I am truly disappointed in her. I loved them in the White House.
Mary zoeller

In reading the interview, I felt I was hearing so many other mothers who seem to be afraid to tell their kids the truth for fear they won’t be liked.  It as if, she needs to make sure the family is liked after enduring so many years of her family being disliked (while President Bush was in office).  Sad, as she missed a chance to reach out to those with motherly kindness and love - “Sorry, honey, I love you but your decisions are not going to make you happy!”

Good for her.

The Catholic Church needs to step out of the debate about same-sex marriage and stop depriving people of their basic civil rights. Marriage does not need a church to make it legitimate. It’s a contract between the state and the two members of the couple. Even better, the church should recognize that a union between two people who love each other is just as valid, essential, and heartfelt when it is a same-sex couple as it is with an opposite-sex couple. That would be the true Christian attitude.

Laura Bush, on her current book tour, tells us she is proudly pro-Kagan, pro-abortion, pro-homo-marriage, and anti-Arizona. We need to replace First Ladies with Todd Palin!

Donna, what the STATE has to say about who should be in a civil union is debateable… but who should receive the Church’s sacrement of Marriage is NOT! To believe otherwise is against the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, against the Magesterium, and is considered a heretical belief to the Mother Church… plain and simple. The sacrements of the Church do not change nor will they ever, having been established by Christ himself.

Ah, yes, Donna,thanks for reminding us that the State is the origin of marriage, and the source of our morality.  Every now and then I begin to wander from the true path, but am reminded by people like you of my need for renewal in my the practice of State-worship. Statism is the proper foundation of all things. Also I agree with you that if something is “heart-felt” then it’s right! At the moment, I have a heart-felt relationship with a woman, and a man, and we are convinced that the State will soon recognize the validity of our heart-feltness and give us the right to marry. There is even a possibility of a fourth partner, but at the moment, she is out chasing cats. Anyway, thanks for the encouraging word of support for our position.
With heart-felt valid love,
ME!  ME!  ME!

“Marriage does not need a church to make it legitimate. It’s a contract between the state and the two members of the couple.”

Where do you reckon that God comes in?

Common sense is dying…..we must continue the valiant and courageous efforts to evangelize our society on the TRUTH that sets us free.

My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You!  I beg pardon for those wo do not believe, do not adore, do not hope and do not love You!  (Angel of Peace to the children at Fatima, 1916).

Then how the heck is a same-sex “marriage” is supposed to have children, biologically without any medical intrevention?  You can’t.  You need a man AND a woman (preferably a husband and wife) for that.

Every child deserves to be raised in both a female head of household and a male head of household.

...but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. (Genesis 2:20)

and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:22)

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

For most of human history this was the understanding of the human race. It is only in this “enlightened” era that perverse elements in society are trying to convince us otherwise. May God have mercy on their souls.

Donna is perfectly correct.
“Marriage does not need a church to make it legitimate.”  In fact, marriage existed long before Our Lord stepped on to this earth.  And, all these marriages were State-sanctioned marriages.
What the Church did was to make marriage a Sacrament.  Officially, a Sacrament, at Trent in 1563.  Although it had been moving towards this position since the 1200s.
This system of marriage as Sacrament worked well for some 1960 years.  Then, couples began to assert their independence of the Church.  They saw marriage not as a Sacrament, but, went back to the original basis of marriage, which is a Contract between 2 people, sanctioned by the State, as Donna points out.
Today, some 30% of all marriages have no religious or Sacramental content.  In fact, many Catholic brides get married in exotic locations or in a marriage hall – rather than the Church.
A pity.
As to same-sex marriage – it is a Contract, and, a legitimate Contract, in the eyes of the State.  Same-sex marriage is not a Sacrament in the eyes of the Church.  The twain shall never meet.  But, can they co-exist side-by-side?

An earlier NCR article stated it best when they had the varied “couples” asking to marry. Homosexual marriages are a farce and a slam at God’s intentions. Marriage can only be between one man and one woman. This family unit is the basis of civilization, of procreating, and of our survival. If these people truly loved each other they would want what is best for the other person. What is best is heaven and asking someone to do something that jepordizes their chance at heaven is not true love but selfish greedy desire.

