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

[josie_L]

When I said that socialism is condemned in “toto” I meant the ideology as a whole, as such my argument was not to say that all aspects of socialism were condemned by the Church, but that regardless of these aspects which are in effect biblically inspired to an extent, socialism if it is still socialism at it’s core, which has nothing to do with whether it is atheistic, dogmatic or authoritarian, still is INCOMPATIBLE with Christianity because it distorts man’s purpose and his relationship with God, i.e., it effectively diminishes man.

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.

Moreover, the Labour party is still working within a capitalist system wherein the goals are to reform the capitalist state, it is not a party whose objective is to progressively institute a socialist system.

And therein lies the reason why it was/is acceptable as a Catholic to vote for Labour.

 

[josie_L]

I have no problem with you wanting to remain with the E.U., Vouthon, my issue is whether you will get “hysterical” over other countries exerting their constitutional right to leave the union??

Moreover, it is you Vouthon, who keeps opening threads about Brexit with a single-mindedly that belies a certain “hysteria”.

 

[Vouthon]

Moreover, the Labour party is still working within a capitalist system wherein the goals are to reform the capitalist state, it is not a party whose objective is to progressively institute a socialist system.

And therein lies the reason why it was/is acceptable as a Catholic to vote for Labour.

And yet it quite clearly referred to itself in the 1930s as a socialist party committed to it’s own vision of socialism, and still does so to this day, and was described as the British “form” of socialism even by the Vatican in 1931, in that approval statement I quoted.

socialism if it is still socialism at it’s core

So what would you describe this “socialism at its core” as being? What is it’s character?

Because even you are now admitting that the church deemed the “British Socialist party of Labourites” (as the Vatican described the Labour Party in 1931) to not be “real socialism” and so acceptable to vote for despite going under the label of Socialism and conceiving of itself as Socialist. And it gave reasons in my quote above. Would you mind looking back to see what those were?

And, Pope Benedict XVI explicitly referred to the Labour Party as being a species of “democratic socialism” and the “Catholic party in England” in my earlier reference from his article published in First Things.

 

[Vouthon]

I have no problem with you wanting to remain with the E.U., Vouthon, my issue is whether you will get “hysterical” over other countries exerting their constitutional right to leave the union??

I just explained to you that I am 100% in favour of them deciding to do so, if they wish to exercise that right under article 50. TEU.

Absolutely no opposition or rebuke would come from me.

 

[josie_L]

That’s good to hear then we don’t have an issue.

 

[josie_L]

Vouthon, my argument is, if it was/is socialist at its core it is to be condemned, hence, my argument was not to condemn every political party known to man as socialist just because it retained certain ASPECTS of socialism or called itself socialist, if in the end it was not really socialism at all or rather worked within a capitalist system to reform it without the intent to replace it.

But you are absolutely wrong in saying that ONLY Marxist collectivism/socialism is condemned or incompatible with Christianity because pope Pius XI CLEARLY DISAGREES WITH YOU!!!

 

[josie_L]

The mistake you made was thinking I took issue with your wanting to remain and then rebuking me for something I never stated or meant to imply.

 

[Vouthon]

The mistake you made was thinking I took issue with your wanting to remain

I never said that you did, nor did I rebuke you.

 

[Vouthon]

Vouthon, my argument is, if it was/is socialist at its core it is to be condemned, hence, my argument was not to condemn every political party known to man as socialist just because it retained certain ASPECTS of socialism or called itself socialist, if in the end it was not really socialism at all or rather worked within a capitalist system to reform it without the intent to replace it.

Excellent!

We are finally coming to some agreement here.

But you are absolutely wrong in saying that ONLY Marxist collectivism/socialism is condemned or incompatible with Christianity because pope Pius XI CLEARLY DISAGREES WITH YOU!!!

But I ask you again: could you give me your understanding of the central feature (core) of this “real socialism” that makes it really socialism as opposed to just something using the label and having aspects in common with it?

 

[josie_L]

Then why the heck would you mention Quebec, when I clearly stated I have no issues with you being a remainer??

It was not necessary to say “right back atcha” within the context of my response.

I wanted to know if you would be “hysterical” as you suggested others were over BREXIT, if other countries were to constitutionally leave the E.U.???

 

[Vouthon]

Then why the heck would you mention Quebec, when I clearly stated I have no issues with you being a remainer??

Because I wanted to know if you, like me, are A-OK with other states in your union seceding, just like I support the constitutional right of states in mine to do so.

And I enquired as to the constitutional position of such secession in Canada.

Nothing to do with me being a Remainer, I was re-phrasing your question back at you.

 

[josie_L]

That’s because you assumed that I was denigrating what wasn’t socialism in the FIRST PLACE. I was condemning that which is socialism at its core (be it even a lighter version of it), which constitutes more than a condemnation of MARXIST collectivism as expressed and delineated by pope Pius XI in his encyclical, “Quadrogesima Anno”.

There ARE other forms of socialism, apart from Marxist/collectivism that is condemned.

And if you wish to know what is this real or at the core of this socialism read the entire encyclical from Pope Pius XI.

 

[josie_L]

The E.U. is a relatively new political entity comprised of many different independent countries as opposed to Quebec which was one of four provinces that founded the dominion of Canada, i.e., it is indelibly linked to Canada.

So no, I would not like it were it to secede because as a minority anglophone in Quebec I would be relegated to less than fair and equal treatment under the law.

And I already feel ill treated by certain laws imposed by our provincial government, such that should it get worse I WILL WILLINGLY SECEDE FROM QUEBEC!!!

