What you will read:

* * * Preface--talk about "the common good" * * *

There is a lot of talk today about "the common good".

* * * Can talk of "the common good" be found historically? * * *

One can find talk of the "common good" as a part of the Roman Catholic social doctrine of yesteryear as well as today. Excerpt from contemplative4.htm--


Roman Catholic social doctrine has been propounded in the letters of the popes, like a new strategy, for over one hundred years. It presents as if Rome were leading the cause for "the common good" and bringing all people together under the guise of "humanity" and "justice" and bringing "the Gospel" to bear on "social questions" and bringing a "global vision of man and of the human race"-- This is not the the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to save men from their sins. Christ died, was buried and rose again on the third day--THIS is the gospel that Paul preached (reference 1 Corinthians 15:1-8). The social doctrine/brotherhood of man/love gospel type gospel came from somewhere else. It is not the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; it is a false gospel. It is what Paul terms, "another gospel" (reference Galatians 1:6-9). The popes have promulgated a series of encylicals/letters through the years that deal with the social doctrine of the Roman Catholic church--the encyclicals build on each other and reinforce each other and the popes often even reference each other's encylicals--with only a cursory look, one can see this (and with a little imagination, one can imagine this social doctrine being preached from Romish pulpits from generation to generation.). The following are superficial excerpts from some such letters accessed through ewtn.com/library/indexes/encyc.htm [the encyclical sections have numbers] (emphases ours). The phrase, "the common good" is found in each one of these--


  • Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) (sometimes called, On the Condition of the Working Classes)--Pope Leo XIII, 1891
    (2. "We...speak on the condition of the working classes..."; "It is no easy matter to define the relative rights and mutual duties of the rich and of the poor"; 16. "...no practical solution of this question will be found apart from the intervention of religion and of the Church"; "...the Church improves and betters the condition of the working man...for this purpose recourse should be had...to the intervention of State authority; [the following is presumed to be one of her practical solutions--22. "...it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one [w]ills."] [this is a curious statement because in number four (4) of this same letter, the socialist contention is condemned but this sounds socialist]; 25. "...if Christian precepts prevail, the respective classes will not only be united in the bonds of friendship, but also in those of brotherly love. For they will feel that all men are children of the same common Father, who is God..."; 32. ..."***the common good***"); 58. "The offices and charges of the society should be apportioned for the good of the society itself..."


  • Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order)--Pope Pius XI, 1931
    (1. [gushes over Leo XIII's "On the Condition of the Workers," the above 1891 letter]; 2. ..."the social question"; 5. "... in equality in the distribution of this world's goods..."; 49. "...***the common good***..."; 50. "...a person's superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination.


  • Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)--Pope Paul VI, 1967
    (1. "The development of peoples has the Church's close attention, particularly...of those who are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilization"; 2. "Our predecessors...Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno and John XXII...--not to mention the messages of Pius XII to the world did not fail in the duty of their office of shedding the light of the Gospel on the social questions of their times." 3. "the social question has become world-wide"; 13. [speaking of "the Church] "Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees them not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full flowering, and that is why she offers men...a global vision of man and of the human race."; 21. "***the common good***" )


  • Laborem Exercens (On Human Work)--Pope John Paul II, 1981 (2. [section title--"In the Organic Development of the Church's Social Action and Teaching"], During the years that separate us from the publication of the encyclical Rerum Novarum, the social question..." "It is difficult to list here in detail all the manifestations of the commitment of the church and of Christians in the social question, for they are too numerous. ...the main coordinating center in this field is the Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace...", 10. "***...the common good...***"


  • Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (Twentieth Anniversary of Populorum Progressio)--Pope John Paul II, 1987 (1. "The social concern of the Church, directed towards an authentic development of man and society which would respect and promote all the dimensions of the human person...", "...beginning with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII [see 1891]; 2. "Part of this large body of social teaching is the distinguished Encyclical "Populorum Progressio" which my esteemed predecessor Paul VI published on 26 March 1967.", 10. "***...the common good...***"


  • Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum)--Pope John Paul II, 1991 (2. Although the commemoration at hand is meant to honor Rerum Novarum, it also honors those encyclicals and other documents of my predecessors which have helped to make Pope Leo's encyclical present and alive in history, thus constituting what would come to be called the Church's "social doctrine," "social teaching" or even "social magisterium.", 6. "***...the common good...***"


  • Caritas in Veritate--Pope Benedict XVI, 2009 (6. "justice and *** the common good ***"..., 9. "...human development...", "...the possibility of integral human development...", "Her social doctrine..." 11. ...the whole Church...when she performs works of charity is engaged in promoting integral human development, "authentic human development"; 12. "...the Church's social doctrine..."; 13. "In addition to its important link with the entirety of the Church's social doctrine, Populorum Progressio.... His was certainly a social teaching of great importance: he underlined the indispensable importance of the Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice, in the ideal and historical prespecive of a civilization animated by love." , "the social question", "...the Christian social message...".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself (ISBN:0-385-47967-0) has sections such as (emphases ours):

