5 surprising elements of Catholic Social Doctrine

[St_Francis]

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.

Ummmm, I am not sure about this overall, but I would *definitely *argue that it is not up to the federal government (here in the US). To me, this is like saying that the government has to *ensure *that everyone can get a job.

I also don’t agree that the government is required to “regulat[e] the economy [to] mak[e] sure that whatever is produced is justly distributed.” In each case, it seems like a humugous task for the government, tasks which no human organization could possibly carry out. To minimize injustice, sure; to encourage just distribution, sure; but to accomplish what you are suggesting is simply beyond human effort.

I think that we need more mediating organizations at closer or more local levels, and I think that the government should be more of a referee than actor in areas other than normal government functioning–I am not a free market anarchist or anything.

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.

Y’know, I have been watching the government War on Poverty for decades, during which time I have also seen every-increasing involvement with schools, and in each case, I have seen the respective situations do nothing but deterioriate. At some point, it seems to me that all these “well-intentioned” government folks are either crazy for doing the same things over and over expecting different results, or maybe not-so-well-intentioned.

I do think that possibly what US conservatives characterize as “government is the problem” is more a lack of subsidiarity–that the problem is too much effort from too far away.

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.

Is this in response to something I wrote? I do not want in any way to stigmatize the poor, having both been there myself and knowling people who are poor, but I do sometimes put things badly…

 

[St_Francis]

In response to various allusions on this thread, I would like to ask if it is possbible that some people take it that those who argued for voting for a less-abortion-supporting party are themselves fully in line with US conservatism?

just wondering…

 

[jwinch2]

I believe that when one reads the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, he ends up with no doubt at all that the Church wants and expects these mandates and rights to be enforced by the secular governments of nations whenever private parties decline to follow them on their own. Just as one example, consider this **quote from the Compendium: **

“The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence”[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.”

Here you can see that the Church is saying that the exist of a “free market” and agreements freely entered into between parties is not sufficient to ensure the justice that the Church requires. Only secular governments have the power to intervene in commercial and economic transactions. Charitable organizations have no such power. Thus, without government mandates concerning all these economic justice mandates of the Church, they will all just remain empty rhetoric, just lofty hopes and dreams, just empty lip service about social justice and social solidarity.

The Compendium, by contrast, says the Church wants to “make a family wage a concrete reality.”

The Compendium says:

“Full employment” therefore remains a mandatory objective for every economic system."

Only secular governments can make anything “mandatory” on employers and employees. Charitable organizations have no such power.

Without government intervention, all these worker rights identified by the Church would never have any chance of being respected.

The Compendium says:

“Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income.”

Only the state can establish “social policies for the redistribution of income.” Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army do not set “social policies for the redistribution of income.”

The Compendium is stating that due to the inherent dignity of all persons, even if one willingly enters into a contractual agreement, that does not mean that the agreement is in line with God’s will. The act of entering into an employment agreement does not ensure that the agreement is fair to all concerned. For example, if that agreement is against the natural law in that it demands immoral or unethical behavior on the part of the employee or takes away from the employee’s God given dignity in that it does not pay a fair wage, then the contract is against God’s will. Secular agreements between men do not trump God’s law.

Its about God, not government.

 

[St_Francis]

I believe that when one reads the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, he ends up with no doubt at all that the Church wants and expects these mandates and rights to be enforced by the secular governments of nations whenever private parties decline to follow them on their own. Just as one example, consider this **quote from the Compendium: **

“The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence”[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.”

Here you can see that the Church is saying that the exist of a “free market” and agreements freely entered into between parties is not sufficient to ensure the justice that the Church requires.

Yes.

Only secular governments have the power to intervene in commercial and economic transactions. Charitable organizations have no such power. Thus, without government mandates concerning all these economic justice mandates of the Church, they will all just remain empty rhetoric, just lofty hopes and dreams, just empty lip service about social justice and social solidarity.

That is not at all what I see this saying. What I see this saying is that the free-marketeers’ idea that employees enter into agreements with employers freely is wrong, and that the fact that an employee is willing to accept an inadequate wage is not justification for the employer to pay only that wage; the employer must pay an adequate wage.