Egbert Bhatty and Donna are both wrong.  Marriage has been an alliance between God and Man and Woman since the dawn of creation when God created woman from man’s rib as a companion AND to further propagate the human race.  I agree that marriage was recognized by the state long before our Lord walked upon the earth, but it was recognized as between God and humans long before any recognized state existed!!!

Egbert,
The original basis of marriage has nothing to do with the “State”. Marriage is a relationship that pre-dates any such notion of “State”.
Marriage is founded upon the nature of human beings, created by God as male and female. The State is not the source of marriage, or of morality, or of our rights and worth; the State does not take the place of God. Again, it seems, that statism is the true religion of many, but the State is a false god and a fickle one as well, since the “state” just ends up being whoever has power by vote or otherwise. When the state changes it’s mind about something then do we have truth?  Sometimes that may happen, but often not. Anyway, let us have no false gods before us including those nice people in the government - any government of any party.

Egbert:

I extend to you the same question I asked Donna. Where do you suppose that God comes into the picture?

Donna’s point was, and with which I agree, that there are 2 entities that govern marriage in our culture.
The Church.  And, the State.
God comes into the picture in a Church marriage.  God stays out of the picture in a State marriage.
The Church disapproves of homosexual marriage; the State approves of it.  And, since both are independent, and powerful, institutions, neither is going to give in.
So, like it or not – homosexual relationships are here to stay.
Much as different forms of heterosexual relationships are.  Men and women living in sin, with children.  Men and women having extra-marital affairs.  Men and women engaged in pre-marital sex.  Like it or not, these adulterous relationships are here to stay.
Which is worse in the eyes of God – homosexual relationships, or adulterous relationships?
Or, are both equally bad in the eyes of God?

Both are wrong in the eyes of God.  All sin is here to stay.. Doesn’t make it right!!!  Marriage and family is the foundation of society.  If we put homosexual union on the same level as the building blocks of our society, weakens our society.  Maybe not today or in ten years but it erodes that foundation and with it society. We can’t stop homosexuals from feeling the way they do, but we can stop the institutionalization of their relationships.

Egbert: Thanks for responding to my question. Thanks also for approaching it with seriousness. I’m going to answer your last question in two posts for formatting’s sake. To answer your question: I hope you won’t take offense if I say “neither”. Your question approaches sin as if it were its own thing, rather than a deprivation of a good, a deprivation that is willed by a specific individual, or group of individuals (whether human, angelic, or other type of creature to whom God has given free will). It’s not like asking, “Between the incompetant Republican and the Godless Democrat, which is the worse evil?” A question like that works when referring to people because one is asking about two specific individuals who can be evaluated within a world (the physical world) one inhabits entirely and has unique insights into. On the other hand, asking “what sin is worse than another” is asking about different species of spiritual deprivation in their purely spiritual form (that is, the evil spirits who inspire them). Because I am not pure spirit (like God or the angels) I really have a terrible perspective from which to answer that question.

Part II in my response to Egbert’s question: I will say that any sin that seperates one from the life of Divine Charity is ultimately deadly if gone unrepented. In that sense all sins are “equally bad”. On this side of heaven, though, the gravity of sin is always dependent on consent, knowledge, circumstances, and scandal given to others. And as far as that goes, I have no knowledge into the hearts and minds of anyone except myself, and the question “Who is worse between an adulterous hetero and an active homosexual?” will remain unanswerable for me unless I learn more about these people as specific individuals.

Tyler,  Your 2 posts have certainly put a different, if philosophical, dimension on the issue.  A new way to look at homosexuality and adultery.
If both actions separate us from Divine Charity, then, we, as Catholics, as Christians, must urge both groups of offenders to repent.  Not single out the one group for constant excoriation, and, leave the other scot free.  Strongly disapproving of the actions of one group, while, at the same time, apparently, by silence-as-consent, seeming to approve of the actions of the other.
It is this kind of disbalance in the Church’s denunciation that causes young, thinking, Catholics / Christians to walk away from the Church.
A philosophical way out, based entirely on my reading your excellent exegesis, is for the Church to stop condemning, and, instead adopt a policy of conciliating.  Trying to reconcile God and offending man, whether homosexual or adulterous, by means of ideas and methods gleaned from philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, education, chemistry, logic – and, the Gospels.
I have adopted this approach of conciliation via the Gospels in the very contentious field of business and management at washingtonhotwire.com .  With some success.  Shall be delighted to hear your views on conciliation versus condemnation.

