Is Communism itself a bad thing?

[Abu]

VonDerTann
Oddly, the one area where a form of communism has worked has been certain religious orders, communities, friaries, where the center has been God, and where those that enter do so voluntarily.

Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, “We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.” (#128).

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

In Acts 2:44-47, so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.” [Op.cit., p 46].

 

[Lutheranteach]

Always remember that capitalism is the only socio-economic system that has NO moral component.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Always remember that capitalism is the only socio-economic system that has NO moral component.

This is quite obviously false. The most obvious counter-example is the nature of private property which inherently relies upon the immorality of theft.

 

[Abu]

Bubba Switzler
Would it be fair, then, to infer that you are conceding that the American Conference of Catholic Bishops is quite confortable with socialism as it has been advanced to date in America? And that we are now debating the theological correctness of their views?

Why attach the label “socialism”? Simply critique statements on their merit, based on the developed Catholic social teaching which does not have the status of doctrine unless it affirms doctrine on faith or morals. Theology seeks reasons for faith, not social teaching.

For my part, I will simply refer to acton.org as a shorthand for my own views on this matter. But I think it’s folly to suggest that this is a settled matter within Catholicism or that the Catholic Church outside America is somehow more respectful of economic freedom than American Catholics who generally vote Democrat.

Neither can we categorize anyone merely based on how they vote – we need reasons for a particular adherence to a particular opinion versus Catholic social teaching. On faith and morals it is clear cut.

“Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” Further, the popes have stressed the absolute necessity for moral application of the laws developed by our Late Scholastics.

Failure to get to know the free enterprise laws discovered and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, and what they mean, is at the root of the dilemma. People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, and against monopolies.

No wonder Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why attach the label “socialism”? Simply critique statements on their merit, based on the developed Catholic social teaching which does not have the status of doctrine unless it affirms doctrine on faith or morals. Theology seeks reasons for faith, not social teaching.

Because it is useful to see generalizations above specific instances.

Neither can we categorize anyone merely based on how they vote – we need reasons for a particular adherence to a particular opinion versus Catholic social teaching. On faith and morals it is clear cut.

See above. A generalization that is reliably predictive is usefully true.

“Economic science is value free. It analyses cause and effect relationships that, if true, are scientific….only human acts can be judged morally.” Further, the popes have stressed the absolute necessity for moral application of the laws developed by our Late Scholastics.

The claim that economics is a science of cause and effect is rather debatable as well. Economists regularly debate values. Unemployment is bad, economics growth is good, etc.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some of the ideas of Communism are actually quite good, even wealth distrribution, the top of the food chain looking after the bottem, noone is better off then anyone else etc.

However, it seeks to remove God completely (as Marx believed religion to be the “opiate of the people” and it would cease to be needed/exist in a truly Communist state) which is intrinsically evil, without someone in charge (which in pure communism, there is no leader ala anarchy) a dictator will always fill the power vaccuum (Stalin etc) which usually leads to a totalitarian dictatorship, and extreme forms of poverty, but also a large “middle class” which have quite abit of money, and the dictator and his ilk, who have most of the money.

Communism can not work, people are to greedy, it will always end up as a totalitarian Socialist Dictatorship

I agree with all your points. There are some noteworthy things in Communism that are good ideas. But as a whole as it is defined today, its not. On the other hand, Democracy with Capitalism is also not a good thing, as the recent recession has taught us. Freedom to make your money in a capitalist market only fosters greed.

I think the proper solution is somewhere between Communism and Democracy, with a market somewhere between Socialist and Capitalist. Obviously giving too much freedom is a bad thing, and giving too little or none is also a bad thing. I always look to Singapore who’s democratic yet autocratic. While people have freedoms, its capped at certain point so as the greater good of society is not trampled by the freedoms of individuals.

 

[VonDerTann]

I believe it was Churchill who said democracy was the worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms.

It ain’t perfect…but it beats all alternatives.

 

[Abu]

How strange that anyone now feels that Communism has “good ideas” – not Karl Marx, not the gulag, not the failed economies of Russia and the Eastern block. Even Putin et al dumped it to follow their own dictatorial prejudices.

ConstantineTG
Democracy with Capitalism is also not a good thing, as the recent recession has taught us

.
Another poster who knows nothing about government finagling that creates a mirage that free enterprise is functioning by the laws developed by our Late Scholastics – the interventions that have made a mockery of free enterprise, again and again, to produce booms and busts based on failed economic theories and political stuff ups.

