Can a Catholic have some socialist ideas?

[O_S_C]

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

That’s certainly not true according to any classical definition of socialism (i.e. Marx, Engels or the anarchists), and I think you will find a hard time finding people who identify as socialists and believe that the state should run the industry.

Socialism rather means workers control of production. A state run industry is no more “socialist” than a state run army.

Socialism is not corporativist, it is cooperativist.

 

[O_S_C]

Can a Catholic have some socialist ideas?

The Church has opposed “actually existing socialism”. That is the kind of political and economical system that existed in Eastern Europe and many other places over the course of the 20th century. These states, although often being strong in welfare and low on extreme poverty, was very authoritarian regimes that was run by a bureaucracy, and in general fiercly atheist and hostile towards all forms of religion.

But most people who identify as communists or socialist do not advocate such model of society. Marx and Engels - the fathers of modern socialism/communism - certainly didn’t either.

Socialism is basicly about democracy. Socialists do not see democracy as something that happens every fourth year, but rather as a principle of equality that should be immanent in all social life, not the least in working life. Noam Chomsky formulates his socialist convictions like this:

“Personally I’m in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can’t have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level – there’s a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I’m opposed to political fascism, I’m opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it’s pointless to talk about democracy.”

Communism means all this but it also means “to each accordng to his ability, to each according to his need”. It empathizes that people should not recieve what they “deserve” but rather what makes them flourish as human beings.

I don’t think socialism and communism clashes with christianity. There has certainly been many good catholics who were also socialists or communists. Take Herbert McCabe O.P. for example, a well respected catholic and thomist scholar. He percieved the socialist/communist revolution as a necessary step towards the deeper christian revolution. He believed that as long as we lived in an antagonistic class society we would not find God but constantly slip into idolatry.

The christian ideal while not communist per se is certainly much more similar to communism than to capitalism for example. It’s not surpricing because communism has it’s root in christian philosophy. Both communism and christianity is fundamentally egalitarian and universalist and believes that human relations should be about love. To say “to each according to his need” means the same thing as saying “love thy neighbour”. Both communism and christianity percieves putting priority to personal riches and status over the well being of others to be a sin.

And when st. Paul sais “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” this resonates well with communist ideals.

So if there’s any political ideology that is compatible with the christian gospels it is certainly socialism/communism.

 

[markomalley]

So if there’s any political ideology that is compatible with the christian gospels it is certainly socialism/communism.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the Church disagrees.

 

[Abu]

markomalley #19 has solidly expressed the truth of the Church ‘s teaching and it is high time that this be known and assented to.

Jon S #7
And I think we could say that the Truth and the Right is probably somewhere between the extremes of both capitalism and Communism.

False, as markomalley has so well shown – Communism is totally banned.

O_S_C #22
I don’t think socialism and communism clashes with Christianity
So if there’s any political ideology that is compatible with the christian gospels it is certainly socialism/communism.

False.

Socialism has been condemned in Encyclicals by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI and its disastrous effects were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Leo XIII asserts: “…the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies.” Rerum Novarum, #4]. Similarly John Paul II condemns socialism for precisely this among other errors, in Centesimus Annus, making a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:
1)The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2)Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3)The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4)Denounced the principle of subsidiarity.

John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42].

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185 sums up beautifully:
Re Centesimus Annus, he writes: “…we find here a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.”
And, “Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

 

[O_S_C]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the Church disagrees.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Church is not equal to The hierarchy, it’s not reducible to the bishops and the pope. The catholic Church consist in a billion individuals and in countless institutions.

Besides the Church is quite plainly corrupt. We should focus more on the message of the gospels.

 

[markomalley]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Church is not equal to The hierarchy, it’s not reducible to the bishops and the pope. The catholic Church consist in a billion individuals and in countless institutions.

**Besides the Church is quite plainly corrupt. **We should focus more on the message of the gospels.

Regarding the bolded text above.

Just.

Wow.

 

[markomalley]

markomalley #19 has solidly expressed the truth of the Church ‘s teaching and it is high time that this be known and assented to.
False, as markomalley has so well shown – Communism is totally banned.
False.

Socialism has been condemned in Encyclicals by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI and its disastrous effects were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Leo XIII asserts: “…the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies.” Rerum Novarum, #4]. Similarly John Paul II condemns socialism for precisely this among other errors, in Centesimus Annus, making a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.

The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931 has the following false theories:
1)The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2)Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3)The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4)Denounced the principle of subsidiarity.

John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42].

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185 sums up beautifully:
Re Centesimus Annus, he writes: “…we find here a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.”
And, “Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

You should consider this from Divini Redemptoris:

1. Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man’s relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement .
2. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.
   Hearing the talk about removing all moral restraints and then talking about marriage devolving to a mere artificial and civil system makes it sound like he’s talking about the USA in the 21st Century, doesn’t it?

