Dissent From Catholic Social Teaching: A Study In Irony - Inside The Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
David Bentley Hart wrote:
My basic argument is that a Capitalist culture is, of necessity, a secularist culture, no matter how long and quaint customs and intuitions of folk piety may persist among some of its citizens; that secularism simply is capitalism in it’s full cultural manifestation; that late capitalist ‘consumerism’ – with it’s attendant ethos of voluntarism , exuberant and interminable acquisitiveness, self- absorbtion, ’ lust of the eyes’ and moral relativism-- is not an accidental accretion upon an essentially benign economic system, but the inevitable result of the most fundemental capitalist values.
He goes on:
Throughout the history of the church , Christians have keenly desired to believe that the New Testement affirms the kind of people we are, rather than-- as is actually the case–the kind of people we are not, and really would not want to be. The first perhaps most crucial thing to understand about the earliest generation of Christians is that they were a company of extremists, radical in their rejection of the values and priorities of society not only at it’s most degenerate, but often times at it’s most reasonable and decent. They were rabble. They lightly cast off all their prior loyalties and attachments: religion,empire, nation, tribe , even family. …
Denouncing secularism and not taking note of material wealth in our country is not a serious endeavor. Three people own more than half?
A good description I heard is that we domesticate the Gospel. Or as Hart puts it," Christian history too often is a history of people believing the New Testimony affirms us as we are."
Rerum Novarum states,"…when what necessity demands has been supplied , and ones standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to the indigent out of WHAT REMAINS OVER."
LEO XIII goes on in Quid Apostolici Muneris," By most urgent precepts ( the church) commands the rich to distribute their superfluous posessions among the poor, and terrifies them by the Divine judgement, whereby unless they go to the aid of the needy poor, they are to be tormented by everlasting punishments."
Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno said basically superfluous income is ," not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the sacred scripture and FATHERS OF THE CHURCH constantly declared in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice alms giving, beneficence and munificence."
This is the very fact of superfluous wealth.
This is dogma.
Kierkergaard wrote:
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. BUT WE CHRISTIANS ARE A BUNCH OF SCHEMING SWINDLERS. We PRETEND to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly… "
It occurs to me that a truly correct position on abortion lends itself to facilitating EXCUSE for this abuse everywhere else in the Catholic life.
No investment, sharing, expense, or skin in the game, one can declare pro life and be exactly what Kierkergaard said we were in every other way. Hiding all inaction behind a mere declaration of position.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Rerum Novarum states,"…when what necessity demands has been supplied , and ones standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to the indigent out of WHAT REMAINS OVER."
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment; and certainly it ought to be applied by individuals. But I suppose there are problems of practical application. What are the necessities, which, after being supplied, it becomes a duty to donate the remainder to the indigent?

Are I-Phones and earbuds necessities? Or large TV’s with surround sound? Or an overabundant collection of books? Or internet access? Or a retirement fund? At what point does someone decide that he has enough, and the remainder should go to the poor? Do the social encyclicals make this a personal moral obligation or a governmental obligation?

When I first read Rerum Novarum, I had the impression that employees indeed ought to be paid a living wage–one sufficient to support the worker and his family. And in the past it was not unheard of for an employer to pay more to a married man than to a single man because he had a family to support. But now, such a practice would be illegal under the principle of equal pay for equal work. Social justice seems rather complex in practice.
 
Little in true CATHOLOCISM omits collective action. Protestantism influenced us with the SINGLE SERVING SALVATION idea but that first community in Acts sold their worldly goods and distributed each according to need. I think the " tax" exception or " government" exclusion are CATHOLOCISM in our own image. That ethos is backed by a network that will convince you that the furthest thing from social justice dogma is true
There is lots of compliance without having to go without TV.
I DON’T see it happening any time soon. I just get discouraged when Catholics lead the charge and rewrite the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Little in true CATHOLOCISM omits collective action. Protestantism influenced us with the SINGLE SERVING SALVATION idea but that first community in Acts sold their worldly goods and distributed each according to need. I think the " tax" exception or " government" exclusion are CATHOLOCISM in our own image. That ethos is backed by a network that will convince you that the furthest thing from social justice dogma is true
There is lots of compliance without having to go without TV.
I DON’T see it happening any time soon. I just get discouraged when Catholics lead the charge and rewrite the Gospel.
Click to expand...
❤️❤️❤️

LOTS of compliance! TV, second houses, yachts …
JimG said:
Social justice seems rather complex in practice.
Click to expand...
It’s very simple really. There is a system of collecting taxes. All that is needed, is for the people to direct their representatives to implement their will, ya know, of the people, by the people, for (ALL) the people.

