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

[PickyPicky]

Is this thread scripted by Samuel Beckett, by any chance?

 

[Vouthon]

It might as well be.

 

[Vouthon]

I already did. I agreed that they have criticized aspects or excesses of capitalism, but that they did not condemn it in totality.

They are both systems that marginalize God, according to Catholic Social Doctrine. And, depending upon the ‘definition’ used, both have been condemned without ‘qualifiers’ and equally both have, in different terminological contexts, been ‘parsed’ and commended for partial truths within them:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...en-xvi_spe_20070513_conference-aparecida.html

Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, 2007

In this context, we inevitably speak of the problem of structures, especially those which create injustice.

Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality. And this ideological promise has been proved false.

The facts have clearly demonstrated it.

The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful oppression of souls.

And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.

See:

"Jesus of Nazareth" covers several key points of Jesus’ public life and ministry, including an entire chapter on his sermon on the mount, in which he praises the poor, the meek and the hungry in the “Beatitudes.” Benedict then reflects on how the sermon is relevant in today’s world.

"After the experiences of totalitarian regimes, after the brutal way in which they trampled on men, mocked, enslaved and beat the weak, we understand anew those who hunger and thirst for justice," Benedict writes.

"Confronted with the abuse of economic power, with the cruelty of capitalism that degrades man into merchandise, we have begun to see more clearly the dangers of wealth and we understand in a new way what Jesus intended in warning us about wealth."

Note - not ‘unregulated capitalism’ but capitalism without qualifiers, as socialism is condemned elsewhere.

 

[Vouthon]

As for papal descriptions of Karl Marx himself, distinguished from the various ideological formulations of ‘Marxism’, we have Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...uments/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html

The nineteenth century held fast to its faith in progress as the new form of human hope, and it continued to consider reason and freedom as the guiding stars to be followed along the path of hope…revolutionary leap was needed. Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation—towards what Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God”.

With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution—and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination.

Not unlike Juncker, the Pope Emeritus, who has obviously read Marx (unlike most of Marx’s detractors), describes him as possessing an “incise intellect”, which is hardly contestable for any student of sociology. The Pope even describes Marx’s expression as coming with “great precision” and from “great analytical skill.” But where did Marx go seriously wrong, in spite of his genius?

Benedict continues:

Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out.

Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

 

[Vouthon]

Here is a description of Pope Benedict XVI’s analysis here:

Benedict XVI On Marx

One of the benefits of belonging in a Church that takes both fides and ratio in tandem is the possibility of critically engaging the culture(s) in which

www.patheos.com

What is subtle in the Pope’s text here is a strong distinction between Marx and those concrete “Marxisms” by which the world has come to know the man. Often Marx and “Marxism” are wrongly conflated, along with socialism and “Marxism.” What is clear is that there is a strong link between Marx and “Marxism” in terms of the former originating a half-completed blueprint. But to assume that the bloodshed of the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and many of the Latin American regimes of the 1970’s and 1980’s is the working of Marx is not supported by history or the writings of Marx himself.

Another distinction that must be kept in mind is the difference between “socialism” and “Marxism.” The two are not equivalent. “Socialism” actually predates Marx, who derided the British attempts at founding socialist communities as “utopianism.” Marxism is certainly a form of socialism–the form with which we Westerns tend to be most familiar–but not all socialism is Marxist (the great Henri de Lubac reminds us in his study of Proudhon).

 

[Vouthon]

As for other forms of socialism outside “totalitarian Marxian socialism” (which is the sense in which Josie’s papal texts are using it but referring to it just as “socialism”, as they do with “capitalism” and “nationalism” on other occasions, as per my early remarks to @(name removed by moderator)), Benedict XVI had praise for elements of it.

“ In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine, ” Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said just before his papacy, “ and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness:

Library : The Soul of Europe

The Soul of Europe This article was written in April 2005 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about his new book Values in a Time of Upheaval which has just been published in English. It examines the besieged soul of Europe, which he argues risks becoming spiritually empty despite its material...

www.catholicculture.org

A third model was added to the two models of the 19th century: socialism. Socialism took two main paths — the democratic and the totalitarian one. Democratic socialism became a healthy counterbalance to radically liberal positions in both existing models. It enriched and corrected them . It proved itself even when religious confessions took over. In England, it was the Catholic party, which felt at home neither in the Protestant-Conservative nor in the Liberal camp. Also in Wilhelmine Germany, the Catholic center could continue to feel closer to democratic socialism than to the conservative powers . In many ways, democratic socialism stands and stood close to Catholic social teaching. It, in any case, has contributed a substantial amount to the education of social conscience.

