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

[josie_L]

Very simple, it was not enforced by an anti-Christian political system, but given freely in charity.

It’s not like this is news, Vouthon.

 

[josie_L]

So give up your goods and leave the state OUT OF IT.

That is the Christian way as it does not violate a man’s right to private property, nor reduce man to mere material wants!!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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?..(snipped for length)

Then I would argue that many of the things that are called socialism today would not fall under this definition of socialism. You admitted as much by saying that Sweden is a social democracy not a democratic socialist country. It is good that you took the trouble to define socialism here so that we could see what is being condemned and what is not. The next step would be to trace back in this thread to see why we are talking about socialism in a thread entitled EU president’s praise for Catholic teaching welcomed as bishops urge citizens to vote in elections to stop “nationalist threat” I admit that I have come late to this thread and am not familiar with the history of this particular line of discourse. If you have been participating in this thread longer perhaps you could answer that question. The subject of the thread seems to be about current events, not history. So at what point in this discourse did the thread first branch out to history from current events? That would tell us what sort of meaning the word “socialism” needs to take to connect with the discussion about the EU. I would venture to say that in none of the EU countries is there any government that is socialist in the sense you just defined above. If that is the case, then the condemnation of “socialism” is interesting, but of no relevance to any question being debated regarding the EU president’s statement, or the bishops’ statements.

 

[josie_L]

You’re still wrong Vouthon, and I’ve already written my response to Leaf refuting the belief that socialism is denounced solely because it is atheistic and authoritarian.

You’d have to willfully ignore what was most descriptively criticized by many popes vis a vis socialism for me and any other Catholic with the reading comprehension skills of an high schooler to believe that!!!

And just so you know, I’m right about capitalism too, i.e., it is not condemned in toto like socialism is:

1. With all his energy Leo XIII sought to adjust this economic system according to the norms of right order; hence, it is evident that this system is not to be condemned in itself. And surely it is not of its own nature vicious. But it does violate right order when capital hires workers, that is, the non-owning working class, with a view to and under such terms that it directs business and even the whole economic system according to its own will and advantage, scorning the human dignity of the workers, the social character of economic activity and social justice itself, and the common good.

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

 

[josie_L]

Just so you understand social democracy is not socialism and therefore I have nothing against it (within limits) unless it is being used as a stepping board to socialism

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Just so you understand social democracy (it has its limits) is not socialism and therefore I have nothing against it, unless it is being used as a stepping board to socialism

OK, but I would still like to know the connection with the subject of this thread.

 

[josie_L]

It all started with Juncker praising Marx and commemorating a statue to him, which some here think is of no consequence, but I begged to differ and doubted the orthodoxy of his Catholic faith.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It all started with Juncker praising Marx and commemorating a statue to him, which some here think is of no consequence, but I begged to differ and doubted the orthodoxy of his Catholic faith.

Thank you for explaining it. Yes, it is sad that Juncker praised Marx like that on May 4th.

However the event referred to the OP happened on March 21, more than a month earlier. In fact the word “Marx” does not appear in the OP article in the Irish Catholic. Nor does the word “socialism”. What does appear is “Catholic Social Teaching”. It is true that Juncker’s later praise of Marx does cast doubt on the sincerity of his praise of Catholic Social Teaching. But it does not invalidate that praise either. Neither does it invalidate the second article in the OP - the one about the bishops and the threats of Brexit, populism, and nationalism.

 

[josie_L]

I laud those who can use their catholicity when necessary and with consistency, but I simultaneously also question Juncker’s use of it because never as he advocated in a like manner other church teachings as he is now vis a vis Brexit, nationalism and populism.

Many populist movements are on the rise in Catholic majority nations, so I’m not surprised that he should make use of Catholic doctrine to his advantage or rather to serve his purpose.

Moreover, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with populism and nationalism, i.e., like all things too much of anything is bad.

But I do understand wanting to protect borders or cultures/nations to avoid unnecessarily sacrificing their citizens on the alter of globalism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you do disagree with the bishops that warned about populism, etc.?

