by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .182183184185186187188. . .515516»

Concilium vaticanum

There is a global war erupting, an evil group of Fascist regions plan to take over the world, they are called The Imperialist Order. Some regions include The Empire of Oppression and The Axis Alliance of Nations, there are even more than that. I believe we need to password protect this region to protect it.

European Elites Conduct a Six Hour Satanic Ritual In Plain Sight

On reading that headline I presumed it was a bit over the top to describe the ceremony to open the Gotthard tunnel. But not a bit.

G'day catholic neighbours :)

Status ecclesiae

Germanlia wrote:G'day catholic neighbours :)

Welcome! Fraternal greetings to you!

Mary star of the sea

I'm socially archconservative and economically libertarian.

The landlocked isles

Belique wrote:I'm socially archconservative and economically libertarian.

Nice. I agree, although I am legally libertarian and morally conservative, if that makes sense. (In other words, I believe everything should be legal, but I am strongly opposed to many things on personal or moral grounds.)

Germanlia wrote:G'day catholic neighbours :)

Hello!

The masses empire

Germanlia wrote:G'day catholic neighbours :)

Today is may 16th not "G'day." <bad dad joke>

Mary star of the sea

The masses empire wrote:Today is may 16th not "G'day." <bad dad joke>

I approve of said dad joke.

The masses empire

Mary star of the sea

The landlocked isles wrote:Nice. I agree, although I am legally libertarian and morally conservative, if that makes sense. (In other words, I believe everything should be legal, but I am strongly opposed to many things on personal or moral grounds.)

How do you justify that from a Catholic perspective? If everything is permissible, evil is too. As a Catholic, wouldn't you want to do everything in your capacity to prevent that? Law could be a useful tool to help the general population. Do you also support the abolition of laws preventing murder, theft, rape, etc?

Christian Democrats and Status ecclesiae

On a completely unrelated note; I just abolished the death penalty and people started wearing less clothing. Is that strange or what?

And while I in general do not support libertarianism in general, it is certainly possible for the civil government to behave with a libertarian mindset as the font of civil law providing that the Church provides the solid font of moral law. Violating the moral law should result in the censure of the church and not the fines of the civil law. (For the record, libertarians do support the laws against violence of any sort against another person.)

The fundamental problem with libertarianism in general is the principle of property rights, which is somewhat opposed to the stewardship of property that is generally brought up by Catholic teaching. But even then, what is not prohibited by the civil law may be prohibited by the moral law. You might not get a civil fine for price gouging for example, but you might get excommunicated for it. Mind you only the purist of libertarian civil authorities would probably allow people to get away with price gouging.

The masses empire

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:On a completely unrelated note; I just abolished the death penalty and people started wearing less clothing. Is that strange or what?

Not for NS, the outcome of your orders can make no sense. I come to take what NS orders results are with a grain of salt, and I know that my population(if NS orders actually made sense) would not be some of the most ignorant in the world. But NS orders outcomes say they are, and if you play you are bound or not, whether they make sense or are a bunch of rotten doohickey.

Father, it is Your Commandment that we should honor our fathers;
hear the prayers we offer You for them.
Grant them many years on earth and keep them in health of mind and body.
Bless their word and all they do.
Give them back a hundred-fold whatever they have done for us.
Inspire them with Your love and help them to fulfill Your holy law.
One day, may we be their comfort and support,
so that having enjoyed their affection on earth
we may have the joy of being with them forever in Your home in Heaven.
Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

The masses empire

Welcome to NS! Where if you stop killing your population they all want to become nudist! Yay, realism!

The masses empire

I found this article in my feed today: http://bit.ly/269sYyG. Apparently Pope Francis said that "many marriages are null." Where I am pretty sure this is true. What about everybody else?

Oire wrote:European Elites Conduct a Six Hour Satanic Ritual In Plain Sight
On reading that headline I presumed it was a bit over the top to describe the ceremony to open the Gotthard tunnel. But not a bit.

Oh, wow. No kidding. I just watched video, and people are paying tribute to Baphomet.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:And while I in general do not support libertarianism in general, it is certainly possible for the civil government to behave with a libertarian mindset as the font of civil law providing that the Church provides the solid font of moral law. Violating the moral law should result in the censure of the church and not the fines of the civil law. (For the record, libertarians do support the laws against violence of any sort against another person.)

I think we should keep the words of St. Thomas Aquinas in mind:

"[H]uman law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like" (Summa I-II, q. 96, a. 2).