Now, I would imagine that the theological genius that was, and is, Pope Benedict XVI (who wrote the above when he was still Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, tasked with combating heresies) far outstrips both of our understandings of Catholic Social Doctrine combined.

It is safe to say that his analysis in his encyclicals, addresses and theological works are an essential primer for anyone seeking to interpret Catholic Social Doctrine and he was clear about it all.

As the Pope notes, democratic socialism in the form of the British Labour Party was “the Catholic party” in England throughout the 20th century, as my fellow Brits will likely be able to attest. In Catholic homes throughout most of Britain, conservatism was associated with “Protestant unionism” whereas democratic socialism was broadly associated with Catholic values, as it might just be becoming in the U.S. as well with the rise of AOC and DSA (although I have no great knowledge of American politics today).

On the Catholic side of my family growing up (there was a Protestant Tory side as well, I was influenced by both growing up), if anyone said they were voting for Maggie Thatcher or any Tories before her - it was akin to voting for Satan and the height of depreciating social capital in those communities, because everybody thought that “Conservatism = Protestantism and Orangeism”.

(coninued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Even the most famous Catholic in British political life during the late 20th century, Sir Chris Patten - last British governor of Hong Kong and a Conservative - admitted this tension:

Interview: Stephen Moss meets Chris Patten

Chris Patten has spent the past decade abroad - first in Hong Kong, then in Brussels. Now he's back with a message for the party that some once thought he would lead.

www.theguardian.com

Patten’s rise had been meteoric: he joined the Conservative research department in 1966 at the absurdly tender age of 22, was its director from 1974-79, became an MP in 1979, a minister in 1983, environment secretary in 1989 and party chairman in 1990. But he doubts whether he would have been elected as Tory leader - too wet, too leftwing, too pro-European.

The Holy Ghost looms large in Patten’s worldview: his Catholicism has always informed his communitarianism and belief in the social market. Perhaps, too, it underpins the civilised nature of his politics.

The Daily Telegraph once said sneeringly that Patten was not a true Conservative but a European Christian Democrat - he had committed the cardinal sin of lauding Germany and the social market - but he rejects the label. "I am a Christian, I believe in the social market and I think we do tend to forget the difference between value and price, not just in the Conservative party but across the spectrum in this country."

He is, we agree, certainly to the left of Tony Blair, and I wonder how he managed to serve for seven years in Thatcher’s government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

Possibly he went on to condemn Marx’s (and others’) notion of “historical necessity”; a bogus concept akin to Smith’s equally bogus “invisible hand”. There is no “historical necessity” or “invisible hand”. There is only Providence and human action, and attempting to force human life into one’s conception of a sort of economic Darwinism is fundamentally pagan and anti-human.

 

[Vouthon]

Elegantly phrased, I agree.

As you know from our past discussions, I am very critical myself of historical determinism based upon grand-meta narratives that ignore contingencies and agency, when it comes to historiography.

Alongside its inherent propensity for a dialectic of revolutionary violence, class conflict, utopianism and unworkability in practice (once the initial idealism has worn off), this ‘historical deterministic materialism/grand meta-narrative’ reading of economic and political history in Marxism is amongst its greatest vices and is certainly incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

You are correct that the “invisible hand” and “trickle-down economics” represent the traditional, Adam Smith-style capitalist cognate to this materialism (in a social darwinian form, essentially) and it is equally incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

But, despite their significant pitfalls, both Marx and Smith were radical geniuses who provided penetrating sociological analyses that continue to have relevance. It’s just a tragedy that they were both inherently flawed materialists and that their ideological “cures” were often worse when implemented than the “sicknesses” they so incisively critiqued.

Both are indispensable parts of the “canon” of Western theory.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Providence as causation is largely beyond our ken. We often perceive the results and understand them as Providence, but mostly (I think) fail to see it in action. We know the “end game” by faith, but do not otherwise comprehend its workings.

Human action is mostly perceivable to us, though the agents thereof often take special pains to obscure or hide it completely. But while the motivations behind much of it sometimes amaze, they are always comprehensible.

