Posted on 07/07/2009 10:30:02 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
Wealth springs from individuals-not from governments. You would have thought the Vatican learned this lesson with charging people for indulgences.
LOL. Perhaps Benedict sees a large “commission based indulgence” available if he steers all the sheeple to the “central authority”.
What is eerily similar here is that his organization has always been reliant upon their constituents accepting the concept of a “world religious authority”. Now...hmmmmmm.
Hey Mr. Pope, STFU.
No worries. I’m not a Catholic, but as I said, I do know of many Catholics that I consider fine Christians, and whom I look forward to seeing in Heaven someday. My wife’s grandparents were Catholic, and were some of the best Christians I have ever known.
And, while I know that the Church isn’t perfect (none are...certainly none I’ve ever attended or belonged to, as they are made up of imperfect people like me), they do a lot of good. For all the criticism that they take in the media, the good Priests and Nuns who labor their whole lives doing good, simply because they love Jesus FAR outnumber the few that do things they shouldn’t. I wish the good ones would get more press.
I may not agree with the Pope or Catholics on everything, and I feel that as Christians we should be able to have civil disagreements, but we agree on enough that we are allies, not enemies.
...called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat... Parts of the encyclical, titled "Charity in Truth," seemed bound to upset free marketeers because of its underlying rejection of unbridled capitalism and unregulated market forces, which he said had led to "thoroughly destructive" abuse of the system. The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for "forms of redistribution" of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.
Okay, it seems as though each of you insist that “subsidiary” is the filter we should read the Pope’s words through. I’ll bite. Can any of you explain what “subsidiary,” when applied to all the contiguous text in post #143, would mean? Please give an example that covers all of this using “subsidiary.”
You wrote:
“Can any of you explain what “subsidiary,” when applied to all the contiguous text in post #143, would mean?”
First, since I have no reason to believe you understand 143 - since you clearly know nothing about subsidiarity or its principles governing govering of societal actions - you better study up on that.
“Please give an example that covers all of this using “subsidiary.””
First, be realistic. Snce what the pope discussed the need for something that does not yet exist, how can I give you and example of something that does exist workng in something that doesn’t?
That, sir, is about the most retarded response I’ve ever heard.
I give you a chance to tell us an example of this concept you keep insisting can singly describe how do interpret it, and you can’t come up with a single example to illustrate what might be meant.
You are freaking crazy.
So how do you do a One World Government with “subsidiary”? Just give one friggin example.
Why does that sound like a Marxist front organization?
Jesus is the ONLY one who can give us justice and peace.
You wrote:
“That, sir, is about the most retarded response I’ve ever heard.”
Since you don’t know what you’re talking about but haven’t stopped to simply admit that - it doesn’t surprise me you would say that.
“I give you a chance to tell us an example of this concept you keep insisting can singly describe how do interpret it, and you can’t come up with a single example to illustrate what might be meant. You are freaking crazy.”
No, just smart enough to realize that giving examples about how a principle will work inside something that doesn’t exist doesn’t really make sense.
You wrote:
“So how do you do a One World Government with “subsidiary”? Just give one friggin example.”
Why would I give you an example for a principle working in something that doesn’t exist? Besides, I see no evidence that Pope Benedict called for a “One World Government” as you seem to envision it.
A good study, thanks.
The Jesuits have managed far and wide the world over for centuries to neuter the fire, soul, truth out of Christianity wherever they could get away with it—which has been the world over in virtually every country they held the least bit of sway in.
I have a hard time considering them Christian even in a sham way.
I plan to do my best to make time to read the whole encyclical as I did the last similar one before it.
When I do, I will post my commentary on it’s own thread.
My current perspective is that this encyclical reads somewhat like the last one only worse.
The globalism stuff is more blatant, more brazen, more clearly and starkly stated.
Sure, there’s a dozen or more rationalizations, equivocations, talking out of both sides of his fingers, yada yada yada.
However, whether one is crying “subsidiarity”
as an explanation, a fig-leaf, a lofty sounding intellectual smoke screen or rationalization . . .
or whether one is screaming !!!OUT OF CONTEXT!!! OUT OF CONTEXT!
It just doesn’t wash.
It almost appears that the Pope is trying to white-wash rank tyrannical evil and make the medicine go down with a train load of sugary words.
It won’t work.
>> “...how a principle will work inside something that doesn’t exist doesn’t really make sense.”
Here is a page about “the principle of subsidiarity,” as applied to the ECU. FWIW. (No endorsement of the accuracy of this paper is implied)
Nevertheless the main problem still exists: the variety of interests due to the heterogeneity in Europe. With the enlargement this problem will increase. Therefore conflicts on the right application of the principle of subsidiarity will become more frequent. To encounter this a special body could be created, that assembles deputies from the European Parliament, the national parliament and in case of federal structure members of regional assemblies. Its task would be the settling of conflicts on competence.
http://www.constitutional-convention.net/bulletin/archives/000093.html
DG
WELL PUT.
Blessed be the Name, The Word, The Ways of The Lord.
Why don’t you understand the Catholic New Agency is as apt to “sugarcoat” the Encyclical as the MSM is to “ATTACK” (Your claim) it? Maybe you should read the Encyclical with an open mind and then point out the error(s) in the Reuters article.
= = = =
INDEED.
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.