5 ms·

> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The Catholic Chu

> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The Catholic Church would agree: stealing is intrinsically evil, and thus wrong always and everywhere. The way they handle situations like this is by defining "stealing when starving" as "not stealing at all, but reappropriating things according to God's design for them." They call this the "universal destination of goods": §2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others. In other words, the right to private property does not trump the right to life.

estefan 10y ago
> The Catholic Church... are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.
- DanielStraight 10y ago
  Just in case it's not clear, you're getting downvotes because you are making an ad hominem argument rather than a logical rebuttal of the previous post. "Organization X is wrong about A, therefore they are wrong about B," is never a logically valid proposition. In fact, nothing about organization X is relevant when determining if their propositions are correct.
  - estefan 10y ago
    If "Organisation X" has acted in a morally corrupt and hypocritical manner for thousands of years, as far as I'm concerned it would be entirely irrelevant what their so called "morals" are. Therefore referencing them at all in this discussion is equally irrelevant.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Richard Dawkins' feet aren't exactly non-clayey either.
J-dawg 10y ago
I'm not generally a fan of the Catholic Church, but this sounds wonderfully sensible.
Udik 10y ago
>The Catholic Church would agree Quite the opposite, I'd say. Italy is a catholic country, and it is, I think, common opinion that the very forgiving Italian attitude is due to it. Protestantism and Calvinism in particular are much more strict in considering everybody responsible for their actions. Catholics can always go the the nearest priest, confess their sins and be immediately absolved from them. They don't have to deal with their conscience.
- pbh101 10y ago
  >Catholics can always go the the nearest priest, confess their sins and be immediately absolved from them. They don't have to deal with their conscience. While the first sentence is true, the second captures neither the spirit nor the fine print of the ritual. I would agree with the general statement on differing temperaments, though would phrase it differently: there is a built-in accommodation and acknowledgement that human weakness can result in failure to be the best you can be, but to nevertheless continue to strive towards that goal, even after failing. EDIT: In theory... I willingly acknowledge it doesn't always look like this in practice.
philh 10y ago
This seems pretty mealy-mouthed. They don't want to give up "stealing is always wrong", and they don't want to give up "stealing to survive is okay", so they redefine the word "stealing". They're basically saying "stealing is wrong, and if it's not wrong, it's not stealing". (They clearly do not agree with user stronglikedan.)
refal 10y ago
Hm, I dimly remembered what was called "Mundraub" in Germany, so I looked it up and interestingly, the German wikipedia entry mentions 5th book Moses, 23,25 (probably should be 23,24?) as an example of theft permitted if for immediate consumption (and perhaps in not too large quantities): When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayst eat grapes thy bellyful at thine own pleasure: but thou shalt put none in thy bag.

estefan 10y ago

> The Catholic Church... are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.

DanielStraight 10y ago
Just in case it's not clear, you're getting downvotes because you are making an ad hominem argument rather than a logical rebuttal of the previous post. "Organization X is wrong about A, therefore they are wrong about B," is never a logically valid proposition. In fact, nothing about organization X is relevant when determining if their propositions are correct.
- estefan 10y ago
  If "Organisation X" has acted in a morally corrupt and hypocritical manner for thousands of years, as far as I'm concerned it would be entirely irrelevant what their so called "morals" are. Therefore referencing them at all in this discussion is equally irrelevant.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Richard Dawkins' feet aren't exactly non-clayey either.

J-dawg 10y ago

I'm not generally a fan of the Catholic Church, but this sounds wonderfully sensible.

Udik 10y ago

>The Catholic Church would agree Quite the opposite, I'd say. Italy is a catholic country, and it is, I think, common opinion that the very forgiving Italian attitude is due to it. Protestantism and Calvinism in particular are much more strict in considering everybody responsible for their actions. Catholics can always go the the nearest priest, confess their sins and be immediately absolved from them. They don't have to deal with their conscience.

pbh101 10y ago
>Catholics can always go the the nearest priest, confess their sins and be immediately absolved from them. They don't have to deal with their conscience. While the first sentence is true, the second captures neither the spirit nor the fine print of the ritual. I would agree with the general statement on differing temperaments, though would phrase it differently: there is a built-in accommodation and acknowledgement that human weakness can result in failure to be the best you can be, but to nevertheless continue to strive towards that goal, even after failing. EDIT: In theory... I willingly acknowledge it doesn't always look like this in practice.

philh 10y ago

This seems pretty mealy-mouthed. They don't want to give up "stealing is always wrong", and they don't want to give up "stealing to survive is okay", so they redefine the word "stealing". They're basically saying "stealing is wrong, and if it's not wrong, it's not stealing". (They clearly do not agree with user stronglikedan.)

refal 10y ago

Hm, I dimly remembered what was called "Mundraub" in Germany, so I looked it up and interestingly, the German wikipedia entry mentions 5th book Moses, 23,25 (probably should be 23,24?) as an example of theft permitted if for immediate consumption (and perhaps in not too large quantities): When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, thou mayst eat grapes thy bellyful at thine own pleasure: but thou shalt put none in thy bag.