Does Dinesh D'Souza misrepresent the teachings of Christ with his brand of Conservative Philosophy?

[Bartolome_Casas]

Consider the following quote from Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “What’s So Great About Christianity”:

*"The system of modern capitalism arose in the West. To some it is surprising that capitalism developed so easily in conjunction with a Christian ethic. But capitalism satisfied the Christian demand for an institution that channels selfish human desire toward the betterment of society.

Some critics accuse capitalism of being a selfish system, but the selfishness is not in capitalism — it is in human nature. As Adam Smith put it in The Wealth of Nations, the desire to better our condition “comes with us from the womb, and never leaves us till we go into the grave” [7]. Selfishness, like lust, is part of the human condition. It is hopeless to try to root it out, although some zealous utopians have certainly tried. Over the centuries, Christianity came up with a much better solution. The Bible is often quoted to say that money is the root of all evil, but the relevant passage actually says that “love of money is the root of all evil.” This is a condemnation of a certain human attitude to wealth, not a condemnation of either wealth or commerce.

 The effect of capitalism is to steer human selfishness so that, through the invisible hand of competition, the energies of the capitalist produce the abundance from which the whole society benefits.  Moreover, capitalism encourages entrepreneurs to act with consideration for others even when their ultimate motive is to benefit themselves.  So while profit remains the final goal, entrepreneurs spend the better part of each day figuring out how better to serve the needs of their actual and potential customers.  They are operationally, if not intentionally, altruistic.  As Samuel Johnson once put it, “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently occupied than in getting money” [8].  One may say that capitalism civilizes greed in much the same way that marriage civilizes lust.  Both institutions seek to domesticate wayward or fallen human impulses in socially beneficial ways."*

[End of quotation]

To me, the most possibly “heretical” thing Mr. D’Souza says is this: “Selfishness, like lust, is part of the human condition. It is hopeless to try to root it out, although some zealous utopians have certainly tried.” My ire was triggered by “…although some zealous utopians have certainly tried.” Mr. D’Souza surely has in mind the Marxist Communist Movement.

But would not Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul also fit Mr. D’Souza’s definition of “zealous utopians” who have “certainly tried” to “root it out”?

Christ’s and St. Paul’s views on selfishness, money seeking, selfish ambition are clear in the New Testament. I think there can be NO DOUBT that the aim of Jesus Christ is to do what Mr. D’Souza denounces, namely to “root…out” “selfishness.”

I agree that WITHOUT CHRIST such an enterprise as rooting out selfishness is, as Mr. D’Souza says, “hopeless.” But WITH CHRIST, it is NOT hopeless. In fact, it seems that one can say, and all the saints say, that the very reason Christ came was to make it possible for believers to “root…out” “selfishness” form their hearts, minds and lives, and live like Christ and the saints.

But Mr. D’Souza dismisses this all as a “utopian” dream. Therefore, doesn’t Mr. D’Souza dismiss the Christian Faith entirely?

Now, the New Testament:

Philippians 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition

James 3:14
But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.

James 3:16
For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

Galatians 5:19-20
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

2 Corinthians 12:20
For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.

Romans 2:8
But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

1 Corinthians 13:5
It [the agape love that Christians are commanded to practice] does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

1 Timothy 6:9
English Standard Version (ESV)
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.

James 4:3
When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

Luke 18:25
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Luke 6:24
“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."

Luke 1:53
[Blessed Virgin Mary speaking] He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The answer to your question is “No.” Where have you quoted from? Citation please?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Having studied economics extensively at academic level, humans are considered by and large “selfish”. However, the term selfish is a bit of a hyperbole and a misinterpretation of what Adam Smith originally meant. A more apt term is “self-interest”, which means that we can only consider things from our frame of reference (in other words, I can only grasp things from my perception and not RealJuliane’s perception). It is because of this that Adam Smith explains in his The Theory of Moral Sentiments that when we see another person hurt, we are sympathetic to that person because we try to put ourselves in their shoes. As a matter of fact, even Jesus’ Golden Rule seems to imply that humans are self-interested: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). If you wouldn’t do it to yourself, then you shouldn’t do it others. This goes at the very heart of human nature - that we are self-interested because we can only analyze things from our perspective, and we feel sympathy to others because we put ourselves in their shoes. As a sidenote, this completely destroys the preposterous claim by some theists that atheists are unable to feel sympathy for others or are “immoral” - the Golden Rule and Adam Smith’s explication of morality prove by and large that morality is an in-built virtue that is strongly intertwined with human nature.

