ServusDei

1) Outside the Church there is no Salvation "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"

It seems, as with almost all who aren't Catholic, you have a misunderstanding of this dogma. What it seems you think we mean by it is Feeneyism, which is a heresy. The problem is there are many exceptions to the rule that have always been believed. The Church has and continues to teach that She is necessary for the salvation, however, as you can see in the Pope St. John Paul II quote when you read the whole thing, there are instances where involuntary lack of knowledge (ignorance) is forgivable and with the grace of God you are still saved. The Church cannot put a limit on whom God saves, but She cannot teach that She isn't necessary. If you want me to go in deeper, I definitely can.

2) No Salvation of the Unbaptized

Again, here you cite without understanding what's being said. If this is to be taken in all cases, then the Church is rejecting baptism by blood and desire, which She doesn't deny. If what you said were true, in your own little note you add "limbo" which isn't hell. The truth is that the Church has never dogmatically declared what happens to unbaptized infants. Hence, in the latter quotes, you have this idea of hoping that the child is granted a pass into heaven.

3) Usury

Usury and Interest are not synonyms. A good short read is "The Perennial Teaching of the Church on Usury". Even in the Fifth Lateran Council, you have the Church declare that "montes pietatis", which many accused of usury, as not being usurious. They asked for interest.

4) Death Penalty

The State does have the overall authority. The Church doesn't deny this. What the Church is questioning, which I'll show from the pre-2018 Catechism, is to what extent is it permissible. "2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)." Even here in 1997, you see a development of doctrine where the need for a death penalty is deemed rare. Pope Francis claiming it to be "inadmissible" is dependent on what he said here, "Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption", as being true. If this is true, then your grounds for using the death penalty are shaky.

5) Slavery

Conflating two different ideas of the time. Unjust and just servitude. Slavery/servitude is the same word in Latin, i.e. Servus Dei can mean "servant/slave of God". Dum Diversas refers to captives in war, which servitude from a war was considered just at the time, same with Romanus Pontifex.

Sicut Dudum (1535), Sublimus Dei (1537), Cum Sicuti (1591), Commissum Nobis (1639) all condemn the enslavement of Indians and Africans (not as a part of war). This would have been considered unjust servitude. Earlier than all of these mentioned enslaving fellow Christians was already frowned upon, in general, and by the 17th century Europeans basically stopped enslaving war prisoners. You also haven't shown where the Church said it was okay and then said it wasn't (like you allegedly did in the other sections).

In none of these is there any "contradiction" as you put it.

What does that have to do with economics? And, as a correction, heretics created denominations.

What am I in denial of?

Wow! That's like, such great information, Debby. You should spread that to the rest of the world.

Are you asking me? I still don't get what this has to do with my response to the original post.

Examples?

I know that, Debby. The Church actively participates in it all the time. What's your point?

What does Islam have to do with this at all?

Never denied that Debby. Thanks though.

What does that have to do with my response to the original post?

1. The word dogs here is κυναρίοις and κυνάρια (meaning "little dogs/puppies/house dogs"). This is not an insult. If you look at Mt. 7:6 the word dogs is κυσίν (meaning "dogs/those who are despised"). This appears again in Rev. 22:15 as κύνες. This is an insult. In light of this, when Jesus says, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs", you wouldn't feed the pets first in a house you'd feed the children then the pets. Notice her response: “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” She admits she is not one of the children, i.e. Israelite, however she is still in the Master's house. The Master isn't here for her, yet, but He will eventually make His way to her. That's why He says that she has great faith.
2. When is Jesus ever wanted by the Romans? It's the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes that wanted Him dead. Even Pontius Pilate questions them when they hand Him over and when the Jews choose Barbaras over Jesus, he states that He did no wrong.
3. Your use of the term "demon-possessed" is also lacking. As throughout the OT, prophets are usually called names to discredit them. This happens to be one of those times. Yet, when there's Legion and it gets cast out it's clearly a demon(s) possession. Do you have examples of the term being used just because someone is a pagan?
4. Seeing as she was a Canaanite and not an Israelite, that would make her a Gentile.

Oh, 100%. It's just usually those who take up this stance, of Theodicy, usually aren't great at defining terms nor do they take into account the belief systems that they argue against. I didn't even think he would respond at all to be honest.

You can try to insult me all you want it only shows your level of intelligence.

Private property is subordinate to the principle that God created the earth and its resources for Man. It is not subordinate to contracts as you say.

"Telling the government to intervene". Protectionism through tariffs and subsidies, EESA, TARP, CARES, modern use of antitrust laws, Patriot Act... Do I need to continue with the conservative interventions in the economy and public life?

I'll just give you luxury taxes.

First and foremost, a social contract is not a liberal idea. Second, that's not what a social contract is.

In response to your accusation, I only mention charity when the text mentions charity. Ctrl + F will help you. The Catholic Church doesn't assistance and intervention should be pitted against charity but work in conformity with charity. In the CSDC, She mentions that government assistance must be temporary and that the intervention of government cannot take away or replace charity. The State and Church must work in collaboration.

