PP is going to be doing some damage control as usual. That's the cost of having lived in both societies (if we can call EU a society).
Wild_Fan4Christ to Markh said:
Oh really, and you are from England so who are you to say this. You don't even live in America so why are you even making these claims? If you knew anything about the history of America you would not be making baseless lies like this.
Honestly Wild, do you think that the secular framework in the US
and Europe [Mark] did not inevitably lead to this? Relativism in a constitution, whether EU or US was bound to lead to this.
Let me give an example. The Pope wants the EU constitution to reflect a Christian Europe. Bravo! Certainly our pope desires that God be mentioned, because by mentioning God at least we are a step in the right direction, and because it is a
reality, both historically and evidently. However, not mentioning which God, which Church will not do much in terms of who we are as a Union (whether the American or European) because no one knows which laws to follow, other than some basic principles (murder, theft (and who defines it?, marriage ,etc). So confusing is it, when laws of man are separated from those of God (The Church as pillar of truth) that we can't even be clear about those concepts (gay marriage now legal in Spain, an attempted secular coup on the part of some in America). In other words, what do words mean? The Protestant in America says fine, let's define those words, but which Church can do so without proclaiming itself as
the Church? No, we won't have any of that. And so, our economic laws and social ones are going to have the same effect. A hint of truth without a
defining truth. In Europe, the same relativism takes place. Much like truth in the times of Pilate, there is no definition anymore. A friend of mine, a lady I was involved with, was a psychology student, and she asked me if reality was real. I had the toughest time convincing her that the question implied objectivity.
Wildfan to Markh said:
With you personal interpretation maybe. Again, you live in England. Worry about your home and its laws pertaining to these issues and we will worry about our laws.
Wildfan, let me tell you a story. There was once were Jews who were promised something. They were chosen and the gentiles of the world were not given these promises and they were not chosen by God. Then came a Messiah....
I used to call myself European first and Catalan second. Then, with the formation of the EU and seeing the disasterous effects on the sovereignty and autonomy of Catalunya and the Basque country
within Spain, I reversed it calling myself Catalan first and European second. But, these were my days as a nationalist (I still am to some degree, but limited). As a returning Catholic I realised that I am first and foremost a Catholic. This means it is not Catholicism and our social thought that comes second or third, but first. Criticism of ANY nation must come through a Catholic perspective.
This statement, honestly, assumes that we are not critical of our own nations. Not true. I have said this before. I have posted about Spain in the past with little or no interest on this board. I get the same reaction here that I do in "real life" when discussing international affairs. A blank.
All nations, across the Atlantic or Pacific must conform to Catholic social thought. After all, under the premise that she is the true Church, her care must be held in higher esteem than anything nonCatholic. Otherwise, I question whether we would allow Christ himself to sit on his throne because it usurps our patriotism.
As I said, I would be happy to debate Catholic social thought. However, let's wait and see what the document says when it is released. You and I surely will conform to whatever the Church teaches and states.
Markh said:
There is definitely 2 very different forms of Catholic political thought.
American Individualist Catholicism and European socialist Catholicism.
I am absolutely sure that the European tradition is the one which reflects the political version of the Church's teachings.
I can not say I agree with you Mark. European history at certain times reflects, not a political version, but an economic and social version of Church's teachings. Ever since the political parties have been in place, they have failed miserably. This is probably the reason Belloc and G.K.'s brother Cecil wrote a book entitled, "The Party System" critiquing parties as being nothing more than football teams supported by hooligans (not as in violent, but in zeal).
Belloc and Chesterton would have argued that Catholic social thought climaxed with the guilds [In England). They, taking a note from Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, in condemning socialism as it removes the rights of private property and leave the State as sole propietor with the false notion that somehow it is collective, that we all own it. It also condemns egalitarianism (which is materialistic) and the false reality that man is not unique. Yes, you are right that capitalism leads to materialism, but indeed so does socialism. In one man is a tool, and in the other man is an animal.
Again, the tug of war between both systems is quite humourous IMO. On one side of the debate, man is to be a slave to the State, and in the other man advocates being a slave to the wage. However, there are principles which the Church has advocated historically which say both are incorrect. In one, man is to be removed from private property because he has no right to own anything (something the Church has said historically and presently, is that man has a moral right to property and is best
satisified when he is an owner). We are all animals and have no right to have more than another. Of course this leads to poverty for all. Poverty is cherished by the Church, but it does not ask that the State require poverty, and notes the suffering which comes to people when poverty is injected in society. On the other hand, the other system states that property is the carrot on the string which if one does not obtain because he is not the fittest, oh well. Home Depot has every right to destroy a mom and pop hardware store. The sky's the limit. So this appears just in contrast to the other, but is it a solution? Does it fit man's need to own property? It attempts to be neutral, mechanical, and thus fair. In principal it wishes for man to own, but in reality, because of its mechanical system only certain people are owners and everyone else works for them. Sounds similar doesn't it? It allows to let the chips fall where they may. Would Christ allow that? Is that economic system any less amoral?
I think Charlie would agree, as he has stipulated in the past, that we must be in the business of creating less workers and more owners, more entrepreneurs.
Again gentleman, let's wait until the document is released, and then we must all, American and European alike, conform to the Church, even if it hurts. That includes me.