When economists say “selfish”, this is just an extreme word to hone in the point that is being put forward. It is unfortunate that non-economists take it way out of context, because if you actually read the original works that supported a free-enterprise system, charity, goodwill and obedience to the law were values strongly emphasized as well. The self-interest teaching, which is known properly as homo economicus, is perhaps one of the most important teachings in economics, because it explains other theories as well - namely, rational expectations, rational choice theory, the “free-rider” dilemma, Nash equilibrium, and so on and so forth.

D’Souza’s explanation is correct, but he doesn’t speak about the fact that the Classical school of economics is mostly redundant. Government also has to play a role in a society’s development, as self-interest can lead to socially undesirable positions, which many economists call “externalities” (e.g. in the case of smoking). A Catholic interested in economics can agree with contemporary economics that self-interest is what keeps an economy going, but there are instances (i.e. “market failures”) in which a government has to intervene. Pope Leo XIII, if I recall correctly, was strongly vociferous in the abolishment of child labour; and you could regard his derision against the practice as almost prophetic.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The answer to your question is “No.” Where have you quoted from? Citation please?

The main passage by Dinesh D’Souza is from pages 61 and 62 of his book 2007 book What’s So Great About Christianity, published by Regnery. Quite a bit of this book can be read online on Google Books.

The other quotations are from the Holy Bible.

Incidentally, I am surprised that no one has, so far, seen any problem with the pro-selfishness gospel that Mr. D’Souza preaches. It seems to me to really be quite identical to the “Greed is good” gospel preached by Wall Street tycoon and convicted inside trader Ivan Boesky, and made famous as spoken by the character Gordon Gekko in the Hollywood movie “Wall Street.”

Has anyone ever heard the pope, or any Catholic priest, give a homily in favor of selfishness, greed, materialism, and the seeking of money with which to buy luxuries for personal use? Don’t they in fact always give homilies in the other direction?

If Mr. D’Souza and his fellow Conservatives are right, then according to the Christian Faith we are supposed to be 100% selfish at all times** when at work** at our job or business, and only take off the “Selfishness Hat” when we are at home doing family-based things, or only when doing some charitable volunteer service in our free time.

There seems to be no basis for such a dichotomy in the New Testament or in the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol” is perpetually popular precisely because it condemns and rejects such a dichotomy. The main character, Mr. Scrooge, ends up rejecting his Conservative “business is business” view of things, and instead decides to live according to Christian values at all times and in all things.

Ultimately, my view is that the true Catholic Faith is in sharp conflict with both political Conservatism and political Liberalism (as those -isms are typically defined in the USA). Unlimited and unrestricted **GREED **in the world of business, employment, and economics seems to be the Prime Tenet of political Conservatism, and unlimited and unrestricted **LUST **in the realm of the flesh and sex seems to be the Prime Tenet of political Liberalism.

Yet, the Catholic Church has never waived in declaring both GREED and LUST to be among the SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

Therefore, the seemingly never-ending Culture War between political Conservatives and political Liberals in the USA is a struggle between two radically anti-Christian movements. So it seems to me, anyway.

 

[dandingo]

Absolutely not. Dinesh D’Souza is one of the greatest Catholic, Christian and American Apologetics of our time. In fact, one of the great things about him is that he was not born into a Capitalist, free society. He was born in India, I believe, and his family was very anti-Colonial.

Capitalism is not a bad thing. Even the Catholic Church endorses Capitalism as the best form, although they do not endorse a pure form of Capitalism, which makes sense.

