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.
Columbus began the official report of his first voyage to America, addressed to Ferdinand and Isabella, with the following words: “And thus, having expelled all the Jews from all your kingdoms and dominions, in the month of January, Your Highnesses commanded me that...I should go to the said parts of India.”
Circumstantial bit, but pretty telling that he was sticking to his roots.
This nation was founded as a Christian Nation based on Calvinism. In a review of the founding documentsAnti-Roman Catholic but certainly not anti Christian.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The bible was the most often quoted document.
The second most were Calvin's writings.
The "coincidence" seems to suggest much more than is told commonly.
Yes.
...based on Calvinism.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.
lol. I agree completely.
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.
Maybe one of the first steps in forging that coalition is to show some otherwise "conservative" RCs what the encyclical really says and its actual ramifications if put into practice.
See, sometimes the beginning of a clearer theological perspective actually begins with a clearer political perspective.
Politically, not so much, if FR is any kind of example. The RCs on this forum have uniformly applauded Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical, and to a one they defended Ratzinger offering the muslim terrorist Al-Tamimi a stage to spew his anti-Jewish hatred (shaking the terrorist's hand not once but twice after Tamimi's six-minute speech.)
defense of the Inquisition and desire for a papal state in the United States
"The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks" -- 328 posted on 08/01/2008 4:59:56 PM PDT by annalex
And the Bible carried to the New World by the Pilgrims and Puritans was THE GENEVA BIBLE written by John Calvin and the Venerable Company of Pastors.
And the Bible carried to the New World by the Pilgrims and Puritans was THE GENEVA BIBLE written by John Calvin and the Venerable Company of Pastors.
There are many on this thread who are "invincibly ignorant" of American History.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Amazing.
And here I thought Scripture was written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the authors of the Old Testament, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Here it was a twisted French lawyer all along.
Denigrating the parents' right to raise their child (barring extraordinary circumstances such as abuse, of course) is a standard doctrine of totalitarian utopianists.
And here I thought Scripture was written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the authors of the Old Testament, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Here it was a twisted French lawyer all along.
Now that was funny,I practically fell of my chair laughing !
Wonder where 1 and 2 calvin is located in that geneva bible?
Here it was a twisted French lawyer all along.
Well then, this would explain a great deal. Maybe the Geneva "Bible" does contain explanations for "sola scriptura" and a section where the Lord makes clear how much He despised His mother and Saint Peter. I'm sure that in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John He explains that, though it doesn't serve any purpose, on occasion people should eat crackers and grape juice because they are a "symbol" of God.
They got their heads chopped off.
Maybe ginkgo biloba would help you remember what you wrote earlier. (If the problem is that you're unclear on the causal relationship between decapitation and death, I don't know what, if anything, you can take for that.)
" ......THE GENEVA BIBLE, the words of God translated by John Calvin and the Venerable Company of Pastors who together wrote the footnotes...
See, all things serve God's purpose on these threads and everywhere.
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corin. 11:19
Amazing.
And here I thought Scripture was written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the authors of the Old Testament, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Here it was a twisted French lawyer all along.
The reformed trinity of Calvin the father, Luther the son and Zwingli the ghost (nobody talks very much about weird old Zwingli).
Your Freudian slip is noted. Back to the PR script for you now.
Since Calvin may be regarded as the Reformed alpha and omega, I think that these are both before Genesis and after Revelation, just to make sure. Possibly between the OT and NT as well and that would cover all the bases.
I think that you got the Reformed version correct the first time.
Lately Petronski will repeat another poster's comment by putting it in italics to signify it is someone else's writing, but he will change a few words which completely alters the meaning of the sentence.
UriÂel-2012 actually wrote "There are many on this thread who are "invincibly ignorant" of American History.
Petronski responded by making it appear Uriel wrote "There are thankfully-few on this thread who are "invincibly ignorant" of the true Author of Holy Scripture.
Petronski has every right to make almost any statement he wants, but it doesn't seem appropriate or honest that he should be able to change other FReepers' posts and palm the off as their words and intent when they are not.
This kind of game, deceit, sneaky maneuver, whatever it's called, only muddles the conversation and creates ill will.
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.