Minimum wage- I assume you are referring to RN 44/45 and PP 59 (which references RN). RN literally states the worker can go into contract with the employer freely. It's when a wage is unjust can the State step in and claim that the wage is unjust and amend the contract. If a just wage was given originally no state involvement would be necessary. It doesn't call for a minimum wage anywhere in these texts. What it does call for is a "just wage" merely receiving the minimum is not enough. However, if a wage is to be mandated by the State it must also not poorly affect the parties involved. If making a statewide minimum wage of $20 would cause many workers to lose their jobs, then it is not just to increase this "floor".

I have a deep bias towards the Catholic Faith, but that has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. I personally believe that you are simplifying teachings to fit a view that the Church doesn't necessarily agree with.

I'll do my best to give you a just response. Personally, I would define the Church's Social Doctrine as neither conservative nor liberal (in the U.S. understanding of the terms). I would also like to say that it is understandable how one may deem the Church as either liberal or conservative, this attack is common from both sides, but under proper analysis neither is the case.

Populorum Progressio (23) The Use of Private Property

 "He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (21) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." (22) These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups." (23)

I do not see how this aligns with modern liberalism. The call to charity isn't something liberal nor is the acknowledgement that the right to private property isn't absolute. I do not know of any libertarian/conservative systems that teach absolute private property (not even anarcho-capitalism teaches this).

Populorum Progressio (22) Issues and Principles

22. In the very first pages of Scripture we read these words: "Fill the earth and subdue it."(19) This teaches us that the whole of creation is for man, that he has been charged to give it meaning by his intelligent activity, to complete and perfect it by his own efforts and to his own advantage.

Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: "God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all." (20)

All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

Again, I do not see the liberalism here. Basic Christian stance that the earth was given to man including all its resources. Also, we see another call to charity.

Populorum Progressio (84) To Government Authorities

84. Government leaders, your task is to draw your communities into closer ties of solidarity with all men, and to convince them that they must accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures in order to promote the development of nations and the preservation of peace. Delegates to international organizations, it is largely your task to see to it that senseless arms races and dangerous power plays give way to mutual collaboration between nations, a collaboration that is friendly, peace oriented, and divested of self-interest, a collaboration that contributes greatly to the common development of mankind and allows the individual to find fulfillment.

Is it the taxes that are supposed to be the liberal part here? The call for peace and not war?

Populorum Progressio (33) Programs and Planning

33. Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man's basic human rights.

Here maybe I can see somewhat of what you may mean but even then, it's flimsy. To not want the poor to get poorer while the rich get richer isn't strictly a liberal tenet. I do not know of conservatives that would wish the poor to get poorer. Organized programs conservatives participate in as well. The second part states that the government shouldn't interfere with private initiative and intermediary organizations. The actual Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC) goes further in depth on the role of government in society. The promotion of the family and building around it is a big part.

Laborem Exercens (14) Work and Ownership

This was actually referenced already in Populorum Progressio 23. Here however he specifically states that the right to private property is understood differently in the Christian context as opposed to the Marxist and Capitalist understandings.

Rerum Novarum (45)

45. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however - such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. - in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for its sanction and protection.

Is it the interference of the State that's liberal? It seems to be that the State is called upon to protect its populace from injustice which is a part of its function.

Populorium Progressio (59) Justice at Every Level

59. The teaching set forth by Our predecessor Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum is still valid today: when two parties are in very unequal positions, their mutual consent alone does not guarantee a fair contract; the rule of free consent remains subservient to the demands of the natural law. (57) In Rerum Novarum this principle was set down with regard to a just wage for the individual worker; but it should be applied with equal force to contracts made between nations: trade relations can no longer be based solely on the principle of free, unchecked competition, for it very often creates an economic dictatorship. Free trade can be called just only when it conforms to the demands of social justice.

The recognition of what constitutes a just contract is liberal?

Rerum Novarum (44)

This is a basic concept of life. Anything I could has been said already in previous citations.

Octogesima Adveniens (23) Advantages and Limitations of Juridical Recognition

23. Through the statement of the rights of man and the seeking for international agreements for the application of these rights, progress has been made towards inscribing these two aspirations in deeds and structures (16). Nevertheless various forms of discrimination continually reappear - ethnic cultural, religious, political and so on. In fact, human rights are still too often disregarded, if not scoffed at, or else they receive only formal recognition. In many cases legislation does not keep up with real situations. Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equity. In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an overemphasis of equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

In this field, everyone sees the highly important contribution of the Christian spirit, which moreover answers man's yearning to be loved. "Love for man, the prime value of the earthly order" ensures the conditions for peace, both social peace and international peace, by affirming our universal brotherhood (17).

Charity isn't a strictly liberal belief. If it's the idea that individualism is looked down upon the Church's understanding of individualism is different than common political economics.

