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

[IsaiahSpirit]

Claim that comparing the atmosphere of the 1950s and now is irrelevant.
It is an interesting claim.
We have much to learn from those who came before us, since their is nothing new under the sun.
We are even taught to strive to live vicariously in Biblical times.
Development of things in Biblical history took decades even centuries for effects to be realized. The same is true in Church history.
The mid 1800s until now are intimately linked to the the tide of sentiments for society and those within The Church. And the source I gave, showed stated goals, like diminishing even criticizing teaching objective morality in specifics to focus on humanitarian efforts. And what do you know, it happened. The effect itself shows some evidence.
~
We have been conditioned to metaphorically look at say a ‘decade’ as if it was a whole epic in history, not so relevant today. It’s one of the reasons that those who flip or change policies drastically painting those who have similar policies to their former policies to address the human condition in a reasoned way as ‘heartless,’ behaving; - get away with it to some hearing them.
I can only inform. Peace be with you.

 

[graciew]

This may sound apples and oranges but since you ve read it I ask.
This year in China, a person ,red party,said that what they had in China was Socialism moving to Communism. For discretion reasons, I didn’t ask further, but didn’t quite get it, and thought it might be his personal perception
Now I see that in the encyclical Pope JPIi says something similar( or what I understood as similar…) when referring to it.
See if I can find it and I’ll edit
Then it dawned on me that Communism in their eyes is that final destination in some sort of “ perfection” or “ completion” ,and I d never looked at it that way.
What do you know about this distinction in a Communist country ,if I may ask?
One never stops learning really

Edited:
I found it. Chapter III .
11. Dimensions of the conflict ( 5th paragraph)

“This is the goal of the struggle carried on by political as well as ideological means. In accordance with the principle of “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, the groups that as political parties follow the guidance of Marxist ideology aim by the use of various kinds of influence, including revolutionary pressure, to win a monopoly of power in each society, in order to introduce the collectivist system into it by eliminating private ownership of the means of production. According to the principal ideologists and leaders of this broad international movement, the purpose of this programme of action is to achieve the social revolution and to introduce socialism and, finally, the communist system throughout the world.“

It was this “socialism and finally communism” that rang a bell. It was almost same words …
I wouldn’t have thought they could describe there present state as “Socialism” like this, and not Communism, , but there it is…
I don’t have any question I think… it is clear now. They do make this distinction when referring to themselves it seems.But if anyone has something to add or clarify here, thanks

 

[Crocus]

I don’t know anyone’s heart, but socialism and secular humanism each make claims

You do know, don’t you, that the worthy goals are taken from papal encyclicals of the Church?

It is not socialism or humanism, it is social justice the Church asks for: to give the worker his due share of the common goods of the earth. This is what this thread discussion is concerned with.

Have you read the social justice encyclicals, for example Rerum Novarum (among several others)?

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...nts/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

 

[Annie]

You do know, don’t you, that the worthy goals are taken from papal encyclicals of the Church?

That “worthy goals” are Catholic is true in any system, but that does not justify the system as a whole.

The socialist/communist systems were thought up before the papal social justice encyclicals, and denounced in Rerum Novarum.

If anything, Marx would have said that the goal of helping the poor came from Judaism.

Secular humanism, of course, is directly against Catholicism or any religious belief.

You have read RN, haven’t you?

 

[Annie]

Sorry… by “not cruising “ I mean that She has always had difficulties.

Ah, the word you want is coasting It’s like when a bicycle is moving along due to inertia, not because the rider is pedaling.

English is very tricky this way.

 

[graciew]

There you are!! Thank you!
Coasting!!

 

[Annie]

I wouldn’t have thought they could describe thwir present state as “Socialism” like this, and not Communism, , but there it is…

Yes, the theory was that while government existed, it would be socialism, but that the government would “wither away” and that would be communism.

Since at that point everyone would have grown up in the perfect system, there would no longer be any need for government.

 

[pnewton]

Claim that comparing the atmosphere of the 1950s and now is irrelevant.

Then let me clarify. Understanding what has happened before is not irrelevant. It is rather the pasting of words today back in time as a thought experiment, especially when those words were vague and not thought out, was useless. The difference would depend on which of the myriad of topics you covered you wanted to look at, and what words were used. Birth control medication had not really been developed, for example. We had a Red Scare that went no where. The boomer generation was not the millennial. The variables are vast, too vast to offer much control without being very specific.