Apparently Pope John Paul II, the Pope who best knew Communism, is also wrong!

 

[Ignatius]

But, I said it wasn’t itself a bad thing to a group of friends and am wondering if that was right or not.

Communism is in itself a very bad thing. It is a specious system designed to lure gullible people. Once they are in power, they are worse then other dictatorships.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How strange that anyone now feels that Communism has “good ideas” – not Karl Marx, not the gulag, not the failed economies of Russia and the Eastern block. Even Putin et al dumped it to follow their own dictatorial prejudices.
.
Another poster who knows nothing about government finagling that creates a mirage that free enterprise is functioning by the laws developed by our Late Scholastics – the interventions that have made a mockery of free enterprise, again and again, to produce booms and busts based on failed economic theories and political stuff ups.

Apparently Pope John Paul II, the Pope who best knew Communism, is also wrong!

I guess my MBA isn’t worth here?

I guess you yourself have been brainwashed with the capitalist propaganda. Sure, its not capitalism’s fault, its those who abuse it.

The problem isn’t limited to economics but to the psychology behind it. You provide a system where you reward people for hard work and good ideas. Sure, its noble and its fair. Except that there’s no cap on the reward, you can make as much as you want as long as you can continue to be successful. Enter psychology and greed. People always wants to make money out of nothing. Look at how many unnecessary things are being sold in the market today? Can’t say I was never a sucker for it, but I did spend a good amount of money on sports trading cards and trading card games. “Collector’s items” and “memorabilia” stuff pray on the simplest of economic models, supply and demand. There is only X numbers of these stuff available, therefore we’ll charge you 1000% profit or more on it. Don’t tell me that is not part of what captialsm is? This is only one of a long list of examples.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The problem isn’t limited to economics but to the psychology behind it. You provide a system where you reward people for hard work and good ideas. Sure, its noble and its fair. Except that there’s no cap on the reward, you can make as much as you want as long as you can continue to be successful. Enter psychology and greed. People always wants to make money out of nothing. Look at how many unnecessary things are being sold in the market today?

It turns out, though, that leashing economic rewards entails unleashing political power. This is a lesson that some people refuse to learn. Bill Gates never killed anyone. The same cannot be said for Joe Stalin. Unnecessary products are wasteful but unnecessary laws are devastating.

If we are designing a system with a view towards the extremes, better to leash the politicians.

 

[JHow]

The desired ends of communism and socialism are partially or wholly shared by classical liberalism, the means, however, lead to only lack of freedom, as Hayek noted.

One would think, after Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler (yes, him too), etc. we could not have this debate. It’s kind of like “Is heroin a bad thing? It took my headache away…”

 

[Abu]

ConstantineTG
Enter psychology and greed. People always wants to make money out of nothing. Look at how many unnecessary things are being sold in the market today? Can’t say I was never a sucker for it, but I did spend a good amount of money on sports trading cards and trading card games.

The basics are:
Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42].

No wonder Pope Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36). [My emphasis].

So, people can make their own trouble and it is people, NOT free enterprise, who do so. Failure to get to know the free enterprise laws discovered and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, and what they mean, is at the root of the dilemma. People can, and some do, undermine the common good, and the primary role of government is to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, and that’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, lie, and against monopolies and harmful products – to name a few.

Further, democracy is a political system – the best there is, and it is governments and politicians using poor economic theories that kerfuffle the economic laws our Late Scholastics developed.

 

[Skeptic92]

I agree with all your points. There are some noteworthy things in Communism that are good ideas. But as a whole as it is defined today, its not. On the other hand, Democracy with Capitalism is also not a good thing, as the recent recession has taught us. Freedom to make your money in a capitalist market only fosters greed.

I think the proper solution is somewhere between Communism and Democracy, with a market somewhere between Socialist and Capitalist. Obviously giving too much freedom is a bad thing, and giving too little or none is also a bad thing. I always look to Singapore who’s democratic yet autocratic. While people have freedoms, its capped at certain point so as the greater good of society is not trampled by the freedoms of individuals.

I don’t agree with many of the ideas of the Left tbh, there are some good ideas there, a welfare state and universal healthcare (that does not fund abortions etc) is a definite good idea, however the “freedom” that the liberals desire, just leads to discrimination of the Right Wing for not agreeing

I believe it was Churchill who said democracy was the worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms.

