Perspectives of a Wanderer

The plagues of Relativism, Materialism, and Liberalism (along with Socialism and Global Capitalism) are so rampant that they have desensitized most to the point where they are unable to recognize them for what they are and how they are rotting away society to a point where it is about to, if not already, implode.

A reminder of that came from a tweet from Catholic Vote:

BK gets gross. Critics Cringe at Ad for Burger King’s Latest Sandwich http://shar.es/53U3 HT @PattiArmstrong

The tweet referenced a Foxnews article not the new Burger King ad for their new sandwich.  With out getting too graphic, the ad borders on the filth a certain segment of the “entertainment” industry that is so rampant in these days.

It reminded me on how nothing seems to shock people anymore.  Just a couple of years ago, this ad would not even be considered.  Now, it almost gets a yawn.

This is what the societal plagues have done.  It makes perversion the norm and morality the perversion.   We must fight back against anyone who promotes this.

I, for one, am now boycotting Burger King until they pull the ad and apologize.  The same tactic worked on Ford and McDonalds, it will work here.

But we must not stop there.  We must shun all of the plagues.  Alternatives must be found to replace those who promote the perversions so rampant in society.  If it means going with out certain good until those alternative are found or created, so be it.

We must come together in solidarity as a community to build a society free of Relativism, Materialism, Liberalism, Socialism and Global Capitalism.

For those who know me, I attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass also known as the Tridentine, Old, or Latin Mass.  As such, the readings are not the ones that most Catholics hear on on the same Sunday (yes, there are rare cases when some of the readings are the same).  Such was the case with the Gospel reading for this week:

While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes’aret. And he saw two boats by the lake; but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had ceased speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a great shoal of fish; and as their nets were breaking, they beckoned to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the catch of fish which they had taken;  and so also were James and John, sons of Zeb’edee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.” And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him. (Lk 5:1-11 RSV)

Although the term “fishers of nen” (Mt. 4:19 RSV) is replaced “catcher of men”, the meaning is the same.  However, what seems to be lost today is how this applies to all Catholics.  We are called, in various capacities, to be “fishers of men”.   This means we must live our lives in accordance with the teachings of Our Lord. Part of these teachings is to spread the Gospel.  How we do it is two-fold: Passive and Active.

The first way, the passive part, I have already mentioned.  That is: how we live our lives.  Living by example is one of the best ways of showing those who do not follow Our Lord in his fullness of the Catholic Church the true meaning of his teaching.  Sadly, many of us do not live in full accordance with the teachings of Our Lord.  This, does not mean that we should abandon those teaching as some would suggest.  No, we should always strive to amend our lives to live according to those teachings.

The second way, the active part, is more difficult and not for everyone (although it should be).  That is: preaching the Gospel.  No, I am not talking about joining the priesthood or a religious order.  I am talking about evangelization. Yes, what I am talking about can be considered proselytism, and you know what, you are right because it is. We must take the truth to the enemy and get in their faces. Of course, there are some things that must not do.  Those things include:

• Forcing people to convert
• Providing physical benefits in hopes that recipients will be open to listening
• Providing physical benefits only to those willing to listen
• Providing physical benefits only who convert

What we must do is preach the Truth to all, both those who are willing to listen and to those who are hardened to the Word of God.  We must use the public square as our pulpit at every chance we get.  Yes, there is a hostile atmosphere out there, but as Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.“  We must be fearless in this.  We must bring everyone possible to the full Truth of the Catholic Church.

The following from a Catholic Answers Forums:

Liberal? Conservative? Don’t care?

I tell people I have liberal political views and conservative moral views.

The reason that I have these views is that I believe people need to be accountable for themselves. Mainly, if the government tells us what we can and can’t do, we would not be able to use the free will God has given us. Now laws are laws, but I know what is right, and what is wrong… who is to say that I should impose my beliefs on someone else.

Now I say that I am Conservative on my moral views, because I believe in the traditional family. I think that if a person is a homosexual, they should not live in sin, just as any unmarried couple. I believe that marriage is for a man and a woman. I pray for those who are not under God’s grace.

