Does the word "Social" in the name "Catholic Social Teaching" create a danger of Socialism?

[socialcath101]

Now if we can just get the rest of the people on here to understand this.

Pax

 

[socialcath101]

Yep, sounds pretty much like me. I’m a political moderate (leaning left for America, right if you go European), and a social conservative.

You’d like Christian Democracy

 

[martininthefiel]

As a Christian, I pray for the dignity of every human being. Economic justice is one of the things that contributes greatly to people’s ability live with dignity.

I am often astounded at what people believe about Church teaching. Yes, we are against abortion, but there is so much more to Catholic teaching. The Church is not synonymous with the political right.

If you do not love the poor, if you see them as an inconvenience, I suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels. If what you get out of that is a conservative economic agenda, I suspect you aren’t paying attention.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

As a Christian, I pray for the dignity of every human being. Economic justice is one of the things that contributes greatly to people’s ability live with dignity.

I am often astounded at what people believe about Church teaching. Yes, we are against abortion, but there is so much more to Catholic teaching. The Church is not synonymous with the political right.

If you do not love the poor, if you see them as an inconvenience, I suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels. If what you get out of that is a conservative economic agenda, I suspect you aren’t paying attention.

:

 

[socialcath101]

As a Christian, I pray for the dignity of every human being. Economic justice is one of the things that contributes greatly to people’s ability live with dignity.

I am often astounded at what people believe about Church teaching. Yes, we are against abortion, but there is so much more to Catholic teaching. The Church is not synonymous with the political right.

If you do not love the poor, if you see them as an inconvenience, I suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels. If what you get out of that is a conservative economic agenda, I suspect you aren’t paying attention.

You gave the best darn explanation ever

 

[socialcath101]

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/welfare-safety-net/

This entire USCCB page justifies the welfare state…

 

[chevalier]

As a Christian, I pray for the dignity of every human being. Economic justice is one of the things that contributes greatly to people’s ability live with dignity.

I am often astounded at what people believe about Church teaching. Yes, we are against abortion, but there is so much more to Catholic teaching. The Church is not synonymous with the political right.

If you do not love the poor, if you see them as an inconvenience, I suggest you go back and re-read the Gospels. If what you get out of that is a conservative economic agenda, I suspect you aren’t paying attention.

Yup but can’t support a pro-“choice” left candidate on the basis of some vague talking about social justice (his vision of) at the expense of abortion or some other life issues

 

[Swiss_Guy]

You’d like Christian Democracy

How’d you know?

 

[estesbob]

I work within a Catholic social teaching framework… I love Catholic social teaching… Its a shame because not a lot of Catholics pay attention to it

The problem is too many Catholic have hijacked catholic “social teaching” into supposedly supporting far left wing ideologies. The pricipal of subsidiarity is ignored and core Catholic moral teachngs on abortion and homosexuality are relegated to nothing more that another issue a list of eqaully important issues that must be adressed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, there is always the concern that “social” will overflow into “socialism”.

Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”

“When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” - Tacitus

“A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” - Unknown

 

[Abu]

socialcath101 #2
“Catholic social teaching” is progressive; probably our most liberal teachings (of which I am proud of)… Just war, just wage, the right to form unions, distributism, Democracy, universal healthcare etc…
And your fears of socialism are silly… Rome has already condemned socialism and communism
kama3 #4
“socialism” is a socioeconomic system currently in use in most of Europe, i.e. free enterprise with the state supporting the poor.
PatrickSebast #6
“Catholic Free Market Teaching” would pose the same danger since it would just push things into the direction of things like Lassiez Faire, or the Ayn Rand worldview.
Chevalier #15
both socialism and capitalism were rejected in their unmodified, hardcore versions. Free market isn’t really a core Catholic value (other than that we could say that trying to establish wide nationwide and international peaceful cooperation, while creating opportunities for people is a good thing), it’s just an economic proposal.

The above have been chosen to see if they present Catholic social teaching accurately.

1. Catholic social teaching is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” nor “liberal”, whatever that might mean.
2. Socialism has been condemned and the idea of the “State supporting the poor” has been condemned as the “Welfare State” (Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II, 1991, # 48), while the State is required to assist the Church and society, with subsidiarity and the common good the central factors.
3. The “free market” is emphatically affirmed by Bl JPII in CA #42, against socialism and the Welfare State, and is no mere “proposal”.
4. “Capitalism” began as a derisive term by Karl Marx and is disliked therefore by Bl JPII in favour of “free market”.

