Posted by Mundabor
The perversion of the Church these days is epitomised by the statement of a high Vatican prelate, Archbishop Sorondo, stating that these days, the Chinese Government are those who best understand the social doctrine of the Church.
I don't even know where to start.
Even if this were, absurdly, true, the fact remains that the Chinese Government is an atheist, anticlerical one. Plus, their one-child policy has already caused dozen of Holocausts piled up. None of this seem to matter. If Hitler had been very big on social doctrine, would today's Vatican have supported him?
But even the absurd premise is just that: absurd. By definition, the social doctrine of the church is strongly opposed to communism, socialism and every form of forced wealth redistribution. Therefore, the archbishop is talking nonsense anyway.
The truth of the matter is, in short, this one: the Vatican is run by sympathisers of Communism; by people so atheist and so corrupt that they choose to wilfully attack Catholicism in order to promote Communism, and so damn stupid that they try to persuade you that Communism is the new Catholicism.
This is FrancisPapacy in simple terms: down with Catholicism, and let us support every godless government that supports our communist agenda.
Posted by Mundabor
Brilliant, and brilliantly short, blog post of Tom Crowe on Catholic Vote.
Mr. Crow exposes in just a few lines the falseness and hypocrisy of Socialism (in one of his milder forms) masked as Catholicism. The socialist attitude betrays the mistrust in human charity, and the belief in the inherent evil of human nature, that is so typical of the ideology. The socialist believes that if it wasn’t for the public hand, people would starve on the streets. How very unchristian.
I have written about the matter in the past, but I am far away from possessing the admirable conciseness of Mr Crowe.
The rhetorical question is : “what anti-poverty programs would Jesus cut?” Now, you could read a 1000-words answer from me to this extremely cretinous statement or, more practically, you can read this:
one potential serious answer would be, “Well, none. Jesus wouldn’t cut a single program.” The rest of that answer is, “but, of course, Jesus didn’t advocate for the government dole in the first place; He advocated for mutual support born of charity.”
Charity isn’t charity if the money used to help the poor is taken against the will of the one who has the money originally. Even for programs that no one has a problem with at all, the money is still taken by the government through statutory taxation, i.e., coercively.
The parable of the Good Samaritan didn’t end with Medicare picking up the tab.
The multiplication of the loaves and fishes wasn’t a call for food stamps.
The healing of the paralytic lowered through the roof wasn’t followed by an impassioned plea for government-run healthcare.
Note that Mr Crowe makes very clear that this doesn’t mean that solidarity has no place in the life of a Catholic. In fact, the exact contrary is the case!
To make it even clearer, the author of this beautiful blog post concludes with these words:
I suggest that rather than ask ridiculous loaded questions, the people at Catholics United seek ways Catholics can unite in true charity to pick up the slack when the dole is cut (as it *must* be) to help those who may need to find alternate ways of financing needed health care.
It isn’t unchristian at all to believe that the private initiative can do pretty much everything more efficiently than the public hand. It is, on the contrary, very Christian to believe that charity must come from – as the word itself says – charity rather than from expropriation. Expropriation creates an entitlement mentality and fosters resentment among both the expropriated “has” and the demanding “has not”; charity creates a bond between them instead.
It goes without saying that private initiative also has inherent advantages of slim and efficient organisation the public hand will never have. If you were called to pick up the bill for the people in need of your small city, be assured that there would be no superfluous layers of administration, no suffocating bureaucracy, no countless committees and regulation against every perceived discrimination, and the like. In the end, by same expense there would be not one ounce less of help; more probably there would be better help, at lesser cost, and given out of love.
Socialism is nothing to do with Christian solidarity. Christians have been admirably helpful to each other from the beginning, with no need of socialism whatsoever. The entire construct of solidarity by way of forced expropriation is a fraud; an expensive one, and a very unchristian one.