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

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s an idea how you and Vouthon can agree: Let’s all agree that socialism is bad - all forms of socialism - and that they are condemned by the Church. And further let us agree that no where in the EU is there any government that is socialist, and that the EU itself is not socialist. That is, we have defined our way out of the problem. Any definition of socialism that does not enable one to say if a specific instance of government is or is not socialism is not a useful definition. So unless you can point to a specific government and say “the Church condemns that form of government right there!” this whole argument on the level of abstractions is pointless.

 

[PickyPicky]

this whole argument on the level of abstractions is pointless.

I think that’s right.

We can all (I expect) agree that unfettered capitalism and undiluted socialism have caused much human misery, There is a sensible debate to be had about how far markets and enterprise should be regulated and what are the reasonable bounds to state action. But comparing the iniquities of the two extremes seems unproductive.

Meanwhile, back to the OP, can we agree that the Church has supported the European endeavour?

 

[Canvas]

You still are overlooking 113-115.

1. 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.

Basically, this is saying that many aspects of socialism, far from being condemned “in toto” are consistent with the Catholic Social Gospel. Notice the last sentence: “Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.” He is saying people of goodwill who are attracted to socialist parties because of Capitalistic abuses but reject the extremes are “not really socialists” in his view, whether they identify as such or not, and have no need to identify as such.

Again, like Vouthon pointed out, Pius XI is speaking of socialism in a strict sense — a sort of “communism lite”, the revolutionary socialism that was threatening the social order of Europe at the time the encyclical was written in the 1930s. The Communist Parties of the era were basically satellites of the USSR.

The Socialist Parties were not necessarily affiliated with the USSR, but shared much of the more extreme class warfare, Marxist and neo-Marxist, anti-Catholic, revolutionary and materialistic worldviews as their Communist cousins. Take his quote “Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism” — meaning he is using a strict definition of the term that he has associated with a class-warfare, Marxist, materialistic, revolutionary worldview.

To show that this is the case, In the UK, the Labour Party was socialist in the broad sense, but not in the restricted sense. Meaning it lacked the “bad aspects” of the militant socialist movement to the point in no longer “fit” Pius XI’s condemnation.

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…"

 

[Ridgerunner]

Meanwhile, back to the OP, can we agree that the Church has supported the European endeavour?

I think we can agree that certain churchmen have supported the EU. The Church itself has not.

 

[Vouthon]

@LeafByNiggle The problem I have with that is that there are “socialist” movements (movements calling themselves “socialist”) that have been approved by the church as not conforming to what the ecclesiastical terminology means by ‘socialism’, which is Marxist-collectivism. In the exact same sense, capitalism is used to refer to neo-liberal capitalism/economic liberalism.

The epistemological bases of both of these ideologies, as they emerged in modernity, are inherently irreconcilable with Catholic Social Doctrine. Later movements that simply emphasised socialisation of public utilities, trade unionism, co-operativeness and services to promote social justice within a market or trading economy (but called themselves “socialist”) and on the right, movements that embraced a market economy, entrepreneurialism and the defence of private property but didn’t embrace the ‘capitalist’ errors I outlined earlier (but called themselves “capitalist”) again don’t infringe doctrine.

But the church does understand both economic liberalism and collectivism, to be in terms of their root ‘doctrines’, wrong.

As an example, the UK Labour Party and Cooperative Movement which Pope Benedict XVI explained had always been the “Catholic party” in England, explicitly called itself a “socialist” party:

The Catholic hierarchy in England upheld the view that Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of socialism did not apply to the British form of socialism and that Catholics were free to vote for the Labour party

This judgement of the English bishops was confirmed, at the time in the 1930s, by the Vatican which issued the following clarification in L’Osservatore Romano:

“Socialists who do not profess atheistic materialism and do not fight against religion, freedom and public morality, as for example the English Socialist party of Laborites, are not condemned by the Church”

(Vatican, L’Osservatore Della Domenica, May 24th 1931)

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has stated:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

It was clear then, and it is even clearer now.

