Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[Socrates]

7 hours ago, polskieserce said:

And the problem with your assumption is your false belief that the job market will necessarily help those in poverty.  Some people simply aren't able to get a job and support themselves.  Some people require expensive, lifelong support from the state.  That's a simple fact that your kind frequently overlooks.  Numerous children with disabilities aren't getting the government funded services they need due to under-funding.  Many people are working some pathetic part time job that pays 8-10/hour but they aren't able to cover their living expenses.  Compared to other Western nations, the US treats the poor like garbage.  Obviously, other European nations like Denmark and Norway have much higher taxes and much less military spending.  But I think that's the direction the US should be heading in.  The US is not known for exceptional sexual morality either, so what's your point?  You are going off on an apples to oranges tangent by commenting on Germany's sexual morality.

Furthermore, how do you suppose people will be able to support themselves as automation continues to displace more and more people from advanced economies around the world?  The long-term trend is that more and more people will be displaced from the labor market due to technology.  The only plausible solution is a radical transformation (growth) of the welfare state to provide a universal basic standard of living.

The reality is that government can't simply create wealth and good jobs out of its arse.  I don't have time to give a full economics lesson here, but you need to stop drinking the nonsensical Bernie Sanders Kool-aid.  More government control and interference in the economy creates fewer jobs and more poverty and unemployment.  The expanding welfare state hasn't improved the situation in the U.S. 

And Scandinavian "Nordic" countries like Denmark and Sweden are over-rated (Sweden has a lower per-capita living standard than Mississippi).  In fact, their economies under their current "Nordic socialist" model are on the decline, and these countries are still living off the accumulated capital of earlier when they had among the most robust capitalist economies in Europe.  Their comparative economic success is not the result of socialism.  (I forget the title, but there was a recent book on this topic by a Swede).  They also have have pretty homogenous populations, and, at least until very recently, very little immigration.  You can't sustain both open borders and a welfare state (as American "liberals" wish to do).

Socialism and constant expanding of government inevitably leads to ruin; see the example of Venezuela

Here's a short, easy to-read primer you might read to educate yourself on some economic basics: The Problem with Socialism.

 

I never claimed America had great sexual morality; my point was that marriage and sexual morality won't be fixed by socialism and expanding the welfare state, which was the original premise of your thread.  This hasn't happened in America, Germany, or any other country, but quite the opposite.  In America, the big increases in the welfare state following Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the mid-60s were followed by huge increases in sexual promiscuity, illegitimate births, abortion, and divorce.  The idea that vast expansion of the welfare state is the answer to our sexual moral issues is pure fantasy not backed up by anything in reality.

 

[polskieserce]

14 hours ago, Papist said:

Obviously, you and I see a different Church and world. All that you say is rather hard to do when the world is evangelizing the opposite, and has control of the media outlets. I believe the real problem is the world does not seek Truth b/c in their heart they know it will require them to conversion and they like the way things are. i.e. having cake and eating it too

That's the problem right there.  The Catholic Church relies too heavily on evangelization.  Nominal Catholics and ex-Catholics will be rolling their eyes if they think the Church will make a comeback with this strategy.  I said it before and I will say it again: most people are not going to wait until marriage for sex if that means not getting any action until your late 20s/early 30s.  You need to get your head out of the clouds.  Obviously, there will always be some people who lose their virginity at 13 and stay promiscuous for most of their lives.  But more people would be open to waiting until marriage if it wasn't so burdensome.  If you don't believe me, then talk to some nominal Catholics and see what they say.  I talked to my secular  and nominal Christian friends and they agreed with me on this point.

 

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

The reality is that government can't simply create wealth and good jobs out of its arse.  I don't have time to give a full economics lesson here, but you need to stop drinking the nonsensical Bernie Sanders Kool-aid.  More government control and interference in the economy creates fewer jobs and more poverty and unemployment.  The expanding welfare state hasn't improved the situation in the U.S. 

