Can a Catholic not like his communist Pope?

[JQPublic1]

Catholics, throughout the world, work tirelessly on behalf of the poor through missionaries and Catholic charities. If this wasn't in play, and there was no other way to help the poor, you might have a point.

Once a piece of art is sold, it can no longer contribute to the poor--and to the poor it would be only a drop in the bucket. On the other hand, instead of ending up in a private collection few see, art can inspire us to remember and continue our work as Christians on behalf of the poor.

When people sell their houses, and all that they have, as the best method to give to the poor (and in the process impoverishing themselves) perhaps then they can advise the Vatican City to impoverish itself--yet in someway continue to help the poor when there is nothing left to give.

I'm amazed at how those who demand the Catholic Church sell off artwork for the poor don't realize they sound just like Judas the Betrayer who with false piety said that the costly ointment that a woman bathed the feet of Jesus with should be sold and the money given to the poor. The truth is, the Catholic is the largest advocate for the poor, teaching social justice and giving more to charity to help the poor and hungry than any other charity in the world. There's no room for accusation that we could be doing more, or that the Church is somehow holding out because it has a few pieces of art in the Vatican.

The spirit of Judas the Betrayer is alive and well today and shamefully, it's some Protestants who embody it.

Excellent points.

"Oh, please . . . if Pope Frank really cared about the poor as you religious nutcases profess Christ cared about them, he'd, at the very least, sell off one of the many valuable paintings, which is now owned by the RCC and hung in one of their museums, to feed a few of the starving masses, now wouldn't he?"- Grendelyn

When I read the above sentence, it reminds me of that movie Doctor Zhivago when the communists started tearing the paintings off the walls of the wealthy estates. Like Newton said, every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The wealthy in Russia were living in opulence, but the communists really threw the baby out with the bathwater. Pretty soon, everyone was poor.

Because art was a luxury item, great pieces of music, or instruments (Stradivarius), paintings, poetry, literature, etc, were scoffed at by the Proletariat and eventually despised.

So too were the aspirations of the world's religions. How easy it is for man to utterly reject the sacred and place the profane in its stead, thinking that he has cleansed his mind when in fact he has simply impoverished it.

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments? Aren't these relics really no more than an extension of 'White" imagery that perpetuates feelings of superiority in every White person who erroneously links them to God and Jesus? Is not inferiority subliminally thrust into the minds of those who do not look like those "made in Europe" images?

I happen to be a pagan, and I see a lot of paganism embedded in Catholicism. I see a natural alliance between Catholicism and paganism. It isn't true that Catholics and pagans worship graven images. An icon is merely a lens though which the eye looks. It isn't the icon itself that is worshiped. It's merely a vehicle of inspiration.

As a polytheist, I sometimes visit the shrines of the Christian god. I like to visit Catholic churches when I travel. One thing that is very evident in any Catholic congregation here in California is the diversity of skin color. Your typical Mass will include many whites, Hispanics, Filipinos, Blacks, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, etc.. In my experience, I can't really think of a more diverse institution than the Catholic Church in either government or the private sector.

So, yeah, paintings of the Nordic Jesus seem a little silly. But, there's also the Black Madonna, and the Latina Virgin Maria, and so many other local variations on the basic themes.

You have just proven my case! Thanks... The icons subliminally do what they are intended to do. Create confusion, establish a racial hierarchy with White sublimity held in prominence ; to enhance social deference by "others." It works!

 

[Meriweather]

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

 

[ninja007]

Catholics, throughout the world, work tirelessly on behalf of the poor through missionaries and Catholic charities. If this wasn't in play, and there was no other way to help the poor, you might have a point.

Once a piece of art is sold, it can no longer contribute to the poor--and to the poor it would be only a drop in the bucket. On the other hand, instead of ending up in a private collection few see, art can inspire us to remember and continue our work as Christians on behalf of the poor.

When people sell their houses, and all that they have, as the best method to give to the poor (and in the process impoverishing themselves) perhaps then they can advise the Vatican City to impoverish itself--yet in someway continue to help the poor when there is nothing left to give.

