tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post7061624998698636852..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Yes to a Plan, No to this OneJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-44699184546439452162010-06-05T20:29:38.803-05:002010-06-05T20:29:38.803-05:00Get Insure for your risk. Read this articel to hel...Get Insure for your risk. Read this articel to help get the right insurance as your needed<br /><br />http://www.insurancebenefit.tk<br /><br />My BR/EvaEva S.http://www.insurancebenefit.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-7108775508353897142010-06-01T16:19:04.281-05:002010-06-01T16:19:04.281-05:00Late. Very late to the conversation...but I submit...Late. Very late to the conversation...but I submit the premise is wrong with regard to the "greater good"...there's no such thing, ultimately, Scripturally.<br /><br />By the theory of "greater good", the individual is subjugated - this counters Catholic Christian teaching and invites secular selection - this "good" is greater, while individuals - the preborn, the aged, the infirm, the unproductive, are the "lesser". Sounds like a whole lot of historical ugliness repeating itself, if you ask me. <br /><br />There's neither health nor care in that bill, and certainly there's no justice. Christ was in fact a merciful revolutionary, but not a juvenile Robin Hood. The standard we've been called to is much higher than we're willing to rest on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-85038306077841134662010-05-05T10:38:23.211-05:002010-05-05T10:38:23.211-05:00Is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a Dis...Is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a Distributist ?<br /><br /><b>Mullen apologizes for comments on wounded care</b> <br /><br /><i>A call by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs for community organizations to step in to help wounded war veterans make the transition to civilian life has drawn complaints from a major veterans organization and an apology from the JCS chairman.<br /><br />“The point I was trying to make, perhaps not so eloquently, is that the scope of the needs confronting our troops and their families is too great and too deep to be met only through the bureaucracy,” Mullen said. “Yes, the government must provide our veterans with educational opportunities, employment assistance and quality health care. <b>But we must also recognize there are some needs best delivered and best administered at the local level.”</b></i><br /><br />http://militarytimes.com/news/2010/05/military_veterans_community_mullen_050410w/<br /><br />Is this not an affirmation that Obamacare is "too big to succeed" and that LOCAL solutions are best ? I mean if they can't handle the VA system - what makes them think they can handle the whole country ? <br /><br />Buhler... Buhler - ANYONE ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-34157075662729381952010-05-02T22:33:14.944-05:002010-05-02T22:33:14.944-05:00Now that the bill has been signed...
"Obama&...Now that the bill has been signed...<br /><br />"Obama's Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, has now indirectly admitted that ObamaCare will impose a system of rationing through the newly-created "Independent Payment Advisory Board."<br /><br />It's the "Golden Rule" - them that has the gold makes the rules. If anyone actually believes that this, the most pro-death admin ever, won't use this to justify denial of care of even euthanasia, and that barring a revival of Christianity ANY future admin wouldn't, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. <br /><br />http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=13765&posts=2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-19638634038150883862010-04-29T13:56:19.302-05:002010-04-29T13:56:19.302-05:00Thank you, Joe, for the information. Sorry this w...Thank you, Joe, for the information. Sorry this was so late, but I've been fairly busy the last few days.<br /><br />VikingVikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660688426762417651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5282012540383657682010-04-26T01:55:38.915-05:002010-04-26T01:55:38.915-05:00Viking,
No, "Vendee" just refers to on...Viking, <br /><br />No, "Vendee" just refers to one event - the War in the Vendee region of France. <br /><br />And yes, they were all killed. That is what I meant. They didn't have concentration camps in those days. They just killed them where they found them. This is what the commanding general said at the time:<br /><br />"There is no more Vendée. It died with its wives and its children by our free sabres. I have just buried it in the woods and the swamps of Savenay. According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the feet of the horses, massacred the women who, at least for these, will not give birth to any more brigands. I do not have a prisoner to reproach me. I have exterminated all. The roads are sown with corpses. At Savenay, brigands are arriving all the time claiming to surrender, and we are shooting them non-stop... Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment."Joe Hargravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348644452651343624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-895534691521301842010-04-25T23:59:29.946-05:002010-04-25T23:59:29.946-05:00Joe,