By no means do these two small paragraphs encompass everything I believe, but this is just a starting point.

The post is not to attack or refute anyone’s opinion, but just a survey to see why people believe what they do. Honestly I do not like any label except the label of being Catholic!

What the member posted is true, in part, but it does not go far enough.  Catholicism transcends political labels mainly because they do not fit in most, if not all, cases.

Yes, on many moral issues, Catholicism can appear to be “conservative”.  That is a given.  However, the degree of the “conservatism” is not absolute.  You have heard the saying “Hate the sin, but love the sinner”.  It seems that a lot of “conservatives” forget the second part and accuse those to follow the whole precept as being “liberal”.   Yes, we are suppose to rebuke those who openly sin against God’s Natural Law, but we do not stop caring or expel those who sin.  Even in cases of Excommunication, it is not a final condemnation if the sinner repents and comes back.   We are to forgive.

On many social issues, however, Catholicism appears to be “liberal”.  We are to care for the poor and provide assistance when able.  The can be clearly seen in the teachings of Our Lord in a number of Gospel passages.  The one that stick out for me is:

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ (Mt. 25: 34-44 RSV)

What separates us from the “liberals” is how this is done.  As Catholics, we should not rely on the government to do these.  This is socialism.  It is also inefficient and a waste of valuable resources that can better be put to use.  Charity does not mean, “let others do it”.  It means that we are supposed to do it through the resources set up by the Church.   It also means that we are not only supposed to provide financial support for this resource.  We are, when able, to directly assist in charitable activities.  This is why we are not “liberal”.  The government tends to say, “Give us the money and stay out”.

In summary, being Catholic does not beam being “conservative” or “liberal”, it mean being Catholic.  Start living that way.

Yes, why do we? For me, I see it in about almost everything I do.

For instance, I seem to put off my Morning and Evening Prayers until the last moment and then I either rush through them or do not do them at all.  If it were not for iBreviary on my iPhone, I would probably work not do them more often.

Is it that we are too busy in this, ever increasing, busy, relativistic, and materialistic world that we live in?  That may be part of it, but there has always been procrastination.

The reason I bring this up is that I belong to a Distributism Forum that has been setting up socio-economic communities based on Distributism.  For those who do not know what Distributism is:

Distributism is an socio-economic philosophy originated by certain Roman Catholic to apply Catholic Social and Moral teachings of Catholic Church (especially papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno).  According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property.

We have been discussing how and where these communities should be set up, but it has not gone any further than that.  It seem we are procrastinating.  Why?  Is it the fear of the unknown?  Uncertainty of the chance of success? Or, is it something else?

All I know is that, the way things are going with today’s society, we better get stared before society, as a whole, implodes around us.

I have been talking a lot about Distributism and setting  up a separate, but within the current, society.  For me, I consider it the best way to help civilization to survive.
A couple of weeks ago, this appeared in Real Clear Politics:

America’s 10 Freest and Least Free States

From indelibly American quotations like “Give me liberty or give me death” to the iconic pairing of “liberty and justice” in the Pledge of Allegiance, there’s no shortage of examples demonstrating that Americans have historically placed a high value on the concept of freedom.

While the concept of freedom may be in the eye of the beholder, there’s no question that each state has done their best to codify what actions they do and do not leave up to their residents’ choice. But which states give their citizens the most leeway, and which have them on the tightest leash? A study entitled “Freedom In the 50 States: An Index of Personal And Economic Freedom,” published by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, sets out to answer this question. Click through to see which states rank the highest and lowest by their metrics.

It also linked to the source of this article:

Freedom in the 50 States

This report got me to thinking:

Where would be the best place to set up this society?

Is the US, Canada or Europe the best right now? I am not too sure. For me, they are either a little to materialistic, too hostile to the model, or have geographic (i.e. Weather) constraints.  In addition, the ever increasing Socialist nature of the governments and their incestuous relationship with Global Capitalism, also makes it too hostile to the Distributist Model.

