Posted on 03/24/2010 9:36:01 AM PDT by parkerj
Social justice is best pursued through fidelity to the Constitution of the United States, which was written by brilliant men who designed it as a restraint on government and a guarantee of individual liberty and responsibility.
The Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on virtue, and before it again pursues 'social justice' and 'change' at the expense of our institutions and traditions, it would be wise for it to remember that the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefinancialskinny.com ...
4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
6. What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self-direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self-preservation, the other the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for they are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind, or reason, which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a human being human, and distinguishes him essentially from the brute. And on this very account -- that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason -- it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.
7. This becomes still more clearly evident if man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.
8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.
Duh? The USCCB did buck the EO approach.
They bucked it with words, but clearly did not put Stupak under pain of excommunication to walk away from it.
They kept silent in the pulpits for weeks and months, only to register some lame token opposition as the vote was about to take place.
They secretly met with the Obama Administration to see if they could thread the needle on having their cake and eating it too.
Glad you see it that way.
I’m not a Catholic, but I do see many Catholics take offense at any report where the Catholic Church has failed to respond to a critical issue like Stupak.
So the Catholic Church tried to implement health care reform in the U.S.?
Wow, I guess that gets Obama, the Democrats, and the American voters who elected them off the hook.
It sure doesn't take long before the anti-Catholic reflexes of the right rear up to match those of the left, does it?
Fact: The Catholic bishops opposed the law that was finally passed. Publicly. Repeatedly.
Fact: Judas Stupak today basically said that his vote was none of the Church's business.
Fact: Plenty of Catholics -- elected and not, ordained and not -- opposed this bill. Just as one example: John Boehner, who gave that heroic speech against the bill in the well of the house, is a Roman Catholic. You would never, ever know it from the garbage we read on this site.
Do all of you know what a "scapegoat" is?
Kind of hard to get a cake through the eye of a needle.
Shalom to you too.
It will be for a thousand years ( the seventh millennium ) the day of rest. Then forever. It all in His Word. We are in the year 6010.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
That's because it is, all the way from the "Whore of Babylon" garbage to the "Constantine founded the Roman institution" garbage to the "Catholics foisted this health care stuff off on the rest of us".
Bart Stupak calls himself a Roman Catholic.
So does John Boehner.
I rest my case.
Quite interesting the number of Catholics who wade into a thread like this and treat it as a blanket bash of their church.
Tell ya a little secret about Catholics. A whole lot of us will admit in a private moment that one of our most revered figures from all of history is Martin Luther.
That’s because we KNOW firsthand how wrong and misguided our Church leadership can be. We KNOW what political animals a lot of them are. We KNOW how arrogant many of them are. That is not to say we do not respect our leadership, nor that there aren’t a lot of wonderful, oustanding Bishops and Priests. But all organizations run by men are fallible, including the Catholic Church. Being steeped in their Infallibilty Doctrine, they will generally not admit this. That is why someone like Luther, who had the courage of his convictions and followed his conscience on some things that, in hindsight, were very clearly wrong...is admired.
The Church gave a tacit admission of this years ago, when it suddenly became okay to play Away in a Manger in a Catholic Church at Christmas.
You are just another exhibit in the thin skinned Catholic gallery, bub....
It is true, however, that the Church has been pushing for universal healthcare and that the majority of Catholics voted for Obama as a means to achieve “social justice”.
In so doing, they inadvertently made a pact with someone who in reality does not share their views about the sanctity of life.
cretin
cretin
cretin
Are you referring to your mother?
"In fairness, 50 Catholic bishops urged Catholics not to vote for Obama, and Catholics who attend mass every week voted for McCain 55%-43%."
You broad brushers need to stick it in your dirt chute.
Well, according to several Catholics with whom I've debated on Free Republic, it's a mistranslation in the King James Bible, that was picked up from Tyndale, lol.
The so-called “Holy Mother Church” has spent centuries enslaving and oppressing the poor-but-faithful masses that were intentionally kept from scripture and enlightenment in order for church leaders to maintain power.
Not much has changed, except that today Catholics have scripture at their fingertips and have little excuse for ignoring the abuses of power and fabricated rules that pharisaical church heirarchy use to keep them spiritually enslaved.
The final straw, for me, was watching a peasant man crawling on bloody knees to offer his last dime at the new Our Lady of Guadalupe basilica in Mexico City in 1978.
We visited the new church and saw the painting enshrined above the altar there. I commented to the guide about how bright the colors were, and she told me they paint the image to keep it looking good.
Seriously. What a load of ....
Idolatry, pure and simple.
Complain to the proprietor about the duplicates. I posted only once and yes, MrB is indeed a cretin and you are too if you agree with him/her/it.
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.