Josie is not being consistent in how she deals with ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ in papal encyclicals.

Why should I be disposed to let her away with misguiding readers into believing that “socialism” in papal encyclicals means anything other than “marxist collectivism”?

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

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

Which is why your complete avoidance of their remarks condemning capitalism, as is, strikes me as peculiar.

You are in a bind, because if your reading if their remarks on socialism is correct, it means that the remarks likewise condemning capitalism (not liberal or unrestrained capitalism) are equally binding on your conscience.

But luckily your interpretation is wrong.

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

What is socialism?

For Andrew Vincent, “[t]he word ‘socialism’ finds its root in the Latin sociare , which means to combine or to share. The related, more technical term in Roman and then medieval law was societas . This latter word could mean companionship and fellowship as well as the more legalistic idea of a consensual contract between freemen”.

Etymologically, this is all socialism means.

Pope John Paul II stated in Laborem Exercens that he supported “socialisation versus collectivisation”:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into pratice in various countries in the decades following the time of Leo XIII’s Encyclical. At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism practised by liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it…

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production…

In the light of the above, the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of businesses, so-called shareholding by labour…

Merely converting the means of production into State property in the collectivist system is by no means equivalent to “socializing” that property. We can speak of socializing only when the subject character of society is ensured.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man’s work is properly remunerated in the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely, the principle of the common use of goods…

Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge…

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions. Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a reflection of the “class” structure of society and that they are a mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life. They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions

If a Catholic aims to implement a “socialisation” of society within the rubric of the above guidelines, and calls himself a “socialist” of this “socialisation” accordingly, then it is in no sense violating Catholic Doctrine (against state ‘collectivisation’) just like the UK Labour Party didn’t in the 1930s.

I’m sorry for boring people by “labouring” the point (ha, get the pun?) but it needs to be understood.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

@LeafbyNiggle The problem I have with that is that there are “socialist” movements (movements calling themselves “socialist”) that have been approved by the church…

Fine. Then in your discussions with josie, just don’t call those things “socialist”, even though they call themselves “socialist.” It doesn’t really matter what definition you and josie use for the word, so long as you are using the same definition and are using it consistently, and no one tries to correlate any conclusions from such an agreement to any use outside of that discussion, where a different definition may be in play. The whole problem comes with using one definition to establish one point and then a different definition to establish another point, even though the two points established are contradictory. It is a difficult tightrope to walk, but with some people, that is your only way forward.

 

[Vouthon]

It is a difficult tightrope to walk, but with some people, that is your only way forward.

You seem to have experience with this, by the sounds of it. Are you an old-timer in such discussions?

What I find particularly ridiculous is that the church commends “socialization, in suitable conditions” and yet people calling themselves ‘socialists’ according to this legitimate model of socialisation (over against illegitimate ‘collectivisation’) are being condemned by some wrongly under a condemnation meant to be directed against Marxism.

 

[TMC]

The problem I have with that is that there are “socialist” movements (movements calling themselves “socialist”) that have been approved by the church as not conforming to what the ecclesiastical terminology means by ‘socialism’, which is Marxist-collectivism . In the exact same sense, capitalism is used to refer to neo-liberal capitalism/economic liberalism.

This is the problem with trying to argue purely based on semantics, without delving into underlying meaning (or even trying to). There is nothing magical about the label “socialist” and no magic in the ordering of the words “Democrat” and “Socialist” such that one order is necessarily good and the other bad. But your real issue is that some don’t really care about the actual underlying meaning, or even about the efficacy of the policies being discussed. They are merely interested in proof texting various documents to score political points. The sad reality is that you are not likely to have a meaningful conversation about the morality of economic policies here, as this has become a mostly political forum. I do admire your tenacity in trying, however.

 

[Vouthon]

But your real issue is that some don’t really care about the actual underlying meaning, or even about the efficacy of the policies being discussed. They are merely interested in proof texting various documents to score political points.

