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.
Oh, I intend to offend you at every possible opportunity, as well as mocking and ridiculing you when necessary.
Your other option is to avoid reading and commenting on my posts. But you can’t stay away, can you?
I'm not sure what you mean by "women." I thought that Anna Morisi acted alone when she performed the lay baptism of Edgar when he was still an infant.
As for the issue of force, it does seem applicable since infant children cannot give their consent and Edgar's guardians at the time -- his parents -- were not consulted.
"Forced" baptism doesn't necessarily entail that someone has put a knife to your throat. It is defined by a situation where baptism is performed without consent being given. Edgar's parents didn't give their consent, and Edgar was too young to give it: thus, forced baptism.
Pay special attention to sec. 2
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents. .
Oh well, in certain circumstances forced baptism is still in canon law after all. My mistake. How shocking, and how unfortunate.
I was under the impression that the Holy Spirit baptizes, but I see under Roman Catholicism, anyone can do it.
“If Edgar had died immediately after he was Baptized he would have gone directly to heaven. The Catholic women caring for him knew that and did the right thing by baptizing him seeing he was very ill.”
The facts are Edgar was never very ill, the woman was fired some years later, probably for being a thief. In retribution, she went to the authorities, cooked up her story in retribution against evil Jooos.
The boy’s father (a merchant) was thrown into jail repeatedly for failing to know his place as a lowly Jew under the thumb of a Roman Catholic state.
“See it as a beautiful case of what happens when the rules of Holy Mother Church are followed.”
Even if the servant’s story was true (which I strongly doubt), any religion that thinks that stealing a child from his parents is OK does not worshop HaShem -— the one G-d of Abrham, Issac, and Jacob.
“you might be pleased to know that Benedict XIV’s rule and Canon 60 are no longer in effect (since the advent of the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917, which I have read supplants the old Corpus Iuris Canonici). Let’s hope it stays that way. “
I am; I have had nothing but favorable interactions with Roman Catholics. I am going to presume those that support kidnapping of children are an aberration and not representative of their religion.
I could care less if someone baptized without consent; seemingly as meaningless as mormon post-death baptisms.
Supporting the kidnapping of children, however, is shocking.
I must agree... outside of conversations I've had with Roman Catholics about RC history and doctrine!
I am going to presume those that support kidnapping of children are an aberration and not representative of their religion.
I think it is an aberration nowadays, and if you read the essay I linked to about the Finaly brothers case you'll see that Pius XII gave zero support to the priests who tried to keep the boys away from their Jewish relatives. In fact, Piux XII supported the boys' surviving aunt.
However, if a similar occurrence had happened in, say, 18th century France, then I'm sure that the Finaly brothers would have been raised RC and that protesting Jewish relatives would have been ignored or thrown in prison for a while to "cool off." And that few people associated with the Church of Rome would have batted an eyelash.
That's because you live in a country where freedom of conscience is taken for granted, and there is no connection between one's religious affiliation and one's civil rights.
However, in modern-day Islamic states and in medieval Europe the opposite is/was true, and questions regarding baptism and religious affiliation can/could take on a life-and-death seriousness.
Supporting the kidnapping of children, however, is shocking.
Yes, it is. And yet we have Freepers who support this very thing. How sad!
“That’s because you live in a country where freedom of conscience is taken for granted, and there is no connection between one’s religious affiliation and one’s civil rights.”
Actually, while technically a US citizen, I’m Israeli.
As a Jewish Israeli, there are sections of my country where I cannot live legally (West Bank, for example), unless I professed that Allah was actually HaShem and Mohammed really was not merely a clever warlord who faked a religion to obtain females and power.
Then it sounds like there are sections of your country that aren't really sections of your country.
I support a strong Israel with strong national sovereignty -- I hope this situation doesn't last.
You were there?
Dear friend,you don't know the facts any more than I know the facts on his illness
the woman was fired some years later, probably for being a thief
Do you always accuse people of these things without knowing the facts?
You think it's tragic that a dying baptized child would be guaranteed heaven? Parents rights are more important than this?
No, I think it shocking and unfortunate that forced baptism is still a part of RC canon law.
What saddens me is that Anna Morini believed, and you apparently also believe, that a jewish infant not baptized into the Church of Rome is automatically hell-bound.
The link that support the statements are above.
There was no evidence of illness, except the claims of the servant. They servant was fired and brought her claim up shortly after being fired. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out she cooked up something in retribution.
And you are no friend. You condone kidnapping.
Unfortunely, the JudenFree policies of Obama are very clear.
Muslims, fundamentalist Roman Catholics (or whatever one would call the kidnapper-friendly Roman Catholics) — and people wonder why Zionists are Zionists.
That's not what the church teaches nor what I believe and I have the feeling you know better to make these accusations?
Well, if Anna Morisi felt compelled to baptise the jewish infant Edgar because she was afraid he would otherwise be damned should he die of his illness, what other conclusion should I draw?
Since throughout this discussion you have unfailingly defended the actions of Anna Morisi as a glorious thing, what other conclusion should I draw about your beliefs?
If that's not what the Church of Rome teaches, then why are you defending it?
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.