It ain’t perfect…but it beats all alternatives.

Hmmm, Monarchy wouldn’t be to bad, or the British Government, governing how parliament was designed to by Oliver Cromwell, not by “what we say goes, don’t care what the public want”.

How strange that anyone now feels that Communism has “good ideas” – not Karl Marx, not the gulag, not the failed economies of Russia and the Eastern block. Even Putin et al dumped it to follow their own dictatorial prejudices.
.
Another poster who knows nothing about government finagling that creates a mirage that free enterprise is functioning by the laws developed by our Late Scholastics – the interventions that have made a mockery of free enterprise, again and again, to produce booms and busts based on failed economic theories and political stuff ups.

Apparently Pope John Paul II, the Pope who best knew Communism, is also wrong!

No-one has denied that Communism as a whole socio-economic idea, is inherently evil, however in almost every Political Systems there is good ideas, in Fascism there are a few good ideas, not many, but a few, same with Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Theocracy, monarchy, Imperialism etc

Everyone of the political systems has some good ideas, however not one of them will ever work perfectly, Democracy is flawed, the loudest voice makes the laws, not the majority, I am sure you can think of how everyone of them is either flawed or intrinsically evil.

 

[Abu]

Skeptic92
a welfare state and universal healthcare (that does not fund abortions etc) is a definite good idea

It’s quite remarkable how selfist some self-styled Catholics have become. Reality means little to them. One wonders why Christ gave us His Church to show us the way. How about some reality, pseudo-Catholics notwithstanding:

Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

And so, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, having surveyed the present economic system, We have found it laboring under the gravest of evils. We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel. (#128).
[My emphases].

Pope John Paul II is very careful to reaffirm the principle of subsidiarity and to ensure that we understand the excesses that should be avoided. We have seen already the warning that “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

Democracy is flawed, the loudest voice makes the laws, not the majority, I am sure you can think of how everyone of them is either flawed or intrinsically evil.

Such poor reasoning – since it is the only system that allows free elections which decide a government, is it too much to expect a poster to understand that once again, it is the formation in reason and faith which determines how a person and therefore the electorate votes? Consequently the formation of the electorate in reason and faith will determine how the electorate will appraise issues. As to the politicians elected, again reason and faith will determine how they appraise issues and cast their vote. Lack of sound formation in either the electorate or the politicians will harm society.

This reflects on the post-modernist culture which bedevils society.

To imply that democracy is intrinsically evil is inane, no other political system allows for free decisions based on reason and faith. What we need is proper formation in families, schools, parishes and further education.

 

[Skeptic92]

It’s quite remarkable how selfist some self-styled Catholics have become. Reality means little to them. One wonders why Christ gave us His Church to show us the way. How about some reality, pseudo-Catholics notwithstanding:

Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

And so, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, having surveyed the present economic system, We have found it laboring under the gravest of evils. We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel. (#128).
[My emphases].

Pope John Paul II is very careful to reaffirm the principle of subsidiarity and to ensure that we understand the excesses that should be avoided. We have seen already the warning that “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).
Such poor reasoning – since it is the only system that allows free elections which decide a government, is it too much to expect a poster to understand that once again, it is the formation in reason and faith which determines how a person and therefore the electorate votes? Consequently the formation of the electorate in reason and faith will determine how the electorate will appraise issues. As to the politicians elected, again reason and faith will determine how they appraise issues and cast their vote. Lack of sound formation in either the electorate or the politicians will harm society.

This reflects on the post-modernist culture which bedevils society.

To imply that democracy is intrinsically evil is inane, no other political system allows for free decisions based on reason and faith. What we need is proper formation in families, schools, parishes and further education.

HH the Venerable Pope John Paul II was talking about a true socialist, are you saying im acting like a true socialist , I have said I agree with parts of the theory, never that i agree with the whole idea, quoting the late Venerable Pope John Paul II and the Late Pope Pius XI, talking about true Socialism, and Communism, and the idea that i put forward of a state that helps those who can’t help themselves (such as those with serious disabilities or Mental illness) are not the same thing.

If you don’t agree with parts of the welfare state let me ask you, should my sister, who is disabled beyond the point she can live at home, and has to live in care because she can not look after herself, and my parents can’t look after her and look after themselves and me and my other sister, should not receive help from the state for her care?