It is not absolutely necessary nor does it seem to be called upon by the Church for the government to mandate these things at all. There are other options, and looking at the Church’s teaching overall, it seems that these other options would be preferable. However, the government would be the “referee” in cases of disputes and the like.

The Compendium, by contrast, says the Church wants to “make a family wage a concrete reality.”

The Compendium says:

“Full employment” therefore remains a mandatory objective for every economic system."

Note that the Compendium does *not *say that this is a mandatory objective *for the government to accomplish. *

You are looking at this as an either/or situation: either the government does X or people will all be starving in the streets despite being employed.

Yes, that *can *be the case, and there are situations in which the government must intervene; however, the Church is not calling upon this to be the normal state of affairs.

 

[jwinch2]

.

What I see this saying is that the free-marketeers’ idea that employees enter into agreements with employers freely is wrong, and that the fact that an employee is willing to accept an inadequate wage is not justification for the employer to pay only that wage; the employer must pay an adequate wage.

Agreed. The Compendium is highlighting an area of moral responsibility for the employer and one that he/she will likely be judged against when our Blessed Lord comes again.

Note that the Compendium does *not *say that this is a mandatory objective *for the government to accomplish. *

You are looking at this as an either/or situation: either the government does X or people will all be starving in the streets despite being employed.

Yes, that *can *be the case, and there are situations in which the government must intervene; however, the Church is not calling upon this to be the normal state of affairs.

Agreed again. The doctrine of Subsidiarity would suggest the opposite.

To the OP. I strongly suggest going back to the Compendium and reading the teachings on the Principle of Subsidiarity. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#Application

 

[Ridgerunner]

Taken to the extremes suggested, the OP list would justify and, in fact enshrine, the Soviet systm of recent memory. Of course, a lot of people had to die in order to get it done.

Taking things out of their whole context, including historical and geographical context, can give these kinds of results. Does the fact that a handful of people essentially own everything in Mexico truly justify making people in the U.S. spend half or more of their lives supporting government bureaucrats?

And, of course, it can warp the consciences of may Catholics and has, with the result that we now have a “social justice” segment of the Church in the U.S. that ignores abortion, for example, so long as taxes are sufficiently high to discomfit high earners and so long as the government gives lip service to caring about “the poor” while actually never doing anything effective for them. Basically, it’s “Liberation Theology Lite”; the posturing without all the gunplay.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Let me respond first to two statements that you made that seem to betray a stance toward philosophy at odds with Catholic thought and teaching.

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.

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.

Grace does not destroy nature and replace it, and revelation does not destroy philosophy and replace it. Given that we all posses the natural light of reason we all have a philosophy including an economic one. “Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church’s method is always that of respect for freedom.” (CA, #46)

CST is not the same as a philosophical and economic program adopted by a nation nor does it substitute for these: CST judges these.

Back to philosophy at the end.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.
. . .
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.

CST does not offer a qualified endorsement of socialism as it does with capitalism. It condemns the welfare state, class conflict, and dependency relationships on government help. It also condemns the socialization of the means of production to the extent that they are largely out of private hands. So CST rejects far more under socialism than merely the extreme formulation of it you present. It says it accepts a regulated capitalism: it does not say it accepts a mitigated socialism.

But I agree there is a broad continuum falling between extremes and within that a range of acceptable options under CST–some more left leaning than others. Reasonable people can disagree over these.

European states need to be considered on a case by case basis: Germany is not Greece. But, really, to bring out European economies just makes my case. The standard of living in many of these mixed economies is artificially high with entitlement expectations far higher than the present economy of the country can support. One thing is sure CST doesn’t support the entitlement state and mentality as in Greece where the country is broke. The people know it’s broke. And they are still rioting as of yesterday for the free stuff from the Government they feel entitled to. The same mentality pervades Italy and Spain and France all of which have rioted over needed austerity measures. I have been to all three. Entitlement mentality in an entitlement society.

There were riots in Paris over moving the retirement age from 60 to 62. Same in Italy. Entitlement mentality in an entitlement society.

And debt in these European economies is equally high and unsustainable. Pope Benedict XVI responded to the question of why excessive domestic debt is wrong: “Naturally, because we are living at the expense of future generations. In this respect it is plain that we are living in untruth. We live on the basis of appearances, and the huge debts are meanwhile treated as something that we are simply entitled to.” (Light of the World, Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 47)

It still takes private ownership of the means of production, individual initiative, and a regulated free market to generate wealth.