 

[essie7777]

You are pushing a political agenda here that it not supported by Catholic Teachings at all.

the idea of the “State supporting the poor” has been condemned as the “Welfare State” (Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II, 1991, # 48) and The “free market” is emphatically affirmed by Bl JPII in CA #42.

.

PLEASE START using quotes appropriately, you are picking a few words and putting quotation marks around them and then saying this is the view of Pope John Paul II. This is not true.

You seem confused in your conclusion that Centesimus Annus #42 and #48 condemns the Welfare State and condemns the role of state in the economy and advocates and directs Catholics to free economy. Are you perhaps misreading the content?

Find below the FULL and Complete #42, this allows us to see how you have in charity, misconstrued, the Holy Father’s words. Centesimus Annus #42, doesn’t instruct on a free economy only questions on whether the third world should use the capitalist model to shape its future. #42’s total content suggests balance and consideration for such a complex question on capitalism. (Unlike your very narrow “spin”)

Centesimus Annus # 42 "Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. 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”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces."

The quote in bold red and underlined at the bottom of this section actually seems to condemn your opinion, the Holy Father states very clearly here that blinding entrusting free economy is a radical capitalistic solution.

This only further entrenches the position of both John Paul II and Pope Leo XIII

Centesimus Annus #15 “Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a “cog” in the State machine. It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the State which completely excludes the economic sector from the State’s range of interest and action. There is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic life which the State should not enter. **The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, **which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience”

CON’T in next post.

 

[essie7777]

Con’t

Find below the FULL and COMPLETE #48, thus allowing people the opportunity to see what was TRULY written not simply your “spin”. The RED highlight are mine.

Direct and complete quote of #48 Centesimus Annus:
vatican.va
"Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. (1) On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. (2)Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. (3) The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.(4)

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector.(5) 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.(6) 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.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development.(7) In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.(8) 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.

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.(9) However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”.(10) 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.100

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. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours 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. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care."

(1), (2), (3), (5), (7),(8) From the first point Pope John Paul II continually instructs on the role of STATE in ECONOMY. Which are in direct opposition your argument for a free economy.

(4) A warning how corruption and the absence of the security of STATE can impact the economy.

(6) A DIRECT REBUTTAL TO YOUR OPINION OF FREE ECONOMY FROM THE POPE JOHN PAUL II HIMSELF.

(9) An endorsement for the Welfare State by the Pope John Paul II

1. An acknowledgment of the excesses and abuses in the SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATE.

It seems your conclusions are not founded on content but that they are even directly challenged by the writings in here.

 

[Abu]

In post #31, four views by various posters in presenting Catholic social teaching were pointed out as misconceptions.

Now two more views misrepresent that teaching, and were summed up by

essie7777 #33 as:

1. Pope John Paul II continually instructs on the role of STATE in ECONOMY. Which are in direct opposition your argument for a free economy.
2. An endorsement for the Welfare State by the Pope John Paul II

How come?

1. Because, the “argument for a free economy” is in fact the teaching of Bl JPII in Centesimus Annus #42:
   ‘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”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

On Caritas in Veritate, 2005, Fr John De Celles points out that Pope Benedict XVI clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also…it does refer repeatedly to the ‘market economy,’ a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is ‘the path to true economic and civil progress.’

1. What Bl John Paul II clarifies in *Centesimus Annus *#48 in condemning a Welfare State, is this: “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….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 …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."

We see clearly above that the State does NOT have primary responsibility, is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as briefly as possible to avoid encroachment on economic and civil freedom.

**Thus are subsidiarity, solidarity and the common good of the groups and associations enabled, protected and developed **– the very things that a Welfare State whittles away as it pressures economic and civil freedom.

And as was affirmed in post #31: “…the State is required to assist the Church and society with subsidiarity and the common good the central factors.”

 

[John21652]

The above have been chosen to see if they present Catholic social teaching accurately.