Thank you for answering my question. So &q...Joe, <br /><br />Thank you for answering my question. So "Vendee" came to stand for the French revolutionaries' way of dealing with armed resistance? Were all these 120-450 Catholics killed or were some removed to concentration camps or their forebears?<br /><br />VikingVikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660688426762417651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-67841583987751973692010-04-25T15:27:32.964-05:002010-04-25T15:27:32.964-05:00Viking,
More or less. It refers to an event duri...Viking, <br /><br />More or less. It refers to an event during which anywhere between 120,000 and 450,000 Catholics were "religiously cleansed" from the Vendee region of France.Joe Hargravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348644452651343624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-82451081562763993432010-04-24T14:37:53.669-05:002010-04-24T14:37:53.669-05:00I've a question to ask here. The Vendee has b...I've a question to ask here. The Vendee has been mentioned here, as apparently analogous to the Gulag. Yet when I checked the term on Wikipedia, they say it's a region in France where there was an anti-Republican revolt, that is, where a majority of people were still loyal to the Crown and Church. Does "Vendee" refer to the brutal means of suppression of the rebellion?<br /><br />VikingVikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660688426762417651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-12690412549292617072010-04-23T02:28:45.898-05:002010-04-23T02:28:45.898-05:00John,
I don't think you're seriously try...John, <br /><br />I don't think you're seriously trying to equivocate the near extermination of the Catholic Church by radical revolutionaries from the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks to the rather slow and mostly freely-chosen, self-imposed decline of the American Catholic Church - but one might infer it. <br /><br />"The Vendee or the Gulag considers the Church something worthy of being hated and feared."<br /><br />Yes, but why is it relevant, why does it matter? <br /><br />"In one, the Church was a force to be opposed; in the other, it was just another market choice."<br /><br />And we still have the choice - I wouldn't call it a "market choice" - to turn back to it. No one in revolutionary France, Spain, Russia, etc. had that choice. <br /><br />If we don't like it as a "choice", what would be better? Forced conversions? I'm not being flippant or offensive on purpose, but what are we supposed to conclude from the disparaging of Catholicism as a choice?Joe Hargravenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-52437645856533028242010-04-22T22:45:26.500-05:002010-04-22T22:45:26.500-05:00Prof. Médaille,
Interesting comment. I hear and r...Prof. Médaille,<br /><br />Interesting comment. I hear and read the term "religious marketplace" a lot, and usually used in a favorable sense by religious folks (including some Catholics) to describe the positive impact of freedom of religion on a society. <br /><br />I wonder though, is the commodification of religious belief a product of freedom of religion or of our economic system, or a bit of both? I would hope we could have freedom of religion without watering all religions down to the point where they are just ideologies. <br /><br />Sorry to take the discussion off topic.Mr. Piccolonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-61410068774197578832010-04-22T21:49:33.615-05:002010-04-22T21:49:33.615-05:00Countries that take religion seriously persecute t...Countries that take religion seriously persecute the Church and try to destroy it. The Vendee or the Gulag considers the Church something worthy of being hated and feared. The more enlightened modernism seeks to make the Church irrelevant, seeks to marginalize it. The first strategy waters the faith of the Church with the blood of the martyrs; the second condemns the Church to being another sect, another ideology, another irrelevance. <br /><br />The Soviet Union espoused a Religious atheism; the late great America a practical atheism. In one, the Church was a force to be opposed; in the other, it was just another market choice.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-54896838265483298492010-04-22T21:39:37.517-05:002010-04-22T21:39:37.517-05:00Chris,
