Can a Catholic have some socialist ideas?

[Timi_Celcer]

I know the Church has condemned socialism but there are some aspects of it that i find right.

Im from Slovenia, a former communist, socialist country(Yugoslavia). Before communism, 97% of the entire Slovenian population was Catholic. We Slovenians were known for being farmers, always supressed and ruled by Austrians, Germans, Serbs and others. We had one langague, one culture. Some great Slovenian men wanted to make Slovenes united throught history, but once again our small farmer nation was suppressed. After World war I we splited away from Austria and founded a new country called country of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Kingdom of Serbia joined and became the head of this newly created kingdom. Once again we were ruled, this time by the Serbians. The country was later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After World war II, a communist party under Josip Broz Tito came and started to suppress Catholics. Tito died in 1980 but we only reached independence in 1991. Finnally we were free. But the problem was that the same communists who were in the communist party in former Yugoslavia wanted to took control in the new democratic republic. But there was one man who opposed that. His name was Ivan Kramberger. He was a Catholic, raised by farmers, a chimney sweep by profession. A humble true Slovenian who fought the communist that wanted to rule in the new country. He was a cleaner in Germany for a time and there he improved the dialysis machine and made a real fortune. He gave the money to poor people in Slovenia. At the 1990 presidental election he ran for a president. He was know for his public speeches about how the working class of Slovenia should rise up against communists. He wanted to gave the land to the people and take from the rich what they don’t deserve. He wanted “communist” newspapers to fall. He fought for the people. These ideas were all socialist ideas but i don’t see any wrong in them. The communist have been exploiting us for too long. At one of his rallies he was assasinated. They(police) say some drunk man killed him from 63 meters with a hunting gun but alot of people think that the communist killed him because he was in their way. Kramberger even said once, if you don’t vote for me and vote for the communist, than its going to be even worse, the richer will get richer and poorer will get poorer. And now 20 years after Kramberger, out politics is completely corrupted, they(politicians) steal from us and there have been several large riots. Our former prime minister was even put to jail because of corruption. Kramberger was a devout Catholic and he supported some socialist ideas that i also find right. Do you think im going against the Church for supporting some socialist ideas. Of curse i am not for socialism just some of its ideas sound right to me.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I know the Church has condemned socialism but there are some aspects of it that i find right.

Im from Slovenia, a former communist, socialist country(Yugoslavia). Before communism, 97% of the entire Slovenian population was Catholic. We Slovenians were known for being farmers, always supressed and ruled by Austrians, Germans, Serbs and others. We had one langague, one culture. Some great Slovenian men wanted to make Slovenes united throught history, but once again our small farmer nation was suppressed. After World war I we splited away from Austria and founded a new country called country of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Kingdom of Serbia joined and became the head of this newly created kingdom. Once again we were ruled, this time by the Serbians. The country was later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After World war II, a communist party under Josip Broz Tito came and started to suppress Catholics. Tito died in 1980 but we only reached independence in 1991. Finnally we were free. But the problem was that the same communists who were in the communist party in former Yugoslavia wanted to took control in the new democratic republic. But there was one man who opposed that. His name was Ivan Kramberger. He was a Catholic, raised by farmers, a chimney sweep by profession. A humble true Slovenian who fought the communist that wanted to rule in the new country. He was a cleaner in Germany for a time and there he improved the dialysis machine and made a real fortune. He gave the money to poor people in Slovenia. At the 1990 presidental election he ran for a president. He was know for his public speeches about how the working class of Slovenia should rise up against communists. He wanted to gave the land to the people and take from the rich what they don’t deserve. He wanted “communist” newspapers to fall. He fought for the people. These ideas were all socialist ideas but i don’t see any wrong in them. The communist have been exploiting us for too long. At one of his rallies he was assasinated. They(police) say some drunk man killed him from 63 meters with a hunting gun but alot of people think that the communist killed him because he was in their way. Kramberger even said once, if you don’t vote for me and vote for the communist, than its going to be even worse, the richer will get richer and poorer will get poorer. And now 20 years after Kramberger, out politics is completely corrupted, they(politicians) steal from us and there have been several large riots. Our former prime minister was even put to jail because of corruption. Kramberger was a devout Catholic and he supported some socialist ideas that i also find right. Do you think im going against the Church for supporting some socialist ideas. Of curse i am not for socialism just some of its ideas sound right to me.