If the answer is that she shouldn’t receive help, many disabled children would be in relative poverty because care for them is incredibly expensive, aswell as 24/7 supervision in many families now is hard due to low paying jobs being the most common. If the answer is that she should, you agree with the ideas of a proper welfare state, helping the most vulnerable and those unable to work (not those that can work, but wont) atleast have help, however minimal that is.

Democracy is todays society is flawed, how is this not flawed ?

ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

To take this into perspective, in 2001 Labour in the UK won a majority of the Houses of Parliament, thereby giving them control, however under 60% of the population voted and they only won by a majority of 40% ill show you how that works out

there was an electorate at that time of 44,374,047, with 59.4% of them voting, that’s 26,358,184 (to the nearest person) however the majority party got 10,727,781 votes, so if we take that as a percentage of the whole population, they only got 24.1758% of the total electorate, therefore they did NOT have a majority of the House, or the country, so should not of got power, as nowhere near 51% of the population wanted them in power.

So tell me how is democracy not flawed? Democracy is flawed if not even half of the population vote in the Government that gains power.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If you don’t agree with parts of the welfare state let me ask you, should my sister, who is disabled beyond the point she can live at home, and has to live in care because she can not look after herself, and my parents can’t look after her and look after themselves and me and my other sister, should not receive help from the state for her care?

If the answer is that she shouldn’t receive help, many disabled children would be in relative poverty because care for them is incredibly expensive, aswell as 24/7 supervision in many families now is hard due to low paying jobs being the most common. If the answer is that she should, you agree with the ideas of a proper welfare state, helping the most vulnerable and those unable to work (not those that can work, but wont) atleast have help, however minimal that is.

This is precisely the mindlessness that I was addressing previously. You have absored your lessons from the American Bishops well.

But let’s step back and look more closely at the above. You are resting your argument on what we call a “false dichotomy”, that we must choose between a welfare state and poverty. You, and the American Bisiops, seem to believe that before the welfare state there was only abject poverty and without the welfare state we would return directly to it.

There is, though, another alternative: Christian charity. I know that must seem like an old-fashioned concept but there it is.

Charity, of course, begins at home. Thats why you naturally look to your own family first for aid and assitance. But it need not end there.

 

[tafan]

I agree with all your points. There are some noteworthy things in Communism that are good ideas. But as a whole as it is defined today, its not. On the other hand, Democracy with Capitalism is also not a good thing, as the recent recession has taught us. Freedom to make your money in a capitalist market only fosters greed.

I think the proper solution is somewhere between Communism and Democracy, with a market somewhere between Socialist and Capitalist. Obviously giving too much freedom is a bad thing, and giving too little or none is also a bad thing. I always look to Singapore who’s democratic yet autocratic. While people have freedoms, its capped at certain point so as the greater good of society is not trampled by the freedoms of individuals.

There is nothing in communism that was a good idea, absolutely nothing. The idea of equal distribution of wealth as mentioned about and I think you are agreeing with that But this was not a communist ideal, never was. The communist ideal, from the very beginning was no distributino of wealth, everything held by the state or in common. Two VERY different things.

Communism, as defined defined today is not? Communism was always bad and always condemned by the Church as such. It was not simply an economic system that didn’t work, it was a complete philosophy, completely at odds with truth.

Read the very first communist documents and you will find nothing good about them. Evil, that is what you will find.

 

[Abu]

Skeptic92
If the answer is that she shouldn’t receive help, many disabled children would be in relative poverty because care for them is incredibly expensive, aswell as 24/7 supervision in many families now is hard due to low paying jobs being the most common. If the answer is that she should, you agree with the ideas of a proper welfare state, helping the most vulnerable and those unable to work (not those that can work, but wont) at least have help, however minimal that is…… So tell me how is democracy not flawed?

You’re right, as we have the effects of Original Sin, no human institution is perfect and, as no one says there is a perfect human institution, no one says that “democracy” is in no way flawed.

We need not confuse helping those who cannot help themselves with the Welfare State excesses condemned by Pope John Paul II –

If you don’t agree with parts of the welfare state…

This is what you need to accept – you still have not accepted the teaching in Centesimus Annus that “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called ‘Welfare State’." (#48).

This has never meant that a government should not render assistance to those in need. But, because of the truths in CA #48 above, as well as the fact that the Church qualifies State intervention and the primary role of government as to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, in which no higher group should perform services which a lower group can deliver – the emphasis is on local and “neighborly” assistance, through family, neighbors, churches, unions, cooperatives, fraternal societies, or other associations as contributors to the social fabric.

