Posted on 05/23/2009 9:10:25 PM PDT by Quix
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
That’s kinda what I think UFO’s are.
AMEN, JesusBmyGod. We do have to be aware of deception.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I am just beginning to imagine how great the great deception might be!
Good.
That’s the purpose of this thread . . . fostering that kind of prayerful insight.
Blessed Be The Name of The Lord.
Given your unmitigated and uncalled for assault,
I won’t bother with responding to the rest of your post.
There is ample evidence that globalism has growing Vatican support in one way or another.
Words are less important than deeds in such matters.
G’Day.
The general principle is: It's not the light's fault that the devil disguises himself as an angel of light. Further, the devil's doing so does not mean we should embrace darkness.
Most of my comments are like what I wrote about humanism. It's not humanism's fault that atheists and secularists try to wrench a system of thought out of its base of Divinely bestowed human dignity. THEY try to build dignity on its self, as though they were trying to use an attic as a foundation. We, by contrast, think that without God's initial act and his redemption man is a corrupt horror. As "lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds," so fallen man and his corrupted dignity are dreadful and vile.
That's to set the tone and style of my disagreement. And here's a bit of pedantry. I think one can plausibly contend that by the time of our Lord's ministry, it was widely thought in Jewish circles that money given to the poor was, kinda sorta like, money lent to God. Jesus says to the rich young man, sell all you have, give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me.
But back to vocabulary and context. Populorum Progressio is not written in a vacuum. From Rerum Novarum to Centessimus Annus popes are clear and firm in their repudiation of socialism. One of the reasons the so-called "Liberation Theology" can be clearly seen by an obedient Catholic to be wrong is precisely that it accentuates those texts which might suggest socialism while eliminating those which repudiate it.
In other news:
Of course, the phrase "the signs of the times" is used by our Lord, and while it vibrates with eschatological overtones, it is not, to us feelthy papists, restricted to "end times" in its meaning and use.
We had "global" before the baddies started using and abusing it. It's implicit in "catholic".
During WWII there was a soldier in our army whose name was Adolf Hitler. When asked if he'd thought of changing his name, he said, "Let him change his name!" That's the way I want to respond. That media and academic cultures largely ignore, except to disparage, Catholic discourse is no reason for us to change our vocabulary every five minutes. Those who want to imagine us as tangled in nefarious and intricate schemes of wold domination would only take our changing lingo as a sign of deviousness.
So. Everyone with more than enough has a duty to consider his neighbor. And certainly one aspect of the parable of the good Samaritan is that we are to MAKE neighbors by showing mercy. This appears to be Divine Law.
To some extent governments instituted by men have a proper role in penalizing excessive stinginess and in encouraging the showing of mercy. (In living memory there was no limit on the amount of charitable giving one could deduct from income before computing tax! Now there is a limit because the government is busily imitating Nebuchadnezzar.)
Further, it is not only Divine Law but raw political observation that if I have a fruitful orchard, be its walls never so high, and all around me is famine, I cannot as a Christian claim absolute title to the fruit; AND, no doubt, I would not be able to enforce such title if I had it.
A benefit of a classical edumication is one tends to take a longer view. To me, the 18th century is "recent" even "modern". And with that view, it was all too recent that some scoundrel capitalists thought nothing of paying laborers less than what would keep them alive, because there was a surplus of laborers. That memory leads to talk about the need for some mechanisms of oversight. All government is the wrath of God on human sinfulness. "Minimum Wage" laws and abusive trade unions are the wrath of God on miserly capitalists. They are no more virtuous than the Assyrians and the Babylonians, but they are what God raises up to punish the sinfulness of his people.
Once you have governments, you will have abuses. I don't think Paul VI or any other pope was or is so naive as to think otherwise.
So the pope communicated with UNESCO. So what? While we probably won't convert 'em by talking to 'em, we certainly won't convert them if we don't talk to them. If UNESCO has some money which is supposedly to be used for education, I'd expect someone from the Vatican to be making suggestions about where and how to spend it. We didn't endorse the pagan Clovis of the Franks, we converted him. And that involved being cordial.