I do not believe you are going against the Church.

Good luck to you!

 

[JRKH]

There is a big difference between having “socialist ideas” and being a “socialist”.
The Church herself support and espouses many socialist ideas - things like care for the poor and sick and elderly, respect for life, duty of each of us to our fellow man etc.

Where the difference comes is often how best to apply these things. The Church is teaching to our hearts. The things that we, as individuals and as a group called “the Church”, need to embrace, internalize and live out.

Where the Church differs with the “socialists” is more in the matters of how such things are implemented. Who is going to control them and what foundations the “social programs” rest. In other words, on what basis will various decisions be made.

Any and all forms of government and economic systems will have some corruption in them…for no other reason than because people are imperfect. We all are, to one extent or another, corrupt.

So - no you are not necessarily going against Church teaching by supporting certain socialist ideas.

Peace
James

 

[Jon_S_1]

I know the Church has condemned socialism but there are some aspects of it that i find right.

Im from Slovenia, a former communist, socialist country(Yugoslavia). Before communism, 97% of the entire Slovenian population was Catholic. We Slovenians were known for being farmers, always supressed and ruled by Austrians, Germans, Serbs and others. We had one langague, one culture. Some great Slovenian men wanted to make Slovenes united throught history, but once again our small farmer nation was suppressed. After World war I we splited away from Austria and founded a new country called country of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Kingdom of Serbia joined and became the head of this newly created kingdom. Once again we were ruled, this time by the Serbians. The country was later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After World war II, a communist party under Josip Broz Tito came and started to suppress Catholics. Tito died in 1980 but we only reached independence in 1991. Finnally we were free. But the problem was that the same communists who were in the communist party in former Yugoslavia wanted to took control in the new democratic republic. But there was one man who opposed that. His name was Ivan Kramberger. He was a Catholic, raised by farmers, a chimney sweep by profession. A humble true Slovenian who fought the communist that wanted to rule in the new country. He was a cleaner in Germany for a time and there he improved the dialysis machine and made a real fortune. He gave the money to poor people in Slovenia. At the 1990 presidental election he ran for a president. He was know for his public speeches about how the working class of Slovenia should rise up against communists. He wanted to gave the land to the people and take from the rich what they don’t deserve. He wanted “communist” newspapers to fall. He fought for the people. These ideas were all socialist ideas but i don’t see any wrong in them. The communist have been exploiting us for too long. At one of his rallies he was assasinated. They(police) say some drunk man killed him from 63 meters with a hunting gun but alot of people think that the communist killed him because he was in their way. Kramberger even said once, if you don’t vote for me and vote for the communist, than its going to be even worse, the richer will get richer and poorer will get poorer. And now 20 years after Kramberger, out politics is completely corrupted, they(politicians) steal from us and there have been several large riots. Our former prime minister was even put to jail because of corruption. Kramberger was a devout Catholic and he supported some socialist ideas that i also find right. Do you think im going against the Church for supporting some socialist ideas. Of curse i am not for socialism just some of its ideas sound right to me.

I don’t believe the church has taught against socialism ?

It has taught against communism because it is Godless.

It has also taught against strict capitalism as being uncaring to the poor and disenfranchised.

It seems moderate socialism lies somewhere in the middle.

The church too lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[christofirst]

I agree with the previous three posts, affirming the query of the OP. By the way, I am half Slovenian on my mother’s side, and I found the OP most informative. Thank you for posting, and God bless you!

 

[JRKH]

I don’t believe the church has taught against socialism ?

It has taught against communism because it is Godless.

It has also taught against strict capitalism as being uncaring to the poor and disenfranchised.

It seems moderate socialism lies somewhere in the middle.

The church too lies somewhere in the middle.

Not to detract from your point points above - - but I must suggest that the Church never “lies somewhere in the middle”.
Rather the Church always resides firmly in the right.
Not the political “right” but in the radically correct. The desire for complete and universal mercy and justice in accord with the will of God.
Radical ideas to be sure - in today’s world - but still the “Right” ideas.

