Posted on 11/10/2009 11:55:00 AM PST by B-Chan
The passage of sweeping national health care legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives has set the stage for the greatest intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of the American people in the nation's history. Across the Web, the groans and cries of the free-marketers, capitalists, and libertarians have begun to echo in response. Surprisingly, many of these voices condemn the Catholic Church for its "socialist" commitment to feeding the poor, caring for the sick, and doing the other things Jesus Christ commanded of us. "Without the support of you bleeding-heart Catholics," the refrain goes, "this socialist nightmare could never have passed."
An element of truth exists behind this complaint. A pious Catholic's heart does bleed for the sick, the aged, the destitute, the lame, and the suffering; in this, it mimics the Sacred Heart of our Lord Himself, who gave all He had, including His life, for the sake of the suffering.
But is the Catholic Church "socialist"? Impossible. Socialism is a materialist doctrine with a dialectical and teleological basis that is utterly incompatible with the word and example or our Lord. As such, it has been repudiated specifically in the teaching of the Church, most notably in the encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) of Pope Leo XIII, which states
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.1But if the Church is not socialist, neither is it capitalist. Capitalism, like socialism, is both philosophically materialist and ethically libertarian -- and libertarian thought (which is just Liberal thought with a different name) is completely in opposition to the teaching of Jesus Christ. Our Lord is not a free marketer, a capitalist, an entrepreneur, or a salesman. As the ultimate altruist and counter-example of rational sef-interest, He stands at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from Rand's Nietzschean superman John Galt. Jesus Christ is a King, not a CEO*, and He commands His servant Church to uphold the Natural Law, which proclaims that every human being is a Child of God -- and as such, is deserving of food, medical care, and the other basic hallmarks of human dignity.
The Church is called upon to provide these social services. The State has no just role in pubic life except to keep the peace, protect the borders, establish justice, and preserve the national patrimony. In a Christian social order, the State officially recognizes the Church's special role in the life of the nation, and protects and support the Church in its provision of social services. This was the pattern of social organization throughout Christendom until the advent of the Lutheran heresy, which proclaimed the cult of individual Liberty and its separation of Church and State.
By destroying the proper relationship between Church and State, the "libertarian" movement invited the State to overstep its ordained bounds and intrude into areas of life within which it has no just business. In a post-Reformation representative republic such as our own, which pretends neutrality in matters of faith, the State cannot fulfill the role of Protector of the Church given to it by God; as a result, over time, popular demand forces the State to assume the provision of social services which in a Christian social order would be provided by the Church.
Human beings have the positive and Divine right to daily bread, health care, and other aspects of human dignity. In his Luciferian quest for individual Liberty, however, Western man has destroyed the Divinely-ordained social order under which the Church provided these goods. As a result, the heavy hand of the State will now intrude into every aspect of public life in its futile attempt to build a just society. Ironically, the worship of individual liberty instigated by the "reformers" of the Church and the secular counterparts of the "enlightenment" has destroyed the liberty under God that individuals once enjoyed as organic parts of the Catholic and medieval social order.
Nationalized health care is a fact. Soon, the power of life and death will rest entirely in the hands of the State. And as the smothering blanket of socialism settles slowly across our land, I invite libertarians to quit their whining. In their quest for freedom from the Church, they destroyed the institutions that kept the State in its proper place. Libertarians made this bed; we are now all going to be forced to sleep in it.
*That was L. Ron Hubbard's gig.
You say you want a government centered on the christian faith...
No, I don't say that. I want a civilization centered on the Christian faith, a culture centered on the Christian faith. Government's proper role is to protect life, property, and patrimony, not to save souls or administer the Sacraments.
You come across in all of your posts as an arrogant elitist.
I am an arrogant elitist. The arrogance is a fault, for which I apologize. The elitism is simply a recognition of the reality that some people really are better than others.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't consider myself to be part of any elite.
The fruits of the spirit certainly don’t emanate from your posts.
In what way? I don't hate anyone. I don't want to see anyone killed or hurt. I don't call people names or attack them personally.
You demonstrate a hatred of American conservatives, particularly Rush Limbaugh.
