Posted on 07/08/2009 10:24:10 AM PDT by FromLori
Sorry, Mr. Pope, but we seem to disagree on a few things.
Or excusing the Communist Priests actions?
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/08/honduras-riding-tigers
“Liberals” INSIST that socialism is the embodiment of what Christ said about taking care of the poor.
Nothing of the sort. There is no way to justify that against the “main and plain” of the bible.
When I presented this argument to a liberal “Christian”,
she first said that that was just my interpretation. When I stated that there was hardly any “interpretation” involved when it’s stated multiple times in different books, she insisted that the bible “was written by angry men”. She only didn’t say “angry WHITE men” because that would be absurd.
So, liberal “Christians” prefer to cling to their earthly religion and denegrate and disregard the plain word of God.
To be honest, I also find the term “redistribution” to be troubling, at least as the term is defined politically. It’s possible the Pope had a different meaning that got lost in translation somewhere. I’m waiting to see the Latin version of the encyclical to be sure.
I read the socialist parts of his just released unholy writ.
What was his quote concerning Obama and the ND issue?
Did you read the blessings he gave the Communist Priest?
http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/statements/pga_opening_en.pdf
I believe you are responding to the comment I made in #37. If so, I’m not sure how anything you have said there is at odds with anything I said. The person you described appears to be viewing the Gospels through American political constructs of liberal and conservative dogma. That seems myopic and limiting to me. The fact that she appears to be using a liberal dogma doesn’t really make much difference. It’s still myopic and limiting.
“I’m not an expert in Church doctrine, but I believe that the Church’s opposition to Marxism, and by extension Poland’s Communist regime, was based more on Marxism’s aggressive atheism than on its curtailment of economic freedoms.” ~ mojito
I don’t think so:
Excerpts From Pacem In Terris: Peace on Earth
Encyclical of Pope John XXIII, On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity, And Liberty, April 11, 1963
“Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts.
In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision.
Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement.
There is nothing human about a society that is welded together by force.
Far from encouraging, as it should, the attainment of man’s progress and perfection, it is merely an obstacle to his freedom.”
“Hence, a regime which governs solely or mainly by means of threats and intimidation or promises of reward, provides men with no effective incentive to work for the common good.
And even if it did, it would certainly be offensive to the dignity of free and rational human beings.”
“Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since ‘it is right to obey God rather than men.’”
Much more here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2287244/posts?page=7#7
Slam *dunk*!
OK, so what is your point? Neither the Pope nor I advocated a purely governmental solution.
“On the accuracy — I believe in one of the links I post Kolokotronis has the same question; he wanted to read the Latin first.”
Clearly, a Latin text would be helpful. I assume that Latin is still the official language of the Vatican. But in reading the French version in comparison to the English, I can say that those two versions say the same thing. Latin, English or French, notwithstanding, the encyclical has to be read with the mind of The Church and the Fathers to fully appreciate what +BXVI is saying.
The biggest concern I am reading on these threads seems to revolve around the pope’s use of the term “redistribution”. In point of fact, the word appears, if I recall correctly, seven times in Chapter III only. Its use there is hardly revolutionary or “socialistic”, much less “communistic” and of course The Church has roundly and clearly condemned both. Economies in one manner or another all redistribute wealth; the issue is whether they do it justly. The concern of The Church is a universally just system, not one designed to maintain, or for that matter having the intended or unintended consequence of maintaining the dominance of one society or country or people over another.
Frankly, I think this encyclical happily will compel members of The Church and perhaos even others who claim to be Christians to reevaluate some of their more fundamental operative philosophies which may have been born more of mundane politics and self-interest than what The Faith has always taught.
I should of course have stated that the Church is opposed to political tyranny and governments dominated by secret police, like all Communist countries were, and are, as in the case of Cuba.
But still I have to hold that the Church's position on capitalism and “economic justice” is more problematic, and includes a longstanding endorsement of “democratic socialism.”
Indeed, the persistent appeal of the now officially forbidden “liberation theology” shows that, at the very least, influential parts of the Church have at times favored a very leftist, redistributive kind of economics.
Did you ever hear the Sermon on the Mount? Or the Semon on the Plain?
You might to re-think your statement.
Thanks for your input.
I agree. For details, click my screen name and scroll down to "the signers of the Constitution from North to South".
It's not her mission.
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.