EU president’s praise for Catholic teaching welcomed as bishops urge citizens to vote in elections to stop "nationalist threat"

[josie_L]

And you are wrong, socialism be it authoritarian or not still is incompatible with Christianity. It is at its ideological core incompatible with Church teaching.

 

[Vouthon]

And you are wrong, socialism be it authoritarian or not still is incompatible with Christianity. It is at its ideological core incompatible with Church teaching.

And I’ve demonstrated that exactly the same is said about capitalism in papal encyclicals. But, you keep overlooking it. I mean, the pope actually said that capitalism - not qualifying it with liberal or unrestrained - is a reversal of the divine order.

Again, for what seems like the umpteenth time, you keep trying to make it look like socialism is inherently condemned but capitalism isn’t.

In fact, certain ideologies ‘labelled’ under both of these names are acceptable but what the Church understands to be capitalism and socialism in essence, are not.

 

[Canvas]

In that very same encyclical, the pope said:

1. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

Read 113-115 again.

1. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.
2. For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles. For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals.
3. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.

His argument seems to be here: if you take certain negative elements away from what he calls socialism (remember this was in 1930s Europe, btw. Socialist parties were often revolutionary, red flag, hammer and sickle, forced collectivist, anti-Catholic Marxist-Leninists), it isn’t very different than Catholic social teaching and a Catholic who believes them need not call him/herself socialist, but just Catholic.

 

[Canvas]

In fact, certain ideologies ‘labelled’ under both of these names are acceptable but what the Church understands to be capitalism and socialism in essence, are not.

The fact is that the modern industrial “developed economies” since the industrial revolution have failed in regards to Catholic teaching. I think that is the central point in many of these economic Papal encyclicals and statements from Rerum Novarum on…, from Leo XIII to Pope Francis.

 

[josie_L]

Because I’m right and you’re wrong about what capitalism is being defined here.

You are attempting to understand/interpret John Paul’s encyclical separate from his predecessors, much like someone proof texting scripture at the expense of the entirety of the bible.

 

[Vouthon]

Because I’m right and you’re wrong about what capitalism is being defined here.

But you don’t apply the same interpretative approach to magisterial statements about socialism.

If I were arguing about socialism as you are capitalism (I’m not, I’m condemning both), I could say exactly the same thing you are saying right now, and I’d be in the same quandary you are in accordingly.

 

[Vouthon]

It is my impression that nobody buys into Smith’s concepts anymore.

Well, Ludwig von Mises (among others) re-stated his “labor is commodity” argument for a 20th century audience, and there is an entire economic Institute named after him in the US. Here are the figures affiliated with it:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Noted scholars include:[41]

*Walter Block – Austrian School economist and anarcho-capitalist; economics professor at Loyola University New Orleans
*Thomas DiLorenzo – economics professor at Loyola University Maryland
*Paul Gottfried – Former Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College
*Hans-Hermann Hoppe – philosopher, paleolibertarian, business professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and founder of Property and Freedom Society[ citation needed ]
*Jesus Huerta de Soto – Professor of Applied Economics at King Juan Carlos University
*Peter Klein – Professor of Entrepreneurship and Senior Research Fellow with the Center for Entrepreneurship & Free Enterprise at Baylor University[44]
*Robert P. Murphy – economist, Institute for Energy Research
*Andrew Napolitan – former judge and Fox News pundit
*Gary North – co-founder of Christian Reconstructionism and founder of Institute for Christian economics
*Ron Paul – physician, author, and former politician
*Ralph Raico (1936–2016) – historian and libertarian specializing in European classical liberalism and Austrian economics
*Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) – heterodox economist, paleolibertarian theorist, polemicist, revisionist historian, and founder of anarcho-capitalism
*Joseph Sobran (1946–2010) – journalist, contributor to American Renaissance and lecturer at the Institute for Historical Review
*Mark Thornton – Austrian School economist
*Joseph T. Salerno – Academic vice president of the Mises Institute, professor of economics at Pace University, and editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
*Thomas Woods – historian, political analyst, and author

And the Cato Institute - run by the Koch brothers - also cites Mises as one of its main influences:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

If it weren’t a contemporary problem, JPII would not have argued in 1999 that countries in North America were becoming particular susceptible to this kind of “neoliberal economics”, as he termed it.

 

[josie_L]

But it isn’t the same and I’ve already explained why, socialism no matter what variation it takes, even if it is Christian socialism is incompatible with and/or contradictive to Church teaching.

It is summed up in this paragraph perfectly:

1. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...s/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

 

[Mary888]

I found an English one.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw2jBqbC-XLQphPMH7BjLszv&ust=1557516370004701

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, Angela Merkel is on the Right and I’m not, but she is clearly qualified, and very competent. Doubt if she wants the job, though.

 

[Lou2U]

That article doesn’t say she will most likely get the top job. It’s one man’s opinion that she’d be well-qualified to work in the EU. That isn’t unusual for former leaders to do - Guy Verhofstadt, Donald Tusk and John-Claude Juncker spring immediately to mind as former presidents/prime ministers of Belgium, Poland and Luxembourg respectively.

 

[Vouthon]

@josie

The ‘definition’ of socialism used in the encyclicals is Marxist collectivism i.e.