Egbert: Having looked through the biography at the website you mentioned, I should say that you have almost certainly given this much more thought than I have, and thus I doubt I am a proper discussion partner for you. I should also mention that I am preparing for the Catechumenate-not yet a Catholic- and so I probably don’t have the proper perspective to answer questions about how different groups are treated within the Church. Since you took the time to respond to me thoughtfully (and, by the way, thanks for that), I will try to offer a response on yours. (Next post).

I agree with your individual points about treating similar sins with similar, proportional responses regardless of whether the sinner is of any particular race, class, sex, etc. This is common sense fairness. If it truly is the case that Christian culture largely treats illicit heterosex unions less seriously than illicit homosexual ones, then shame on Christian culture. It’s not doing its job. I’m not certain what you mean when you say “conciliation versus condemnation”. For what it’s worth, I’m not generally the type to stick my nose into other people’s business, and so if I am taking a “condemning” tone toward anyone, that person is almost certainly a friend, family member, or at least someone with whom I have an established trust level. I shouldn’t even say that I use a “condemning” tone, as only God can condemn. Obviously, I am not God, I would therefore prefer to avoid anything that could be construed as “condemning” when talking to people who are living in sin. Is this close to what you mean by “conciliation”?

Tyler,  May the Lord bless you on your journey.
The Church’s practice of condemning homosexuality while giving adultery a pass defies understanding.  Be that as it may, only the Lord can condemn – as you say.
That being the case, the only path left open to us on earth is conciliation.  Talking to the individual[s] in question.  Using knowledge gained from philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, education, chemistry, logic, and the Gospels, to very gently inform them of the physical consequences of their actions – whether it be homosexual activity, abortion, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, contraceptive sex, etc.  That’s conciliation.  Offering the best advice, based on the latest science.
And, leave it to the individual[s]’ conscience.  Certainly, leave it between the individual[s] and God.  Not constantly threaten them with Hell and Damnation.

Tyler ... Egbert -

As you point out, it is really nice to see such a civil and serious discussion of this subject.

“The Church’s practice of condemning homosexuality while giving adultery a pass defies understanding.”

I have never heard the Catholic Church ‘give a pass’ to adulterers.  As far as I know, it is considered a Mortal Sin.  Is there a Priest or Bishop you can cite who has done this?  There is an important difference between the two sinful behaviors, however.  To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church ...

Paragraph # 2357 ... “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Regarding Adultery ...
“2380 ... Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.”

Just to be clear ... mortal sin will still get someone a ‘ticket to hell’ whether first class or third class.  Dante, who was a Third Order Dominican and mystic understood the various levels of hell to exist from mystical experiences ... and regardless, I think most people would rather not experience any of them for all eternity.

It is very important to distinguish between the two because they are not the same. A ‘disordered act’ involves aspects of the person and reflects conditions within the psychological make-up of the individual that are different from a sinful ‘ordered’ acts.  I am not a theologian, but if there is a moral theologian in here, I’d appreciate their articulating the difference.

All the same, I don’t think anyone can genuinely say that Church has somehow tacitly ‘approved’ one lifestyle versus the other.  The fact is that the state is not pushing to recognize adultery as a valid lifestyle. Why not marriage between three or four people as one ‘poster’ pointed out?

Regarding hell.  It would probably be a good thing if The Church ... more specifically Priests in their homilies, were to point out that many actions, not only the ones discussed here, result in eternal damnation.  BTW ... St. Paul often said he could judge Christians, but not those outside the community. “Judge” did not mean to give ‘final judgment’ as only Jesus Christ will judge.  It means there are positions a Catholic can take that are in direct opposition to Church Teachings and many actions will objectively result in their salvation or condemnation.  I kind of like it when a Priest points such an error out to me. 