I'm amazed at how those who demand the Catholic Church sell off artwork for the poor don't realize they sound just like Judas the Betrayer who with false piety said that the costly ointment that a woman bathed the feet of Jesus with should be sold and the money given to the poor. The truth is, the Catholic is the largest advocate for the poor, teaching social justice and giving more to charity to help the poor and hungry than any other charity in the world. There's no room for accusation that we could be doing more, or that the Church is somehow holding out because it has a few pieces of art in the Vatican.

The spirit of Judas the Betrayer is alive and well today and shamefully, it's some Protestants who embody it.

Excellent points.

"Oh, please . . . if Pope Frank really cared about the poor as you religious nutcases profess Christ cared about them, he'd, at the very least, sell off one of the many valuable paintings, which is now owned by the RCC and hung in one of their museums, to feed a few of the starving masses, now wouldn't he?"- Grendelyn

When I read the above sentence, it reminds me of that movie Doctor Zhivago when the communists started tearing the paintings off the walls of the wealthy estates. Like Newton said, every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The wealthy in Russia were living in opulence, but the communists really threw the baby out with the bathwater. Pretty soon, everyone was poor.

Because art was a luxury item, great pieces of music, or instruments (Stradivarius), paintings, poetry, literature, etc, were scoffed at by the Proletariat and eventually despised.

So too were the aspirations of the world's religions. How easy it is for man to utterly reject the sacred and place the profane in its stead, thinking that he has cleansed his mind when in fact he has simply impoverished it.

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments? Aren't these relics really no more than an extension of 'White" imagery that perpetuates feelings of superiority in every White person who erroneously links them to God and Jesus? Is not inferiority subliminally thrusted into the minds of those who do not look like those "made in Europe" images?

No they aren't unless you can explain why God commanded statues to be made to be used in worship and a bronze serpent to be made to heal the Israelites of their snakebite.

You people and Jehovah Witnesses (what an alliance!) both make the same mistake. The commandment, "thou shalt not make unto thyself" specifically forbids the creation of idols, gods created by human hands to be worshiped. That's what "unto thyself" means. The cheribum, bulls, snakes, and other images forged from precious metal were aids in sacramental worship. If anything Catholic and Orthodox worship is far more Biblical, taking to heart what it says in Hebrews that the Aaronic liturgy is a "copy of the heavenly tabernacle"

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Hebrews 8:5, 9:2-5

As it says here. Sacramental worship didn't change from Old Covenant to New, what changed is that instead of endlessly sacrificing bulls for sins, we have on perfect sacrifice made present in the Eucharist at every holy mass. Sacramental worship is a copy of heaven, where there exists a heavenly tabernacle, the same one that Moses was shown on the mountain. The same goes for Catholic statues. They aren't idols and they aren't gods. They represent the thin veil, an antechamber to a heavenly throne room where we can boldly approach to receive mercy and grace. (Hebrews 4:16)

if its a perfect sacrifice (it was) there is no need to re-sacrifice. Just as Passover was to point to Christ on the cross in the future, the communion points back to His accomplishment on the cross in the past.

 

[Pogo]

Amazing how you communists have made piety out of stealing other people's property and claiming Jesus taught you to do so. We real Christians understand that Jesus is the same God that gave the commandments on Mt. Sinai. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. You are tares growing among wheat, pretending to be Christians while promoting the doctrine of demons. Communists shall take part in the eternal Lake of Fire unless you repent. Jesus knows who belongs to him and will separate the tares from the wheat and will bind the tares into bundles and cast them into everlasting fire.

I urge you to repent of your wickedness and beg for the mercy of God.

I'll take the main point of the story as it was appears in the bible. As,expected, you materialistic capitalists will invent interpretations of that passage to justify keeping your wealth. Money wasn't the focal point of wealth in those days, it was material possessions as well. Did you miss the part where Jesus told the young rich man to sell all he has, give to the poor and follow Him? It's easy to overlook those phrases you don't like, isn't it?



