Traditional Catholic Lit

Got this

Any anti-capitalist Catholic lit? I've been trying to see if my politics can be squared with the religion or I should just go back to cultural catholic agnosticism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

>Distributism has often been described in opposition to both socialism and capitalism, which distributists see as equally flawed and exploitative.

I don't know too much about Distributism, but you may want to check it out.

Leon Bloy and Georges Bernanos if you like edgy anti-bourgeois Catholic fiction/essays.

Another user but this sounds exactly like my type of thing. Starting today.

>I cannot accept the false base of America and it's bloody beginning.
So what is a king to you then?

>choosing a religion based on politics
This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on Veeky Forums

Simone Weil

Does Woke Space Jesuit visit Veeky Forums?

Read Marcel Lefebvre. The true church was always against communism and socialism is nothing but the foot in the door. This is also why before the Modernism took foot, only the truly deserving got help, not thoes merely to stupid or lazy to compete.

>damned be the poor and lazy
Ah yes, my favorite beatitude.

Don't worry, there's also been plenty of condemnation of unfettered capitalism. Check the sources on distributism, Aquinas on theft to avoid starvation, also Rerum Novarum/Centesimus Annus.

Nothing has done more to lift people out of poverty than free market economics and nothing has done more to impoverish people than the centralized distribution of resources. You're not going to guilt people with a basic understanding of history into supporting your 1930's vision of economics.

I was addressing our amendments and human rights are fictions. Monarchy was the norm for thousands of years and for example the right to life is legitimate because "thou shalt not commit murder," it's a loose thought, but you see what I mean? I would prefer a monarchy, but in general I want a government that is strictly founded on Christian principles.

And how might a king be legitimate? I would say by the Catholic rite of coronation

catholic church launders drug money and harbors pedophile cliques, church fathers rampant homosexuals, church steals land and wealth from the nations it converts, church has secrets in archives it won’t share, pope has intelligence services that cooperate with mafia, jesuits spied on every nation, caused regime changes and assassinated people, church is soaked in blood money

Capitalism is pretty good. But if it is evil, it would be clear that God crested good out of that evil

I do like capitalism tho. People act very altruistic even though the system doesn't require it at all.

Gospel of Wealth by Carnegie is a wonderful read about this stuff

...

nothing has done more to impoverish a people spiritually and socially than capitalism, no system of fraud and coercion has been devised that allows banks and politicians to collude to steal massive wealth from workers on this scale. there are no free markets, this is propaganda, economists use this word like the church does heaven and commies do a stateless classless society, they are selling you something which you can never have. reminder that free market is not possible, exchange and property are fraudulent and coercive acts/institutes. you cannot in good faith barter over land someone has already claimed you cannot in good faith negotiate for resources you don’t have precise knowledge of and its almost certain the person exchanging knows more about the resources than you, you cannot have a free market based on artificial scarcity induced by security forces working on the behalf of property owners. you cannot have free markers based on interest and hedging bets, you cannot have free markets where currency whether commodity or fiat, is being manipulated by the people exchanging it for goods, you cannot have a free market where parcels of property are sold at incredible rates for incredible returns that impoverish the renter, you cannot make more than a property is worth off of a renter, which people do constantly, there are many who have paid more in mortgage or rent than their property is worth or the vast majority of its value, and be having a free market interaction, this is fraud, you are lying about the value of the property and your ownership’s ostensible legitimacy is fallowed. you cannot under any circumstances have people collect taxes from the people you exploit and then have those taxes spent on services you disporoportionately benefit from without fraud and coercion. Free markets do not exist, it is a way of masking fraud and coercion, there are no PMC’s as strong as states and the one’s as strong as States are states. all states are coercive, all market interactions are fraudulent. nothing gained from exchange, speculation, rent seeking or the collection of revenue from workers’ labor is non-fraudulent in nature. the 10 billion in profits from 500 million in overhead with limited liability to deflect lawsuits and giant mechanisms for protecting the rich from losing their wealth, the rich don’t go poor like the rest of us, principal investment is also coercive and fraudulent, does not constitute anything like reciprocal input of ten thousand workers producing the ten billion in revenue. the owner is never ever, at the highest levels of business and finance, producing the value of laborers and the owner is always one hand in the revenue bucket the other in the stock and currency markets, manipulating the value of currencies, goods and services in their favor to manipulate the market and to raise their net worth so they can leverage politicians and banks to their favor. this is not a free market, just fraud