And Scandinavian "Nordic" countries like Denmark and Sweden are over-rated (Sweden has a lower per-capita living standard than Mississippi).  In fact, their economies under their current "Nordic socialist" model are on the decline, and these countries are still living off the accumulated capital of earlier when they had among the most robust capitalist economies in Europe.  Their comparative economic success is not the result of socialism.  (I forget the title, but there was a recent book on this topic by a Swede).  They also have have pretty homogenous populations, and, at least until very recently, very little immigration.  You can't sustain both open borders and a welfare state (as American "liberals" wish to do).

Socialism and constant expanding of government inevitably leads to ruin; see the example of Venezuela

Here's a short, easy to-read primer you might read to educate yourself on some economic basics: The Problem with Socialism.

 

I never claimed America had great sexual morality; my point was that marriage and sexual morality won't be fixed by socialism and expanding the welfare state, which was the original premise of your thread.  This hasn't happened in America, Germany, or any other country, but quite the opposite.  In America, the big increases in the welfare state following Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs in the mid-60s were followed by huge increases in sexual promiscuity, illegitimate births, abortion, and divorce.  The idea that vast expansion of the welfare state is the answer to our sexual moral issues is pure fantasy not backed up by anything in reality.

And I'm telling you again that the job market means squat to people at the bottom of the ladder.  The economy could be booming or it could be in a depression.  But that won't make much difference to a person who is unable to compete in the job market.  How do you plan to take care of those people if there is no welfare system in place?  Maybe instead of getting involved in every problem around the world, America should focus on its own people for a change.  The expanding welfare state has helped people by giving them resources they otherwise would not have.  Bernie Sanders is basically a new-deal proponent.  IMO, he didn't go far enough in exposing the root cause of the problem.  He did absolutely nothing to challenge the Constitution and that's the cause of many American problems.

I would gladly live in Norway or Denmark any day of the the week over a place like Mississippi.  I never said we should have open borders.  I agree with you that a strong welfare state requires sealed borders.  And in America, socialists are not liberals.  They are radicals.  A liberal is a person who wants some changes but still wants to keep the system in place.  A radical is a person who is so dissatisfied that they want to change the entire system in order to implement the changes they want.  I fall into the latter camp (radical) because I think the constitution is completely obsolete, the capitalist system marginalizes too many people, there will be mass unemployment in coming decades as more and more things get automated, and the use of natural resources is unsustainable.  None of those problems can be solved with a small government.

The cultural backlash against 50s conformity, as well as the advent of birth control, is the reason why we have all of those social problems, not the welfare state.  Marriage is currently on the decline.  But the one segment of society where marriage is doing somewhat well is with those who are well off financially.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/marriage-declining-men-pigs

[Papist]

3 hours ago, polskieserce said:

That's the problem right there.  The Catholic Church relies too heavily on evangelization.  Nominal Catholics and ex-Catholics will be rolling their eyes if they think the Church will make a comeback with this strategy.  I said it before and I will say it again: most people are not going to wait until marriage for sex if that means not getting any action until your late 20s/early 30s.  You need to get your head out of the clouds.  Obviously, there will always be some people who lose their virginity at 13 and stay promiscuous for most of their lives.  But more people would be open to waiting until marriage if it wasn't so burdensome.  If you don't believe me, then talk to some nominal Catholics and see what they say.  I talked to my secular  and nominal Christian friends and they agreed with me on this point.

 

I doubt those same people you asked/refer to will go, oh so that is what the Church teaches....I am stopping right now having sex immediately and will wait until I get married.  Obedience to the teachings of the Church is a choice. The Church will not and cannot brow-beat people to obeying.  If people are truly sincere in learning what the authentic teachings are, it is not hard to find.  When we are children the onus is on our parents to educate. But when we become adults the onus falls on us.  For an adult to blame the Church for people not following the Church's teaching is ridiculous. But not surprising in today's world with no one taking ownership of his/her failings, and it always someone's fault. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Papist

[Jack4]

On 8/24/2016 at 4:24 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

 Nothing says "we take our own teachings on chastity seriously" like giving support and encouragement to women who freely choose to embrace a life of perpetual virginity!  

....and also to men who freely (phreely?) choose to embrace a life of perpetual virginity!   (You've offended the political correctness police!)(j/k )

 

 

[Jack4]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but if someone says that I should get married soon to remain chaste, that person is actually saying that I think about s_x and only s_x all the time and will go any length for s_x. That is a rude, evil, judgemental insult to say (to put it lightly). 

[Socrates]

On 9/12/2016 at 10:25 AM, polskieserce said:

And I'm telling you again that the job market means squat to people at the bottom of the ladder.  The economy could be booming or it could be in a depression.  But that won't make much difference to a person who is unable to compete in the job market.  How do you plan to take care of those people if there is no welfare system in place?  Maybe instead of getting involved in every problem around the world, America should focus on its own people for a change.  The expanding welfare state has helped people by giving them resources they otherwise would not have.  Bernie Sanders is basically a new-deal proponent.  IMO, he didn't go far enough in exposing the root cause of the problem.  He did absolutely nothing to challenge the Constitution and that's the cause of many American problems.

Once more, you're showing an abysmal understanding of basic economics.  Wealth comes ultimately from people creating and producing things, not from the federal government writing checks.  To enable people to rise out of poverty, a healthy economy and job market are necessary, and this best accomplished in a free economy.  Lots more unemployed people on welfare benefits no one, unless you're a power-hungry politician or government bureaucrat.  In the real world, socialism has never eliminated poverty, only increased it.  See Venezuela, see North Korea, see Cuba, see the failed Soviet Union. etc., etc.

Quote

I would gladly live in Norway or Denmark any day of the the week over a place like Mississippi.  I never said we should have open borders.  I agree with you that a strong welfare state requires sealed borders.  And in America, socialists are not liberals.  They are radicals.  A liberal is a person who wants some changes but still wants to keep the system in place.  A radical is a person who is so dissatisfied that they want to change the entire system in order to implement the changes they want.  I fall into the latter camp (radical) because I think the constitution is completely obsolete, the capitalist system marginalizes too many people, there will be mass unemployment in coming decades as more and more things get automated, and the use of natural resources is unsustainable.  None of those problems can be solved with a small government.

I think our country would be better off if we actually adhered to our Constitution, and the rights and freedoms it recognizes (note, I said "recognizes," not "grants.")  I believe in liberty; you believe in tyranny.  And in reality, socialism by its nature cannot exist without tyranny and oppression.

But if you insist on believing in Marxist fairies and flying unicorns, it's probably a waste of time to try to reason with you.

 

Quote

The cultural backlash against 50s conformity, as well as the advent of birth control, is the reason why we have all of those social problems, not the welfare state.  Marriage is currently on the decline.  But the one segment of society where marriage is doing somewhat well is with those who are well off financially.

The welfare state is not solely responsible for the collapse of marriage and sexual morals in our society, but it's certainly done nothing whatever to reverse or improve it, in America, or anyplace else, nor will it in the future.  Like most leftists, you look to the false god of an all-powerful state to solve all our problems, temporal and spiritual.  It's a god that's repeatedly failed.

And you might want to reconsider using the label "Catholic," as the Catholic Faith is incompatible with socialism ideology.

[4588686]

On 8/28/2016 at 8:20 PM, Socrates said:

You again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance of basic economics. This thing I heard Sean Hannity say

Fixed

On 9/11/2016 at 9:13 PM, Socrates said:

The reality is that government can't simply create wealth and good jobs out of its arse.  

Have you heard of this thing called an I-Phone? Go look up the component technology of an I-Phone and crosscheck that with technology developed by the government. The government has, always has, and will for the foreseeable future have a huge role in creating wealth. 

On 9/18/2016 at 10:39 PM, Socrates said:

Once more, you're showing an abysmal understanding of basic economics.  Wealth comes ultimately from people creating and producing things, not from the federal government writing checks.  