Peace ... Mark

Tyler…..Mark,  Thank you for your brilliant discourse.  Enjoyed it immensely!
Regretfully, I have to disagree with you about homosexuality and adultery.
You quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph #2357 ... “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”  You quote Paragraph #2357 further, which states that “They [homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law.”  Why?  Because “they close the sexual act to the gift of life.”
Regarding adultery you quote the Catechism of the Church Paragraph #2380 ... “Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations – even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.”
Your own commentary is very interesting – “It is very important to distinguish between the two [homosexual acts and adulterous acts] because they are not the same. A ‘disordered act’ involves aspects of the person and reflects conditions within the psychological make-up of the individual that are different from a sinful ‘ordered’ acts.”
Yes, but aren’t we playing a game of semantics here.  What is the difference between a ‘disordered act’ and a ‘sinful act’ ?
What if we reversed the nomenclature?  What if we said homosexual acts are ‘sinful acts’ and classified adulterous acts as ‘disordered acts’ ?
It would appear that there is a strong justification for taking this position.
Homosexuality is God-made.  It has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is a choice made by wo/men.  In this case, it may not even be a ‘sinful act’.  What God hath ordained cannot, ipso facto, be sinful.
Adulterous acts, on the other hand, by their very nature, whether in the form of pre-marital sex or in the form of extra-marital sex, are always ‘disordered acts’ – reflecting what you say are ‘conditions within the psychological make-up of the individual’.
The Church’s position is that marriage is strictly between 1 man and 1 woman.  Not between 2 men and 1 woman.  Or, between 2 women and 1 man.  Any transgression of this 1 man + 1 woman situation must be considered, within the Catholic context, as a condition within the ‘psychological make-up of the individual’ – a psychological disorder.  Further, since a Catholic marriage is a Sacrament, any transgression of the Sacramental vows [precedent and subsequent to the Sacramental vows] must be considered sinful.
So, there you have it.  A different, if controversial, take on the debate.  A take / position in which Homosexuality is seen as a natural state, one ordained by God [until absolutely proven otherwise], while adultery is seen as a disordered state, one that goes against the teachings of the Church and of Our Lord Himself.
Hopefully, fundamentalist Catholics will not be offended by this analysis.  It is only an analysis.  But, if it furthers our understanding of homosexuality, adultery, and sinfulness – then so much the better.
As for my previous statement that the Church gives adultery a pass, here’s the statement in full – “The Church’s practice of condemning homosexuality while giving adultery a pass defies understanding.”
But that I meant that the Church goes hammer and tongs, often and more often, against Homosexuality.  While there is nary a word spoken loud and clear and often about Adultery.  Either, in the Press or from the Pulpit.  When was the last time you heard a thundering-good denunciation of Adultery from the lectern?

Egbert -

Thank you for your comments.  Honestly, I have doubts about the brilliance of what I have written, but I am very careful and do my best to not misrepresent Church Teaching. 

Here is the problem.  Your position is not the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as I have cited.  There is no ‘conservative’ (fundamentalist) or ‘liberal’ aspect to the Truth.  The Truth is THE TRUTH.  It is neither liberal or conservative or ‘fundamentalist’.  The Church has always taught the Truth. 

The Church has defined homosexual acts as disordered and against nature; not me or anyone else.  No one apparently sees the need to clarify that adultery is a sinful act.  I haven’t heard anyone or any group within the Church arguing to the contrary that adultery is OK.  Have you?  But there are those within the Catholic Church that say that homosexual behavior is acceptable.  You are trying to make a case for a “different take”, but this is irrelevant to Church Teaching.  I am not defining it as unnatural and disordered, the Church has always done this.  I am simply recognizing it.

To imply or infer in anyway that homosexual acts are natural defies the most basic logic.  Can two men love each other outside of a relationship involving homosexual behavior? ... OBVIOUSLY they can. Can homosexual acts be ‘unitive and procreative’ as defined by the Catholic Church AND NATURE? Absolutely not.  Remember, the Catholic Church has always recognized that the Sanctity of Marriage existed before The Church.  They have simply recognizing natural law.