From the libertarian standpoint, the government may prohibit only that conduct which causes harm to others. From the Thomist standpoint, the government may prohibit all "grievous vices," especially "those that are to the hurt of others." There is a distinction to be drawn. Non-harmful grievous vices, at least from the Thomist point of view, should be criminalized, provided that "it is possible for the majority to abstain."

I'm not sure I'm following your argument from your quote. You are quoting from the portion where Thomas is actually arguing that it is not the necessity of human law to repress all vices. As he notes to the following objection ... "Further, human law is derived from the natural law, as stated above (Question 95, Article 2). But all vices are contrary to the law of nature. Therefore human law should repress all vices" the following response ... "The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law: while human law falls short of the eternal law. Now Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "The law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished by Divine providence. Nor, if this law does not attempt to do everything, is this a reason why it should be blamed for what it does." Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything that is forbidden by the natural law."

So let's go back to the above quote ... "but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like." As he states to his reply to objection 2, "The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually." To which he follows, "Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil." So it is more than just the "majority" of people are able to refrain, for if the enforcement of such a vice upon the imperfect causes them to fall into greater depravity, then the law is not proper.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

The fundamental problem with libertarianism in general is the principle of property rights, which is somewhat opposed to the stewardship of property that is generally brought up by Catholic teaching.

My interest in that is piqued. What are the differences?

My point is that the "libertarian mindset" is problematic not only because of its views on property rights but also because of its views on criminal legislation. According to the libertarian, only those vices that harm others should be prohibited. According to the Thomist, those vices "that are to the hurt of others" as well as the other "grievous vices" should be banned. For example, libertarians support the legalization of recreational drug use because it is non-harmful to others. A Thomist, on the other hand, would maintain such laws because it is certainly possible for the vast majority of people to abstain from recreational drugs.

Christian Democrats wrote:For example, libertarians support the legalization of recreational drug use because it is non-harmful to others. A Thomist, on the other hand, would maintain such laws because it is certainly possible for the vast majority of people to abstain from recreational drugs.

But we come to the other argument of Thomas, "The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil."

So the notion of "recreational drugs" (ignoring the counter argument that in modern society, that which to the hurt of self by definition becomes to the hurt of others since no man is an island) is one of those more complicated issues. Thomas argues that the law leads to virtue gradually. Thus the complete ban of such things would be imprudent because it places an undue burden on the imperfect man. However, a gradual approach (as we see with the current laws on tobacco smoking, which in many cases has been extended to vaping, a far more dangerous situation if only because of the problems of battery explosions) is perfectly within the Thomist argument.

Oire wrote:My interest in that is piqued. What are the differences?

OK this is going to get complicated quickly. Check out the following link for some information: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/catholicism-and-libertarianism-clash-over-property-and-common-good

Even this argument isn't all that clear cut. The Libertarian view on private property is absolute; you have absolute rights to your own private property, "It is a foregone conclusion in Rothbard's ethics that owners of property have the absolute right to exclude people from what they own, be it land or material objects." This means that the individual trumps the common good. As opposed to "In the Catholic tradition, this is reversed. The guarantee of private property ownership, and the good of it, can only be premised on the common good."

The absolute right of property, for example, was used to support slavery arguments. (Such arguments also came with it the forced arrangements of marriage and the subsequent ownership of the results of such marriages, both expressly forbidden under church law and teaching.) In more modern times this is also used to support the principle of unjust wages. It is used to support the notion of hording, acquiring a monopoly of an essential good and at times of crisis limiting its availability to those who need it the most. All three of these things, the excessive abuses of slavery, the unjust wage and hording are expressly forbidden under the notion that private property must always serve the common good.

At least its better than Islam.

I was only interested in relation to my house and not having registered for the vile property tax. I assumed both views supported a man's right to own his own house.
My slaves are treated well.

Horsell wrote:At least its better than Islam.

So you don't like islam?

Oire wrote:So you don't like islam?

Not in any way, shape or form. But lets not get into this, internet debates are cancer.

Hello to you all, I'm most glad to be here. I am King Jacob of Sodor. Nice to meet all of you.

Christian Democrats and Kannabyss

The masses empire

Island sodor wrote:Hello to you all, I'm most glad to be here. I am King Jacob of Sodor. Nice to meet all of you.

Hello to you too.

«12. . .182183184185186187188. . .515516»

Advertisement