Huh? I've never met Mr. Limbaugh, so how could I hate him? From all I've heard, he's a prince of fellow. Yes, he's a classic Chamber-of-Commerce free-market liberal, in that he holds individual liberty to be the greatest good, but I certainly don't hate him for that. He's wrong, sure, but so are a lot of others. When I think about Mr. Limbaugh at all, I admire his enterprise and his skill as a soap salesman.
His listeners, however, are almost all lumpen ignoramuses of the least-developed kind, as five minutes of listening to his show will demonstrate. "Mega-DIT-tos, Rush! Yew're a breath uv fresh ayer! Yew really hit thuh nay-il on the hay-ud!" Arrrgh! It's like listening to the characters of Li'l Abner talk about world affairs for three hours. I will never know how anyone endures it.
With the results you see all around you.
A stable democracy, with a wealthy society, where people are free to persue their own religion (or not).
So strong, it will even survive Obama.
Yeah, it’s terrible.
Since you hate being around Protestants and Jews so much, why don’t you go move to Honduras or one of the other hell holes with official Roman Catholic state religion?
The one that created science, Rheims Cathedral, the symphony, the subsidiary government, agricultural surpluses, church bells, representational art, and many other things.
Heretics were burned in the Middle Ages -- just as we "burn" spies and saboteurs and terrorists today. Then as now, some of these happen to be Protestants and Jews.
Many Catholics were burned, too, some of whom later became saints. As I said, a Christian commonwealth isn't an attempt to create a paradise, a perfect society, a "heaven on Earth". It's simply a commonwealth centered upon the Christian faith. Like any government of men, it is imperfect. If some heretics were burned unjustly, many more were burned who deserved to die for making war on their fellow men.
Sold indulgences?
One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "In 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.1
As said before, it’s the Taliban.
You don't know much about the Taliban.
You’re not talking about the topic any more. You’re talking about me. If you want to discuss the topic, I’m here. Otherwise, forget it.
The topic is your sick desire to destroy the United States, impose an official Roman Catholic state, presumably kill or imprison Protestants, Jews, or other non-Roman Catholics.
If you hate it here so much, go to the utopia of Honduras or the like.
I am so happy your church rejects things like you.
Those are your words, not mine. I don't desire any of those things.
If you hate it here so much, go to the utopia of Honduras or the like.
Who says I hate it here? I'm quite happy with my life.
I am so happy your church rejects things like you.
I'm not going to hit the Abuse Button (only wusses do that), but really, personal abuse is so weak. Is that the best you can do?
Your hatred is clear.
There’s a big difference between wanting the freedom to murder your baby and freedom to not have the government steal half of your income. If you think Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi give a rats behind about individual liberty you’re a hopeless fool. By the way, you do realize that arrogance is a sin. As for Rush listeners, studies repeatedly show them to be more informed than the average citizen.
Both abortion and unjust taxation are immoral.
If you think Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi give a rats behind about individual liberty you’re a hopeless fool.
They're just demagogues -- opportunists who use charisma to capitalize on the foolishness of the voters in order to feather their own nests. They could care less about individual liberty per se as long as they get the money and power they crave. Ideologues like William Ayers are the real danger: radical liberals who hate God, families, and anything that might restrict their desires. They'd kill off everyone who isn't like them if they could -- and all in the name of liberty.
By the way, you do realize that arrogance is a sin.
Yep, and I'm a sinner. I hope you'll pray for me.
As for Rush listeners, studies repeatedly show them to be more informed than the average citizen.
Cite, please.
It was a Pew Research study. I can’t find a link that works, but it said that 48% of people who regularly listen to Rush had high knowledge. Only people who read publications such as the Weekly Standard, National Review and New Republic scored higher. In contrast only 21% of those who rely on MSNBC for their news had high knowledge. Most of Rush’s callers aren’t dumb as much as they are nervous and tongue-tied.
Interesting. When you find the study, please post it.
And I have no doubt that Limbaugh listeners are smarter than the 172 cretins who still watch MSNBC.
I am not a Dominionist. Please see definitions above.
Wow. Whoever wrote this makes Bill "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" Clinton look like a rank amateur....
Really, I have to wonder why you insist on posting here. You know perfectly well that this site is dedicated to freedom and republicanism -- it says so right in the name -- so how are you different, really, from a common DUmpster troll?
Say whut?
I've never met Osama bin Laden, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I hate him, for obvious reasons.
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.