So, in general, I think you are attributing to us More confidence in secular government, whether national or international, than we have. I don't think Paul VI, who took so much abuse for Humanae Vitae, can by any stretch of the imagination be seen to be skating on the edge of his own orthodoxy in the words on population. And it is true that while general "overpopulation" is not the problem the doomsayers think it to be, there are a LOT of families a round the world which would do well to use reason before they have sexual intercourse. We do not agree with the "quiverful" teaching. There is a role for family planning, but as Paul clearly says in the passage you quote, marriage and procreation are inalienable rights. (more follows.)
Here's the next installment:
Quix commentary continued.
51. A further step must be taken. When We were at Bombay for the Eucharistic Congress, We asked world leaders to set aside part of their military expenditures for a world fund to relieve the needs of impoverished peoples. (55) What is true for the immediate war against poverty is also true for the work of national development. Only a concerted effort on the part of all nations, embodied in and carried out by this world fund, will stop these senseless rivalries and promote fruitful, friendly dialogue between nations.
Again, an admirable goal. I don’t recall the nations rushing to comply.
And, actually, the globalists don’t really care about the ‘useless, unwashed, impoverished eaters.’ The globalists are gearing up militarily etc. to DESTROY masses of such peoples and even whole people groups. Their boss satan is all about death and destruction and cruelty.
However, in order to worm their way into every conceivable international angle and advantage toward increasing data collection, control and influence, they are certainly gifted at APPEARING as all magnanimous and humanitarian. I can imagine some globalist spokespersons graciously applauding the Pope’s points above.
“But such agreements would be free of all suspicion if they were integrated into an overall policy of worldwide collaboration.”
HERE WE GO AGAIN: “worldwide collaboration.” Sounds like a formal set-up. Sounds like global government. Sounds like OThuga and Shrillery.
Plenty truth to the problems described.
However, the oligarchy has long had the power to remove, prevent such problems—and has CHOSEN not to. The prescription described, however, fits the oligarchy’s !!!!CONTROL!!!! plans precisely. It just conveniently leaves out the massive forced DEPOPULATION planned, scheduled.
54. All nations must initiate the dialogue which We called for in Our first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam. (56) A dialogue between those who contribute aid and those who receive it will permit a well-balanced assessment of the support to be provided, taking into consideration not only the generosity and the available wealth of the donor nations, but also the real needs of the receiving countries and the use to which the financial assistance can be put. Developing countries will thus no longer risk being overwhelmed by debts whose repayment swallows up the greater part of their gains. Rates of interest and time for repayment of the loan could be so arranged as not to be too great a burden on either party, taking into account free gifts, interest-free or low-interest loans, and the time needed for liquidating the debts.
Sounds quite reasonable. It’s what happens with the globalist implementation of such schemes that matters.
AHHHHH but the globalists NEVER do anything without extensive strings attached . . . it is THEIR WAY to not only meddle in the affairs of others but to CONSUME THEM TOTALLY—TO TAKE !!!!CONTROL!!!! Trying to get them to behave otherwise is futile. Seems a bit odd the Pope wouldn’t have known that even back then. The globalists had been at it AT LEAST 67 years by then.
55. This task might seem impossible in those regions where the daily struggle for subsistence absorbs the attention of the family, where people are at a loss to find work that might improve their lot during their remaining days on earth. These people must be given every possible help; they must be encouraged to take steps for their own betterment and to seek out the means that will enable them to do so. This common task undoubtedly calls for concerted, continuing and courageous effort. But let there be no doubt about it, it is an urgent task. The very life of needy nations, civil peace in the developing countries, and world peace itself are at stake.
Certainly so. Though, again, the globalists do not care about the suffering. They have long been planning greater and more devastating suffering, exterminations.