To further ensnare your soul, you use your Free Will to bear false witness against me by calling me a communist. You don't stop there. Continuing, you accuse your imaginary communists of being thieves by stealing other peoples property while using Jesus to justify it! Those lies will accompany you to your damnation unless YOU repent. I am a Christian and I am an able bodied man who has worked for everything I own. I may not be perfect in Christ's eyes because I have not sold all that I own; though I have given to some of the poor. I also believe that Jesus allowed men to shed His blood and died for our sins because few of us could ever be perfect. He paid the price so that even imperfect rich guys who hold on to their wealth can be saved if they truly believe and took no part in wholesale murder and genocide like so many White Christians have done.

Please don't tell other people they are going to hell unless they repent. That's the kind of thing that makes Christians look like fruitcakes. Just stop and think about what you look like to other people.

Wrong and wrong.

The problem isn't Christians warning people about hellfire, the problem is that we aren't doing it enough. It used to be that both Catholics and Protestants were constantly warning the reprobate about hell and there was a healthy fear of damnation throughout society. Now we've "softened the message" and people no longer take the reality of eternal damnation seriously. It's an act of apathy, even hate, to fail to warn people that their life's course leads to condemnation and destruction.

Pfft. More the opposite; it's an act of arrogance to purport to know it all.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Amazing how you communists have made piety out of stealing other people's property and claiming Jesus taught you to do so. We real Christians understand that Jesus is the same God that gave the commandments on Mt. Sinai. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. You are tares growing among wheat, pretending to be Christians while promoting the doctrine of demons. Communists shall take part in the eternal Lake of Fire unless you repent. Jesus knows who belongs to him and will separate the tares from the wheat and will bind the tares into bundles and cast them into everlasting fire.

I urge you to repent of your wickedness and beg for the mercy of God.

I'll take the main point of the story as it was appears in the bible. As,expected, you materialistic capitalists will invent interpretations of that passage to justify keeping your wealth. Money wasn't the focal point of wealth in those days, it was material possessions as well. Did you miss the part where Jesus told the young rich man to sell all he has, give to the poor and follow Him? It's easy to overlook those phrases you don't like, isn't it?



To further ensnare your soul, you use your Free Will to bear false witness against me by calling me a communist. You don't stop there. Continuing, you accuse your imaginary communists of being thieves by stealing other peoples property while using Jesus to justify it! Those lies will accompany you to your damnation unless YOU repent. I am a Christian and I am an able bodied man who has worked for everything I own. I may not be perfect in Christ's eyes because I have not sold all that I own; though I have given to some of the poor. I also believe that Jesus allowed men to shed His blood and died for our sins because few of us could ever be perfect. He paid the price so that even imperfect rich guys who hold on to their wealth can be saved if they truly believe and took no part in wholesale murder and genocide like so many White Christians have done.

Please don't tell other people they are going to hell unless they repent. That's the kind of thing that makes Christians look like fruitcakes. Just stop and think about what you look like to other people.

Wrong and wrong.

The problem isn't Christians warning people about hellfire, the problem is that we aren't doing it enough. It used to be that both Catholics and Protestants were constantly warning the reprobate about hell and there was a healthy fear of damnation throughout society. Now we've "softened the message" and people no longer take the reality of eternal damnation seriously. It's an act of apathy, even hate, to fail to warn people that their life's course leads to condemnation and destruction.

Pfft. More the opposite; it's an act of arrogance to purport to know it all.

Christ spent much of his ministry warning about hell, much more so than heaven. The idea that he was "negative" is an idiotic construct, asserting humanist concepts (which is the doctrine of demons) in lieu of true righteousness.

The disciples of Jesus spent much of their time lecturing Jesus about his message and who he fraternized. Seeing people today act just like the disciples reminds me that most people just don't get Jesus, who he was and who he is.

Salvation can't be properly understood until we know what we're being saved from.

 

[JQPublic1]

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

Unfortunately for you there is a little known history that deflates your premise thoroughly. Religious imagery, including statues and paintings, have been controversial for centuries. Central to that controversy was the notion that the Second Commandment was being violated by some and that it was NOT being violated by others. Many artifacts were destroyed in the 8th Century when iconoclasts, insisting the art pieces were objects of idolatry, went on a rampage to, in their minds, remove the stain from their midst.That got the attention of Emperor Leo III who , in 726, ordered images removed from all churches.From then on the display of icons was reinstated and outlawed several times until the Protestant Reformation era when John Calvin once again cited the use of icons as idolatry. A second iconolasm followed.

