Tradinistas

[Maggyie]

50 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. I believe in Universal Health Care and other things not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Does that mean that I am also attempting to replace the gospel with schemes of my own devising? 

I am not endorsing the content of the website, but I do not see why advocacy of  certain political positions must necessarily be in conflict with the gospel. Where exactly did the author state that we should not repent, believe on the Lord, get baptized, and obey His commandments (or however else we might define the gospel)?

I too believe in universal healthcare. The difference is you are not proposing a system... A program that will supposedly save the poor. There is no salvation in economics.

I'n sure they would protest "we're not saying that there is." But sure they are. Ultimately the suggestion is that as capitalism has allowed exploitation, socialism will make men holy. That's the point of these quasi-religious projects. Their faith is not in the Gospel however; the Gospel in their view has been defeated by capitalism and has proven itself (Himself) not up to the task. Instead of going back to the Gospel they want to propose something new, a system to replace the old system. A reorganization of power. The Gospel proposes no system and is centered in the most profound act of disempowerment possible. Holiness through economics, not sacraments, is the tradinista point of view.  

20 minutes ago, ToJesusMyHeart said:

The tradinistas passionately affirm the dignity and goodness of all human life, so I don't really know why we are presuming they secretly want to murder everyone...

Um, the manifesto clearly accepts violence as a way of making change. So "pro-life" isn't really their thing, is it. 

What's really interesting, most groups start off rejecting violence and then gradually compromise as their project becomes more difficult to control. The tradinistas start off being part of the culture of death from the very beginning. 

[Spem in alium]

I just think of "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God". I believe there is a place for government, nation and economic policy in our world, and they have the power and opportunity (if taken) to do tremendous good. They are not, however, the way to salvation. What I found contradictory with these Tradinistas is that they're arguing first off that Jesus is the way, but then proposing socialism as the way to be holy. No, the way to be holy is to live the Gospel as best we can.

To me, the Tradinistas are clearly attracting a young audience, perhaps because a lot of young people are easily swayed by this sort of propagandistic language.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I too believe in universal healthcare. The difference is you are not proposing a system... A program that will supposedly save the poor. There is no salvation in economics.

I am not quite sure if I understand what you mean to say.

The Church teaches that our good works done in a state of grace merit salvation. I do not think that excludes good works that are of an economic nature.

2 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I'n sure they would protest "we're not saying that there is." But sure they are. Ultimately the suggestion is that as capitalism has allowed exploitation, socialism will make men holy. That's the point of these quasi-religious projects. Their faith is not in the Gospel however; the Gospel in their view has been defeated by capitalism and has proven itself (Himself) not up to the task. Instead of going back to the Gospel they want to propose something new, a system to replace the old system. A reorganization of power. The Gospel proposes no system and is centered in the most profound act of disempowerment possible. Holiness through economics, not sacraments, is the tradinista point of view.  

Perhaps we are just interpreting the documents differently. I did not necessarily read them as saying that "socialism will make men holy, apart from the grace of God".

But anyway, as mentioned above, our good works while done in a state of grace, be they economic, political, social, or whatever, do in fact make us more holy, at least so far as I understand the teaching of the Church. It is not just the sacraments.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Quote

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

I do not intend to imply here that I am in favor of socialism, just to be clear.

22 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Socialism/Marxism in its various forms has lead to hundreds of millions of deaths world-wide. It really should not be shocking for Maggie to express concern. Perhaps if a group was advocating marrying Nationalsozialistische a form of Socialism to Catholicism you and @Peace would share a similar concern and likely, I hope, find such a proposal asinine.

Well in that sense capitalism has also lead to millions of deaths world-wide. And the Church has been very critical of capitalism as well. Should it be shocking if I were to accuse anyone who advocates for capitalism as being near-certain to go on a killing rampage?

I do not think it is fair to accuse someone as being likely to go on a killing spree simply because he advocates for one economic system as opposed to the other.

As for Nationalsozialistisch - you will have to kindly inform me what that is before I can comment on it. I do not speak whatever language that is.

[Maggyie]

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am not quite sure if I understand what you mean to say.

The Church teaches that our good works done in a state of grace merit salvation. I do not think that excludes good works that are of an economic nature.

Perhaps we are just interpreting the documents differently. I did not necessarily read them as saying that "socialism will make men holy, apart from the grace of God".

