Monday, 27 December 2010

The meaning of Wealth (II)

Socialism and Anglicanism should not be natural bedfellows. The church should oppose every intrusion of Socialism into the lives of the people; indeed, in this respect, many good atheists hold fast to great truths that appear to elude the Archdruid of Canterbury and his like; that we have a shared moral duty and responsibility to the poor does not equate to the right of the State to take riches from those that have them and give to those who have not. Indeed, I can't get a fag paper between the views of many good Libertarian atheists and those expressed by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum;
The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. "The child belongs to the father," and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that "the child belongs to the father" it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents." The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
The main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.

1 comment:

Rossa said...

The child belongs to the State not the father.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth
The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis, meaning “Eternal Crown”, by Sixtus IV, being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.
This Papal Bull created the “Crown of Aragon”, later known as the Crown of Spain, and is the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the “Union of Crowns”, or Commonwealth, in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot. The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975, when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day. This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born and, by the sale of
the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving us of
ownership of our flesh and condemning us to perpetual servitude, as a Roman person, or slave.

All property is owned by The Crown (not The Queen), all bodies by The Banks and all souls by The Church.

See halfway down this page under the heading History of Trusts. It explains how this was done.

http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/?p=164