The Eastern Orthodox CHruch and the Roman Catholics, however, had different views than the Reformation Protestants on the use of religious artifacts and paintings. Both stubbornly clung to their traditions insisting that retaining and displaying the likenesses of venerated deities and saints was not sacrilegious as long as no worship was involved. That is also your argument.

I sided with Calvin and emperor Leo III on this one. Besides, who would be better interpreters of the Second Commandment than the people for whom it was written: The Jews! They too claim that the display and use of depictions of Christ and God is idolatry and violates the Second Commandment. That's three powerful allies that should evoke reason to rethink the reckless rendering and displaying images of Jesus and God. Portraying Jesus or God in the guise of mortal men in places where people can be tempted to use them as surrogates for the God they cannot see? Absolutely unacceptable!

These images are different from the busts of Plato or George Washington, for those images are seen for what they are, graphic representations of mortal men. No one living today knows what Jesus looked like and certainly no one knows what God looks like. When God gave Moses the Second Commandment, He must have looked into the future and saw that likenesses of Himself and Jesus could be misused to elevate one race over another or could be used as a surrogate god! Amen!

 

[Meriweather]

if its a perfect sacrifice (it was) there is no need to re-sacrifice. Just as Passover was to point to Christ on the cross in the future, the communion points back to His accomplishment on the cross in the past.

I don't know about all non-Catholic churches, but Catholics have no belief in "re-sacrifice" (if there is even such a word, the impossibility still remains). It's like re-eating. How can one eat what one has already swallowed? So instead of following non-Catholics in their re-sacrifice (whatever that is), Catholics re-present and remember what is ongoing--Christ's sacrifice that is present for all people and all ages. We are re-minded (you might say) that the one perfect sacrifice continues throughout all time, and continually claim and revere him as our perfect sacrifice.

 

[Meriweather]

Unfortunately for you there is a little known history that deflates your premise thoroughly. Religious imagery, including statues and paintings, have been controversial for centuries. Central to that controversy was the notion that the Second Commandment was being violated by some and that it was NOT being violated by others. Many artifacts were destroyed in the 8th Century when iconoclasts, insisting the art pieces were objects of idolatry, went on a rampage to, in their minds, remove the stain from their midst.That got the attention of Emperor Leo III who , in 726, ordered images removed from all churches.From then on the display of icons was reinstated and outlawed several times until the Protestant Reformation era when John Calvin once again cited the use of icons as idolatry. A second iconolasm followed.

The Eastern Orthodox CHruch and the Roman Catholics, however, had different views than the Reformation Protestants on the use of religious artifacts and paintings. Both stubbornly clung to their traditions insisting that retaining and displaying the likenesses of venerated deities and saints was not sacrilegious as long as no worship was involved. That is also your argument.

I sided with Calvin and emperor Leo III on this one. Besides, who would be better interpreters of the Second Commandment than the people for whom it was written: The Jews! They too claim that the display and use of depictions of Christ and God is idolatry and violates the Second Commandment. That's three powerful allies that should evoke reason to rethink the reckless rendering and displaying images of Jesus and God. Portraying Jesus or God in the guise of mortal men in places where people can be tempted to use them as surrogates for the God they cannot see? Absolutely unacceptable!

These images are different from the busts of Plato or George Washington, for those images are seen for what they are, graphic representations of mortal men. No one living today knows what Jesus looked like and certainly no one knows what God looks like. When God gave Moses the Second Commandment, He must have looked into the future and saw that likenesses of Himself and Jesus could be misused to elevate one race over another or could be used as a surrogate god! Amen!

My premise stands. On the Ark of the Covenant--which housed the Ten Commandments containing the command of, No graven images--are the engravings of two cherub.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

if its a perfect sacrifice (it was) there is no need to re-sacrifice. Just as Passover was to point to Christ on the cross in the future, the communion points back to His accomplishment on the cross in the past.