Sorry to pick on you Jon - but I had to say it…

Peace
James

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not to detract from your point points above - - but I must suggest that the Church never “lies somewhere in the middle”.
Rather the Church always resides firmly in the right.
Not the political “right” but in the radically correct. The desire for complete and universal mercy and justice in accord with the will of God.
Radical ideas to be sure - in today’s world - but still the “Right” ideas.

Sorry to pick on you Jon - but I had to say it…

Peace
James

And I think we could say that the Truth and the Right is probably somewhere between the extremes of both capitalism and Communism.

Right?

That was my point, not that the church is finding some middle way to make nice, but that the truth of Christian teaching would result in some sort of financial structure that resembles some blend of both extremes.

 

[JRKH]

And I think we could say that the Truth and the Right is probably somewhere between the extremes of both capitalism and Communism.

Right?

That was my point, not that the church is finding some middle way to make nice, but that the truth of Christian teaching would result in some sort of financial structure that resembles some blend of both extremes.

Yup Yup…

Peace
James

 

[St_Francis]

Timi,
The Church has condemned socialism *because *true socialism does not allow private individuals to own the means of production; therefore, a man cannot benefit from the fruits of his labor.

Altho socialists advocate taking the land from the rich, a true socialist would not actually give the land to the poor–those in the government would retain ownership and control “in the name of the people.”

There is a non-socialist argument to be made for redistribution of land in the cases where a very few own most of the land, and this is something which Ivan Kramburger seems to have been thinking, esp since I imagine that the land ownership was in complete disarray after the communist rule.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I don’t believe the church has taught against socialism ?

QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism)
Pope Leo XIII

For, “the church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth,” hands down those doctrines and precepts whose special object is the safety and peace of society and the uprooting of the evil growth of socialism.

1. For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: “for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness?”…

1. But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven. But not the less on this account does our holy Mother not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother’s embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments. In fine, she does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, "who being rich became poor for our sake,18 or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. But who does not see that this is the best method of arranging the old struggle between the rich and poor? For, as the very evidence of facts and events shows, if this method is rejected or disregarded, one of two things must occur: either the greater portion of the human race will fall back into the vile condition of slavery which so long prevailed among the pagan nations, or human society must continue to be disturbed by constant eruptions, to be disgraced by rapine and strife, as we have had sad witness even in recent times.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t believe the church has taught against socialism ?

It has taught against communism because it is Godless.

It has also taught against strict capitalism as being uncaring to the poor and disenfranchised.

It seems moderate socialism lies somewhere in the middle.

The church too lies somewhere in the middle.

I can not comment an exact answer for the OP, but here are quotes from what many of the Popes have said about socialism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384605&postcount=37

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384635&postcount=38

 

[Ontheway]

I can not comment an exact answer for the OP, but here are quotes from what many of the Popes have said about socialism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384605&postcount=37

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384635&postcount=38

Socialism is a socio-economic system. The church is a different kind of institution.
Socialism has used and promoted some ideas that are very much in line with Christian beliefs. However, these were used to promote a political agenda which eventually led to the demise of those political systems. Yugoslavia’s experiment with socialism was a bit less dehumanizing than that of the other “socialist states” of Eastern Europe, but this is a digression.

Since Christianity is just a bit older than socialism, one can assume that Christian ideas were used by the socialist to promote a political agenda of the socialist movement. The socialists did not create these ideas.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can not comment an exact answer for the OP, but here are quotes from what many of the Popes have said about socialism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384605&postcount=37

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11384635&postcount=38

I think a differentiation needs to be made between strict socialism (communism) and the socialism present currently in places such as France and other Western European Countries.

It was this latter modern form of socialism I was speaking of.

