tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post4182646393190773860..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: Welcome To The RealUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-89330194263568796912012-07-25T13:46:50.496-05:002012-07-25T13:46:50.496-05:00Steve, I think we are at least largely in agreemen...Steve, I think we are at least largely in agreement, simply using terms in different ways. <br /><br />Yes, "social duties" are carried out (or not) by persons.<br /><br />Back to your example of the Jewish people failing in their duty towards Christ...I'd say yes and no.<br /><br />Some failed. Other's didnt'. A number of Jews recognized Jesus as the Messiah and became Christians. Others didn't, either through ignorance or malice. Same thing with the holocaust. Some Germans participated. Some enabled it. Others opposed it, and a good many died in it. <br /><br />I don't have the paragraph # handy, but as the CCC points out, every person has a responsiblity to contribute to the common good, each according to their station in life. So each of us has a personal responsibility to participate in the fulfillment of social duties. <br /><br />Pax ChristiAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-37412846098478280852012-07-25T13:38:26.126-05:002012-07-25T13:38:26.126-05:00Andrew,
I made the statement about breakfast cere...Andrew,<br /><br />I made the statement about breakfast cereals because during our conversation I recalled someone who actually DID dispute the idea that "every economic decision is a moral decision."<br /><br />He was a philosphy professor at Franciscan University - he pointed out that the idea of what constituted a moral act was actually a disputed question. He fell on the side that said the decision to eat one breakfast cereal over another is NOT a moral decision.<br /><br />So I was wrong to say no one disputes that - actually, that is disputed.<br /><br />As for social duties, here's the problem:<br /><br />CCC 1869 "Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a "social sin." "<br /><br />Now, if something is a "social sin" only in an analogous sense, then it is not REALLY a sin. It only holds certain analogues to real sin.<br /><br />If there is no such thing as a social sin, but only an analogy to one, then there can be no such thing as social duties, but only analogies to social duties.<br /><br />Persons have duties.<br />Systems don't.<br />They have analogues to duties, but when we speak of "social duties" or "social justice" then we are only speaking in an analogous sense.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-54662401306977438112012-07-25T06:24:37.376-05:002012-07-25T06:24:37.376-05:00If you are leaping from:
A. Not every German who ...If you are leaping from:<br /><br />A. Not every German who has ever existed is personally responsible for the holocaust.<br /><br />to <br /><br />B. Societies don't have duties.<br /><br />I don't think B logically follows from A.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-9744693232162918502012-07-25T06:12:07.095-05:002012-07-25T06:12:07.095-05:00Oops.
Last sentence above should read:
Where did...Oops.<br /><br />Last sentence above should read:<br /><br />Where did a Pope say that societies do not have duties?<br /><br />The comparison of an economic system to a hammer falls a bit flat. Ideas are not physical objects. A system is the exercise of a human will. <br /><br />PaxAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-46075974207032560502012-07-25T06:09:09.966-05:002012-07-25T06:09:09.966-05:00Steve, the point of quoting Caritas in Veritate wa...Steve, the point of quoting Caritas in Veritate was to refute the 2nd position you put foward in your example debate: that what breakfast cereal you eat is not a moral choice. According to Caritas in Veritate it is. So, while there may be a debate on the point, the debate takes place outside of Catholic teaching.<br /><br />So you're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that no one denies that every economic decision has a moral consequence. On the other hand you say that some assert that what breakfast cereal you eat (an economic decision) has no moral implications. <br /><br />I've never asserted that all Jews are personally responsible for the Crucifixion, in any manner different than the responsibility all men share by our sin. <br /><br />It's actually quite easy to shoot down anyone who does say that all Jews bear personal guilt for the death of Christ. Mary was a Jew. Mary was sinless. There fore all Jews don't bear guilt for the death of Christ. <br /><br />Of course the Jews and Romans and whoever else was involved in actually killing Christ, DO bear a personal responsibility for their own actions, just like everyone else does. <br /><br />I did follow your link regarding Pius XII. From what I could tell it was commentary by someone else not original comments by Pope PIus XII himself. It would be more useful seeing what he actually said. <br /><br />Where did a Pope say that societies have duties?<br /><br />PaxAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-72049360099200590262012-07-24T13:50:31.555-05:002012-07-24T13:50:31.555-05:00Oh, and as far as your Dignitatis Humanae quote go...Oh, and as far as your Dignitatis Humanae quote goes, if you really want to emphasize that, it proves far too much.<br /><br />"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."<br /><br />Certainly Judaism is a culture and a society, and certainly it had a moral duty toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. It failed in that duty.<br /><br />So, according to your interpretation, the Jews really are responsible for Christ's death. Except that VCII apparently contradicted it's own document to claim that Jewish society did NOT actually have a moral duty - no collective guilt. <br /><br />Same goes for the Holocaust - Pope Pius XII apparently taught against the Faith when he said Germans could not be held collectively responsible.