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.
Technically, these statements can be regarded as not anti-American. Of course, this requires a set of definitions under which the statement “God Damn America!” is also not anti-American (hey, Rev. Wright wasn’t “advocating” anything, he was “just saying”...).
Because oven-building and gas-generation technology wasn't up to snuff back then.
I don’t want to live under any type of theocracy you can dream up. I will fight you to you or my death before it happens.
Buy an island and drink your koolaid there with any followers that you can attract. Monarch yourselves until you’re raw and sore if you please.
I had to call my wife to read that one, best line of the day!
Today's episode of Separated At Birth:
"Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah....This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'"
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 23 January 2005
Your post comparing the Decree of Alhambra to the Holocaust of the Nazis makes no sense. The two events had nothing in common. Ferdinand and Isabella had no desire to exterminate the Jews, the Moslems, or any other group of people. The Nazis did.
That's good, since I do not and never have advocated theocracy as a system of government. Theocracy is really more of a Muslim and Calvinist thing. I'm Catholic.
I will fight you to you or my death before it happens.
You'd lose if you were ever to fight me "to the death". Fortunately, I have no desire to fight you or anyone else.
Buy an island and drink your koolaid there with any followers that you can attract. Monarch yourselves until you’re raw and sore if you please.
I'm sorry I upset your nap time, little fella. Get Daddy or Mommy to help you with the big words the next time you put crayon to paper.
By positive law, I mean we are each and severally charged by God with providing food for the poor, water for the thirsty, etc. I'd be happy to provide Scriptural references if you need them.
By positive law is meant man-made law, not the Divine Law of Scripture. Once again, which positive legal system are you referring to here in your defense of this "right"?
As for Divine right, what authority are you referring to here as the basis of a right to daily bread and health care? What Scripture? What Tradition?
The Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church as taught by the popes and bishops in union with him since the Ascension of our Lord.
Please specify which parts of Scripture and Tradition tell us that (to use your words) "daily bread, health care, and other aspects of human dignity" are a right. My memory might be faulty, but I don't recall Our Lord using a rights-based discourse in the Gospels to speak of charity and our duty to help a neighbor in need.
Which "Divinely-ordained social order" are you referring to? During the Late Middle Ages, we had a disintegrating feudalism and a nascent capitalism. Which do you prefer?
Feudalism, as I made clear in my original post.
Thanks. I just wanted to be sure.
In terms of a political order, we find political entities such as kingdoms, republics, and empires (among others). Why no valorization of empires or republics on your part?
The Empire was the ultimate earthly expression of the Divine social order.
The unified, Western, Eastern or Holy Roman Empire? Got any particular emperor in mind?
Also, if "the Empire" is really so primary, then what do you make of Gregory VII's relationship with Henry IV?
I do not "valorize" republics because they are based upon the idea of popular sovereignty, which is anti-Christian
I don't think that La Serenissima, for example, was based upon popular sovereignty as we Moderns would think of it. I think it was called a "mixed" republic.
In what sense is popular sovereignty, under your definition, anti-Christian?
Do you mean the "Catholic" and medieval social order that had polities that were so weak that Viking, Muslim, and Hungarian raiders (and armies!) could attack at will for centuries?
Yes, just as our postmodern social order suffers from attacks from Islamic raiders and armies today.
Well, the Vikings and Hungarians have been quiet for a while, and despite the Muslim terrorist attacks the past 30+ years I've yet to see slave raiders on US soil or armies of conquest or plunder. Or are things really that different in your part of Texas?
However, all that's beside the point. Your essay is arguing that the medieval social order is better than what we see today, and thus commendable. Not that things nowadays are just as bad as they used to be. That is, since I am not presenting a defense of Obama's America, why are you attacking what I am NOT defending and wasting your time arguing that "the more things change, the more things stay the same"?
Where famine and plague ravaged urban poor and serfs in the countryside alike?
Yes, just as famine and plague ravage our urban poor and propertyless "serfs" today.
We are discussing the USA, aren't we? I see no plague or famine hereabouts, unless it's the plague caused by the dreaded Hyperbole Virus.
Where those self-same urban poor and serfs had very little of what we would recognize as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Not to mention no King's Justice, which they couldn't afford.
Yes, just as the poor cannot afford the high cost of justice in our "enlightened" society.
Give me a break. There's a big difference between not having the money to hire a good lawyer and living in a system where, in relation to your particular lord, no remedies were available and where the exercise of justice was often a kind of property from which the lord or king could derive profit.
(NB: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a Christian tradition; it is a slogan of the anti-Christian "enlightenment".)
I must admit that I've heard this argument before, usually from paleocons who enjoy sneering at the DOI in general and TJ in particular. I guess it all depends upon how sincere you believe Locke's Christianity to be.
Where local economies were so cash-starved that elites either squeezed their serfs for what they could get; raided, robbed or cheated their neighbors; or financed armies for the purpose of obtaining slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry Islamics?
Have you ever cracked open a history book?
More than a few. Have you ever cracked open one that wasn't published by TAN?
