Having trouble with social teaching

[addictedkoala]

Let me specify that these would be the social teachings which affect our economic perception as Catholics, and it’s not necessarily the teachings themselves (I don’t think) that I have a problem with. I’m all for a society geared toward helping the poor, hungry, etc. but statements from the bishops/Pope on these issues are beginning to bother me. I would label myself economically conservative, and it would seem the holy father is quite a bit further to the left. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate he calls for a, “true world political authority” but, aside from scaring the pants off of me, this seems to be completely contradictory to the concept of subsidiarity. Likewise with the Bishops, most promote socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and various large government welfare programs. I wouldn’t concern myself so much with it if they didn’t promote it like it’s anything more than their opinion. They seem to expect us to accept these things are part of Church Doctrine. I would point out problems like how forced charity is a contradiction in terms. But really I don’t want to debate the merits and faults of economic conservatism or liberalis. However, do I have to accept these teachings for of a new world order? And why does this seem to be a radical movement to the left compared to earlier social encyclicals, like in the 1800s?

edit: I just read that the world government should, “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale”. I’m having a real hard time swallowing this kind of thing and its starting to eat at me. Is it just me?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Let me specify that these would be the social teachings which affect our economic perception as Catholics, and it’s not necessarily the teachings themselves (I don’t think) that I have a problem with. I’m all for a society geared toward helping the poor, hungry, etc. but statements from the bishops/Pope on these issues are beginning to bother me. I would label myself economically conservative, and it would seem the holy father is quite a bit further to the left. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate he calls for a, “true world political authority” but, aside from scaring the pants off of me, this seems to be completely contradictory to the concept of subsidiarity. Likewise with the Bishops, most promote socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and various large government welfare programs. I wouldn’t concern myself so much with it if they didn’t promote it like it’s anything more than their opinion. They seem to expect us to accept these things are part of Church Doctrine. I would point out problems like how forced charity is a contradiction in terms. But really I don’t want to debate the merits and faults of economic conservatism or liberalis. However, do I have to accept these teachings for of a new world order? And why does this seem to be a radical movement to the left compared to earlier social encyclicals, like in the 1800s?

edit: I just read that the world government should, “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale”. I’m having a real hard time swallowing this kind of thing and its starting to eat at me. Is it just me?

The right to private property is conditional. If a minority of human civilization has a large abundance of property and the means of production to such an extent that it is a detriment to the dignity and well being of the majority or just other human beings in general, then the use of that property is immoral and ought to be illegal since it contradicts the common good and the dignity of human life. One has a right to the means of production and private property, but how much any one person has is certainly conditional on its effects on other members of society. If your use of property means the starvation of thousands, mass poverty and homelessness, then this is a mortal sin no different to murder. To say that people have a right to cause mass poverty, mass pollution, mass homelessness and mass joblessness, is like saying its okay to commit murder. It seems to me that the church recognizes these great evils in the world and is stating that it needs to change.

 

[Abu]

addictedkoala
Statements from the bishops/Pope on these issues are beginning to bother me.
I just read that the world government should, “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale”. I’m having a real hard time swallowing this kind of thing and its starting to eat at me. Is it just me?

1. No It’s not just you. Too many bishops seem to veer from what is right and true in Catholic social teaching.
   Here and there some papal encyclicals seem to veer from the principles which the popes themselves have established.
   Check:
   drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/2008/6/30/Starting-Over-The-Rebuilding-of-Catholic-Social-Teaching-on-Economics

Suggestions On Rebuilding Catholic Social Teaching On Economics
William R. Luckey Article first published online: 1 MAR 2010
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01969.x/full

1. Can you give the reference for “the world government should, ‘open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale’ "?

You may find these of considerable help:
drwilliamluckey.com/
mises.org/daily/4310
thomasewoods.com/articles/
mises.org/articles.aspx

 

[portarica]

1. No It’s not just you. Too many bishops seem to veer from what is right and true in Catholic social teaching.
   Here and there some papal encyclicals seem to veer from the principles which the popes themselves have established.
   Check:
   drwilliamluckey.com/index.cfm/2008/6/30/Starting-Over-The-Rebuilding-of-Catholic-Social-Teaching-on-Economics

Suggestions On Rebuilding Catholic Social Teaching On Economics
William R. Luckey Article first published online: 1 MAR 2010
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01969.x/full

1. Can you give the reference for “the world government should, ‘open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale’ "?

