5 surprising elements of Catholic Social Doctrine

[JimG]

How is a “just wage” to be measured?
How is “full employment” to be measured?

The government has about four different measures for unemployment. It’s hard to measure, considering that unless one applies for unemployment assistance, there’s no way to be counted.
And if one drops of the unemployment pay rolls, either by becoming employed or by maxing out benefits, one also drops off of the unemployment statistics.

Is a just wage one which is sufficient for subsistence?
My first job at a newspaper mailroom paid 75 cents per hour. Not enough for subsistence but what did I care? I was just a high school kid. Later the minimum wage was raised to $1, so we got that. Still not a great difference in total income for part time work.

Rerum Novarum considered a just wage one which was sufficient to support a family. That is, it did NOT envision a spouse having to go to work. On another of my early jobs, married men were paid more than single men precisely for that reason. They had a family to support.
That would be illegal now, although it would be in accord with Rerum Novarum’s social policies and probably a good idea.

One also has to consider that any minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. It just does; there’s no way around it.

One also has to consider that the Federal Reserve has a stated policy of making your earnings worth at least 2% less each year. That’s their policy. The Fed is more afraid of deflation than inflation. So they make your money continually worth less. Does Catholic Social Policy address that injustice to savers?

 

[Corki]

How is a “just wage” to be measured?
How is “full employment” to be measured?

The government has about four different measures for unemployment. It’s hard to measure, considering that unless one applies for unemployment assistance, there’s no way to be counted.
And if one drops of the unemployment pay rolls, either by becoming employed or by maxing out benefits, one also drops off of the unemployment statistics.

Is a just wage one which is sufficient for subsistence?
My first job at a newspaper mailroom paid 75 cents per hour. Not enough for subsistence but what did I care? I was just a high school kid. Later the minimum wage was raised to $1, so we got that. Still not a great difference in total income for part time work.

Rerum Novarum considered a just wage one which was sufficient to support a family. That is, it did NOT envision a spouse having to go to work. On another of my early jobs, married men were paid more than single men precisely for that reason. They had a family to support.
That would be illegal now, although it would be in accord with Rerum Novarum’s social policies and probably a good idea.

One also has to consider that any minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. It just does; there’s no way around it.

One also has to consider that the Federal Reserve has a stated policy of making your earnings worth at least 2% less each year. That’s their policy. The Fed is more afraid of deflation than inflation. So they make your money continually worth less. Does Catholic Social Policy address that injustice to savers?

Well stated.

Rerum Navarum did not anticipate a civil rights environment where the same wage would be required to be paid to all employees. A wage that is “just” as a family wage would effectively eliminate any legal employment prospects for teens and young adults, or for anyone who wanted to work just part-time.

In other words, any combination of both a “just wage” and full employment is economically impossible unless we are willing to sacrifice equal employment opportunity.

Think about what our current situation is. A single person earning minimum wage, working full time would earn a little under $1000 per month (after taxes). That’s not enough to live lavishly but for a single person, without debt or dependents, maybe with a room mate, the standard of living that person could afford (in many parts of the country) would seem quite comfortable to the people who first read Rerum Navarum. You could cover rent, food, utitilies and bus fare.

Now, I am not saying that this is an ideal way to live. But neither do I think the Church or Rerum Navarum set an expectation that the government is responsible for providing a lifestyle beyond basic subsistance. We are just playing a mind game to try to come up with a standard of living that makes us westerners feel good (tv, cell phone, money for the movies and new clothes) and then try to calculate a required wage from there.

 

[carn]

In reading the Vatican document “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” I was very surprised by 5 things.

You should not forget, that one has to distinguish between moral teaching or guidance on what should be aimed for in economics and how to achieve them.

The former is more or less binding, so for example society and catholics individually (as far as they are responsible) should strive for just wages, which are defined by being sufficient to support a family decently.

