Tuesday, March 01, 2011

The Commies and Socialists in Madistan

Who's REALLY occupying the State Capitol?

Big Government, via PowerLine, has a video.

Oh, and just for the record:

“No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist” Pius XI, 1931

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and just for the record:

“No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist” Pius XI, 1931"


Fortunately, the opinions of Bishops and Popes on non-dogmatic issues is not binding.

Any Catholic can disagree with reason.

Dad29 said...

I knew you'd fall for that one.

The question is theological, not economics. So it IS a teaching which requires submittal.

Try again sometime.

John Foust said...

So when Jesus says "help the poor" it's not required and certainly can't be put into practice by the State, unlike Old Testament rejections of homosexuality, but like the Old Testament recommendations against shrimp, and for stonings. It's quite simple, really - or if not, a whack with the ruler! That'll teach you!

Anonymous said...

The response I gave at 10:13 a.m.? YOUR OWN WORDS from previous blog entry.

You are admonishing yourself, not me, with your 10:18 a.m. reply.


Besides, those words from Pope XI
come from an encyclical. As for the its binding force, it is generally admitted that the encyclical does not necessarily constitute an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority.


So, you can look at Pius XI's pronouncement, in essence his opinion, as purely theological...it fits your world view.

J. Strupp said...

Hahaha..but if your national socialist...well...we'll look the other way.

I wouldn't be hanging on every word these guys say.

Dad29 said...

encyclical does not necessarily constitute an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority

Sorry; I used the wrong word when I used "submittal." We agree: encyclicals are not the same as "ex cathedra." Of course, SOME encyclicals ARE infallible teaching.

Better would be to say that his teaching, since it involves theology, is irrefutable.

Socialism is a political theory which is straight-up agnostic (at best); by its nature, it excludes Catholic thought and world-view. As a result, accepting its tenets is equivalent to schism. One cannot be Catholic AND agnostic.

Make you feel better?

In contrast, "the common good" is a very debatable issue. I can, and do, argue that public-employee compensation at present levels is deleterious to the "common good" of the State; you argue otherwise--without foundation, of course-- but that's what you do.

There is no theological imperative in a definition of "common good" in economic terms. Therefore, any statements made which invoke the [economic] common good are opinion.

See? It's simple.

Anonymous said...

"Socialism is a political theory which is straight-up agnostic (at best)..."

Trying to equate a political ideology with a lack of faith component and therefore justify that Catholic socialists are in essence advocating "schism"? From your Judeo-Christian world view, I would expect nothing less than your assessment.

A government can be socialist but not agnostic.
Moreover, socialist governments have attempted to enforce atheism or agnosticism in the name of power, not as a prerequisite for that economic system to work.


"you argue otherwise--without foundation, of course-- but that's what you do."

Actually, you ignore ANY and ALL positions which run counter to "your truth"...but that's what you do.



"There is no theological imperative in a definition of "common good" in economic terms. Therefore, any statements made which invoke the [economic] common good are opinion."

Straw man? Circular logic? Take your pick.

Anonymous said...

dad arguing with himself...of prurient interest.

dad sparring with his own dogma...priceless.

Dad29 said...

I know this can be difficult for you, Anony, so I'll make it as simple as possible to fit your capacity.

"Pure" socialism, by definition, is a governance system which obrogates the rights of men (to property) which are God-given. More significant: it is atheistic; it does not recognize God, nor the Christian doctrine of free will. In fact, "pure" Socialism is Communism (albeit communism followed socialism.)

As a result of its materialism (and denial of God's existence), socialism holds that there is no moral code outside of complete obedience to the State, which necessarily means that man is not a moral actor outside of his duty to the State.

That's why not only Pius XI, but also Pius X and Leo XIII, formally condemned socialism.

Got that?

Secondly: to the Catholic, the real 'good' is salvation. Material "good" is secondary to salvation--material goods are tools, not means. Ergo, outside of the property-related commandments against theft (etc.), there is no theological issue in 'goods.'

Thus, by definition, the Church does not promulgate dogma regarding material "common good."

Read for meaning, troll.

John Foust said...

Which encyclical talks about buying more ammo?

Anonymous said...

The part about me breaking into a house in Jefferson and raping its occupant.

Good thing the union cops won't lift a finger to solve it.

Disgruntled Car Salesman said...

Aaaaaaaaaand here comes Foust the tool.

Anonymous said...

Dad29's diatribe at 6:42 a.m. is spoken like a theocrat.

You ASSUME that rights are God given. You ASSUME that socialists are GODLESS and have NO SOULS.

Furthermore, if you were such a good Catholic concerned about salvation, maybe you would look in the mirror and wonder how God will judge you when you advocate sodomy.

I refer to anony 1:38 p.m.

Apparently, you are thumbing your nose at your priest and the good book. I'll pray for your soul.

Dad29 said...

You ASSUME that socialists are GODLESS and have NO SOULS.

Wrong. Read for meaning--that is, comprehension.

Show me EXACTLY where I said that, troll.

Anonymous said...

But what if socialism evolved to a point where it gave credit to God for the earthly creation? I bet the popes would sit down with God fearing socialists to find common ground. And maybe even rewrite their dogma so it's not so harsh.

Anonymous said...

So YOU can make assumptions, and when I call you out on your implications or inferences, I'm labeled a troll...even though I respond to your blog on a semi-regular basis to keep you and your fans honest.

Regardless, Dad29, quit skirting the MAIN issue. What would your priest and daughters say about you supporting a person who advocates sodomy?

Because we know darn well if some poster here would have the stupidity to say anything about your family, you would go (and deservedly so) NUCLEAR.
But, apparently, your moral compass is only directed toward people whom you "like" or "love", rather than ALL of humanity.