5 surprising elements of Catholic Social Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartolome_Casas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Something else from the Holy Father, for those that think Catholic charity is only a personal thing, not for governments:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis.
 
Not just Marxism. Pope Benedict said:

nytimes.com/2007/05/14/world/americas/14pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If one checks his other writings, it seems he is speaking of unrestricted capitalism, but still, it is clear the Church does have limits on what form of capitalism is morally appropriate too.
Crony capitalism and monopoly are what the Church would be against. The problem here is that Catholic democrats seem to think that only the republicans are capable of that.

They might want to look at the failing Detroit bailout or Solyndra.

Contrary to what a lot on the right say, we aren’t necessarily going towards Marxism, but are enveloped in crony capitalism, perhaps the worst example since Mussolini.
 
Crony capitalism and monopoly are what the Church would be against.
He says he is talking about unrestircted capitalism. If one reads the Catechism on social justice he finds that the important thing is to allow the man his dignity. In either extreme capitalism or communism, the dignity of the individual is lost.
 
Something else from the Holy Father, for those that think Catholic charity is only a personal thing, not for governments:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
I don’t see a mention of governments in the quote; governments can’t perform charity. I’m not saying I’m against all government involvement like many on CAF, but I think it’s wrong to say charity is for governments.

*At the present day many there are who, like the heathen of old, seek to blame and condemn the Church for such eminent charity. They would substitute in its stead a system of relief organized by the State. But no human expedients will ever make up for the devotedness and self sacrifice of Christian charity. Charity, as a virtue, pertains to the Church; for virtue it is not, unless it be drawn from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ; and whosoever turns his back on the Church cannot be near to Christ.

Rerum Novarum 30
*

I think the Holy Father is calling for society to involve more intermediary institutions to help with relief, not only because they are more personal and respond better to human needs, but also because they are more efficient. This implies more work for the Church or other associations such as unions to help out with relief. This would make sense since it is keeping with subsidiarity and solidarity, and his homeland Bavaria has a welfare system with much involvement for the Church and unions. 🙂
 
Crony capitalism and monopoly are what the Church would be against. The problem here is that Catholic democrats seem to think that only the republicans are capable of that.

They might want to look at the failing Detroit bailout or Solyndra.

Contrary to what a lot on the right say, we aren’t necessarily going towards Marxism, but are enveloped in crony capitalism, perhaps the worst example since Mussolini.
The Church is clearly against unregulated capitalism. From Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate, that is clear.

From Sollicitudo rei socialis (Pope John Paul II):

*the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.

It was inevitable that by developing antagonistic systems and centers of power, each with its own forms of propaganda and indoctrination, the ideological opposition should evolve into a growing military opposition and give rise to two blocs of armed forces, each suspicious and fearful of the other’s domination.

International relations, in turn, could not fail to feel the effects of this “logic of blocs” and of the respective “spheres of influence.” The tension between the two blocs which began at the end of the Second World War has dominated the whole of the subsequent forty years. Sometimes it has taken the form of “cold war,” sometimes of “wars by proxy,” through the manipulation of local conflicts, and sometimes it has kept people’s minds in suspense and anguish by the threat of an open and total war.

Although at the present time this danger seems to have receded, yet without completely disappearing, and even though an initial agreement has been reached on the destruction of one type of nuclear weapon, the existence and opposition of the blocs continue to be a real and worrying fact which still colors the world picture.
  1. This happens with particularly negative effects in the international relations which concern the developing countries. For as we know the tension between East and West is not in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the less developed one.
This is one of the reasons why the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. For from the point of view of development the question naturally arises: in what way and to what extent are these two systems capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or promote a true and integral development of individuals and peoples in modern society? In fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for the cause of a development common to all.*
 
Regulation does not imply justice nor does unregulation imply injustice.

Yes, there are many who, through unregulated capitalism would take advantage of others. However, there are just as many, who through regulation, in the guise of helping others, would do the same. The reality is simple. We do need regulation to prevent the loss of dignity among all of God’s people. However, the government should not be in the job of picking winners and losers, or propping one group or ideal up at the expense of others. Opportunity for all, does not equal preference for some.
 
I don’t see a mention of governments in the quote; governments can’t perform charity.
It was there, though he did not use the word government. Rather he used “polis” and “the political path”.

*This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. *

He equates political charity with personal encounter charity.
 
It was there, though he did not use the word government. Rather he used “polis” and “the political path”.

*This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. *

He equates political charity with personal encounter charity.
Is he saying that governments redistributing wealth is equivalent to personal charity? Or is he saying that those in high positions should be influenced by charity to secure the common good?
 