 

[graciew]

None.
Please read this which may help understand what a worldview is.
You are trying the Church to provide a “ system” . She won t.
If anything, Pope LeoXIII whom you cited was articulating the principles of distributism. But that isn t a “ system” either
If you ever heard of Guardini, or Scheller, I found this article by chance ,quite illuminating to explain our worldview and what it is.
Let it sink for a while. You may all be discussing at different frequencies.

The magazine isn t important, the article is good.

Loading…

www.crisismagazine.com

Peace on earth…

 

[Vouthon]

Then explain to me what system does the Church advocate since capitalism is so anathema to church teaching???

None.
Please read this which may help understand what a worldview is.
You are trying the Church to provide a “ system” . She won t.

Correct:

“For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her ministry in the world.” ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis , paras. 41-42)

 

[josie_L]

And I’m ok with that, but it still rejects socialism in toto, and that was my point.

 

[Vouthon]

And I’m ok with that, but it still rejects socialism in toto, and that was my point.

If socialism is understood to mean any form of “marxist-collectivism”, even if allegedly moderated, then yes.

If capitalism is understood to mean any form of liberal or neo-liberal economics, even if allegedly moderated, then yes as well.

That is the church’s position on both systems. It originally reserved the terms “socialism” and “capitalism” in the narrow sense of what it understood to connotate “real” socialism and “real” capitalism.

According to the way the church views these economic models, at their ‘root’ they both began as anti-Christian materialist philosophies, the former being ‘statist-collectivist’ and the latter being ‘individualist-monetarist’.

In the process of time, ideologies have emerged which ‘take’ these labels (socialist and capitalist) but actually aren’t Marxist or neo-liberal in character.

JPII made it abundantly clear: “the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism” ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis , 21).

This is what every encyclical means when it refers to “capitalism” and “socialism”. End of story.

These are the basic facts. And its silly endlessly debating what is perfectly clear.

 

[josie_L]

Even if socialism isn’t Marxist and has taken on a more just or truthful aspect, a socialism light if you will, it is still to be condemned.

Pope Pius XI actually spoke of these various versions and explains why they are still alien and incompatible with the Christian worldview.

I specifically quoted the paragraphs from Quadragesimo Anno delineating this thrice now.

This will be the 4th:

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

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.

Does that read as the pope only condemning Marxist collectivism socialism??

 

[Vouthon]

Does that read as the pope only condemning Marxist collectivism socialism??

Yes, because the definition of socialism used in these encyclicals is otherwise explained, many times, to be Marxist collectivism.

Likewise, the magisterial statements that blatantly and unequivocally condemn just “capitalism” are talking about neo-liberal economics, as you like to keep qualifying - yet you aren’t being consistent in doing the same vis-a-vis socialism.

 

[josie_L]

The popes have not used the word “real” vis a vis capitalism because capitalism can take on many variations, i.e., it does not have to be liberalism capitalism with its individualistic approach, but as pope Pius XI said capitalism in and of itself isn’t inherently wrong or vicious by nature.

 

[Vouthon]

The popes have not used the word “real” vis a vis capitalism because capitalism can take on many variations

I have quoted multiple examples of different pontiffs referring to “capitalism”, without any qualifiers, as unacceptable.

If you contextualize the statements, it becomes apparent that the church is referring to the root form of early liberal (now neo-liberal) economics.

The same applies to it’s usage of “socialism”, which throughout most of the 20th century Marxists called their system.

The USSR/Soviet Union was literally called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the Union of Soviet Marxist-collectivist or Communist Republics, because it used the terms synonymously.

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vouthon]

I’ve got to go now but will check in later

 

[josie_L]

So what? Your argument doesn’t demonstrate that they disagreed with what pope Pius XI taught vis a vis his encyclical, which is, there is no version of socialism which is acceptable to a person of Christian faith.

What one pope says in an encyclical is upheld by others!!!

p.s. Social democracy isn’t socialism but Democratic Socialism IS, so do not tout it is as acceptable.