Cardinal Says U.S. Treated Saddam 'Like a Cow'

Yahoo! News / Reuters ^ | 12-16-2003 | Philip Pullella

[Iowegian]

Again, Jesus said it.

No, your church's misinterpretation of a statement of Jesus. That this gives the church the power to themselves, I'm sure is just a happy accident for them.

[ninenot]

BOOKMARK # 240.

[SoothingDave]

No, your church's misinterpretation of a statement of Jesus.

How could the Church that was there, misinterpret Jesus? How is it even logical, or God-like, to leave everyone in error?

SD

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

Actually, at times, dealing in charity and mercy are part of justice, at least the Catholic vision thereof. I invite those better versed in the specifics of Catholic theology to offer a better explanation. But here is a quote from Pope Leo XIII, from Rerum Novarum:

"35. On the use of wealth we have the excellent and extremely weighty teaching, which, although found in a rudimentary stage in pagan philosophy, the Church has handed down in a completely developed form and causes to be observed not only in theory but in everyday life. The foundation of this teaching rests on this, that the just ownership of money is distinct from the just use of money."

Note the distinction between just OWNERSHIP and just USE.

"36. To own goods privately, as We saw above, is a right natural to man, and to exercise this right, especially in life in society, is not only lawful, but clearly necessary.'It is lawful for man to own his own things. It is even necessary for human life.' [10] But if the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? the Church replies without hesitation: 'As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need. Wherefore the Apostle says: "Charge the rich of this world...to give readily, to share with others".' [11] No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life becomingly and decently: 'No one is obliged to live unbecomingly.' [12] But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. 'Give that which remains as alms.' [13] These are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action."

You'll note that Pope Leo, here, distinguishes, as you do, between charity and justice, but also states that where there is extreme need, giving to the poor is a duty of justice.

Pope Leo XIII continues:

"The substance of all this is the following: whoever has received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine Providence, for the benefit of others."

That is our obligation. It is an obligation to ourselves, and to society. It is just that we meet it.

As to your particular assertions:

"In your earlier note you mentioned property rights as one of the components of social justice as you define it.

"That is a contradiction.

"To say that justice requires us to feed and clothe the poor is to say that the poor have a *right* to the property diverted to their use. But if each man has a right to be secure in his own property, how can other people have a claim on it?"

No, there is no contradiction. There is a moral obligation, a form of justice, that is required of each of us, to assist those who are unable to fulfill their own need. Yet, no poor person has a specific claim to a specific article or piece of my property. That would be a property right.

And no person, poor or not, has a right to my assistance. I have an obligation to provide assistance, where prudent, but that is an obligation set upon me by the moral law, and not as a fulfillment of a poor person's right.

"And if those people have a right to that property under the rubric of social justice, then it follows that society has a duty to see justice done. Seeing justice done under those circumstances necessarily involves a redistribution of wealth, which is a violation of property rights."

Well, the first premise is false. Though I'm obligated, in justice, to act with charity to those in extreme need, no other person, apart from myself (and my wife - in case she's looking over my shoulder), has a property right in my possessions.

As well, not every demand of justice ought to be enforced by society. Justice demands that I speak truthfully about my neighbor. But I haven't seen too many folks in my neighborhood prosecuted for malicious gossip, even though it is unjust, and often very hurtful. Society does not enforce this requirement of justice except in very serious circumstances.

As well, property rights, at least as the Catholic Church has defined them through the centuries, are not unlimited. If they were, then it would be difficult to find a moral basis for taxation, at all. The Church teaches that we are obligated to pay our taxes.

The Church teaches that your individual right to property stems from your obligation to use it well and wisely, for the benefit of yourself and of man. And use it justly. The Church also teaches that how an individual disposes of his property, for good or ill, is mostly given over to the judgement of the individual. Nonetheless, the individual is obligated to use it wisely and justly. The Church merely teaches that society is not necessarily within its rights to coerce you to always do what is right and just.

Here, the Church does offer a significant amount of freedom in determining the nature of the relationship between the individual and the society. The Church doesn't oppose some redistribution of wealth. The Church opposes socialism, and in fact, condemns it as a morally illicit way to order a society economically (much of Rerum Novarum is a condemnation of thoroughgoing socialism). But when the Church condemns socialism, she condemns an entire philosophical system and economic methodology. She does not condemn every aspect that one might find in a socialist system.

It is a little simplistic to view the condemnation of entire socialist systems as condemning every specific feature that one might find in a socialist system.

You are right if what you believe is that there is a large area in the middle that is not defined by Church teaching. That's the freedom that you're putting forth to Iowegian. It is beyond the competence of the Church to prescribe a specific positive path for ordering an economy, and thus, the Church leaves a lot to debate.

Thus, you're free to condemn certain features of our own economy as being evil, though the Church doesn't teach it, herself. And others are free to argue that you're wrong in your specific condemnations, though they ought not cite the Church as their authority.

Finally, dsc, you reject the term "social justice". Well, you can if you wish, but then you reject the teachings of the Magisterium. It is the popes themselves who use the term. Just off the cuff, Pope Pius XI used it in Quadragesimo Anno, Pope John XIII in Mater et Magistra, so on, and so forth. Pope Leo also speaks about how justice is served in society (condemning socialism as socially unjust), and thus addresses the topic of "social justice", as well.

