Tradinistas

[Coëmgenus]

I'm a member of the group responsible for the texts discussed here and will be glad to answer questions about them. The manifesto is meant as an opening statement, not a full argument, and I know there's much it leaves unexplained. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Coëmgenus

[MIKolbe]

you call it a manifesto?

Why?

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Coëmgenus said:

I'm a member of the group responsible for the texts discussed here and will be glad to answer questions about them. The manifesto is meant as an opening statement, not a full argument, and I know there's much it leaves unexplained. 

It isn't entirely clear what you believe. 

1) Do you believe that people should be able to own private property, and to what extent? To what extent are your beliefs consistent or inconsistent with what most people would consider socialsm?

2) How about "the means of production"? In your economy, are they owned by the state, private citizens, or a combination of both?

3) With respect to #1 and #2 above, the Church has been highly critical of the idea that they should be placed in the hands of the state, or that they should be commonly owned among all men. How do you reconcile your form of socialsm with the teachings of the Church?

4) It has been suggested here that the authors of your website are more prone to violence because of your socialistic beliefs. The evidence is apparently the large number of people that have been killed under socialistic regimes. How would you respond?

[<3 PopeFrancis]

It is communal living.  Communism.  Jonestown at best.

[Peace]

5) To what extent to you advocate violence? What forms of violence are acceptable to you? Under what circumstances and for what reasons is violence acceptable to you?

 

5 hours ago, Coëmgenus said:

I'm a member of the group responsible for the texts discussed here and will be glad to answer questions about them. The manifesto is meant as an opening statement, not a full argument, and I know there's much it leaves unexplained. 

 

4 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

It is communal living.  Communism.  Jonestown at best.

Hmm. My impression is that the early Christians were fairly communal, but I would need to look into it more. I am not sure if the Church would condemn that, although I do not personally advocate for it.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

5) To what extent to you advocate violence? What forms of violence are acceptable to you? Under what circumstances and for what reasons is violence acceptable to you?

 

 

The CCC advocates war as a necessary means to an end   when the end is peace  ONLY!  It does not advocate violence in any way.  In war only and under these conditions.

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. My impression is that the early Christians were fairly communal, but I would need to look into it more. I am not sure if the Church would condemn that, although I do not personally advocate for it.

I agree.  It was the basic foundation for The Church in Her infancy and developed more of a "spiritual communion".  If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. [4] Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. [5] Matthew (Douay Rheims)

From this we eat the "Living Bread in Holy Communion" living stones of The Church.

 

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

The CCC advocates war as a necessary means to an end   when the end is peace  ONLY!  It does not advocate violence in any way.  In war only and under these conditions.

I am sure that the Church prefers peaceful resolutions, where possible.

I don't think that She limits violence to just war. I gave a few examples earlier in this thread. 

The question is, what forms of violence, if any, might be justifiable in order to implement the type of socialsm that they advocate - my guess is that none would be.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

12 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

19 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. My impression is that the early Christians were fairly communal, but I would need to look into it more. I am not sure if the Church would condemn that, although I do not personally advocate for it.

 

Would you share when you look into it?  I would like to hear your input on it.  I think you are right about The Church not condemning communal living ie.  Religious orders that are usually founded by Christians with extraordinary witness to Christ etc.  but when it is founded on an idea of relativism, class distinction, and ultimately emitting God from the communal life The Church is wary.

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am sure that the Church prefers peaceful resolutions, where possible.

I don't think that She limits violence to just war. I gave a few examples earlier in this thread. 

The question is, what forms of violence, if any, might be justifiable in order to implement the type of socialsm that they advocate - my guess is that none would be.

Of course She prefers peaceful resolutions whether the members practice or not.

There is no other reason to advocate violence other than just war.

I'm sure for medical reasons and such  I've personally never  heard of a priest who had a gun to protect himself.

 

[Maggyie]

I read the following from an excellent John Zmirak article on this matter. Perhaps our new friend can help explain the following contradictions in their list of demands:

“Decentralization”… and a world government that ensures that every land “generously” welcomes migrants

To give everyone “private” property … which the government stops them from using “exploitatively” (that is, privately)

I am also curious about the implications of the statement that the STATE would be autonomous, but not entirely separated from the Church. I note that nothing is referenced as to the autonomy of the Church. Does this imply that the Church would become a department of the State perhaps?

So it's clear - along with everybody else, the one world  government you envision would be in charge of supervising what the bishops and pope want to do with the Church's property too, right? And approving or disapproving it? To make sure it's not used "exploitively?" That seems pretty obvious from your documents. 

[<3 PopeFrancis]

7 hours ago, Coëmgenus said:

I'm a member of the group responsible for the texts discussed here and will be glad to answer questions about them. The manifesto is meant as an opening statement, not a full argument, and I know there's much it leaves unexplained. 

You are recruiting in the wrong place.  We have a Church.

If you are a Christian group, you are also preaching to the choir here.

39 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I read the following from an excellent John Zmirak article on this matter. Perhaps our new friend can help explain the following contradictions in their list of demands:

“Decentralization”… and a world government that ensures that every land “generously” welcomes migrants

To give everyone “private” property … which the government stops them from using “exploitatively” (that is, privately)

I am also curious about the implications of the statement that the STATE would be autonomous, but not entirely separated from the Church. I note that nothing is referenced as to the autonomy of the Church. Does this imply that the Church would become a department of the State perhaps?

So it's clear - along with everybody else, the one world  government you envision would be in charge of supervising what the bishops and pope want to do with the Church's property too, right? And approving or disapproving it? To make sure it's not used "exploitively?" That seems pretty obvious from your documents. 

