Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: pgyanke

You wrote:

“Selective excerpting. Read Rerum Novarum again and try not to distort the teaching of the Church when you come back.”

Wow. You must really be desparate. The quote was only selective in that it mentions the government which is only mention in Rerum Novarum about a half dozen times. I distorted NOTHING. Here’s the whole passage.

37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

Now, you tell me what I am distorting about that passage. When you fail, and you will because all I did was quote the passage, we’ll know just how desparate you must have been.


26 posted on 10/22/2010 4:42:23 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: vladimir998
You are distorting its meaning. Rerum Novarum is a very harsh rebuke of socialism and communism. It also has warnings about unbridled capitalism. However, it is no conflict with American values as we also don't believe in unbridled capitalism. That is why we have labor laws, anti-trust laws and the rest.

Reading this passage as an indictment of the Church against western society is your error. Taken in its context (the whole encyclical) makes this very clear.

You could just as easily post excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible to the same effect and purpose. However, when taken as a whole, the Church's doctrine is opposed to the very foundations of socialism. Only the ignorant or overtly biased would see otherwise in the teachings of the Church.

34 posted on 10/22/2010 5:30:39 PM PDT by pgyanke (You have no "rights" that require an involuntary burden on another person. Period. - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: pgyanke; vladimir998
"“Selective excerpting. Read Rerum Novarum again and try not to distort the teaching of the Church when you come back."

Let's not overlook these either:

14. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents."(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.

15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

35 posted on 10/22/2010 5:33:35 PM PDT by Natural Law ("opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson