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

[Crocus]

I don’t see a problem with catholics rejecting “social justice” teachings. Many US Catholics, and non-Catholics, don’t agree with some of the ways in which the federal and states governments have carried out their own social programs. But that doesn’t mean US Catholics are against the Church’s teachings.

Thanks for your comment. I am not necessarily directing the following to you personally, instead invite others to take it further.

Is there a way to evaluate programs for how they resonate with, or better still, accomplish goals of the Church’s social justice teaching?

Where people have criticisms, maybe it is because the programs themselves, create conditions in opposition to the teaching.

Maybe (observing the present challenges) people feel helpless to imagine anything different, that might bear a closer resemblance to the social harmony that the Pope advocates.

Where Catholics assent to Church social justice teaching, in what ways can they participate in making it reality?

 

[EndTimes]

Sometimes it is the liberal Catholics that represent Obedience.

That still remains confusing… Imprecise. Requiring more specificity as I’ve attempted above.

To some the terms: - “liberal” and “conservative” connect with American politics …

To some, the terms - “liberal” and 'conservative" are applies to Catholics in not only differing manners,
but in disgreeable to one another manners…

To the Church: By whatever name - yet to be a bit more precise:
E.G… Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Modernism, Satanism - are Condemned.

Got that so far?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is a good question because it highlights a common misconception about Church teaching and various “isms”. To illustrate, I will add one more “ism” to your list - capitalism. Then I direct your attention to section 2425 which is the only section of the Catechism that mentions communism, socialism, and capitalism. In that section the Church rejects certain aspects of all three, but outright condemns none of them.

The lesson is that simple one-word “isms” cannot be determined as acceptable or not. One needs to examine the details. Some of the isms in your list are too vague to know for sure what they even mean. Take “modernism.” Is that air travel and email ?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Is there a way to evaluate programs for how they resonate with, or better still, accomplish goals of the Church’s social justice teaching?

IMO, any evaluation would be up to the bishops of that particular country, or state.

Where Catholics assent to Church social justice teaching, in what ways can they participate in making it reality?

IMO, there are two elements to that. There is the State element, in which voting or holding office would be a means of participation.

The other element is that of the individual themselves. They can produce their own charity whether it is in cooperation with the States programs or not.

 

[EndTimes]

section 2425 which is the only section of the Catechism that mentions communism, socialism, and capitalism. In that section the Church reject certain aspects of all three, but outright condemns none of them.

The lesson is that simple one-word “isms” cannot be determined as acceptable or not. One needs to examine the details. Some of the isms in your list are too vague to know for sure what they even mean.

Sure - we could add into the mess - Satanism, Luciferianism and one or two other known -isms…

However, as you and I know, the CCC is not the only source of Solid Catholic Teachings re: most -isms…

And to introduce “Capitalism” ? rings this following bell…

Capitalism is indeed the big enemy
of the non-Christian either-or Matrix of Karl Marx, Communism - and Company…

Re: Church Teachings:

The -isms I’ve mentioned - can be indeed better understood in more depth,
via reading the Plethora of 19th and 20th Central Papal Encyclicals
which arose - because of the higher heights achieved by AntiChristians
operating both without and within the Church…

The enemy of Christ - whom - as in the manner of Sub-Groups -
works within many venues bearing many names
including yes those of the -isms… I’ve mentioned.

So Before proceeding on that yes ‘interesting’ introduction of "Capitalism’ into this discourse,
this lesson is that those -isms cannot be lessened…

_

_

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’ve given no lesson since you have not cited a single one of those many “other sources” of Catholic teaching. And you have totaled ignored the Catechism reference I gave.

 

[EndTimes]

Mea Maxima Culpa…

I can easily start posting specific references
to all those -isms CONDEMNED by The Catholic Church…

I bring attention to those Papal Encyclicals …
Are you not aware of them?

AND Of which you appear perhaps to be dancing away from them,
maybe because you already know about them
and perhaps also well realize that they completely undermine
any attempt by anyone who may possibly be Defending:
Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Modernism, Liberalism…

FOR ANY READING THIS -
The Magisterium of The Catholic Church
Extends beyond the CCC…

 

[pnewton]

If an encyclical from more than a few generations back is cited, then the definition of what is condemned must be considered, as the meaning of some word change with time, and from generation to generation, especially political terms. That is why, instead of digging back into the past, it is more helpful to look to our one sure norm of Catholic teaching, the current catechism, at least for most uses, and to listen to the Church on social justice, instead of closing our hearts, minds, and ears.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I suppose your fly-by statement that “conservative pundits” do not understand what Marxism, communism and socialism means relative to Church teaching, is itself, an example of rhetoric.

If this is not an issue, why did the subject of socialism, Marxism, or communism even come up in a discussion of Catholic social teaching? Do you have an answer? Since no part of Catholic social teaching has, or ever has, included these beliefs, I submit that the mere presence of these being included is prima facie proof that there is, at least, some ignorance as to the meaning of these terms.

Yes, terms must be defined, especially when they are misused out of ignorance. Do I not have a right to defend the Church, and especially the pope, against charges of socialism by those ignorant of what the word actually means? Surely you must know that this word has been used as some weird but false equivalent. for social justice that favors the poor over the wealthy.

Of course, you have “the right” to defend the Church, but any such defence can only be achieved by clarity and precision in the argument not by gestures towards vague generalities, as if the “ignorant” will magically be informed by that handwaving.

The meanings of those generalities need to be broken down, clarified and logical connections made.

We are – as with any discussion of social and political questions – touching on existential questions of the common good, sound morality and the essentials of political life. Those don’t get answered by asserting “Church teaching good” and “justice good” therefore socialism, Marxism and communism need not be part of the question.

What exactly is Church teaching on the political life, on morality and the common good? And what exactly is justice in the view of the Church?

Until those are very clear, it is an open question whether or not communism, Marxism and socialism have any points worth considering or worth rejecting outright.

There are many, even in the Church, who are currently advocating for socialism of some sort, often by qualifying that they don’t support “that kind of socialism” – the kind responsible for death and misery historically – but some other kind. A kind which is never fully explicated, just that it works in the Scandinavian countries. As if those countries are socialist to the core.

 

[EndTimes]

If an encyclical from more than a few generations back is cited, then the definition of what is condemned must be considered, as the meaning of some word change with time, and from generation to generation, especially political terms.

No it’s not…

Those encyclicals refer to ongoing antiChristian ideological movements which have only grown

 

[pnewton]

I could not disagree more with this static view of language.