There is no ‘game-playing’ with semantics in what I have expressed.  I specifically quoted the Catechism because the authors were very specific in their use of language and intent, consistent with Church Teaching for 2000 years.  Many acts are sinful, but not all are disordered.  The Church is clear in their definition.  You apparently are trying to justify a position which defends the homosexual lifestyle and you have a CHOICE to do this, but are not FREE (in the Catholic Church’s understanding of the term ‘FREE’) to do this.  True Freedom leads to eternal life ... bad and sinful choices ... again ... as defined by the Catholic Church leads to condemnation.  By choosing a position which is directly in opposition to Church Teaching for 2000 years, in essence (and I in NO WAY intend to be offensive in saying this), you take a heretical position with regards to the Catholic Church.  That’s how the Church defines it.  If you want to make the argument that the Catholic Church is wrong, in effect you ‘protest’ or take a Protestant position on the matter.  There is absolutely no justification consistent with Catholic Teaching for taking this position.

You will never find a Priest or Bishop IN GOOD STANDING with the Magisterium to say that “Homosexuality is God-made”.  To suggest that something that is unnatural and disordered is somehow ordained by God is contradictory.  God CANNOT contradict Himself.  To get a crystal clear understanding of the Church’s view of same-sex attraction, this document probably does an excellent job.

http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H Selection.pdf

To be a Faithful Catholic doesn’t mean we have to understand or like what The Church teaches, but we have to respect and obey it to consider ourselves true members of the Body of Christ and in a state of Sanctifying Grace and then have a right to receive the Sacraments, according to the Church’s terms. 

As sinful as adultery is, it has never been defined by the Catholic Church as ‘disordered’.  This is really the point.  It is not up to you or me to determine what is true or how to define things.  If we want to be in good standing with The Church, then we have to accept The Church’s Teachings. 

Here is a blog by a Priest whose representations of Church Teaching are flawless.  http://countrypriest.livejournal.com/5704.html. He explains why you and I (or anyone else) cannot pick and choose according to a poorly informed consciences what is right or wrong, sinful or not sinful.  Obedience and submission to Church Teaching is basic to be considered Catholic. 

Regarding your last question.  When was the last time you heard ANYONE present themselves as being a Faithful Catholic and saying that adultery is not sinful?  I don’t know anyone trying to argue that ‘adulterers should be accepted as normal and perhaps not even sinful’ within the context of Church teaching as you are trying to do with regard to the homosexual lifestyle.  Do you know of any ‘push’ on the part of a group within The Church that is trying to do that?  I don’t.

Pax Christi ... Mark

Mark,  The arguments you present are very impressive.
You write “The Church has defined homosexual acts as disordered and against nature…..”  And, then, you use the word ‘define” 5 times more to set forth Church Doctrine.
I regret I do not agree with a Doctrine set forth by definition.  Because, one can define anything “in”.  And, one can define anything “out”.

Well Egbert ... what matters for one to consider them Catholic and to receive the Sacraments is to be aligned with the OFFICIAL Church Teaching.  It’s that simple.  If you disagree with Church Doctrine then you have that choice, but don’t expect the Church to change its position of 2000 years.  Also, many positions do jeopardize one’s standing with The Church.  I am not sure what you mean by defining “in” and “out”.  I am talking about official Church Teaching.

In JMJ ... Mark

Laura Bush tells us she is proudly pro-Kagan, pro-abortion, pro-homo-marriage, and anti-Arizona. We need to replace First Ladies with Todd Palin!

Mark,  First, let me apologize for not replying to your Faithful response earlier.
I was preparing an article entitled “A Christian Approach To Business” for my website washingtonhotwire.com   It took time.  As did the collating and the cataloging of the research material involved.
In any event, here I am, once more.  Thoroughly enjoying this very analytical and earnest discussion.  It happens so seldom on the Internet.  And, I’m glad Ms Danielle Bean’s post set this off.
Because – you raise a very, very important point about Doctrine, both in this post and the previous.  I regret I missed the import of your line of thought about Doctrine in your previous post.  But, with this one, I get it.
Church Doctrine, yes.
Just what is the purpose of Church Doctrine? – about abortion, euthanasia, the Pill, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, extra-marital-sex, polygamy, etc, etc
Is it to keep the Faithful in the fold?  Or, is it to bring the faithless into the fold?
Is it to show the Faithful the error of their ways?  Or, is it a means to Evangelize the faithless?
The answer to these question shape the debate – and the Doctrine.