You've said a lot. I'll try to hi...Chris, <br /><br />You've said a lot. I'll try to hit the main points. <br /><br />"it is madenss to work for an ideal?"<br /><br />No. It's madness to willfully pursue an irrational agenda. Catholics are not the majority. Faithful Catholics are a smaller minority. Faithful traditional Catholics whose views are comparable to Leo's are a handful. <br /><br />"wh osays we do not work in our communities?"<br /><br />I'm glad we agree. Worry about that first. Worry about what you can accomplish. Don't try to cram an entire dinner down your throat when you can barely chew and swallow the first bite. <br /><br />"nor was he saying "hey, do what you want""<br /><br />No one said he said that. <br /><br />"he does not support the "rally around the US Constitution and flag "<br /><br />We can't possibly know what he would support, since he's been dead for a century. But Pope Benedict spoke quite favorably of the US political system during his trip, as I've shown on numerous occasions.<br /><br />" this was all predicted and a part of the Devil's end game."<br /><br />If this is the end game, then how likely is it that we're going to change anything? Let's focus on what we can accomplish and do what God asks of us. Then we'll see what follows. <br /><br />Regarding the founding, and particularly George Washington, I've already written enough about that. I'm not covering that ground again, except to point you (once again) to Longinqua by Leo and Sertum Laetitiae by Pius XII. <br /><br />I will also remind you that the Catholic Church spread like wildfire in this supposedly evil, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic neo-pagan empire - tens of millions of Catholics, parishes, missions, universities, schools, media organizations, fraternities, social clubs, etc. etc. <br /><br />Catholics hadn't had it as good since high Christendom. And it didn't turn to crap until perverted criminals such as Rembert Weakland overthrew Rome's authority at the local level and introduced their disgusting heresies and ugly aesthetics into the Church of their own accord. <br /><br />The crisis of the Church is not an American crisis. It is a modernity crisis. <br /><br />" I made straights A's in school rarely cracking a book when it comes to history"<br /><br />Congratulations. Why would you tell me this as if it ought to make a difference? <br /><br />"Rao does not seem to be a simpleton."<br /><br />Appeals to authority bore me, Chris. There are realities, like the success of the Church in America, that don't logically follow from his (or your) premises. When your beliefs conflict with reality, it is the beliefs that ought to be altered - not your view of reality. <br /><br />you said in your previous post, <br /><br />"the idea is working well in Malta and other nations"<br /><br />I was contesting the relevance of that. I was not contesting the relevance of this, which is in your last post in reply:<br /><br />"a plan, in and of itself, is not a bad thing"<br /><br />I didn't say it was. I said the fact that it "works in Malta" means nothing. I stand by it. <br /><br />Finally, Pius X is not opposed to Leo. Pius X was speaking to the French bishops about a movement that was enamored with the radical ideas of the French Revolution, which was one of the most bloody anti-Catholic regimes in history. <br /><br />The American Revolution is in no way comparable to the madness of the French. Catholics got the First Amendment in America; in France they got the Vendee.Joe Hargravenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-54876557410519933082010-04-22T10:28:24.841-05:002010-04-22T10:28:24.841-05:00found this, seems to contradict what Joe is ascrib...found this, seems to contradict what Joe is ascribing to Leo XIII, unless conclude that Pius X somehow is opposed to Leo:<br /><br />"We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be set up unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the new City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants." - Pope St. Pius X, Nostre charge apostolique.Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-33553079200422040922010-04-22T08:49:28.996-05:002010-04-22T08:49:28.996-05:00I know I cited of few of Dr.Rao's articles, th...I know I cited of few of Dr.Rao's articles, this is a good one, if I have not already posted this.sorry again for mis-spellings.My fingers and mind do not always work together.<br /><br />http://jcrao.freeshell.org/AmericanDreamChris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-88779297626278117142010-04-22T08:07:01.491-05:002010-04-22T08:07:01.491-05:00response part 3