From the Catechism …

*2425
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2427
Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.” Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

2432
**Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. **

1883
Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

2431
The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”

1885
**The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

(In other words, the smallest and most local form of government should have the most authority.)

**
1894
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

1914
Participation is achieved first of all by taking charge of the areas for which one assumes personal responsibility: by the care taken for the education of his family, by conscientious work, and so forth, man participates in the good of others and of society.

(This is not the job of the government.)

1734
**Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. **Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. *

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Absolutely not. Dinesh D’Souza is one of the greatest Catholic, Christian and American Apologetics of our time. Capitalism is not a bad thing. Even the Catholic Church endorses Capitalism as the best form, although they do not endorse a pure form of Capitalism, which makes sense.

From the Catechism …

2425
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

A couple things I thought readers here might be interested, one a fact, another an opinion.

FACT: Mr. D’Souza is, by his own admission, no longer a Catholic, and hasn’t been one since about 1998. He attends Calvary Chapel with his wife and child, and says his Christian faith is that of the Protestant Reformation. See: firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/25/is-dinesh-dsouza-a-catholic/

OPINION: The above quote from the Catechism says: "The Church has…refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy…solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."

As far as I can tell, the Conservative movement in the USA completely rejects the above part of Catholic Social Doctrine.

Recently Newt Gingrich even proposed eliminating laws against child labor.

No Conservative I know of will vote for a minimum Just Wage under any circumstances, even though Catholic Social Doctrine says it is the duty of civil government to set and establish a minimum Just Wage when necessary for the common good.

On the contrary, the Conservative movement in the USA wants, as a matter of principle, the Free Market to decide and handle everything pertaining to economic matters. The Conservative movement in the USA wants to eliminate all of these forms of “Socialism”: Social Security Retirement; Social Security Disability; Medicare; Unemployment Insurance; Minimum Wage Laws; Child Labor Laws; Anti-Monopoly Law; Health and Safety Laws; Environmental Protection Laws; Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws; the Food Stamp Program; Child Support Enforcement (Phyllis Schlafly’s position); College Student Aid and Loan Programs; Publicly-Funded K-12 Education; Public Libraries (at the founding of the USA, for many years after, all libraries were funded by voluntary subscription, not gov’t tax dollars); and so on.

 

[dandingo]

A couple things I thought readers here might be interested, one a fact, another an opinion.

FACT: Mr. D’Souza is, by his own admission, no longer a Catholic, and hasn’t been one since about 1998. He attends Calvary Chapel with his wife and child, and says his Christian faith is that of the Protestant Reformation. See: firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/25/is-dinesh-dsouza-a-catholic/

OPINION: The above quote from the Catechism says: "The Church has…refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy…solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."

As far as I can tell, the Conservative movement in the USA completely rejects the above part of Catholic Social Doctrine.

Recently Newt Gingrich even proposed eliminating laws against child labor.

No Conservative I know of will vote for a minimum Just Wage under any circumstances, even though Catholic Social Doctrine says it is the duty of civil government to set and establish a minimum Just Wage when necessary for the common good.

On the contrary, the Conservative movement in the USA wants, as a matter of principle, the Free Market to decide and handle everything pertaining to economic matters. The Conservative movement in the USA wants to eliminate all of these forms of “Socialism”: Social Security Retirement; Social Security Disability; Medicare; Unemployment Insurance; Minimum Wage Laws; Child Labor Laws; Anti-Monopoly Law; Health and Safety Laws; Environmental Protection Laws; Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws; the Food Stamp Program; Child Support Enforcement (Phyllis Schlafly’s position); College Student Aid and Loan Programs; Publicly-Funded K-12 Education; Public Libraries (at the founding of the USA, for many years after, all libraries were funded by voluntary subscription, not gov’t tax dollars); and so on.

For one, that is not true. Yes, there are extreme Conservatives, such as Ron Paul, who want to do away with all of these. But there are also Conservatives that understand that most Agencies are, in fact, a waste of resources and do more harm than good. They also realize that things such as Medicare, SS and so on need to be completely revamped, as they have become corrupt and a waste of an indescribable amount of money.

