Opinions on Catholic bishops' support for socialistic ideas

[utah_rose]

Or there are other economic possibilities besides laissez-faire Capitalism and Post-national Socialism, especially since Capitalism only began to emerge around the time of the Reformation. The distributive ownership of productive property that was formulated as a response to * cannot be socialist as it emphasizes private property.

Capitalism (without qualifiers) results in the least ethical and richest owners oppressing the theoretically free but dispossessed workers, as happened markedly in the industrial revolution in the English speaking world. This, in turn, results with the vast majority having no more real control of productive property than if they were slaves or under a socialist economy.

Our current economy is a bastard mix: the wage earner is desperately trying to avoid the Servile state*, the poor are living in a Socialist state, and the rich enjoy the benefits of the Capitalist state. A minority of small owners and higher wage earners have manged to live out the Proprietary (aka distributist) state.*

Give me a break! Thanks to Obama, we are beginning to live in a socialist state, and all who voted for him got what they wanted. But I know many people who have good jobs. I retired 5 years ago at a Communication Company with only a high school education making a better salary then some professionals. Why? Because I belonged to a union which of course is frowned on (unless of course it’s a government controlled one). I know small business owners that are doing very well, and some of the rich began at the bottom up, such as Bill Gates, the founder of Wendy’s, and Dominos. And yes they got rich, but the honest way. I hope we never turn into a completely socialistic state—my ancestors immigrated from one of these, and I wouldn’t want to live in that kind of way so I couldn’t achieve what I wanted to because of government not capitalistic control.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

This post is the same as asking “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is no good answer because you have already assumed the programs the bishops endorsed are bad.

No assumption is necessary. The social programs of Obamacare, nationalizing the car industry, taking over the banks, cap and trade, “stimulus” are all bad ideas and socialist programs. Amnesty is affront to the sovereignty of the US.

Any bishops that support these things in the name of charity or the common good are badly mistaken about what charity is. It is NOT taking from the rich against their will and giving to the poor. I would not expect any communist or socialist or some democrats to agree with me, but the programs are what they are.

 

[gnjsdad]

No assumption is necessary. The social programs of Obamacare, nationalizing the car industry, taking over the banks, cap and trade, “stimulus” are all bad ideas and socialist programs. Amnesty is affront to the sovereignty of the US.

Any bishops that support these things in the name of charity or the common good are badly mistaken about what charity is. It is NOT taking from the rich against their will and giving to the poor. I would not expect any communist or socialist or some democrats to agree with me, but the programs are what they are.

The rich have an obligation in justice to give substantially of what they have to those who have not. If they did so, the government wouldn’t have to take such active measures.

That is Church teaching.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

The rich have an obligation in justice to give substantially of what they have to those who have not. If they did so, the government wouldn’t have to take such active measures.

That is Church teaching.

The Church does NOT teach that if someone isn’t charitable enough, that the government should steal something from them.

And what government official do YOU trust to determine how much is the right amount. Government is NOT God. Your comment that if I or anyone else “was charitable enough, then the government would have to tax me as much”…is wrong on so many levels, I’m not even going to try.

The rich and the poor have a moral obligation to be charitable. If someone steals from one to give to another, it is neither charity or justice.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I am so glad to see a thread that is not being completely taken over by the socialists! I have a Word document on my desktop, telling my Pastor why I am going to stop contributing to the Church entirely and give all my tithe to the local pro-life organizations, who are actually doing something to combat abortions instead of remaining silent except for maybe one weak homily in January.

Instead we hear almost every Sunday about “welcoming the stranger in our midst,” which is code for the illegal alien issue.

The Church has traditionally been allied with the Democrat party and it shows more than ever now.

 

[portarica]

I am so glad to see a thread that is not being completely taken over by the socialists! I have a Word document on my desktop, telling my Pastor why I am going to stop contributing to the Church entirely and give all my tithe to the local pro-life organizations, who are actually doing something to combat abortions instead of remaining silent except for maybe one weak homily in January.

Instead we hear almost every Sunday about “welcoming the stranger in our midst,” which is code for the illegal alien issue.

The Church has traditionally been allied with the Democrat party and it shows more than ever now.

If you feel you must refuse to help pay for the overhead of keeping a seat warm for you, perhaps you need to go to a place where they give the homilies you want to hear. If you are not getting your moneys worth, just switch parishes. It is done all the time.

Peace

 

[anthony022071]

The Natural Law and Natural Law morality is wider in scope than just the Ten Commandments.