For years, I have been researching way “south of the border” as a possible place to move (especially after I retire) . Why?  They are many but, it manly to get away from the over-Materialist and Relativistic nature of society in the United States.  For me, it is causing a real threat to the total implosion of society here.  As for Europe, it is far worse and Canada is not that far behind.

Although there are pluses and minuses to all of them, there are a few I would consider.  Now if I could get my Distubutist brethren interested, we might be able to make a go of it.  Even without them, I would consider moving if I were to find the right place.

Everyone talks about the “New World Order” and, in a way, which is a good thing.  It brings in to the light the incestuous relationship between two prominent the Socio-Economic models known as Socialism and Capitalism.  It also focuses that light on the complete failures of both models (along with the associated disorders of Materialism, Relativism and Liberalism) and how these failures are being amplified by the combination of both. Instead of looking outwards towards a global socio-economic model, we should look inward to local socio-economic models for the solution.

Why am I saying to focus on the local instead of the global?   It was a thread over on the Distributist Yahoo Group titled “Mapping Your Local Financial Ecosystems” that got me thinking about this.  Since you need to be a registered member to see the thread, here is the Original Post:

Bob Woldrop was mentioned on Catherine Austin Fitts’s blog today

I am working on a segment for The Solari Report about how to map your local financial ecosystems. I am getting more and more questions about how to do so, including a great group from The Leadership Summit last weekend in Cleveland. Read their report here. Click here to view Catherine’s slide show presentation given during her speech at the Summit.

Also see Thinking About Local Food Systems in Lewis County, Tennessee by Bob Waldrop.

http://solari.com/blog/?p=2342#comments

Although I have not been able to do as much research as I would like to due to other commitment (and why my postings have been fewer than I would like), I think by focusing on the local community, one is able to form a strong and coherent socio-economic system that would be, for the most part, immune to the disease that is being wrought by the global community’s failures. In essence, go back to a time where the global forces have little or no influence.  Hence, my naming it the “Old Local Order”

Although it is not talked about in the solari link, I believe that the distributive economic model combined with the societal model set forth by the moral and social teachings of the Catholic Church can set a good foundation for this new socio-economic model.   Even then, we need information to make sure that the community(ies) we need to set up can be viable.

This is where these types of reports could be used as references for setting up these socio-economic communities.  With them we would know what would be the resource requirements for a population of a certain size. With that, the land and usage estimates could be calculated for not only the beginning of the model, but to allow for calculations for expansion of the model outwards.

Yes, I know it sounds like central planning, but it will allow for people to know where the needs are and/or will be so they can fill in the gaps if they are willing and able.  There should not be and must not be any forcing of people to produce what they do not want to. If need, these shortfalls can be obtained from outside the community if possible and fiscally responsible.  There may, and will, be times when it is preferable to go with out or use alternatives.

This planning is not socialism, but setting up for survival in a climate of total social-economic implosion.

A number of times over on a well known Catholic Forum, I have answered the question “what is distributism?. Usually, I use a variation of the following from Wikipedia:

Distributism, also known as distributionism and distributivism, is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Roman Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic Social Teaching articulated by the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (indirect socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of capital that would be carried out by most socialist ideologies). Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.

Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order opposing both socialism and capitalism. Some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives and family owned, small businesses), though proponents also cite such periods as the Middle Ages as examples of the historical long-term viability of distributism.

Invariably, I get a response like the following (which happened tonight):

Hmmm, this sounds rather like an endorsement of widespread stock ownership in corporations. That increases the number of capitalists, distributes corporate ownership widely, and avoids the concentration of power that one often found among 19th century “robber barons.”

In fact, most people in the U.S. today are stockholders of corporations, either directly, or indirectly through holding ownership interest by means of 401K’s, IRA’s, and pension plans and ESOP’s.

Knowing this is not the case, I responded with:

Not really. It is a common misconception that I have encountered before.