As for the Catechism that you sited, you forgot a crucial quote …

" Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."

Reasonable regulation of the marketplace is what we had years ago. Socialism and Communism are a taking-over of the marketplace. Pure Capitalism means that there is absolutely no regulation. Right now, there are so many rules, regulations, taxes and other things that businesses cannot survive. I live in California and people are fleeing our state because of all of the regulations and taxes that they have to deal with. A business cannot survive like that and is no longer free. I do agree, there should be some regulation.

If the Catholic Church isn’t endorsing Capitalism, what are they endorsing?
*
1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II:

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called ‘Welfare State.’ This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoke very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State.’** Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.”**

Also, I didn’t realize that he wasn’t Catholic anymore until I just did some research. That really bums me out but I still believe that he is an excellent Apologist and is still on our side.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Oh, I forgot that the other form of “Socialism” that the political Conservative Movement in the USA wants to eliminate is the Inheritance Tax so that inheritances of all sizes can be totally passed on to the kids. Yes, I agree with dandingo that some political Conservatives are more moderate in the changes they want to make to government and the regulation of the economy.

But, in general, I agree too, I think, with dandingo, in that it is a matter of judgment as to whether the Conservative Movement of the USA as a whole endorses the positions of some of the advocates of a more pure Free Market philosophy and system.

I believe dandingo views the political Conservative Movement of the USA as accepting (to now quoting the Catechism) “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market” and that “Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

My reading of the current political Conservative is different. I see them as advocating what the Catechism condemns, namely (quoting the Catechism now) “the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy…solely by the law of the marketplace…”

At least dandingo and I agree on the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine that Catholics have a calling to bring into the world.

Yet, I disagree with a view that seems to be widely held, that the tenets of the political Conservative Movement and the tenets of Catholic Social Doctrine are exactly the same.

How can that be, since every leader in the political Conservative Movement rejects, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, that the government should every set and enforce a minimum wage, while, on the other hand, the Catholic Church has said, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, that the government has a right and duty to set and enforce a minimum wage when the government leaders view such as being in the common good.

The Catholic Church doesn’t demand that every government establish a minimum wage at all times, but allows it as a possibility, and urges and applauds it as righteous in certain circumstances. But contrast, the political Conservative Movement demands that no minimum wage every be set ever, period. Isn’t that a contradiction in basic principles, not just a judgment about what will promote the Common Good?

Thus, I conclude that certain opinion leaders in the political Conservative Movement have been working hard to create the impression that every devout Catholic is automatically a member of the political Conservative Movement, or should be.

Certain opinion leaders of the political Conservative Movement want Catholics to let them (those political opinion leaders) inform Catholics about what the right positions on all the issues are.

As I read the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, I see them as saying that Catholics need to disentangle their Faith from worldly, materialistic, political movements of both the Right and the Left, and instead to promote the Catholic Faith into the world, both in the hearts and minds and souls of individuals, and in the economic and political systems as well.

Does anyone else also see that in their writings and homilies?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Having studied economics extensively at academic level, humans are considered by and large “selfish”.

In response the good comment above, I offer this: As I understand it, the academic discipline known as Economics is the study of the human behavior of humans who are making little or no attempt to live out Christian agape love (“love thy neighbor as thyself”) in matters pertaining to business, trade, employment, investment, foreign policy, etc.

According the the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Christians are called to a higher standard. They are called to be “regenerated,” “born of the spirit,” and to live out Christian agape love (“love thy neighbor as thyself”) in all and every realm of life in this world.

Is that occurring now? No. But what then in the Catholic Church for? Is the Catholic Church merely a vehicle to attaining Heaven? It is that. But is it merely that? Doesn’t the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and all the writings and homilies of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI say that Christians are also called to transform this world to a place that is has much better living conditions for the poorest among us, rather than just perpetually “conserving” the status quo?

If there were no God, no Christ, no Church, then the political Conservative Movement would make perfect sense to me, since without God, Christ and the Church, there would be no hope of a world without poverty, without war, without oppression and exploitation of the have nots by the haves.

It is logical that experts in the field of Economics do not write about God, Christ and the Church, and the effects these can have on human behavior. That is not what they study or examine.

I have noticed that many in the political Conservative Movement like the writings of G.K. Chesterton. He is famous for saying: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

The Catholic Church is urging that Christianity be tried. The political Conservative Movement is not. That’s the different I see, anyway. I exaggerate a bit. But I still stand by that.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus by Pope John Paul II:

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called ‘Welfare State.’ This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses,....*

That quote was very helpful to this discussion.

I have heard many qualified people say that if one reads Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Centesimus Annus” carefully, fairly, and as a whole, it is clear that it attacks and condemns the excesses of both out-of-control Capitalism and out-of-control Socialism.

It is true, though, that many in the political Conservative Movement in the USA constantly make the claim that that encyclical is a full on approval of the Free Market economic philosophy championed by the leaders of the political Conservative Movement. That view had been disputed by many scholars, however.

Then there is this from Pope Benedict XVI:

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” (“Europe and Its Discontents,” by Benedict XVI)

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas #10
I have heard many qualified people say that if one reads Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Centesimus Annus” carefully, fairly, and as a whole, it is clear that it attacks and condemns the excesses of both out-of-control Capitalism and out-of-control Socialism.

What passes for “many qualified people” have distorted Centesimus Annus, in which Bl John Paul II condemns socialism itself:
Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul; II, 1991, #12:
“By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.
“…the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy,” “market economy” or simply “free economy.” (CA #42). The Holy Father evidently disliked the term “capitalism” (a Marxist term), and there is no “out-of-control capitalism”.

By His parable of the Talents Jesus is not implying that anyone should seek wealth first in their lives. He is preaching and rewarding prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, rather than attacking those who accumulate wealth legitimately, He is lambasting the slothful.

In the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Bl John Paul II emphasises “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

What passes for “many qualified people” have distorted Centesimus Annus, in which Bl John Paul II condemns socialism itself:…

Member Abu presents, I think, a strong and effective argument for the view that Bl John Paul fully endorsed market economic systems and fully condemned socialist economic systems.

But is that the whole story? Is there more to this? What does Pope Benedict XVI say? (see below in this post)

To me, part of this is various uses of the term “socialism.” For some, it means the totalitarian Communist systems that existed in the former USSR, in China under Mao, and in Cuba under Fidel Castro. By this time, 2011, virtually everyone condemns that sort of “socialism,” even intellectuals in Russia and China. Sure, a tiny, tiny, tiny number of college professors in the USA may still be defending Stalin, Mao, and Castro, but they seem to be really irrelevant.

Was Bl John Paul II condemning the “socialism” of present-day Norway and Germany? Was he condemning the “socialism” that President Theodore Roosevelt instituted in the USA with anti-monopoly laws, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted with Social Security Retirement, Unemployment Insurance, minimum wage laws, federal anti-child labor laws, and that President Johnson carried further with Medicare, that President Richard Nixon carried further with massive environmental protections laws? Do you really think Bl John Paul II was urging that all these laws in the USA be repealed?

But many, many people use “socialism” to refer to the political systems in robust democratic countries like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and even France and Germany. Those countries all have stronger economies that the USA according to many measurements (as individual nations they have smaller GNP, since they are smaller countries). The citizens of those countries have a higher average standard of living than is present in the USA, and they report much greater satisfaction with their lives in public opinion surveys. The students in those countries score much higher on standardized tests than do even suburban students in the USA.

Consider the following from Bl John Paul’s right hand man and Holy Spirit chosen successor to the throne of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI:

“In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” That is a quote from “Europe and Its Discontents,” by Benedict XVI. That quote is not out of context. If you read the whole piece, you’ll see that Pope Benedict is saying exactly what he seems to be saying.

A well known Catholic author and commentator, an American, strongly and sharply criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate.” He did so in a famous conservative magazine. That in turn led to many criticisms of the this American author. What the author said he hated was the “peace and justice” elements of the Holy Father’s encyclical. The author even when so far as to insinuate that Pope Benedict allowed false doctrine to be written into this encyclical in order to appease some angry prelates in the Vatican.