 

[Abu]

O_S_C #25
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the Church is not equal to The hierarchy, it’s not reducible to the bishops and the pope. The catholic Church consist in a billion individuals and in countless institutions.
Besides the Church is quite plainly corrupt. We should focus more on the message of the gospels.

Such eloquently expressed irrationality and infidelity ignores the Gospels which teach “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Those of the “individuals” who are real Catholics know that to belong to the *sensus fidei *(the sense of the faithful) requires obeying the Magisterium:
“The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, ‘from the bishops to the last of the faithful’ they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of Truth, **the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God **(cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Vatican II, my emphasis].

The poster is obviously labouring under false pretences.

 

[zogg]

Private charitable agencies distribute more than 80% of contributed funds to the recipients. Government (socialistic) agencies distribute less than 20%. The rest goes to the bureaucrats. Much more would be contributed to the private agencies except that it is co-opted by the govt. through heavy taxation. This is why the poor are still poor. The planet Earth produces enough food for all. But political corruption prevents it from getting to where it is needed.

signed

Zogg

 

[oneofmany]

“The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher.

You can’t rob from the rich to make the poor better even if Robin Hood said you could. It is also a corrupt system.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

And that can be applied just as much to Western capitalism as it can be to socialism. Any society built on a materialistic model is condemned by the Church.

Any system that is based, in any way, on viewing human beings as a resource for the generation of wealth, is wrong. It doesn’t matter whether the wealth is generated for corporations, the state, or shareholders, if individual humans are viewed as a ‘resource’ to generate wealth for a state/corporation/shareholder(s)/individual then the line has been crossed. Increasingly, in Western society, people are viewed as just that. If a person is viewed as a consumer, as a human resource, as a means of generating wealth, as a small cog in the big wheel of an economic machine, then that is what is condemned.

It isn’t the fact that in some socialist states a person is seen as a means of generating wealth for the state, it is that a person is viewed as a means of generating wealth for anyone (be that state, employer, shareholders etc.) that is the issue.

“For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.” 1 Timothy 6:10

The allure of wealth is the greatest danger, and any societies (or organisations) based primarily around the creation of material wealth are evil. Any state or organisation (including companies) that regard people primarily as a means to create wealth, or as a means to an end, are evil. The love of money has led to countless wars, oppression and abuse. This is not purely down to socialism.

 

[Abu]

Brendan 64 #28
And that can be applied just as much to Western capitalism as it can be to socialism. Any society built on a materialistic model is condemned by the Church.

False. Having been initiated by Catholic monks and developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics, there is nothing to compare with free enterprise.

Now see the affirmation of free enterprise as Bl John Paul II teaches in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
CA 42. ‘Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
‘The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.
‘CA 43. The Church has no models to present;’

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[DianePa]

All to often the term socialism is confused with charity and therein lies the controversy.

If the government takes from you without your permission that is socialism and relative to the same ideology as communism and fascism. If another takes from you to benefit themselves or even to share with another without your permission that is not a charitable act…it is thievery.

Jesus was always willing to give as evidenced by His gift of loaves of bread and fish and the miracle that changed water into wine. He did so not because it was required of Him but because He felt the need to give.

I voluntarily give to many charities and tithe to my church and that I give from my heart. For someone to take from me in the name of the ‘common good’ is still theft.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All to often the term socialism is confused with charity and therein lies the controversy.

If the government takes from you without your permission that is socialism and relative to the same ideology as communism and fascism. If another takes from you to benefit themselves or even to share with another without your permission that is not a charitable act…it is thievery.

Jesus was always willing to give as evidenced by His gift of loaves of bread and fish and the miracle that changed water into wine. He did so not because it was required of Him but because He felt the need to give.

I voluntarily give to many charities and tithe to my church and that I give from my heart. For someone to take from me in the name of the ‘common good’ is still theft.

Your view supposes a relationship between government and the people that is not a necessary one, although it might be a factual one in many cases. The view I mean is where the government and the people being governed are completely separate entities with no interests in common.

But consider a simpler model. Imagine a somewhat primitive tribe of people living in a village - one that is completely autonomous from any larger government. This small community may still have a government of sorts - a tribal council, a group of elders, or maybe even an elected democracy. Whatever form this government takes, it is possible for that government to make decisions that are binding on all the people. Those decisions might even involve rules that require sharing of resources in hard times - rules that some might call socialism. But in this small government, where the people and the rulers are so close together, and know each other well, you would have a hard time describing the rules for sharing as theft.

Or consider the smallest government of all - the nuclear family. It is (hopefully) a benevolent dictatorship by the parents. You would not say that it is theft when the mother tells a child to share some of his candy with his brother.

Therefore your comment about government engaging in theft when it mandates sharing of resources is not supportable in its most general form. That is, it does not apply to all governments. Just some governments.