Mixed economies are not socialism. And, true, there is a continuum. But back to philosophy

What is your philosophy?

Equality of Opportunity
• default view is teach a man to fish (how many he catches is largely up to him)
• merit based society
• correct root problems (education, attitude toward education, family structure or lack thereof) that keep some minorities–not Asian ones–from attaining the competencies to advance socially and economically
• government ensures a level playing field so people can rise to level that their talent and work ethic enable them to achieve
• social safety net to help people in need to get back on their feet and back to work when at all possible
• To the question “Why is there poverty?” the answer is: the question is pointless. We already know why there is poverty: we are born into the world with nothing–poverty is the default human condition. The real question is “Why is there wealth?” The answer to this when implemented will go a long way toward reducing poverty.

NET RESULT - generated the greatest wealth and elevation of living conditions the world has ever seen

Equality of Result
• default view is give a man a fish (taken from those who work to produce them)
• entitlement based society
• quotas and preferences to simply place some minorities–not Asian ones–in advanced statuses (competency is a secondary or tertiary consideration)
• government mandates and dictates equality of results
• “safety net” is a hurtful and offensive term–we’re all in this together; any person who wishes should have these free handouts from the government (taken from those who work)
• To the question “Why is there poverty?” the answer is: because rich people (who somehow miraculously have money) do not give it to everybody and therefore we have inequities.

NET RESULT - Greece, Italy, Spain, and France Today. Also California, Illinois, and almost Wisconsin.

The philosophy of Equality of Opportunity is far closer to CST than Equality of Result.

The key is to see that the question “Why is there poverty?” is pointless; and that the real question is “Why is there wealth?

 

[TEPO]

European states need to be considered on a case by case basis: Germany is not Greece. But, really, to bring out European economies just makes my case. The standard of living in many of these mixed economies is artificially high with entitlement expectations far higher than the present economy of the country can support. One thing is sure CST doesn’t support the entitlement state and mentality as in Greece where the country is broke. The people know it’s broke. And they are still rioting as of yesterday for the free stuff from the Government they feel entitled to. The same mentality pervades Italy and Spain and France all of which have rioted over needed austerity measures. I have been to all three. Entitlement mentality in an entitlement society.

Yep, what’s going on in Greece is that the middle class has joined the poor class in taking on this ‘needy’ attitude. Same thing with liberals everywhere… Here in America the difference extends even further with civil “rights”, where gays demand the right to marry, and it’s being granted in some places. Liberals are poor-favoring middle and poor class citizens. Conservatives are rich-favoring middle and rich citizens.

There were riots in Paris over moving the retirement age from 60 to 62. Same in Italy. Entitlement mentality in an entitlement society.

Youre wrong here. Middle class people are allowed to make rules. Besides, we don’t want to work until we drop dead. If anything, it’s the rich with their expensive messes who have an entitlement mentality… Both the rich and the poor.

…but not the middle class as a whole.

The key is to see that the question “Why is there poverty?” is pointless; and that the real question is “Why is there wealth?

No. The key is neither of those. The real question is “why is there moderacy?”.

 

[TEPO]

This world needs to dump both the Liberals and the Conservatives. It’s the Moderates who need to start taking a leadership role now.

 

[TEPO]

The moderates could take control of the entire federation of the United States since they are the majority. It’s time to build the new “Federalist Party”.

 

[SuperLuigi]

redistribution of income

which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.

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.

1. The relationship between labour and capital often shows traits of antagonism that take on new forms with the changing of social and economic contexts. In the past, the origin of the **conflict between capital and labour **was found above all “in the fact that the workers put their powers at the disposal of the entrepreneurs, and these, following the principle of maximum profit, tried to establish the lowest possible wages for the work done by the employees”.[601] In our present day, this conflict shows aspects that are new and perhaps more disquieting…

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. The planning capacity of a society oriented towards the common good and looking to the future is measured also and above all on the basis of the employment prospects that it is able to offer.

I wouldn’t get too excited over this. The catechism has a dim view on central planning, socialism and marxism and rightly so because the end-all, be-all is that the state takes the place of God, and we’ve seen what a disaster it is to even attempt that.