But anyway, as mentioned above, our good works while done in a state of grace, be they economic, political, social, or whatever, do in fact make us more holy, at least so far as I understand the teaching of the Church. It is not just the sacraments.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

I do not intend to imply here that I am in favor of socialism, just to be clear.

I think you are taking it too concretely. Good works of course make one holy. A good comparison to what I'm trying to say would be an American who believes if all these Middle Eastern nations would just adopt "the American way" aka western style democracy, then the region would be all rainbows and unicorns. In fact, while American style democracy has many things to recommend it, it isn't the solution to problems - transformation by Jesus is the solution to the problems. 

So too socialism is not the solution to income inequality and exploitation of workers. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by Maggyie

[Peace]

Quote

Since the end of mankind is holiness, it follows that he is due by nature the ability to move towards this end as easily as possible. A just society, then, is one in which mankind can easily advance towards the True, Good, and Beautiful and receive aid on his quest for holiness. Similarly, an unjust society inhibits the development of holiness and persecutes those who seek it.

Oh. I see what you guys are all up in arms about. Yeah. The statement above is a bit specious.

If they mean to assert that a person is more equipped to become holy in a just society, than in an unjust society, I would tend to disagree with that. It would seem to me that one is equally disposed to become a saint in any society, but I have not thought about this before. It is an interesting idea though. I think that to a certain extent the Church has a corporate view of salvation. That is, we do help each other "get to heaven" in a sense. So perhaps creating a just society in which Christians can more openly practice their faith, could help people on their path to holiness, in a sense.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

The comments y'all are making make zero sense if you read the two articles I posted. The manifesto itself is merely a summary of the project. Read the other two longer articles if you have concerns. 

Part 1: http://tradinista.com/a-catholic-socialism-part-i/

Part 2: http://tradinista.com/a-catholic-socialism-part-ii/

 

Also where on earth is this idea that they are not pro-life coming from? Are we reading the same documents? 

"12. Marriage and family life should be specially supported by the polity to promote the common good.
We uphold the value of the indissoluble marriage of one man and one woman, ordered towards the generation of offspring, which is the foundation of society. Accordingly the polity should take supporting the education and rearing of children as a primary responsibility. Few things are more hostile to the poor among us than the bourgeois conception of marriage and family life, in which marriage becomes a mere contract or means to self-gratification. We therefore reject contraception, no-fault divorce, in-vitro fertilization, and any similar attempt to sever marriage from procreation or interfere with its indissolubility.

13. Abortion is a horrifying crime which must be eradicated immediately.
We insist on the right to life from conception to natural death; all innocent human lives must be protected. While prohibiting abortion, the polity should simultaneously provide abundantly for the material security of mothers. No one should face economic hardship because of having a child.

14. Anthropogenic climate change threatens the common good of all mankind, and must be fought.
It is indisputable that climate change has man-made causes. Given its increasingly manifest and obviously dangerous consequences, especially for the indigenous peoples and the poor, it must be halted."

[Maggyie]

"The means of class struggle, peaceful if possible, must respect basic moral norms and fundamental human dignity."

keywords: if possible. 

They try to cover this up by talking about "basic moral norms and fundamental human dignity." The "if possible" reveals that they are ok with violence as long as it conforms to these unspecified "norms." Like a bomber who targets an abortion clinic, the suggestion is that some form of violence to achieve their political goals is justifiable. I don't want to use the t word, but the use of violence for political aims is half the definition of the t word. 

NOT prolife whatsoever. 

[KnightofChrist]

33 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well in that sense capitalism has also lead to millions of deaths world-wide. And the Church has been very critical of capitalism as well. Should it be shocking if I were to accuse anyone who advocates for capitalism as being near-certain to go on a killing rampage?

In a sense anything has lead to the death of millions. However Socialism/Marxism when put into practice has directly caused the death of millions. Capitalism for all it's faults isn't condemned by the Church, Socialism/Marxism is condemned. According to Pope Saint John XXIII "No Catholic could even subscribe even to moderate socialism." [Mater et Magistra (May 15, 1961)] Which should put Tradinista's position to sleep. Of course it will not, Marxism is like a dead horse with square wheels, people keep trying to beat it to move but it never does.

Quote

I do not think it is fair to accuse someone as being likely to go on a killing spree simply because he advocates for one economic system as opposed to the other.

As for Nationalsozialistisch - you will have to kindly inform me what that is before I can comment on it. I do not speak whatever language that is.

