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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am referring to socialism as described by Marx. It is condemned and is incompatible with being a good Catholic.

You can access the encyclical in totality from the link I provided.

Moreover, if someone who is Catholic praises Marx and considers him to be the greatest thinker of modern time as Juncker did, while commemorating a statue in his honour that doesn’t exactly suggest he is line with Catholic teaching vis a vis socialism.
 
Last edited:
josie_L said:
capitalism is not condemned in toto
Click to expand...
It depends upon what you mean by “capitalism” and “socialism”, as Pope Paul VI strove to clarify. As Strand states, “’Socialism’ . . . possesses a variety of senses, and only some of those senses fall under the condemnations of ‘socialism’ articulated in papal encyclicals”.

Something called “capitalism”, without any qualifications, has been condemned in a number of encyclicals; as with something called “socialism” and something called “nationalism”.

But in other magisterial texts, clarification has been added to qualify the range of meaning attributed under these “umbrella” terms.

Moderate Marxian socialism would still be “unacceptable” to Catholic doctrine, just like moderate laissez-faire would as well, if that’s the definition of “socialism” one is using, because certain core principles are irreconcilable.

But if one’s definition of socialism is “social democracy” or a “social market economy”, then this is actually commended in papal encyclicals.

Likewise, “municipal socialism” a la Murray Bookchin and Servant of God Dorothy Day-style anarchist socialism, does not fall foul of church doctrine (even if I’m not personally sure they’d be all that sustainable in practice).

Likewise, if one’s definition of “capitalism” is a hybrid market economy with safety nets and regulation, technically that’s “not” capitalism as an ideological system anymore than social democracy is “socialism”, but for some reason secular parlance has come, increasingly, to using it in this manner.

In and of themselves, without hybridization and significant reforms, both “capitalism” and “socialism” have been condemned as materialist philosophies that are irreconcilable with Christian doctrine.

Whether your “form” of ideology falls under the proscriptions, is a matter of looking beyond the particular “label” you are giving it (which is lazy) and entails some serious comparative exercise in evaluating your beliefs against the social doctrine.
 
Last edited:
We were speaking of Marx, therefore the socialism of which he describes and anything that falls under this umbrella is NOT COMPATIBLE with christianity:
  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.
  3. 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.
The LAST paragraph says it all!!
 
josie_L said:
We were speaking of Marx, therefore the socialism of which he describes and anything that falls under this umbrella is NOT COMPATIBLE with christianity:
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that Marxism is not compatible with Catholicism, but neither is capitalism (which is your sticking point). But you were using the church statements referring to “socialism” as a blanket denunciation of everything that goes under the name of socialism, whilst other texts commend certain economic beliefs that commonly fall under the name of “democratic socialism”.

The same logic can be wrongly used to condemn everything going under the name “capitalism”.

Likewise, you inferred in your criticism of Juncker that it is not possible to commend Marx’s sociological analyses and criticism of capitalism (much of which is valid) while condemning the actual consequences and results of his system and some fundamental principles of it, when…that is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI did in Spe Salvi.

As such, your statements in regard to Juncker - for doing the same thing as Pope Benedict in relation to Marx - are without foundation.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism at it’s core is:

“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”

The very fact that the Church teaches that private property is an inherent human right that proceeds the state and is complimentary to natural law is the VERY REASON socialism is condemned as a worldview because it violates at its very CORE these rights of man that come from God and misconstrues and relegates to man to a solely material existence.
 
Last edited:
Will be getting back to you on this later. LOTS to go over, LOTS to quote.
 
Acts 4:32
The congregation of believers was one in heart and soul. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they owned.
 
Last edited:
I was well aware of you being Irish! A lot of my fellow Americans are quite myopic about politics—they see everything in US political terms and consequently, misunderstand totally much of the politics in Ireland, the UK and Europe in general.
 
I do not dispute you in any way. And I certainly don’t think Marx was the greatest thinker of modern times. For one thing, as I mentioned earlier, he posited a mythical “historical necessity”; a lame regurgitation of Darwinism applied to economics.
 
There is nothing to talk about because the very core of socialist thought is absolutely incompatible with the Church’s understanding of man and their stance on private property and how it is considered an inviolable right which the state cannot take away.
 
And here is the converse from Pope St. Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio:
26 However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations

This…paves the way for a particular type of tyranny, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”

33 Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
josie_L said:
The very fact that the Church teaches that private property is an inherent human right that proceeds the state and is complimentary to natural law is the VERY REASON socialism is condemned as a worldview because it violates at its very CORE these rights of man that come from God.
Click to expand...
You are confusing Marxist-Leninism with moderate Social Democracy. Actually, if you look at the platform of the American Solidarity Party, their economic stance would be called “socialistic” by many on the American right (which is FAR to the economic right of the Catholic Church’s teaching and most of the world), but it is written in keeping with the principles of Christian Democratic Parties in Europe and written with intent of trying to keep with historical Catholic social doctrines and teachings.

For example, on Quadragesimo anno:

The question arose how the encyclical’s statements on Socialism applied to Catholics voting for or participating in Socialist parties. Ramsay MacDonald, the head of the British affiliate of the Socialist International, inquired to Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, on this matter. The Cardinal stated "There is nothing in the encyclical which should deter Catholics from becoming members of the British Labour Party…"[10]

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Precisely what Pope Benedict XVI explained above in relation to the UK Labour Party and it’s traditional form of democratic socialism, which owed more to Methodism’s “social gospel” than to Marxism.

This made it the “Catholic party” of choice in Britain, with support from our hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
Precisely what Pope Benedict XVI explained above in relation to the UK Labour Party and it’s traditional form of democratic socialism, which owed more to Methodism’s “social gospel” than to Marxism.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We aren’t talking about the Khmer Rouge and forced collectivization.
 
I have to say UK politics is quite the lively sport in Parliament compared to the US Congress (although US politics in the media is a blood sport, like cage fighting bears or something). I have seen PM’s Questions before, and all the MPs booing and hollering is like watching a sports game. It is like a Rugby match or something.

Whereas US Congress, particularly the Senate, is more dull than watching paint dry. Even when hot topic issues are on the agenda—or a committee is questioning an important witness. Most of it is individual Senators trying to grandstand for the cameras.
 
Last edited:
They should have to wear protective gear and helmets in South Korea and Taiwan. Protests of the World bank and IMF are more civil.
 
Which brings up an important difference with the UK Parliament: while the Prime Minister’s question time may often get rowdy and rumbustious, they never go so far as to resort to actual violence as far as I know. (We on the other hand had an infamous caning in the Senate in the 19th century.)
 
Last edited:
@(name removed by moderator) the Honorable Gentleman was issued a red card!
 
Last edited:
He is speaking of UNRESTRAINED capitalism, Vouthon.

Socialism unlike capitalism is at its core incompatible with Catholic teaching:

The term socialism refers to any system in which the production and distribution of goods and services is a shared responsibility of a group of people. Socialism is based upon economic and political theories that advocate for collectivism. In a state of socialism , there is no privately owned property.

In socialism there is no privately owned property, which is in violation to what the Church teaches vis a vis private property.

Please read the encyclicals I’ve stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top