The author in question is an employee of a Conservative think tank funded by gifts from foundations established by some of the wealthiest Americans.

By contrast, Pope Benedict is an employee of God, who created and owns everything.

I just wonder this: Who is more likely to really understand the teachings of Bl John Paul II: Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger), or various, prominent leaders of the political Conservative Movement in the USA? Who should ordinary Catholics trust?

Must anger rule? Must arguments and mutual condemnations go on forever? Must Conservatives refuse to talk of nothing but the laziness, lack of discipline, and lack of family values of some of the poor? Must Liberals refuse to talk of nothing but the greed, selfishness, and lawlessness of some of the rich?

Can’t we Catholics come together and unite around the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, and on that basis proceed, in accordance with the Will of God, to better social conditions for all, but especially for those referred to by Jesus in this verse of Holy Scriptures:

“I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.”

To me, nothing much ever gets better because both political Conservatives who are Catholics and political Liberals who are Catholics refuse to hear and accept the WHOLE of the Catholic Church’s Social Doctrine. Saint Josemaria Escriva referred to this as “non servium” (“I will not serve”).

Personally, I am discouraged. Catholics who care about the social well-being of the nation and the world seem to either get all their views from either leaders and theorists of the political Conservative Movement or from leaders and theorists of the political Liberal Movement. And so the “Culture War” rages on, both inside the Catholic Church and in the country at large. Liberals have one objective: Destroy the Conservatives, and thereby save the country and the world. Conservatives have one objective: Destroy the Liberals, and thereby save the country and the world. It seems like mutual blood hatred.

As far as I can tell, this is not what the Lord Jesus Christ wants, and is not what the pope and the bishops want. Jesus said that if we have hatred in our hearts for anyone, we could not go to Holy Communion. Jesus said that we must even love our enemies.

But I have no idea what to do about all this.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

As one who was always (and in many ways still am) a person
deeply impressed an enamoured by our late President Ronald Reagan
(I kind of felt like, when I would hear him talk, that I was listening to my own grandpa.
I absolutely loved that man ((Reagan)).), nonetheless, I am forced to conclude with others on this thread that, at least in their extreme “pro-market-driven” economics,
the modern conservative movement is diametrically opposed to the the teachings of
Christ and the magisterium.

I am especially appalled by their unbelievably callous, ridiculous and frankly,
malicious opposition to every single increase in the minimum wage every single time
it is proposed. I work for a company that would refuse to pay it’s talented, hard working
employees even the minimum wage, unless they were FORCED to, and this company is
utterly unbelievably STINKING Rich, as they say, and that despite the recession.

I also remember in 1993 and 94, being so horrified by our then NEW President Clinton’s policies on homosexuality promotion and abortion promotion, that I went head over heels into debt pouring money into Republican Senatorial and Congressional campaigns. When they won back the whole congress in November of 94, I was in front of my tv cheering like a madman. THEN they took office, after campaigning on pro-life, pro-traditional moral values and promising to protect morals from what the Clintonistas had been doing and advocating. Yeah, right. The first thing they did when they took office? Was it a bill to outlaw abortion? NOPE. They passed a bill proposing a huge cut in the free lunch programs for Poor children from genuinely poverty-stricken families. I thought then, what
b–stards. I didn’t vote for them for THIS heartless nonsense. They went to work on capital gains taxes, abolishing inheritance taxes, etc, everything for the wealthy and did very, very, very little to even TRY to undo Clinton’s attack on traditional morals.
They REALLY ticked me off.
After ALL THAT MONEY that I and millions of other Christians poured into their campaigns because they promised to roll back Clinton’s relentless attack on traditional morals, they dive head first in promoting stuff for the rich and paying only largely lip-service to traditional morals concerns.
Fie !! Enough of them. I think they are all (Reps and Dems) in Rockefeller’s pocket.
That, in fact, is well documented by men such as Professor Antony C. Sutton and others in their writings on the Rockefellers and their political machines (CFR and Trilateral Commission, etc).
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
PRAY THE ROSARY DAILY

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas
many people use “socialism” to refer to the political systems in robust democratic countries like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and even France and Germany. Those countries all have stronger economies that the USA according to many measurements (as individual nations they have smaller GNP, since they are smaller countries). The citizens of those countries have a higher average standard of living than is present in the USA, and they report much greater satisfaction with their lives in public opinion surveys.

