Is democratic socialism the closest cognate to Catholic social teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter badnewsbarrett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Confiteor_Deo said:
This is not a good excuse to abstain from voting. If there is no candidate that completely fits your political ideology or Catholic morality, then you should pick the lesser of the two evils. Your vote as a Catholic can help make this country better. As a side note, it is not against Catholic teaching to support the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Not voting is every bit as valid as voting. The united states doesnt have a requirement to vote.
 
I would think maybe social democracy or Christian democracy would come close to Catholic social teaching, the latter ideology being partly influenced by it (the former being more secular).
 
philipl said:
Not voting is every bit as valid as voting.
Click to expand...
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

(A bit of a cliche, perhaps, but I don’t think much more response is needed. :))
 
philipl said:
Not voting is every bit as valid as voting. The united states doesnt have a requirement to vote.
Click to expand...
The United States does not have a requirement to vote. But my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 2240, “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…”
 
philipl said:
Not voting is every bit as valid as voting. The united states doesnt have a requirement to vote.
Click to expand...
Abstaining from voting doesn’t help the country and it doesn’t solve the problem of there not being any candidates that match one’s political ideology. Picking the lesser of two evils is the best mode of action.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
Abstaining from voting doesn’t help the country and it doesn’t solve the problem of there not being any candidates that match one’s political ideology. Picking the lesser of two evils is the best mode of action.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I’d like to add: out of the nine possible ways the election could turn out (well, not counting third party runs), I count only three of those to be “evil” outcomes. I hope we never get to the point of having to choose between two evil outcomes.
 
Peter_J said:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

(A bit of a cliche, perhaps, but I don’t think much more response is needed. :))
Click to expand...
by not voting, someone is doing something, so you quote doesnt apply.
 
whatsmyname said:
The United States does not have a requirement to vote. But my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 2240, “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…”
Click to expand...
The church as no authority to force me to vote. I have a right to vote, I also have a right to not vote.
 
Confiteor_Deo said:
Abstaining from voting doesn’t help the country and it doesn’t solve the problem of there not being any candidates that match one’s political ideology. Picking the lesser of two evils is the best mode of action.
Click to expand...
If cruz or trump doesnt win the noimination, I am not voting. The rest of the pack of the GOP are moderate democrats claiming to be conservatives.
 
The only difference between socialism and democratic socialism is how many people get to decide who to take from and who to give to. An example of democratic socialism applies to the saying it’s to wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. whereas in socialism the ruling class gets to decide what everyone else gets for dinner.
 
philipl said:
by not voting, someone is doing something, so you quote doesnt apply.
Click to expand...
In a way that’s true, philipl. Not voting in the general election is equivalent to giving half of your vote to each side.
 
I am trying – without success – to think of any country run on democratic socialist policies. And I am finding it odd that there is no mention in this thread that I have seen of social democracy which, unlike democratic socialism, is a well tried system (I don’t claim it to be both well tried and universally successful).
 
i do not think democratic socialism is a cognate of catholic social teaching at all. anything that resorts to use of force to achieve its objectives has little in common with catholic social teaching.

i could be wrong, but i have never heard that democratic socialism has pacifism as one of its tenets.

far more cognate to catholic social teachngs is western monasticism and religious communities formed around the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
 
philipl said:
If cruz or trump doesnt win the noimination, I am not voting. The rest of the pack of the GOP are moderate democrats claiming to be conservatives.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but they would be much better than a full-on Democrat like Sanders or Clinton.
 
whatsmyname said:
The United States does not have a requirement to vote. But my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in paragraph 2240, “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…”
Click to expand...
2240 states that we have a co-responsibility for the common good ( tried to define the common good, good luck with that) I believe that free markets and unfettered capitalism is the best form of economics to have for a country and for the common good. I’m sure that most Catholics would disagree with me. now if I really vote because I’m morally obligated, I don’t like is nominated for the GOP that I’ll just write in Snoopy. I will fulfill my obligation.
 