  • "The Common Good" (numbers 1905-1912).
  • "The Social Doctrine of the Church" (numbers 2419-2425),
  • "Economic Activity and Social Justice" (numbers 2426-2436),
  • "Justice and Solidarity Among Nations" (numbers 2437-2442),

* * * Public Works - Building Public Will for the Common Good * * *

I recently saw a website whose stated purposes was to get people to will for the common good (publicworks.org, title (top of the screen) "Public Works - Building public will for the common good" (6/19/14, all emphases here ours). A tab entitled, "Change Makers" states, "The Public Works engages individual leaders and organizations across America in the need to build public support for the common good and equips them with the tools to make it happen. Public Works and its growing field of trained partners are changing the public conversation about government for the better." It is as if Public Works is building an army to change things around here--at the root, our government. In browsing the website, one enters the world of the storytellers. See how many references there are to words like "conversation", "narratives", "storytelling" or even "stories".

The publicworks.org website has a "Framing Library" tab. The webpage at publicworks.org/framing-library is entitled, "Tips for Framing a Productive Conversation about Government". It says, "At Public Works, our insights and recommendations for a better conversation about government are grounded in the art and science of framing. Following are our core approaches to framing and our favorite readings on each topic..."


The traditional American way is

On the publicworks.org webpage, there is a tab, "Focus Areas". It lists "Government", "Economy", "Public Budgets", "Taxes", and "Race". In reading the website, it looks like they are trying to amass an army from amongst American citizens to demand change. It appears that they amass the army through talking. These are the storytellers. Let's look at quotes from the each of the tabs (Government, Economy, etc.) Notice the references to words like "conversation", "narratives", or even "stories". [Note: From this perspective, it looks like the stories get crafted, framed, spoken from high places, illustrated, and repeated, and, in time, the simple pass on and are punished. Stories and conversations can be powerful. Each of us will die today because Eve fell for the devil's story. They had a conversation.]

  • Under the "Government" tab we see, "...we can reclaim government as an effective set of systems and structures for accomplishing together what we cannot do alone by changing the conversation."

  • Under "Economy" we see, "...we can build support for government's role in the economy by telling a new economic narrative."

  • Under "Public Budgets" we see, "We need to foster a more practical and solutions-oriented public discussion about taxes and budgets."

  • Under "Taxes" we see, "Conversations about taxes often become heated exchanges..." [our note: I never noticed that. People can make up a supposition and then go on and on about it.] "We need to help people see taxes as a means to an end - a necessary part of how we achieve shared goals."

  • Under "Race" we see, "Our government...has ...been an important lever of change.... Both the societal challenges we face and our increasingly diverse society[1] demand that we remedy structual injustices[2] and assert that an explicit goal of a truly representative government[3] is to address inequities and advance equality and justice for all people." "...we need to recommit our nation to building support for an active government role in creating opportunities and reducing inequities."[4] [our note: it reads as if they want to build support for government intrusion, the people demanding such intrusion. A lesson on Stalin and the dictators is in order.]

These are only cursory notes. There is more to see at publicworks.org--like changing people's minds so that they want more government in family life--one article has a title tag that says "Challenges in Role of Government in Childhood - Public Works". The title of the article is entitled, "Backlash against the public role in childhood illuminates challenges". A quote from the midst of the gnawing commentary, "...we must help people see that government can and should be our shared tool for addressing any number of social and community challenges." It basically shows how to frame speeches in order to convince the people allow government intrusion into the relationship between parents and children. "Reframing this national conversation [our note: who was thinking about this so-called conversation but them? By its very nature, the family is a unit--father, mother, children. A man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife. They have children. The family is a basic unit of society.] will require persistent and powerful new ways of communicating about our shared responsibilities [our note: parent/child relationship is not a shared responsibility] and the public role [our note: government] in supporting the lives of children and families [our note: people often use sound-good words to get what they want]. At the bottom of the page, it says,

"This entry was posted...and tagged children, common good, community, eNewsletter, family bubble*, Feature, kids, public role, public values...."
*[page says this about the "family bubble": The reason Harris-Perry's words prompted heated responses is grounded in the conflicted American mindset [our note: conflicted?] when it comes to the role of government in family life. There is a deeply held cultural idea that all things to do with children are private family matters [our note: who does not know that? That is basic, I am alive 101.], and that any role for government or the "collective" is inherently an intrusion rather then an aide or support, to the "sacred" family unit [see what I mean when I say "gnawing" and grating speech]. The Frame Works Institute and others have described this as the "family bubble". A bubble can be easily popped, but it is not fragile bubble, it is basic; maybe "they" just want it to be weak as a bubble or know that, in many cases, the once strong American family unit is has been greatly weakened by generalized wickedness and societal evils such as naked movies, whoremongering, adultery, effemination of our men, and bastardization.]