Thus my point stands, "social justice" is a perfectly good term to describe a body of authoritative teachings of the Magisterium, notwithstanding the abuse of the term by folks whose ideologies have already been authoritatively condemned by that same Magisterium.


sitetest

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Catspaw's posts speak for themselves in that they are obviously motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry.

[Quester]

Again, Jesus said it. It is so. Whether your standard of "proof" is met or not, it remains so. Jesus started a Church and He has made sure she does not fail. How glorious is the Lord to not leave us to wallow in error and uncertainty, as you imagine He has done!

Indeed He did ... He said that His church would not fail. And what do you know ... His church is still here and still preaching His gospel.

Whether or not that church is the Catholic Church of today is up for debate.

Predictably ... Catholics say yes, ... while Protestants say no.

[Iowegian]

How could the Church that was there, misinterpret Jesus?

They didn't, Peter didn't ever act like or claim to be a Pope. The misinterpretation (intentional) was added much later, when needed for power.

The church of Jesus Christ does not cease to exist because it admits that it is fallible, therefore the gates of Hell has not prevailed against Christ's true church.

[Quester]

How could the Church that was there, misinterpret Jesus?

The Church that was there didn't misinterpret Jesus. In fact, the Apostles got it quite right.

How is it even logical, or God-like, to leave everyone in error?

But that's just it ... everyone was not left in error.

[Quester]

Oranges and lemons. He was not speaking of anything as pedestrian as mere church attendence. Those attending Protestant Churches are, in general, not being given the fullness of Truth and are not being fed sacramentally either. They present a piece as if it were the whole Enchilada. Nay, as if it were the entire banquet.

So ... why is it that these well-fed Catholics can't seem to muster up the energy for regular church attendance, ... pedestrian as it is ?

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

It ought to be remembered, also, that the Church's teachings on social justice are not mostly about aiding those in dire need. The Church also teaches about the just relationships between owner and worker, the concept of just wages, the relationships between state and citizen, state and family, state and society, the right of the state to regulate the economic order to promote social justice, relations between rich and poor (what we might call the "working poor", as opposed to those who cannot meet their most basic needs), the legitimacy of trade unions, appropriate forms of taxation, etc.

Those who fixate on "social justice" as an excuse for socialism aren't well-versed in the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church.


sitetest

[SoothingDave]

But that's just it ... everyone was not left in error.

We are back to the "table scraps" argument again. If what is "left" is not error, it is certainly a whole lot less than the buffet of Truth.

The Protestant conclusion is that, outside of a few fundamentals, all is optional, even relative. And we have no indisputable way of knowing if any of the rest of our beliefs are truly true or not. We can only flounder in indecision and error.

I simply can not believe that that is what Jesus came here for, to deliver a few bullet points and leave us in the dark about the rest.

SD

[SoothingDave]

So ... why is it that these well-fed Catholics can't seem to muster up the energy for regular church attendance, ... pedestrian as it is ?

You've answered your own question. The ones not attending are the ones not being fed. The 30 percent (or whatever) of Catholics who attend Mass on any given week are the same 30 percent. It's not a roulette wheel.

SD

[Iowegian]

I simply can not believe that that is what Jesus came here for, to deliver a few bullet points and leave us in the dark about the rest.

Funny, it was the RC's that were arguing just today that they had so much room to believe what they want on so many things that the church didn't describe as dogmatic. You guys do love to have it both ways. Whatever fits your current argument, I suppose.

[Quester]

I simply can not believe that that is what Jesus came here for, to deliver a few bullet points and leave us in the dark about the rest.

We have eternity to be filled in on the peripherals.

Surely you don't believe that God's eternal revelation to the Church has all been revealed, do you ?

[SoothingDave]

Funny, it was the RC's that were arguing just today that they had so much room to believe what they want on so many things that the church didn't describe as dogmatic. You guys do love to have it both ways.

You sure try hard to find evil motives. The fact is that while the Church is nowhere near as restrictive on thought as you imagine her to be, there is still much more "dogma" that must be assented to in Catholicism than in Fundamentalism or any branch of Protestant Christianity.

That is my point, and you know it.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Surely you don't believe that God's eternal revelation to the Church has all been revealed, do you ?

God has revealed to us all that He intends to. Revelation is over.

For us on earth, that is. When we are changed, in the twinkling of an eye, as we enter God's Presence, of course we will see God and much will be revealed.

But for the time being, revelation is over.

SD

[Quester]

You've answered your own question. The ones not attending are the ones not being fed. The 30 percent (or whatever) of Catholics who attend Mass on any given week are the same 30 percent.

So why can't these (the 30%) help to strengthen their weaker brothers and sisters ?

[Iowegian]

That is my point, and you know it.

I wasn't claiming that you have evil intent, just an inconsistent argument. I know what you mean, and I still think you want to have it both ways.

[SoothingDave]

So why can't these (the 30%) help to strengthen their weaker brothers and sisters ?

Not everybody wants to be "strengthened." Many "Catholics" are in name only.

SD

[Quester]

You've answered your own question. The ones not attending are the ones not being fed. The 30 percent (or whatever) of Catholics who attend Mass on any given week are the same 30 percent.

So ... it appears that the question comes down to ... what has truly been revealed by God ... and what has not ?

Catholics claim a fuller revelation, partly based upon that which is not found in the scriptures, ... while Protestants claim a more restricted revelation ... limited to what is found in the scriptures.