You may find these of considerable help:
drwilliamluckey.com/
mises.org/daily/4310
thomasewoods.com/articles/
mises.org/articles.aspx

You seem to be confusing reducing taxes for the wealthy for helping the poor and unemployed.

If that was the case, the financial crisis of the recent years would not have happened as the tax rates under the previous administration were significantly reduced for the most wealthy portion of the population and the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was also low.

So if cutting taxes for the rich and corporations was the way to financial prosperity for all, and cutting taxes would motivate the rich to generate new jobs and otherwise look out for the least in Jesus’ flock, we wouldn’t be in the proverbial toilet such as we are now.

A short article with some thought provoking comments about GE & CITI: examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/how-the-average-american-paid-more-federal-taxes-than-ge-and-citibank

Peace

 

[Joe_5859]

I would be very careful about framing Catholic social teaching in the same language as the polarizing political battles of the 21st century United States. There is no “left” or “right” in the Church.

We also need to take care to let Catholic teaching inform our political perspective and not vice versa. And believe me, I say this as one who needs to take his own advice on the matter.

That said, we also need to pay careful attention to what the bishops are actually saying as opposed to what gets filtered to us through the misunderstandings of the media. For example, I don’t think the bishops are advgocating for blanket amnesty when they are calling for immigration reform and for treating illegal immigrants as human beings with inherent dignity.

Most of the time, the Church leaders speak to principles, not policies. Sometimes, we read the wrong thing into what they say because we assume they are advocating a specific policy rather than simply reaffirming a basic moral principle.

 

[Impertinens]

Also, the Church has no authority when it comes to suggesting economic policies.

I am somewhat left-leaning myself, and I frankly think that a world government would be very useful (although I do not believe it achievable, at least for now) - but this has very little to do with religion, and on these matters the Pope or the Cardinals are nothing more than very learned people expressing their opinions.

 

[challam2010]

I actually lean to the left on religious matters (generally), although remain faithful to the Church, but I vote conservatively on fiscal matters, except for issues that truly and directly impact the poor.

We were given a copy today at Mass of the list of Calif. propositions, the supporters and opponents, the fiscal impact of voting yes/no, and a brief summary of how various statements from the Church “should” influence our voting conscience.

The voting guide said, “The Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching.”

I think you’re right in your conclusion that many of the Church’s leaders’ stance on social issues concerning economics are left-leaning in that they favor the poor and marginalized, and I found their logical application regarding some proposed taxation stretching the point just a bit. On the other hand, Jesus clearly favored the poor in the Gospel, so at least the Bishops are consistent.

Regarding a change in a vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related ligislation from two-thirds to a simple majority, they quoted from Economic Justice for All, No. 123: “More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes.”

They did hold the conservative line, of course, on legalizing marijuana (“Decriminalized or not, cannabis remains a drug…” and quoted the Catechism, “the use of drugs inficts very grave damage on human health and life…” which is also stretching the point a bit, IMO, regarding pot. They quoted, “The [Vatican] Pontifical Council teaches that the use of cannabis is ‘incompatible with Christian morality’ because it is an intoxicant that dims reason and is potentially damaging to the integrity of one’s body and soul.” I found this ironic in light of the many, many times I’ve seen dear father or monsignor more than tipsy from alcohol and in light of the number of alcoholic priests. I’m not a pot user, but jeez…

 

[Abu]

portarica
You seem to be confusing reducing taxes for the wealthy for helping the poor and unemployed.
If that was the case, the financial crisis of the recent years would not have happened as the tax rates under the previous administration were significantly reduced for the most wealthy portion of the population and the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was also low.

I’m not confusing anything as I have not referred to any economic policies, just referred to the relevance of Catholic social teaching.
The recent financial crisis in the U.S. has the hallmarks of the same interventionist policies that deepened and prolonged previous ones. As Federal Reserve chairman between 1987 and 2006, Greenspan acted even more irresponsibly than the Fed officials in the 1930’s who he criticized over the “excess credit” that directly brought about the Great Depression. Rather than, “sopping up the excess reserves,” Greenspan added even more, transforming a stock market bubble into a housing and consumer spending bubble of historic and unprecedented proportions.

