My point basically is... that if you believe biblical scripture to be true, then there are only two political extrapolations that would involve consistent interpretation of scripture:
1. Christian Social Democrat: Essentially similar to the Christian political movements in Europe that support the idea of government welfare programs, free healthcare for the poor, free food for the needy, free housing.... etc while also committed to Socially Conservative values. Essentially, imagine a Socialist but with socially conservative policies.










 

 
well said

The Socialist Pope doesn't like our Declaration of Independence.    Shocking ........  

I think the Catholic theory is that it should start at home.  Economics should start at home, Charity should start at home, Government should start at home, and even faith should start at home.  Each works best when closest to the individual.  Higher levels should only be used when lower levels are not effective.





A person can build a house - but not maintain a road system.  A person can give to charity, but it is much harder to feed all the hungry.  A person can be moral, but still need the protection of a court system.  A person should have a personal relationship with Jesus, but still help interpreting scripture.

---

Our constitution is not being followed and is being violated daily by those sworn to uphold it.  It might not be outdated - but right now it is not functioning as intended.

So all is well, all is normal doctrine.
So there are no Marxist Revolutionaries in the Catholic church? Especially in Latin America?
All those that appear to be are 'misunderstood' because we are 'Catholic Haters' or have not been taught correctly...
Tell us now Marxists who have infiltrated every organization in the World have not bothered to infiltrate the most important Christian organization in the World.
Will you also tell us that there are no Marxists in the US University system.
Will you also tell us there are no Marxists in the US labor unions.
Will you tell me that that there are no Marxists in the US Democratic Party today?
There are no Leftists in the US main stream media????
Tell me what you know of Barack Obama, his upbringing and who he was mentored by and who he hung with in his adult life.;..
This is not about Catholic Hate.
This is about the truth.
Yes unfortunately Catholic hate exists. Hate against any organization exists. Jews, Cops, Conservatives, America, Women, Gays, everyone. Deal with it.
But you cannot see any infallibility in your organization, thus you call ignorance or hate.
If you were Black you would be a member of BLM.
If you were a woman you would be a radical feminist, seeing a War on Women everywhere.
THIS Pope and his advisors are Marxists. That's just a fact. And you defend them with phony crap...
They do not care about Catholicism - they use it as a cloak to advance a more important agenda. They care about 'the cause'.
That 'cause' (radical socialism) will be our downfall.
And you cannot see that. This is not about the Church. This is about the people who are taking it over-just as the democratic party has been taken over and the universities etc..
Get real Dude.

Luckily, ass raping little boys is stil in vogue...

I'm not Catholic so this guy's ramblings mean nothing to me.

But, I will say that the Vatican has  sadly become nothing more than an international banking conglomerate hidden under the cloak of religion.
Your Pope is more worried about hitching a ride on the Global Warming gravytrain than about Christians being slaughtered in the Middle East.

Priorities, folks.

The fucking pope is obsolete.

A theocracy criticizing us for our freedoms?  They can fuck right off.

QFT x 10

I will have to say this about the Catholic church...





It actually *IS* consistent with scripture as far as the paradigm which I previously lined out. They would fall within the more "Communitarian" interpretation of scripture. The Catholic church, however, hasn't traditionally supported the concept of Socialism... per se. The Catholic church typically argues more in favor of Distributism.





Distributism sounds like Socialism, but it isn't. Distributism is basically the concept that the vast majority of workers, should be in someway ... self employed. Distributists would argue that most workers should be "owner/operators". That we should return to an era of the Family owned business. That big businesses should be decentralized, and where necessary, broken up into individual departments where employees own a stake in the business... or own specific offices/warehouses/factories or even pieces of equipment. The reason behind this, is that they think that everyone should be directly benefiting from the fruits of their own labor... and likewise, face the responsibility that it entails. So the Distributist would also support the concept of the co-op.





The distributist would tend to favor a guild system of electricians... all owning their own workvan/truck, equipment, etc, and working cooperatively with businessmen (rather than adversarial as with unions) to come to mutually beneficial arrangements.





Distributists tend to disagree with the concept of Commercial banking, instead arguing more in favor of non-profit Credit Unions.


Distributists also tend to be against welfare, as it tends to separate man, from work. Even in cases where people are incapable of working... if they are given charity, or even government funding... they are still expected to provide some value to society at large. An elderly person, too weak to work,... can take on the role of a teacher, or mentor.