“We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called “real socialism” leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization”

- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, op. cit., No. 35.

Every reference to ‘socialism’ is a reference to “real socialism”: that is, Marxist collectivism - which is what the church understands to be “real” socialism (as opposed to ‘democratic socialisms’ that are not Marxist collectivist in theory but go under the label):

POPE PIUS XII Christmas Message of 1942

“Always moved by religious motives, the Church has condemned the various forms of Marxist Socialism; and she condemns them today”

Just as you like to keep noting that what the church condemns as ‘capitalism’ and understands to be ‘real’ capitalism is ‘liberal capitalism’, the same applies to its references to “socialism” - which actually imply Marxist Socialisms.

“The church diverges radically from the program of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the decades following the time of Leo XIII’s encyclical. At the same time it differs from the program of capitalism practiced by liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it”

• Laborem Exercens (“On Human Work”), Pope John Paul II, 1981 #64.

This is what the ecclesiastical texts MEAN by “socialism” and “capitalism” respectively.

Likewise, the church understands by “capitalism” something very specific. There is a “real” capitalism that is equally condemned as a reversal of the divine law just as much as “real” socialism (i.e. Marxist collectivism). In this respect, in 1942 Pope Pius XII, in one of his Christmas Messages , referred to as the “liberal capitalism which marked Western civilization from the 18th century onward into the 20th century” describing it as the “fateful economy of the past decades, during which the lives of all citizens were subordinated to the stimulus of gain…”

Pope John Paul II equally made this clear in a 1993 address in Latvia:

"Besides, Catholic social doctrine is not a surrogate for capitalism…Since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the church has always distanced itself from capitalistic ideology, holding it responsible for grave social injustices (cf. Rerum Novarum , 2). In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI, for his part, used clear and strong words to stigmatize the international imperialism of money ( Quadragesimo Anno , 109). This line is also confirmed in the more recent magisterium” ( Centesimus Annus , 42)"

Pope John Paul II, “What Social Teaching Is and Is Not,” in Origins, Vol. 23, No. 15, September 1993, pp. 256-58, at 257.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is a mistake to assume that the definition of the word “socialism” is so well understood and so unambiguous that you can take an 1891 encyclical from Pope Leo XIII and apply it to any and all uses of the same word today. That is why we have the Catechism to take these documents into account and formulate a teaching that is accessible to the laity today. In that Catechism, the only reference to socialism is this:

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem 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.

In this formulation it seems that what is being condemned is certain totalitarian and atheistic ideologies, which were indeed the hallmark of socialism in the time of Leo XIII, and was the only socialism he knew of. We do not know what Pope Leo would have thought of the government of Sweden today, which is neither totalitarian or atheistic, but is called socialism by some.

 

[Vouthon]

It is a mistake to assume that the definition of the word “socialism” is so well understood and so unambiguous that you can take an 1891 encyclical from Pope Leo XIII and apply it so any and all uses of the same word today

If you noticed, though, our friend Josie is purposefully not applying the same logic to her treatment of capitalism - which many times is condemned in magisterial texts without the qualifiers “liberal”, “unrestrained” or “unregulated” (whilst such qualifiers are used on other occasions) but seemingly in and of itself.

If Josie wants to interpret the denuniciations of socialism as being ‘bare-faced’ references to any ideology that bears that label (although qualifiers are likewise used in other instances), then logical consistency dictates that she should be similarly draconian in taking JPII and other pontiffs at their word that “capitalism” - without qualifiers - is a reversal of God’s natural law in Genesis.

Or, she could recognise the nuanced reality behind both umbrella terms - which would be the eminently superior way of approaching this topic.

 

[grotto]

Is the EU’s President ringing a Pavlov bell to encourage Catholics to give up the idea of having a separate nation?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Almost seems like it.

 

[Vouthon]

Is the EU’s President ringing a Pavlov bell to encourage Catholics to give up the idea of having a separate nation?

If I may ask, where did you get this sense from?

 

[Canvas]

Acts 4:32-37 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)​

The Believers Share Their Possessions​

32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.[a] 33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

 

[Vouthon]

Acts 4:32-37 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)​

The Believers Share Their Possessions​

32 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common .[a] 33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 T here was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Oh boy, this is going to be fun…

I’m waiting for the responses.

 

[josie_L]

Sweden is a social democracy not a democratic socialist country, moreover, I’ve quoted from more than 3 encyclicals and the socialism every pope has denounced is much BROADER in scope, which is why when pope pius XI wrote his encyclical, “Quadragesimo Anno” he said:

1. But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.

1. For, according to Christian teaching, man, endowed with a social nature, is placed on this earth so that by leading a life in society and under an authority ordained of God[54] he may fully cultivate and develop all his faculties unto the praise and glory of his Creator; and that by faithfully fulfilling the duties of his craft or other calling he may obtain for himself temporal and at the same time eternal happiness. Socialism, on the other hand, wholly ignoring and indifferent to this sublime end of both man and society, affirms that human association has been instituted for the sake of material advantage alone.

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

In other words, whether it be authoritarian or not, atheist or not, if the core of its teachings are still socialist (be it a lighter version of socialism or a more just version of socialism) it is ipso facto CONDEMNED!!!9