Hi, Davidmlamb,
I am working my way through your suggested readings - and I must say in all candor, the Chruch’s teach have had to pass through the filter of your socialist lens
I must confess I had not read this section in the CCC and read your items and a few more…
Now, I have not gotten to the encyclicals - so, if you would kindly recommend the one you think best demonstrates the position you hold - I will get right to it. Thanks.
Concerning the CCC sections you have provided. At the very least, your stated position is really not as clearly or as forcefully made by the CCC as you have presented. Here is an extensive quote from these items in the CCC. I have taken the liberty to underline the significant items to your position.
“…and you can read them in the Catechism especially CCC 2402-2434 and CCC 1897-1912.”
1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties.** Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family,** and so on.28
1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person;
prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.
1927 **It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. **The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.
2405
Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
2424
A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204
2425
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
2429** Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor.** He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good
2431 The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. **On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”**217
2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. **Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. **
2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit.** It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.**
There is a lot here - but, no one in the Magisterium is waving the flag or Socialism in order to get every aspect of the economy - and human life itself ‘equal’. And, I think their glowing condemnation is something to consider.
God bless
You’re question is exactly right, and needs an answer first. But it doesn’t need a global answer before you shut down the first coal plant. It can be localized.
The feudal system in Europe (9th - 15th Centuries) was no more capitalistic than the man in the moon. Honest - it was truly well named … it was a feudal system. Peasants worked the land and the landLORD was responsible for protecting them - while taxing them with great liberality of their crops and farm produce. No commerce to speak of, little trade and no investments… mainly because there was no capital (a most necessary ingredient) 