Common sense is much more important in today's world. Besides the university system has been a hotbed for liberalism for many years.

So you support a society in which the best is expected from each, and their own sure reward will be the adulation of others?  Well, I've never known anyone to go to bed with a stomach full of congratulations.  If a man cannot expect reward commensurate with his expenditure then what incentive has he to do anything for any reason?

God took between 4,000 and 50,000 years (depending on who you talk to) to take on flesh and redeem mankind.  Are you suggesting that His plan for man's salvation was slow and inefficient?

And I suppose it was the principle of equal representation, rather than heavy taxation, that ignited the American Revolution.  All political movement has its true motive in the economic.  If anyone say any differently, he's trying to sell you something.

That's a distinction without a difference.  You can't be a raped within reason.  It's a binary condition, either you have something stolen, whether means or innocence, or you don't.

Capitalism has never been condemned.

I'm sure common sense was a great treasure to the many millions in history that were crippled by polio, maimed by smallpox, and shuttered in leper colonies as living refuse.

Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them

Quote

Conversely, many people of lesser means, wish for those that have greater means to lose them

I've never felt any desire to see the rich despoiled. (except such groups as the Jews, who as St. Thomas Aquinas said are to be kept in perpetual servitude, should not be allowed to keep the money they earn by usury)  I don't have a problem with rich people having their money.  I have a problem when they use their money to attempt to oppress those poorer than themselves.  After all, if they have the perqs of money, and are bored with luxuries, they often have nothing better to do than to find weaker people to exploit or otherwise harm by the influence of their money.

The Popes do say that a more just distribution of wealth is necessary.

How one goes about it is a delicate matter.  What is certain is that the current system is totally corrupt and is designed to destroy the family life of gentiles who are not middle class or above, by economic pressure and other techniques of manipulation.

What is discouraging is the attitude of the upper middle class - supposed Catholics, towards those of lesser means who wish to maintain Catholic family life.  It is appalling.

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."  This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, and it is central to the concept of all forms of Statism.  The wage for a job is rightly determined by the time and effort required to execute that job, compounded by the degree of that job's specialization, which is determined by the number of individuals available to do it competently.  There is a reason that a mechanic specializing in GM cars is paid less than a doctor.

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

I also have my own economic policies favoring a market controlled by morality, not market forces, and I also am a protectionist.

Marxism does not support private property and I do; therefore I am not a Marxist. However I am against the liberal and capitalist views that emerged out of the Enlightenment which put the self-interest of the individaul over what is good for the nation.

That's where you have it wrong, and consequently what makes you a Marxist.  Marxism recognizes the difference between property of a consumable nature and property of a real nature, that is property whose utilization allows for the creation of wealth.  Marxism, in the abstract, permits the former but not the latter.

There can be, in practice, no limited form of private property.  Either you own something or you do not.  If you do, then no one should be able to take it from you except that you trade it, freely and without duress, for like value, in good or currency, or that it be taken from you in payment for the commission of a crime.  The fact of the matter is that the practice of charity is a work of corporal mercy and therefore has no relation to virtue of justice.  Indeed, justice is properly understood as the compact, between citizens and between citizen and State, that the rights of either shall be inviolate so long as the rights of the other are not infringed.  Welfare, or any other term for the disbursement of material goods for payment has not been given, is not an work of justice, but one of mercy.  Therein lay that essential distinction which makes such efforts outside the province of the civil state.  The justice of the State, understood in the context of the Catholic religion is thus:

1.) The foundation of government is establishment of Christ the King as the center of law and order, through the public and irrevocable establishment of the Christian religion, specifically and exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, and cooperation with the same through the legislation of laws that are in absolute accord with divine and natural law.

2.) Pursuant to first point, that the State exercises its power in that it acts punitively against those that violate the compact of civil justice, and that the purpose of established order is to preserve the life and property of the citizens over which it holds civil power.  Moreover, the exercise of civil jurisprudence, in proceeding from just law and extension unassailable moral authority, must be exercised dispassionately.

3.) To exercise, where necessary and always in accord with the precepts of just war, martial power for the safety and freedom of its citizens.

Now, no doubt you and others would argued that welfare, monetary assistance for the poor, et cetera, would fall under the purview of maintaining order, in that it prevents civil disturbance through alleviating class inequality.  In fact, it does nothing but exacerbate those tensions.  The redistribution of wealth in the form of welfare violates civil justice in two main ways:

1.) It legitimizes the right of one class of people to effectively ransom another class of people at gunpoint

2.) The undermines the entire basis of civil law and moral authority with regard to the government in that, by accepting that crime and other civil disturbance will be the inevitable outcome of not redistributing wealth, in is effectively paying its own citizens to not engage in criminal activity, thereby implicitly stating that its law is neither objective nor enforceable depending on one's state in life.

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

I am a nationalist therefore private property and business rights receed before what is good for the national interests.

Then you're a Marxist, whatever label you apply to yourself.  The only difference is that the gunpoint theft that you encourage politically is done in the name of God instead of the State.