Is Any Liberation Theology OK?

[Neil_Anthony]

I believe that all the natural resources including land, minerals, etc. should be owned by the state and their benefits redirected to all. People would still be allowed to rent land from the government to live on and farm on their own. The rent would be high enough that there would be no value in ‘selling’ your right to rent the land. I understand that this is sort of like socialism or communism that is part of liberation theology.

Has the church ruled that such a system is wrong? I know that aspects of liberation theology have been denounced by the church, but specifically has the church condemned the idea of the government owning all the land, if individuals are still allowed to rent it from the government?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe that all the natural resources including land, minerals, etc. should be owned by the state and their benefits redirected to all.

And that’s where you went wrong – the Church opposes Communism.

 

[Dale_M]

And that’s where you went wrong – the Church opposes Communism.

Well, yes. Communism is atheistic. But I don’t think that is what Neil intended, since Liberation Theology is Christian focused.

Vern, are you saying that state ownership of all property is forbidden?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, yes. Communism is atheistic. But I don’t think that is what Neil intended, since Liberation Theology is Christian focused.

Vern, are you saying that state ownership of all property is forbidden?

Yes. The reason is simple – for the state to own all property, the state must have all power. The state cannot tolerate a competing power – such as the Church – which may oppose its policies.

Just for educational purposes make a list of all communist countries that are not brutal dictatorships.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Well, yes. Communism is atheistic. But I don’t think that is what Neil intended, since Liberation Theology is Christian focused.

Vern, are you saying that state ownership of all property is forbidden?

Right, of course I didn’t mean atheistic communism, and not even communism at all. Not ALL property would be owned by the state, just natural resources including land.

But people could still have their own plot of land for their own private use… they would just have to rent it from the government (like paying taxes on your land in a sense). I know there was an encyclical that said that people naturally should be able to have a peice of land of their own… whether being able to use land while paying rent to the government qualifies is another question.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Right, of course I didn’t mean atheistic communism, and not even communism at all. Not ALL property would be owned by the state, just natural resources including land.

But people could still have their own plot of land for their own private use… they would just have to rent it from the government (like paying taxes on your land in a sense). I know there was an encyclical that said that people naturally should be able to have a peice of land of their own… whether being able to use land while paying rent to the government qualifies is another question.

Communism is like pregnancy – you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.

The system you’re outlining has the fatal flaw of communism – unlimited state power.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Communism is like pregnancy – you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.

The system you’re outlining has the fatal flaw of communism – unlimited state power.

To be fair, even in America, if you don’t pay the government a yearly payment to keep your land, they take it away. It’s not that different from rent. It’s just called “property tax”.

Anyway, fatal flaw or not, has the church ruled on this? I imagine this is part of liberation theology but I can’t find where they say which aspects of Liberation theology are contrary to the faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To be fair, even in America, if you don’t pay the government a yearly payment to keep your land, they take it away. It’s not that different from rent. It’s just called “property tax”.

Anyway, fatal flaw or not, has the church ruled on this? I imagine this is part of liberation theology but I can’t find where they say which aspects of Liberation theology are contrary to the faith.

That’s like asking, “Has the Church ruled **this particular **homosexual act is sinful?”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That’s like asking, “Has the Church ruled **this particular **homosexual act is sinful?”

Please cite your source then…

The church allows the state to own land. I assume it also allows the state the privilege of taxing land. The question here is whether full state ownership of land, while allowing individuals to rent the land is excessive.

Every country has some common property (communism). The church hasn’t said that its wrong to have any common property owned by the state. It’s not like homosexuality.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please cite your source then…

The church allows the state to own land. I assume it also allows the state the privilege of taxing land. The question here is whether full state ownership of land, while allowing individuals to rent the land is excessive.

Every country has some common property (communism). The church hasn’t said that its wrong to have any common property owned by the state. It’s not like homosexuality.

The terms you set – no private land ownership – are communistic.

To prove it, let’s consider this – who would own General Motors’ land and the buildings thereon? If the state owns them – or even if the state owns only the land, then the state has ownership of the means of production and distribution. That’s communism in a nutshell.

 

[Genesis315]

The situation in the OP is not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Man has a right to private property. If people want to voluntarily live in a community where they share everything, that’s fine, but you can’t force people to do that.

The state taking someone’s property by force without recompense or without the person having forfeited the property (such as in the case of a fine for breaking the law), then the state’s action would amount to theft.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The situation in the OP is not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Man has a right to private property. If people want to voluntarily live in a community where they share everything, that’s fine, but you can’t force people to do that.

The state taking someone’s property by force without recompense or without the person having forfeited the property (such as in the case of a fine for breaking the law), then the state’s action would amount to theft.

Can you quote a church document on that?

Also, does our right to private property include land? How much private property do we have a right to? Do the poor have that right, or just if you can afford it? I guess I’d have to read the official church document.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The situation in the OP is not compatible with Catholic doctrine. Man has a right to private property. If people want to voluntarily live in a community where they share everything, that’s fine, but you can’t force people to do that.

