C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
It is a prudential issue and the pope made many false assumptions.
No catholic need follow his economic or scientific opinions.
- Status
No catholic need follow his economic or scientific opinions.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
If you say so. I attended the Vigil Mass this evening at my parish Church. I will be sure to let the pastor know how wrong he was.
Z
zz912
Guest
Who said he was ONLY looking at the outcome. And your posts seem to discount considering the outcome of our actions. Is this acceptable?
Z
zz912
Guest
When has Rick Santorum attacked the poor and underprivileged? Please be specific.
Z
zz912
Guest
So it’s only coincidence that the more socialist a country becomes, the less faithful and religious it becomes?
And socialism as a whole is condemned because eventually the true god of socialism (government) comes to the fore.
You’re also ignoring that socialism violates another Catholic teaching of subsidiarity. Socialism usurps the rightful and proper authority of lower levels of society, and abrogates that authority to the highest govt level possible.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I can only go by what was written, and what was written was only about outcomes.
As I was not advocating anything, there is no requirement that I consider outcomes in those posts.
E
estesbob
Guest
Then why did he empasize it was not the churches place to settle matters of science?. We giveaways been called upon to care for God’s creation We are under no obligation to accept AGW.
Z
zz912
Guest
If the science of global warming was settled, then scientists would be able to predict the average temperatures within certain ranges. The science of gravity is settled, and I can very accurately predict what will happen if you drop a bowling ball off a building. “Scientists” pushing global warming haven’t shown a single prediction come true yet. In fact, there hasn’t been any warming for close to 2 decades, and based on the most accurate and newest temp stations, temperatures have gone down slightly.
And every Catholic is completely free to oppose the personal opinion of the Pope about global warming in this newest encyclical. It’s not Church teaching nor dogma/doctrine.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
My post only addressed whether the Church specifically condemns socialism, which it doesn’t. I don’t want to discuss how good or bad specific socialistic societies are today.
…so you say.
Not necessarily.
Z
zz912
Guest
Because de Blasio IS a socialist/communist. He actively supported the Marxist Sandinistas, took his honeymoon in Cuba, and is extremely hard left.
buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-19-most-revealing-documents-from-documents-from-bill-de#.yuEAearV6
E
estesbob
Guest
LEO XIII (1878-1903):
Hideous monster
“…communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)
Ruin of all institutions
“… For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).
BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)
US XI (1922-1939):
Pope Pius XI, 1922
Pius XI (1922-1939): “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
“… For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)
PIUS XI (1922-1939):Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)
Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
“[Socialism] 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.” (Ibid. n. 120)
JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):
“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”
“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)
JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):
Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”
“It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope’s critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)
Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
“Continuing our reflections, … we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the
I
ishii
Guest
Sometimes people engage in hyperbole. Of course, the left does this all the time and I think even here on the forum: when people say that conservatives “don’t care about the poor” etc.
What makes one a socialist? Are there a set of principles that, when agreed-upon make one a bona fide “socialist”? I suppose there are liberals who are probably-when push comes to shove-socialist more than anything else. That said I think liberals do believe generally in some kind of free-market economy however, they do come down on more government control and regulation then conservatives obviously. Also, the arguments they use to support their policies and proposals are very similar to the arguments that socialists use themselves.
Of course, it would be impossible for somebody who was an outright socialist to win any kind of election in America ( with the exception of the Seattle city Council and Vermont ). So certainly, a politician which was pretty far to the left and was probably a socialist would probably not identify as such but would call themselves a “progressive” in order to sanitize their ideology and prevent from being labeled as a left wing nut.
Ishii
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Seriously, I was always taught that Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to what the Holy Father has to say in a papal encyclical.
H
Hans_W
Guest
The question of whether excess CO2 produced through human activity is warming the planet is settled with a definite YES. I suppose you will understand that climate prediction is a bit more complex than predicting the movement of a ball.
Pope Francis’ view on Climate Change is not his “personal opinion”, but based on scientific consensus. That alone should tell you where we stand on Climate Change. Pope Francis is not likely to take the risk of being proven wrong and humiliate the Church.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Yep, it’s a bit more complex than the simple derivitive -16t squared, etc.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
When it comes to economic issues, what policies do liberals advocate that would violate Church teaching when it comes to socialism?
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
On economic issues, I don’t see any of his policies that would violate Church teaching on Socialism.
For example, he is for cutting back on tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. While that may be imprudent, that does not violate Church teaching.
Similarly, he strongly favors spending more on medicare and social security, while I would argue that is extremely imprudent, most on these forums would not argue that these programs violate Church teaching.
So, while on abortion and gay marriage he is against Church teaching, on the issue of socialism, there does not seem to be any policy position that he advocates that would violate Church teaching.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Does that mean we can ignore the Church’s scientific opinion about the Pill? Or when life begins?
M
Micosil
Guest
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
I think the problem is that people with political views meddle with the Church. I mean, if you are liberal you are going to see this encyclical as demanding government intervention of some sort, if you are conservative you are going to argue that any government intervention is socialism. In this case, both sides are equally wrong.
- Status