Thank you Egbert ... that is a good question, but you are making a very critical and serious error.  Doctrine may be a reason for debate, but ‘The answer to these questions shape the debate - and the Doctrine’ ...  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It in no way ‘shapes the Doctrine’.  We can talk until we are blue, but you and I and no one other than The Magisterium determine what the Doctrine (or Teaching) is.  Simply defined, doctrine is simply teaching.

Good “Teaching” keeps people clear about what is required and also assists, inspires and can motivate people to stay ‘in the fold’ as you imply ... absolutely.  Teaching the Truths of The Faith also attract those that are not currently in the fold.  It certainly can show the Faithful the ‘error of their ways’, but debating it DOES NOT SHAPE IT or alter it in any way.  Remember, our faith is based upon a Theocracy, not a Democracy.  We don’t determine it by consensus ... that’s where relativism comes in, which is the extremely dangerous.  You can learn a great deal by reading what our Holy Father wrote on the subject here ...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzrela.htm

Here is an excellent link on the subject of ‘Doctrine’ and indeed this person’s website in San Francisco is rock solid and absolutely in keeping with the Teaching (Doctrine) of The Church.  Over the years I have found it enormously useful as a reference.

http://www.chastitysf.com/protestants.htm

This link to a Page on the Catholic Answers website also expresses the Doctrine of the Church with regards to homosexuality.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Keep this in mind.  Today all sorts of people call themselves ‘christians’ that would not have been considered Christians or followers of Jesus Christ when the Apostles walked the earth(and long after).  It still applies today.  Remember Jesus turned away people who wanted to follow Him (e.g. the rich young man).  He absolutely DID NOT accept everyone.  One was NOT ALLOWED to follow Jesus unless they submitted to HIS WILL and followed everything he said.  They had to surrender to Him!  There was no following Jesus on our terms ... without exception.

So the critical question related to our salvation as Catholics is ... do we accept everything the Roman Catholic Church teaches?  If we reject its Teachings, then we will define ourselves as heretics, more than likely place ourselves in a state of mortal sin and in all likelihood lose eternal life.

P.S.  Egbert ... since you listed your website, I ‘surfed’ on over and spent a few minutes there and want to point out that Catholicism and socialism are absolutely incompatible; contrary to what you posted.

Pope Leo from Rerum Novarum, “In working for a wage he works also for a full and perfect right to use his earnings as seems good to him. If, therefore, a man spends less on consumption and uses what he saves to buy a farm, that farm is his wage in another form, as much at his disposal as was the wage itself. It is precisely in this power of disposal that ownership consists, whether the property be in real estate or in movable goods. It follows that when socialists endeavor to transfer privately owned goods into common ownership they worsen the condition of all wage earners. By taking away from them freedom to dispose of their wages they rob them of all hope and opportunity of increasing their possessions and bettering their condition.”  ... 1891

“...Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.”
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 117, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Reconstruction of the Social Order, May 15, 1931

“...no Catholic [can] subscribe even to moderate Socialism.”
MATER ET MAGISTRA, 34, Pope John XXIII
On Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961

Mark,  I am in total awe of your command of the Writings of the Church.  You knowledge is overwhelming in its scope and astonishing in its dimensions.  Wow!
Socialism today compared to the Socialism of the mid-1920s is as a pussy cat is to a lion.  The Pope’s were right to condemn this mid-1920s’ confiscatory form of Socialism.
The Socialism that I wrote of in my article “Christianity, The Best Form Of Socialism, The Solution To America’s Joblessness” is really a form of sharing.  Taking care of these less fortunate than ourselves.  A sentiment Jesus heartily approve of – see Matthew 25: 34-40.
Else, what is your solution to America’s joblessness?