It is better not to rely on “many people” but to face reality so as to judge facts against fiction.

The reality against the Welfare State from Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Pope John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

mises.org/daily/2190
See: How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden, Per Byland(Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies).

As the Czech president Václav Klaus recently observed , “average annual economic growth in the eurozone countries was 3.4 percent in the 1970s, 2.4 percent in the 1980s, 2.2 percent in the 1990s and only 1.1 percent from 2001 to 2009.” “A similar slowdown,” Klaus added, “has not occurred anywhere else in the world.”
cato.org/pubs/edb/EDB14.pdf

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

As one who was always (and in many ways still am) a person
deeply impressed an enamoured by our late President Ronald Reagan
(I kind of felt like, when I would hear him talk, that I was listening to my own grandpa.
I absolutely loved that man ((Reagan)).), nonetheless, I am forced to conclude with others on this thread that, at least in their extreme “pro-market-driven” economics,
the modern conservative movement is diametrically opposed to the the teachings of
Christ and the magisterium.

I am especially appalled by…

Member Jaypeet04, thank you. I basically agree with all you said. I too am a Catholic who is coming to see that some of the leaders and theorists of the political Conservative Movement in the USA are, in many instances, and in many ways, just using and deceiving Catholics and other traditional Christians, as they (these certain political Conservatives) pursue their “Mammon Agenda” for a small elite of the citizens of the USA and the world.

When I started this discussion thread, I was hoping to find at least someone else out in “cyberspace” who felt as I did. I was feeling alone. So, Jaypeet04, thank you.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

It is better not to rely on “many people” but to face reality so as to judge facts against fiction.

The reality against the Welfare State from Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, 1991:
#48. “Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Pope John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

mises.org/daily/2190
See: How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden, Per Byland(Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies).

As the Czech president Václav Klaus recently observed , “average annual economic growth in the eurozone countries was 3.4 percent in the 1970s, 2.4 percent in the 1980s, 2.2 percent in the 1990s and only 1.1 percent from 2001 to 2009.” “A similar slowdown,” Klaus added, “has not occurred anywhere else in the world.”
cato.org/pubs/edb/EDB14.pdf

MemberAbu, you have inspired me to read and study further, especially in the original writings of Bl John Paul II. I believe he was a huge supporter of labor unions. I believe labor unions in Poland were key to overthrowing Communism in Poland, and so in causing the eventual fall of the Soviet Union.

Yet, as I understand it, the political Conservative Movement in the USA believes that labor unions have no right to exist whatsoever, and view them as trampling on the “freedom of work” rights of employees and as trampling on the property rights of business owners. But, perhaps I am mistaken, about that.

About the economic conditions in Europe, I really can’t dispute what Vaclay Klaus has said, except to say that I am always reading that Scandinavian countries have a higher average standard of living that the USA, and higher average educational attainment, and higher average life satisfaction in opinion polls. And they have a high degree of Socialism.

No one has commented on the clearly pro-Socialism quote I posted earlier from the current pope, Benedict XVI.

But, all in all, I know that in discussion places like this, “Quotation Wars” serve no purpose.

I wish everyone well.

I am going to study more, pray more, love God more, love my neighbor more, play more, and, so, I think we will all be okay.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

“Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

I apologize to all Forum members for my sinful intemperance, skewed judgments, and limited knowledge and insight. I have so much subdued sinful anger about certain conditions in the temporal condition, it is really sad and unfortunate. I am far from the character of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I see how easy it is to suppose that one’s anger is righteous anger (as when Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple courtyard), when, in fact, it is just sinful anger, when, in fact, it is just a refusal to love God and love neighbor as God wants. I am a sad case. Yet, in the mercy of God, there is hope, even for me.