Catholics of this mind will have to convince nons to go along, and I think some of them will. As it is about 22% of US is Catholic, about 23% of those attend mass weekly, just guessing from CAF 30% of those agree with Rerum Novarum.

A narrow path to be sure.
 
Last edited:
The encyclicals don’t give specific solutions. They do give clear principles. They are beautiful in their expression of God’s creation and human beings’ place in it. Rights and responsibilities of living in a society based on justice. Remarkably consistent Catholic thought. Read them.🙂
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
The sum total of the OP’s topic is, “In your experience, are Catholics aware of Catholic Social Teaching? If they know of it, why would they not agree with it?” That is two sentences.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is two sentences, but neither of them has anything to do with the question being discussed which was whether a just wage was the same as a living wage and whether the church has actually addressed that point.
I won’t argue this, but only say that it is my opinion, and my experience here that many do, often under the excuse of prudential judgement, something that would never fly if applied to abortion legislation.
Click to expand...
That’s because abortion is intrinsically evil, and may never be supported for any reason. The question of wages involves prudential judgment, therefore people may legitimately take opposing positions on this and virtually every other political issue. There are actually very few topics where opposing views are illegitimate, which is contrary to position most SJW’s hold, which is that those who disagree with their proposals are violating the Church’s social doctrines.
 
To be honest, if every person were a saint, we would have no need for change, would we? Everyone would already be doing what they are supposed to be doing.
pnewton said:
something that would never fly if applied to abortion legislation.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that those Catholics who oppose or who do not support strongly a legal ban on abortion are criticized, but that those who oppose or who do not support strongly Catholic social justice are not criticized.

Pro-life Catholics are criticized for trying to impose their religious views on others; maybe those who are strongly supportive of our (US) laws being more in line with Catholic social justice are trying to impose their religious views on others?

(I am just wondering about this question; I do not have a fully formulated opinion right now.)
 
Annie said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that those Catholics who oppose or who do not support strongly a legal ban on abortion are criticized, but that those who oppose or who do not support strongly Catholic social justice are not criticized.
Click to expand...
It is precisely the charge about opposing Catholic social justice that is wrong. The encyclicals on this subject give us guidelines, and objectives; they are about the concerns we should address in forming our opinions on solving social problems. What is not in any of them are specific prescriptions we must follow to achieve those goals.

The charge is really nothing more than those with one set of political solutions castigating their opponents for “dissenting from Catholic Social Teaching.” In reality this is not a judgment on the perceived weaknesses of their opponent’s proposals. It is a rash and uncharitable judgment about why those positions are held in the first place.

You and I can be in equal accord with CST and yet hold directly opposed views on virtually every political issue. At least one of us must be in error, perhaps even in serious error, but neither of sins simply because what we think is best turns out badly. Error is not sin.

I don’t think it is possible to validly claim that any (reasonable) proposal violates CST save on those issues dealing with intrinsic evils.
 
I would say Catholic social justice dogma would recognize a nation where a handful of people ( decent size Thanksgiving Table) own more than all the Americans in Red States, you have a situation where they possess much more than is needed. Actually more than can possibly be spent in a lifetime. Or two lifetimes. Taxation ? Why not?
 
Point is it is not a political issue. It is the Gospel. I just don’t see the Gospel as a genuine place of option for a Catholic. I think this is a myth.
Abortion is a priority, but opposing a set of laws in a democratic system does not nearly address living the Gospel. It’s not even mentioned in the Gospel. But what we call Catholic Social Justice is part of Jesus reoccurring core Gospel message. What can be Prudential about a core Gospel message?
 
Last edited:
@Crocus I have read most of them; my question was different.