Thank you for the compliment, but being in total awe sounds a little ‘over the top’ ;-) I inherited all of the books of a Priest from when he was in the seminary.  In going through the books I rediscovered the True AWESOMENESS of the Catholic Faith.  I am enormously grateful for that Providential occurrence because through the process I have come to believe that I wasn’t truly Catholic before as I ‘waffled’ on some of the teachings of The Church.  As Catholics our number on priority is to get to Heaven ... and it definitely (as Catholics) doesn’t happen on our terms. 

The answer to joblessness ... Free enterprise.  The exact opposite of what this administration is promoting and doing.  Consider this ...

In the interest of time I am cutting and pasting a segment from an article (http://dailycapitalist.com/2009/11/05/is-the-economy-recovering-the-curious-case-of-1920-vs-1929/), that gives a quick overview of the results of massive government intervention ....

“The market crashed in October, 1920 (down 33%) and unemployment was almost 12%, yet the 1920-1921 recession lasted only 18 months. The 1929 crash started in September, 1929 and peaked in November, with a stunning 52% loss in the Dow. Yet, the market started to rally in November, but never got off the ground. The market continued to slide until June, 1932 having lost 89% of its peak value.

The difference between the two events? In 1920, Warren G. Harding was president (no relation). In 1929 it was Herbert Hoover. In response to his crash, Harding, at least by today’s standards, did nothing. Hoover was the consummate interventionist and implemented many policies that trashed the economy and started the Great Depression. Roosevelt nurtured it until he died. The Dow did not recover its 1929 peak until late 1954!”

Your analysis of socialism is incorrect.  Socialism always “TAKES” ... in every form.  Don’t kid yourself about the ‘pussycat’ and ‘lion’.  I lived in a communist city in a socialist state.  That’s what they all want you to believe.  I think you would find the article below very enlightening. I think it is safe to say that an Orthodox Christian that lived through communism has an opinion worth considering. 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

What you want to be very careful of is redefining words and concepts.  That’s where the relativism that Pope Benedict has spoken and taught so eloquently and profoundly about comes in.  His writings should be taken to heart.  It’s simply not just another ‘opinion’.  C.S. Lewis called making modifications to the meaning of words, ‘verbicide’.  It’s very dangerous.  It’s a diabolical tactic.    Peace ... Mark

Mark,  Your knowledge of Catholic documents is encyclopedic!  To be greatly admired!
The Pravda article, whose link you sent me, was one of the most inane pieces, both in analysis and writing, that I have ever come across.  The fond Russian hope that America is going under is misplaced.
Russian commentators look at America’s current situation—30 million unproductive [unemployed+underemployed] people – and believe that America’s Free Market Capitalist System, with its emphasis on automation and outsourcing, will be unable to reduced this number—ever.
And, they are right.  American Free Market Capitalism with its emphasis on Continuous Operating Efficiencies and the Maximization of Profits will continue to churn out unemployment – by the millions.
But, being ideologues, the Russians do not see that America has a way out.  Christianity.
Christianity will restore America to its days of glory.  More specifically, it will be Catholicism that will help restore America to its preeminent position in the world of nations.  By diffusing a new type of Catholic Company, called Economy of Communion, throughout our economic system.  By putting Holiness at the center of the MBA program as the Catholic Business School IESE [Barcelona and Madrid] has done.  Just a note – IESE’s MBA was ranked the #1 MBA program in the world by the very prestigious, very influential magazine The Economist last year, in 2009.
I develop this argument for Christianity as the salvation of America more fully in my article “A Christian Approach To Business” which was posted on my website washingtonhotwire.com on May 27, 2010.
The Russian economy is going nowhere.  But, in their envy the Russians hope that America will go down as well.  Not a chance.  We Americans are an adaptive, innovative people.
It’s only a matter of time before we realize that our hope lies in Our Lord.  And, the way He taught us to run business.

Someone mentions “civil rights ’ and how the Catholic Church should step out of the argument. I would like to remind the writer that God created him or her and without life that writer would not be here to enjoy “civil rights” be what they may.
          Western civilisation is only civil BECAUSE of the Catholic Church. Without it we would be mere cave creatures or worse !  We might not even exist at all. May I suggest to the writer that he or she get into serious research of history and study the good the Catholic Church has perpetuated, through Christ, on the World and still does.