MoM:I tend to see a lot of people using and distorting church teaching as an excuse to promote immoral and selfish acts in an economic context.
God is love, and to love is to share the good of what God gives to you, so that others can partake in the glory of Gods goodness. Love is necessarily social in its distribution, but not to the extreme of socialism when understood in the context of our current situation on earth. In heaven there will be no capitalism since there will be an absolute abundance of good. Private property is good. But it is not absolute. If your use of property and claim to wealth comes at the detriment of others, for example their homes and property, or their food and their essential needs, then this is evil and surely a mortal sin. A human being without the good of property has been bared from the social order that God intended. It is not love. Therefore private property is obviously conditional in that you have a duty to another’s well being as well as yourself. You have private property to serve the good of the community as well as yourself. One does not have wealth simply for themselves but they also have a moral obligation to the needs of others. Hence a rich man goes to hell, if he or she does not use his riches to serve the love of God. This fact also has a binding significance in how we do economics, since we must create a system that serves the common good and not just the good of the individual. Thus it is legitimate to say that an economic use of property which damages or undermines the common good should actually be an illegal as well as immoral use of property just like murder is illegal, and as such a legitimate state ought to have a moral and legal right to intervene on behalf of the common good and obtain that property for the dignified right of the common good. I would say that a capitalist economy is potentially a good since “trading” property isn’t necessarily an evil; but rather an unregulated market place is an evil thing since it undermines the common good. So, this requires something that exists in-between socialism and capitalism, but at the same time it is not socialism or a market that concerns itself with the individual alone. I reject socialism because it takes away private property.
But distributism respects private property and the common good. Sharing the love of God is always a holy and just act so long as it respects the dignity of all people. A true and moral capitalism is obviously not what we have today since it would be impossible that people would be living in poverty and be living without a home, or would be denied proper health treatment on the account of not having enough money. An economy truly regulated to the benefit of the common good would look very different to the world we live in today. I am not saying that everybody must be equal in such a world as that is not necessary. So long as the lowest wage earner is living a sufficiently dignified life that can support his or here family without fear or worry, then it doesn’t matter that there would be richer people in the world.
If you can’t see that, then i feel sorry for you.
really??? after the financial meltdown you can say with a presumably straight face that the problem is too much regulation?MoM:
But this would seem to require a truly beneficent form of government. And, as we know from history, there has never been even a merely beneficent government. The problem with our Capitalism is that it is too regulated.
God bless,
jd
they are on board with capitalism. they are just on the exploited side of it. how do you think we get the 7 year olds to make your sneakers?Robert:
I’m not sure one could pigeonhole Christ as a socialist, or as one leaning towards socialism. Surely He would have known that the best method of distribution is what we call Capitalism. Unfortunately, it takes incredible resources to distribute to so many needy.
We are a country of 300 million people. The world is a globe comprised of 6.5 billion people. Of this 6.5 billion people, 6 billion, or so, earn less than $2.00 per day, according to the World Bank. The US, at full fury, can only admit about 1 million people a year to its numbers. The rest of the world, is reproducing 80 million new people every year. We have no chance at all at helping the poor of the world. We can only do our small part.
If, on the other hand, we could get the rest of the world on board with Capitalism, they might be able to help themselves. But, at this late date, I’m not so sure.
God bless,
jd
I suggest you read really carefully the following:While I disagree with socialism for pragmatic reasons, I don’t think there’s anything about socialism in and of itself that prevents a Catholic from endorsing it. Please inform me if I’m wrong about this. Of course they may be (and I would say definitely are) elements in the way that specific governments implement socialism that contradict the faith.
Overall I would be concerned if you were considering leaving the Church over any political system. It’s dangerous to subscribe ideologically to any specific strain of political thought - there’s no one political system that is always best in all times and places. If your political views conflict with your faith, you should first try to determine what’s wrong with those views.