Comment-both Leo XIII those prev...response part 3 <br /><br />Comment-both Leo XIII those previous and after him condemned freemasonry and liberliasm.This nation was largely built on Protestantism, which is condemned and the liberalism of the Enlightenment,etc.Just becaues Leo XIII did not specifically condemn America by name, you think this great anti-liberal pontiff was then fully supporting America.We are not debating forms of Govt, but the foundations and principles. As I have noted previously, he did say nice things about America, does not equal what you are saying, that America is some shinning city on a hill.Again, you are putting words in Leo's mouth.he did not support what you are saying, he was pragmatic, as he was about the French Republic, but does not = support.Yes, Leo did not say one form of Govt was better or worse, but he does not support liberalism.Governing a nation by Christian principles-now how do we do that? You seem to reject and throw out a Catholic state and seem not to even wantto consider it.But, were we not largely Christian in the 20's and 30"? Most people were, right? Then how do we explain widespread support for Eugenics in this nation by protestants? Even now, they have led charge along with others to knock down any laws against contraceptives and many support, openly, abortion.In 1973, we Catholics were largely alone in that fight.What if most again have a vote and decide that abortion is fine? Protestants tend to due that, go with fads and with majority votes.SO, then, how do we have a nation of "Chrisitan principles"? Based on whose? Armininas? Calvinists? Mormons? Who's principles then do we turn to? Have a vote ourselves? Also, as to my "whitewashing" noted earlier, take that up with John Rao and many, many other Catholics that have pointed out succintly the problems with the "American way of life".Rao does not seem to be a simpleton.<br />Joe says: "<br />The US is not Malta. Malta is a tiny island. The US is a nation of 300 million with a massive immigration problem, declining birth rates, and a public health crisis even among its children, who grow more obese and develop greater health problems every year. <br /><br />If the US were Malta, or even Japan, where they have the highest life-expectancy in the world, it would be different. But the US is the US. It's not any other place. And so it is fallacious to compare it to other places as if it shared their essential characteristics."<br />Comment-yes, the size is different and that is a point I have argued with others, that a small nation like Malta and others normally does function better with a Govt health plan due to its homogenity, small size and stable growth rates. The point of Richard Aleman's article is that a govt plan, in and of itself, is not opposed to CST. He did not say it would be good for USA, nor the current plans.But a plan, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-46155975328732338712010-04-22T08:05:53.246-05:002010-04-22T08:05:53.246-05:00response part #2
Joe says: "That said, what ...response part #2<br /><br />Joe says: "That said, what Bush did hypocritically, Obama does openly. One can admire his consistency, I suppose, but one also ought to be more frightened by it."<br />Comment-actually, not frightened at all, this was all predicted and a part of the Devil's end game.Plus, we by our blindness and apathy brought this mess on ourselves. Actually, I prefer to have openess.One thing that I recall saying when I was state Chair for the Constitution Party was that Hillary scared me a lot less then most GOP candidates.Why? Because she was open in her views and motives, there was no shenanigans and hiding anything.Bill was rather transparent, even when he strived to be otherwise.I prefer an Obama being up front and honest in his views, then being stroked and lied to, as we have been through the last decades by the GOP.Obama has scary views and plans, true, but at least we know openly the enemy and his plans.<br /><br />Joe says: "As you well know, I completely disagree with your simplistic whitewash of American history."<br />Comment-well, yes I know you agree, though I do not feel it is simplistic as you think, I merely in a quick article or comments, hit on some general and main themes.Also, what is "whitewashing"? Describe that please. Was not Franklin the head of the PA Freemasons? Was he not a member of the Hellfire Club in England? Not openly a Freemason, rubbing shoulders w/Voltaire in France,etc? Was washington not the most well know Freemason in America? Just read their worn writings and those of their contemporaries.and Jefferson, Adams,etc,etc. Again, as Cardinal Pie observed-and I paraphrase-if the environment you live in is not Catholic, what you erect in the morning will be torn down in the evening.The nation is teraing down, Joe, how do you like it? I don’t and know you do not either. If you disagree with my history-and I made straights A's in school rarely cracking a book when it comes to history-that is fine.You on the other hand seem to have a simplistic Americanism.No, not trying to slander you in the least nor name call, but Americanism is a noxious disorder that has infected all parts of the Church in this nation.Believe, I used to be were you are. Let me reiterate, I mean you no ill will, no insult, I enjoy much of what you contribute to this site and others.I have no doubt you are a good man and sincere. But on some points, sincerely wrong. We can agree to disagree as two brothers in Christ.