Sometimes I'm not sure you leave your house. Have you heard of a computer? GPS? These are things that 1) have been catalysts for the creation of an immense amount of wealth and 2) were literally created by the government writing a check. 

[Amppax]

On 9/20/2016 at 4:33 AM, Hasan said:

Fixed

Have you heard of this thing called an I-Phone? Go look up the component technology of an I-Phone and crosscheck that with technology developed by the government. The government has, always has, and will for the foreseeable future have a huge role in creating wealth. 

Sometimes I'm not sure you leave your house. Have you heard of a computer? GPS? These are things that 1) have been catalysts for the creation of an immense amount of wealth and 2) were literally created by the government writing a check. 

 

@Socrates you two are so cute together. 

[polskieserce]

On 9/18/2016 at 10:39 PM, Socrates said:

Once more, you're showing an abysmal understanding of basic economics.  Wealth comes ultimately from people creating and producing things, not from the federal government writing checks.  To enable people to rise out of poverty, a healthy economy and job market are necessary, and this best accomplished in a free economy.  Lots more unemployed people on welfare benefits no one, unless you're a power-hungry politician or government bureaucrat.  In the real world, socialism has never eliminated poverty, only increased it.  See Venezuela, see North Korea, see Cuba, see the failed Soviet Union. etc., etc.

I think our country would be better off if we actually adhered to our Constitution, and the rights and freedoms it recognizes (note, I said "recognizes," not "grants.")  I believe in liberty; you believe in tyranny.  And in reality, socialism by its nature cannot exist without tyranny and oppression.

But if you insist on believing in Marxist fairies and flying unicorns, it's probably a waste of time to try to reason with you.

 

The welfare state is not solely responsible for the collapse of marriage and sexual morals in our society, but it's certainly done nothing whatever to reverse or improve it, in America, or anyplace else, nor will it in the future.  Like most leftists, you look to the false god of an all-powerful state to solve all our problems, temporal and spiritual.  It's a god that's repeatedly failed.

And you might want to reconsider using the label "Catholic," as the Catholic Faith is incompatible with socialism ideology.

And once again, what good is a strong job market if you can't compete?  The problem with these fanatical neo-liberal free market policies is that they leave so many people behind.  Please tell me what you would plan to do with these groups of people if the decision was up to you:

1. People with severe mental and neurological disabilities, many of whom will require expensive mental health services and/or lifelong institutionalization
2. People who are working a lot of hours but for very low wages and can't pay for their cost of living
3. People with very expensive chronic medical conditions
4. People who go to college, get a degree, but can't find meaningful work to support themselves (keep in mind that most people simply can't through engineering)
5. Children with dysfunctional parents (ie, mentally ill, addicted to drugs, abusive, etc)
6. People who are suffering from drug addiction themselves
7. People with serious criminal convictions who are trying to turn their life around but find they can't get a decent paying job
8. Families displaced from their homes due to natural disasters
9. People who have been working in 1 industry for years and then lose their jobs due to outsourcing/automation/decline of that industry/etc
10. People with legal problems who can't afford a proper lawyer
11. Elderly people with no family who can't take care of themselves

This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the marginalized groups in society, but it's a start.  The only way the free market is interested in a group of people is if that group can pay enough money to receive goods/services.  If not, those marginalized people basically fall off the face of the Earth as far as the free market is concerned.  The type of economic system you are proposing is flat out inhumane.  Also, there is the fact that it's environmentally unsustainable.

This is exactly one of the reasons why people are turned off to Catholicism and go with a more liberal version of Christianity.  Not only does the Catholic Church lack a practical game plan, but many Catholics believe in far right capitalism.  We as Catholics don't have to water down Christian teachings with secularism like the Episcopalians do, but it's silly to think that people will consider returning to the Church if we don't even have a socio-economic model that we are promoting.  That's one area where the Amish are actually on to something (although they executed it poorly and went way too far with trying to hide themselves from the outside world).  That's one of my consistent criticisms of the Church that I have voiced on here and on the other Catholic forum. 