* * * A New Type of Government, Outsourced? * * *

Reading the publicworks.org website reminded me of a book, "The Tools of Government - A Guide to the New Governance", edited by Lester M. Salamon with the special assistance of Odus V. Elliott, Oxford University Press, 2002. I purchased it from a thrift store. After perusing it, I wrote on the inside cover (edited for readability):

Propaganda machines. [I suppose that this is a reference to the vehicles and techniques I read about in the book.]

Tools of deception and mass brainwashing bypassing analysis and reasoning [and mature deliberation]. Just decrees stated to the emotions for acceptance. There has been so much overload of information in society that one cannot keep up with it [all] so one becomes accustomed to hearing a series of newsbites and accepting them.

A few notes on the book. The following is based on the Preface, p. vii.

An outsourced* government (basically parcelling out the different government functions to various businesses...businesses become the government (or whoever and bossing the businesses))?
Regulations outside of the legislative process?
The book notes "the extent to which actual public problem solving has come to embrace the collaborative actions of governments at multiple levels and both government and private institutions. THE VEHICLE FOR THIS has been the development and widespread adoption of a host of ALTERNATIVE INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC ACTION THROUGH WHICH GOVERNMENTs at different levels and private organizations--both for-profit and nonprofit--have JOINED forces TO MEET human NEEDS [our note: I may have used "to meet objectives" instead of "to meet human needs"]. Included here are grants, contracts, insurance, regulation, loan guarantees, vouchers, corrective fees, and tax expenditures. Taken together, THESE INSTRUMENTS HAVE ALTERED PUBLIC MANAGEMENT IN RATHER FUNDAMENTAL WAYS. Unfortunately, however, neither the training of public managers nor the popular discourse about government operations has yet come fully to terms with the resulting TRANSFORMATION.

* outsourcing is when the government allows some organization, etc. to perform roles that the government decides not to do itself. Outsourcing a cleaning company may be okay, but basically managing the day to day affairs of the government is a different story. The contractors do not answer to the American people and who knows how they may bypass the legislative process and nobody know it.

Notes on the Directory of Participants, pp. ix-xii

I made notes in the margins of the background/affiliations of some of the participants--lots of "Harvards" and "Johns Hopkins'". Also noted Federal Reserve, Fordham (a Jesuit school), Georgetown (a Jesuit school).

Note on page 1

Title: "I. INTRODUCTION: THE REVOLUTION THAT NO ONE NOTICED". I made some notes and highlights, and next to one paragraph, I wrote "rendered". Looking at it now, there is plenty on that page to cause someone to come to such a conclusion. One excerpt--
"governments from the United States and Canada to Malaysia and New Zealand are being challenged to be reinvented downsized, privatized, devolved, decentralized, deregulated, delayered, subjected to performance tests, and contracted out. [our note: is this not horrendous?]

* * * An Ad * * *

Someone tore the following ad out of a newspaper (I was told that it was the Washington Post) and gave it to me. The ad reads (caps theirs, underline and bold ours)--

In partnership with the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture

and the Archdiocese of Washington

Georgetown University

invites you to


Thursday, April 10, 2014

Join leading journalists, scholars, authors and

artists for panel discussions and performances

exploring how people of different faiths and

beliefs can enrich civic life in America.


Free open to the public


Look at the players at this event which deals with "civic life in America."

Fair Use

Why is it called "a courtyard of the Gentiles event?" Is this a reference to Revelation 11:1-2?

Revelation 11

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the COURT which is WITHOUT THE TEMPLE leave out, and measure it not; for it IS GIVEN UNTO THE GENTILES: AND THE HOLY CITY SHALL THEY TREAD UNDER FOOT forty and two months.

If this is a reference to Revelation 11:1-2, is this to say that the focus of the event is to amass an army of Gentiles that will tread down the holy city, the people of God? Is this a call akin to, "Come on gang, gather all around for some leading stories and performances and 'discussions' and get riled up (or pleasantly warmed, or some combination thereof) and learn to make your voices heard as agents of change--the more differences and demands, the better!" Why did the event organizers choose to denominate the event as "a courtyard of the Gentiles" event? Are the Jewish people not invited? Do the event organizers have a different event or plan for Jewish people? Did the organizers know that Jewish people would not be offended by this title which excluded them? How would the organizers know this?