Nationalsozialistisch is German Nazism. I made the comparison because it was a form of Socialism and a form that advocated violence to enforce its ideology and also directly caused the deaths of millions. Pretend Tradinistas was instead of purposing a marriage between Marxism and the Church was purposing a marriage of Nazism. Would you better understand the concern some may have over "killing sprees" (as you call them) caused by the marrying of the two?

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I think you are taking it too concretely. Good works of course make one holy. A good comparison to what I'm trying to say would be an American who believes if all these Middle Eastern nations would just adopt "the American way" aka western style democracy, then the region would be all rainbows and unicorns. In fact, while American style democracy has many things to recommend it, it isn't the solution to problems - transformation by Jesus is the solution to the problems. 

So too socialism is not the solution to income inequality and exploitation of workers. 

When you say "transformation by Jesus is the solution" exactly what do you mean? I think you mean that what will truly be the solution to our problems is a transformation of our hearts and minds so that we become more like Christ.

If that is what you mean - I agree that is the ultimate solution. If we were all like Christ we would have Heaven on Earth, would we not?

At the same time though, that transformation of heart manifests itself in concrete actions, and I would think that certain economic/political systems are more or less consistent with Christ than others That is why you see the Popes condemning pure forms of socialism and capitalism (and I suppose Nationalsozialistisch too, whatever this is). A system without human slavery is better than one with slavery, etc.

So, Certain ways are more or less compatible with Jesus, I think. These folks on the website appear to think that the form of socialism that they are advocating is more compatible with the heart of Jesus. I have no opinion on whether or not that is correct (my guess is that it would not be correct), but I do not think that it is fair to accuse them of denying the gospel only because they think it is better manifested by one particular system as opposed to another.

I didn't really interpret them as saying "adopt our political system and we will have Heaven on Earth."

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

"The means of class struggle, peaceful if possible, must respect basic moral norms and fundamental human dignity."

keywords: if possible. 

They try to cover this up by talking about "basic moral norms and fundamental human dignity." The "if possible" reveals that they are ok with violence as long as it conforms to these unspecified "norms." Like a bomber who targets an abortion clinic, the suggestion is that some form of violence to achieve their political goals is justifiable. I don't want to use the t word, but the use of violence for political aims is half the definition of the t word. 

NOT prolife whatsoever. 

"If possible". Aha. You have discovered the smoking gun. They want to kill everyone.

Some forms of violence might be justifiable to achieve political goals, though, depending on the circumstances. Ending slavery via the Civil War is an easy example I think.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Peace

[Maggyie]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

When you say "transformation by Jesus is the solution" exactly what do you mean? I think you mean that what will truly be the solution to our problems is a transformation of our hearts and minds so that we become more like Christ.

If that is what you mean - I agree that is the ultimate solution. If we were all like Christ we would have Heaven on Earth, would we not?

At the same time though, that transformation of heart manifests itself in concrete actions, and I would think that certain economic/political systems are more or less consistent with Christ than others That is why you see the Popes condemning pure forms of socialism and capitalism (and I suppose Nationalsozialistisch too, whatever this is). A system without human slavery is better than one with slavery, etc.

So, Certain ways are more or less compatible with Jesus, I think. These folks on the website appear to think that the form of socialism that they are advocating is more compatible with the heart of Jesus. I have no opinion on whether or not that is correct (my guess is that it would not be correct), but I do not think that it is fair to accuse them of denying the gospel only because they think it is better manifested by one particular system as opposed to another.

I didn't really interpret them as saying "adopt our political system and we will have Heaven on Earth."

It's more an assertion that anything other than socialism is hell on earth. The socialism is a key ingredient for holiness. 

[KnightofChrist]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

"If possible". Aha. You have discovered the smoking gun. They want to kill everyone.

Some forms of violence might be justifiable to achieve political goals, though, depending on the circumstances. Ending slavery via the Civil War is an easy example I think.

The smoking gun is "Marxism." But anyway, would you mock Maggyie so easily if Tradinistas made the same exact arguments but replaced "Marxism" with "Nazism"?

[Maggyie]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

"If possible". Aha. You have discovered the smoking gun. They want to kill everyone.

Some forms of violence might be justifiable to achieve political goals, though, depending on the circumstances. Ending slavery via the Civil War is an easy example I think.