Now, if a specific catholic in a position with responsibility (for example a representative in congress) analyzes the situation and concludes that the best way to achieve just wages is to cut down the national state in all areas except defense and justice system and leave the rest to the states, communities, workers, employers and individuals, then such catholic is free and without moral error to pursue such policies. (He might not be free of errors of reasoning, but these are not sinful and the Church has no authority to decide that he is in error.)

 

[Jimmygill88]

I am constantly amused by some of the posts on this sire regarding Socialism. Atheistic totalitarian isn’t really the same as Socialisim as it is understood in Europe and parts of Cenrtal and Latin America. Payment of a living wage, ownership of the means of production, the right to free health care at point of delivery, a planned economy and state benefits to the old, sick, unemployed and under-employed co-exist very happily with freedom of religion. Britain nationalised rail, gas, mines, health railways after WW2 and the Queen as head of state was still Supreme Govener of the C of E. We didn’t notice blood on the streets or ‘swivel eyed’ Marxists declaiming totalitarianism. The decades following the nationalisation were in fact extremely prosperous with full employment following an interventionist Keynesian model

 

[St_Francis]

I am constantly amused by some of the posts on this sire regarding Socialism. Atheistic totalitarian isn’t really the same as Socialisim as it is understood in Europe and parts of Cenrtal and Latin America. Payment of a living wage, ownership of the means of production, the right to free health care at point of delivery, a planned economy and state benefits to the old, sick, unemployed and under-employed co-exist very happily with freedom of religion. Britain nationalised rail, gas, mines, health railways after WW2 and the Queen as head of state was still Supreme Govener of the C of E. We didn’t notice blood on the streets or ‘swivel eyed’ Marxists declaiming totalitarianism. The decades following the nationalisation were in fact extremely prosperous with full employment following an interventionist Keynesian model

During the war, the British economy was so devastated that food rationing remained in effect until the 60s, and the population was growing. Naturally the economy grew, it had nowhere else to go but up!

Unfortunately, it seems that the system will not be sustainable; just as we in the US are facing a situation in which there will be fewer workers per retiree, so is the UK. And health care costs are rising in the UK as well as the US, both because of rising numbers of elderly people and because there are more treatments available.

What is happening in Greece and Spain is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[carn]

Naturally the economy grew, it had nowhere else to go but up!

One also forgets, that in many countries after the war huge and massive austerity programs happened. Nobody called it that, just many military activity was stopped. For example in the US had 1945 as far as i know the public spending was about 45% of GDP, while 2-4 years later it was 18%. Thats about a 2/3 reduction of public spending.

In Germany starting 1948 massive economic regulations eestablished by the Nazis were removed.

Up until 1965-70 many European states had public spending ratios below 30%, the US probably below 20%.

This does not prove anything, but it shows, that one can have differing opinions about what caused the long post-war boom.

 

[bellasbane]

In reading the Vatican document “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” I was very surprised by 5 things.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

The 5 discoveries:

**DISCOVERY #1: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments establish Full Employment **for all able people of working age.

DISCOVERY # 2: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments establish a Just Wage.

DISCOVERY # 3: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments redistribute income in order to create more fairness.

DISCOVERY # 4: I didn’t know the Church’s openly talks about the existence of social classes and the tendency of members of the business class to be antagonistic towards members of the employee class.

DISCOVERY # 5: I didn’t know the Church’s openly talks about the need for governments to engage in economic planning for the whole society.

Bartolome Casas - you are right. The Church expects every one of these things and expects the civil authorities to do their duty to make sure they happen.

Catholics aspire to a system of social organization called Christian Corporatism:

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a “system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

“On the fortieth anniversary of the publishing of Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) advocated Christian corporatism as an alternative to capitalist individualism and socialist totalitarianism whereby people would be organized into workers’ guilds or vocational groups that would cooperate under the supervision of a neutral state.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_corporatism

Note three significant features of Christian Corporatism:

1. 
   *]It is oriented towards the common good.
   *]It is under the supervision of the state - that means that the role of government is to make sure that the system is fair and balanced.
   *]It is a THIRD political-economic system that is an alternative to both Capitalism & Marxism.
   
