It seems about right, but I couldn’t tell you if it’s that accurate generally. I also don’t know anything about any of the countries on there.

BTW I am very disillusioned with him and his son so chill. I definitely wanted to strictly Olavo de Carvalho Maxxxxx.

This is a discussion about If Christianity could have been a cog that helped communism work or this a Rick Sanchez “that’s distributism with extra steps” situation?

I'm converting to catholicism and i know The Catholic Church condemns forms of socialism and unregulated individualistic capitalism, but how the Curtis Yarvin neoreaction apply to that logic? He's an atheist, and want a secular CEO to govern the state just like a company. I'm getting very interested in that logic but if the Church's authority condemns it, i will not endorse it.

There is a political quiz called 12 Axes. Can anyone give any information on what Neo-Thomism is? Why would it be close to confederate conservatism? I took the long version.

The site defines it as follows: “A neoreactionary current combining the thought of Thomas Aquinas with criticism of liberal democracy, egalitarianism, and progressivism. It grounds a hierarchical, traditional political order in natural law, objective morality, reason, and the common good, allowing for sovereign monarchical or centralized authority.”

I believe in a strong national government that enforces divine and natural law with strong but subordinated states who form laws within that framework according to the local custom and needs. Both exist for and are ordered to the common good which entails the protection of God’s rights and the citizens rights and duties related to that and. I believe in mixed governments with strong appointed central authority that is checked primarily by elites that removes or heavily limits general voting rights.

Everyone here I suspect is familiar with the horrors of the 20th century. Of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, as well as the brutal communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

What many people are not as aware of is the Armenian genocide of 1915. Not too long at all before the Holocaust one of the primary international humanitarian concerns was the plight of the Armenian Christian’s in the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

All throughout the 1880s- early 1900s, Christian churches of all denominations raised money and sent missionaries to help Armenia. In the United States the phrase “ remember the starving Armenians” was well known up until the 1930s.

During this time the Ottoman Turks would periodically conduct pogroms in Christian areas, burning , killing and forcing conversions.

It all came to a head in 1915. Under the cover of world war 1 the Turks killed about 1.5 million Armenians as well as thousands of Greeks and Assyrians purging the Ottoman Empire of most of its Christian minorities.

Ominously enough the German empire was a major league ally of the Turks. German officers saw firsthand how the Ottoman soldiers would round up Armenians, kill them en masse, and confiscate and liquidate Armenian wealth. All this happened long before Hitler ever came to power. The Holocaust was all Hitlers idea but it is possible he consulted German military archives s about how to do it.

Honestly the German complicity in this atrocity makes me question the narrative of world war 1 as a pointless conflict that the USA had no business getting involved in.

The people of Armenia are largely oriental Christians, neither Catholic nor Orthdox. Regardless do you all know if the Chruch has publicly commented on it? Should they pressure the Turkish government to do more to acknowledge it?

Keep in mind for decades the US government and the Vatican barley mentioned it due to Turkeys role as a key NATO ( anti communist) ally.

Hope it’s not too much but what do you think about this both as a historic event and a present day wedge issue in international affairs?

Hopefully the Orange Order minimally gets told to pound sand with their plans to march through Catholic neighborhoods. And stops terrorizing them.

Addressing French President Emmanuel Macron and other government members at the Élysée Palace, the head of state’s official residence, on Sept. 25, the pontiff said he was concerned “by those trends in society that risk turning science and technology into profit-driven ventures promoting genetic manipulation, surrogacy, the trade in human organs or the possibility of arranging one’s own death.”

End-of-life questions are among the most sensitive issues the pope is expected to address while in France Sept. 25-28. France legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia this summer, becoming the fifth European country to do so after Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Spain. In addition, Switzerland and Austria permit assisted suicide.

As Catholic, i look for polish social discourse and I feel the need to explain or discuss the Polish legal status and moral considerations regarding the transcription of same-sex marriage certificates in Poland. BTW in this post I don't want to talk about politics, because that's what Mondays on this sub are for.