So when is it theft and when is it reasonable and proper actions of government? This brings up questions of legitimacy, accountability, and fairness, which are entirely proper to bring up. A good case can be made, I suppose, that many governments today are failing in these areas. But you have not made that case. Instead you chose to make your point without bothering to consider these questions - questions which are necessary to consider in order to distinguish between the government of the United States and the small tribal government I mentioned. They can’t all be engaged in theft.

 

[Contarini]

And that can be applied just as much to Western capitalism as it can be to socialism. Any society built on a materialistic model is condemned by the Church.

Exactly. I’ve argued that on this forum several times. And I think the reason the Pope’s comments in EV have got people so worked up is that he has said this clearly.

Edwin

 

[Patient]

Yes, of course. First, there is Social Democracy (in Germany represented by the Social Democratic Party and in Bavaria by the Christian Democratic Party), This leaves capitalism intact but provides a strong social benefit system from the government. Although Social Democracy is not truly socialist (the government owning the means of production), it is often called socialist in the USA and by right wing propagandists who want to return to the capitalism of the 1800s in which labor had no rights, and the state could not create an infrastructure of rights and benefits for labor and the lower classes.

There is also Catholic Social Teaching. Social Democracy is one good expression of this teaching. But a better expression is found in having an economy in which many businesses are worker owned. The best expression of this is the Mondragon Cooperative Assocation in Spain. This was founded by a Catholic priest on the core values of Catholic Social Teaching: solidarity, subsidiarity, and equity.

Other forms of socially beneficial corporations (not socialist, and not necessarily worker owned) that would fit Catholic Social Teaching are found in the book “Owning Our Future” by Marjorie Kelly.

You can find information about Mondragon by using any search engine on the web.

You will hear that any government benefit system is theft. This is right wing propaganda. The state has every right, without confiscating the means of production or farms, to ensure the general welfare and basic prosperity of its citizens. The left has always considered excessive capitalistic extraction of profit from labor, and from harming the environment, to be theft. The right wing advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (sometimes called Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism), a system similar to the unregulated capitalism found in the novels of Charles Dickens and the cause of the mass starvation in Ireland in the 1840s, has decided to appropriate the left’s use of “theft” for its own purposes.

Hope this helps.

 

[MPat]

Yes, of course. First, there is Social Democracy (in Germany represented by the Social Democratic Party and in Bavaria by the Christian Democratic Party), This leaves capitalism intact but provides a strong social benefit system from the government. Although Social Democracy is not truly socialist (the government owning the means of production), it is often called socialist in the USA and by right wing propagandists who want to return to the capitalism of the 1800s in which labor had no rights, and the state could not create an infrastructure of rights and benefits for labor and the lower classes.

I think you meant “Christian Democracy”. The party that represents it in Bavaria is “Christian Social Union” (CSU, “Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Social_Union_in_Bavaria), the party that represents it in the rest of the Germany is “Christian Democratic Union” (CDU, “Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands”, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_%28Germany%29).

But I’m not sure that would be counted as “having some socialist ideas”… I guess it would be useful to define what would count as “socialist ideas” (for example, socialists would probably agree that some things do exist, but is “Some things exist.” a “socialist idea”?)…

 

[Brendan_64]

False. Having been initiated by Catholic monks and developed by the great Catholic Late Scholastics, there is nothing to compare with free enterprise.

But a free enterprise economy is a myth, as much a pipe-dream as a utopian socialst model. We do not live in a free market. Corporations are successful at making vast sums of money precisely because the markets are regulated and controlled. They take advantage of differences in labour regulations and trade laws to make money. Talk of the ‘free market’ is to talk of something that simply does not exist.

And, yes, any organisation, or economic system, that view another human being as existing primarily to generate wealth for the state/company/shareholders is evil and in is opposition to the teachings of the Church. It matters not whether this is as a result of socialism, western capitalism, or whatever; if a person is viewed primarily as a consumer or as a means to generating wealth then the system/organisation/person who views them as such is evil. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil. Any system or organisation with materialism at its core is evil.

 

[Brendan_64]

Exactly. I’ve argued that on this forum several times. And I think the reason the Pope’s comments in EV have got people so worked up is that he has said this clearly.

Edwin

That he has, and good for him for doing so. The Church’s teaching has always been as such. The fact that this Teaching hasn’t been highlighted so obviously in the past doesn’t mean that this has not applied or that this is something new. Any economic model based on materialistic values is wrong, be that a socialist or capitalist system. The love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

 

[Brendan_64]

If the government takes from you without your permission that is socialism and relative to the same ideology as communism and fascism. If another takes from you to benefit themselves or even to share with another without your permission that is not a charitable act…it is thievery.

So taxation is theft? Are you arguing that a person ought to have the right to refuse to pay taxes if he doesn’t wish to pay taxes? This view puts you at odds with the teachings of the Church.