> a correct understanding of Catholic doctrine allows for change over time

> dogma : a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

looks like Francis is wrong, and not a Catholic nor a pope

Could perhaps a charitable interpretation of the song be that there are some people on welfare who could work but choose not to (sloth) and choose to eat excessively when they could choose otherwise (gluttony), and that the musician is complaining about these specific people, and not people who may simply be overweight due to poisoning or unemployed due to bad luck?

yes, feeding those in need is the clear teaching; no, this is not necessarily through welfare and taxation

Again, this isn’t Jesus being “pro-taxes” but for prudence: He was saying if people are going to force you to pay taxes, well what are you going to do? If you don’t pay that makes you a criminal, so just to pay it to avoid trouble

Ok, and what we’re saying is in none of those passages is Jesus saying to force people to hand over money using the government so that people can collect it in welfare; the difference between a nonprofit or giving someone who is homeless on the street $20, versus a government agency fining someone and forcing them to be taxed for whatever purpose the government may see fit

However, that is not to say Christians may not advocate for such a view (for government welfare), I would simply state it is not the “Christian position” that Jesus is positively requiring something like government welfare to exist

superfluous wealth (beyond one’s needs) is morally the possession of the poor, in the theological tradition (although not one that is much talked about?) - hence you might advocate for wealthy people to give charitably under pain of present or future punishment by God (unless they feel they should retain such funds for some reason - some may need less than others, and some wealth is capital, like if a person owns a boat they can’t break up the boat to feed people)

Care for the poor is a positive virtue, but welfare is simply forcing taxpayers to pay, and allows people to indiscriminately collect; it’s not particularly moral or immoral, it’s kind of amoral in a way (when abused, immoral?)

Thank you for this conversation, I think it is an important one to continue (I may be out for a bit, I could try to further elaborate on different passages if requested. Whether government or corporations or individuals are in charge of doing certain things, I do agree we should care for the poor for sure and would enjoy seeing more discussion of how to meet the needs of those in most need when possible)

What examples of Jesus are coming to mind for you

voluntary socialism if you want to look at it that was isn’t necessarily the issue (taking handouts people want to give privately), welfare is forcible socialism through taxes and government coercion - it’s a different thing

a lot of people oscillate in their arguments, like they wouldn’t say it’s ok a guy assaulted a woman just because she was wearing inappropriate clothing? but here personal responsibility for avoiding unhealthy food is not promoted?

I can see how the jabs at vices of sloth and gluttony might trigger those who struggle with such sins, however I think in the balance he was venting frustrations that are broadly bipartisan about poor wage rates and political leaders who may be failing the average person

> I don’t want to work at this company anymore so I quit, I just don’t feel like working here anymore

Seems ok for the employee to quit “at will” so why not for the employer?

It’s sincere, I don’t think people are thinking through what they’re asking for

I’m not particularly “vindictive” but these are the kinds of cases where capital punishment / death penalty seem justified

You just can’t do it like that, because you woke up grumpy that particular morning

That should be fine though, that’s freedom of association, why force people to work together who don’t want to do so?

the “valid reason” is you don’t like them, why would we want to force people to work together who don’t like each other?

Yeah I often see people discussing minimum wages and living wages, this was a different concept I stumbled upon for people to think about, which makes sense for society to consider because if workers have families they’re not simply trying to earn a “living wage” (enough for them) but also enough for kids and/or spouse, etc.

family wage: enough to support a whole family by one breadwinner (traditionally thought of as an individual male; even with dual breadwinners you could still have an idea of how much a “family wage” would be that pays for the costs of the whole family)

living wage: enough to support an individual

minimum legal wage: legally allowed minimum to pay per hour (I don’t know how common it has been for a minimum wage to be enough to raise a family)

I do think it’s good to create a healthy culture that respects workers, but I don’t understand why being able to fire an employee is a bad thing

Imagine you’re not allowed to fire people you don’t like who you think are doing a bad job at work

if you try “leftists (or liberals) more likely to be mentally ill” in a search engine you see things like:

American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives, a trend that mental-health experts suspect is at least partly explained by liberals’ tendency to spend more time worrying about stress-inducing topics like racial injustice, income inequality, gun violence, and climate change.

https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals

Removed by mod

skating’s pretty frugal as well (rollerskates or skateboards)

handicapped spots

if they’re not being used, maybe they don’t need to exist?

I’ve seen people say it’s kind of weird people want the “handicapped” to be both treated equally and have special parking spots?