abt it is his book. And you lost!
2million Viet Nam people killed and 56,000 Americans and a Canadian from my city.
Iraq another lie.
What wonderful leaders you have.
And would they help out in Rhunda. A Canadian general begged for help and the USA and the UN would not lift a finger. Another 800,000 people killed. And you worry abt socialized medicine.Some priorities.

 

[estesbob]

Look it up on the net, if you want to know. Just type in “Countries with a flat tax system”
.

I am not the one that made the claim. If what you said is true you shold be able to prove it, I suspect you are confusing flat tax with VAT. Thats a mistake that a lot of peoplemakeo-as CPA with clients who ar foreginers and/or have foreign entities its not a mistake i can make.

Standard anti-American rant duly noted.

 

[Monk21]

I am not the one that made the claim. If what you said is true you shold be able to prove it, I suspect you are confusing flat tax with VAT. Thats a mistake that a lot of peoplemakeo-as CPA with clients who ar foreginers and/or have foreign entities its not a mistake i can make.

Standard anti-American rant duly noted.

The reason it is standard rant is because it is true. But, like i said before you guys will argue any negative thing because you can’t say …gee I was wrong…a little humility needed here.
Look, if I have a question abt any subject I look it up…please try to take a little effort to do the same…if your computer crashes and you just can’t do it…I’ll help you out!!! I hate to see ignorance if it is because of lazyness or inability.

 

[estesbob]

The reason it is standard rant is because it is true. But, like i said before you guys will argue any negative thing because you can’t say …gee I was wrong…a little humility needed here.
Look, if I have a question abt any subject I look it up…please try to take a little effort to do the same…if your computer crashes and you just can’t do it…I’ll help you out!!! I hate to see ignorance if it is because of lazyness or inability.

I asume this means you cant back up your assertion that 20 European contries have a flat tax. You made the assertion-I said it wasnt true. We are waiting with bated breath for you to tell us these 20 countries where the billionaire pays the same tax rate as the pauper. Heck Ivee got some clients who would move in a minute i you can tell me where they are.

 

[Monk21]

I asume this means you cant back up your assertion that 20 European contries have a flat tax. You made the assertion-I said it wasnt true. We are waiting with bated breath for you to tell us these 20 countries where the billionaire pays the same tax rate as the pauper. Heck Ivee got some clients who would move in a minute i you can tell me where they are.

I take it you agreed with Bush…sad.
If you want to look up the countries go ahead. If you don’t, remain ignorant.
I notice with sadness that you never respond to my statements abt Viet Nam and other things I have mentioned. you just try to make points on things you can look up yourself.
Gee if these guys are clients, in all conscience you should be looking real hard for them.

 

[Monk21]

We are not being fair to the others who have had some good points and I am sure there is more for them to discuss.
You have just shown me why some Americans are uninformed.
Let’s let the others carry on.

 

[estesbob]

We are not being fair to the others who have had some good points and I am sure there is more for them to discuss.
You have just shown me why some Americans are uninformed.
Let’s let the others carry on.

I assume that means you can’t find 20 European countries with a flat tax, But then we knew that all along.

 

[angelic06]

I started reading this thread up until about page 4 of it, then stopped because it was starting to get hateful. However, regarding the eye of the needle comment somewhere about there, I understand this passage in the Bible to mean that the love of money and aquiring material goods for its own reason is an obstacle to holiness and consequently to attaining to everlasting life, NOT that there is some magical number that if you make over this you will condemned to hell. This is nonsense. For while some people will work simply for love of doing the Lord’s business, a fair recompense is needed to compensate workers for a fair day of work. Indeed, even if, perish the thought, we ignore Church bulls and other decrees for a second, is it not contrary to one’s sense of justice if those who work hard get fair pay, regardless if one is a garbage man or a CEO? Who would take the time to invest in starting a business, with the huge possibility that it might fail—that you will end up in filing for bankruptcy, if everyone got the same pay? Who would take the time to go to medical school, with years of earning nothing, only to find themselves in a risk for med-mal lawsuits, if they were going to get the same? Maybe a few of us, myself included, want to live like St. Moscati, donating as much services as possible to the poor. But I don’t expect (and I think it is unfair and un-Christian-like to expect) others to follow this lead, since medicine is expensive. And while were at it, don’t start this nonsense that if an individual can make good decisions for the benefit of the poor, the government most certainly can. And all that rubbish about socialism being everything owned in common—this is nonsense. To reiterate another’s post, everything is owned by the state. Comparing socialism to monasticism is nonsense—in monasticism, the individual, with the help of God, chooses to become part of a monastic community. In a socialist state, those who did not vote (if any) for this kind of state still have to give up whatever the state says for the sake of the state. In the Communist nations, you had to belong to the Communist party to have a say in anything, if anything my history books tells me is correct. Or they could all be plain wrong. With all the nonsense being written out there, I don’t take anyone’s word, on whatever side, to be law.

Now, enough of my rant. Back to the official topic at hand, which is Church teaching on the matter----and please, no more of the personal attacks or vitrol.

 

[Monk21]

I assume that means you can’t find 20 European countries with a flat tax, But then we knew that all along.

I found them…now you do it…afternoon.
Have a nice day

 

[anthony022071]

Define “woman’s rights”! Why should one attribute woman right’s to the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Why did a nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles (a common right wing meme) did not initially have the right to vote for woman? Why was it reserved only for white property owners? Woman’s suffrage was only a recent political innovation, and was not the productive of pervasive Christian influence.

Perhaps you know more about history than I do. Perhaps you have some unappreciated historical knowledge about the significant role that the Catholic Church supposedly played in pioneering woman’s suffrage in European and American political systems since you made a historical claim meaning that you assume the burden of supporting it with accepted historical knowledge.

Christian morality does not demand that anyone has a right to vote. The question of who has a right to vote is a legal matter for the culture or society to decide. American culture was initially English,very mercantile,and very patriarchal. There’s a connection between the ownership of property and social standing,rights and priveleges. Property owners naturally are considered more important and have a higher social status than those who don’t own property.