I would say that the commandments are wider in scope than natural law,since they include the need to worship of God. Anyway,there is no dichotomy between the commandments and natural law. They are both God’s will. The commandments spell out the moral laws that already existed from the creation of man.

Natural Law is not tied to Theology, but can be found by reason and rational enquiry. Man’s reason can understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. In the 16th century, Dutch Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius wrote -
Even in the Thomistic tradition, n the Thomistic tradition, natural law refers to ethical as well as to physical law. The instrument by which man discerns such law is his reason —

 

[Cruxis117]

The Church does NOT teach that if someone isn’t charitable enough, that the government should steal something from them.

And what government official do YOU trust to determine how much is the right amount. Government is NOT God. Your comment that if I or anyone else “was charitable enough, then the government would have to tax me as much”…is wrong on so many levels, I’m not even going to try.

The rich and the poor have a moral obligation to be charitable. If someone steals from one to give to another, it is neither charity or justice.

Romans 13: 1-7
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

The Government is not God (obviously) but was instituted by God, so you should respect their authority.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If you feel you must refuse to help pay for the overhead of keeping a seat warm for you, perhaps you need to go to a place where they give the homilies you want to hear. If you are not getting your moneys worth, just switch parishes. It is done all the time.

Peace

it’s not a question of not “getting my money’s worth.” This is a fundamental issue in the Church and I don’t see it being addressed. In fact, for fear of getting too political, I don’t see much addressed in a way that makes it clear to Catholics what we are to do or how we are to live.

Switching parishes would not solve the problem. I live in a diocese that refuses to deal with the issue, even though Planned Parenthood just opened the largest abortion facility in the Western Hemisphere not 2 miles from the Archbishop’s offices. It makes me sick, really. When I see in the 40 Days for Life blog, that other cities, even much smaller towns, have a higher turnout for their prayer and fasting vigil, I am ashamed that my city, the 4th largest in the nation! cannot even scrape together 20 people on an average day. yes, I realize people work, but if the priests would talk about it, and even go there, show up and pray, people would follow.

I am praying for now, trying to discern what to do from here.

 

[portarica]

it’s not a question of not “getting my money’s worth.” This is a fundamental issue in the Church and I don’t see it being addressed. In fact, for fear of getting too political, I don’t see much addressed in a way that makes it clear to Catholics what we are to do or how we are to live.

Switching parishes would not solve the problem. I live in a diocese that refuses to deal with the issue, even though Planned Parenthood just opened the largest abortion facility in the Western Hemisphere not 2 miles from the Archbishop’s offices. It makes me sick, really. When I see in the 40 Days for Life blog, that other cities, even much smaller towns, have a higher turnout for their prayer and fasting vigil, I am ashamed that my city, the 4th largest in the nation! cannot even scrape together 20 people on an average day. yes, I realize people work, but if the priests would talk about it, and even go there, show up and pray, people would follow.

I am praying for now, trying to discern what to do from here.

Here is some info on the diocesan group in Houston.: archgh.org/RespectLife/helpers.htm#Eng

Peace

 

[John21652]

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Here is some info on the diocesan group in Houston.: archgh.org/RespectLife/helpers.htm#Eng

Peace

Thanks, I know about that, I was trying to explain that there is no real outreach from the diocese and I know people who have been working in this area for 20+ years. This group is not widely known nor are they activist, and most parish priests know nothing about them. I am not even sure if they are active any more.

The Respect Life office here has let us down.

 

[Black_Rose]

The commandments spell out the moral laws that already existed from the creation of man.

That’s true. Socialism has its beginnings in utilitarian intellectuals,such as John Stuart Mill. Socialists tend to be utilitarians or pragmatists. They just want the government to be getting things done for society,providing “solutions” for “social problems”,regardless of the consquences for freedom and morality.

The reason why I asked for a historical summary because I wanted to understand the historical basis that demonstrates the superiority of natural law over utilitarian ethics or any reason for embracing it. I thought “conservatives” want to “conserve” an idealized past, so it is appropriate that I asked for a fairly detailed summary about the desirable elements of that past, and why is it superior to the perceived decadence of modernity. I have not seen the alleged evils of utilitarian ethics, but I find it beneficial since it encourages, in secular terms, consideration of the interests of others beyond the proximity of kinship and it encourages merciful conduct.

 

[Gift_from_God]

I’ve got a pretty clear understanding of socialism, and trust me, the USA is not socialist, nor are the bishops. I’m just going to examine the OP’s examples

Health Care- Being Canadian, I love my health care benefits. It’s not perfect, but it works well.