And so, I am turning my attention away from all that, all these things in the temporal order that I find so distressing.

My new motto: “Say goodbye to activism, say hello to relationships.” Relationship with God is number 1. Relationships with my neighbors is number 1.1.

I cannot say if such a motto is good for anyone for else or not. But for me, it is a necessity.

Well wishes to ALL!

 

[Abu]

Bartolome Casas #16
About the economic conditions in Europe, I really can’t dispute what Vaclay Klaus has said, except to say that I am always reading that Scandinavian countries have a higher average standard of living that the USA, and higher average educational attainment, and higher average life satisfaction in opinion polls. And they have a high degree of Socialism.

In the 1970s to hasten Sweden’s long march towards the Social Democratic nirvana, involved expanding welfare programs, nationalizing many industries, expanding and deepening regulation, and – of course – increasing taxation to punitive levels to pay for it all.

Over the next twenty years, the Swedish dream turned decidedly nightmarish. The Swedish parliamentarian Johnny Munkhammar points out that “In 1970, Sweden had the world’s fourth-highest GDP per capita. By 1990, it had fallen 13 positions. In those 20 years, real wages in Sweden increased by only one percentage point.” So much for helping “the workers.”

Facing severe economic stagnation, Sweden began implementing several rather un-social democratic measures in the early 1990s. This included curtaining its public sector deficit and reducing marginal tax-rates and levels of state ownership. Another change involved allowing private retirement schemes, a development that was accompanied by the state contributing less to pensions.

Over the next 15 years the economy did improve although unemployment is high especially among the 15-25 year olds largely due to the level of the union-imposed minimum wage.

Also see JANUARY 26, 2011.
The Swedish Model
It’s the free-market reforms, stupid
By JOHNNY MUNKHAMMAR
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104023432243468.html#printMode

No one has commented on the clearly pro-Socialism quote I posted earlier from the current pope, Benedict XVI.
#10: “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” (“Europe and Its Discontents,” by Benedict XVI)]

Noting “In many respects”, implies other aspects of democratic socialism that are undesirable for a variety of reasons, including Catholic social doctrine. Also, something can have made a "remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness” and still be undesirable for a variety of reasons (including Catholic ones.)

In #48 in Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II makes sure to qualify that while the State can also exercise a substitute function is social sectors or business systems, “Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

**Matthew Archbold Tuesday, August 23, 2011 **
“But I ask, where in the Pope’s comments does he advocate a large government bureaucracy to take from the rich and give to the poor? He doesn’t.”
ncregister.com/blog/is-pope-benedict-xvi-a-commie/

Best wishes and God bless

 

[dandingo]

“Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

I apologize to all Forum members for my sinful intemperance, skewed judgments, and limited knowledge and insight. I have so much subdued sinful anger about certain conditions in the temporal condition, it is really sad and unfortunate. I am far from the character of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I see how easy it is to suppose that one’s anger is righteous anger (as when Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple courtyard), when, in fact, it is just sinful anger, when, in fact, it is just a refusal to love God and love neighbor as God wants. I am a sad case. Yet, in the mercy of God, there is hope, even for me.

And so, I am turning my attention away from all that, all these things in the temporal order that I find so distressing.

My new motto: “Say goodbye to activism, say hello to relationships.” Relationship with God is number 1. Relationships with my neighbors is number 1.1.

I cannot say if such a motto is good for anyone for else or not. But for me, it is a necessity.

Well wishes to ALL!

Please don’t call your interpretation sinful and don’t apologize for your insights. I don’t know that my views are correct, but with prayer and a lot of analyzing, I’ve come the conclusion that certain positions are the closest to Jesus’ teachings as possible.

I think it’s awesome that admitting that certain views may not be in as much line with Christ as others, as many people tend to just call other people names and don’t want to change themselves. I’m always looking to better my relationship with Christ, even if it means learning more about something that I don’t agree with. We are ALL sinners in the Church. Keep searching. You’re an asset to this forum and more importantly, to Christ and His Church.

God bless!