I suggest you read really carefully the following:
*]Pius IX: Nostis Et Nobiscum (On the Church in the Pontifical States) December 8, 1849 (read particularly para 6)
*]Leo XIII: Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism) December 28, 1878
*]Leo XIII: Arcanum (On Christian Marriage) February 10, 1880 (particularly paragraph 32)
*]Leo XIII: Diuturnum (On the Origin of Civil Power) June 29, 1881
*] Leo XIII: Humanum Genus (On Freemasonry) April 20, 1884 (particularly paragraphs 8, 27-28)
*]Leo XIII: Libertas Praestantissimum (On the Nature of Human Liberty) June 20, 1888 (particularly paragraph (particularly paragraph 16)
*]Leo XIII: Graves De Communi Re (On Christian Democracy) January 18, 1901
*]Benedict XV: Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (Appealing For Peace) November 1, 1914 (paragraph 13)
*]Pius XI: Quadragesimo Anno (Reconstruction of the Social Order) May 15, 1931 (especially paragraphs 111-128)
*]Pius XII: Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society) October 10, 1939
*]John XXIII: Mater Et Magistra (Church as Mother and Teacher of All Nations) May 15, 1961 (especially paragraph 34)
*]Paul VI: Octagesima Adveniens - The Eightieth Anniversary Of “Rerum Novarum” (A Call to Action) [Apostolic Letter] May 14, 1971 (paragraph 31, 37)
*]John Paul II: Centesimus Annus (On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum - On Capitol and Labor; On Catholic social teaching) May 1, 1991 (particularly paragraph 12, 13, 48)
*]Benedict XVI: Deus Caritas Est (On Christian Love - God is Love), January 25, 2006 (paragraph 28…and note the use of the word subsidiarity throughout…subsidiarity is antithetical to socialism)
Hope the above brief and relatively incomplete list is helpful to you. As Pius XI said, no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Quadragesimo Anno, 120)
I am not confusing anything. Read paragraph 48 of reference #13, above, in regard to a social assistance state (which pretty well describes the economies of western Europe).you are confusing usages of the term “socialism” (as the tea bagger nut jobs do. they even try to say the NAZIs were socialists.) if we are talking about a totalitarian system that outlaws religion, obviously you can’t be a socialist and a catholic. but all that is meant by socialism in europe is that we ought to have reasonable regulations on our market economies and use government to help the poor and heal the sick. no one is talking about government ownership of the means of production.
rocinante
most of this is about private property which no one today in the US (like Obama) who gets demonized as a socialist wants to abolish. then he adds,I am not confusing anything. Read paragraph 48 of reference #13, above, in regard to a social assistance state (which pretty well describes the economies of western Europe).
Here are three relatively recent citations that talk about it (I commended paragraph 48 of Centesimus Annus to you, btw. Pity you stopped reading well before that point).most of this is about private property which no one today in the US (like Obama) who gets demonized as a socialist wants to abolish. then he adds,
“Together with this right, which — it must be stressed — the Pope explicitly acknowledges as belonging to workers, or, using his own language, to “the working class”, the Encyclical affirms just as clearly the right to the “limitation of working hours”, the right to legitimate rest and the right of children and women21 to be treated differently with regard to the type and duration of work.”
this is exactly the sort of stuff that gets labelled “socialism” by the tea baggers.
then i go on to read about the right to a “just wage,” :
“A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.”
i am very confused about how you can see this as a condemnation of what gets called socialism today.
did you even read this thing:
“Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay; and this is the case despite the International Declarations and Conventions on the subject26 and the internal laws of States. The Pope attributed to the “public authority” the “strict duty” of providing properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure to do so violates justice; indeed, he did not hesitate to speak of “distributive justice”.27”
i’m not going to bother to read on since i find nothing that supports your case against socialism. maybe you can point out where this article condemns social assistance?
"*It goes without saying that the Catholic understanding of the common good and economic life is intricately tied to the question of the legitimate role of the government. Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum establishes the ultimate objective of civil government:MoM:
But this would seem to require a truly beneficent form of government. And, as we know from history, there has never been even a merely beneficent government. The problem with our Capitalism is that it is too regulated.
