POS.
(no message)
Good Catholics are turning down the Laetare Medal because ND gives it to people who advocate against Church Doctrine. And people like you are now using the LM to justify supporting someone who advocates against Church Doctrine. Shame on Notre Dame.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
gaudy titles mean, if you running for president on platform of abortion on demand. He's Nancy Pelosi without the botox
(no message)
(no message)
abortion. He for it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Yes there are corrupt, immoral and evil people in Rome.
But the vast majority of them are good people.
Also, "devil worship" may be too strong of an accusation, don't you think?...even for a Jesuit.
(no message)
...a society should restrict immigration from regions of people who hate that society. It is perfectly reasonable for the US and France to restrict immigration from countries where Islamists are grown. Immigration from Hungary to France, or Mexico to the US...that is different than Syria to either. At a minimum, immigration from incompatible cultures should not be naively actively encouraged like Obama did (not naively, because he truly was trying to change America and rectify its colonialist/imperialist exploitation of third world nations) and Biden is about to do (naively, because he has no idea what he is doing in this regard, and just following "feelgood" philosophy without regard to actual, predictable bad consequences, like most modern liberals).
America
Personally, I'm waiting for a president to start drone strikes on the Mexican cartels. Why not? They are no better than ISIS. We have the technology to track them, and after enough of their leaders start dying, Mexico might be able to regain control of their country.
(no message)
(no message)
By this, I mean: Most popes have been well trained to think in terms of how their words may affect people 1000 years from now and longer. So, they are careful with their words.
He is not that type of Pope. So, he causes scandal in his own Church.
He is concerned with the present, and has a casual disregard for the future. In this respect, he is very much an anomaly, although popes like that (good men who say stupid shit) were easier to ignore before the information age. I'm not trying to say he is a bad man...I don't think he is. He is a good man. He wants all Catholics giving to charity and washing feet of everyone like there is no tomorrow.
But, the problem is, there is usually a tomorrow. And I think we do owe a moral duty to the humans of tomorrow.
Interestingly, that is also how he is liberal...in that he has a casual disregard for the future, willing to squander all present wealth on present generations, and saving nothing for future generations.
Socialism/liberalism is a political philosophy that focuses on the here and now, placing value only on lives that exist now, and totally disregarding lives that will exist in the future. Because future lives count for zero, we can take any wealth they may otherwise have and squander it here and now for political gain. we can go into massive debt by borrowing from future generations, merely to give consumables to current generations. This is a proven way to destroy a society over time...but the short term is usually ok.
Regarding Biden, of course Francis will talk to him. Francis negotiates with Xi. He will sit down with anyone. Kind of like Trump will. That causes scandal, but in a different way.
Sometimes scandal is caused by reading too much into words. So, we all have an obligation to take a deep breath sometimes.
(no message)
Regarding capitalism, I would say that it is a more forward looking philosophy.
Everyone wants equality. But until you ask what kind of equality, you aren't really learning anything.
- Socialism seeks equality of status to benefit everyone now...present focused.
- Capitalism seeks equality of opportunity to benefit everyone in the future...future focused.
Think of the boats on the water analogy, where each boat is an earning entity (a person, a family, a company), and water is wealth.
Socialism/Liberalism takes a snapshot, and sees that some boats are high on a wave, and some are in a trough. Socialism/ Liberalism says, "That's not fair." And, it works to lessen the waves, so that no boat is much higher than the others. It seeks equality of status...equality of the here and now.
Capitalism, on the other hand, seeks equality of opportunitiy which is forward looking. It seeks to increase the overall sea level...every boat rises (which means that everyone has more money, top to bottom), so everyone improves their lot in life. Sure, some are much better off than others, but soon, everyone will be out of poverty except perhaps for those who don't take advantage of their opportunities.
In the short run, socialism works great, because redistributing wealth is easy to implement, and the poor get a quick influx of wealth. This is the focus on the present. Then, to keep things running, they have to borrow from future generations by driving the nation into massive debt. This is unsustainable in the long run unless the economy is rocking, but the deeper into socialism you go, the worse the economy does, which magnifies the debt problem, and shows why socialism is inevitably doomed to fail.
In the long run (decades, centuries), capitalism is always better for everyone, rich or poor. Will there be inequality of status? Yes. But if equality of opportunity is guaranteed, then the overall wealth of society will increase. But, in the long run, socialism is bad for everyone, because once people realize that their wealth will be taken from them and given to people who don't work, then all will slow their work, and the sea level will stagnate or decrease, and pretty soon everyone except for the politically powerful will be in overall poverty, waiting in lines for goods at empty stores.
And, I don't think these principles only apply in extreme examples of socialism and capitalism. You can look at the range of values in between, and each society can slide back and forth...the more a society slides toward socialism (like we are), the worse it will do eventually even if it has short term benefits.
I think it's really important for everyone to come to grips with the perceptions - and use - of the terms "Socialism" and "Capitalism". The attached link comes pretty close to my own perceptions, but as I just came across it, I'll need to delve deeper...nonetheless, after a quick scan I recommend it and would like to hear your (and others) thoughts.
Here are few somewhat 'random', but hopefully relevant thoughts/observations...
>The use of the term "Socialist" was used as an epithet against FDR back in the 1930s...warning all who would listen that the country was about to fall into an abyss with loss of freedom. Yet, through his four terms and several other Democrat-led administrations, most folks would agree that we are still running a Capitalist economy...
>Capitalism, for all it's energy and demonstrated benefits, still has some "rough edges" for which only government intervention can smooth. As someone with an MBA, I've learned about why laws such as the Sherman and Clayton Acts, FTC and many others needed to be enacted to ensure the proper operation of that Capitalist model.
>Through a myriad of other sources - some by way of my Catholic upbringing - I've also learned of the "collateral damage" sometimes suffered by disadvantaged members of the society. While I wasn't a knowledgable 'devotee' of Dorothy Day, I was impressed by her work and commitment to those without political power, as were apparently both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, who lauded her.
>I've read Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century", and discussed it with many of my "Peeps" who have a range of political persuasion and all agree that a significant - and expanding - wealth gap exists...to the detriment of an ever increasing proportion of our population. I'm left with the impression that the "status quo" is not helping to remedy that reality.
>Since the "status quo" is not meeting the needs of more and more Americans, and neither political party is advocating for "full on" Socialism, there should be some common ground on which to construct improvements...that is what I'd like to discuss further.
Your thoughts...
Link: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/16/17698602/socialism-capitalism-false-dichotomy-kevin-williamson-column-republican-ocasio-cortez
not. To many inequities.
Open Forum's 'Book Club' "Article of the Month"...see what others think.
(no message)
(no message)
I so admire those Catholics who have let this one issue come to define their faith. Well done!
Eternal Life in Christ.
Keeping his Commandments during our earthly life.
You laugh and make them optional. You amend them at your whim.
You may not be so smug when you meet The Good Lord face to face.
There is no Ivory Tower in Heaven.
No academic gravitas.
For the rest of us, it’s faith and love.
The church is pro-life. This is indisputable. You're being dishonest if you say otherwise.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
And to be expected from you.
You are a secular humanist. Not a practicing Catholic.
Truth is apolitical.
abortion is a very big issue. and it should define ones faith. it's too bad it doesn't define his.
But abortion is not religious. It is moral.
to whine. So predictable, typical lib. No other opinions allowed