I don't know about all non-Catholic churches, but Catholics have no belief in "re-sacrifice" (if there is even such a word, the impossibility still remains). It's like re-eating. How can one eat what one has already swallowed? So instead of following non-Catholics in their re-sacrifice (whatever that is), Catholics re-present and remember what is ongoing--Christ's sacrifice that is present for all people and all ages. We are re-minded (you might say) that the one perfect sacrifice continues throughout all time, and continually claim and revere him as our perfect sacrifice.

It's an ongoing fact that much of what Protestants "protest" is what they erroneously believe the Catholic Church teaches and practices. They protest phantoms of their imagination.

 

[Pogo]

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

To me the idea of a "graven image" or idol infused with power/status, whatever they looked like then, now look more like:

 

[Meriweather]

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

To me the idea of a "graven image" or idol infused with power/status, whatever they looked like then, now look more like:

Nice! To my chagrin, the camera icon was included.

 

[Meriweather]

It's an ongoing fact that much of what Protestants "protest" is what they erroneously believe the Catholic Church teaches and practices. They protest phantoms of their imagination.

And, since these are not Catholic teachings, by default, they are teachings of non-Catholics. I just call them as I see them.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Somehow this discussion wandered into a debate over idolatry. This post concerns communism (and idolatry as it relates to money and the State). You can get the main idea by just reading the sentences I put in bold type.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

The Catechism is not set in stone. It may change in response to a changing world. Social doctrine came about in response to the de-humanizing effect of Industrial Revolution. The main points to be taken from above are that:
a) there is an important role for political authority to play.
b) private property must be respected under the law, but in reality we are not owners, but stewards of property on the earth (which also belongs to future generations) and so we should be charitable to others and to the poor and use resources with moderation.
c) Government should not be so weighty and controlling that it asphyxiates a natural solidarity to develop between men.

The following entries come under the heading Social Doctrine of the Church:

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see in these entries a clear distinction between the Catholic Church and those megachurch preachers who claim that you'll get rich if you pray hard enough (or send them 'seed money'). The idolization of money, in fact, leads to atheism. Equally, the idolization of the State leads to atheism. Both unfettered capitalism and communism pervert the natural development of social bonds. If you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, you catch a glimpse of the de-humanizing and family destroying effects of a capitalist society whose only values are material wealth, utility and power. If you read George Orwell's 1984, you catch a glimpse of a dystopian Totalitarian State where, similarly, the values of utility and power supplant our better ideals.

Clearly, the Church promotes a middle ground. My response, as a libertarian would be the following...
In a simple sermon many many centuries ago, Augustine said, "The City of God is built with a temporary scaffolding". Government, machina temporalis, is a temporary necessity. At some point, the scaffolding is removed. Indeed, the end game of Christianity is a harmonious anarchy, where justice is written upon the hearts of man. Are we there yet? Perhaps not. Man is not yet man.

What the Church needs to address in a future Catechism is the emergence of bio-engineering. Are we to attempt to write our own destiny by fiddling with the genes of humankind? Or, are we to trust in Providence guiding over natural selection to reach our destiny as a species?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Somehow this discussion wandered into a debate over idolatry. This post concerns communism (and idolatry as it relates to money and the State). You can get the main idea by just reading the sentences I put in bold type.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

The Catechism is not set in stone. It may change in response to a changing world. Social doctrine came about in response to the de-humanizing effect of Industrial Revolution. The main points to be taken from above are that:
a) there is an important role for political authority to play.
b) private property must be respected under the law, but in reality we are not owners, but stewards of property on the earth (which also belongs to future generations) and so we should be charitable to others and to the poor and use resources with moderation.
c) Government should not be so weighty and controlling that it asphyxiates a natural solidarity to develop between men.

The following entries come under the heading Social Doctrine of the Church:

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.