Is he saying that governments redistributing wealth is equivalent to personal charity? Or is he saying that those in high positions should be influenced by charity to secure the common good?
It is not a political document. Just like “government” is not used, neither does it mention wealth redistribution. What he is saying is that charitable actions that we take as members of a political group are equivalent to actions we take individually.
 
He says he is talking about unrestircted capitalism. If one reads the Catechism on social justice he finds that the important thing is to allow the man his dignity. In either extreme capitalism or communism, the dignity of the individual is lost.
That is the same thing as unrestricted capitalism.

That’s it is important to realize our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which is what gives **capitalism its conscience. **

Liberals & fiscal conservatives should think about that before assaulting religion in the name of their own selfish pursuits.
 
Is he saying that governments redistributing wealth is equivalent to personal charity? Or is he saying that those in high positions should be influenced by charity to secure the common good?
That’s not charity. Just look at Africa. Their poverty rate rose by 50% after Asia, North American and European “aid” went to them.

And how about that war on poverty? 16 trillion spent and poverty has gone up.

Private charity will always give you results, because it like anything else in the free market is subject to the natural forces that don’t play the favorites government does.

Government is corrupt. Always has been, probably always will be, and that is why our founders wrote the Constitution.
 
It is not a political document. Just like “government” is not used, neither does it mention wealth redistribution. What he is saying is that charitable actions that we take as members of a political group are equivalent to actions we take individually.
Morally, eh, even that’s iffy.

In terms of results, its a terrible idea for a political group to do charity, because a lot of the time its to curry votes, not to help.
 
I know this topic is drawing some disagreement. However, it is is Catholic social doctrine, not what everyone thinks for themselves is moral. I would never consider Pope Benedict “iffy”.
 
Something else from the Holy Father, for those that think Catholic charity is only a personal thing, not for governments:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html
To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis.

Wow! Thanks for that quote. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/color.gif

I believe that papal quote certainly clears things up a lot, and certainly refutes those who repeat over and over again that the lowest paid hardworking poor families cannot be helped by government legislation because such legislation allegedly is always and everywhere immoral in the eyes of the Catholic Magisterium. But its not always and everywhere immoral in the eyes of the Holy Church. The Holy Father, in directly talking about doing “charity” through “the political path” is clearly referring to government legislation. There is no politics pertaining to the Salvation Army or St. Vincent de Paul. The pope’s use of the term “juridically” is decisive. That refers to the secular government’s laws and the enforcement of those law by police, regulators and courts.

Now, it true, apparently, that legislation to benefit the poorest paid working heads of household is deemed always and everywhere immoral in the eyes of the official ministers of the Southern Baptist “magisterium” and the Mormon “magisterium” and the Ayn Rand “magisterium.” In a democracy in which everyone is not Catholic, Catholics will probably never get Catholic Social Doctrine fully implemented. We will have to compromise with non-Catholics, with heretics, with dissenters, with atheists. But that doesn’t mean we should deny Catholic doctrine just to get along with outsiders and be accepted by them in non-Catholic groups.

Thank you! What a difference it makes to have quotations from authoritative Catholic sources! That truly provides what these Catholic Answers Forums were set up to provide.
 
It is not a political document. Just like “government” is not used, neither does it mention wealth redistribution. What he is saying is that charitable actions that we take as members of a political group are equivalent to actions we take individually.
Right. So basically he’s saying we are called
To be charitable at all times
 
Right. So basically he’s saying we are called
To be charitable at all times
Yes, corporately and individually. I think it fair to point out that hand out charity is not the only way one can approach helping the poor. In fact, I do not think it is not the best way, except in cases where people need temporary help, or those who can not see after their own needs in on their own. It is far more suitable to the dignity of man to help people earn their own daily bread. But in the end, one of our considerations while voting needs to be needy, though we may disagree what is best.

Likewise, those who think their civic duty toward the poor and needy is sufficient, that they also do not need to engage in personal charity, are sadly mistaken. Give me a politician that is generous with their personal wealth, and I will be more likely to believe them sincerity on what they want to do with our money.
 
Yes, corporately and individually. I think it fair to point out that hand out charity is not the only way one can approach helping the poor. In fact, I do not think it is not the best way, except in cases where people need temporary help, or those who can not see after their own needs in on their own. It is far more suitable to the dignity of man to help people earn their own daily bread. But in the end, one of our considerations while voting needs to be needy, though we may disagree what is best.

Likewise, those who think their civic duty toward the poor and needy is sufficient, that they also do not need to engage in personal charity, are sadly mistaken. Give me a politician that is generous with their personal wealth, and I will be more likely to believe them sincerity on what they want to do with our money.
Alright, it seems like I was fighting a straw man. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top