Amnesty for illegals- Illegals should be deported, but if someone was brought to the USA illegally when he/she was a baby and is now an adult, there should be a system in place to keep the person in the country legally. By the way, did you know Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegals?

Unemployment benefits- Give them for people who legitimately need them. Not the bums who spend it on booze and smokes

I’ve never heard of terrorist states, so I don’t know what to say. As for worldwide court of law, that’s a good idea to have so war criminals can be brought to justice regardless of which country they’re in

 

[PrairieDawn]

My greatest concern with the debate on capitalism vs. socialism is that each ideology has been defined extremely broadly, with the assumption that there is no other viable option. Each ideology has its serious problems…problems that actually, to me, seem to have more to so with their similarities than their differences.

Capitalism is, as currently advocated by the Republican Party, not merely in support of individuals seeking profit. It also supports the legal fiction that corporations are persons, with the same inalienable rights as persons. To an extent, the original intent of corporations was to help small business owners to reduce some of their risk, but the powers and rights of corporations have expanded to huge proportions, along with their size, such that many corporations exceed governments in size and power.

While governments are at least intended to use their power for the common good, corporations have become enormously powerful, immoral by fiat (they can be sued by their shareholders for behaving ethically) and effectively immortal. Humans free will is curbed (at least in part) by fear of the Lord. Giant corporations, often ruled by committees that effectively diffuse their leaders’ individual moral responsibility, wield enormous destructive power and have reshaped capitalism to its own detriment.

On the other hand, the idea that giant governments can effectively serve justice is also questionable, given that again, they become so large that they become ends in themselves, rather than means to an end.

There must be a solution that works at least somewhat better than what we have…I think it may have at least something to do with reducing scale.

 

[John21652]

anthony022071;7190932:

The reason why I asked for a historical summary because I wanted to understand the historical basis that demonstrates the superiority of natural law over utilitarian ethics or any reason for embracing it. I thought “conservatives” want to “conserve” an idealized past, so it is appropriate that I asked for a fairly detailed summary about the desirable elements of that past, and why is it superior to the perceived decadence of modernity. I have not seen the alleged evils of utilitarian ethics, but I find it beneficial since it encourages, in secular terms, consideration of the interests of others beyond the proximity of kinship and it encourages merciful conduct.

anthony022071;7190932:

The reason why I asked for a historical summary because I wanted to understand the historical basis that demonstrates the superiority of natural law over utilitarian ethics or any reason for embracing it. I thought “conservatives” want to “conserve” an idealized past, so it is appropriate that I asked for a fairly detailed summary about the desirable elements of that past, and why is it superior to the perceived decadence of modernity. I have not seen the alleged evils of utilitarian ethics, but I find it beneficial since it encourages, in secular terms, consideration of the interests of others beyond the proximity of kinship and it encourages merciful conduct.

Black_Rose, I’m afraid I need to break some bad news to you. Utilitarianism does not quite achieve the things you think it does. To answer your question literally, utilitarianism does ‘consider the interests of others beyond the proximity of kinship’, but at what cost? Utilitarianism in its simplest form treats every human being as equal. Literally. And it treats every human being as a vessel of happiness or unhappiness. From the perspective of a government, this sounds like a good approach, that is, to treat everyone as an equal. According to Utilitarianism, the government must make sure that all those little vessels are as happy as can be and so must maximise the *total amount *of happiness. Now if you can, envisage all the citizens of the US as being half full of happiness. They are full of happiness all the way up to their waists. Now are they half happy, or half unhappy? What if the government can’t find any more ways of increasing the amount of happiness in the US? Everyone is half full and there’s no more happiness to be had? Well, Utilitarians have some answers. Utilitarianism has broken into different types of Utilitarianism. Preference Utilitarianism, Rights Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism and a few others besides. All the forms of Utilitarianism eventually break down to absurdities and inconsistencies. A good read is John Rawls Theory of Justice. He argues that one man’s happiness is not another’s. Now that makes sense, does it not?!

Utilitarianism was formulated by 18th Century English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and later by John Stuart Mill. Both were attempting to overturn the entrenched British heirarchical system of power and priviledge. Their argument was that the common man should have greater opportunities and so greater consideration from governments. Sounds great in theory, but the philosophy when taken to its extremes takes a massive social cost. Bentham wrote “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as what we shall do…” Hedonism!! Back to your question - are not kinship ties a source of great happiness to you and others? Yet Utilitarianism, as you allude to, ignores them. If your grandmother and a Professor of Mathematics are trapped in a burning building, whom do you rescue? According to Utilitarianism, you should rescue the Professor, thus maximising social utility. Could you abandon your screaming grandmother like that?