 

[Vouthon]

Venerable Pope Paul VI gave a succinct overview of how Catholics should respond to Socialism in his Apostolic Letter, “Octogesima adveniens” of 1971. His key emphasis is that it cannot be viewed as a monolith but also that Catholics need discernment:

**Attraction of socialist currents **

1. Some Christians are today attracted by socialist currents and their various developments. They try to recognize therein a certain number of aspirations which they carry within themselves in the name of their faith. They feel that they are part of that historical current and wish to play a part within it. Now this historical current takes on, under the same name, different forms according to different continents and cultures, even if it drew its inspiration, and still does in many cases, from ideologies incompatible with faith. Careful judgment is called for. Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link which, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html

Note that immediately after this section on socialism Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Communist or a Capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that has become such a generalized term.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

**Ideologies and human liberty **

1. Therefore the Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity which he thinks of as service cannot without contradicting himself adhere to ideological systems which radically or substantially go against his faith and his concept of man. He cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history; nor can be adhere to the liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by with drawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of the social organization…

So nothing is entirely condemned except “Marxism” and “liberal capitalism” aka Libertarianism, two extremes one idolizing the state; the other idolizing the individual.

Anything in the middle would appear to be acceptable Recall that in Germany the traditional Catholic party was the “Centre Party”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany

It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to be moderately left or right of centre on economic issues. Anything more however and it is too close to “Marxism” on the one end and “liberal capitalism” on the other.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Venerable Pope Paul VI gave a succinct overview of how Catholics should respond to Socialism in his Apostolic Letter, “Octogesima adveniens” of 1971. His key emphasis is that it cannot be viewed as a monolith but also that Catholics need discernment:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html

Note that immediately after this section on socialism Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Communist or a Capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that has become such a generalized term.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

So nothing is entirely condemned except “Marxism” and “liberal capitalism” aka Libertarianism, two extremes one idolizing the state; the other idolizing the individual.

Anything in the middle would appear to be acceptable Recall that in Germany the traditional Catholic party was the “Centre Party”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_(Germany

It is therefore acceptable for a Catholic to be moderately left or right of centre on economic issues. Anything more however and it is too close to “Marxism” on the one end and “liberal capitalism” on the other.

Thank you for sharing this so succinctly. This sounds accurate to me and what I have read in the past.

 

[TRH1292]

Communist or Marxist generally means a believer in the doctrines on class conflict of Karl Marx and a supporter of a system similar to the Soviet Union.

The proper meaning of the world Socialism is a society in which the State controls industry.

Western European nations have been influenced by Social Democracy.

 

[Contarini]

I know the Church has condemned socialism but there are some aspects of it that i find right.

Im from Slovenia, a former communist, socialist country(Yugoslavia). Before communism, 97% of the entire Slovenian population was Catholic. We Slovenians were known for being farmers, always supressed and ruled by Austrians, Germans, Serbs and others. We had one langague, one culture. Some great Slovenian men wanted to make Slovenes united throught history, but once again our small farmer nation was suppressed. After World war I we splited away from Austria and founded a new country called country of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Kingdom of Serbia joined and became the head of this newly created kingdom. Once again we were ruled, this time by the Serbians. The country was later renamed Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After World war II, a communist party under Josip Broz Tito came and started to suppress Catholics. Tito died in 1980 but we only reached independence in 1991. Finnally we were free. But the problem was that the same communists who were in the communist party in former Yugoslavia wanted to took control in the new democratic republic. But there was one man who opposed that. His name was Ivan Kramberger. He was a Catholic, raised by farmers, a chimney sweep by profession. A humble true Slovenian who fought the communist that wanted to rule in the new country. He was a cleaner in Germany for a time and there he improved the dialysis machine and made a real fortune. He gave the money to poor people in Slovenia. At the 1990 presidental election he ran for a president. He was know for his public speeches about how the working class of Slovenia should rise up against communists. He wanted to gave the land to the people and take from the rich what they don’t deserve. He wanted “communist” newspapers to fall. He fought for the people. These ideas were all socialist ideas but i don’t see any wrong in them. The communist have been exploiting us for too long. At one of his rallies he was assasinated. They(police) say some drunk man killed him from 63 meters with a hunting gun but alot of people think that the communist killed him because he was in their way. Kramberger even said once, if you don’t vote for me and vote for the communist, than its going to be even worse, the richer will get richer and poorer will get poorer. And now 20 years after Kramberger, out politics is completely corrupted, they(politicians) steal from us and there have been several large riots. Our former prime minister was even put to jail because of corruption. Kramberger was a devout Catholic and he supported some socialist ideas that i also find right. Do you think im going against the Church for supporting some socialist ideas. Of curse i am not for socialism just some of its ideas sound right to me.