1. Catholic social teaching is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” nor “liberal”, whatever that might mean.
2. Socialism has been condemned and the idea of the “State supporting the poor” has been condemned as the “Welfare State” (Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul II, 1991, # 48), while the State is required to assist the Church and society, with subsidiarity and the common good the central factors.
3. The “free market” is emphatically affirmed by Bl JPII in CA #42, against socialism and the Welfare State, and is no mere “proposal”.
4. “Capitalism” began as a derisive term by Karl Marx and is disliked therefore by Bl JPII in favour of “free market”.

Abu, what you write about JPII supporting the ‘free market’ is exactly right.
Centesimus annus is very much a Natural Law document and it describes the Natural Law rights of every person in a society. Accordingly, JP II condemnd socialism. The greater the role of government in the fucntioning of a society, the greater the risk that the free market system will be compromised. One of those ‘rights’ described by HP II is to be free of the tyranny of government control.
In Centesimus annus he writes the following -

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. 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”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
The Marxist solution has failed, …

The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.For such a task the Church offers her social teaching as an *indispensable and ideal orientation, *a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.

 

[Abu]

John21652
That quotation from BL JP II in CA #43 is very apt – that “recognizes the positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good” – really expresses the political/economic philosophy developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics so beneficial for the whole world.

Yes, and they did emphasise that policies to attain the common good should never run against the natural order and natural human rights. [Analysed by Bernice Hamilton in *Political Thought, p 5; see Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius, 1986, p 160].

Anyone who can imagine that “Catholic Social Teaching might create a danger of socialism” knows nothing about either, as Socialism = an economic system based on state ownership of capital/a political theory advocating state ownership of industry, and Socialism is condemned.

That free enterprise has been so distorted by government intervention is a bane of the age that has a long history and, like anything requiring human decisions, it has been tarnished by those individuals who neglect “their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Pope Benedict XVI). That is why we have laws to curb immoral practices –part of the relativism of the age – that’s where the blame lies.

 

[essie7777]

Now two more views misrepresent that teaching, and were summed up by Post #33 (haven’t figured out to cite what you quoted!)

YOUR MISTAKE here is that you have taken the notes to references i made inside Pope John Paul II FULL TEXT on Point #42, and not actually responded to the true words which i paraphrased for you … You have purposely ignore the words they reference written by John Paul II…this seems a purposeful approach to try and shy away from actually answering the points raised within the FULL TEXT.

**Do you not have a defense for reading and then NOT taking the FULL THOUGHT of the Papal works in context? **

Because, the “argument for a free economy” is in fact the teaching of Bl JPII in Centesimus Annus #42

You seen to have misplaced the FULL QUOTE here which goes on to explain this point and balance it appropriately with considered opinion and expertise and intellect.

don’t worry i have added it below for you –

"But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces."

Taken from post #32.

it is clear what the pope means.

**ABSOLUTELY – WHEN YOU READ AND DIGEST THE FULL COMMENTS NOT YOUR HALF QUOTES! **

What Bl John Paul II clarifies in *Centesimus Annus *#48 … REST OF QUOTE REMOVED BY ME FOR SPACE

You seem to have misplaced some text here – allow me to quote it for you:
Taken from post #33 (the red numbers are referenced in the original post.)

Your missing content: "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.(6) 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.
The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development.(7) In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.(8) 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.
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.(9) However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”.(10)

The second MISPLACED TEXT is:

More missing content: "…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.100

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. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours 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. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care."

CONT on next post.

 

[essie7777]

I’m pretty sure that quotations should be taken direct from the text and when following missed text (signified by…) that the text should be chronological.

I’m not sure you are in a position to re-order Pope John Paul II words to suit your own agenda and then quote as a continuous thought from the Papal work.

You have tacked on content from previous paragraphs on the end of #48 of Centesimus Annus. This text does not belong here. Please find it in its proper place in my previous post s.

Really???

Mis-ordering and rewriting the Pope’s words is at best unintended, at worst blatant manipulation of content. I’m sure NOONE is qualified to try and rewrite the Papal works simply to change their context and meaning and quote as if that is what was written.

YOUR MISORDERED CONTENT:

…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."

I find it interesting that all of the content you misplace seems to disagree with your position.

Do you have no response to the points of reference i made in posts #32 and #33? You simply have ignored the content they referred to and then re-posted AGAIN WITHOUT THE CONTENT.

 

[essie7777]

The web sites and documents of the popes, the Vatican agencies and the U.S. bishops all use the phrase “Catholic Social Teaching” to refer to their teaching in favor of Labor Unions, a Just Minimum Wage, and so on.

