5 surprising elements of Catholic Social Doctrine

[Jerry-Jet]

Socialism is wrong. Pure capitalism unrestrained is wrong.

Has the Catholic Church ever taught what is the ideal point between the two?

At what point along the continuum does one get to wrongness?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Socialism is wrong. Pure capitalism unrestrained is wrong.

Has the Catholic Church ever taught what is the ideal point between the two?

At what point along the continuum does one get to wrongness?

The CC condems socialism outright on numerous occasions. It does not do so with capitalism. It accepts regulated capitalism including private ownership of the means of production, indvidual and group economic initiative, a regulated but free market, the importance of competition, and the legitimacy of profit. For citations see my post above Nov 11, '12, 7:27 pm.

When private ownership moves too close to collectivism; individual economic initiative is impeded; markets manipulated by the government; profits confiscated for forced governmental redistribution, you’re crossing the line towards socialism. When private ownership is not balanced by responsible use (by individuals and private entities primarily); when industry and markets are utterly unregulated (i.e., monopolies, false advertizing, unhealthy/unsafe products, currency manipulation); when large economic entities are utterly callous and unconcerned about social and environment implications, you’re moving to unbridled capitalism.

 

[bellasbane]

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.

I think we are agreeing on most points. However, I do think the Church expects the government to take a active role in regulating the economy and making sure whatever is produced is justly distributed across the board. This doesn’t mean “equally” distributed, but distributed in a manner that provides all members of society with a decent standard of living and the means to be productive.

Let’s take the example of a single mother who needs childcare in order to be able to go to work. While there are many options for providing her with this - it is ultimately up to the state to make sure she gets it - somehow.

I think we get into trouble when well-intended state policies end up having unintended negative consequences. This will happen and when it does, we should not say “government is the problem” as do many American conservatives. The solution is not to eliminate government policies, but to strive for ones that work.

I also think that stigmatizing the poor is a bad strategy, because it also leads to unintended negative consequences - like disrespect for the dignity of every person. American conservatives often fall into this trap - and it doesn’t just hurt them (e.g., 2012 election) but it hurts the entire nation, because the backlash it creates undermines the entire conservative message. This is not a good thing, because the “sweet spot” of good government lies in the balance between the two ideological extremes.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

It has its roots in Christian origin, but has been taken over by secularism. (West) Germany I think is a great example of how it made its economy and welfare system based on Christian principles, but it is starting to struggle as giving and faith are taking a turn for the worst. Hence, Europe now has a bunch of welfare states.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

1. Governments are to ensure that there is full employment. That is a big difference from governments establishing full employment.
2. See above.
3. To an extent. But it is more about ensuring rather than establishing. The principle of subsidiarity is key. Don’t forget about it when you hammer home solidarity.
4. Where have you been? The Church condemns class warfare in both directions.
5. Very misleading. What you say can imply socialism. The government has a role of overseeing the economy that it works for the common good, but not controlling it.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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

Nice.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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.

1. 
   Nice. Thanks to you. Perhaps I am biased, but I think you are very wise, very knowledgeable, very Catholic, very CHRISTIAN. I would vote for you for President today.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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

Nice.

This dovetails with how capitalism is always assumed to be Christian and not godless.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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.

To me, what you say is true, and is related to the fact that the Republican Party and the Political Conservative Movement as a whole is really dominated NOT by Catholics but by Evangelicals and Mormons.

Unlike the Catholics loyal to the Catholic Church, Evangelicals and Mormons HAVE NO SOCIAL DOCTRINE. They don’t read the encyclicals of the Pope,or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

They just read the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, and go along with whatever Pat Robertson says or the Mormon “prophet” says about economic matters.

For their entire histories, Mormons and Evangelicals have just gone along with the pure Laissez Faire economic doctrine that has traditionally been dominant in the USA since its Founding and during its colonial period under Great Britain.

And so, when Catholics get involved in Secular Conservative Political Activism, they really have no choice but to go along with the pure Laissez Faire economic doctrine that the Evangelicals and Mormons consider to be a holy doctrine of divine revelation. Otherwise, they can get nowhere in politics as a political Conservative.