The absurdities of Utilitarianism become very obvious when you examine the Utilitarian philosophy of one Peter Singer, who is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. His Preference Utilitarianism even goes so far as to justify and condone sex between humans and animals. His test for ‘life’ is sentience, or self awareness, so unborn babies, very young children and severely mentally handicapped humans don’t qualify as a person and may be exterminated where it is desired to maximise happiness. According to Singer, dogs and cats rank above these types of human life. So, you may abort your baby, bang your toddler on the head, but not your dog!! Is that “merciful conduct”?

 

[anthony022071]

If the Ten Commandments were wider in scope than the Natural Law, then there would have been no need for centuries and centuries of rational human endeavour aimed at discovering and discerning the Natural Law.

I don’t see how that follows. The pagan philosophers used reason alone to discern the tenets of natural law because they did not know and believe the Jewish scriptures. The Christian theologians and philosophers used both philosophical reasoning as well as the scriptures to discern the tenets of natural law because they were influenced by pagan philosophers. The scriptures do not spell out exactly how God’s laws for man,or what is natural and fitting for man (like the need to give and receive affection and to have physical freedom),are inscribed upon the human body and mind,or how his dominion and attributes are manifested in nature. That is for curious philosophers to discover through observation and philosophical reasoning,and there is much more to be said about those things than has been said.

Catholic endeavour included and that, by definition, must include Aquinas! The Ten Commandments are but a blueprint, a summary.

That’s true,but so are the tenets of the natural law. Theologians and philosophers can inquire about all that the commandments suggest about God and man and how we should act,just as they do with the natural law.

You say this because you beleive in God and the Catholic Church. Along comes an atheist and your basis for moral authority collapses. Reason should eventually lead a rational enquirer back to God, but a good many rational people substitute the big bang, or the green eyed monster in the sky for God. Once this is done, moral authority also collapses. There needs to be something else besides a call to a higher authority.

The atheist’s denial of the divine authority for natural law does not make it collapse for one who believes in it. The atheist who believes in morality does not have anything but his sensibility (as 18th century philosophers called it) to base it upon. And that sensibility has been explained by anthropologists and scientists to be a product of evolutionary processes. Reason itself is said to be a product of human evolution. If common morality is not understood to be given by God,then naturalistic,reductionist thinkers explain it away as a completely natural phenomenon,nothing to be afraid of violating. That is how things have played out since the idea of natural law was secularized in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries (in the sense that it was no longer seen in light of divine commandment and judgement). This way of thinking parallels William of Ockhem’s separation of faith and reason and Francis Bacon’s rejection of God’s involvement in the workings of nature. Although Bacon said that God works through natural causes alone (which is false oneself),he meant that God had made nature able to function by its own laws,which is a deliberate departure from the Catholic,scholastic understanding of divine providence. The philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries separated nature and natural law from God’s dominion,and faith from reason.

I’ll start a thread entitled Natural Law for this discussion.

 

[John21652]

I’ll start a thread entitled Natural Law for this discussion.

Good idea. let me know when it’s up and running.

 

[John21652]

I don’t see how that follows. The pagan philosophers used reason alone to discern the tenets of natural law because they did not know and believe the Jewish scriptures. The Christian theologians and philosophers used both philosophical reasoning as well as the scriptures to discern the tenets of natural law because they were influenced by pagan philosophers. The scriptures do not spell out exactly how God’s laws for man,or what is natural and fitting for man (like the need to give and receive affection and to have physical freedom),are inscribed upon the human body and mind,or how his dominion and attributes are manifested in nature. That is for curious philosophers to discover through observation and philosophical reasoning,and there is much more to be said about those things than has been said.

Yes you are right. However I think we are arguing around the same idea. My point was that in places like ancient Greece and Rome, the Natural Law was well and truly under development and it was so happeneing in the absence of The Ten Commandments, the Bible, and later, Christianity. However, since Aquinas, there is a very widely held beleif that the Natural Law has a totally Theological basis. That is not correct, because of the very ancient recognition and development of Natural Law. Natural Law predates Christianity, which is actually an argument in its favour. Along came men of the ilk of Grotius and others who showed that God (theology) could be taken out of the arguments for the validity or otherwise of Natural Law and even when that was done, Natural Law could still be verified and still stood up as a basis for a rational, coherent moral philosophy. Not only did it stand up to scrutiny without a theological underpinning, but it was quite obious that it existed!! In other words, you could kill off God by argument, but you couldn’t kill off Natural Law! They were doing this because secularists were beginning to mount arguments against Natural Law that began with demolishing the theological foundations of Natural Law. This was particularly so when Bentham and Mill espoused their Utilitarian philosophies.

