Classical Liberalism

[pnewton]

Actually it doesn’t matter: The Church condemns BOTH.

Only in the sense that it condemns free enterprise, which means qualifiers are needed.

 

[deMontfort]

A good breakdown is here:

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/A.../What-is-the-Churchs-stance-on-socialism.aspx

 

[Aulef]

I used to be a classic liberal. My guys were Bastiat and John Locke. Nowdays, as a Traditional Catholic, I understand they are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Holy Church.

Pope Saint Pius X and other popes after him wrote many teachings regarding this topic. I suggest reading them.

 

[pnewton]

Here is the qualifier on socialism from your article:

To be fair, though, many socialists have insisted that the papal condemnations don’t reflect the ideas they really promote. Many socialists are open to some private property, express a strong faith in God and promote human dignity.

In an important apostolic letter, Octogesima Adveniens, written on the 80th anniversary of Rerum Novarum, Pope Paul VI acknowledged that not all socialist ideas are to be rejected. He suggested that for Catholics, a certain “degree of commitment” to socialism might be possible.

This is my favorite part from the artice:

Asking whether a Catholic could be a true socialist…

I laughed when I saw that. I couldn’t help but think of Scotsmen. This is the problem with all labels, but probably “liberal” more than any other. When we set the definition based on the outcome, it is time to ditch the label and stick to teaching principles, like private ownership and universal destination of goods, the two sticky doctrines for socialism and free enterprise, respectively.

 

[deMontfort]

Also telling:

“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.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater.html

 

[Cyril]

I feel like I’m repeating myself, maybe it just the manor of forums but I feel like I get into the same debate with the same people in different threads started by different people.

That said I’m going to try this again:

The ethos of a government doesn’t make it moral or immoral its how its applied to the citizens. Even now most of you reading this live in Materialist Egalitarian nations. You vote, capitalism is the rule of the day.

Even so in your own nations you are aware of social issues that need to be addressed(we dont need to explore in depth just hold them in mind). None of them per say changing would change your government system very much. Even if you could hypothetically cure poverty and injustice there is nothing wrong with most governments you come from. You vote, everyone has a right to say something, officials protect you. Its not a bad system in an of itself.

That doesn’t make other forms of government wrong. you can have a Democracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy or Dictatorship. Each one has its own perks and pit falls citizens need to be aware of.

Even still you can have more Authoritarian or Egalitarian governments. Ones that hold most of the power or ones that let the people decide.

None of these options are wrong, all depends to how they are applied. Extremes exists but extremes are just that, extreme and are only needed when countering another.

The sooner you accept that the better.

 

[pnewton]

Look at the reason

" 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."

So if this is what is removed to make a position moderate, then the objection evaporates. Likewise, is one who believes in free enterprise based it on “human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being,” then that cannot be embraced.

I do not think Pope Paul VI was in error.

 

[Cyril]

I do not think Pope Paul VI was in error.

Popes make mistakes all the time, just the church teaches when he puts on the big hat and signs something its Absolute.

Which is fine cause almost all papal decree are relatively straight forward and generally not offensive.

 

[pnewton]

Right, but a Catholic can surely believe a Pope did not make an error, can he not? I said “I do not think…”

Then we have the case of Dorothy Day, a moderate socialist who St. John Paul named “Servant of God,” and opened that cause for sainthood. Now it may be argued that she was not true moderate socialist, to which I would say that she also wasn’t Scottish.

I get the impression that instead of just trying to look at what the Church is teaching, there is an attempt to read a political agenda into it, kind of the way some or the press try to read heretical progressive positions into Pope Francis.

I get it. Atheism - bad. No ownership -bad. No afterlife - bad. However, one can come to a lot of the same conclusions as liberals and socialist from the Gospels, with out roots in Karl Marx. It can be argued the early Church was moderately socialist in that:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

[Genesis315]

The two things that make Socialism wrong are the denial of private property and the promotion of violent class enmity (in addition to the generally materialistic outlook, also common to liberal capitalism).

In Quadrigesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI said that the “socialists” who denied these things ended up just having the same goals and principles as the Christians, and therefore there was no reason for them to be socialists:

1. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.
2. For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles. For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals.
3. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...s/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

 

[pnewton]

Something to consider if using a document 58 years old is that socialism is not all that old. That was almost the halfway point back to the Russian Revolution, at a time when any true conservative was a Democrat.

 

[jjje1995]

I find it hard to understand how a question about Classical Liberalism has branched out into an argument about Socialism and Communism. I thank Genesis315 for answering the question.

 

[dochawk]

Yes, the Church has condemned the principles of Classical Liberalism, which was the denial of the role of God’s revelation in civil life. Classical Liberalism also denies that authority comes from God. The Church rejects absolute freedoms of religion and speech.

Well, sure, once you redefine Classic Liberalism like that, and give it new principles, sure, its teachings are condemned.

“Classic Liberalism” and “all ideas held by all prominent Classic Liberals” are not the same thing . . .

hawk

 

[SuperLuigi]

Good luck on using that in debates with Protestants, Muslims the Orthodox and atheists.

 

[Genesis315]

What would you say are the principles of of Classical Liberalism?

 

[dshix]

What is your point? Does the fact that something is not politically correct or may be offensive to many people make it necessarily untrue?

 

[dochawk]

What would you say are the principles of of Classical Liberalism?

As I described above

Government is a necessary evil.

It’s role is to stop other’s from harming us, whether they be other citizens or foreign powers.

This leads directly to allowing the free exercise of religion (by not coercing citizens), and by a separate path, to the notion that government supporting one sect over another may be a bad idea.

(note that the free exercise clause is not Jefferson’s notion of a wall between church and state; that was purely him, and he was single-handedly the lunatic fringe on church and state. It was a neutrality of the federal government (only!) between, for example, the methodists and the congregationalists. Not even Jefferson would have objected to general support of Christianity, and many states had established churches which survived long after the 14th amendment).

hawk, a classic liberal and a rather orthodox Catholic

 

[Axsenex]

It’s dizzying to read through on this topic… :man_facepalming:t2:

Oh by the way I am amused every time I get green notification especially from a baby.

 

[Genesis315]

I think this still clashes with the Catholic conception of government, albeit in a more subtle way. Civil authority is necessary, but not an evil, since it is derived from the moral order (which is good) and human nature (which is good), and comes from God (who is good). It’s role is not just to prevent harm, but to ensure and attain good for the people under it–to “impel them rightly and orderly to the common good.” (Leo XIII, Diuturnum 11),

CCC:

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris:

1. The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities. In working for the common good, therefore, the authorities must obviously respect its nature, and at the same time adjust their legislation to meet the requirements of the given situation .(37)

The Liberal conception of religious freedom is different from the Catholic one–even if in some circumstances they lead to the same practical result–because of the differing conceptions of the common good vs. public peace. The common good has a supernatural element ordered toward man’s supernatural end in God.

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris

1. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)
2. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)
3. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

(see also CCC 1924-1925)

continued in next post…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

It is only the true religion that can accurately inform public authority as to this supernatural end of man.

CCC:

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

Societies therefore have a duty toward the true religion and to have it inform its laws and structures (cf. CCC 2105).

Tying this back to religious freedom, while the act of faith must be free and therefore man must be given due freedom in this regard, because man lives in a society, false religious activity can be restricted if it serves the common good (properly understood) given the circumstances:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Note, the restrictions have to be based on objective truth (not positivist) and include supernatural truth (it can’t be naturalist) and it must serve the common good (properly conceived) rather than the liberal conception of “public order.”