This is also why so many political Conservatives are such huge fans of Ayn Rand’s writings, even though she was also pro-atheism, was pro-abortion rights, and was pro-easy divorce rights. Political Conservatism in the USA is mainly a pro-Laissez Faire economics movement, an anti-Socialism (including even all the New Deal legislation) movement, and is only secondarily and minimally a pro-Life movement or a pro-traditional family movement. You can tell that by who infrequently political conservatives talk about abortion laws and easy-instant no-fault divorce laws.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

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

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.

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.

Molto buono!

 

[TEPO]

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.

1. 
   I don’t know about your last sentence, but I will say that it’s the governments responsibility to either ensure that there are enough jobs for everyone or to at least help those who cannot find work through welfare programs…
   
   Now if all our jobs are being sent overseas, then those corporations should be taxed a percentage equal to the amount of wages lost here -and that money should be handed over to the Americans who lost out on those job opportunities. Corporations would either then relocate outside of the States or would just simply hire Americans… But 9 times out of ten, they would choose to just hire Americans because taxes are higher everywhere else anyways, and where they’re not -the governments there are probably undemocratic and unfriendly toward private corporations.
   
   That would be a step in the right direction towards implementing “Christian corporatism” in my opinion.

 

[TEPO]

When our corporations deny the citizens of their “natural interests and social functions” by outsourcing, they have essentially disregarded the basic fundamentals of Christian Corporatism.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The CC condems socialism outright on numerous occasions. It does not do so with capitalism. It accepts regulated capitalism including private ownership of the means of production, indvidual and group economic initiative, a regulated but free market, the importance of competition, and the legitimacy of profit.

The above text** uses the term “socialism” **in a very specific way, as an economic system in which there is NO private ownership of the means of production, NO individual and group economic initiative, NO free market, NO economic competition, and NO legitimacy of profit. To me, in today’s parlance, such a system is better termed “Communist” or “Marxist-Leninist” or “Maoist.”

Today, there are many “mixed economies.” The nations of northern Europe have stronger and richer economies on a per capital basis, and a higher average standard of living, than does the USA, despite a whole host of “socialist” programs and laws, including a higher income tax rate, including a very strong social safety net, including a very high minimum wage.

To some in the USA today, the new programs brought into being in the FDR New Deal era turned the USA into a Socialist nation. Their aim is to repeal the New Deal, and thus rid the American nation of “Socialism.”

But since there are forms of government that are fully democratic and yet have many “socialistic” programs and elements and yet conform fully to Catholic Social Teaching, it cannot really he said that the Catholic Church always condemns “Socialism,” unless you always mean, by “Socialism,” the economic-political systems they had under Stalin and Mao.

Thus, it seems logical to me that what the Church condemns is unregulated, extreme Capitalism and unregulated, extreme Socialism. Not all Socialism.

The Catholic Church does NOT condemn the strong social safety net programs and the high taxation of the nations of northern Europe, since those nations have retained private property and free enterprise.

Even France, which is not in northern Europe, has a stronger and better economy that the USA on a per capital basis. Its on the Internet, look it up, its true!

To me, since the term “Socialism” is being used in so many conflicting ways nowadays, it would be better for the speaker (unless his or her intention is to mislead and confuse), to always be very clear about what he or she is talking about. If he or she considers all the economic policies of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, as well as Obama, to be “Socialism,” if he or she considers the current Social Security program and the current Medicare programs to be “evil” and immoral Socialism that must be repealed at once, then he or she should say so. If he considers the Antitrust Laws ushered in by President Theodore Roosevelt to be evil Socialism that must be eliminated, he or she should say so (some Laissez Faire folks do want to get rid of Antitrust Laws, since they are such severe governmental interventions into the Free Market.)

In short, I just wish people would DEFINE THEIR TERMS.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the term “liberal” was used to attack Democrats. But I think conservatives found that that term wasn’t working so well anymore. So when Barack Obama got elected, they started using “Socialist.” Not that anything had changed. Obama, in reality, is just a standard liberal just like Bill and Hillary Clinton, just like Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, etc. But “Socialism” harkens to the USSR and the TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIPS of Stalin and Mao. It is a SCARY term. It even brings to mind Hitler, since his party were the “National Socialists.” But all this is just a scare tactic encoded into rhetoric. Its a lot like the Birther movement, which is a huge political lie designed to inflict damage on Obama and the Democrat party. The Birther movement is very similar to the phony Protocols of the Elders of Zion. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

Some people believe in “all’s fair in love and war,” and they see politics as a form of war (von Clausewitz said politics is war by other means), and so they feel that ANY rhetoric and any means is righteous if goal is righteous. If calling Obama a “Socialist” instead of a liberal, if falsely accusing accusing him to be ineligible to be president, helps HINDER his success in office, then it is all good. But Catholic Moral Doctrine does not approve that.