Should the pope and the bishops change it to something like “Catholic Free Market Teachings” to prevent liberals from twisting the Church’s teaching into Socialism?

Not at all the Church doesn’t advocate a free market at all, what it does is offer a balanced and considered approach that combines individual, state(government) and society actions in the process of creating a solid social teaching.

John Paul II’s Centesimus annus (CA) is a fantastic commentary and work to read on this issue. This encyclical is a great work to refer to as it discusses and builds on and celebrates Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

As Pope John Paul II states at the start of the encyclical:

CA#2"Although the commemoration at hand is meant to honour Rerum novarum, it also honours those Encyclicals and other documents of my Predecessors which have helped to make Pope Leo’s Encyclical present and alive in history, thus constituting what would come to be called the Church’s “social doctrine”, “social teaching” or even “social magisterium”. The validity of this teaching has already been pointed out in two Encyclicals published during my Pontificate: Laborem exercens on human work, and Sollicitudo rei socialis on current problems regarding the development of individuals and peoples"

CA#5"Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the “social question” apart from the Gospel, and that the “new things” can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."

There is no easy way to point to just one or two elements of this work to help you answer you question without missing so much of what was written.

I think the best way to sum the context and thought behind the Church teachings in my opinion is simply by reading #10 of John Paul II’s Centesimus annus

CA#10:
"Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State. The State cannot limit itself to “favouring one portion of the citizens”, namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it “neglect the other”, which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. “When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. **The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State.**It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, ]should be specially cared for and protected by the Government”.

These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new forms of poverty in the world, and also** because they are affirmations which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular political theory.** Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.

In this way what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity, the validity of which both in the internal order of each nation and in the international order I have discussed in the Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, is clearly seen to be one of the fundamental principles of the Christian view of social and political organization. This principle is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term “friendship”, a concept already found in Greek philosophy. Pope Pius XI refers to it with the equally meaningful term “social charity”. Pope Paul VI, expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social question, speaks of a “civilization of love”. "

The quote, very simply, demonstrates the Church critizes socialism (and liberalism).

It shows that there is a role for the state in affording rights and protection to workers.

It explains that our teachings are not political but are derived from a place of friendship, love, solidarity and based on social charity.

The fact that social is part of the word socialism doesn’t mean that the Church is advocating socialism at all … and this position is clearly stated and defended constantly in the works of the Church.

I’d definitely recommended reading the Encyclical and you will see that the Church is advocating balance, co-operation and social justice for all, through individual state and society working together without greed and abuse.

 

[Abu]

The free economy has been emphatically promoted by Bl JP II in CA # 42 as all can see (Post #34), not a Welfare State. Against the Holy Father’s teaching essie7777 promotes a Welfare State.

This prejudice by essie7777 is continued in post #37 against the Holy Father’s clear teaching by a

quote from CA # 48:
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.

Since no one has argued against “rules in the economic sphere” or that the State has no competence here, but rather promotes with the Holy Father, e.g, “That is why we have laws to curb immoral practices – part of the relativism of the age – that’s where the blame lies’ (post #34), this is again tilting at windmills.

As people can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, that’s why we need laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies. No one here denies that.

Fr Percy has been previously quoted in his chapter Entrepreneurial Work: Scripture and Tradition by concluding: “The entrepreneur can (and should) work for the development of the common good. This is a consistent feature of the Fathers of the Church, of St Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic theologians. Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Lexington Books, 2010, p 81].

As people can, and some do, undermine the common good, the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we need laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

It should by now be clear to all that the State in Catholic Social Teaching is allowed only supplementary interventions for urgent reasons re the common good, and these must be as briefly as possible to avoid encroachment on economic and civil freedom (CA #48), but when this is “vastly expanded” (CA #48) to a Welfare State Bl JP II’s condemnation of the Welfare State follows.

In fact, Bl JP II closes CA #48 with a resounding condemnation of the Welfare State whose inadequacies he has earlier emphasised “are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the *principle of subsidiarity *must be respected:”
“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. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Governments have been plagued by tendencies to intervene in morality, economics and sociology without understanding the natural law and human nature – the relativism of the age – nothing can improve much until the teaching of the Church is heeded.

Myopically pursuing a fantasy here helps no one.