Joe 5859
There is no “left” or “right” in the Church. Most of the time, the Church leaders speak to principles, not policies.

Impertinens
Also, the Church has no authority when it comes to suggesting economic policies.

Very true.

 

[Abu]

challam2010
“More specifically, it is the responsibility of all citizens, acting through their government, to assist and empower the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the unemployed…Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes."

This “citizens…acting through their government” while also true, could perhaps be misconstrued as supporting the condemned Welfare State as Pope Benedict XVI has affirmed in Caritas et Veritate, 2009: “Space also needs to be created within the market for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to act according to principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing the production of economic value in the process.” (#37).
True world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (#67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (#57).

 

[St_Francis]

Let me specify that these would be the social teachings which affect our economic perception as Catholics, and it’s not necessarily the teachings themselves (I don’t think) that I have a problem with. I’m all for a society geared toward helping the poor, hungry, etc. but statements from the bishops/Pope on these issues are beginning to bother me. I would label myself economically conservative, and it would seem the holy father is quite a bit further to the left. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate he calls for a, “true world political authority” but, aside from scaring the pants off of me, this seems to be completely contradictory to the concept of subsidiarity. Likewise with the Bishops, most promote socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and various large government welfare programs. I wouldn’t concern myself so much with it if they didn’t promote it like it’s anything more than their opinion. They seem to expect us to accept these things are part of Church Doctrine. I would point out problems like how forced charity is a contradiction in terms. But really I don’t want to debate the merits and faults of economic conservatism or liberalis. However, do I have to accept these teachings for of a new world order? And why does this seem to be a radical movement to the left compared to earlier social encyclicals, like in the 1800s?
edit: I just read that the world government should, “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale”. I’m having a real hard time swallowing this kind of thing and its starting to eat at me. Is it just me?

I have recently started to learn more about Catholic social teaching, and it is great
But I agree that sometimes it can be confusing for two reasons: one is that the bishops seem or actually do go against it, and two, we do not always understand the language of the Church.
I recently taught my daughter to drive. Sometimes I would say, You almost went off the road! And sometimes I would say, You almost hit that car! She could see what was happening, so she did not complain that I was contradicting myself. In the same way, the Church sometimes says, Be kinder to the poor, but this does not mean to enable their sloth and discourage their initiative by too much welfare as at another time Pope John Paul II mentioned in Centissimus Annus. It depends on where we are and where we are headed. The same remarks by the Pope can also be applied to the current health insurance law, and additionally, good Catholic thinkers have said that it violates the principle of sunsidiarity.
So take the issue of illegal immigrants. I thought it would be terribly unfair to those who waited to enter legally to allow for any sort of regularization for those who came illegally. Someone pointed out two things to me: one was that these people were basically invited in by those who wanted cheap labor, and two, that the government turned a blind eye to their entering. It would be quite unfair to expect people to have more respect for the law than does our own government, no?
And as to those who waited, they are getting what they expected to get and what we promised them, we are not going back on that. It is like the parable of the workers who were hired at different times of the day but who were all paid the same amount. It was not unfair to those who were hired early: they were getting what they contracted for, and if the owner wished to show “mercy” to the others, that was his business.
Well, that certainly caused me to change my mind! As well as to learn that the Church generally has a different way of looking at things than either the political right or left in the US.
Catholic teaching wrt Church state relations in a perfectly ideal world is that the Church should be a moral guide for completely separate governments. The Church does not want to govern nations, but Hers is a voice for morality which should be listened to. This sometimes gets switched around to the need for an overarching organization to the governments, but really, traditional Church teaching is that this is the Church’s task.
So I have been learning that Catholic social teaching is sort of out of the ball park when it comes to looking at what we are thinking in the USA. Sometimes the Church talks about things which seem more conservative, at others more liberal. But even with the liberal things, the Church does not want us to head in that direction and keep going without thought! Just as with the conservative issues She does not want us to head in that direction and keep going. There is a balance, and as a nation, we need to work on getting into the proper position on each issue separately rather than just trying to follow a man-made political philosophy.

