Message from @Anglican
Discord ID: 323700197576409099
Weeb shits everywhere
A downside of getting deep into politics
Among hundreds of other downsides
Man what a year
To be alive
Is this Communists party Bolshevik?
Alexander Anatoly
@Deleted User it is not a party <:care:312065869767245835>
Ten wut is it
Ids an american way to do things
It's called trump is God.
*"If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."*
Encyclical On the Reconstruction of the Social Order by Pope Pius XI, 1931
your gif is too big
Catholics, however, are pro-union and advocate what they call 'Distributism', "when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over." Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, 22.
So Chopin isn't a commie anymore?
Or are you just being informative?
I am studying Marxism, but along the way I also found Aquinas.
What is surprising to me is that the Church is anti Communism but not anti Anarchism. The Catholic Worker considered itself a Christian anarchist movement.
I mean, it's a sensible thing when you think of it.
Take it in a few simple steps. God is the only King, above all Kings and with the perfect law, which is taught through the bible and those who spread it. And so, a state can not, with other motives to spreading moral life, can not be Godly.
Not saying I believe this, but just rationalising it.
The Rerum novarum outlines the role of the State as *"the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity."* (32). It follows in great detail.
I never knew the Church was this sophisticated.
What I mean by 'the line in the sand' image is that I cannot be a commie and a christian together. I have to choose one. I can, however, be a unionist or anarchist (somewhat), which is still considered Leftist.
Not that I need to be a Leftist to participate in this channel.
*What is it about socialism which is incompatible with Christian teachings?*
If you could tell me, I don't see how it really is in the grand scheme ot hings.
Maybe some versions there or.
*of
47 says *"The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair."*
Socialism wants to abolish private property.
Well, if that is the defination of socialism, then i am not a socialist.
*"8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth. "*
*"9. Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly, that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates - that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right. "*