Distributists tend to argue that the current nature of employer/employee relations... often disconnects people from their labor. Typically, they are paid hourly... and their performance may only influence their rewards very marginally (unless they are paid via commission). This creates a situation where lazy employees can prosper as much as the hard working employees simply by staying under the radar. However, in a distributist system... the harder you work, the more profit you make.... or even the earlier you get to go home after your work is done.





To quote GK Chesterton, "The problem with capitalism, is that there are too few capitalists".





It is often seen as a "third way", because they don't believe that the means of production should only be owned by the State... (Communism) nor do they believe it should be owned by a handful of rich businessmen (Capitalism). Rather, they wish to see a world whereby everyone owns the means of some production... and is able to compete in the free market as a self employed individual.





I must admit, that I do find the idea romantic.... even ideal. However, while I may see distributism as an ideal... I do not hold that attempts by government to enforce such an ideal... would necessarily do good. Instead, I would rather favor social pressure and taking advantage of technological advancements that might lead to the decentralization of the means of production and wealth in general.
 

The problem is the Church supports distributions - the Church is made of people.  Pope Francis has routinely spoke on distributism - but there are plenty of American Catholic Priests that appear to be socialists.  



When did the current crop of Priest go to seminary?  Many went in the 70's (having grown up in the 60's).  They represent the most liberal age of America.  Homosexuals were still suppressed in the public, so were socialists - but they hardly had to hide in seminaries.  They became outspoken, and to a large extent still are.  But they are also a dying breed of priests.  Priests today are not joining for the benefits - they are joining because they believe.

Is the Pope getting Muslims on board with this.?

Should be a slam dunk.

Progress.

In the words of the Virgin Mary.   Come again?

Are there actually still people who care what the Vatican says?

Sorry, I missed your post.  Did you also outline how the Catholic church wrote the scriptures?  

What economic rules does a right wing Christian not want enforced?

Google:

Document of Discovery

and

Requerimiento


Born catholic
but
non-catholic by choice

The Catholic Church did not write scripture. It however decide on the proper Cannon.

In the 16th century....

FYI, Papal infallibility became Catholic dogma in 1870.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

Crawl back into your hole.

Given Pope Francis' even more extreme statements than Jeffery Sachs, I have no problem seeing that Sachs is just another person promulgating Church positions in a mainstream Catholic magazine.

Interesting that distributists were against social security...  They were also not too picky about politics up to and including anarchy.

Yeah.... As a disappointed Catholic I'll say this.

When the church gets a handle on priests screwing little boy I MIGHT give a shit what it thinks.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Not so much that they aren't "picky", rather than people of different political ideologies have latched onto the idea.

 

Do you think Obama could be a distributist?

But that's not the same, by any means, as leaving your neighbour alone.  Sometimes doing so is the less neighbourly and less virtuous act.  Liberty, as I said, is just a means to an end.  Just as God gave man the capacity for free will, so man should have it in the political domain, within reason (the line being drawn at what is good or bad for the Commonweal), so as to be able to choose between right and wrong.  Liberty provides the space for virtuous action; ultimately, man's highest end is to seek his good, in an objective sense (i.e. in accordance with transcendent principles), with the ultimate good being what a man receives in the hereafter.  But there are necessarily still limits to what a man should be free to do, and ways in which the state needs to act, to limit the effect of those who choose to do sufficient evil and to foster a climate in which virtue can flourish, which is not one of absolute freedom (which is not what liberty entails, anyways; it is a more limited idea than freedom; there is an implication of order, of limits).

Note that you're the only one in this conversation saying that.

Those things don't equate to charity and justice in the Catholic tradition.

Communitarian is not the same as collectivist.  Not even close.  Communitarianism is a the recognition that we live in families, communities, and societies and that while every person has value and has rights, and every person has their own unique destiny that should not be denied to them, there is a need to ensure that the community as a whole is not harmed by an individuals wrongful actions, and that the community's interests at large need to be taken into account, as the community provides those things which allow man to flourish to a greater extent than he can by his lonesome.  It is the idea that community and not anomie constitutes the basis for the proper human experience and is best not just for people at large, but also for the individual.  Communitarianism does not in any way deny the existence of the individual person the way collectivism does.  It does not degrade man and reduce the individual to a mere unit, to be disposed of at will in the name of the collectivity.  Communitarianism is certainly in keeping with Christian doctrine; neither atomistic individualism or collectivism are in keeping with Christian doctrine.