<br />Joe says: " Contemplate why Leo XIII reaffirmed that the Church objects to no form of government as long as it is governed by Christian principles, or why he never condemned the USA for its form of government. "Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-88833323521323708532010-04-22T08:03:39.833-05:002010-04-22T08:03:39.833-05:00Response part#1
Joe says:"We should be worki...Response part#1<br /><br />Joe says:"We should be working towards what we can accomplish. To work for the establishment of a confessional regime in the United States circa 2010 is irrational madness, in my opinion. "<br />Comment-it is madenss to work for an ideal? Was it made that 11 scruffy guys and some women locked in an upper room were cahrged with spreading the Gospel? If I were Roman or Pro-Pharisee jew, I would likely say yes.No state would arise overnight, Joe and America has sunk so low that we can likely only go up, so why not try? Other than throwing in a towel and retreating to a dark closet if you will.<br /><br />Joe says: "Not only that, it is entirely unnecessary. If we build the Kingdom of God in our local communities, then it will transform the nation"<br />Comment-I agree, wh osays we do not work in our communities? Not me.Sanctification and change starts with self, then family, then community and yes, eventually a nation.<br />Joe says "Read Immortale Dei again if you doubt me; the concessions that Leo is willing to make in recognition of the difficult situation of the modern world would have to be considerably extended today. "<br />Comment-have read it, yes he had to at times be pragmatic, like some nations you could not stop or supress non-Catholic worship, but not the ideal nor was he saying "hey, do what you want". Another point, Joe, is that you often will quote Leo XIII to "prove" he though ma, apple pie and the USA was great, but if we take not only his predecessors writings and those after him, but the whole body of his writings, he does not support the "rally around the US Constitution and flag " approach that is so festering Americanist Catholic thought today. When I have time and after my move is over, will try to expand on this thought a bit more.<br /><br />Joe says: "It will take a lot more than decrees from a government that likely will never exist to fix our culture. "<br /><br />Comment-I agree, the Govt is to support Catholic teaching and to assist in its promulgation-ie, not supporting abortion and punishing those that engage in it would be but one example. Again, no decrees will work if we do not first pray and roll up our sleeves.But merely saying "cant work" and "never will work in America" is limiting God. If we do our part, he will do His will and His will may just be to transform this nation…and ourselves..in the process.Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-63761596634328855182010-04-21T14:18:04.278-05:002010-04-21T14:18:04.278-05:00Chris,
"should we not be working toward that...Chris,<br /><br />"should we not be working toward that world?"<br /><br />We should be working towards what we can accomplish. To work for the establishment of a confessional regime in the United States circa 2010 is irrational madness, in my opinion. <br /><br />Not only that, it is entirely unnecessary. If we build the Kingdom of God in our local communities, then it will transform the nation. The reverse process, after 500 years of anti-Catholic revolutions, by which it is imposed by a government from above, is not going to happen.