56. Efforts are being made to help the developing nations financially and technologically. Some of these efforts are considerable. Yet all these efforts will prove to be vain and useless, if their results are nullified to a large extent by the unstable trade relations between rich and poor nations. The latter will have no grounds for hope or trust if they fear that what is being given them with one hand is being taken away with the other.
Certainly that alone is a serious concern. However, it’s not just the ‘taking away’ of goods or monies . . . it’s the wholesale !!!!CONTROL!!!! stuff that the globalists insist on and are artists at forcing on one and all.
And, frankly, the continuing cruel poverty that they have perpetuated so effectively for so many decades--when they had the means of removing it—is most hideous.
57. Highly industrialized nations export their own manufactured products, for the most part. Less developed nations, on the other hand, have nothing to sell but raw materials and agricultural crops. As a result of technical progress, the price of manufactured products is rising rapidly and they find a ready market. But the basic crops and raw materials produced by the less developed countries are subject to sudden and wide-ranging shifts in market price; they do not share in the growing market value of industrial products.
Quite so. And market fluctuations and pricing problems somehow seem to never get resolved very charitably. Greed seems to reign supreme. Yet the globalists are supposed to be HUMANITARIAN? Barf.
YUP. The globalists are artists at maintaining and worsening that status quo. Greed is one of their high priorities.
58. It is evident that the principle of free trade, by itself, is no longer adequate for regulating international agreements. It certainly can work when both parties are about equal economically; in such cases it stimulates progress and rewards effort. That is why industrially developed nations see an element of justice in this principle.
Seems to me this is another nod toward support of the globalist’s plans for a very controlled world economy.
Here, “liberal” is the opposite of what’s now under that label. Liberals now are thorough-going globalists quite openly. And they have absolutely no intention of FREE anything—least of all market exchanges.
59. The teaching set forth by Our predecessor Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum is still valid today: when two parties are in very unequal positions, their mutual consent alone does not guarantee a fair contract; the rule of free consent remains subservient to the demands of the natural law. (57) In Rerum Novarum this principle was set down with regard to a just wage for the individual worker; but it should be applied with equal force to contracts made between nations: trade relations can no longer be based solely on the principle of free, unchecked competition, for it very often creates an economic dictatorship. Free trade can be called just only when it conforms to the demands of social justice.
Ahhhhh . . . ‘unchecked competition’ is now evil even in the Pope’s eyes. Globalism’s aims to marry a bastardized form of capitalism with a bastardized form of Communism rears its head again.
I wanted to remind you of the story of the toddler in the street and to use it to present the two principles (as I see it) of Catholic Social Doctrine, to wit: "solidarity" and "subsidiarity."
My mother used to joke, "What has posterity ever done for ME?" And one might say that neither the toddler in the street nor his parents have any claim on me. I daresay we all think there's something horribly wrong about that attitude.
WE say that just because the toddler is human, he has SOME claim on me. (But then, we say mercy is the perfection of justice; we say a lot of stuff.) Indeed he has some claim on the community.
The FIRST claim the kid has is on his parents. They should have provided care for the child which included keeping him out of the street. That is "subsidiarity." The, so to speak, "lowest" unit in the social pyramid, the unit "closest" to the child, is normally able and therefore normally responsible to protect the child. That "unit" failed, so the job if "giving the child what is due to him," namely protection, bumps up to the surrounding community, as represented by your humble servant. Since I was capable of protecting the kid, it would have been wrong for me to bump it up by calling 911. And, as is often the case, bumping it up to a needlessly higher level would mean the care would not have been as good.
I mean, I did not know the child. I could not respond to him individually, by saying something like, "That was a BAD thing to do," or "You're safe now," words which a parent would be better positioned to say.
The Police would probably have been even worse. If they got there in time before the kid was run down or kidnapped, they would have taken the kid to the station and involved social services, and there would have been a huge, upsetting, worrying, and expensive kerfuffle.
So, back to the orchard. If I, having food a-plenty, will not address the hunger of my starving neighbor, and if the community won't, then the government at one level or another will. And it won't be pretty, and it won't be well done. It'll be marginally better than having children drop dead of hunger at my doorstep.