   The current income and wealth disparity in the United States is indicative of a system that favors the wealthy above the common good. In such a situation, the universal destination of goods trumps private property and the redistribution of wealth in the form of investment in what promotes the common good (e.g., education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection) is the correct and proper role of the state.
   
   The current euphemism for Christian Corporatism is “European Style Socialism” - Something you will hear many on the right deride as some sort of evil thing.

 

[St_Francis]

Bartolome Casas - you are right. The Church expects every one of these things and expects the civil authorities to do their duty to make sure they happen.

I don’t think you understand what Bartolome Casas is saying:
DISCOVERY #1: I didn’t know about the Church**'s demand that governments establish Full Employment** for all able people of working age.

DISCOVERY # 2: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments establish a Just Wage.

DISCOVERY # 3: I didn’t know about the Church’s demand that governments redistribute income in order to create more fairness.

DISCOVERY # 4: I didn’t know the Church’s openly talks about the existence of social classes and the tendency of members of the business class to be antagonistic towards members of the employee class.

DISCOVERY # 5: I didn’t know the Church’s openly talks about the need for governments to engage in economic planning for the whole society.

For each of these point, BC gives one or more quotes from some writings of the Church–not authoritative documents such as the original encyclicals from which much of our Catholic Social Justice teachings arise, but the CCC and the SJ Compendium.

Not one of the quotes provides evidence for his conclusion. Let’s just look at the first one:
BC writes: DISCOVERY #1: I didn’t know about the Church**'s demand that governments establish Full Employment** for all able people of working age.

1. Work is a good belonging to all people and must be made available to all who are capable of engaging in it. “Full employment” therefore remains a mandatory objective for every economic system oriented towards justice and the common good. A society in which the right to work is thwarted or systematically denied, and in which economic policies do not allow workers to reach satisfactory levels of employment, “cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace”.[625]

Notice that this quote from the CCC does *not *“demand” that the *government * be the one to *establish *full employment, and in fact does not even mention full empoloyment but “satisfactory levels of employment.”

When we look back at the document referenced, Cenitissimus Annus, we see that +Pope John Paul II wrote: The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both directly and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favourable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity, which will lead to abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the principle of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker.45

Again, no “demand” that the *government *somehow be the entity which *establishes *full employment.

 

[St_Francis]

Catholics aspire to a system of social organization called Christian Corporatism:

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a “system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

“On the fortieth anniversary of the publishing of Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) advocated Christian corporatism as an alternative to capitalist individualism and socialist totalitarianism whereby people would be organized into workers’ guilds or vocational groups that would cooperate under the supervision of a neutral state.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_corporatism

Note three significant features of Christian Corporatism:

1. 
   *]It is oriented towards the common good.
   *]It is under the supervision of the state - that means that the role of government is to make sure that the system is fair and balanced.
   *]It is a THIRD political-economic system that is an alternative to both Capitalism & Marxism.

1. 
   Note what +Pope Pius XI included in Quadressimo Anno: ¶95. …Yet lest We neglect anything in a matter of such great importance and that all points treated may be properly connected with the more general principles which We mentioned above and with those which We intend shortly to add, We are compelled to say that to Our certain knowledge there are not wanting some who fear that the State, instead of confining itself as it ought to the furnishing of necessary and adequate assistance, is substituting itself for free activity; that the new syndical and corporative order savors too much of an involved and political system of administration; and that (in spite of those more general advantages mentioned above, which are of course fully admitted) it rather serves particular political ends than leads to the reconstruction and promotion of a better social order.
   