you support an evil institution that systematically rapes young boys, facilitates(d) the international drug trade, participates in human trafficking, spies on politicians and involves them in child molestation black mail rings, sold indulgences, has assassinated political enemies, steals billions and tries to hide its wealth in private offshore accounts. you are immoral, your church is evil and if there was a god you would burn in hell for supporting the catholic church, you are deceitful, your words are outrageous lies and you should be begging for forgiveness from your community for trying to advance such things as catholicism, a yolk we have only just escaped

If you want to make christians doubt or change you need to do it in a different way, insults won't work either. I don't even think historical arguements would be enough. If anything offer them an alternative.

I am not reading that. You have to write better.

Man he gave you a thought out post; the least you can do is read it

I don't really care, non of what you said is true, child molestations in higher in public education than the church, You have falled for ideological indoctrination of the public media trying to install a globalist atheistic state, like Stalin. You should read some history about Sovjet Russia and what they made upo against the church. Pretty much the same shit. You're a naive fedora. This will be my last reply. You're a waste of time.

Why did keynesianism and in certain cases nationalisation of resources work out so well? It's almost like the free market doesn't fix things.

Being verbose isn't equivalent to being well thought out. Whatever it is, it's very poorly communicated. Look at this in particular:

>reminder that free market is not possible

This is the start of a sentence. Who talks like that? It's greentext without the green.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

>truths
>self-evident
There are no self-evident truths. And I don't mean for that green text to come off as condescending.
An example would be
Person A: there's a force, gravity
B: How do you know?
A: it is self-evident

Self-evidence tries to define the ideal man through our imperfect nature. This is why truths(in regards to morality) are justified by the metaphysical, specifically God. Believing in a moral system justified by God is totally legitimate. You cannot question the legitimacy of it; you can certainly question the legitimacy of God's existence though. But it logically follows from God's existence(personal one) to justification of moral beliefs. The same would be true if we were to pretend if God was real(seems like JBP doesn't believe but knows the concept of God is important. I havent paid much attention to him anymore tho, could be mistaken).

Kys. MacDonald isn't a Catholic and he's a huge fan of the Jews. Read e Michael Jones instead. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit will always be Superior to culture of critique.

E Michael Bone's Barren Metal.

I see. Thanks for replying - I wasn't sure if you meant that you disagreed with the premise of the Constitution (which you already addressed in your post), of if the notion of a state founded by violence was at issue.

>traditionalism
>heresy tolerated

Oh too, the part about the "Creator" in the DOI. The founding fathers were deists. The God they believed in had no characteristics other than creating the universe 2bh.

If there heretic is destroyed, he cannot be converted. This is a missionary religion, after all.

Well on the foundings of America, I am not sure if it was just to revolt. I want to do my homework on whether it actually needed to happen or not. I've heard that only 1/3 of colonists wanted to revolt and it was all the rich guys(founding fathers) who were at the forefront

>if you don't tolerate them they win

>there
DAMN it.

I would say that it's a good example for monarchists about how badly one can make a mess of things. It all goes back to one of the old issues any king (vested with sufficient authority) has - how to give redress to the grievances of the people? This of course leads to a whole other line of questions.

I don't see any Cathars hanging around, do you?

Hahaha that is a whole nother can if worms, huh?

As I did say before, if not monarchy, definitely any government that is strictly founded on Christian principles where they are immutable to the society

If you're familiar with the structure of Inquisitorial trials, you'll find I'm hardly being merciful in the contemporary sense when I say they should not be destroyed.

Heresy never dies, user.

Shame desu. Cathars were pretty interesting lads.

You clearly don't know shit my dude.
Céline, Bardèche, Ryssen and Faurrisson are quite a bit more caustic when it comes to the Jewish Question.
Look at that youtube.com/watch?v=4WoF6bJZ1ro

I have this one too

Meinvielle's Concepción católica de la economía / Concepción católica de la política / anything with fascist corporatism basically

democratic, to the trash

Bloy is very bizarre and messianic/heretic, see wordpress.catholicapedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Barbeau_Raymond_-_Un_prophete_luciferien_Leon_Bloy.pdf
As for Bernanos, he's a bit too much of a Christian Democrat.

>Weil
>Catholic
she was a Marcionist at best

Archbishop* Lefebvre fought mainly against philosophical and religious liberalism, he was no economist.
For a good critique of communism, Meinvielle is good for that, but any good thomist manual will do.

Good.

I was arguing with my with my black southern baptist roommate about the veracity of the Bible among other quibbles with religious overtones.

I was gobsmacked by his statement that believing in god and accepting jesus as a personal savior, though necessary for acceptance into Heaven and the avoidance of dammanation, is a completely amoral act. Is this a common belief? He's also laughed off scientific consensuses like evolution and basic physics and how their efficacy has a propound relevance to things he regularly uses and benefits from on a daily. He's also a moderately successful law school student.

Would do you mean by amoral?? If you could elaborate; I'll gladly respond!

And lol, he may be a good law student, but the sciences are completely different. Being smart in law does not give one the authority to be knowledgeable in another subject. Einstein was a brilliant physicist/mathematician, but a fool in regards to philosophy and theology.

I'd like to add that the Catholic Church is probably the most scientifically forward religious institution, with the same attributing the actual religion as well. We as Catholics are encouraged to believe on a rational basis; but we exalt the faith because it is genuinely higher. Faith is suprarational as Bishop Barron puts it. To respect rationality is not to belittle faith. It's like a lowly servant presenting a gift to the king.

I like Bloy knowing full well he's probably too edgy for his own good. I take him as a good ironist and polemicist. As for Bernanos, he definitely was anti-fascist in the true sense of the word, but to call him a Christian Democrat associates him too much with, I dunno, Merkel. This is a guy who would say "Hitler has forever dishonoured anti-semitism."

Bishop "Vatican 2 was the greatest meeting of minds in history" Barron? That one?

>I'd like to add that the Catholic Church is probably the most scientifically forward religious institution

This is complicated. Not necessarily wrong. Catholic theology still totally depends on a literal interpretation of the biblical creation narrative. Church doctrine is that you don't have to take the narrative literally, but the theology they're working on is totally based in a literal interpretation of it. They're trying to have their cake and eating it too; but for all intents and purposes, they don't discourage believers from accepting the scientific consensus, which puts them a step above many Protestants.

Of course, it was the Reformation breaking away form the Church that allowed the intellectual climate that led to those scientific advances. Protestants are now often more scientifically "backward", but the Church fought bitterly against the expansion of scientific knowledge, and historical knowledge that undermined biblical literalism, at the time.

I said Christian Democrat not like Merkel but the Action Catholique kind of one.
Him and Bloy are pretty good writers though, I can give you that since I really like their style.

Also forgot
>anti-capitalist Catholic lit
La Ville by Claudel (The City: A Play)

>the Church fought bitterly against the expansion of scientific knowledge
>he fell for the 'Dark Ages' meme
Daily reminder the romans contributed jack shit to science, the greeks succeeded out of a lack of things to do and that proper, rigorous science only became possible within the thought conditions created in the Renaissance.

I'm not an atheist I don't worship the Church is all and the Church has exceptionally high rates of child abuse, considering its authority in the third world we can only wonder how bad it really is. I'm not an atheist and the "globalists" want a new faith not an atheist world
they haven't, business cycles still exist and the State is as incompetent as the market is vicious
it was for the people and i'm sorry you are illiterate
I can speak for myself
>he's a huge fan of Jews
I don't think anyone would write a book that is a handbook for a neo-Goebbels and be a philo-Semite user. I think this is probably a way of deflecting critique of the books ideas and conclusions which, if we look at how its used by its proponents, are biological antisemitism with extermination as its logical conclusion. Do you see any philosemites on this board talking about it or virulent totalitarian anti-Semites?
LARPing is fun, pretending to be things is fun especially murderous old dead things

I'm talking about the early modern period into modernity. The Church was very much against advances in astronomy, biology, geology (quite an important issue, as it began to undermine things like the flood narrative, not to mention the age of the Earth). They were also very much against the beginnings of academic study of the Bible, historical and textual criticism.

You're not interesting enough to reply to so many people, especially when you have nothing to say.

Do you have much evidence for that? Nonliteral genesis interpretations were accepted by Augustine and Aquinas both. And Catholics were behind huge advances in biology and astronomy both.

this is of itself almost a contentless reply, why are you so concerned with the form of my replies? Isn't this the second time you've shied away from what I've said?

So far a capitalist who can't read, a christian who doesn't understand globalism, someone who speaks for other people, a person who thinks Keynesian economics can resolve market contradictions and the problem of State incompetence, a Kevin MacDonald Sophist trying to sneak in biological antiSemitism, and a Christian who is pretending that they're an inquisitor. You think I can't reply to all of them? I did just that
>nothing to say
really why are there arguments and opinions in every one of the replies? Wouldn't that constitute something to say? Or is it more you don't want me in this thread reminding Catholics, Fascists and Capitalists of their hypocrisy? Does it disturb the mood and flavor of your COMFY user? Is that really what's happening? So far no one has adequately attempted to engage me, and since I've broken no rules I'll keep posting. You can eat a stick of dynamite and burn in hell for all i care faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism
>be an Inquisitor back in pre-enlightenment Italy
>this Copernicus dude releases a book saying the earth goes around the sun
>ok.jpg
>Brahe makes some pretty good counterarguments
>comes this Galileo dude
>he defends Copernicus without really giving good arguments for it
>the Pope gently admonishes him for it since the literal interpretation of scripture goes against it
>he stops for a while, great
>then Galileo, in his infinite autism, writes a book making fun of the Pope while also introducing nothing new to dialogue
>unbelievable.png
>he gets a slap on the wrist in the form of house imprisonment
>four hundred years later a bunch of autists talk about him as if he were a great martyr for 'science' or whatever and you're now a cunt

You really ought to expand your horizon as far as history goes. I don't mean that as a put-down in any way because I used to believe the same shit.

There's something really off about you

people who are afraid of discourse tend to bury themselves in social signaling, I would imagine if I was like this I would just ignore what people wrote, accuse them of being atheists or call them "off" but that's not stimulating to me. I'd rather engage as long as I can bear until there is nothing left within me, even if neither side has moved an inch. Call it a will to life or maybe masochism

You're seriously nuts. I wasn't having any sort of conversation with you. All I did was reply about you replying to so many others and you start talking about all this crazy shit.

>Nonliteral genesis interpretations were accepted by Augustine and Aquinas both.

This is an exceptionally misleading statement. When Augustine warned against literal interpretation, he was talking about things like believing the "firmament" in Genesis to be a literal dome above the world with water behind it. He wouldn't go that far. He also allowed that the "days" of creation may refer to some indeterminate amount of time other than a literal 24 hour day. But he absolutely believed in the literal creation *narrative* in Genesis, and it is all throughout his writings and theology.

Aquinas is the same. I mean, you can read his theology -- his ethics are all about appropriating Aristotelian teleology, with the proper teleology of man to be that of his original state in Eden before the Fall.

There seems to be this popular idea that the great Catholic intellectuals like Augustine and Aquinas had a rather modern, non-literal interpretive framework. This is very incorrect. If you read their works, you will see the literal creation narrative, and the general historical biblical narrative, was fundamental to their theology.

recursive use of the social signaling technique is another sign of panic and suffering. again, is what I've said making you feel uneasy? are you disturbed by my presence? I wonder how I come off, not that it matters, but from a point of analysis and self-awareness it intrigues me. Do I interrupt something in your mind or open something up that you don't want to look at? Pray tell

We get it. Catholicism triggers you and everyone must know it bothers you.

Nothing you say is bothering me I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never accused you of being an atheist or a capitalist or a Keynesian. You seem to think you're engaging in some high level discourse with people and I think that's a little spergy but it's no sweat of my back.

Entirely incorrect, I feel quite positively about Catholicism.

but you have replied multiple times and even progressed from trying to silence to accusing me of being off my rocker? wouldn't that constitute being disturbed? also its fair to assume that you are the person i'm replying to from above in the thread.
>you seem to think you're engaging in high level discourse
and you seem to think i haven't engaged in discourse at all. all is not as it is purported to be aye lad?
>no sweat off my back
haven't you replied 3 or 4 times already becoming progressively more specific in your responses which would require increasing focus? Why the need to derail from what I was saying? If you don't like the reply and it doesn't mean anything wouldn't you just hide or report the reply instead of engaging in what is now a discourse? Especially if you thought I was crazy, you respond to the premises of my statements as if they're semi-legitimate. No one would do this if they thought their interlocutor was crazy and uninteresting. but here you are

You're like a crazy dude at a bus stop. I'll stop and listen to you take about going to the moon and I'll even reply but I won't try to have a serious conversation because it would be impossible. This , as far as I know was my first interaction with you and from the start you were ranting and raving about totally unrelated things and accusing me of accusing you of things. Do you understand why somebody like me might think you're nuts?

Also what does it even mean to become "progressively more specific" in my replies?

I meant to say this was my first reply to you

You keep saying crazy, what exactly have I said that's crazy? Also interesting that you are a catholic, I had thought you were just a lurking user but you were already arguing for the faith in this thread. Why is it that you aren't interested in what I've said? Other anons were, and none of them accused me of being "crazy" which would imply that I can't tell what is real and what is fantasy, I don't think in any of my replies I have done that. I made a mistake, you are right, you were not the Capitalist user who I figured what responding as a rhetort to my polemic but a polemic is not a sign of insanity, everything in the polemic was actually argued for with reasonable logic based on an understanding of the market economy system.
>ranting and raving
I don't think I was raving, and ranting is just a way of avoiding saying "talking" which is fundamentally what I did.
>unrelated things
well I thought you were the capitalist user which was a mistake and then I was clarifying what I was responding to as an argument to rebut your claim that I wasn't interesting and had not said anything of value. Clearly you were wrong, there was content, it interested you and others and is further evidence of the soundness of my statements. Really peculiar that a catholic is calling a critic crazy but what do I know about social signalling?
>do you understand why a catholic with a vested interest might call the strongest opponent they're facing crazy to prevent others from encouraging further responses from them?
yes
>progressively more specific
each of your responses has become more involved and precise. the initial one's were rhetorical, these are now argumentative

Who said I'm Catholic? This is perfect example of the crazy shit you do. Now you're doing this autistic greentext shit. Sort your life out man.

How exactly do you mean this, then? If they understood the days, the ordering of events, of the creation narrative to be non-literal, what literal narrative are they clinging to?

>uuhmm creepy?? uggh...

fuck off roast

That Adam and Eve were literally the first created humans, that those literal humans ate a literal apple, that they were literally expelled from Eden. That all humanity descends from these two literal people. That this literal act of eating an apple is the actual cause of the biological phenomenon of death. That Adam and Eve as the literal first created humans did not have any of the human vices -- that things like sexual desire, selfishness, anger, covetousness, etc. are not products of natural selection, but metaphysical corruption of the human nature present in Adam and Eve, the literally first created humans, about 6000 years ago.

This was fundamental to the theology of Augustine and Aquinas. You can read their work and see.

>Who said I'm Catholic?
I assumed you were because the initial cited response in your previous reply was catholic apologetics. If that post was not made by you and was purely a mislink then my apologies I suppose you are not Catholic, though it'd be interesting if you were, though not necessarily relevant.
>This is perfect example of the crazy shit you do
Trying to establish identity and continuity is the opposite of crazy, especially if one is fully aware they could be mistaken and admits as much
>Now you're doing this autistic greentext shit.
what do you mean? it exists so we can have rigorous debate and discourse are you opposed to precision?
>sort your life out
i am sorting it out, this is what I do until the evening

6000 year idea is a modern evangelical fundamentalist idea..

Correction* it became popular in the 20th

Was developed in 17th century by Ussher, an Anglican

But it is still clear that Augustine and Aquinas did not believe that about the age of the earth

No, this is a popular misconception. ALL Christians held to the idea of creation dated from about 4000 BC until modernity.

Here's Augustine himself in no uncertain terms:
>They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.
From City of God
newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm

ALL Christians before modernity, including the greatest intellectual philosophers and theologians, held to a literal creation at around 4000 BC, until modernity.

It wasn't ever seen as literally an apple, as far as I've ever read. Just that there were first created humans, and they fell to temptation. The timeline is also not particular to their theology. Catholics aren't fundamentalists.

Also, about the only capitalistic tenets essential to Catholicism are private property/enterprise- Jesus was a carpenter, after all.

>Jesus was a carpenter, after all.
that doesn't lead to the conclusions of private property and enterprise which are basically the fundamentals of capitalism

where in the bible is one of the teachings: start new businesses

usury is prohibited as well so how is one to do that

Just as a scientific point, though, it had no theological significance. Even where Genesis was understood literally it was not essential in any doctrine that it be so.

>We must obey the vicar of Christ except when I disagree with him then he isn't a real pope
Really makes you think...

Huh, didn't even know that! Interesting.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that all of Augustine's or Aquinas's theories or traditional beliefs are dogmatic? If you didn't say it or imply it, let me know

That's sedevacantists and Trad Catholics need to suck it up and start grooming Cardinal Sarah for Pontiff

>local council Carthage (419), confirmed by ecumenical council Nicea II (787)
>Canon CIX. That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body--that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
>Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX. Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Well, how this relates to the current doctrine of the Church is very complicated. It is NOT Church doctrine that the faithful must believe the biblical narrative to be literal. However, Church doctrine pertaining to matters of sin and salvation, the explanation for why sin and evil exists, the justification of a potential afterlife punishment, the reason human nature is what it is -- all these answers are very fundamentally dependent of the Church's philosophical tradition which is fundamentally dependent on the literal reading of the scriptures that pre-modern theologians worked with.

And by literal do you mean scientific?
The idea of two first human beings being created checks out with mongeneism; the papal encyclical, Humani Generis says something along the lines that Catholics may believe in a distinct creation of man and woman or that through God's provision, evolution occurs. And one could add to these encyclical that ensoulment happened when the first two humans were born.

The actual place of Eden, we aren't entirely sure where.

All of this exegesis on Genesis seems so convoluted, but who expected it to be simple anyhow? All of these things dont seem to be out of the ball park considering the capabilities of God and it was long long ago

That doesn't even contradict current teaching, though. When Man was given a rational soul, it was through our own sin that mortality and concupiscence have hold. That is still taught. It doesn't require a literal apple tree, just what's said in Humani Generis.

Basil the Great - On Holy Spirit
Ambrose - On the Holy Ghost
Augustine -- Confessions, City of God
Aquinas - Summa Theologica
Anselm - De Concordia
John of the Cross - Ascent of Mount Caramel
Hildegard of Bingen - Liber Divinorum Operum

Listen dude. The entire book of Culture of Critique is: "here's all the wicked and bad shit the Jews have done....and why we must be more like them!".

As I said read or watch E Michael Jones instead. MacDonald is a moron.

Thanks user, found something for myself.

...