Catholic or Democratic Socialism?

[phil19034]

Clearly you must not have read anything I wrote in my above posts, with the relevant citations. Politely, I’d ask that you consider what I wrote and referenced.

No, I didn’t read a single thing you posted. I read the first post only and responded to it.

 

[Vouthon]

It is because both “socialism” and “capitalism” are not easy to define. There is a great deal of historical plurality operating under those broad headings, and not everything going under either label is condemned, even though the church has frequently condemned systems using these names without qualifiers.

 

[Vouthon]

Granted, but the point I’m making is that there are papal statements, such as JPII’s above, stating that capitalism is a “reversal of God’s order” (no qualifiers like “unregulated”).

The point I’m making that there is a matter of definition here, because if one looks at how the church defines capitalism (as condemned) in the encyclicals, there are ideologies going under that label which don’t contradict church teaching.

Same applies to “Socialism” (hence Benedict XVI’s positive appraisal of ‘democratic socialism’, the Church’s refusal to condemn the British form of socialism in the Labour Party etc. etc.)

 

[Vouthon]

I agree, problem is that far too many people read the “label” in a papal text and don’t even look at the “substance” - the qualities, or factors being condemned - and so 1 + 1 becomes 5.

The reason is that actually taking the time to patiently compare the qualities being condemned with those of the ideology one claims to espouse, requires considerable reflection and thought.

 

[Azaryahtt]

What,? I just give you an example on the contrary, Spain, Socialist party has governed here for decades (ever since democracy was stablished) , Cáritas intl. Is a private Catholic organisation that’s well stablished there .
The church is as strong there (the institution) , as it has always been , I don’t see the contradiction, maybe you can show me

 

[Aquinas11]

Spain operates under 1978 Constitution that protects private property thus by definition is not socialist. They’re a multi party democracy. The fact that one party includes term “socialist” in their name doesn’t mean it’s a Socialist economy which doesn’t protect private property as Spain Constitution does

 

[niceatheist]

So what is your operating definition of “socialist”? Pretty much all developed nations protect property rights.

 

[Azaryahtt]

PSOE " partido socialista obrero español" , translated , “Spanish workers Socialist party” .
Yes there is private property, and there is national property , and although Spain is a multi party system , many of the policies are socialist in nature, but if what you mean is that Spain is not a communist country, no it’s not , nevertheless there is an official communist party , who is one of the many political parties that forms the political spectrum of Spain.