 

[St_Francis]

You seem to be confusing reducing taxes for the wealthy for helping the poor and unemployed.

If that was the case, the financial crisis of the recent years would not have happened as the tax rates under the previous administration were significantly reduced for the most wealthy portion of the population and the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was also low.

So if cutting taxes for the rich and corporations was the way to financial prosperity for all, and cutting taxes would motivate the rich to generate new jobs and otherwise look out for the least in Jesus’ flock, we wouldn’t be in the proverbial toilet such as we are now.

A short article with some thought provoking comments about GE & CITI: examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/how-the-average-american-paid-more-federal-taxes-than-ge-and-citibank

Peace

The fact that one thing happened after another does not mean that the first caused the second. The Bush tax cuts did not cause the financial mess we are in, the use of too much credit, in large part in the mortgage area with the consequent selling and speculation, is what caused it.

And companies just pass their tax costs on to the consumer, so the less they pay, the better off we are, really.

 

[markomalley]

Let me specify that these would be the social teachings which affect our economic perception as Catholics, and it’s not necessarily the teachings themselves (I don’t think) that I have a problem with. I’m all for a society geared toward helping the poor, hungry, etc. but statements from the bishops/Pope on these issues are beginning to bother me. I would label myself economically conservative, and it would seem the holy father is quite a bit further to the left. In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate he calls for a, “true world political authority” but, aside from scaring the pants off of me, this seems to be completely contradictory to the concept of subsidiarity. Likewise with the Bishops, most promote socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and various large government welfare programs. I wouldn’t concern myself so much with it if they didn’t promote it like it’s anything more than their opinion. They seem to expect us to accept these things are part of Church Doctrine. I would point out problems like how forced charity is a contradiction in terms. But really I don’t want to debate the merits and faults of economic conservatism or liberalis. However, do I have to accept these teachings for of a new world order? And why does this seem to be a radical movement to the left compared to earlier social encyclicals, like in the 1800s?

edit: I just read that the world government should, “open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale”. I’m having a real hard time swallowing this kind of thing and its starting to eat at me. Is it just me?

Are you speaking about this quote: The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis.

- Caritas is Veritate, 42
​

If you read that carefully and in its full context (click on the link to read the entire section), you will not read that global redistribution of wealth (i.e., bulk turning over of money from those countries that have to those countries that do not have) is not being advocated. Rather, the Holy Father is stating that an *effect *of globalization is the redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale.

If you think about this, that is just a matter of common sense. Let us say you buy a shirt that was made in the Nicaragua. In an ideal world, you would redistribute your wealth in exchange for the shirt (i.e., you would pay for it). The store would then redistribute its wealth to the distributor by purchasing 1,000 shirts. The distributor would then redistribute its wealth to the company in Nicaragua by buying a shipping container with 100,000 shirts in it. And the company in Nicaragua would redistribute its wealth by paying its workers for their labor and the farmers for the cotton.

In this ideal world, the shirt company in Nicaragua would pay its workers sufficiently (If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income - Rerum Novarum 46), as would the distributor and the shopkeeper in the US.

The true market capitalist does not concern himself with the morality of the wages of labor, but I don’t personally see how a true Catholic, even a conservative one, can do so. Because in doing so, one must deny the humanity of the worker.

On the other hand, the left-wing “social justice” person (Catholic or otherwise) does not recognize the basis tenet that businesses operate for the purpose of making profit, that businesses will not operate at a loss, and that there are second, third, and fourth order effects to every business decision that affect the entire economy (for example, an increase in minimum wage is always involved by an eventual increase in prices across the board…thus negating the benefit of the increase in wage). They encourage envy and theft by forced redistribution of wealth which actually reduce solidarity between peoples and increase the divide between classes of people, rather than encouraging an environment characterized by charity (agape) and solidarity, which cannot be dictated by any government action. They equate society with the State, which utterly corrupts the social teachings of the Church.

 

[markomalley]

In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate he calls for a, “true world political authority” but, aside from scaring the pants off of me, this seems to be completely contradictory to the concept of subsidiarity.

Again, as before, I think you need to read this a little more carefully:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth…Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of **subsidiarity **and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

Caritas in Veritate, 67
​

I also don’t like the verbiage “so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” – frankly, it is a really lousy translation.