I am not aware of any Pope endorsing either capitalism or socialism in purer forms. In fact, they condemn them both as being “spiritual vampires” potentially. To my knowledge, all Popes since Leo XIII have cautioned that either bears the potential of over-influencing people through dependency, so that the internal “catechism” of the family is distorted toward materialism.

Radicalism in capitalism or socialism are both the servants of materialism.

 

[Vouthon]

I am not aware of any Pope endorsing either capitalism or socialism in purer forms.

No, your right they haven’t.

The church predated both systems by millennia and I daresay it will continue to outlive the present manifestations. It has lived through the economic regimes of Roman clientelism, medieval feudalism, early modern mercantilism, liberal capitalism and Marxian socialism (and that’s only in economics, not mentioning the political regimes of empires, city-states, republics, kingdoms, nation-states and supranational polities).

And it has critiqued all of these economic systems, to varying degrees, and attempted to accommodate elements of each that can be redeemed to the deposit of faith.

People often forget the church’s staying power compared with their “favourite” politico-economic model, which advocates often regard as “natural”, “inevitable” and “immutable” - as if there were some mighty materialist ‘meta-laws’ determining human history towards a given material paradise along whatever lines their respective ideology dictates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

towards a given material paradise

This always reminds me of Genesis’ account of God’s posting an angel with a sword of flame to guard the gates of Eden. We can’t go back. And yet, in every generation someone comes up with a “plan” do to so.

 

[Vouthon]

Yeah, that image from Genesis pretty much sums up the ultimate frustration (and attendant existential angst) of humankind’s yearning for, and endless attempts to realise, perfect material happiness/the perfect social order this side of the eschaton.

It’s illusory - as one economist once said of Smith’s ‘invisible hand’: “the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there.” Same for the Marxian classless. moneyless utopia where the state ultimately withers away, following the proletarian revolution and the means of production having been secured in the hands of the people, “when it becomes possible to speak of freedom” according to Lenin. No communist regime has ever got by the dictatorship of the proletariat stage into the ‘stateless’, free utopia part of the Marxian political theorem, because there’s no there there, just as with the capitalist ‘invisible hand trickle-down’ utopia.

The message from Genesis is pessimistic as to the ultimate goal - your not going to get back to the garden - but the spirit of Pentecost undoes it a little in the New Testament, demonstrating that while ‘new Jerusalem’ is not here, we can work towards a more modestly pale reflection of it as a worthy goal in this life, while keeping our eyes on the eternal prize.

A pragmatic, rather than utopian, idealism - if you will - that accepts the necessary compromises that need to be made to the ideal in this present life out of practical exigency. Catholic Social Doctrine exists as a guide to the requisite principles (rather than concrete models) that serve to guide us along that path.

 

[josie_L]

No, the Church condemns socialism in toto and not just because man becomes a cog in the machine:

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.
2. 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. . .

Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.[55]

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

 

[josie_L]

Yes, but capitalism is not condemned in toto, i.e., the excesses or rather unrestrained capitalism is condemned, but in and of itself capitalism is not a system that is incompatible with Christianity like socialism is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No communist regime has ever got by the dictatorship of the proletariat stage

Nor has it even gotten to that stage, always winding up as the dictatorship of a handful of elites. The proletariat has never had much to say about anything in any system.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it depends on what one means by “capitalism” and “socialism”. It’s true that the Popes have condemned “socialism” by name. But that’s not to say they have condemned all social programs that some might think of as “socialistic”. It really seems the most successful system is free market capitalism (not just "capitalism) with a few sprinkles of social welfare added. Some, though, particularly in Europe, see it more as a pervasive “security blanket”, and feel the cost is worth it.

Subsidiarity is a problem the more social welfare one appends to an otherwise free market system. The more pervasive the programs, the more remote administration gets from the individuals. The more remote the administration, the more remote and pervasive the authority.

Real socialism’s main problem is that it requires people to do that which they mostly do not want to do. In order to enforce it even so, greater authority and punitive measures are required.

 

[DENNYINMI]

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. . .

That is EXACTLY what that means Josie.

 

[DENNYINMI]

My goodness, I kind of actually agree with you here. It’s a cold day in Timbuktu

 

[Canvas]

In Ireland terms like “Republican” and “nationalist” and “Unionist” have very different meanings than they would in the US.