Sanders Thread

[CatholicKnight3]

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Benedict-XV.jpg

Never Forget the Condemnation of Socialism

“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)

PIUS XI (1922-1939)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Pius-XI.jpg

Socialism Cannot Be Reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

“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.”
(Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

Catholic Socialism is 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)

PIUS XII (1939-1958)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Pius-XII.jpg

The Church Will Fight Socialism to the End

“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the ‘Leviathan’ become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The All-Powerful State Harms True Prosperity

“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

 

[lynnvinc]

When he said voters have to weigh issues, consider the character of a candidate and what a voter thinks a candidate will actually be able to do to affect society. And that it’s problematic to vote for a candidate who proposes actions that are intrinsically evil if the voter votes for him or her because of such a position and that you don’t vote for a person simply, or primarily, because of that position. That a voter has to take those positions into consideration, and then make a never easy choice.

The other issue is that so-called “pro-choice” candidates are NOT “pro-abortion,” unless they have actually come out and said the want more and more women to go and have abortions. I think many of the “pro-choice” people would prefer women not to get into the position of having an unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place, such as by helping make life easier for them so the pregnancy is deemed doable, or helping to reduce rape in society. Many are old enough to know that simply making abortion illegal does not stop abortion, and may not even reduce it. I knew women back in the 60s getting abortions and heard stories about women in decades before that getting abortions in their doctors’ offices. Other women made visits to Mexico. Of course we don’t have stats on it, since it was illegal and under the radar, but I wouldn’t doubt it was quite common.

To me all human lives count, not just unborn fetuses…sinners tho we born people may be in comparison.

Republican candidates are in favor of killing everyone. What do you think Cruz means when he says he wants to get rid of regulations so businesses can make more money? He’s talking about regulations that protect life, including fetuses.* He has a flagrant disregard for life on planet earth. Whether he is inane enough to believe his oil-biz bosses knowingly lying to him that climate change is not real (and therefore he doesn’t realize the harms it can do and deaths it can cause for 1000s of years to come), or whether he does know it is real and understands those harms makes no difference to me. I simply cannot vote for such a massive pro-death candidate. My conscience will NOT allow me to do so. And that weighs more heavily on me than Church statements. After all, maybe Church authorities do not fully understand the issues and ramifications. EWTN certainly does NOT.

---

*The leading cause of death in the US for those under 1 year of age is “congenital anomalies.” Many toxic chemicals and pollutants (some regulated, many needing to be regulated or regulated more effectively) are known to cause such anomalies, including abortions (miscarriages). This is the 2nd cause of death for those 1-4 (after unintentional injuries), with malignant neoplasms being the 3rd cause, and these are also linked to various toxins.

In many parts of the world malnutrition is a strong factor in “natural” abortions and early childhood death; and climate change is now and will be greatly increasingly so harming and decreasing food production, especially in poor countries.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, let’s look at what Bishop Kicanas said:

INTERVIEWER: If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying that for a Catholic who wants to approach his or her vote in three weeks with the mind of the church, it’s not a slam-dunk which way that vote should go. Is that right?

BISHOP KICANAS: Yes, and I think that’s what “Faithful Citizenship” is saying. As a disciple, as a citizen, you have to weigh issues, you have to consider the character of candidates, what you think they will be able to do in terms of affecting the society and the culture in which we live. Clearly, the document is saying that to vote for someone who is proposing actions that are intrinsically evil, because of their position on those intrinsically evil acts, is certainly problematic for someone who is a believer in Christ. You don’t believe in Christ and then vote for a person simply, or primarily, because they hold a position that’s contrary to the church. You have to take those positions into consideration, and then make a choice. These are never easy choices.

So, it’s not a slam dunk when referring to the selection between Obama and McCain. Given Obama and McCain’s positions were well known, why would he answer this question this way if you couldn’t vote for the pro-choice candidate?

 

[CatholicKnight3]

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/John-Paul-II.jpg

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)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - 2013)http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/images/stories/articles/Benedict-XVI.jpg

We do not Need a State which Controls Everything

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person - every person - needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

 

[Sy_Noe]

You don’t have to “interpret” the quotes and documents I have provided. When people start relying on their personal interpretation rather than the direct teachings of the church they generally come up with an interpretation that agrees with their political views .

So you’re saying Bishop Kicanas is not relying on teachings when he says to weigh issues, to consider a candidate’s character and what you think a candidate will actually be able to do to affect society and said not to vote for a pro-choice candidate simply, primarily, or because of their stance on abortion and that voting decisions are never easy or a slam dunk?

 

[Crossbones]

I don’t know how you came to those percentages in post #1202 from that source?