If you take a look at the Latin (which is the authoritative version), you see the expression: ut familiae Nationum notio re efficiatur (to produce a notion of a family of Nations).

If you take a look at the German (which is the version in the Holy Father’s native language), you see the expression: damit dem Konzept einer Familie der Nationen reale und konkrete Form gegeben werden kann (thereby which a concept of a real family of nations can take concrete form).

If you take a look at the Italian (which is the version in the language spoken by the majority of the Curia), you see the expression: affinché si possa dare reale concretezza al concetto di famiglia di Nazioni. (so we can give real substance to the concept of a family of nations)

So the nefarious phrase “acquire real teeth” is a really lousy translation job done by somebody who decided to throw in a little English idiom…and messed up in the process.

Having said that, though, you will note that Benedict says that this is *In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence. *It is an established fact that the peoples of the world are becoming ever more intertwined. Globalization is happening whether you or I like it or not.

You will also note that Benedict then mentions that this authority would need to be regulated by law and observe consistently the principles of **subsidiarity **and solidarity.

Not carefully the term subsidiarity.

Also note carefully the use of the phrase make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.

The bottom line is that it does not appear that the organization envisioned by the Holy Father has any resemblance to the current United Nations Organization.

The biggest emphases in all of Caritas in Veritate (IMHO) are twofold:

1. 
   *]We, as Christians, to order our lives based upon the concept of gratuitousness – marked by “gift”
   *]Secondly, the social and economic order we try to implement should be ordered in the same fashion as the moral order which is preached.
   
   If you can actually read and meditate on the full document, those themes pop out throughout.
   
   Frankly, I cannot see how a leftist “social justice” type can not but be infuriated by this document…if they do any more than pick out buzz phrases from the document. The statement, While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place (Caritas in Veritate, 38), is embedded all through the document. Think about how that phrase must utterly infuriate the leftist. It is an utter rejection of the moral validity of forced redistribution through taxes and welfare payments for the purpose of achieving “social justice.” The Holy Father constantly emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity as being a **necessary **complement to solidarity (again, a concept that has got to totally infuriate the socialists): *The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need *(para 58). Maybe it’s that they haven’t actually read the document.

 

[addictedkoala]

I have to thank most of you for your responses, especially markomalley, after reading some more and sleeping on it I’ve really calmed down over Caritas in Veritate and am starting to grasp it more completely. I fell for the trick of listening to the out of context quotes from some… less than nice websites

However this still leaves me worried about when the leaders in the Church come out, for example, in support of socialized healthcare. While of course the Church doesn’t operate on our political scale and that kind of healthcare is the norm for many countries in Europe, it seems as though they think Catholics must support it. And contrary to what Pope Benedict said, “The Church does not offer technical solutions or interfere in politics,” a lot of (other) bishops seem to have a lot of technical solutions they want us to accept.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am glad that you brought this up, but every thread on this forum that mentions “social teaching” or “social justice” seems to always attract the socialists who put forth their own agendas and start arguing with the OP that socialism is what Jesus would have wanted, or what Jesus really was all about.



The term “redistribution of wealth” is the wrong one to use, I believe, since it has connotations of seizing private property and giving it to others. Of course we already do that in the form of income tax and other taxes, but that specific term has become a red flag to many people

 

[Joe_5859]

I just thought of another point to add.

The Church does not uncritically endorse any specific economic system. She has critical things to say about both socialism and capitalism. We’re not going to find a perfect system this side of heaven, but it’s good to know the pitfalls and seek to remedy them as best we can.

 

[markomalley]

I am glad that you brought this up, but every thread on this forum that mentions “social teaching” or “social justice” seems to always attract the socialists who put forth their own agendas and start arguing with the OP that socialism is what Jesus would have wanted, or what Jesus really was all about.



The term “redistribution of wealth” is the wrong one to use, I believe, since it has connotations of seizing private property and giving it to others. Of course we already do that in the form of income tax and other taxes, but that specific term has become a red flag to many people

The key is to study the social doctrine of the Church and to really work to understand it. All of the key documents are online and readily available either by looking at the Vatican’s website or papalencyclicals.net. Social doctrine is something too important to be ceded to the leftists.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I just thought of another point to add.