<br /><br />Read Immortale Dei again if you doubt me; the concessions that Leo is willing to make in recognition of the difficult situation of the modern world would have to be considerably extended today. <br /><br />It will take a lot more than decrees from a government that likely will never exist to fix our culture. <br /><br />Your points about Bush are well taken and not disputed. He was a rather lackluster Christian, wasn't he? His "Christianity" was a pacifier. That said, what Bush did hypocritically, Obama does openly. One can admire his consistency, I suppose, but one also ought to be more frightened by it. <br /><br />As you well know, I completely disagree with your simplistic whitewash of American history. <br /><br />I also think you misunderstood my point about moral truth. Contemplate the difference between form and content, if you will. Contemplate why the Catholic Church has dozens of different rites (Latin, Maronite, Melkite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc.) Contemplate why Leo XIII reaffirmed that the Church objects to no form of government as long as it is governed by Christian principles, or why he never condemned the USA for its form of government. <br /><br />The US is not Malta. Malta is a tiny island. The US is a nation of 300 million with a massive immigration problem, declining birth rates, and a public health crisis even among its children, who grow more obese and develop greater health problems every year. <br /><br />If the US were Malta, or even Japan, where they have the highest life-expectancy in the world, it would be different. But the US is the US. It's not any other place. And so it is fallacious to compare it to other places as if it shared their essential characteristics.Joe Hargravenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-18093822530010458052010-04-21T09:11:37.328-05:002010-04-21T09:11:37.328-05:00Sorry for spelling errors, phone and work is picki...Sorry for spelling errors, phone and work is picking up and interrupting a good discussion.typing fast, and spell checking little...mea culpa...Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-34562664124318225602010-04-21T09:07:06.211-05:002010-04-21T09:07:06.211-05:00part 2 response:
Again, most of Constitution is f...part 2 response:<br /><br />Again, most of Constitution is fine-4th amendment,etc, but again,not the ideal as it gives no Catholic preferences to the Church and no protections,etc.Further, you state:<br />"Moral principles can take different forms in different cultures. Recognizing moral truth does not logically demand a uniform manifestation or implementation of that truth in all times and places. The content is objective; the form can vary. "<br /><br />Actually, no, there is but one moral truth, which is Christ and it is defined, promulgated and defended by His one true Church, the Catholic Church.Yes, moral truth is uniformed and it is manifested and implemented.Objective truth is objective, I fail to understand your last comment, what form? How? Where? Either abortion is immoral and hence, as it isi murder, illegal or it is not.Period. Government is then to enforce the laws God gives us against murder.Period.<br /><br />You continue : "This isn't a European nation-state, it is a federal republic, or at least it is supposed to be."<br />Yes, the Constitution,etc defines the USA as a Republic.But why the slap against "European nation states"? If you mean the EU, I am with you against that monster product of the New World Order. But otherwise, what problems do you have with European states? Most are the product of 1789,1848,etc Freemasonic virtues.But, in part, so too is the USA.See : http://jcrao.freeshell.org/FoundingFathers and also, http://jcrao.freeshell.org/Capitalism.<br /><br />I agree, that the principle should be local as possible, that we need to tear down the cnetralized, despotic, central banking mess we have, but Richard's article mainly states that the idea of a state health plan does not run counter to CST. He points out well that plan we have now and most proposed are terrible, that is true, but the idea is working well in Malta and other nations, not so good in many like Canada.<br /><br />Could it work in the USA as it is now? No, but would it always be 100% wrong, likely not...that is the question.Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-39503108987263916772010-04-21T09:06:45.593-05:002010-04-21T09:06:45.593-05:00Joe,
You note that the bill could destroy the st...Joe, <br /><br />You note that the bill could destroy the states and Medicaid.But, long before this atrocious bills' passing, Medicaid was enlarged both by Bush and Obama and their allies.We now have people that apply for Medicaid that are working fullt ime and earning almost $2,000 a month!<br /><br />I know, that is what I do all day long, handle medicaid disability cases (I used to do social security as well)..The mess started with the Federal Reserve, central banking and taxing to support it, now most money is sucked to Washington DC and everything is top-down.Our own Governor was not long ago in DC to beg for federal money.Distasteful.<br /><br />Problem-you state we do not live in the world of Immortale Dei.True, but should we not be working toward that world? And instructing and motivating others to that world? It is an ideal to struggle towrd, is it not?