Catholics and Socailism

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter

Guest
A freind of mine once told me that there were times in Catholic history where Priests or lay Christian communities practiced a form of socailism.

Also i am told that there are catholic communities today who give all their valubles and earnings to the church, and take a vowl of poverty. Is that true?

If this is true, then why is socailism rejected by the church?
 
[2425](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2425.htm’)😉 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Click to expand...
 
**Voluntarily **living in poverty and sharing a communal life in a convent/religious order in the service of God is NOT socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which **imposes **the nationalization of production and the distribution of goods and services on the people. It is a totalitarian government and is to be rejected.
 
MindOverMatter said:
A freind of mine once told me that there were times in Catholic history where Priests or lay Christian communities practiced a form of socailism.

Also i am told that there are catholic communities today who give all their valubles and earnings to the church, and take a vowl of poverty. Is that true?

If this is true, then why is socailism rejected by the church?
Click to expand...
Voluntary “socialism” or communal living is one thing. Involuntary socialism is another.

There are two things wrong with involuntary socialism. The first is that the laborer is worthy of his hire – yet under socialism, his “hire” is taken from him against his will. Involuntary giving – under the threat of force or law – is not charity.

Second, it takes power to take people’s property. Socialist states must be overwhelmingly powerful – compared to the people whose property they take. And as Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This is why every communist nation – without exception – has become a totalitarian dictatorship. And this is why communism is so militantly athestic – because the all-powerful state cannot tolerate people believing in another, higher power.
 
Why do these conversations never seem to be held concerning capitalism? Communism and socialism are rightly singled out as being problematic. If you read the the quote from the Catechism that I_A_ provided for every line referring to communism or socialism the very next line refers to a problem with capitalism. As Catholics we are to work for a fair and just society where human beings can live their lives as God intended and pleasing to God. If that means we need to right the wrongs of socialism shouldn’t it also mean we need to right the wrongs of capitalism too?

ChadS
 
ChadS - Rather than posting such a question here, you should start a separate thread for it, since it is off topic to this thread.
 
socialism is a political system

socialism as a modern political system does NOT mean communal ownership and equal enjoyment of property and resources, it means state ownership and control of all property and resources, and state decisions on who will enjoy what share.

the Church even when she had temporal authority over a wider area of Europe, never embraced socialism in the sense understood as a modern political system, in governing her temporal lands.

yes, some religious communities have had in the past and do now own their material possessions in common, and regard even their clothing and personal belongings as the property of the community, not as their own. That is a spiritual discipline, not a political system. That community ownership, governed under the abbot or head of the community, applies to real property as well, but the governance of a community depends on its Rule, approved by the Pope, generally obedience to the head of the order, to the local abbot, and to the Pope.
 
Too many people think “Capitalism” is the opposite of “Communism” or “Socialism.”

That’s not true. Capitalism is “The private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution, for profit, in a competitive environment.” It is an economic system, pure and simple, and has no ideology or government theories. Capitalism can be practiced in monarchies, democracies, or any other form of government that leaves people free to make their own choices.

Socialism, and Communism, while rejecting private ownership to a varying degrees, also add a theory of government, an ideology. And because the government must have power to control all property, the government must be all-powerful, and the people must be subjugated to the state. That is why Socialist governments are so restrictive and bureaucratic, and why Communist governments are dictatorships.

And that is also why socialism and communist tend to be atheistic – they cannot tolerate people believing in a higher power.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Too many people think “Capitalism” is the opposite of “Communism” or “Socialism.”

That’s not true. Capitalism is “The private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution, for profit, in a competitive environment.” It is an economic system, pure and simple, and has no ideology or government theories. Capitalism can be practiced in monarchies, democracies, or any other form of government that leaves people free to make their own choices.

Socialism, and Communism, while rejecting private ownership to a varying degrees, also add a theory of government, an ideology. And because the government must have power to control all property, the government must be all-powerful, and the people must be subjugated to the state. That is why Socialist governments are so restrictive and bureaucratic, and why Communist governments are dictatorships.

And that is also why socialism and communist tend to be atheistic – they cannot tolerate people believing in a higher power.
Click to expand...
Could you compare Goran Persson to Napolean the pig? Please.

And I suppose China and Pinochet’s Chile was a place where “people free to make their own choices.”
 
ribozyme said:
Could you compare Goran Persson to Napolean the pig? Please.

And I suppose China and Pinochet’s Chile was a place where “people free to make their own choices.”
Click to expand...
What in the world is this gibberish supposed to mean?:confused:
 
reading the catechism, it’s not socialism at all that the church rejects, just the totalitarian dictators who used it. socialism is not good or bad, only a system.
 
jerseygirl12491 said:
reading the catechism, it’s not socialism at all that the church rejects, just the totalitarian dictators who used it. socialism is not good or bad, only a system.
Click to expand...
I fear that you might say the same thing about Capitilism. In my mind, Capitilism neccesarily leads to division, curruption, and a great divide between the rich and the poor, if it is left with-out regulations such as higher taxes for the rich and state imposed restraints on the market. In every competition, there has to be a loser. Given this fact, capitilism is an internally flawed system, though it may have been once a neccesary evil. I personally don’t think enough regulation and restraint is in place to protect human-dignity and human-life. but i will leave that for another thread.

Going back to your post. Is it okay for me to be both a Socailist and a Catholic?
 
MindOverMatter said:
In every competition, there has to be a loser.

Going back to your post. Is it okay for me to be both a Socailist and a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Although a liberal such as myself will agree you most of the content of your post, I do not think that competition is inherently a zero-sum game. It is simply one argument that gung-ho libertarians have in their war chest of arguments.
 
MindOverMatter said:
In every competition, there has to be a loser.
Click to expand...
No. Allow me to explain.

Imagine you and I and three others meet to play poker. We each have $100. At the end of the game you (the winner) have $500. The rest of us have nothing. Poker (and other forms of gambling) are zero-sum games. Nothing is created in the course of the game, and indeed, for every winner, there has to be a loser, dollar-for-dollar.

But now imagine you have $150,000 and contract with me to build you a house. When the contract is complete, I will have your $150,000, to be sure. But you will have a house worth $150,000. So the amount wealth has been increased by the value of that which was created – a house.

Capitalism is defined as “Private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive environment.” By definition, capitalism is productive. It produces wealth, and we **all **share in that, to a greater or lesser degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top