The Church does not uncritically endorse any specific economic system. She has critical things to say about both socialism and capitalism. We’re not going to find a perfect system this side of heaven, but it’s good to know the pitfalls and seek to remedy them as best we can.

What I have come to in my own life is that many on the left side of political or economic theory are idealists at heart, and they fully believe that utopia is possible here on earth, with enough assistance from government. They seem to have a positive view of people that places trust in authority and they believe that people **would **do the right thing, if only the external world would cooperate and conditions were better. They look to government to compensate for the unfairness of life, or what they perceive as unfairness.

Then there is the other viewpoint - that human beings are sinners, we are born into sin, we commit sins every day, and there is no utopia here on earth and certainly no reason to trust in the inherent goodness of people. Paradoxically, this allows the individual to stop being disappointed in his fellow man and just get on with the business of trying to be as Christ-like as possible, all the while knowing that it is impossible for us, but also knowing that since we have been bought by the Precious Blood, we are no longer our own possessions, but we belong wholly to Him who saved us.

The other thing that helped me a lot was reading and re-reading the passage in Scripture that describes Jesus’ temptation. I think this world does belong to Satan, for now. And nothing that human beings does surprises me any more. If this is his world, evil makes sense. It did not fit the plan of a utopia, but if Satan is ruling for now, of course there would be evil. And a lot of it.

What the utopians seem to fail to understand is that someone is always on the top of the pile, even in their beloved communism or socialism. The upper echelons of Soviet communism did not suffer from the starvation and death that happened when the means of production were seized by the government. People like Al Gore, George Soros, etc. are not going to be “equalized” in any economical system. They will keep their money while depriving the rest of us of ours. Somehow there is a mental block in socialism supporters - they think owners of corporations are evil yet they see the corporation called “government” as a force for good. They manage to ignore the power and coercion in governmental power and trust that someone above them will have the right ideas and will give them their fair share. What really happens is that the ones on top stay on top and the ones in the middle join the ones on the bottom in misery. the leveling doesn’t happen at the top, ever.

As Islam excludes our Constitution in favor of Sharia, Communism excludes the concept of God, which means evil is free to run rampant. Witness the count of death attributed to Stalin - 39,000,000. What a great economic system all right.

 

[addictedkoala]

What I have come to in my own life is that many on the left side of political or economic theory are idealists at heart, and they fully believe that utopia is possible here on earth, with enough assistance from government. They seem to have a positive view of people that places trust in authority and they believe that people **would **do the right thing, if only the external world would cooperate and conditions were better. They look to government to compensate for the unfairness of life, or what they perceive as unfairness.

Then there is the other viewpoint - that human beings are sinners, we are born into sin, we commit sins every day, and there is no utopia here on earth and certainly no reason to trust in the inherent goodness of people. Paradoxically, this allows the individual to stop being disappointed in his fellow man and just get on with the business of trying to be as Christ-like as possible, all the while knowing that it is impossible for us, but also knowing that since we have been bought by the Precious Blood, we are no longer our own possessions, but we belong wholly to Him who saved us.

Exactly! My heart is totally with Distributism (less liberal of course than socialism), and I really want to be a distributist, but realistically I just don’t see even that or any of these large government policies working out without a perfect world.

 

[markomalley]

Exactly! My heart is totally with Distributism (less liberal of course than socialism), and I really want to be a distributist, but realistically I just don’t see even that or any of these large government policies working out without a perfect world.

Distributionism sounds like an ideal way to run an economy. But it is Utopian. Mind you, if you could carve out a group of people who voluntarily wanted to live in that fashion (and there were the correct mix of skill sets), it could potentially work and actually be a viable system – if all of the needed natural resources were also available. But that would be exceedingly difficult. And without a whole society voluntarily agreeing to it, its implementation would be unjust and, frankly, unsuccessful. Consider this little quote from St John Chrysostom:

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
​

The point being that if you want to live your life in a distributionist type of fashion, by all means do so. It would be the most Christian thing you could do. If you want to **exhort **others to do so, by all means do so. They would likewise benefit from the blessings of that lifestyle. But the minute it goes beyond exhortation and into compulsion, you will run into the problems highlighted by St John Chrysostom above.