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.
Just to be clear, did anyone say that? That would be a heck of a long post to address a straw man.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Just to be clear, did anyone say that? That would be a heck of a long post to address a straw man.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. 👍 So much straw in this thread.

@(name removed by moderator), you miss the meaning of what you quoted:
  1. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten;
Click to expand...
The problem addressed is that the worker is denied the just wage (in the first place) that would give him access to private property. This is what Leo XIII is speaking of throughout. What needs be done to solve it?

This is a disingenuous concept. In fact to agree to enter into the economic system, one has responsibility towards workers, suppliers, consumers, in due proportion. There may be a serious question whether that one has taken undue advantage of any of those partners, in particular, the most vulnerable, the worker. The worker who according to Leo XIII, has only his labor as his capital. What needs be done to address it?
 
Last edited:
We all agree with his response to the socialists that’s why we need to say stop beating that straw man to shreds.

The part you bolded, is expanded upon elsewhere, to ensure that the worker is not abused, due to his vulnerability, to accept a too low wage. Elsewhere, the services of a body (government if you will) is proposed to regulate responsibilities for the good of the society. The document has to be read as a whole.
 
Last edited:
I get what you are saying.
But it is what is and we have to try and use what there is.
Don’t you think so , Jim?
And try and make it simple , not wayyyyy beyond the questions for example.
I m thinking that Crocus had a good idea bringing to the table that we can inform ourselves a bit more, and pick the sources from the Magisterium.
 
Are you saying not all of the people on this thread agree with his response to socialists?

I have only seen people make claims against socialists and accuse people of socialist leanings but none actually promote what Leo XIII denounces.

Edit to your reference to forced minimum wage. It is a minor solution proposed by some. At best might serve as a part of an overall plan which has yet to gain wide support. Results are what matter, situation seems rather to be deteriorating for the worker.
 
Last edited:
I could, and would insist on including what I think Pope Leo XIII means to advance through RN, but I’d first want to apply for a Master’s degree. 😅
Maybe in my spare time I can assemble a flow chart linking the related concepts. 😌 hmmmm
 
I brought up the very problem of definition of terms and rebuffed. Yet this keeps coming up. RN condemns socialism, used in the strictest sense. It does not condemn some redistribution of wealth.
  1. Taxation is not socialism
  2. Taxing the wealthy extra to help the poor does not "do away with private property.
  3. Socialist programs are not socialism.
I have no idea why RN keeps getting brought up, as if the posters here are the only one in the Church that ever read it. There is no contradiction with current doctrine and Catholic social teaching and RN. It condemned something that is not even on the table today.
 
Yet you can’t say who. Socialist thinking, socialist actions, socialist programs are not socialism. If we capped wealth, it still would no be socialism if people were still allowed ownership of property and some wealth was permitted. Progressive ideas may be foolish, naive, or downright ridiculous, but they are not condemned by the Church.
 
@Maximus, is this a truth or a lie? Do you believe in state ownership of all goods? Maybe we could clear up this as an issue or a straw man once and for all.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if any of the social encyclicals address the potential problems of deficit spending. I should probably answer but I don’t.
Deficit spending has not generally been a problem as long as future income can be relied upon. But the U.S. government spends over $4 billion per day more than it takes in, thus adding that amount to the national debt, which now stands at around $22 trilliion. Now, with sharply declining fertility rates and expected population decline, that debt is being transferred to future generations for repayment. Is that just?
 
It is exactly what RN says! You posted that. I said no one had said otherwise.
 
While we wait to hear @Maximus1 on the socialist question, maybe you’d read RN #32 & 33.

Edit: Here’s a few snippets:
And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them.

the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due.

Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No! I never suggested state ownership. I didn’t suggest any alternate economic system per se.
I cited David Bentley Hart’s writings for its own conclusions. These are that Capitalism directly led to secularism and relativism–. Consumerism.
 
I never described Capitalism as inherently evil. You will not find that in any post. I just asserted approval of David Bentley Hart’s well reasoned articles that Capitalism has directly led to America’s move toward secularism and relativism–.
You can evaluate whatever objective moral virtue you want from secularism and relativism. Hart calls that basically a folk legend. I call it shovelling something against the tide.
Kieregaard basically called it strategic amnesia.
I an not certain what you define as
" equal opportunity" systems. Bishop Sheen certainly recognised unequal bargaining power between individual workers and employers. I imagine the " Rights" victory over private unions since Bishop Sheen’s time renders his observation a relic today. I wonder how those changes might alter his comments.
 
Government has to play a roll because working people no longer have private institutions like labor unions to implement a fairer more equitable distribution scheme.
Let’s not forget, we had a a fairer ratio in terms of distribution of profit prior to the 80s. It existed at some level going back to the last gilded age
 
Maximus1 said:
No! I never suggested state ownership.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing it up. The condemnation of socialism by the Church sure seems to be a straw man then, or perhaps just a misdirection to hide dissent on other topics, like nations helping the poor and needy through the government.
 
There is a very American belief in Capitalism as the " one true economic theory" which borders on idolatry.
The truth is a very mixed bag with positives and negatives.
The negatives include Hart’s point about Capitalism basically creating and becoming an equivilent practice with secularism and relativism–.
These " isms" promote practices contrary to CATHOLOCISM. Millions and millions of interactions that are ethics Capitalism but in conflict with the Gospel.
They then endeavor to have it both ways. Persue that which makes secularism growth assured, and in a piecemeal, issue by issue approach, attempt to salvage Capitalism as benign, and placing the blame for the negatives of secularism elsewhere.
The " bad egg" arguments.
Obviously if you create and promote what grows into a secular ethic by it’s very properties it becomes disingenuous to deny the root cause and seek out other scapegoats to relieve the willing beneficiary of personal salvation oriented accountability.
Catholic social doctrine exists independently and in conflict, as a reminder that we reap what we sow
 
Last edited:
The Church opposition to Socialism was developed in response to the 20th century Marxist definitive in Europe.
The objection was not in cooperative sharing. How could it be considering ACTS and the first Christian community.
The problem was the attack on religion as OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE and the accompanying authoritarian state that was Godless.
Two terrible consequences of
" socialism " in the European models.
We represent a combination since the 20th century.
 
Peace.
Christian is a religion with a Biblical world view perspective.
Capitalism is a free enterprise merit based system that requires equal opportunity and other human rights laws to constrain it; it isn’t a world view.
Communist is a governmental oligarchical control over everything using the collectivist socialism economy.
World view is a broad topic.
~
I’m glad you have a style of recreation you enjoy.
~
The signs of the times, with so much ambiguity today in clear moral direction (as prophesied) as ideals to strive for, with a sense of decency from objective moral evil - happened gradually. The sources I gave among others saw similar things through 20th century and warned us.
~
We are reaping what has been sown, and God knows if we stay in this direction what we will reap. Things in the works, like in the U.N. are making unborn child killing a universal right - and speaking on pro life oppressing adolescent girls and women. And the increase sanctioned taking away right of conscience in what morality children are being taught. This is oppression. And if those who assert the policies toward this end, and they will keep implementing them if they keep getting power.
~
So I will go with the clarity of those who conveyed these things with asserting objective virtue and oppose objective grave moral evil mandates.
~
It has been an interesting discussion.
This is my last reply.
~
Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top