None of this (at least none of which I am aware) addresses the problem of poverty pimps and those who make their living lying about hunger and homelessness so that those of us who can't or won't deal with things head on will pay them to take the problem off our hands.
But the average encyclical is pretty darn long anyway. Even a pope can't say it all or all at once ....
In any event, when a studious, or at least informed, and obedient Catholic reads Populorum Progressio he's reading with other encyclicals and with subsidiarity and solidarity in mind, and so is not so likely to fall into globalism, secular humanism or socialism as he might appear to be.
Okay. I'm tired.
Than you go on to try and take a snippet out of an encyclical and try and relate it, you have no idea what you're saying.
From Pope Leo XIII
Libertas
If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.
15. What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
OF COURSE! How could you think I’d ought but agree wholeheartedly?
OF COURSE. Wholeheartedly agree again.
QUITE SO. Wholehearted agreement, yet again. There is also a verse that explicitly says that those who give to the poor lend to God.
I hope you’re accurate about that. It’s beginning to appear a bit like muddy water on that score, to me. Oh, I know . . . only the encyclicals etc. etc. etc. However, the Vatican has a host of ways of speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It’s doing so right now in terms of Communion for the likes of Scuba Teddy et al. I hope I end up agreeing with you on this score. It appears that I won’t. I’m seriously letting the evidence lead me on that issue.
Of course, the phrase "the signs of the times" is used by our Lord, and while it vibrates with eschatological overtones, it is not, to us feelthy papists, restricted to "end times" in its meaning and use.
In the context of Christ’s assertion, it seems to me that HE meant it to apply to the END TIMES. Certainly in Pentecostal etc. vocabulary, it does.
I UNDERSTAND that y’all certainly construe yourselves as having had a long standing monopoly on the term. I certainly agree that the globalists have usurped a formerly decent term and thrown it to a cell in hell.
That’s a valid point . . . to a point. WHEN the Vatican takes on phrases, projects, plans, schemes which are more or less lock-step in concert with the evil globalists—that is NOT a minor thing. White-washing such realities will NOT do. It will not do before God and it will not do before the thoughtful and prayerful faithful TO GOD.
AGAIN, I wholesale and wholeheartedly agree.
Not sure how much I agree with the above. In principle it would be easy to agree. In application, it has tended to turn out bad virtually every time . . . though certainly much good has also been done thereby. Guess I’d call it a mixed bag.
I still think that HAD all those CALLING THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS ACTED LIKE CHRISTIANS, the government wouldn’t have had any occasion nor success to pretend to be charitable.
NO argument there either.
FAR TOO TRUE.
I assume you are accurate about that.
Isolated, I wouldn’t think that much about it and would more simply agree with you. When it begins to appear as a pattern of cooperation toward more than the white-washed aspects . . . it is worth being concerned about.
Good on him for that, then.
The Adamski video is troubling regarding two Popes reportedly on board with the ET’s as wonderful critters of helpful value to man. The quote that got me involved with this encyclical is also quite troublesome on the same score with Paul VI.
From where I sit—the evidence mounts that the Vatican is agreeing with the globalist oligarchy that the ET’s are wonderful, beneficial, pseudo-saviors of mankind in some sense.
THERE’S NO way to construe that other than as evil. Do you disagree with that assertion—ASSUMING the evidence is true?
Not sure when I’ll get to this one.
Thanks much.
BTW, your assaultive co-horts who demonstrate 0.00000000% understanding and/or comprehension of my statements, heart and attitude need not expect any reply from me. They deserve none. If they are your best examples of Roman Catholicism, then you are in more of a world of hurt than even I thought.
Ahhhhh . . . yes. Quite so. And . . .
Therefore what regarding the shove the globalists are doing to all nations into 10 regional [Remember Biblical prophecy about 10 kings in the END TIMES?] governmental entities/common markets etc.??? Can you spell North American Union? Do you think Paul VI would view such positively or negatively were he still alive? Really—what’s your best guess?