[Socrates]

On 9/25/2016 at 9:45 AM, polskieserce said:

And once again, what good is a strong job market if you can't compete?  The problem with these fanatical neo-liberal free market policies is that they leave so many people behind.  Please tell me what you would plan to do with these groups of people if the decision was up to you:

1. People with severe mental and neurological disabilities, many of whom will require expensive mental health services and/or lifelong institutionalization
2. People who are working a lot of hours but for very low wages and can't pay for their cost of living
3. People with very expensive chronic medical conditions
4. People who go to college, get a degree, but can't find meaningful work to support themselves (keep in mind that most people simply can't through engineering)
5. Children with dysfunctional parents (ie, mentally ill, addicted to drugs, abusive, etc)
6. People who are suffering from drug addiction themselves
7. People with serious criminal convictions who are trying to turn their life around but find they can't get a decent paying job
8. Families displaced from their homes due to natural disasters
9. People who have been working in 1 industry for years and then lose their jobs due to outsourcing/automation/decline of that industry/etc
10. People with legal problems who can't afford a proper lawyer
11. Elderly people with no family who can't take care of themselves

This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the marginalized groups in society, but it's a start.  The only way the free market is interested in a group of people is if that group can pay enough money to receive goods/services.  If not, those marginalized people basically fall off the face of the Earth as far as the free market is concerned.  The type of economic system you are proposing is flat out inhumane.  Also, there is the fact that it's environmentally unsustainable.

 

I don't claim to have the keys to a utopia, or the answers to all life's problems, but I will say that the poor and marginalized are much worse off in actual socialist societies than in free societies.  There's a reason poor and marginalized people have flocked to "oppressive Capitalist" America, rather than to some Marxist socialist "worker's paradise."

As many Popes have pointed out, we need a strengthening of the family and genuine community - solidarity and subsidiarity - rather than a massive, centralized, ever-growing bureaucratic leviathon state.

Socialists always promise heaven on earth, but deliver hell when actually put in power.

A strong economy with a robust job market is necessary for people to be able to better themselves materially, not putting more and more people on the government dole.  At best, welfare is a temporary safety net to help people through hard times, at worst it traps people in a vicious cycle of poverty and dependency.  Vastly expanding the welfare state isn't a long-term permanent path to prosperity.  Our entitlement programs are now all broke and going broke, we're almost 20 trillion dollars in debt, and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, and a bankrupt nation won't be able to help anybody.  (And no, this problem won't be easily solved simply by making cuts in military spending, which only makes up about 16% of the budget.)

 

Quote

This is exactly one of the reasons why people are turned off to Catholicism and go with a more liberal version of Christianity.  Not only does the Catholic Church lack a practical game plan, but many Catholics believe in far right capitalism.  We as Catholics don't have to water down Christian teachings with secularism like the Episcopalians do, but it's silly to think that people will consider returning to the Church if we don't even have a socio-economic model that we are promoting.  That's one area where the Amish are actually on to something (although they executed it poorly and went way too far with trying to hide themselves from the outside world).  That's one of my consistent criticisms of the Church that I have voiced on here and on the other Catholic forum. 

First of all, people aren't exactly flocking to liberal protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, but such groups are losing members faster than the Catholic Church.

And the reason people are leaving the Church has very little to do with economic theories, but with the rampant materialism and hedonism in our society, combined with lukewarmness, corruption, and poor catechesis within the Church.

The Church is not a political party or an economic think-tank, but primarily has the spiritual mission of saving souls.  It also has a rich tradition of social teaching, even if it may not be to your personal liking.  The Church should be preaching the Truth, whether it happens to be popular or not, not telling people what they want to hear in order to fill pews.

Besides, your plan of trying to make the Church "relevant" by merging Catholicism with leftist politics is hardly new, original or innovative.  There have been plenty of leftist Catholics preaching socialist politics, and have been since long before you or I was born.  Their efforts have hardly led to a widespread renewal or growth of the Church.  In fact, overall, more traditional or "conservative" parishes and communities have been in a more healthy condition than those focusing on trendy lefty politics over spiritual truths of the Faith.