All in all, I am not a supporter of Liberals or of Laissez Faire Conservatives.

I want all the nations of the earth to repent and adopt Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine and Catholic Social Doctrine! I want Jesus Christ to RULE.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I think we are agreeing on most points. However, I do think the Church expects the government to take a active role in regulating the economy and making sure whatever is produced is justly distributed across the board. This doesn’t mean “equally” distributed, but distributed in a manner that provides all members of society with a decent standard of living and the means to be productive.

Let’s take the example of a single mother who needs childcare in order to be able to go to work. While there are many options for providing her with this - it is ultimately up to the state to make sure she gets it - somehow.

I think we get into trouble when well-intended state policies end up having unintended negative consequences. This will happen and when it does, we should not say “government is the problem” as do many American conservatives. The solution is not to eliminate government policies, but to strive for ones that work.

I also think that stigmatizing the poor is a bad strategy, because it also leads to unintended negative consequences - like disrespect for the dignity of every person. American conservatives often fall into this trap - and it doesn’t just hurt them (e.g., 2012 election) but it hurts the entire nation, because the backlash it creates undermines the entire conservative message. This is not a good thing, because the “sweet spot” of good government lies in the balance between the two ideological extremes.

You are another Solomon!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t know about your last sentence, but I will say that it’s the governments responsibility to either ensure that there are enough jobs for everyone or to at least help those who cannot find work through welfare programs…

Now if all our jobs are being sent overseas, then those corporations should be taxed a percentage equal to the amount of wages lost here -and that money should be handed over to the Americans who lost out on those job opportunities. Corporations would either then relocate outside of the States or would just simply hire Americans… But 9 times out of ten, they would choose to just hire Americans because taxes are higher everywhere else anyways, and where they’re not -the governments there are probably undemocratic and unfriendly toward private corporations.

That would be a step in the right direction towards implementing “Christian corporatism” in my opinion.

Part of the problem is companies have no sense of helping their home nation; it’s all about $. The fix? Rhine capitalism, aka social market economy.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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

1. It’s known as social democracy, aka moderate socialism, and if Christianized often related to Liberation theology.
2. Keynesianism is about the short term and in the long run leads to a welfare state and deficits.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

---

I don’t know what to say to all of that. I agree with all those documents too. I too am a Catholic disciple of Jesus Christ, not an Ayn Rand disciple or a Karl Marx disciple.

What? You’re not a disciple of Marx? Don’t tell me you dislike Das Kapital also.

 

[TEPO]

Part of the problem is companies have no sense of helping their home nation; it’s all about $. The fix? Rhine capitalism, aka social market economy.

Every entity needs to be held accountable to the standards set in place by a higher authority. For corporations, they are held accountable by the laws of the government, the government by the laws of God…

For us individuals, it’s the laws of nature which include everything including God and what He has set into place for us. If my calling in life was to build ‘trinkets’ then I should be able to fulfill that calling… I find it hard to believe that there are 50 times more Chinese citizens that were called to build trinkets than there are American citizens…

I think we’re breaking the laws of nature here, and the government needs to take a stand.

 

[TEPO]

Oh, and here’s another idea from by bucket list… Whe do we only have two parties in a three class society…? One for the rich and one for the poor…?

It only makes sense that the middle class should have their own party, but oh wait I forgot… The middle class is the largest of all three classes, so it boils down to the old ‘divide and conquer’ ideology…

Think about it!

 

[TEPO]

Now what is it that the middle class would generally want or not want that requires it to be divided an conquered?

Well, I want to retire earlier -like at 55 rather than 65 or 70 (young people need jobs too)
I want social security when I get older
I don’t care for globalization especially ‘outsourcing’
I’m tired of going to war and ‘nation building’
I want more job options
I don’t want to argue about ‘gay’ things anymore (gay marriage is stupid)
…just to name a few.

----all these things stand in the way of achieving globalization and with globalization, the poor here will suffer so the middle class has to give all that it has to both the rich and the poor. The middle class is being gutted and we’re just letting it happen.