That’s true,but so are the tenets of the natural law. Theologians and philosophers can inquire about all that the commandments suggest about God and man and how we should act,just as they do with the natural law.

The Ten Commandments are Natural Law written in broad terms. They are universal “truths”. I read somewhere a while back that God gave Moses the tablets because men were no longer able to read what was on their hearts. Moot point, I suppose. However, their broad nature means there is still much more to Natural Law that man needs to discern himself.

The atheist’s denial of the divine authority for natural law does not make it collapse for one who believes in it.

True. To a point. However, along comes an atheist who says to you, “The Natural Law is based on religion. There is no God, therefore there is no such thing as Natural Law.” Now along came Grotius. He tells us that we can remove God from the argument. Therefore, you can say to the Atheist, :OK, I’ll accept that there is no God, for the sake of agument, but you are wrong to say there is no Natural Law." Therefore, you are still in the debate about Natural Law, because the Atheist can’t destroy your argument simply by saying there is no God.

The atheist who believes in morality does not have anything but his sensibility (as 18th century philosophers called it) to base it upon. And that sensibility has been explained by anthropologists and scientists to be a product of evolutionary processes. Reason itself is said to be a product of human evolution. If common morality is not understood to be given by God,then naturalistic,reductionist thinkers explain it away as a completely natural phenomenon,nothing to be afraid of violating. That is how things have played out since the idea of natural law was secularized in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries (in the sense that it was no longer seen in light of divine commandment and judgement).
Well, actually, they can’t argue that violating Natural Law is Ok, because Natural Law must have universality as one of its basic tenants. Recognition of this universality is an objective measure, discernable as being common to mankind, so the call to violate the Natural Law, which is objectively discernable, would require a descent into relativity and a denial of that which you just stated you beleive in. Now that’s a contradiction!!

This way of thinking parallels William of Ockhem’s separation of faith and reason and Francis Bacon’s rejection of God’s involvement in the workings of nature. Although Bacon said that God works through natural causes alone (which is false oneself),he meant that God had made nature able to function by its own laws,which is a deliberate departure from the Catholic,scholastic understanding of divine providence. The philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries separated nature and natural law from God’s dominion,and faith from reason.

If God has made nature able to function of its own accord, then so be it! That fact does not detract from the Natural Law as something discoverable amongst men.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, we know this. I wrote - The question is “how big is a village? Or a town, or a state?” as rhetorical questions. Obviously the mega cities of today were not envisaged when Pope Pius XI wrote his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, which is what I was discussing in the context of the “defining characteristics of humanity as its need to ‘socialize’ into groups”.

In 1931,there were some cites that were very large because of industrialization and mass immigration from the country. Major cites had grown much larger than what they were in the 1700’s. I once read in one of the poet Robert Graves’ books something to the effect that the limit to which a regiment of soldiers can feel a palpable sense of brotherhood or loyalty among themselves,or know each other,is about 500 persons. That seems like a reasonable estimate for a community. A real sense of community (brotherhood and loyalty and familiarity) cannot be stretched to encompass an entire city of complete strangers,especially where there is no common traditional culture and religion,except perhaps in times of seige or disaster,when there is a felt need for mutual help. The Church does not need to help people to socialize into groups because people will do that naturally.

Utilitarianism and Socialism are not the same thing.

I know,but they overlap. Socialism is utlitarian in character,and utlilitarians tend to support socialistic government,even if they don’t call it socialism.

Utilitarianism can be practiced in a Capitalistic society by governments without any “socialism” being involved. Utilitarians are idealists, with an over-emphasis on hedonism. Socilaists are idealists with an over-emphasis on control. Socialists sometimes argue that utilitarianism demands socialism, so the greatest number of people can be made happy. However, the same argument can be mounted by Capitalists!!

I don’t think that utlitarians are necessarily idealistic,because they favor mechanistic policies. There’s nothing idealistic about favoring utility above all else,or the most efficient way of doing things. Socialists may be either misguided idealists who see mechanistic policies as the best way to solve social problems,or they may be cynical opportunists who seek power over other people’s lives. Capitalism is not a system of government or a social system,it is about the practice of making profits from assets,investments and the sale of goods and services. The practice is common to many societies throughout history. It was only in the 18th century that it was made out to be a kind of ideology and social system,and thus made it into a target for people who opposed wealthy business-owners.