 

[graciew]

You know Annie, it is very special to hear from real people what one has read in books when a teen almost.
The same thing happened to me when I heard the story directly from a Cuban friend about how she and her husband had managed to escape.
I don’t know if I can transmit what one experiences, but those books read become suddenly real.Very real.
The same was when I met the persons that had sailed Dove and describing it(you may not remember…)

 

[Annie]

I loved that book! I read it several times when I was young And you met some of those involved–how marvelous!

It is true that when you hear something from a person in real life, it reaches you in a way that just reading about it does not. I can think of similar instances in my life (with much less famous people…)

 

[Annie]

I must disagree. The whole point of the thought experiment is to “see” the differences between those generations, and how far we have moved since that time.

There are other ways that we have changed for the better.

 

[Crocus]

What are you talking about??? I have been saying this the whole thread and now, you ask if I read RN? Do you know what were the “worthy goals” of the conversation?

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Social justice seems rather complex in practice.

Yeah but isn’t the issue with many Republicans is that they don’t seem to give a serious effort, how would you respond to the idea Catholic Conservatives and Republicans voting on social issues at the expense/exclusion of economic, fiscal and societal issues (like helping the struggling and needy) are like pharisees since they seemingly overlook the needy or it feels that way especially since Catholic democrats and Liberals have a more holistic platform? Advice for self-conscious ones or it’s understandably easy to feel self-conscious about voting, it seems like Republicans are the lowest of the low and online, that perception seems common online.

 

[Annie]

In response to a comment about the claims of socialism and secular humanism, you wrote that the “worthy goals” --presumably of these two systems --were “taken from” the social encyclicals.

First, the social encyclicals were written after socialism and communism were thought up, and partly in response to them.

Second, secular humanism is totally materialist and has no “worthy goals” in and of itself.

RN specifically and completely denounces communism and socialism.

And I was just making a little joke about your having read RN, since it seemed that you frequently asked those with whom you have disagreed on this thread if they had read it

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The fact that some are able to become extremely wealthy doesn’t bother me.

Isn’t the issue though is having such opulence in the face of issues like homelessness/housing instability, inability to afford good health coverage (unaffordable deductibles) and care and systemic issues in society?

But I know some individuals who simply do not desire to work.

And what of the working poor and working class who struggle with basic needs?

 

[pnewton]

RN specifically and completely denounces communism and socialism.

Yes it does, but definitions cannot change from that document and its application. In the definition used in RN, Bernie Sanders would not be a socialist, for example, as he has not said no one should own private property.

 

[Annie]

And I am not saying that. If you follow the posts, socialism was first mentioned, then commented upon. I then pointed out the errors in what was said by the second poster. In no way, as far as I can tell, was Sanders or Democratic Socialism brought in.

 

[Crocus]

1949 Mao Zedong declared China a communist state
Around 1971, state allowed more private ownership of business
After 2012, state started taking back control of economy, because more and more money was leaving the country

That might be what your friend was talking about, associating the stricter controls with a return to communism.

 

[Crocus]

In response to a comment about the claims of socialism and secular humanism, you wrote that the “worthy goals” –presumably of these two systems --were “taken from” the social encyclicals.

Don’t worry you’re not the only one who makes incorrect presumptions (even on this thread).
The “worthy goals” was the description another poster gave to the following:

“How about a society in which everyone has at least food, shelter, clothing, modest recreation, hope for bettering their lives; some (many) are very rich; most have a very comfortable standard of living.”

My head hurts sometimes trying to keep some lines straight.

And I was just making a little joke about your having read RN, since it seemed that you frequently asked those with whom you have disagreed on this thread if they had re

Cross my heart, disagreement is not my reason for promoting the encyclicals; I truly want to share an learn about them together. Truly, we cannot discuss them if either of us haven’t read them. Otherwise we’re just speaking politics.

 

[graciew]

Thank you, Crocus.
He wasn’t a friend so I had to be very discreet. I really didn’t know how much he could say, and wouldn’t want to make him uncomfortable or nervous. So I just listened .
I still have a few unanswered questions about China, in time who knows …
Thanks again!!