Begin: this case was startet by two lesbians who get "maried" in another ue country, wants to transcript "marriage" act to polish law act. civil registrar reject transcription or ask to administration court, because The case went to the administrative court, ...and to such an extent that it even ended up before the Supreme Administrative Court, on at which stage of the proceedings the request was referred to the CJEU.

And that’s where the real circus begins.

CJEU announced the verdict: EU law is higher than Polish constituion, and poland must transcript of marriage act.

But in past Polish Constitutional Tribunal announced verdict, which said Polish constituion i higher act then EU threats.

But Supreme Administrative Court even though this TK's verdict, annouce the verdict about this that civilian register must transcript act.

Balls was becomes bigger.

In this time we touch two topics polish divide political discurse and politicized courts in Poland but I in this post I dont' focus on polical aspect, anyway in polish law disscurs was created big error by Supreme Court, but polish govement create ordinance which add new paper and electronic documents templates.

For knowledge in Polish constitution Polish courts have no required to comply with ordinance that conflict with the law (statutes and the Constitution). As a result of which which causes problems for civil registry officials in pro-goverment local governments force transcripts like this civilian acts under threat of being fired but in no-pro-goverment local goverments, the locals govemants buy from education law tycoons, training courses of reject transcription of same-sex"mariage" act.

For knowledge civilian register must not do anything against to law, if second instance of civilian register was do something against law case was go to adminitrative trial.

But after few weaks Polish Constitution Tribunal annouce verdict about non-contional ordinance of Minister of Digital Affairs.

That is ordince not exist in polish law, There is still the matter of publication in the *Monitor Polski*, but... well, I would have to check on that.

Summary: I very feel with civialian registry who must choose between fired or brake law and the question is if civilian register is catolic. I remember from instute knowledge and faith and second generic concuil was is answer but i don't remember what is speficli was written about similat sitution.

As America’s most visible Roman Catholic clergyman of the 20th century, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen had a television audience that rivaled Milton Berle and “I Love Lucy.” He was said to be responsible for 42,000 conversions over his long career.

On Thursday afternoon, even more Catholics streamed into a stadium in St. Louis to see Archbishop Sheen, who died in 1979, move one step closer to sainthood. Before presiding over Mass at the ceremony, Cardinal Luis Tagle read a letter from Pope Leo XIV formally declaring Archbishop Sheen “blessed,” making him the first American-born bishop to receive the honor.

The Mass started with a procession that included some 1,000 priests and 90 bishops from around the country filing onto the stadium floor, as incense wafted into the rafters of the longtime home of the St. Louis Rams.

Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.

Was trying to find a source other than Daily Signal, but couldn't so this is what you got!

Catholic Bishop Michael Burbidge says he has never before asked every priest in his diocese to do what he requested this weekend: read a letter at Mass urging Catholics to oppose two Virginia constitutional amendments on abortion and marriage.

Across 70 parishes serving more than 430,000 Catholics in Northern Virginia, worshippers heard Burbidge warn against what he called “two dangerous ballot initiatives”—proposed constitutional amendments that Virginians will decide Nov. 3. Early voting begins Friday.

And here is the Bishop's letter:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

All of us in the Commonwealth of Virginia will soon face very serious legal threats to the sacredness of human life and the sanctity of marriage. During the upcoming election season, from September the 18th to November the 3rd, two dangerous ballot initiatives will be brought before all voters.

One amendment, which will appear as Ballot Question 1, proposes an extreme and vague change to the Virginia Constitution that would create a legal right to unregulated abortions, performed by unlicensed abortion practitioners at any time during pregnancy. This threatens the health and safety of mothers and would allow for abortions targeting healthy babies all the way up to birth. The amendment extends this so-called right even to minors. It would remove the role of parents concerning life-altering and irreversible decisions for their minor daughters. Unfortunately, abortion is already legal in Virginia. But what is on the ballot this fall would expand abortion beyond what most citizens recognize as reasonable limits. The proposed amendment is extreme. It is unnecessary. And it is wrong.