God bless,
jd
“The foremost duty of the rulers of the state should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private property… considered in its nature…the civil power is set up to attend to the **common good** which is the supreme end that gives human society its origin.”“It is the noble prerogative and function of the State to influence, aid and direct the private and individual activities of national life that they converge harmoniously towards the "**common good**". That good can neither be defined according to arbitrary ideas nor can it accept for its standard primarily the material prosperity of society, but rather it should be defined according to the **harmonious development and the natural perfection of man**.” *"“The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves…see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere—such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is.”*Yes, because I understand the actual causes of the meltdown while you’re probably blaming the banks.really??? after the financial meltdown you can say with a presumably straight face that the problem is too much regulation?
And, precisely what countries do these 7 year olds live in?they are on board with capitalism. they are just on the exploited side of it. how do you think we get the 7 year olds to make your sneakers?
i don’t blame the banks. corporations are legally required to serve the financial interests of their investors even if it means taking advantage of every possibly way of screwing the rest of us. i blame the government for failing to ensure that corporations serve the people through appropriate regulation.Yes, because I understand the actual causes of the meltdown while you’re probably blaming the banks.
ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=121And, precisely what countries do these 7 year olds live in?
God bless,
jd
MoM:"*It goes without saying that the Catholic understanding of the common good and economic life is intricately tied to the question of the legitimate role of the government. Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum establishes the ultimate objective of civil government:
Venerable Pope Pius XII makes a comparable claim in Summi Pontificatus:Code:“The foremost duty of the rulers of the state should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private property… considered in its nature…the civil power is set up to attend to the **common good*** which is the supreme end that gives human society its origin.”
Code:“It is the noble prerogative and function of the State to influence, aid and direct the private and individual activities of national life that they converge harmoniously towards the "**common good**". That good can neither be defined according to arbitrary ideas nor can it accept for its standard primarily the material prosperity of society, but rather it should be defined according to the **harmonious development and the natural perfection of man**.” "
MoM:*XII in Rerum Novarum criticized liberal capitalism noting the “enormous fortunes of some few individuals, and the utter poverty of the masses.” This statement remains exactly right, particularly given the varying, but similar figures, stating that an incredibly small minority of people own beyond-staggering percentages of global wealth. Forty years after Rerum Novarum, Pope Pius XI declared that “a veritable economic dictatorship” was forming. The Holy Father argued that these disorders, by and large, resulted from the divorce of economic science from natural law morality and social ethics:
Code:“The ultimate consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you yourselves…see and deplore: Free competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are to be added the grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful confusion of the functions and duties of public authority with those of the economic sphere—such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a queen and supreme arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one common good and justice, is a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed of men. And as to international relations, two different streams have issued from the one fountain-head: On the one hand, economic nationalism or even economic imperialism; on the other, a no less deadly and accursed internationalism of finance or international imperialism whose country is where profit is.”*
Rocinante:what we see in all these quotes is a condemnation of unbridled capitalism as well as a condemnation of social planning taken too far. none of these quotes get to what MindOverMatter2 or anyone else who identifies with socialism means by the term today.
socialists today understand that what is best is some sort of mixed economy. given that we don’t have any serious anarchists and totalitarians, the political debates are always about finding the proper balance to put the dynamism of markets on a footing such that they serve the people rather than the other way around.
any faith in unbridled capitalism to serve the interest of the people is unsupportable in light of history.
any faith in economic systems that don’t recognize the importance of incentives for production are likewise doomed to fail.
both sorts of errors result in systems that collapse under their own weight.
all the demonization of socialists going on lately fails to recognize that modern socialists fully understand these facts and are seeking a better balance between corporate interests and human interests rather than an end to economic freedom. they recognize that the goal is freedom but understand that freedom thrives within structure and that anarchy is not the same as freedom.
the modern debate is not about totalitarianism versus unbridled capitalism. it is between those who believe (as conservative justices have continually upheld) that corporations are people* with the right to buy as many politicians as they can afford and those who believe that the government ought to ensure that it is the good of the people that corporations exist to serve.
rocinante
*so much for voting republican as a right to life stance unless you mean corporations.