<br /><br />I agree that anything coming for DC is largely rotten, but Tom Laney is also right, that the states are corrupt too.Many, if not most, Governors now are part of the elite as well, Bush and the Terminator but 2 examples.<br /><br />As t oyour observation of the Constitution and the alw-tue we are to obey the lasw of our nation, if and only if, though, they accord with God and is one and only Church…I would argue that Amendment 1 does not, hence that part is flawed. The state must recognize the Catholic Church alone as the Churh christ gave us and must accord it and only it, special protection.See Fr. Fahey's first 2 Points in his 6 point plan.<br /><br />As to noting that Obama,et al are atheistic,etc..maybe so, in their philospophy, but calling them sexual perverts? Least we forget, it was Bush that apppointed openly gay men to high office, assistant secretary of Commerce I belevie and the Ambassador to Romania being 2 of them.Both times, their "partners" were in attendance and were demanded the privledges and rights accorded to spouses, I am specially noting the Romanian situation.<br /><br />Also, I would agree that the Govt does a lot of immoral things with our money, for isntance, during 8 yrs of George "I love jesus he changed my heart" Bush, funding via Title X (unconstitutional) was increased and so too, monies sent to Planned Parenthood. Also, while we are on Bush, it is said both he and his dad have attended parties where male and female underage prostitution was going on.One instance is the Larry King/Boys town scandal, where underaged boys and girls were pimped out.It is said that the pedophile/homo group included the Bushes and other Dems and Repubs.<br /><br />Your comemnts as follows:<br /><br />"Differences between nations and cultures are relevant. Especially when one of the nations is America, whose culture is as much defined by her ideological propositions and her Constitution as it is the other things that typically make up a culture. "<br />Well, yes, different cultures,etc that is true..but so what? Are we not all to be in Christ and His Church? American culture is the product of largely Protestant, Deism and Enlightened fellows.Are we now siding with Novak when he argued that, basically, Rome should take a cue and learn from America? See John's article:<br />http://www.medaille.com/novak%20and%20capitalism.pdf.Chris Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330217544238982513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-88716373416331517702010-04-20T20:25:55.929-05:002010-04-20T20:25:55.929-05:00Rich,
" I am however simply saying that it ...Rich, <br /><br />" I am however simply saying that it is in the central authority’s prerogative, its prudential judgment, whether to intervene at times or not (in defense of the common good) and this is in accord with CST."<br /><br />Here is the problem. I think it can be dangerous to speak of "the central authority's prerogative" in the abstract. It is most certainly its prerogative when it is a Christian state run by Christian men, or even in combination with non-Christians who recognize objective moral truth. <br /><br />I question whether or not this applies to atheist regimes, which is virtually what we have today. At the least we can say that the Obama White House and the Democratic majorities are an atheist government. And that, to me, requires approaching social problems through CST from a different angle - for everything they do will be tainted with their atheism and their sexual perversion. <br /><br />"I agree that many of the American people understood that as well. I don’t deny it."<br /><br />Well, I thought you kinda did when you said that you disagreed with my assertion about the healthy instincts of the American people a few posts ago. <br /><br />If I misunderstood, my apologies. <br /><br />And while I certainly condemn any statement about "the poor being lazy" - it isn't wrong for people to assert that it is their money, their property, being infringed upon. This government does a lot of things with our money that are immoral. <br /><br />And when we need that money to take care of our families, and are already in financial trouble due to the economic downturn, I'd say its a perfectly rational and legitimate thing to get angry about its diversion into a program that may well end up as a massive failure. <br /><br />"Where did I?"<br /><br />Like I said, perhaps I misunderstood you. You disagreed with my claim that the American people's healthy instincts is what motivates opposition to the bill.