Posted on 05/09/2014 7:11:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Repeat After Me: Subsidiarity & Solidarity
Subsidiarity and Human Dignity
Does the USCCB Understand Subsidiarity?
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] The Principle of Subsidiarity
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Subsidiarity Over Social Justice
What is the USCCB’s problem with subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity: Where Justice and Freedom Coexist
Health reform still full of thorny problems for Catholics (Vasa comes out for subsidiarity)
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Subsidiarity, [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Day: SUBSIDIARITY, 06-11-09
Wealth redistribution via centralized authority is the antithesis of subsidiarity.
“Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
I am not sure of your point..
My point was the pope wants the state to hand out benefits.. not the church...
That brother is why pelosis of the world can claim the glory!
Are you thinking of subsidies?
This is subsidiarity. Go to the smallest loutlet on the local level for assistance. For example, your neighbor, then people in your neighborhood, then your local church, other local ministries, then part of the local county of city government.
Sorry you don’t seem to understand the Bible. It is talking about us. (As well as the people those days.)
“Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again.Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first—and then they will joyfully share their wealth.”
-– St. John Chrysostom on the poor from On Living Simply XLIII
Great observations - Reagan and JPII eradicated communism, Obama and this Jesuit are reestablishing it.
Wow. That is the best post I’ve seen in awhile. Thank you.
Note in the following Scripture passage that the contributions were VOLUNTARILY laid down before the feet of the Apostles, not forcibly obtained and laid down before the feet of Caesar (or Nancy Pelosi).
"And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. Neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own: but all things were common unto them. 33 And with great power did the Apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord: and great grace was in them all. 34 For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, 35 And laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need." Acts 4:32-35
Zacchaes was the one who said that, not Jesus, IIRC.
Of course. Did I sound confused on that point?
Zacchaeus made that decision by himself. Nobody asked or prompted him to do it.
That's a far cry from the pope asking other countries to do it using their citizens tax money without their consent.
1) Zaccheus was convicted of his sins by his meeting with Christ and as a result he realized he was a sinner.
2) Zaccheus was actively looking to meet Christ
3) Zaccheus voluntarily pledged to give half of his wealth to the poor. His wealth is figured to be much due to his position of Chief Tax Collector.
4) Zaccheus promised to give back fourfold to anyone he had defrauded.
5) Actions three and four were totally voluntary on Zaccheus' part. Though there are OT teachings about restoring stolen property by a certain percentage. I presume Zaccheus was Jewish and not Roman and would be acting in compliance with Jewish Law in this manner.
Notice also when Zaccheus said if I have defrauded anyone. The implication is that he had indeed defrauded some, but not all.
The pope, and leftists in general, assume that the rich have all defrauded the "people" by illegally acquiring their wealth.
This is a very dangerous and disingenuous conclusion.
For example, you never hear the left criticize Soros or any other wealthy leftist. It is always a conservative they criticize.
We do not hear of calls for China or India to "redistribute" their wealth. It is usually a call for the US to do so.
The pope would do better to point people to Christ and point out the need for forgiveness of sins.
If the pope wants to be taken serious on this manner he should first clean up the priesthood and remove ALL homosexuals from ministry. Second, if he is serious he should begin to liquidate the Catholic Churches assets in the same proportions as Zaccheus did.
Actions speak louder than words.
The bible does..
The pope wasn’t..
He’s saying nothing that the last two Popes didn’t say. Now for what he really said about “income redistribution”.
http://www.catholicleague.org/pope-ties-life-issues-justice/
“The media are already gushing over the pope’s call for a redistribution of wealth, but they are downplaying his remarks on abortion and euthanasia. And what he said about the economic responsibilities of wealthy nations is, quite frankly, old stuff. Indeed, he cites his two predecessors as saying the same thing. To be specific, the pope did not call for economic equality: He twice called for economic equity. Equity means fairness; it does not mean sameness.
More important, the pope linked the rights of the unborn, and those who are ill, to the cause for justice. “Today, in concrete terms,” he said, “an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others.”
The pope also denounced our “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death.” He has used those terms before (the latter was coined by Saint John Paul II), so there is no ambiguity: He is clearly speaking about the disposal of unborn babies and the plight of the terminally ill.
Kudos to the pope for speaking to these issues with such force. We hope that the U.N. executives heed his advice”
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.