[Jack4]

On 10/10/2016 at 9:12 AM, Socrates said:

 

And the reason people are leaving the Church has very little to do with economic theories, but with the rampant materialism and hedonism in our society, combined with lukewarmness, corruption, and poor catechesis within the Church.

The Church is not a political party or an economic think-tank, but primarily has the spiritual mission of saving souls.  It also has a rich tradition of social teaching, even if it may not be to your personal liking.  The Church should be preaching the Truth, whether it happens to be popular or not, not telling people what they want to hear in order to fill pews.

Besides, your plan of trying to make the Church "relevant" by merging Catholicism with leftist politics is hardly new, original or innovative.  There have been plenty of leftist Catholics preaching socialist politics, and have been since long before you or I was born.  Their efforts have hardly led to a widespread renewal or growth of the Church.  In fact, overall, more traditional or "conservative" parishes and communities have been in a more healthy condition than those focusing on trendy lefty politics over spiritual truths of the Faith.

This. 

I could footnote many Magisterial documents to what you just posted. I'd prop it again and again if I could. 

[4588686]

On 10/9/2016 at 11:42 PM, Socrates said:

I don't claim to have the keys to a utopia, or the answers to all life's problems, but I will say that the poor and marginalized are much worse off in actual socialist societies than in free societies.  There's a reason poor and marginalized people have flocked to "oppressive Capitalist" America, rather than to some Marxist socialist "worker's paradise."

 

Nobody tell Socrates about Canada or Europe 

[Anastasia13]

On 8/26/2016 at 11:16 AM, polskieserce said:

Young catholics, especially women, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For men who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?  Right now, there is very little incentive to wait until marriage.  Remember, what gets rewarded gets done.  If your only argument is "Jesus said we should do this..." then you already lost the war.

Umm, why should I, a woman, keep my legs shut if I am stuck with someone else's leftovers? Your wording sounds a bit sexist.

[Anastasia13]

On 8/26/2016 at 11:16 AM, polskieserce said:

Young catholics, especially women, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For men who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?  Right now, there is very little incentive to wait until marriage.  Remember, what gets rewarded gets done.  If your only argument is "Jesus said we should do this..." then you already lost the war.

Another way of putting that would be, nominally speaking, why should I consider sex anything special to keep for a certain guy if guys aren't going to appreciate it?

Practicingly speaking, my experience with which gender needs to keep their legs shut has been the opposite of what you said, and it has been reinforced that way by the society in which I live, and makes your statement about keeping legs shut seem to reinforce the idea that women are responsible for sleeping around but met can get off scottfree.. If you do the deed, you have some kind of responsibility in it, regardless of gender. I find it doubtful that the majority of women sleep around while only a handful of men do, and at any rate, it takes two to tango, even horizontally.

Respect, depth of relationship, STD's, imperfect methods to prevent pregnancy, marital intimacy that is not simply shared with everyone you used to date... These can be reasons. Sometimes morality can be practical.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Anastasia (L&T)

[CountrySteve21]

10 hours ago, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Another way of putting that would be, nominally speaking, why should I consider sex anything special to keep for a certain guy if guys aren't going to appreciate it?

Practicingly speaking, my experience with which gender needs to keep their legs shut has been the opposite of what you said, and it has been reinforced that way by the society in which I live, and makes your statement about keeping legs shut seem to reinforce the idea that women are responsible for sleeping around but met can get off scottfree.. If you do the deed, you have some kind of responsibility in it, regardless of gender. I find it doubtful that the majority of women sleep around while only a handful of men do, and at any rate, it takes two to tango, even horizontally.

Respect, depth of relationship, STD's, imperfect methods to prevent pregnancy, marital intimacy that is not simply shared with everyone you used to date... These can be reasons. Sometimes morality can be practical.

Honestly both men and women should be held equally accountable.