Yeah, those bad old elites of the middle ages! It's a good thing our God-fearing, Bible-believing modern elites never squeeze their "serfs" to line their own pocketbooks! It's a good thing our capitalism-believin', free-enterprise-worshippin' elites never raid the public treasury, rob the working man, or cheat the system for their own personal gain! I'm so glad the feudal system is gone so that we no longer have gigantic corporations investing in repressive overseas regimes for the purpose of obtaining wage-slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry sweatshop owners!
Once again, I thought that your position is that a "Catholic" and medieval social order would be BETTER than our modern "Late Capitalist" society, not just comparable. You're not arguing here as a pro-"feudalist," but as an anti-capitalist. Still waiting for your defense of the feudal social order.
With all due respect: you, sir, are ignorant. I cannot have a reasoned discussion of the facts of history with someone who is unaware of those facts -- meaning you. Get back to me when you've read enough to have a grownup discussion on this topic.
I fail to see how someone who immediately calls me "ignorant" is treating me with "all due respect." I find your mock politeness amusing.
I presented several historical facts about the general character of the medieval social order, facts which you could have disputed but have not. Instead I have been treated with irrelevant comparisons with the modern social order, irrelevant since they neither address the facts I have presented nor advance your position that the feudal social order is somehow better.
I also admit that I find it funny how someone who doesn't know the difference between positive and Divine law, who uses an anachronistic rights-based discourse when referring to the Gospels, and who is apparently unable or unwilling to discuss the history of medieval Europe, suddenly declares me ignorant of basic history, ill-read, and childish.
This strikes me as typical behavior for you, B-Chan: when you have nothing to say in rejoinder, you declare victory and advance to the rear! LOL!
Fare thee well, oh valiant and brave Christian Knight!
All perhaps true, and all irrelevant to the point I was making about the crimes which were committed againt his parents and his person when he was a child.
Or historical accuracy: the stipulated reason given by Ferdinand and Isabella was that they expelled the remaining Jews from Spain because they were trying to eliminate any possible source of "judaizing influences" on the conversos.
As an advocate of a two-kingdom approach I have no aspirations for a “Christian society”. We are pilgrims and aliens in this world. That being said, I do believe there are certain natural rights derived from God that all men possess and it is our Christian duty to help preserve those rights for all men.
As to whether God is judging our nation I have a different impression by way of Romans 1:21-32. I don't believe it's so much a positive judgment as it is God merely giving us over, as a nation, to our own lusts. If the majority of people in this nation are giving over to the lust for government control of their lives God allows that to happen and the natural consequence is despotism.
Our job as Christians in our role as good citizens of the State is to reawaken the People to their natural rights and along with those rights comes responsibilities. Isn't this essentially what Reagan did? If we can get our fellow citizens to accept the responsibility's of their natural rights then we can live in relative peace but if we fail we shall surely live under despotism.
We may have seen a few RCs disagreeing with a Roman Catholic monarchist advocating despotism, but where is the Roman Catholic who rebukes Ratzinger's "global authority" initiative?
This forum has shown us that liberal, humanist theology breeds liberal, humanist politics.
I'm happy to stand politically side by side any conservative Roman Catholic. But there just aren't that many around here or anywhere else.
Ratzinger showed the true intentions of the papacy, and they haven't changed in 500 years. Top-down control by a select few whose power of enforcement has "teeth."
That's the future if we're not careful.
"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?" -- Jeremiah 5:31
More than a few. Have you ever cracked open one that wasn't published by TAN?
I gotta give you a point for that one.
Ouch.
I want to thank you for your posts; I’ve cut and copied it to numerous people who have gotten really good laughs out of it.
Indeed, I think it is going to be a subject of an article in Israel about Christian extremeism -— most Roman Catholics are pretty well balanced people, and your defense of the Inquisition and desire for a papal state in the United States was exactly the kind of thing that was needed.
The effect of the Spanish pogrom against Jews was pretty telling -— within a generation or so, the once-great Spanish kingdom fell to ruins.
Happens when you kick out your good generals, engineers, navigators, and destroy trade and merchants.
I am particularly amused by the fact a self-decribed “Texan” would be pushing a papal state when the first stated purpose of the Texas Revolution was freedom of religion for Protestants and Jews, both for theologic reasons and to be free of the financial corruption and decay that was the Roman Church in Mexico at the time.
There was an unintended consequence to the RC Pogroms in Spain.Christopher Columbus set sail on the very last day Jews were permitted in Spain.
All Jews were to be out of Spain by Tisha B'Av
I don't know. I do know we need to support any that show up.
I'm happy to stand politically side by side any conservative Roman Catholic. But there just aren't that many around here or anywhere else.
We know 46% did not vote for 0. In that group there have to be some conservatives. They may not wish to say anything because defending their church is so closely connected to defending their faith. My only point is we need them if this country is going to be saved from the collapse we are headed towards.
Ratzinger showed the true intentions of the papacy, and they haven't changed in 500 years. Top-down control by a select few whose power of enforcement has "teeth."
I don't dispute that this is their goal. The point I've tried to make is a % of RC's in America will not agree with America surrendering her national soveriegnty and these RC's are allies.
While there is dispute over whether Columbus was actively Jewish, he was certainly of Jewish descent and his friends and backers were largely Jewish or of similar Jewish descent.
Telling that he left on such a wild adventure.
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.