@Ender

But thanks to both of you 🙂
 
Last edited:
Free enterprise is not the problem as an institution.
The fallen nature of humankind is the problem.
Jesus Christ referred to land ownership and businesses
in His parables.
The whole class warfare mentality sets in for many
to point fingers at a form of economics.
The thirst for justice for all comes by The Grace of God.
Since we are made in the image and likeness of God,
it is part of the laws of nature for us a sentient higher beings.
~
Those who are building a moral relativistic culture of death;
at great peril and death toll by enlarge, though not completely,
attack free enterprise as the problem. And isn’t it funny that
many of them wax rich after becoming famous for their public
stance on these things.
~
Jesus Christ said before His Ascension that it is not for us to know
the times and seasons established in God’s Own Authority.
Forming a god like government controlled economy has always failed.
Then all institutions in ‘Animal Farm’ like fashion get controlled by a select
few in an oligarchy. The moral relativist culture of death purveyors thought
they have convinced enough of the public in the U.S.A. to constantly be elected, thus, without using ‘oligarchy’ have formed one by consent of the governed. That is why they are so angry, and in unprincipled fashion over
the decades; with purposefulness painting The Judaeo Christian Ethic
as non exclusive, judgmental, and bigoted - flip from reasoned approaches
to real human conditions to gain popular support.
There is nothing new under the sun. The Roman Empire used the terminology bread and/or circuses to keep control of the public. Now a days, after honing their human behavior propaganda tools they use crafty
more palatable language exalting in their human intelligence thinking they
will solve or address the human condition better.
The Light of Christ shines in the darkness.
 
Politics runs by the consent of the governed. By this consent the judiciary gets effected for decades by either constitutional or revisionist judges.
~
The rampant current human laws, more and more forcing young people
to be taught seducing things contrary to the Judaeo Christian Ethic in public
schools is the fault of ‘We The People,’ but also the leadership in Churches
and other public forums who fostered an atmosphere that it didn’t matter for other reasons that purveyors of policies to bring this about got put in office.
The same is true of legalized murder of helpless life by the thousands every single day.
It took decades of seduction. It took unattainable promises of over government controls for economic justice.
‘We The People,’ in all due respect to those who, over the decades were not fooled by the gradual seduction of the moral relativist culture of death
trying to only give consent to those who would foster and encourage
traditional objective family ideals with a culture of life are responsible by whom we consent to be governed.
‘We The People,’ allowed us to be fooled by letting autonomy & false promises of economic justice be exalted in human law and justice over
Creator given self evident rights to life first and foremost, then liberty, which should not be allowed to use autonomy to oppress right to life, and then
liberty which should never be used to oppress any of the first two God given rights.
The Encyclical ‘Quod Primas,’ of 1925 directs us to assert as best as possible the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ in every venue of society.
This means government, also. Electing Godly men, to help foster and encourage humankind’s laws to reflect The Gospel is not a theocracy.
~
God help us, if we do not repent. The Equal Opportunity encoded in law
in the 1960s should have helped us be more Godly in law. Instead we sell
our children short, with so many put in power who encourage seductive laws and teachings, with their minds seduced into slavery to substance abuse, or emotional euphoric highs of the so called ‘new’ normal condoned fleshly sins as ideal instead of the Sacredness and Gift of marriage, or workaholic for accumulating earthly wants & recreation.
What values and morals those who seek public office matters very much in Catholic Social Teaching. But the focus on this is derided by so many in every stewardship level of the Church. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen spoke of these things transpiring before 1950. A mimic Church will not come
a red cape and horns; but as a Church in the name of not being judgmental loose focus on growing in Godliness with a so called ‘new’ humanitarianism.
~
Politics is part of the human condition. And every single venue of society gets effected by the pervasiveness of those who promote ungodliness as a rule of law to be put in place getting power.
~
Peace.
 
Maximus1 said:
What can be Prudential about a core Gospel message?
Click to expand...
It is not the gospel that is prudential, it is its application in particular instances.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

Although individuals can sin in failing to properly concern themselves with the objectives laid out in CST, the sin arises from their motivation, not the particular plans they support. Take this example: two people support raising the minimum wage, and two oppose it. For two of them their position is commendable, for two it is condemnable - can you tell which two? Answer: no, it is not possible to tell who has sinned solely because of the positions they have taken. In this case it could be any combination. In order to judge you have to know not what they propose but why they propose it. This cannot be known, and we are explicitly charged not to make a judgment about this.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Dulles also said that without the directives of the Magisterium , theology would lack an adequate guide…
He was a theologian and appointed by Pope John Paul II.
Would he brush off his encyclicals to begin with?
Would he consider his opinion more relevant or important than that of the Popes?
Have you read From Symbol to System and give us a more rounded idea of what he had to say?
Citing snippets of Cardinal Dulles seem to be giving the wrong impression about him.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
Citing snippets of Cardinal Dulles seem to be giving the wrong impression about him.
Click to expand...
If you disagree with Dulles’ comments then cite what you disagree with. If you disagree with my argument then cite the part you feel was in error. Yours is a generic objection that doesn’t address any of the points I made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top