A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity. Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see in these entries a clear distinction between the Catholic Church and those megachurch preachers who claim that you'll get rich if you pray hard enough (or send them 'seed money'). The idolization of money, in fact, leads to atheism. Equally, the idolization of the State leads to atheism. Both unfettered capitalism and communism pervert the natural development of social bonds. If you read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, you catch a glimpse of the de-humanizing and family destroying effects of a capitalist society whose only values are material wealth, utility and power. If you read George Orwell's 1984, you catch a glimpse of a dystopian Totalitarian State where, similarly, the values of utility and power supplant our better ideals.

Clearly, the Church promotes a middle ground. My response, as a libertarian would be the following...
In a simple sermon many many centuries ago, Augustine said, "The City of God is built with a temporary scaffolding". Government, machina temporalis, is a temporary necessity. At some point, the scaffolding is removed. Indeed, the end game of Christianity is a harmonious anarchy, where justice is written upon the hearts of man. Are we there yet? Perhaps not. Man is not yet man.

What the Church needs to address in a future Catechism is the emergence of bio-engineering. Are we to attempt to write our own destiny by fiddling with the genes of humankind? Or, are we to trust in Providence guiding over natural selection to reach our destiny as a species?

Wow! I don't have time to address every point tapping out posts on my smartphone, but in a pithy summary, I've said repeatedly that the primary agents of Social Justice is us. Those who leave the care of the poor and elderly to government are missing the point of Social Justice entirely. Charity is more than just meeting needs, it's being the face of Christ to those he wants to reach. It's a loving interface for which there is no substitute.

The Catholic Church prevails upon governments, businesses, and all those with more not to neglect the poor. It's not something that can be coerced through compulsory redistribution, we are called to freely give, generously, and without reproach.

The only inevitable result of compulsory redistribution is a slide into outright communism, a system that destroys wealth, crushes hope and amelioration, and eradicates every opportunity to assist those less fortunate for it impoverishes everyone. It's an anti-gospel.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Wow! I don't have time to address every point tapping out posts on my smartphone, but in a pithy summary, I've said repeatedly that the primary agents of Social Justice is us. Those who leave the care of the poor and elderly to government are missing the point of Social Justice entirely. Charity is more than just meeting needs, it's being the face of Christ to those he wants to reach. It's a loving interface for which there is no substitute.

The Catholic Church prevails upon governments, businesses, and all those with more not to neglect the poor. It's not something that can be coerced through compulsory redistribution, we are called to freely give, generously, and without reproach.

The only inevitable result of compulsory redistribution is a slide into outright communism, a system that destroys wealth, crushes hope and amelioration, and eradicates every opportunity to assist those less fortunate for it impoverishes everyone. It's an anti-gospel.

That's why I highlighted a few parts of the Catechism which clearly reject communism. The teachings clearly put the onus on the people (as opposed to government) to make sure the poor are cared for, and to be a good steward of resources. The need for government authority to step in and minister to the poor is clearly a regression, and not a sign of progress. And the same can be said for the capitalist society where the sole ideal is material wealth.

True progress toward what Augustine depicted as the City of God would involve increased charity and decreased government.

 

[Pogo]

Wow! I don't have time to address every point tapping out posts on my smartphone, but in a pithy summary, I've said repeatedly that the primary agents of Social Justice is us. Those who leave the care of the poor and elderly to government are missing the point of Social Justice entirely. Charity is more than just meeting needs, it's being the face of Christ to those he wants to reach. It's a loving interface for which there is no substitute.

The Catholic Church prevails upon governments, businesses, and all those with more not to neglect the poor. It's not something that can be coerced through compulsory redistribution, we are called to freely give, generously, and without reproach.

The only inevitable result of compulsory redistribution is a slide into outright communism, a system that destroys wealth, crushes hope and amelioration, and eradicates every opportunity to assist those less fortunate for it impoverishes everyone. It's an anti-gospel.

That's why I highlighted a few parts of the Catechism which clearly reject communism. The teachings clearly put the onus on the people (as opposed to government) to make sure the poor are cared for, and to be a good steward of resources. The need for government authority to step in and minister to the poor is clearly a regression, and not a sign of progress. And the same can be said for the capitalist society where the sole ideal is material wealth.

True progress toward what Augustine depicted as the City of God would involve increased charity and decreased government.

umm... where does the Catechism draw a distinction between "people" and "government"? Where indeed does it refer to "government" at all?