philipl said:
2240 states that we have a co-responsibility for the common good ( tried to define the common good, good luck with that) I believe that free markets and unfettered capitalism is the best form of economics to have for a country and for the common good. I’m sure that most Catholics would disagree with me. now if I really vote because I’m morally obligated, I don’t like is nominated for the GOP that I’ll just write in Snoopy. I will fulfill my obligation.
Click to expand...
Hi again. I have a feeling I may regret asking you another question, but here goes anyhow. How do you feel about usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf ? Do you see that as supporting your notion that Kasich, Bush, etc are bad candidates but Trump is a good one? Or do you simply not care what the bishops think? Or something else entirely?
 
badnewsbarrett said:
I might recommend putting some support behind Santorum if he takes another run in another election cycle.

Rome wasn’t exactly founded on a pro-Catholic platform either, or pro-monotheism either for that matter. And it had a spotty history with Christianity for a little while- and by “a little while,” I mean a period of time roughly as long as the history of the United States as an independent country.

The Boston area in particular was very anti-Catholic; in fact, the celebration of Christmas was banned for 22 years and it didn’t become widely fashionable to celebrate it until the mid 19th century.

“For preventing disorders, arising in several places within this jurisdiction by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other communities, to the great dishonor of God and offense of others: it is therefore ordered by this court and the authority thereof that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon any such account as aforesaid, every such person so offending shall pay for every such offence five shilling as a fine to the county.”

From the records of the General Court,
Massachusetts Bay Colony
May 11, 1659

It depends on the area though, not every city in all 13 colonies was like Boston. As for me, I’m from a city that was founded by a Jesuit, and it’s had a strong Catholic history throughout.

So basically, I do acknowledge that in some areas there was a strong sense of de facto and occasionally (at a local level) de jure anti Catholicism, especially in the early history of the US. But I’m also pointing out how at a federal level and in a Constitutional sense, Americans of all religions have always enjoyed official protection from Congress making laws to the disadvantage of Catholics, which is a favor that nearly every majority-Catholic country would take another two centuries or so to return. And I’m pointing out how these types of things can and often are a moving target- Boston used to make people think of Puritans and anti-Anglican sentiment right alongside anti-Catholic sentiment. Now Boston makes people think of a Catholic stronghold first and foremost. It also makes people think of Ivy League education that is virtually a prerequisite for anyone to be a Supreme Court justice, and of those 9 people, a majority are Catholic.

I hope that gives you at least one or two reasons to rethink just a bit, but let me leave you with this thought. Right now, in the year 2016- or for that matter at any time in the past 75 to 100 years- just imagine what would happen if anyone tried to pass legislation banning the celebration of Christmas in Boston and its surrounding area. Let me know how you imagine that working out in the present day, or something close to it.
Click to expand...
I think it may be worth it to mention as well that while many of the Founding Fathers were anti-Catholic, George Washington acknowledged the contribution of Catholics to the War of Independence, and mentioned in a letter “the important assistance which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed” (France) and banned Guy Fawkes Day. He also had Catholic friends and sometimes attended Catholic services. While Alexander Hamilton was not necessarily pro-Catholic, he was opposed to their persecution, believed they should have voting rights, and trusted that they would be loyal to America. Incidentally, a few of our Founding Fathers were Catholics (Charles Carroll III, Daniel Carroll, and Thomas Fitzsimons). Catholicism certainly has a long history in America, and I think it’s been the largest single denomination of Christianity since about 1906.
 
Picky_Picky said:
I am trying – without success – to think of any country run on democratic socialist policies. And I am finding it odd that there is no mention in this thread that I have seen of social democracy which, unlike democratic socialism, is a well tried system (I don’t claim it to be both well tried and universally successful).
Click to expand...
Wrong yet again, Picky. Post 23 (which seems correct to me) posits social democracy and Christian democracy — which are, of course, between them the dominant political movements in most of those countries closest in culture to the United States.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top