 

[grotto]

Would like to visit Quebec and visit the historical sights but really would not want to encounter an unfriendly response. The other provinces of Canada are US friendly and Newfoundland has a special appeal. Perhaps the next time our local Catholic churches sponsor a trip to the Shrines in Quebec and other areas near Michigan a bus ticket might be the way to go!

 

[Vouthon]

socialism if it is still socialism at it’s core, which has nothing to do with whether it is atheistic, dogmatic or authoritarian,

The Vatican statement approving the British Labour Party (issued in conjunction with a clarification from the English Bishops under Cardinal Bourne) stated:

“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 ).

Atheistic materialism and fighting against religion, freedom and public morality, are the factors cited that Pope Pius XI’s encyclical condemned under the term “Socialism” and which the Labour Party was described as not being guilty of, despite identifying as a Socialist party.

It is Marxist collectivist theory that is characterised by an anti-religious dialectic and material determinist reading of history, and which seeks to suppress individual liberties within a collectivist social order that undermines “public morality”.

And both Pope Pius XII (in his 1942 Christmas address) and Pope John Paul II in his 1987 encyclical, explain that Marxist collectivism is the target understood as “real Socialism”.

 

[tomarin]

I go to Quebec all the time and never felt any unfriendliness.

 

[abucs]

Yes, as I understand it, the Queen opens Parliament or something, and the PM has to confer with her on some things. But Parliament could take away those functions. Can the Queen even choose her ladies in waiting anymore, or was Victoria the last who could do that?

Well I guess you could ask when was the last great schism between British monarchy and parliament and how often the present monarch has either with or without parliament worked to enact laws to the benefit of a protestant people against secular interests.

Britain is a secularised country and secular ideals and values hold sway in the motivation and ethical waters from which nascent laws spring, are developed and then debated before being put to the monarch who rubber stamps them to make law.

If the monarch and secular parliament opposed each other in a crisis with neither backing down it is pretty clear which institution would survive and it’s not the rubber stamping ‘protestant’ monarchy.

 

[Vouthon]

The EU is no more Catholic than Erdogan. Might as well let him into the EU too.

Actually, the EU explicitly refers to Europe having a religious heritage in the preamble to the consolidated Treaty of the European Union (TEU), the Union’s primary constitutional document (indeed article 50, the right of secession, is outlined here) which reads as follows:

“Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law…”

The same idea is also inscribed in a further clause of article 17 which, after stating that, ‘‘the European Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of the churches and religious associations in the member states’’ adds that ‘‘recognizing their identiy and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialog with these churches and organizations’’.

And it does this with the Catholic Church through COMECE, to which Juncker delivered the speech in my OP.

These formulations imply that religion is aassigned a specific role, distinct from all other instotutions within civil society, as a foundation for the legitimacy of the Union as a social order.

Do you concede that while the US constitution and Declaration make no mention of religion as a source, or even explicitly recognise the role of religious institutions in society and as dialogue partners, the EU does in it’s founding treaties?

In some ways, I think it’s better that the EU says “religion” rather than specifically “Christian religion”, because Hellenism, Judaism, Islam etc. have not exactly been negligible in terms of literary, scientific and artistic contributions, even though Christianity is the overriding and predominant motive force that gave shape to the very concept of Europe as a domain distinct from the rest of the known world.

To have Christianity mentioned as a separate “source” alongside Enlightenment values, humanism, classical heritage and so on, is something I fully support - but what we have now is eminently preferable to the naturalistic deism of the US declaration and the unequivocally secularist creedo of the US constitution, which makes no mention of America having religion in it’s heritage or values alongside other sources of inspiration.

Are you in favour of the US constitution being amended to include a reference to religion and/or Christian inspiration? Just curious.

As I noted earlier, the EU is formally a secular polity like the US but at the constitutional level it is a positive secularism, so as to foster freedom of religion and inclusion, and not the negative secularism of laicite that North Americans often think.

 

[Vouthon]

As the aforementioned scholar notes in this regard:

The reason this appears significant from the point of view of the question under consideration here is that it clearly marks a departure from the principle of ‘‘separation’’ of religion and politics. Indeed, neither ths principle, nor the terms‘‘secularism’’ or ‘‘laı¨cite´,’’ are ever mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty.
By way of comparison, we can consider the fact that the US constitution contains a specific clause stipulating that ‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’’ and that the French constitution mentions the principle of ‘‘laı¨cite´ " in its first article.

Of course, the specific meaning assigned to these clauses in the American and French jurisprudences is the subject of much contestation (Greenawalt, 2008; Weil, 2007). However, it seems difficult to contest that aprogram such as the one launched by the European Commission under the Delors presidency (whose explicit aim was to ‘‘integrate representatives of religious organizations within the policy-making process’’) would almost certainly be considered unconstitutional in both these jurisdictions.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sorry, but the encyclical is quite clear that other forms of socialism are condemnable, not just Marxist collectivism, i.e., the Laborite party was not condemned because it was not a form of REAL socialism (because if it was it too would be incompatible)!!!

Saying that only the Marxist collectivist version of socialism is condemned is not true!

1. Yet let no one think that all the socialist groups or factions that are not communist have, without exception, recovered their senses to this extent either in fact or in name. For the most part they do not reject the class struggle or the abolition of ownership, but only in some degree modify them. Now if these false principles are modified and to some extent erased from the program, the question arises, or rather is raised without warrant by some, whether the principles of Christian truth cannot perhaps be also modified to some degree and be tempered so as to meet Socialism half-way and, as it were, by a middle course, come to agreement with it. There are some allured by the foolish hope that socialists in this way will be drawn to us. A vain hope! Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity.
2. 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.