   He goes on to explain the solution to this conundrum: ¶96. To achieve this latter lofty aim, and in particular to promote the common good truly and permanently, We hold it is first and above everything wholly necessary that **God bless it and, secondly, that all men of good will work with united effort toward that end. **We are further convinced, as a necessary consequence, that this end will be attained the more certainly the larger the number of those ready to contribute toward it their technical, occupational, and social knowledge and experience; and also, what is more important, **the greater the contribution made thereto of Catholic principles and their application, **not indeed by Catholic Action (which excludes strictly syndical or political activities from its scope) but by those sons of Ours whom Catholic Action imbues with **Catholic principles and trains for carrying on an apostolate under the leadership and teaching guidance of the Church **- of that Church which in this field also that We have described, as in every other field where moral questions are involved and discussed, can **never forget or neglect through indifference its divinely imposed mandate to be vigilant and to teach. **
   

   The current income and wealth disparity in the United States is indicative of a system that favors the wealthy above the common good. In such a situation, the universal destination of goods trumps private property and the redistribution of wealth in the form of investment in what promotes the common good (e.g., education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection) is the correct and proper role of the state.

   Do you have a source for “the redistribution of wealth in the form of investment in what promotes the common good (e.g., education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection)”? It sounds off-kilter to me but since I am not sure what you are referring to, it may just be that I don’t understand what this is about.
   

   The current euphemism for Christian Corporatism is “European Style Socialism” - Something you will hear many on the right deride as some sort of evil thing.

   First, US-style conservatism is *not *Catholic. It is just another branch of the so-called Enlightenment.
   
   Second, I am not sure that what currently exists in Europe can be considered Christian corporatism, nor do I believe that what currently exists in Europe is sustainable, as current events are making very clear.

 

[carn]

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a “system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

“On the fortieth anniversary of the publishing of Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) advocated Christian corporatism as an alternative to capitalist individualism and socialist totalitarianism whereby people would be organized into workers’ guilds or vocational groups that would cooperate under the supervision of a neutral state.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_corporatism

And if people do not want to participate in their respective group, e.g. workers not wanting to join labor union, farmers unwilling to join farmer group?

Note three significant features of Christian Corporatism:

1. 
   *]It is oriented towards the common good.
   *]It is under the supervision of the state - that means that the role of government is to make sure that the system is fair and balanced.
   *]It is a THIRD political-economic system that is an alternative to both Capitalism & Marxism.

1. 
   The first two are also features of Capitalism & Marxism, both think they lead towards the common good, both are supervised by the state (in capitalism the state is required to protect private property rights).
   
   A definition of a system, is only useful, if it allows to determine what the laws will look like.
   E.g. capitalism cleary leaves a lot or total freedom in respect to private property, socialism limits private property seriously in respect to means of production.
   

   The current euphemism for Christian Corporatism is “European Style Socialism” - Something you will hear many on the right deride as some sort of evil thing.

   Whatever Christian Corporatism is, its not what is going on in Europe. A minimum requirement of Christian Corporatism would probably be, that workers and employes are not forced under threat of imprisonement to pay for healthcare that also includes abortions. (Nice thing about capitalism is, that it doesnt force anyone to pay for abortion of third parties, only own abortions have to be paid for)

 

[Jimmygill88]

During the war, the British economy was so devastated that food rationing remained in effect until the 60s, and the population was growing. Naturally the economy grew, it had nowhere else to go but up!

Unfortunately, it seems that the system will not be sustainable; just as we in the US are facing a situation in which there will be fewer workers per retiree, so is the UK. And health care costs are rising in the UK as well as the US, both because of rising numbers of elderly people and because there are more treatments available.

What is happening in Greece and Spain is just the tip of the iceberg.

I’m still stunned by the level of ignorance about socialism and it always being regarded as Godless on these Fora

 

[St_Francis]

I’m still stunned by the level of ignorance about socialism and it always being regarded as Godless on these Fora

I think that either you do not understand the evil of Socialism as propounded by many popes, or that you are talking about a different thing altogether. Another thing to consider is that two forms of some social endeavor may look very similar but because of the foundation in truth be very dissimilar.

 

[Chrish1975]

God’s Social Doctrine

, and above all, God’s Pro-Life Doctrine!

The problem is that many conservatives Catholics believe that a living wage and health care insurance for the poor is immoral. If a person is paid a penny a day and lives in a card board hut that is providence as far as they are concerned.