You may have “ownership” but no power. The real power is with the few big (majority) stock owners. Distributism is geared towards the family owned, co-op or (in some instances) small business. Essentially, pre-industrial revolution/protestant rebellion/Adam Smith/socialism eras where there was no real concentration of wealth/goods/production in a handful of powerful Global Corporations/Socialist Governments.

I would like to add that my economic philosophy is a combination of Distributism, Catholic Land Movement, and Catholic Workers Movement. I am still trying to get a synergy between them and other parts of my whole life philosophy.

I am still working on how I can change/add in the future to answer this “mental blockade”? I have ask my fellow Distributist brethren on another group for suggestions. Hopefully, they will come up with a “battering ram” to break the “mental blockade”.

While reading a well-known Catholic Forum, I came across the following thread (original post included):

Why is the Church heading back to the Dark Ages?

It seems lately;i.e.( Latin Mass) the Church is moving backwards. We are in the 21st century! Why go back to a language people don’t understand. This is how to lose more and more Catholics.

It seems the OP is under the impression that the Latin Mass (also know as the Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass or the Tridentine Mass), of which I regularly attend, is going backwards.  I do not believe it is the case.  In fact, I believe it is just the opposite.

This has gotten me to thinking, should we revive some of the old disciplines (No matter what some say, Dogma and Doctrines need not go back since the did not change after Vatican II) that were in place before Vatican II.   Things have become too lax and the penalties do not fit the offenses when it comes to dissent and scandals.  The Notre Dame scandal, so called “Catholic” politicians, and liturgical abuses in the Ordinary Form of the Mass (also known as the New Mass) are three prime examples of what I am talking about.

Lets take a look at all three starting with the last one since it involves the OP’s post.  For me, going back to the Old Mass is not going back.  I hear complaints even from the ones who do not like the Old Mass that they do not like the “liberties” taken by both the Priests and the Laity.  For me, that is the reason I chose my current parish (Assumption Grotto).  The New Mass is celebrated with many disciplines of the Old Mass (ad Orientum using the High Altar, Chant, Latin, and receiving on the tongue while kneeling at the Altar Rail with no EMHC’s).  For me, this was refreshing since it practically eliminates the abuses that we have seen.  As for the Extraordinary Form, it took awhile to get use to it, but now I prefer it to the Ordinary Form.  In fact, I would like to see the Ordinary Form changed to become more like the Extra Ordinary Form and become a third type Extra Ordinary Form along with the High and Low Mass.

Now, for the first two since they are practically interchangeable since dissent and scandal go hand in hand.  We need to get these dissenters under control and I do not believe the current system is capable of doing so.   Now, what I am going to suggest is really going to ruffle some feathers, but I think it is the only way for the Church to reassert control.

BRING BACK THE INQUISITION!!!

Yes, I said it.  We need to set up a formal and visible body to bring those to would go against the Church to justice quickly and I believe that an Inquisition type system would accomplish this.    If this is going “Old School” back to the “Dark Ages”, so be it.  Something must be done.  However, even this will be ineffective if the threat and the severity of the sanction are not increased.  In many cases, I believe that excommunication would be and should be a proper sanction to hand out for some of the dissent and scandals plaguing the Church (especially when it come to the support of abortion by “Catholic” politicians, doctors, nurses, lawyers…).

There are other things I would like to see brought back like some of the old devotions, but that is for another post.  We first need to get things under control before more is done.

Going back to the Dark Ages?

OH Yeah!  Lets do it.

First, let me preface this by saying that I am an American who was born and raised in the United States and I still live here.  I have never lived anywhere else but the United States.  Saying that, I am wondering if the United States is, or ever was, one of the best places to live.

Yes, we have one of the highest “standards of living” in the world, but does that translate into the best place.   Today’s criteria for “standard of living” seems to be mainly based on the Materialistic criteria.  That is, the more “Financial Wealth” you have, the better the “standard of living”.  There are other criteria like longevity, but the main thrust is materialism.   If you are using the materialistic “standard of living” as your criteria, then yes.