The state taking someone’s property by force without recompense or without the person having forfeited the property (such as in the case of a fine for breaking the law), then the state’s action would amount to theft.

The idea of taking all the land for the state is not a new one. To see how it works in practice, go here:

Tables 5 and 6, using the same data, illuminate the distribution of these excess [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 5 OMITTED] deaths between the relevant sub-periods. They reveal that there were** 8.6 million unexplained deaths **in 1930-36,(24) attributable to collectivisation, famine and forced industrialisation, and 1.1 million imputable to the Great Terror of 1937-38.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3955/is_n6_v48/ai_18989761/pg_5

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you quote a church document on that?

Also, does our right to private property include land? How much private property do we have a right to? Do the poor have that right, or just if you can afford it? I guess I’d have to read the official church document.

I will readily agree that the Church does not specifically condemn homosexual acts where the parties have their fingers crossed. But that doesn’t mean those acts are morally acceptable.

 

[melensdad]

I believe that all the natural resources including land, minerals, etc. should be owned by the state and their benefits redirected to all. People would still be allowed to rent land from the government to live on and farm on their own. The rent would be high enough that there would be no value in ‘selling’ your right to rent the land. I understand that this is sort of like socialism or communism that is part of liberation theology.

Has the church ruled that such a system is wrong? I know that aspects of liberation theology have been denounced by the church, but specifically has the church condemned the idea of the government owning all the land, if individuals are still allowed to rent it from the government?

I’m not sure what the Church has “ruled” but I know the Church has published statements against it, and espouses as a human right, the ability to own property.

I do know from the actions and words of Pope John Paul II that Liberation Theology is simply wrong.

In March of 1983 Pope John Paul II, during his Central American Pilgrimage, spoke harshly against it. After he rose from kissing Nicaraguan soil he then proceeded to chastise the priests who were at the airport to greet him. In particular he pointed a chastising finger at Jesuit priest Ernesto Cardinal who knelt to kiss the Pope’s ring. Cardinal, was chastised for espousing Liberation Theology—a message proclaiming that Jesus had come to save the poor in their battle against the rich. We all know that Jesus stated we will always have the poor with us.

Liberation Theology opposite of the church’s teaching.

 

[melensdad]

Please cite your source then…

From the on-line version of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. **Thus the encyclical “Rerum novarum” expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. **The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:

• (1) “Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use”;
• (2) “Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.”
  Beyond the academic sources we can look to the 7th Commandment. THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. The concept is very clear that individuals can have property.

 

[melensdad]

We can also look to Pope John Paul II for some indication of property, government, society, and the various roles of personal property.
The demonization of capitalism, a concept that is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. Industrialized capitalist countries have enacted all sorts of worker, consumer, and environmental safeguards since the turn of the 20th century, and civil rights have a strong tradition. As with any human endeavor, there is ample room for improvement. Global capitalism, on the other hand, needs to catch up and has serious flaws that must be addressed. Yet, the Church is not opposed to capitalism in general. The Church opposes “unbridled” or “primitive” capitalism.

According to Pope John Paul II, “what is being proposed as an alternative [to primitive capitalism] is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather *a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. *Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.” The Holy Father has affirmed this “new capitalism” as “an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector… It would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy’, ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy’ (Centesimus annus, 1991).”

Capitalism rightly understood is not only compatible with Catholic social doctrine, it may be the strongest force for social and environmental justice.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you melensdad, that encyclical is just what I was looking for.

You could read this very strictly to mean that no taxpayer-funded social program would be allowed, but I doubt they mean that. I wonder how far a government can go in limiting private property, or putting restraints on it, before it would be considered wrong by the church?

It seems to me that any income tax or property tax would go against what Rerum Novarum says…

From the on-line version of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. **Thus the encyclical “Rerum novarum” expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. **The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:

• (1) “Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use”;
• (2) “Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit.”
  Beyond the academic sources we can look to the 7th Commandment. THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. The concept is very clear that individuals can have property.

 

[melensdad]

Thank you melensdad, that encyclical is just what I was looking for.

You could read this very strictly to mean that no taxpayer-funded social program would be allowed, but I doubt they mean that. I wonder how far a government can go in limiting private property, or putting restraints on it, before it would be considered wrong by the church?

It seems to me that any income tax or property tax would go against what Rerum Novarum says…

Somewhere, and I’m sorry I could not find it, I was reading an article that I believe either quoted Pope John Paul II or was written by a Cardinal as a release expounding on his words, saying something to the effect that government has the responsibility to maintain a balance that prevents the stifling of freedom, innovation and market growth, but also prevents abuse of the workers. It said that modern economies seem to do this pretty well with labor and social laws, but that a world economy is somewhat less able to achieve the balance as factories move to less and less developed nations.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The system you’re outlining has the fatal flaw of communism – unlimited state power.

The other fatal flaw is that socialism/communism doesn’t acknowledge that some work harder and deserve more rewards. If I bust my rump to be a success but have the exact same standard of living as JOE who does the minimum he has to…then what motivation is there for me to work hard…I’ll only work as hard a JOE and we both have the same standard of living.