<br /><br />So, if you want to hold that economic systems have moral duties or that societies in general have moral duties, then VCII contradicted a Pope and itself.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-45902555264292651672012-07-24T13:31:59.399-05:002012-07-24T13:31:59.399-05:00"Thus every economic decision has a moral con..."Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence."<br /><br />Sure it does.<br />No one denies that.<br />But only persons make economic decisions - systems don't.<br /><br />So did you have a reason to quote that CV passage? Because I sure can't see what it might be.<br /><br />If you want the commentary on collective guilt expanded, I suggest you read the link and use the information presented there to research it yourself.<br /><br />The rest is refuting arguments I didn't make. I see no point in addressing strawmen.<br /><br />As for Catholic Vote's libertarian argument, since I'm not a libertarian, I'm not particularly interested. Catholics who favor the system probably would be.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-82956337762554961832012-07-24T13:21:03.747-05:002012-07-24T13:21:03.747-05:00You might want to head over to the "Can Catho...You might want to head over to the "Can Catholics Be Libertarians?" post at Catholic Vote and shed some light over there. http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=33343<br /><br />(But first correct your 3rd person neuter possessive pronoun on your own post: "responsible for its actions" --no apostrophe in "its" unless it's a contraction.)Mater et Magistrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961570084832388075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-70377694914377207422012-07-24T09:45:37.945-05:002012-07-24T09:45:37.945-05:00The existence of debate on a topic doesn't mea...The existence of debate on a topic doesn't mean there is reasonable room for debate. There's debate on whether or not Benedict XVI is the succssor of St. Peter. He is. Regardless of the existence of debate.<br /><br />From Caritas in veritate:<br /><br />"37. The Church's social doctrine has always maintained that justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs. Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence."<br /><br /><br />It's also incorrect to claim that corporate entities never have duties. As Dignitatis Humanae says: <br /><br />"Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."<br /><br />There are individual and societal duties toward the true religion and the Church. Of course, society has no will of it's own, but men in cooperation with one another have special duties beyond what belong to each as an individual person.<br /><br />I'm also interested if you could clarify/expand upon your comments regarding collective guilt.<br /><br />From the Catechism:<br /><br />1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: <br /><br />- by participating directly and voluntarily in them; <br /><br />- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; <br /><br />- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; <br /><br />- by protecting evil-doers. <br /><br />So take your example of the Germans and the holocaust. Germans don't bear responsibility for the holocaust simply by being Germans. However, to the extent that they, or anyone else did do the items mentioned, they do bear responsibility. <br /><br />In addition, even if a person does not bear personal responsibility for a sin committed by someone else, that doesn't mean they don't suffer consequences for the sin. Every German, even those who had no part in the holocaust in anyway, have suffered consequences because of it. Likewise, if my dad is an abusive drunk, that will effect me, and likely my children and grandchildren, even if I did nothing to contribute to his sins. The multi-generational consequences of sin are evident throughout Scripture. <br /><br />Pax ChristiAndrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-35896914201791032832012-07-24T06:45:40.959-05:002012-07-24T06:45:40.959-05:00There's a debate in philosophy over whether ev...There's a debate in philosophy over whether every action is a moral action.<br /><br />Some argue that every action IS a moral action - even your choice of breakfast cereal contains moral elements.<br /><br />Others say that not every action is a moral action. Your choice of breakfast cereal has no moral implications.<br /><br />Whether or not the undertaking of one economic system vs. another is a moral action is arguably an open question.Steve Kellmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509461318016670424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-71402492837010546572012-07-24T06:42:58.590-05:002012-07-24T06:42:58.590-05:00A very worthwhile and interesting post. I'd a...A very worthwhile and interesting post. I'd agree that there is not a "one size fits all" Catholic social system. However, there certainly are social systems which are fundamentally antoganistic to the Faith. As you point out, theistic communism was practiced in the early Church and continues in the monastic life. ATHEISTIC communism, just like (atheistic capitalism or atheistic distributis or atheistic anything else) would be opposed to the good of men. <br /><br />Systems of economics and governance don't exist independent of persons. A system is at the very least the idea of a person. As that person shares the idea with others and attempts to implement it, the idea is expressed in word and action. Our thoughts, words, and actions are either oriented towards God or away from Him. <br /><br />So "value neutral" systems don't exist independent of the human will.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130831351237667189noreply@blogger.com