That is exactly my issue and fundamental frustration in this thread, expressed far better than I ever could have. Thank you!

 

[Vouthon]

There is a sensible debate to be had about how far markets and enterprise should be regulated and what are the reasonable bounds to state action.

I sincerely wish we could have that debate on CAF, I really do.

As for the topic of the thread, Europe, very briefly: the Vatican has consistently and unwaveringly supported European integration since before the Second World War, and three of the cardinal principles of EU constitutional law - solidarity, subsidiarity and supranationalism - are from Catholic Social Doctrine.

This, from the well-known Anglo-Catholic theologian John Milbank (Professor of Politics, Religion and Ethics, University of Nottingham), on the day after the Brexit referendum result back in 2016:

Christians are duty bound for theological and historical reasons to support the ever closer union of Europe (which does not imply a superstate) and to deny the value of absolute sovereignty or the lone nation-state. Tragically, the Reformation, Roundhead, nonconformist, puritan, whig, capitalist, liberal version of Britishness last night triumphed over our deep ancient character which is Catholic or Anglican, Cavalier, Jacobite, High Tory or Socialist. The spirit of both Burke and Cobbett has been denied by the small-minded, bitter, puritanical, greedy and Unitarian element in our modern legacy. Unfortunately it has duped the working classes, once again to their further ruination.

The European community was founded in the 1950s by a group of largely Catholic politicians from the various Christian Democratic parties of the time. “You can show that the origins of the EU owe a lot to a particularly Catholic political philosophy,” says Ben Ryan of the English think-tank Theos.

In 1948, Pope Pius XII called for the nations of Europe to form a “European Union” at the post-war Hague Conference, which is the first actual use of this term by a world leader in an official capacity.

In 1957, the pontiff had the bells rung throughout the city of Rome to welcome the signing of the Treaty of Rome that established the EEC, and called for the fledgling European community to adopt a federal model under a supranational political authority.

For his part, Pope John Paul II called for the nations of Europe to recognise that they had a “vocation” to join the EU in 2003, and explicitly called for the “expansion” of the EU to complete what he called the “europeanisation of the whole continental area”.

According to Catholic Social Doctrine, the natural law requires that society be ordered at different proportiomate levels limited by subsidiary, such that each order is limited to that which can best be dealt with, or handled, at the appropriate sphere of authority.

This entails supranationalism at the continental and global level, and sub-state localism within nation-states, all equipped with the delegated power to achieve what they need to achieve.

An anarchical system of nation-states, without overarching juridical bonds and supranational authorities, is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine.

 

[AuldP]

I consider myself a Socialist - am I doomed?

 

[Canvas]

I consider myself a Socialist - am I doomed?

Apparently. Repent and start a hedge fund.

 

[Vouthon]

I consider myself a Socialist - am I doomed?

Worse than doomed.

 

[AuldP]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PickyPicky]

I think we can agree that certain churchmen have supported the EU. The Church itself has not

Correct. Certain popes, merely.

 

[TMC]

Correct. Certain popes, merely.

Yes, merely all the Popes since the EU has existed, and maybe one or two from before the EU existed. The Popes that came before the EU was even a concept definitely did not speak in support of it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

An anarchical system of nation-states, without overarching juridical bonds and supranational authorities, is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine.

Nor opposed to it. The Church does not declare what size a “nation” should be or who should be in it. The EU is intended (I think vainly) to be a single “nation state”. As such it has no greater claim to unity and particular borders than France.

 

[Vouthon]

As @TMC noted, every pope since the EU has existed and certainly the bishops conference here in Europe.

The papal support has been expressed in documents as high in authority as encyclicals and apostolic exhortations.

One qualification I would add is that the Vatican supports the EU inasmuch as the church doctrinally believes in the need for supranationalism.

It is supranationalism that is the binding social doctrine, the EU is a concrete expression of it on the European continent (albeit one that every pope since it’s foundation has supported).

That distinction may seem academic but is important.