Furthermore, "right wing fascist" is an oxymoron.  Fascism is just a statist (as opposed to internationalist) form of socialism with certain traits which derive directly from the Italian experience and which make it a unique and rarely replicated ideology (various forms of national socialism are far more common, and no, national socialism is not the same as fascism).  Nothing about fascism, socialism, etc. is in keeping with Christian doctrine, either.  Forced redistribution of wealth is certainly not in keeping with Christian doctrine, so claiming that the Right chooses to ignore that part of the Bible is just silly, as that is not contained therein.

It should be noted that not all libertarians are the same.  Not all are libertines or deny limits to behaviour as readily as others.  Not all have the same basis for the belief in liberty (classical liberalism is but one set of ideas that can underlie those of a libertarian; it is hardly the only form of liberalism).  Whatever the libertarian position, the fact of the matter is that some forms of behaviour, while lacking in a specific, directly targeted victim do have an effect on state and society that results in harm to the persons that constitute it.  When the state chooses to do things like recognize evil as good, and good as evil, as it has been wont to do these days (the "gay marriage" issue is but one example; abortion is yet another, although there are direct victims there), it also has an adverse effect on society and thus on the people which constitute the same.  There is a need for virtue and order to be elements of society and the state's role here is to do no harm; to allow some things can result in harm, so sometimes it is best for the state to act.  This does not mean that there should be a state without limits, but rather, that there is a limited role for the state in the government of society above and beyond simply keeping people from directly harming one another.  There are other things that a good society requires, and the state is one of the various elements that in combination provide them.  It is nevertheless a dangerous instrument, which needs to be kept in check, lest it exceed its bounds, and that can be a fragile balance.  So long as virtue reigns in the greater part of society, the threat is minimized.  When that ceases to be, the state often ceases to be an instrument favouring virtue and becomes a very dangerous thing that must be stopped and restrained anew.  This danger is magnified in democratic government, hence the Vatican historically not favouring democracy and mass rule (Pope Pius XII, for example, spoke out against those things).

The principle of subsidiarity, which serves as the basis for federalism.

+87

Lol

We can renew our vows any time if they think our commitment is weakening.

Hard to control a population if they follow a country which (ideally) places an emphasis on individual freedom. Not sure why this is surprising.

Articles of faith involve that what you have to profess to call yourself Catholic. They are not a list of sins to avoid.  Kinda apples and kumquats comparison.

More like The Vatican't.

We have more "justice and charity" than the rest of the world combined.
This is due to our core beliefs that are enumerated in our  nation's founding documents.

Fuck the Vatican and all the pee pee touchers they have protected over the centuries.

He did have 95 problems. He was severely deranged and mentally ill. Read his writings, personal letters, and the writings of many of his own peers and "friends" around him who noted his illness.

Which is why they support open borders.  If Americans are not becoming priests, giving big donations, filling the pews, and staying quiet when pedo priests molest their kids, then bring in Mexicans and Filipinos who will.

Don't hate the player.  Hate the game.

Thank goodness we had the Protestant Reformation

this , so much this .

So I will now place my flame proof suit on and say this:  

I am ordained Catholic clergy and I am an administrator and teach at a Catholic Seminary.  

Can someone please tell me what Frances has said that doctrinally disagrees with either St. John Paul the Great or Benedict XVI?  Also, as I read Sachs< I do not see that there is anything that cuts down our Declaration of Independence.  The D of I states political truth.  Sachs says that true happiness does not come from simply defending rights.  I would agree.  True happiness comes from doing the will of God.  As we learn from the life of Christ and the lives of many of the Saints, totla loss of freedom does not keep one from the happiness that comes from doing God's will.

It's Happenning

This isn't reality. It is pseudo-intellectual BS on a grand scale.

P

On one hand, you have Catholic teaching related to economics that I have posted in this thread, going back to the 1890s. on the other hand, you have lies and slander as people attribute quotes that were not said to people who are not who people say they are.

In my reality, if one is to argue with Catholic teaching, one should start with an understanding of that teaching, In yours, it seems OK to just make shit up.

I think I'll stick to my reality, regardless of how you choose to characterize it.

 
That wasn't my question, nor did I mention any sins to avoid.


You used the word belief, and so did I.  


It seems counterintuitive to claim to be a Catholic and not accept Papal infallibility.  Some might say that conflicts with #9.   If you don't believe what the Catholic Church believes, how can you be a Catholic?


I'm not talking minor stuff like fish on Fridays, but core beliefs like the Papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary, etc ...  basically the things the Pope has spoken from the the chair about.    

I thought this might have been right wing news site's sensationalism.  I was wrong.  I read the actual article and it was fucking strange.