61. Now in this matter one standard should hold true for all. What applies to national economies and to highly developed nations must also apply to trade relations between rich and poor nations. Indeed, competition should not be eliminated from trade transactions; but it must be kept within limits so that it operates justly and fairly, and thus becomes a truly human endeavor.
Oh, the globalists are quite ‘egalitarian’ in one respect—ALL nations in a region will belong to the regional entity and WILL comply with all the trade agreements, laws etc. accordingly implemented from the dark cells of hell there-through. Ain’t that nice?
There’s even some assertions that they intend to reduce the masses of the 200 million global populace to be left to meager levels of wealth—gotta keep the serfs and slaves hungrily dependent, after all--while the elite wallow in outrageous levels of wealth. I don’t know how true that is. Hasn’t a lot of multiple sources supporting it, yet.
That last part sounds like it’s right out of the manual of the globalist plan. However, it’s more than a plan . . . ‘Asia’ has been tasked with producing a vast myriad of goods at the cheapest price. The rest of the world essentially sucks up to whatever the globalists have decreed is a fair price accordingly. Other regions have their specialties to offer the “global community” all in a wonderfully planned cozy existence. Ain’t it sweet! Barf.
Oh, DEAR ME! That’s even more straight out of the globalist manual. He sounds like a card carrying member of the Bildebergers. God have mercy.
62. There are other obstacles to creation of a more just social order and to the development of world solidarity: nationalism and racism. It is quite natural that nations recently arrived at political independence should be quite jealous of their new-found but fragile unity and make every effort to preserve it. It is also quite natural for nations with a long-standing cultural tradition to be proud of their traditional heritage. But this commendable attitude should be further ennobled by love, a love for the whole family of man.
OK, Mad Dawg, MarkOMalley—there’s no excuse for this level of sucking up to the globalist goals, definitions, wording, priorities. Trashing nationalism is a cardinal doctrine of globalism. For him to join in that is most troubling. I can’t think of a valid way to excuse this level of affirmation of a cardinal doctrine of globalism.
[Qx extra paragraphing here]
Sorry, he’s not making it better. Of course racism is horrid. Globalists are most horrid on the issue of racism. They have reportedly scheduled the wiping out of entire people groups . . . some say even the entire black race.
Quite so. Globalism is NOT a solution. Only a change in the heart of man solves racism. The Popeh, of all people, ought to know that.
64. This state of affairs, which bodes ill for the future, causes Us great distress and anguish. But We cherish this hope: that distrust and selfishness among nations will eventually be overcome by a stronger desire for mutual collaboration and a heightened sense of solidarity. We hope that the developing nations will take advantage of their geographical proximity to one another to organize on a broader territorial base and to pool their efforts for the development of a given region. We hope that they will draw up joint programs, coordinate investment funds wisely, divide production quotas fairly, and exercise management over the marketing of these products. We also hope that multilateral and broad international associations will undertake the necessary work of organization to find ways of helping needy nations, so that these nations may escape from the fetters now binding them; so that they themselves may discover the road to cultural and social progress, while remaining faithful to the native genius of their land.
Sorry, but this is more—essentially—verbatim stuff from the globalist playbook. Mad Dawg, HOW FAR DOWN THE GLOBALIST ROAD would a Pope have to travel before you’d begin to go—ut-oh????
65. That is the goal toward which we must work. An ever more effective world solidarity should allow all peoples to become the artisans of their destiny. Up to now relations between nations have too often been governed by force; indeed, that is the hallmark of past history.
Sounds so rosy and modern. Yet it’s diabolical to the core. FORCE is the hallmark of the globalists—through a variety of means. They are known for erasing off the planet whole families of those who threaten their efforts or methods.
Yet again it sounds so wonderful yet is rooted in hell. Yet again this passage sounds like THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES and other white-washed versions of the globalist goals.
66. Human society is sorely ill. The cause is not so much the depletion of natural resources, nor their monopolistic control by a privileged few; it is rather the weakening of brotherly ties between individuals and nations.