<br /><br />That was their instinct (about the spending and bankruptcy), and if I didn't make that clear, that's my fault. Again, apologies for not clarifying. <br /><br />On your final point, I don't think it is that sticky. Differences between nations and cultures are relevant. Especially when one of the nations is America, whose culture is as much defined by her ideological propositions and her Constitution as it is the other things that typically make up a culture. <br /><br />Moral principles can take different forms in different cultures. Recognizing moral truth does not logically demand a uniform manifestation or implementation of that truth in all times and places. The content is objective; the form can vary. <br /><br />In the US, people are right to oppose the federal usurpation of local prerogatives. This isn't a European nation-state, it is a federal republic, or at least it is supposed to be. The relations between the states and the federal government are supposed to be defined by certain rules. Attempts to usurp or overturn those rules without the consent of the people isn't morality, its tyranny.Joe Hargravehttp://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-59081820706491519622010-04-20T09:34:52.467-05:002010-04-20T09:34:52.467-05:00But we can't forget that Pius' denunciatio...<i>But we can't forget that Pius' denunciation of individualism was accompanied by an equally strong condemnation not only of collectivism in the abstract, but also of the idea that the state could take over and supplant private industry, to serve as an economic dictator, as Obama clearly wishes it to do.</i><br /><br />Joe, I don’t disagree how dangerous collectivism or economic dictatorship in the hands of the State or private hands is, especially when the State is overrun by private interests (in the encyclical Pius refers to economic dictatorship four times, each of them in reference to private monopolists which have corrupted the Majesty of the State and these forces “must be effectively brought under public authority”). <br /><br /><i>Rather Pius - like all of the popes since Leo XIII - called for the development of a sector outside of the market and the state.</i> <br /><br />I believe we both agree that local, private associations and individuals outside both sectors can and have produced many good fruits. However, I would also refer back to the quotes of the post itself, where the pontiffs recognize the authority and specific intervention, even if provisionally, of the State to act. Again, I am not saying – as this has never been my contention – that right now, this minute, it must act. The State may find other solutions. I am however simply saying that it is in the central authority’s prerogative, its prudential judgment, whether to intervene at times or not (in defense of the common good) and this is in accord with CST.<br /><br /><i>I think many of the American people understood the financial risks and burdens of this bill, and rightfully rejected the idea that a finite resource can also be a good/service to which all people have an equal and unrestricted right. CST doesn't mandate such an irrational position. </i><br /><br />I agree that many of the American people understood that as well. I don’t deny it. However, others begin with this argument and the conversation spirals down to what I previously asserted. “The poor are lazy, unproductive, it’s my money, etc.” <br /><br /><i>Now one can certainly argue that Obamacare or some other federal plan wouldn't have that effect. And that's fine. But anyone who argues that we must make a massive financial commitment to a program that the nation cannot afford has no right to condemn in the name of CST, in my opinion.</i> <br /><br />Where did I? I do believe there has been speculation regarding my post which, I am sad to say, had nothing to do with making said commitment nor was my post uncritical of this particular plan (I stated this from the beginning). It would be sweeping to say one would be against any plan at all without reading its contents, wouldn’t it? Unless one assumes that <i>any plan at all</i> violates CST (the point of my post). <br /><br />Might (or popularity) does not make right, however after this post I am wondering if there is a way to reconcile the different perspectives between Catholics in Europe and America regarding CST. I recognize how a good can become an evil depending how, when, and where it is implemented. However, what I hoped to explore with this post is the moral principle, which we must admit is obviously sticky as when we (I mean the public) argue that a principle is morally right in one nation and a violation in another we have a serious dilemma.<br /><br />Again, I agree there are other options, ones we must work toward to provide a distributist alternativeRichard Alemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272016770106926094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-62902697635448863652010-04-20T09:25:38.234-05:002010-04-20T09:25:38.234-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard Alemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272016770106926094noreply@blogger.com