Populorum Progressio (58) Free Trade Concept Inadequate

58. It is evident that the principle of free trade, by itself, is no longer adequate for regulating international agreements. It certainly can work when both parties are about equal economically; in such cases it stimulates progress and rewards effort. That is why industrially developed nations see an element of justice in this principle.

But the case is quite different when the nations involved are far from equal. Market prices that are freely agreed upon can turn out to be most unfair. It must be avowed openly that, in this case, the fundamental tenet of liberalism (as it is called), as the norm for market dealings, is open to serious question.

This ties into the contracts previously mentioned.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (32)

32. The obligation to commit oneself to the development of peoples is not just an individual duty, and still less an individualistic one, as if it were possible to achieve this development through the isolated efforts of each individual. It is an imperative which obliges each and every man and woman, as well as societies and nations. In particular, it obliges the Catholic Church and the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, with which we are completely willing to collaborate in this field. In this sense, just as we Catholics invite our Christian brethren to share in our initiatives, so too we declare that we are ready to collaborate in theirs, and we welcome the invitations presented to us. In this pursuit of integral human development we can also do much with the members of other religions, as in fact is being done in various places.

Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of every human being is in fact a duty of all towards all, and must be shared by the four parts of the world: East and West, North and South; or, as we say today, by the different "worlds." If, on the contrary, people try to achieve it in only one part, or in only one world, they do so at the expense of the others; and, precisely because the others are ignored, their own development becomes exaggerated and misdirected.

Peoples or nations too have a right to their own full development, which while including - as already said - the economic and social aspects, should also include individual cultural identity and openness to the transcendent. Not even the need for development can be used as an excuse for imposing on others one's own way of life or own religious belief.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (39)

39. The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one another as persons. Those who are more influential, because they have a greater share of goods and common services, should feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the same spirit of solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is destructive of the social fabric, but, while claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the good of all. The intermediate groups, in their turn, should not selfishly insist on their particular interests, but respect the interests of others.

Positive signs in the contemporary world are the growing awareness of the solidarity of the poor among themselves, their efforts to support one another, and their public demonstrations on the social scene which, without recourse to violence, present their own needs and rights in the face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities. By virtue of her own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her stand beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to help satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the context of the common good.

The same criterion is applied by analogy in international relationships. Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which human industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must serve equally for the good of all.

Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination to preserve their own hegemony, the stronger and richer nations must have a sense of moral responsibility for the other nations, so that a real international system may be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality of all peoples and on the necessary respect for their legitimate differences. The economically weaker countries, or those still at subsistence level, must be enabled, with the assistance of other peoples and of the international community, to make a contribution of their own to the common good with their treasures of humanity and culture, which otherwise would be lost for ever.

Solidarity helps us to see the "other"-whether a person, people or nation-not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer useful, but as our "neighbor," a "helper" (cf. Gen 2:18-20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God. Hence the importance of reawakening the religious awareness of individuals and peoples. Thus the exploitation, oppression and annihilation of others are excluded. These facts, in the present division of the world into opposing blocs, combine to produce the danger of war and an excessive preoccupation with personal security, often to the detriment of the autonomy, freedom of decision, and even the territorial integrity of the weaker nations situated within the so-called "areas of influence" or "safety belts."

The "structures of sin" and the sins which they produce are likewise radically opposed to peace and development, for development, in the familiar expression Pope Paul's Encyclical, is "the new name for peace."68

In this way, the solidarity which we propose is the path to peace and at the same time to development. For world peace is inconceivable unless the world's leaders come to recognize that interdependence in itself demands the abandonment of the politics of blocs, the sacrifice of all forms of economic, military or political imperialism, and the transformation of mutual distrust into collaboration. This is precisely the act proper to solidarity among individuals and nations.

The motto of the pontificate of my esteemed predecessor Pius XII was Opus iustitiae pax, peace as the fruit of justice. Today one could say, with the same exactness and the same power of biblical inspiration (cf. Is 32:17; Jas 3:18): Opus solidaritatis pax, peace as the fruit of solidarity.

The goal of peace, so desired by everyone, will certainly be achieved through the putting into effect of social and international justice, but also through the practice of the virtues which favor togetherness, and which teach us to live in unity, so as to build in unity, by giving and receiving, a new society and a better world.

Most of these I don't really see what makes them "liberal". If you can please explain. I think there were two where maybe I can see where you might go but even then, it wouldn't be liberal. But I would like to hear what you would have to say. Personally, I do not believe I Catholic should adhere to the titles of conservative or liberal (in the American sense) as the Church is so different than both ideologies.

The point is for you to define your terms. When you say something is unnecessary you must be comparing it to a standard. I would like to know what makes a thing necessary/unnecessary.

The same goes for "all-loving". What does it mean to be all-loving? What does "love" mean?

This is pretty much how Gentile and Mussolini view the State.

Define the terms unnecessary and love.

Define economically liberal. Economic liberalism is generally a term reserved for supporters of a type of market economy, but it seems you might be using the term in reference to modern liberalism in the U.S. If you can, after defining hopefully, explain how said quotes fall into your definition.