Well there you have it. Is a bloody civil war an appropriate means to an end? In other words justifying means by an end? That's a Catholic no-no. I am sure every bishop from the pope down would urge us to reject killing and maiming each other for a political purpose. 

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The smoking gun is "Marxism." But anyway, would you mock Maggyie so easily if Tradinistas made the same exact arguments but replaced "Marxism" with "Nazism"?

I will have to respond in more in depth to your prior post when I have a little more time, but in the meantime, thank you for the explanation of that German word you used.

But in brief, I do not think that they are advocating Marxism. Here is what they write on their site:
 

Quote

 

8. Livelihood should not depend on the market.

Markets are not unjust in themselves, but they become vehicles of exploitation when people must sell their labor-power on the market in order to survive. So, while citizens should be free to engage in market exchange, the polity should ensure that no basic needs – food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. – go unmet, guaranteeing a livelihood independent of the market.

9. Every person has a right to property.

Private property is a basic feature of human society; nevertheless, the right to property is not unconditional, and ownership is justified only if it serves the common good. Complementing private property should be a combination of a new commons (knowledge, land) and widely-democratized productive property, and the polity must ensure that private ownership, unlike in its bourgeois form, is not used in exploitative ways.

10. Worker cooperatives should be strongly encouraged.

Centralized and monopolized private ownership of means of production must give way to control by the political community. At the same time, the polity should not directly run small- or mid-sized enterprises, leaving these to be owned and managed – as far as possible – on a worker-cooperative basis. More equitable and non-exploitative work relations within firms will result.

 

I would need to compare them further, but at first glance what they write does not seem too far off from what the Church actually teaches:
 

From Paragraph 2402 et. seq. of the Catechism:

Quote

 

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.189

 

Nor do I think your statement that the Church has not condemned capitalism is correct - but I will have to provide more detail on that later.

3 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Well there you have it. Is a bloody civil war an appropriate means to an end? In other words justifying means by an end? That's a Catholic no-no. I am sure every bishop from the pope down would urge us to reject killing and maiming each other for a political purpose. 

Ending a tyrannical system of human slavery? I would guess that there are some theologians out there who can fit that within just war theory.

But if that example is too gruesome for you, how about a person who chains himself to the door of an abortion clinic, or destroys the medical equipment that a doctor uses to perform abortions, in order to save human lives? That is not peaceful. Is it a sin?

Or how about a father defending his family in self defense if a robber enters the house? Not very peaceful either. Is it a sin?

How about when Jesus made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple? That does not seem very peaceful to me either.

So it seems rather clear that non-peaceful means (yes, including killing) may be justifiable in certain circumstances. And the fact that one advocates non-peaceful means to a problem does not mean that the person is advocating for a killing spree (this seems to be the conclusion that you have drawn from what they wrote, but I do not think it logically follows).

Peace

[KnightofChrist]

23 minutes ago, Peace said:

I will have to respond in more in depth to your prior post when I have a little more time, but in the meantime, thank you for the explanation of that German word you used.

But in brief, I do not think that they are advocating Marxism. Here is what they write on their site:

Quote

9. Every person has a right to property.

Private property is a basic feature of human society; nevertheless, the right to property is not unconditional, and ownership is justified only if it serves the common good. Complementing private property should be a combination of a new commons (knowledge, land) and widely-democratized productive property, and the polity must ensure that private ownership, unlike in its bourgeois form, is not used in exploitative ways.

10. Worker cooperatives should be strongly encouraged.

Centralized and monopolized private ownership of means of production must give way to control by the political community. At the same time, the polity should not directly run small- or mid-sized enterprises, leaving these to be owned and managed – as far as possible – on a worker-cooperative basis. More equitable and non-exploitative work relations within firms will result.

 

Of course they are Marxists. Their using Marxist terminology and ideology. "Bourgeois" for example is a Marxist coined term to dehumanize wealthy persons. Corporations being owned by Government is part of a Marxist/Socialist ideology. Private ownership only being allowed if it "serves the common good" is another part of Marxist/Socialist ideology. "Democratized productive property" souds a lot like socialized/nationlized property where "everyone" owns it, but in actuality no one really does but the Government. And that is another part of Marxist/Socialist idealogy.

If you're going to continue down the line of not viewing them as Marxists then there is little purpose in continuing this dicussion. Because there's no common ground or starting point, and it's clear they are advocating Marxism.

Edited September 30, 2016 by KnightofChrist