Summa Theologica, Secunda Secund√¶ Partis, Q 66, Art. 7:
"...if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand..., then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery."
With 13th-Century casuistry like this, little wonder the pope can so readily endorse universal income. Besides, clerical benefices are almost the same thing.
From USA from USA wrote: I encourage all to look up the ‚Äúeconomy of Francis‚ÄĚ.
Nothing new - This is just another rehash of Catholic Social Teaching which has been taught since Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" and has been more strident since "Rerum Novarum." But who bothers to read these?
It's as if folks are too lazy to peruse what the RCC actually teaches (readily available on the Vatican's website), and prefer secondhand summaries.
I doubt not that there are academics and powerful fools who desire such things, but I also think it's too easy to weave their quotes into a sensational conspiracy story as New American does all too often. I have a relative who follows John Birch, and their views are about all he talks about.
Don't forget that Left and Right media agree on one thing: Fear sells. And are Christians supposed to fear anything except God?
James Thomas wrote: What are the real reasons the puritans and pilgrims left Neil?
Arguments varied, but primarily it was because they could find no Scriptural justification for it (a Popish holyday), and secondarily, during that period Christmas was sort of like Spring Break, accompanied by riot, drunkenness, and debauchery.
The issue came up with the Plymouth Plantation folks too: according to Wm. Bradford, some wanted the day off to get soused, while the rest considered it just another work-day.
Will these COVID rules do what the Puritans were unable to sustain during the 1600s: a ban on Christmas? Now they did that for very different reasons of course, incomprehensible to modern Christians sold on the sentimentalized Victorian version.
"... the politician to whom you've harnessed your theology to loses." - a grossly exaggerated Red Herring. Supporting this or that public figure does not mean one endorses their whole philosophy as well, faulty reasoning shared with Christians for whom no candidate is worthy of their vote.
This conforms to my expectations of lib-arts college professors published on Wa-Po.
Watcher wrote: And I suppose you didn't bother looking at the links I posted?
A list of Masons doesn't prove the assertion. That some of the Founders were members doesn't logically imply their beliefs were wholly derived from it. Besides, many were also church members, like Washington. Why not give that at least as much credit?
Watcher wrote: Yep. You're bang on with that one Jim. Most if not all of America's leaders were or are high-ranking Masons.
I so, then what difference did that make? I say none; almost everyone who was educated in the 18th Century, including devout Puritans, was fed a rich diet of classical history in Grammar School, which has many examples of and discussion about Tyrannies, Monarchies, Democracies, and Republics, raw material for the Federalist Paper debates.
Jim Lincoln wrote: We may not have a Christian worldview, but at least we had a unique and pretty good idea of a democratic worldview.
Nonsense: The "voice of the people" is not always right. The whole point of our Constitutional system, which is lost on many and being subverted now, is not "democracy," but to balance the interests of the Many and the Few, in the hope of avoiding tyranny. But even this fails absent public virtue, as Montesquieu observed, and we are now reaping what has been sown in lawlessness since the '60s at least.
Even if Dem ballot cheating (which has a long history) is, against my expectations, overturned this time and Trump wins, it is apparent the US has reached a "Critical Mass" of lawlessness among people at large, and those in the election system in particular. "Fairness" has been redefined to mean "getting what I want," and in my anecdotal experience, it's not just Progressives who think this way.
I do not expect this to get better next time around, but worse. We are no longer worthy of the label "democracy" (or better, "republic") if votes are not counted fairly, in the main.
I question his premise that Americans in the past have had a "Biblical worldview." This country has long had a rich buffet of sects, some of which only nominally Biblical (e.g. Shakers, Quakers, Mormons, "Christian" Science). Better to say they had more fear of God than today.
"No fear of God" should be America's epitaph, for I have difficulty finding what the Bible calls "blameless" behavior anywhere, be it in politics, business, families, and organized churches. And for the latter, it makes no difference what the ostensible doctrines are. When the chips are down, will men do what is painful but right, or easy but wrong?
"Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?" - Prov. 20:4