Quite so. And what is the solution Dear Pontiff?
67. We cannot insist too much on the duty of giving foreigners a hospitable reception. It is a duty imposed by human solidarity and by Christian charity, and it is incumbent upon families and educational institutions in the host nations.
Quite so. And how is Christian Charity to be increased by a satanic oligarchy?
Welll, Dear Pontiff, OThuga is well on the way to raising up a cadre of such young people as the new Gestapo to help him implement a greater breadth and depth of the globalist oligarchy’s tyrannical structure and aims. Is that what you had in mind? I’m sure he’ll teleprompter about how it’s thoroughly wrapped in Christian brotherly love.
Please remember to tell that to the tea party folks and the vets and the Christians who believe in the END TIMES when these youth knock on doors at 04:00 for involuntary trips to certain camps.
Yes, those are all serious problems. However, the oligarchy doesn’t give a flip about cultural heritage except as it furthers their !!!!CONTROL!!!! aims. They are more into wiping out ALL THE “OLD’S” that might in any way hinder their NEW WORLD order.
Wellllllllllllllll, we’ve seen how the oligarchy handles illegal aliens etc. vis a vis Mexico etc. Serfs and slaves are merely property to be manipulated according to larger globalist aims. Is that what you had in mind, Dear Pontiff?
Here's the problem, as I see it. The whole "conspiracy" argument, considered as a genre, is almost completely unassailable. It cannot be shown to be false, and so it cannot be shown to be true.
I don't know all that much about Paul VI. If there were some way to show one thing or another, I'd put serious loot on his not wanting to skirt on the edge of the Humanae Vitae dogma for which he suffered so much.
But it could all have been part of a sneaky plan.. Similarly with my appeals to the context of the almost dialogue of social encyclicals from Leo to JPII. I see a context. I see PAUL VI stressing that one cannot NOT have a global outlook on social problems, and suggesting that there are eleemosynary and governmental outfits in place which might be used for charity on a grand scale. I could even say that I think his hope in those outfits was misplaced.
But I can't, I don't have the time -- no one has the time -- to track down and prove or disprove any deathbed meetings or sub rosa communications. It can't be done.
It also takes right much time to read all the social encyclicals ... to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them. I can't say I've done it all. I have usually gone in and cherry picked becuase I had a class to prepare or something.Of course, my "side" of the argument is set up by the position we adopted previously, to take very much amiss suggestions that Paul VI was a crypto-globalist. We can't PROVE he wasn't. But you can't PROVE I'm not a committee of Protestant Practical Jokers.("Psst! Calvin, shut UP!""No YOU shut up Zwingli!" "Quiet! He'll hear us!")
So I think probably the best thing to do is to lay out your argument, to state your thesis as clearly as you can, and then duck into the bunker, because in the heat of battle, sometimes we all forget to aim at the argument and start aiming at the guy making it.
If it were so, it would be wicked and frightening.
About the gummint appropriating stuff or directing its allocation: I THINK that some degree of it is assumed in the notion of "eminent domain." And, of course, we now see how those who think themselves our betters can abuse eminent domain to take property from Naboth to give it to a friend of Ahab's. But, that doesn't mean eminent domain is bad, it means people are.
IF there were truly a famine and if I had a store of food, I can see in principle that the government could exercise domain over it, while giving me what it was pleased to call "just compensation." And I say that fully aware that, especially as events are running right now, the government is all too likely to abuse that power.
As to globalism, that's precisely the kind of thing that gives the scholarly me a headache. I would want - hey, I know, I want a graduate student or two of my very own. The heck with the 13th amendment. Can one BUY a graduate student?
Anyway, on the one hand, it is good for nations to cooperate in good causes. On the other hand, nations are generally a bunch of jerks. I think the job of the Church is, among other things, to encourage everyone to play nice, while also advocating subsidiarity - in other words, Belgium should keep its mitts out of the affairs of Virginia.
But we know there will be abuses. Once you admit the need for government, you've admitted that we are in a pickle.
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.