socialistic tendencies

[dairygirl4u2c]

sure, the communal life, with socialistic attributes, in the acts was voluntary and no imposed, like a socialistic society here today would be. but if that is the ideal, why isn't that what catholics strive for in soceity and laws? if you said you don't want to impose your morals on others, what's with all the imposing on other things? it'd seem to be consistent would be to vote for socialistic things, and those who don't like it can go to canada?

Edited August 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

it is simple: human beings have the absolute inalienable right to private property. individuals were given dominion over the earth and as individuals we are called to tend that portion which we hold in our private possession. read Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII for more on this

the choice to waive your right to private property can be virtuous; but the fact remains that private property is something which is a moral good. the state forbidding a moral good is something which is immoral.

there's the difference: our other "imposing" as it were, is the state forbidding immoral things. you are asking us to apply the same logic to have the state forbid moral things.

you know, if we had not discussed things before, from just this post alone I would have had absolutely no clue what you were talking about.

btw, I love the new quote in your sig:
[quote]Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood." And Jesus replied, "What?"[/quote]

:rotfl:

[dairygirl4u2c]

Whatever private property the apostles had it'd seem is what our current society should have.
Did the apostle have private property in their commune?

I suppose they had it, but they willingly gave it. And to require that people willingly give is not good. In a sense. to be clear, i acknowledge your point as mine was not well thought out.

In another sense, it's saying that that is the standard which all must abide by. It's like if the US was one big commune, we'd have those rules, and those who didn't like it could leave. It's not really "requiring" so to speak. it's not imposing as i said in my first post, it's "imposing".

Edited August 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

only a few people are called to the extra-ordinary virtue of poverty by which they give all their personal possessions to the Church and entrust themselves to the Church's care.

entire populations are not called to this [b]extra-ordinary[/b] virtue. if they were, it would no longer be extra-ordinary, it would be ordinary.

the early Christians were an extra-ordinary case.

In your scenario, that people are "allowed to leave" so it isn't imposing, you have made the choice to retain private property extra-ordinary. it is not, it is the ordinary state of human individuals in human society by God's gift to us of dominion over the earth in Genesis.