 

[JQPublic1]

Unfortunately for you there is a little known history that deflates your premise thoroughly. Religious imagery, including statues and paintings, have been controversial for centuries. Central to that controversy was the notion that the Second Commandment was being violated by some and that it was NOT being violated by others. Many artifacts were destroyed in the 8th Century when iconoclasts, insisting the art pieces were objects of idolatry, went on a rampage to, in their minds, remove the stain from their midst.That got the attention of Emperor Leo III who , in 726, ordered images removed from all churches.From then on the display of icons was reinstated and outlawed several times until the Protestant Reformation era when John Calvin once again cited the use of icons as idolatry. A second iconolasm followed.

The Eastern Orthodox CHruch and the Roman Catholics, however, had different views than the Reformation Protestants on the use of religious artifacts and paintings. Both stubbornly clung to their traditions insisting that retaining and displaying the likenesses of venerated deities and saints was not sacrilegious as long as no worship was involved. That is also your argument.

I sided with Calvin and emperor Leo III on this one. Besides, who would be better interpreters of the Second Commandment than the people for whom it was written: The Jews! They too claim that the display and use of depictions of Christ and God is idolatry and violates the Second Commandment. That's three powerful allies that should evoke reason to rethink the reckless rendering and displaying images of Jesus and God. Portraying Jesus or God in the guise of mortal men in places where people can be tempted to use them as surrogates for the God they cannot see? Absolutely unacceptable!

These images are different from the busts of Plato or George Washington, for those images are seen for what they are, graphic representations of mortal men. No one living today knows what Jesus looked like and certainly no one knows what God looks like. When God gave Moses the Second Commandment, He must have looked into the future and saw that likenesses of Himself and Jesus could be misused to elevate one race over another or could be used as a surrogate god! Amen!

My premise stands. On the Ark of the Covenant--which housed the Ten Commandments containing the command of, No graven images--are the engravings of two cherub.

Well, graven images of beings subordinate to The Father and Son obviously had no potential to foster apostasy. Further, the designer of the Ark of the Covenant was God Himself: therefore, since those statuettes did not originate in the minds of men, God 's Commandment
was not violated. The grievance materializes when men take it upon themselves to create images that could potentially detract attention from
a jealous God! In other words do as He says, not do as He does.

 

[Treeshepherd]

umm... where does the Catechism draw a distinction between "people" and "government"? Where indeed does it refer to "government" at all?

Really, all over the place. There are too many to mention.
This is from what I pasted above, which supports a limited role for the State;

Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

Entry no. 2273 pertains to the natural rights of individual persons which should not be violated by the State: "These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. . . . The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined."

There's a lot of difference of opinion among Catholics with interpretations of the Catechism, which after all is not considered to be infallible. But the main point I gather from entry 2273 is that a government violates its purpose when it tramples my inalienable rights in order to preserve its existence or strengthen its own power.

Incidentally, in the US Constitution, 'inalienable' does not refer to aliens, but to a right which government cannot place a lien upon.

 

[JQPublic1]

ve

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

To me the idea of a "graven image" or idol infused with power/status, whatever they looked like then, now look more like:

Very funny! But I don't think people fall to their knees to worship an iPad or Corvette. I will admit that some of us do spend too much time on our computers. Time that belongs to Jehovah.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

ve

Here, even now, you continue to place value on statues, paintings and other material things. Are these not symbols of the graven images that were rejected by the Ten Commandments?

No. Graven images were idols, or a totem--a rabbit's foot, you might say. They were assigned power. Compare this to a bust of Plato, for example. No one thinks the bust has power--they just see it as an image of Plato. The Commandment says, "Don't worship idols." This does not mean, "You may not possess or peek at art work."

To me the idea of a "graven image" or idol infused with power/status, whatever they looked like then, now look more like:

Very funny! But I don't think people fall to their knees to worship an iPad or Corvette. I will admit that some of us do spend too much time on our computers. Time that belongs to Jehovah.

So you're a JW? That certainly explains the stupidity about idols.