The Church calls for economic justice, but it should be done by private persons, charities and preferably not the government.

I don’t think anyone will argue that welfare, SSDI and Section 8 should go, but they have a point if too many people are on there.

 

[SuperLuigi]

This world needs to dump both the Liberals and the Conservatives. It’s the Moderates who need to start taking a leadership role now.

The center doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

The question is would people even be interested, because in every presidential campaign, the campaign managers tell the democrat guy or gal you aren’t electable if you run especially on a liberal economic record of higher taxes and more entitlements, whereas the republican guy or gal is told by frightened establishment consultants who may actually believe the democrats and Neal Boortz that if you are anything but conservative, especially on social issues, single women and independents will flee no matter what.

So they try and act like moderates.

“Moderates” in the electorate are usually liberals in disguise or fiscal conservatives who don’t understand that social liberalism always begets fiscal liberalism, as Jason Lewis would say.

I think what you’d be looking for is more along the lines of states rights. States rights really blunt the divisive social issues and while I will entertain arguments for a federal Constitutional amendment to defend the unborn and marriage (since the progressives insist on using the Federal Courts to trump the other two branches and trample state’s rights), I really think we need to go back to federalism.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Fr of Jazz
The key is to see that the question “Why is there poverty?” is pointless; and that the real question is “Why is there wealth?

No. The key is neither of those. The real question is “why is there moderacy?”.

In economic matters “Why is there wealth?” has to be fundamental because capital in human society on this planet starts with human work and without understanding how wealth is generated by it supposed solutions to poverty are meaningless.

In the politial sphere certainly a case can be made for your point.

 

[TEPO]

The center doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

The question is would people even be interested, because in every presidential campaign, the campaign managers tell the democrat guy or gal you aren’t electable if you run especially on a liberal economic record of higher taxes and more entitlements, whereas the republican guy or gal is told by frightened establishment consultants who may actually believe the democrats and Neal Boortz that if you are anything but conservative, especially on social issues, single women and independents will flee no matter what.

So they try and act like moderates.

“Moderates” in the electorate are usually liberals in disguise or fiscal conservatives who don’t understand that social liberalism always begets fiscal liberalism, as Jason Lewis would say.

I think what you’d be looking for is more along the lines of states rights. States rights really blunt the divisive social issues and while I will entertain arguments for a federal Constitutional amendment to defend the unborn and marriage (since the progressives insist on using the Federal Courts to trump the other two branches and trample state’s rights), I really think we need to go back to federalism.

Right, currently the third party trend has been pictured as a wishy-washy blend of conservativism mixed with liberalism -but what I’m suggesting is a distinctively non-liberal/non-conservative platform based on the interests of true “Moderates”, a real group that has been silenced now for a lot of years… In fact the original “democratic-republican party” that was established by the Jeffersonians was originally THE middle class party, while the “Federalist” party was for the Rich… There didn’t used to be a party for the poor and downtrodden like there is today.

If there were to be a new party developed for the middle class, it would have to be original. It would appeal to families in their 30’s and 40’s primarily, who care about issues such as keeping American jobs in America, lowering the retirement age, infrastructure, fiscal responsibility and other things that middle-aged, middle-class Americans care about for theirs and their children’s future.

Things that should be given less attention are gay rights, the tax status of the rich and infamous, the middle east and other unimportant issues.

 

[TEPO]

All we need is our own news media and some incentives and we could light all true moderates on fire. We can put a little more class and sense back into politics. We can stop the States from dividing up by our current bipolar system.

Us middle classers have been backed into the corner for too long, and like any dog who gets backed into a corner, sooner or later he’s going to bite. Right now the dogs are showing their teeth, and pretty soon, they’ll be licking the flesh off the bones of every elephant and donkey they can find.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Right, currently the third party trend has been pictured as a wishy-washy blend of conservativism mixed with liberalism -but what I’m suggesting is a distinctively non-liberal/non-conservative platform based on the interests of true “Moderates”, a real group that has been silenced now for a lot of years… In fact the original “democratic-republican party” that was established by the Jeffersonians was originally THE middle class party, while the “Federalist” party was for the Rich… There didn’t used to be a party for the poor and downtrodden like there is today.