Jesus said The Church and the state cannot coexist.

[Maggyie]

Don't you mean Jesus said they CAN coexist? Because he definitely said they can. 

[dominicansoul]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

I read the following from an excellent John Zmirak article on this matter. Perhaps our new friend can help explain the following contradictions in their list of demands:

“Decentralization”… and a world government that ensures that every land “generously” welcomes migrants

To give everyone “private” property … which the government stops them from using “exploitatively” (that is, privately)

I am also curious about the implications of the statement that the STATE would be autonomous, but not entirely separated from the Church. I note that nothing is referenced as to the autonomy of the Church. Does this imply that the Church would become a department of the State perhaps?

So it's clear - along with everybody else, the one world  government you envision would be in charge of supervising what the bishops and pope want to do with the Church's property too, right? And approving or disapproving it? To make sure it's not used "exploitively?" That seems pretty obvious from your documents. 

Here is the article in its entirety for those who would like to read more:

 

https://stream.org/tradinistas-angry-churchy-millennials-who-scorn-freedom-and-demand-a-guaranteed-income-for-breathing/

[<3 PopeFrancis]

1 hour ago, Maggyie said:

Don't you mean Jesus said they CAN coexist? Because he definitely said they can. 

Perhaps I made a mistake and am not trying to argue.  What I mean is the scope of the Holy Roman Empire.

That is a good and accurate article.  Thank you for sharing it @dominicansoul.  It clarifies my position.

[KnightofChrist]

@Peace sorry I wasn't able to get back to you as I promised. Got called into work, we're slammed. I could have just not answered my phone but 70 other people and their families depend on me to do my job so they can do their job. This is the first five minutes of free time I've had since I last replied, well free time I didn't use to sleep. lol

Nice to see one of the members of Tradinistas found us though, I wonder if they would answer whether or not Catholic Marxism is a correct term to refer to their group.

Also, if the article that DS posted is true that Tradinistas gets have of its name sake from the Sandinistas. I would also like to know why a group would name themselves after a liberation front group guilty of numbers human rights violations which included but not limited to mass-murders.

Quote

Human rights violations by the Sandinistas

Time magazine in 1983 published reports of human rights violations in an article which stated that "According to Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights, the regime detains several hundred people a month; about half of them are eventually released, but the rest simply disappear." Time also interviewed a former deputy chief of Nicaraguan military counterintelligence, who stated that he had fled Nicaragua after being ordered to kill 800 Miskito prisoners and make it look like they had died in combat.[107] Another article described Sandinista neighbourhood "Defense Committees", modeled on similar Cuban Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which according to critics were used to unleash mobs on anyone who was labeled a counterrevolutionary. Nicaragua's only opposition newspaper, La Prensa, was subject to strict censorship. The newspaper's editors were forbidden to print anything negative about the Sandinistas either at home or abroad.[107]

Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights reported 2,000 murders in the first six months and 3,000 disappearances in the first few years. It has since documented 14,000 cases of torture, rape, kidnapping, mutilation and murder.[108]

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in a 1981 report found evidence for mass executions in the period following the revolution. It stated "In the Commission's view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war, during the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished."[109] The IACHR also stated that: "The Commission is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies, including among the latter the former guardsmen of the Government of General Somoza, whom a large sector of the population of Nicaragua held responsible for serious human rights violations during the former regime; proof of the foregoing is the abolition of the death penalty and the high number of former guardsmen who were prisoners and brought to trial for crimes that constituted violations of human rights."[109]

A 1983 report from the same source documented allegations of human rights violations against the Miskito Indians, which were alleged to have taken place after opposition forces (the Contras) infiltrated a Miskito village in order to launch attacks against government soldiers, and as part of a subsequent forced relocation program. Allegations included arbitrary imprisonment without trial, "disappearances" of such prisoners, forced relocation, and destruction of property.[110] In late 1981, the CIA conspiracy "Operation Red Christmas" was exposed to separate the Atlantic region from the rest of Nicaragua. Red Christmas aimed to seize territory on Nicaragua's mainland and overthrow the Nicaraguan government. The Nicaraguan government responded to the provocations by transferring 8,500 Miskitos 50 miles south to a settlement called Tasba Pri. The U.S. government accused Nicaragua of genocide. The U.S. government produced a photo alleged to show Miskito bodies being burned by Sandinista troops; however, the photo was actually of people killed by Somoza's National Guard in 1978.[111]

The 1991 annual report by the same organization, "In September 1990, the Commission was informed of the discovery of common graves in Nicaragua, especially in areas where fighting had occurred. The information was provided by the Nicaraguan Pro Human Rights Association, which had received its first complaint in June 1990. By December 1991, that Association had received reports of 60 common graves and had investigated 15 of them. While most of the graves seem to be the result of summary executions by members of the Sandinista People's Army or the State Security, some contain the bodies of individuals executed by the Nicaraguan Resistance."[112]

The 1992 annual report by the same organization contains details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out. One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed in 1984 by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras. Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contained six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded. A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras.[113]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

[Peace]

12 hours ago, Coëmgenus said:

I'm a member of the group responsible for the texts discussed here and will be glad to answer questions about them. The manifesto is meant as an opening statement, not a full argument, and I know there's much it leaves unexplained. 

6) From a practical standpoint, why socialsm when free market economies have proved much, much better at lifting the masses of common people out of poverty? Why advocate for something that has such a poor track record, and that almost all economists view as a failed way to manage an economy?