 

[St_Francis]

The problem is that the conservative Catholics have aligned themselves with the republicans that believe that a living wage and health care insurance for the poor is immoral. If a person is paid a penny a day and lives in a card board hut that is providence as far as the republicans are concerned.

The problem is that the liberal Catholics have aligned themselves with the Democrats, who believe that a mother has a “right” to kill her unborn child. If the victim survives the abortion, allowing it to die alone in a closet somewhere is providence as far as the Democrats are concerned.

 

[St_Francis]

The problem is that the conservatives Catholics have aligned themselves with the republicans that believe that a living wage and health care insurance for the poor is immoral. If a person is paid a penny a day and lives in a card board hut that is providence as far as the republicans are concerned.

Did you see how offensive my previous post was? Does that show you how your post might come across to those who are not in lock-step agreement with the Democrats?

There are some people who align themselves with the Republicans (altho more usually with the Libertarians or the like) who believe that everyone is on his own, and if one fails, well, tough luck!

But the reality is that *nowhere *do Republicans proclaim that they believe that a living wage is immoral, altho some may argue that a federally-mandated minimum wage is a bad idea, which it is because among other things it results in a differential between races in employment, nor do Republicans in general believe that there should be no social safety net for those in need. I challenge you to show where the Republicans in general call for people to live in cardboard boxes and the other things you mentioned; having libeled half the people in this country, and over half of regular Mass-attending Catholics, you should be able to back up your words.

You might start by looking at the Republican Party Platform for this election.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

How is a “just wage” to be measured?
How is “full employment” to be measured?

The government has about four different measures for unemployment. It’s hard to measure, considering that unless one applies for unemployment assistance, there’s no way to be counted.
And if one drops of the unemployment pay rolls, either by becoming employed or by maxing out benefits, one also drops off of the unemployment statistics.

Is a just wage one which is sufficient for subsistence?
My first job at a newspaper mailroom paid 75 cents per hour. Not enough for subsistence but what did I care? I was just a high school kid. Later the minimum wage was raised to $1, so we got that. Still not a great difference in total income for part time work.

Rerum Novarum considered a just wage one which was sufficient to support a family. That is, it did NOT envision a spouse having to go to work. On another of my early jobs, married men were paid more than single men precisely for that reason. They had a family to support.
That would be illegal now, although it would be in accord with Rerum Novarum’s social policies and probably a good idea.

One also has to consider that any minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. It just does; there’s no way around it.

One also has to consider that the Federal Reserve has a stated policy of making your earnings worth at least 2% less each year. That’s their policy. The Fed is more afraid of deflation than inflation. So they make your money continually worth less. Does Catholic Social Policy address that injustice to savers?

I’m not sure if this post is addressed to me or Bartolome.

If it addressed to me, it further spells out points I was trying to make; and I couldn’t agree more.

 

[bellasbane]

Note what +Pope Pius XI included in Quadressimo Anno: ¶95. …Yet lest We neglect anything in a matter of such great importance and that all points treated may be properly connected with the more general principles which We mentioned above and with those which We intend shortly to add, We are compelled to say that to Our certain knowledge there are not wanting some who fear that the State, instead of confining itself as it ought to the furnishing of necessary and adequate assistance, is substituting itself for free activity; that the new syndical and corporative order savors too much of an involved and political system of administration; and that (in spite of those more general advantages mentioned above, which are of course fully admitted) it rather serves particular political ends than leads to the reconstruction and promotion of a better social order.

He goes on to explain the solution to this conundrum: ¶96. To achieve this latter lofty aim, and in particular to promote the common good truly and permanently, We hold it is first and above everything wholly necessary that **God bless it and, secondly, that all men of good will work with united effort toward that end. **We are further convinced, as a necessary consequence, that this end will be attained the more certainly the larger the number of those ready to contribute toward it their technical, occupational, and social knowledge and experience; and also, what is more important, **the greater the contribution made thereto of Catholic principles and their application, **not indeed by Catholic Action (which excludes strictly syndical or political activities from its scope) but by those sons of Ours whom Catholic Action imbues with **Catholic principles and trains for carrying on an apostolate under the leadership and teaching guidance of the Church **- of that Church which in this field also that We have described, as in every other field where moral questions are involved and discussed, can **never forget or neglect through indifference its divinely imposed mandate to be vigilant and to teach. **

What in your own words is the point you are trying to make with this rather lengthy quote?