If there were to be a new party developed for the middle class, it would have to be original. It would appeal to families in their 30’s and 40’s primarily, who care about issues such as keeping American jobs in America, lowering the retirement age, infrastructure, fiscal responsibility and other things that middle-aged, middle-class Americans care about for theirs and their children’s future.

Things that should be given less attention are gay rights, the tax status of the rich and infamous, the middle east and other unimportant issues.

Which party would that be? One party actively favors the rich, and the other party actively attacks the most vulnerable via abortions

Another thing is gay rights issues are only going to become bigger as time goes on. All it will do is polarize America further, so your moderate party would never work as social issues will continue to divide America further.

 

[TEPO]

Swiss Guy;1[0028989:

Which party would that be? One party actively favors the rich, and the other party actively attacks the most vulnerable via abortions

Heh, true -but it is the democratic party who “claims” to be for the poor and downtrodden, however most if us know better than that. The best solution for the poor is to support the middle class so that they can then become middle class too.
Swiss Guy;1[0028989:

Another thing is gay rights issues are only going to become bigger as time goes on. All it will do is polarize America further, so your moderate party would never work as social issues will continue to divide America further.

Isn’t it the democratic party itself though, with their media, who tries so painstakingly hard to popularize the gay rights issues…?

Put an end to that rotten party, and put an end to all their problems. why not let middle class Americans define what the issues are or are not. With that said, I don’t think that the middle class, in general, is all that supportive of abortion either… The middle class is made up mostly of Christian family units… Gay rights and abortion are both the issues of the “poor and downtrodden” which get popularized by the democratic party and their media henchmen.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was no democratic party?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It seems to me that if anyone is taxed one cent over 50% then that is simply too much! I say if you add up all of their taxes–national, state, and local if they pay more than half then that is too much regardless of their income.

Over half and you’ve crossed a line in my opinion.

We are to do our best to take care of the poor because the Lord has told us so–but more important than that is to do our best to take care of their souls so they will get to heaven.

While I’m not towards the left end of the spectrum I can respect people further left than me who are most interested in people’s souls–if they are interested in their souls then I am more apt to fully support their ideas about helping them materially.

I DO think that many who say they are for the poor–and they may indeed be for the poor–many do not really care about their souls–they’re really just materialists and don’t believe in God.

Catholics aren’t either/or but BOTH/and in many situations.

Jesus said “Seek ye FIRST the kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you.”

Jesus also said “the poor you will have with you always.”

He also said “To him who has much–much will be given–but he who has little–what little he has will be taken away.”

All these sayings do not detract from the fact that we should care for the poor–but they do indicate that taking care of the poor is an OUTGROWTH of seeking for God.

There will never be a perfect economic system.

And God will give us our daily bread–does God really care so much about all of us being rich? I think not.

There will always be inequality–no station in life is a bowl of cherries.

We should seek social justice but that shouldn’t be ALL that we seek.

Our spiritual life should be balanced.

Our economics should have a safety net but not an eternal safety crutch.

tTe Bible also says “He who does not work shall not eat.”

It also says that “the laborer is worthy of his wages”.

It also tells us to look after the widows and the orphans and the aliens.

Giving everyone in the world a materialist welfare check and artificially redistributing all the world’s wealth while killing the unborn and sanctioning gay marriage does not constitute christian utopia!

What our country needs are religious political parties–they have such things in Europe.

Gay marriage and abortion are just plain wrong period! You can be for helping the poor WITHOUT being for gay marriage or abortion!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Heh, true -but it is the democratic party who “claims” to be for the poor and downtrodden, however most if us know better than that. The best solution for the poor is to support the middle class so that they can then become middle class too.

Isn’t it the democratic party itself though, with their media, who tries so painstakingly hard to popularize the gay rights issues…?

Put an end to that rotten party, and put an end to all their problems. why not let middle class Americans define what the issues are or are not. With that said, I don’t think that the middle class, in general, is all that supportive of abortion either… The middle class is made up mostly of Christian family units… Gay rights and abortion are both the issues of the “poor and downtrodden” which get popularized by the democratic party and their media henchmen.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was no democratic party?

Definetely.