Tim, the clearest Catholic condemnation of socialism is in Pius XI’s document Quadragesimo Anno (itself commemorating an earlier, even more important encyclical by Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum). Pius XI condemns “even moderate socialism,” and so many folks on this forum take this phrase out of context as if it meant that any policy that can be remotely linked to socialism is condemned by the Church.

This is utter nonsense, as you can see if you look at the context for that condemnation in the document. Section 118 says clearly that socialism is condemned because it “affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.” That is, for the Pope, the thing that makes socialism socialism. It’s the fundamental error that poisons everything else. If this error is avoided, then all sorts of specific policies advocated by socialists may be quite compatible with Catholic social teaching, or even required by it.

Edwin

 

[silver2soul]

The principle of the “root of all evil is the love of money”, and the "you cannot love both GOD and mammon(money), you will hate the one and love the other’, pretty much sums up the stance of the true church of GOD and JEUS CHRIST.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] “Social ownership” may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism

.[4]

Accor5ding to Wikipedia this describes socialism and ther emany variances of it’s system.

According to wiki capitalism is as follows…

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]

Many debate which is more fundamentally tied to the church; while it is apparent that capitalism is more akin to independent processes and gain of financial prosperity. We have to look at which one is more beneficial to the people as a whole and provides the principle that we love one another and love GOD not mammon.

“Where is the system foundation of good fruit built and structure around and within?” The more appropriate question is…which is more inclined to offer beneficial welfare to the poor, impoverished and oppressed? To those we are commanded to love?

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[markomalley]

I know the Church has condemned socialism but there are some aspects of it that i find right.

(snip)

Do you think im going against the Church for supporting some socialist ideas. Of curse i am not for socialism just some of its ideas sound right to me.

Pope John XXIII: 34. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

Encyclical Mater et Magistra (1961)
​

So there he reaffirms Pius XI’s condemnation of socialism (even moderate socialism).

Pope John Paul II tells us the proper role of the State in economic affairs:48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly.

(snip)

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.

(snip)

Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development.

(snip)

Encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991), 48
​

You see that he is talking about the State having a role in setting up an environment that is conducive to growth. But not about the State guaranteeing employment or the State providing all to all in any way. As far as social welfare programs, he goes on to say this: In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. **Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. **Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

(snip)

Encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991), 48
​

His vision, if you read CA at the link above, is that the State should set up an environment for growth and that, in extremis, the State can provide a “substitute function” to ensure that peoples’ needs are cared for, but only for the briefest time until normal economic development can start to take hold (consider disaster relief after a hurricane or post-war relief or the like). He cautions against this for too long a time, though, which is an absolute imperative.

He has an interesting quote from Sollicitudo Rei Socialis that I like, as well:It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” …

 

[Contarini]

The principle of the “root of all evil is the love of money”, and the "you cannot love both GOD and mammon(money), you will hate the one and love the other’, pretty much sums up the stance of the true church of GOD and JEUS CHRIST.

.[4]

Accor5ding to Wikipedia this describes socialism and ther emany variances of it’s system.

According to wiki capitalism is as follows…

I think it’s a bad idea to answer the question of the Church’s attitude to capitalism and/or socialism by using Wikipedia definitions. The Church documents that refer to capitalism and socialism are not using Wikipedia. It’s necessary to see how these documents themselves define the terms.

Obviously one can take the Wikipedia definitions and then ask how the Church treats the ideas/practices described there. What I’m saying is that you can’t say “wikipedia defines socialism as X; the Church condemns socialism; hence the Church condemns X.” It might be that some of “X” is defined as “socialism” by wikipedia but not by those Church documents that condemn socialism.

And in fact I think that’s the case. Wikipedia defines socialism as a range of forms of “common ownership,” not all of which, it seems to me, are condemned by Catholicism.

Edwin