In the U.K. the reality of these Catholic principles is hopefully starting to get through for we see that a recent drive in the U.K (Big Society) to try to repair the harm done to society by interminable government bureaucracy and intervention is receiving support from the Labour Party there as well.

So why is the Big Society such a radical idea? As one of its leading proponents in government admits, it is a massive social experiment – stripping power from the state in the expectation that individuals, communities and enterprises will pick up the reins.

Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, has talked about “taking that term ‘Big Society’ back” and is expected to ask Maurice Glasman, an academic who has championed grassroots politics through the London Citizens charity and talks of the need for a more locally focused “Blue Labour”, to lead this fight. “It’s a challenge to us because we became too removed from people,” says one leading figure. “The idea you pull levers in Whitehall and solve problems in my constituency is self-evidently absurd.”
[See **Britain’s big gamble puts the citizens at the wheel (Financial Times), By Ian Birrell Published: December 28 2010]

 

[Skeptic92]

This is precisely the mindlessness that I was addressing previously. You have absored your lessons from the American Bishops well.

But let’s step back and look more closely at the above. You are resting your argument on what we call a “false dichotomy”, that we must choose between a welfare state and poverty. You, and the American Bisiops, seem to believe that before the welfare state there was only abject poverty and without the welfare state we would return directly to it.

There is, though, another alternative: Christian charity. I know that must seem like an old-fashioned concept but there it is.

Charity, of course, begins at home. Thats why you naturally look to your own family first for aid and assitance. But it need not end there.

hmm, I’ve never read much from the USCCB, maybe the new missal, and when i want to know what is going on in the Catholic Church across the pond, but not that much, if you check i read more information from the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, yes a secular society, where Charity, sadly does not exist, the salvation army help those that are homeless, and a few charitys help the elderly, very few charities actively help those with disabilities or mental illness, I’m not giving you a false dichotomy, without the help we receive from the state my family WOULD be in relative poverty, no if’s not buts, we would be, because most of the care of my sister is paid for by the state.

You’re right, as we have the effects of Original Sin, no human institution is perfect and, as no one says there is a perfect human institution, no one says that “democracy” is in no way flawed.

We need not confuse helping those who cannot help themselves with the Welfare State excesses condemned by Pope John Paul II –

This is what you need to accept – you still have not accepted the teaching in Centesimus Annus that “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called ‘Welfare State’." (#48).

This has never meant that a government should not render assistance to those in need. But, because of the truths in CA #48 above, as well as the fact that the Church qualifies State intervention and the primary role of government as to support families in solidarity, and the role of the Church in subsidiarity, in which no higher group should perform services which a lower group can deliver – the emphasis is on local and “neighborly” assistance, through family, neighbors, churches, unions, cooperatives, fraternal societies, or other associations as contributors to the social fabric.

**In the U.K. the reality of these Catholic principles is hopefully starting to get through for we see that a recent drive in the U.K (Big Society) to try to repair the harm done to society by interminable government bureaucracy and intervention is receiving support from the Labour Party there as well. **

So why is the Big Society such a radical idea? As one of its leading proponents in government admits, it is a massive social experiment – stripping power from the state in the expectation that individuals, communities and enterprises will pick up the reins.

Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, has talked about “taking that term ‘Big Society’ back” and is expected to ask Maurice Glasman, an academic who has championed grassroots politics through the London Citizens charity and talks of the need for a more locally focused “Blue Labour”, to lead this fight. “It’s a challenge to us because we became too removed from people,” says one leading figure. “The idea you pull levers in Whitehall and solve problems in my constituency is self-evidently absurd.”
[See **Britain’s big gamble puts the citizens at the wheel

(Financial Times), By Ian Birrell Published: December 28 2010]

The Tories have a good idea with the big Society, hopefully they can pull it off, but it’s going to be tough times, with the out of control welfare state (remember i said to help those that can’t help themselves), the greed that has filled this country, and the people that can help themselves, that just choose not to (such as those on long term JSA while they can, easily work, they just can’t be bothered to look for a job).

I’m guessing you just also got what i meant in the first place when i said that Democracy is flawed, as i never said it was intrinsically evil (however the population having the freedom to choose based on morals in the UK political system is up for debate) as you hinted at in your previous post.