However, that is not mine.  My criteria is based, among other things,  on Real Wealth (see Real Wealth vs. “Financial Wealth) and the ability to follow God’s law through his Catholic Church.  And in that arena, the United States is quickly falling behind.

When “Financial Wealth” becomes a god, you are destroying Real wealth and people’s ability/willingness to follow God.  This has been happening for quite awhile.  That is one of the plagues of Global Capitalism, Materialism, and Relativism.

However, there are secondary plagues affecting the ability to follow God.  Those plagues are Liberalism and Socialism.  Both hate God because they put God above man.  To them, man should be above God.   This is why there is a concerted effort to run God out of the public square and to limit the influence of the Church.  In the past couple of years these attacks have been increasing.   It is getting to the point where one may not be able to follow God for much longer.

The United States has lost much of it “greatness” and that decline has been going on for quite awhile. All the plagues above has so infected the country and, especially, the government.  What to do about it?  To tell you the truth, I am not sure the country is worth saving.

As for me, “Financial Wealth” is not what I am striving for.   What I strive for is serving God to the best of my abilities.  Can I do that in the United State, I am starting to think that it may not be the case.   The issue is where to go.  I have been exploring other places and I have some idea.  There is still time and I want to  consider all my choices carefully.

I have been reading The Catholic Worker Movement by Mark and Louise Zwick and just completed the chapter “The Common Good vs Individualism”.  In the chapter, this passage stood out:

Peter and Dorothy especially quoted Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Modern Capitalism, which shows the dramatic changes in concepts away from the common good. Tawney contended that what happened in the historical process generated by the Reformation was the movement of the focus of exchange from the social solidarity group (common good) to the individual. He argued that the social character of wealth that had been the essence of medieval doctrine was lost through the unexpected development of economic individualism that sprang to a large extent from the notion of private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. In their eagerness to rid the world of the corruption of the Catholic Church at the time, the reformers replaced the church teaching of solidarity with the teaching of individual salvation without good works. As Tawney put it, “Individualism in religion led insensibly, if not quite logically, to an individualist morality, and an individualist morality to a disparagement of the significance of the social fabric as compared with personal character.”

In England and in the young United States, with time and pressure from merchants, Puritanism (the outgrowth of Calvinism) added a “halo of ethical sanctification to the appeal of economic expediency, and offered a moral creed in which the duties of religion and the calls of business ended their long estrangement in an unanticipated reconciliation.” Gradually, the Reformation idea that individual conscience decides led to the practical conclusion that might be thought of as whatever works, whatever is comfortable, whatever makes a profit. Those in trade argued that “business affairs should be left to be settled by businessmen, unhampered by the intrusions of an antiquated morality or by misconceived arguments of public policy.” Economics became separated from ethics. The contrast with earlier Christian teaching on the sin of avarice is striking. The church had always taught that greed, the implementation of the desire to gain more and more wealth, was one of the capital sins, and the idea of acquiring wealth was limited by a body of moral rules imposed under the sanction of religious authority. (pg 141-142)

I would tend to agree in the above assessment.  Protestantism has fragmented Christianity to the point where, in some cases, it is completely detached from its roots.  This allows for the the individual to interpret what Christianity is to fit with what they want, not what  it is.  This individualism is what has given root to the social ills of Relativism and Materialism (via Capitalism).

Furthermore, earlier in the chapter, Peter Maurin (one of the founders of the Catholic Workers Movement with Dorothy Day) believed that “socialism would not have existed if not for the excesses of capitalism (pg 135).  I would tend to agree with this premise also since tends to be a backlash when there are excesses in any system.

With Socialism and Global Capitalism combining forces these day with their incestuous relationship, I think we may be starting to see  a backlash to both systems.  What replaces it will depend on who presents the best alternative.   I believe by combining aspects of the Distributism, Catholic Workers, and Catholic Land movements (along with some others which I have not researched yet), I think we Catholics could provide a viable alternatives to both Socialism and Capitalism.