Posted on 08/30/2014 3:01:15 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Indeed he did, and it was a state based safety-net at that.
Personally, I believe the church + most organized religions to be better + more efficient at that role than the state in almost every case.
But there have been instances long past where the Catholic church in particular has sought to regulate private transactions. As a nation state - this does fly contrary to lassiez-faire beliefs.
Perhaps I misunderstood the context the author was using here as well. I think a few others on this thread did. Or maybe I need more coffee.
Because it teaches trust in a personal savior and self reliance in the economic realm?
You would be correct.
View all posts by Matthew Olson
http://catholicanalysis.org/author/matthewolson2/
A lot depends on the definition of things.
The “Church” as the body of Christ does not err, although individual Christians can and will.
The “Church” as an institution, including the Roman Catholic one, may certainly err. Both as individuals and as an institution.
The whole argument needs to be turned on its head.
Socialism is an atheistic *parody* of Christianity. If you rewrite the Bible, replacing “God” with “Man” at every instance, you have this parody in a nutshell. But socialism takes it further, by rewriting the Bible to replace the spiritual with the “natural and material”, as long as Man stays at the center of the universe, in charge.
Over time, some elements of this parody seem to have similar goals as does the church, for example, caring for the poor. But the *motivations* for doing so are entirely different. Socialists only care for the poor in exchange for their political support and embrace of socialism. The church cares for the poor to help their sustenance while they are spiritually enhanced and led in the direction of righteousness.
The failure of the church exists only in assuming that they have alliance with socialism for the same ends. For example, when some Catholic clergy embraced “Liberation Theology”, with the idea that socialism and even communism offered the poor better lives than the church could offer, this crossed the line.
Of late, the Pope offered commutation to those clergy who were removed for embracing political roles, which was interpreted by the leftist media that he was restoring “liberation theology” as a legitimate act. Fortunately this was yet another misinterpretation on their part.
Yet the temptation to embrace socialism remains in many clergy, though it is still as intolerable as any other grave heterodoxy or heresy.
Thanks for the clarification. Jesus, who once said “let your aye be aye and your nay be nay,” also spoke in parables and employed exaggeration and sarcasm. So, I don’t begrudge your mocking. But, when you use another person’s mocking (Mises) to make a point of your own, there is the possibility of miscommunication.
With regard to Mises, having met him during the 1960s, it was my impression that he was an embittered and defeated man who took a kind of refuge in insisting on his own correctness. Judging from his early work, it seems that he had been a more engaging fellow. His later demeanor might be understandable given that he came this far from being taken by the Nazis and was holed up in Switzerland through the course of WWII, and only secured a university position in the US after the war by reason of the benefaction of some generous admirers (as opposed to securing a university position by reason of his work). Having said this, his didactic and sometimes polemical style had a certain persuasiveness, and at an advanced age he wrote a major work (The Theory of Human Action) and influenced many students who went on to prominence.
Do you know how many of the original founders were Catholic? Only one.
Is what is written, therefore, more truthful that you might want to admit?
The USCCB has made mistakes. They aren’t the Pope. And the Pope speaks only without error when he speaks ex cathedra. (from the chair.)
Thank you for your post.
If I might add to what you say, the encyclicals of the 19th century castigating both liberalism and socialism might be viewed as castigating the assertion that reason alone is capable of knowing the truth. That we do not require the spark of truth available through special revelation.
To be sure, this was not a fair reading of all liberals, since many liberals were both Christian and liberal. The church has always had liberal thinkers, most obviously Aquinas, a doctor of the church, but also Erasmus, an acknowledged Christian Humanist, and of course John Paul the Great.
As for the non-liberal thinkers in the church, to include the current pope, who insist that all we need is good intentions, they deny man’s fallen nature. We are not only too evil to be trusted with unlimited power, we are also too ignorant. Socialism, says Hayek, is the pretense of knowledge. It is not merely a violation of the commandment against theft, it is a violation of the commandment against putting anything ahead of God. It is blasphemy. To say that the church is apostolic, or that the Holy Spirit is with the church, is not to say that Christian leaders can act like they are divine. It is merely to say that they should not persist in error. Democracy is not justified because the majority is right. It is justified because majorities change.
It’s also important to note that both are independent of the tyrannical state.
Thanks for the pings, bamahead.
For example, citing your own writings as support for your own opinions is not consistent with scholarly argument, unless you are citing to an earlier publication of facts, as sometimes happens when scientific researchers cite earlier research results.
In addition, you misrepresent the actual opinions of some of the authors you cite. For example, you write that "[Rothbard] considered Catholic thought on the subject, overall, to be superior to ideas based in the supposed Protestant work ethic, and characterize that as "a huge admission..." But Rothbard was writing about the history of economics, and referring to the contributions of Catholic intellectuals that also shaped modern economic thought. One of his conclusions, for example, was that "capitalism began in the Catholic Italian cities of the 14th century"
You attempt to use Rothbard's writings to suggest an endorsement of the church's teachings, but the actual text of the cited works doesn't support your opinion as you have expressed it.
It is also important to realize the difference between writings exploring the theory of libertarianism, or economic philosophy, and writings exploring morality, society, and spirituality.
As can be seen in the real world, spiritual and moral ideas are often mixed in with political theories and movements, often to ill effect, and occasionally to good effect. Understanding that process, and how to influence it is a worthy area of study.
The Roman Catholic Church always viewed themselves as creating a nation church on earth to which all nations would be subservient. Thomas More’s Utopia is about such an idea society. That is historical fact. The Reformation was fueled, in part, by some nations rejecting paying tribute to the Roman Catholics and falling under the rule of the “Holy See”.
But, nice try.
“Libertopians - anarchist who hate taxes”
And I add (cut and pasted from other FReeper posts)
More and more rinos realize that they arent liberal on social issues, instead they are libertarian on social issues. Libertarianism is a way to use a new vocabulary and new arguments to promote liberalism, for instance notice how many libbers try to tell us that this country was founded, not by social conservatives, but instead by libertarians.
What libertarians say is geared to fit the audience. To a Christian audience, they try to sound like Christian conservatives. To a liberal audience they do the opposite and concentrate on social libertarianism.
Interesting how you use your own writings as a reference. That’s quite a research technique.
You must have missed references (links) to John Paul II at the Vatican website, wiki, and others.
Putting everything into one basket doesn’t seem to work here.
This is one of his references.
http://catholicanalysis.org/2014/08/03/protestantism-disables-people/
I shouldn't be amazed (but I am) that Catholics would come onto a conservative website and pitch liberal and statist ideas. It's part-and-parcel of Catholicism:
Market Economy and Ethics By Cardinal Ratzinger(Pope Benedict XVI) 1985
Encycli-bites for reading Caritas in veritate
Pope says rich nations "plundered" Third World
Is Obama Thinking Like a Catholic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.