Maybe Dr. Vallier made a mistake when he said baptism made the Jewish baby a member of the Catholic Church. In Mystici corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII lists the requirements anyone must meet to be a member of the Catholic rather than someone who's in it as a nonmember of it. Pius XII teaches that to be a member of the Catholic Church, you must wear the baptismal mark on your soul, profess Catholicism, be willing to obey the Catholic hierarchy, and not be under full excommunication. By those standards, baptism did not make the Jewish baby a member of the Catholic Church. But it added him to it. Baptism of blood and baptism of desire sometimes substitute for water baptism. "Baptism of desire" means that at least implied desire for baptism can substitute for water baptism when he can't get it. So can an at least implied with to become Catholic. "Baptism of blood" means that martyrdom can substitute for either or both desires, i.e., to get baptized and to be a Catholic.
My question to the guest is: can you be classical liberal without violating Catholic teaching? Things like free love, abortion and host of other things suggest answer: no.
No, classical liberalism supports personal freedom and choice and policies allowing it such as drug legalisation, abortion, prostitution and laissez faire capitalism all of which go against CST
Classical liberalism supports things like the errors of Americanism, aka freedom of religion. This is wrong because it ultimately means and leads to freedom of perdition
@@croky5029 you felt it necessary to flag my comment for some reason? I'm guessing you're only interested in stifling comment generally and leads me to ask if that's why there are nearly no comments showed.
Marxism is probably better than classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is about the individual and wants to protect human rights etc. that has nothing to do with catholic teachings. Marxism Atleast would regulate the market and not have the excesses of capitalism. Capitalism at this point is the enemy
Well I’m no Classical Liberal like the people at the Acton Institute but it’s worth pointing out that those sorts of things are not necessarily to be endorsed by a genuine Classical Liberal. If you actually look at John Locke, he has an understanding of the necessity of prohibiting certain things for the sake of preserving society. John Locke would be shocked at the moral degeneracy rampant today, and he would be considered ‘illiberal’ today no doubt. Abortion is easier to answer because a Classical Liberal who realises that unborn children are human persons should support the state’s protection of their individual rights.
Crazy how much this guy sounds like Steve Inskeep (sp?) from NPR. Crazy similar.
Maybe Dr. Vallier made a mistake when he said baptism made the Jewish baby a member of the Catholic Church. In Mystici corporis Christi, Pope Pius XII lists the requirements anyone must meet to be a member of the Catholic rather than someone who's in it as a nonmember of it.
Pius XII teaches that to be a member of the Catholic Church, you must wear the baptismal mark on your soul, profess Catholicism, be willing to obey the Catholic hierarchy, and not be under full excommunication. By those standards, baptism did not make the Jewish baby a member of the Catholic Church. But it added him to it.
Baptism of blood and baptism of desire sometimes substitute for water baptism. "Baptism of desire" means that at least implied desire for baptism can substitute for water baptism when he can't get it. So can an at least implied with to become Catholic. "Baptism of blood" means that martyrdom can substitute for either or both desires, i.e., to get baptized and to be a Catholic.
My question to the guest is: can you be classical liberal without violating Catholic teaching?
Things like free love, abortion and host of other things suggest answer: no.
No, classical liberalism supports personal freedom and choice and policies allowing it such as drug legalisation, abortion, prostitution and laissez faire capitalism all of which go against CST
Classical liberalism supports things like the errors of Americanism, aka freedom of religion. This is wrong because it ultimately means and leads to freedom of perdition
@@croky5029 you felt it necessary to flag my comment for some reason? I'm guessing you're only interested in stifling comment generally and leads me to ask if that's why there are nearly no comments showed.
Marxism is probably better than classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is about the individual and wants to protect human rights etc. that has nothing to do with catholic teachings. Marxism Atleast would regulate the market and not have the excesses of capitalism. Capitalism at this point is the enemy
Well I’m no Classical Liberal like the people at the Acton Institute but it’s worth pointing out that those sorts of things are not necessarily to be endorsed by a genuine Classical Liberal. If you actually look at John Locke, he has an understanding of the necessity of prohibiting certain things for the sake of preserving society. John Locke would be shocked at the moral degeneracy rampant today, and he would be considered ‘illiberal’ today no doubt. Abortion is easier to answer because a Classical Liberal who realises that unborn children are human persons should support the state’s protection of their individual rights.