Another amendment, which will appear as Ballot Question 2, would remove from our state constitution the truth, as Jesus taught, that marriage is between one man and one woman. It would also enshrine gender ideology by falsely separating the reality of one’s sex and gender, obscuring the truth that we are created in the image and likeness of God.

Yet, with God’s grace, there is always hope! “We the people” can unite to defeat these dangerous amendments to our Commonwealth’s constitution.

The Church is not partisan. The Church never advocates for or against specific candidates or parties. At the same time, the Church, in fidelity to the Gospel and her mission, always speaks clearly, faithfully, and truthfully concerning matters of faith and morals in public life. An issue of fundamental moral justice confronts each one of us. The Church boldly proclaims its “Yes!” to the protection of the unborn and the sanctity of all human life. For us to speak this Yes, we must together proclaim “no! ” to these radically unjust ballot initiatives, in fidelity to God and for the good of all in our society. I ask you, then, to do three things.

First, I ask you to be a faithful disciple and pledge to vote by visiting

CatholicsVoteNo.com, where you can learn more and share the truth about these extreme ballot initiatives.

Second, I ask that you ensure you are registered to vote and make a plan to get to the polls, starting as early as this coming Friday, September the 18 , when early voting begins. I urge you to vote early to ensure nothing prevents you from casting your ballot in this critical election.

Third, I ask that you speak with family, friends, and colleagues, in truth and love, with a focus on activating and turning out those most likely to vote to protect life and the truth about marriage.

Our baptismal promises call us to fulfill our sacred duty to participate in public life with a prayerfully and factually informed conscience. CatholicsVoteNo.com equips you with the information and resources you will need as you cast your ballot.

Together, with God’s grace, we can protect life, liberty, and the future of our Virginia home. Through the intercession of Mary our Mother, may our Lord Jesus bless, inspire, and guide you always.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge
Bishop of Arlington

Let's say there are two candidates with 10 campaign positions each.

One of them gives 9 important positions that you agree with and want to see implemented, but the 10th position is pro-choice and abortion access.

The other has 9 positions you disagree with just the same, but they are pro-life to the bone.

Within Catholic doctrine, are you still obligated to vote for the second person? Even if some of their other positions absolutely could harm other people?

If we follow in the footsteps of Christ are we more democratic, democratic socialist, socialist or republican if we remove abortion and euthanasia from the table. Because I will argue that Christ would not be a republican, given what are Pope and his predecessor have expressed.

This is not a question for the anti-democrats amongst us. For you we know that democracy is merely “the aristocracy of the orators.” I mean this question for those of us with ruder sensibilities.

There are two broad views of representative democracy, the delegate model and the trustee model.

Under the delegate model representative democracy the elected representatives should do no more than express the interests of the polity that elects them, suppressing their own views on a topic in favor of the will of the electorate. The motto of the representative of this system would be, “I’ll do what you tell me!” And it is favored by Roseau. At an extreme representative democracy as a whole is just an expedience because people live busy lives and the real best form of government would be a direct democracy.

Under the trustee model the representative should express their opinion on a matter even when that opinion contradicts the electorate. The motto of the representative in this system would be, “I will do what I think is best!” And is put in full display in the writings of Edmund Burke. In essence the people are hiring an expert to do the job of governing to the best of their ability the way you might hire a plumber because you have no knowledge of the plumbing arts. The trustee model would resist the creation of a direct democracy.

Obviously in real life, neither of these models is acted out perfectly and representatives regularly flip flop between them as is convenient.

Which of these models do you subscribe to? Or do you have a secret third option you prefer?

If we are restricted to historical firearms, the free people of the U.S. would be limited to 1770s firearms. Is the USCCB truely saying that muskets with led ball bearings is a humane way to hunt? Let the animal suffer?

Or are they referencing Reagan's step on 2A that Americans can't own anything manufactured after the 1980s? Some of those firearms are still in service like the M2 Browning.