Do you have a source for “the redistribution of wealth in the form of investment in what promotes the common good (e.g., education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection)”? It sounds off-kilter to me but since I am not sure what you are referring to, it may just be that I don’t understand what this is about.

What promotes the common good depends on the demands of the society and what is required to sustain a healthy & industrious population. My examples were just examples of what is required in modern American society.

First, US-style conservatism is *not *Catholic. It is just another branch of the so-called Enlightenment.

Second, I am not sure that what currently exists in Europe can be considered Christian corporatism, nor do I believe that what currently exists in Europe is sustainable, as current events are making very clear.

US style conservatism also has its roots in the “Great Awakening” and Calvinistic views of the elect and predestination. This theological system includes no imperative for the individual to do good works in order to attain salvation nor for the state to govern with a preferential option for the poor - to the contrary, the tendency is to stigmatize the poor (a.k.a, the 47%).

What currently exists in Europe is closer to Christian Corporatism than what we have in the United States - although Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a big step in the right direction. As for the situation in Europe, a great deal of the economic crisis they are facing is the result of unbridled Capitalism in the financial industry which devastated the world economy - so you can’t just point to their system of government as being the root cause of their economic problems.

 

[St_Francis]

What in your own words is the point you are trying to make with this rather lengthy quote?

I was trying to show that BC was wrong when he said that the Church “demands” that the government do this and that, which you had agreed with.

Your originally wrote: The current income and wealth disparity in the United States is indicative of a system that favors the wealthy above the common good. In such a situation, the universal destination of goods trumps private property and the redistribution of wealth in the form of investment in what promotes the common good (e.g., education, infrastructure, health and environmental protection) is the correct and proper role of the state", and clarified it thus:

What promotes the common good depends on the demands of the society and what is required to sustain a healthy & industrious population. My examples were just examples of what is required in modern American society.

As a general rule, people think of redistribution of wealth as “Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation’s wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.” Your putting several things which were not previously under discussion and which are not commonly related to your apparent subject was confusing.

US style conservatism also has its roots in the “Great Awakening” and Calvinistic views of the elect and predestination. This theological system includes no imperative for the individual to do good works in order to attain salvation nor for the state to govern with a preferential option for the poor - to the contrary, the tendency is to stigmatize the poor (a.k.a, the 47%).

Agreed. My point was that you seemed to be conflating US conservatives and Catholics who disagree with BC that the Church requires certain actions of the government.

What currently exists in Europe is closer to Christian Corporatism than what we have in the United States - although Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was a big step in the right direction. As for the situation in Europe, a great deal of the economic crisis they are facing is the result of unbridled Capitalism in the financial industry which devastated the world economy - so you can’t just point to their system of government as being the root cause of their economic problems.

OTOH, I think an argument could be made that the reason the European governments were able to provide so much for so long was that they were taxing the spoils of the unbridled Capitalism.

My overall point here is not that the Church teaches that the government *should not *do certain things, but that BC’s contention that the Church requires that the government *should *do these things is wrong.

 

[carn]

What currently exists in Europe is closer to Christian Corporatism than what we have in the United States

No.

Being forced to pay for abortions, being forced to rent rooms to homosexual couples, being forced to teach children in school homosexuality is normal and contraception is fine and being forced to employ as an organization of the Church people, who violate without regret Catholic teaching has nothing to do with Christian Corporatism.

 

[carn]

Cant be even close to christian corporatism, if the state is to be a watchdog in such system and the staff of the state may not be christian:
lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-maltese-catholic-faces-strong-opposition-after-being-appointed-eu