An excerpt from The Seduced Opinion of the Multitude--

King James wrote a treatise entitled, "The Trew Law of Free Monarchies: or The Reciprock and mutuall duetie betwixt a free King and his naturall Subiects." In The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, King James said that next to the knowledge of God, the most necessary thing to be known by the people of any land is the grounds (or basis) of their allegiance to their established form of government.

Why did he say this?

People have been tricked over and over again through the centuries to rebel and change their government, to the "wracke and overthrow of sundry flourishing Common-wealths...". (Workes, p. 193)

And how are the masses of the people tricked?

Someone seduces their opinion to make them think that their way of government is not good--some seducer makes them discontent (in the case of the United States, seducers often go right past the parents and indoctrinate the children through television and the school system (e.g. textbooks that consistently find fault in American history and the Christian faith (Note: Roman Catholicism and its heresies, bloody Inquisitions, Crusades, etc. is not Christian although passed off as such these days) and magnify--in glowing terms--the history and legends of just about any and every other country of the world--as an educator, I have consistently seen and read of this practice). And then, in time, the discontented, broiling, ignorant masses begin to believe that

  1. better days will come if they get rid of the government that they have and
  2. that something better than what they have can and will be installed.

Then a universal rebellion erupts to overthrow the government (led by some traitors and/or some imported thugs with weapons).

King James says that all such rebellions are disastrous.

[1] [our note: "increasingly diverse"...how can society grow increasingly diverse? Is somebody regulating the amount of diversity? Aren't we all just people that happen to live in America as Americans? By such continued talk about diversity, are people being gathered into warring factions by the factious men George Washington warned us about in his Presidential Farewell Address?]

[2] [our note: "structural"? is somebody looking to change our fantastic infrastructure that made us free and a world power? If so, what do they intend on building in its place? I am a black person, and I love America and have received abundant opportunities here and would not want to live anywhere else on this earth. Somebody tries to keep talk about race really high and people are not seeing the true issues. The simple pass on and are punished.]

[3] [our note: we already have a truly representative government, people run for office and people vote for who they want to. We are group of states, properly represented. Is someone trying to break us apart as a series of factions and broken pieces instead of us all just being Americans? Is the diversity scheme actually to break us apart? Most people have come here for the "American dream", to safe and rich shores--not to flood our shores and act like they coming to take over our nation. It seems there are others who have taken it upon themselves to redirect people's attention to make them hostile to the land that graciously received them and the God of that land and the descendants of its amazing founders, who are called derisively called WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). Whom came up with that "P" part? Nobody is talking about the deeds of Roman Catholic Christopher Columbus, "the first slave trader in the New World." We do not hear about the atrocities he committed against the welcoming Arawak Indians (see The History of the Holy Bible In the United States of America-Volume I, pp. 19-20). Why do we not learn of excerpts such as, "According to The Conquest of America by Tzvetan Todorov, Columbus wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella [King and Queen of Spain] in 1496, 'We can send from here, in the name of the Holy Trinity, all the slaves and brazil wood which could be sold'" (ibid, p. 20)? Why did we not learn that the Roman Catholic Jesuits were slaveholders (The Truth in Charity: A History of The Archdiocese of Washington, p. 12)? Why did we not read The Secret History of the Jesuits (by Edmond Paris) and the words of Loyolan (Jesuit) Father Coughlin on Nazi Germany, "The German war is a battle for Christianity"? All we hear is continued assaults against the Protestants, while never hearing of their kind deeds towards their slaves and their dislike of slavery, e.g., George Washington's inuities left for slaves, etc.. We do not hear of their amazingness and how Protestant principles of liberty, "electrified" the masses. More than one historian has known this, and all us little children never heard a word about it. Somebody sent practically all the factory jobs out of the country so we have no summer jobs and almost no jobs for the manual laborer who does not want "STEM" activities, who is not interested in modern puzzles and riddles erroneously called "school", who does not want to go to "college", does not want a desk job pushing pencils and keys on a computer, that does not want to wear a suit and tie, that does not want to spend all of his childhood and much of his young adulthood in classrooms receiving a misnamed "liberal" education.

[4] [our note: the marketplace has always done that. It is sad to see closed up industry and bygone days when anybody could get a job if they wanted one--including that important factory work, Americans making American quality goods. Some of us remember soundly made American goods. The government can stop sending our jobs overseas through the various agreements and then we could have some jobs instead of being like a man drowning in the sea. Our students, our young people are crushed under the television, and the puzzles and riddles of a long and boring school system. Even babies and preschoolers can read and write. It is hard to believe that someone up top does not know this fact.]

Home for hundreds of articles