If you look at abortion under George W Bush, if you look at the data there is variance, increase, decrease, year by year, but when you look at the data from a different angle over multiple years:

Sure, I did

The abortion decline can not have been flat from 2000-2005, per above statistics.

Right, I said there was a drop under Bush II in the previous post.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Crossbones]

You don’t have to “interpret” the quotes and documents I have provided. When people start relying on their personal interpretation rather than the direct teachings of the church they generally come up with an interpretation that agrees with their political views .

Sure you do. For example, you regularly quote Pope Benedict about the Catholics disagreeing on the death penalty and not abortion. You take this to mean that a Catholic cannot vote for abortion. That is your personal interpretation. I don’t read it the same way.

What you have are a few bishops that say a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. It ignores the Faithful Citizenship guide that was approved by more than 85% of the bishops and the statements of Bishop Kicanas about the complexity of the issues facing voters. I’m sure that Catholics can read all of what has been provided and make their own determination of intent.

 

[estesbob]

Sure you do. For example, you regularly quote Pope Benedict about the Catholics disagreeing on the death penalty and not abortion. You take this to mean that a Catholic cannot vote for abortion. That is your personal interpretation. I don’t read it the same way.

What you have are a few bishops that say a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. It ignores the Faithful Citizenship guide that was approved by more than 85% of the bishops and the statements of Bishop Kicanas about the complexity of the issues facing voters. I’m sure that Catholics can read all of what has been provided and make their own determination of intent.

I have given direct quotes to back up what I have said, no interpretation needed Can you do the same

 

[estesbob]

So you’re saying Bishop Kicanas is not relying on teachings when he says to weigh issues, to consider a candidate’s character and what you think a candidate will actually be able to do to affect society and said not to vote for a pro-choice candidate simply, primarily, or because of their stance on abortion and that voting decisions are never easy or a slam dunk?

He never said you can vote for a pro abortion canidate if a pro life alternative is available If you can find any member of the magestrium who has said this please post it

 

[Sy_Noe]

He never said you can vote for a pro abortion canidate if a pro life alternative is available If you can find any member of the magestrium who has said this please post it

Already have. A bishop said not to vote for a pro choice candidate simply, primarily or because of their position on abortion.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The other issue is that so-called “pro-choice” candidates are NOT “pro-abortion,” unless they have actually come out and said the want more and more women to go and have abortions. I think many of the “pro-choice” people would prefer women not to get into the position of having an unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place, such as by helping make life easier for them so the pregnancy is deemed doable, or helping to reduce rape in society. Many are old enough to know that simply making abortion illegal does not stop abortion, and may not even reduce it. I knew women back in the 60s getting abortions and heard stories about women in decades before that getting abortions in their doctors’ offices. Other women made visits to Mexico. Of course we don’t have stats on it, since it was illegal and under the radar, but I wouldn’t doubt it was quite common.

To me all human lives count, not just unborn fetuses…sinners tho we born people may be in comparison.

Republican candidates are in favor of killing everyone. What do you think Cruz means when he says he wants to get rid of regulations so businesses can make more money? He’s talking about regulations that protect life, including fetuses.* He has a flagrant disregard for life on planet earth. Whether he is inane enough to believe his oil-biz bosses knowingly lying to him that climate change is not real (and therefore he doesn’t realize the harms it can do and deaths it can cause for 1000s of years to come), or whether he does know it is real and understands those harms makes no difference to me. I simply cannot vote for such a massive pro-death candidate. My conscience will NOT allow me to do so. And that weighs more heavily on me than Church statements. After all, maybe Church authorities do not fully understand the issues and ramifications. EWTN certainly does NOT.

---

*The leading cause of death in the US for those under 1 year of age is “congenital anomalies.” Many toxic chemicals and pollutants (some regulated, many needing to be regulated or regulated more effectively) are known to cause such anomalies, including abortions (miscarriages). This is the 2nd cause of death for those 1-4 (after unintentional injuries), with malignant neoplasms being the 3rd cause, and these are also linked to various toxins.

In many parts of the world malnutrition is a strong factor in “natural” abortions and early childhood death; and climate change is now and will be greatly increasingly so harming and decreasing food production, especially in poor countries.

You are absolutely correct that just because a candidate is pro choice doesn’t mean they want more abortions. But what they do want is policies to help make the lives of women easier so a woman is more confident about bringing a child into this world and being able to care for their child once the fetus departs the womb. And making God’s earth more inhabitable for this life in the years to come. Thank you and God bless you for this. Peace.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He never said you can vote for a pro abortion canidate if a pro life alternative is available If you can find any member of the magestrium who has said this please post it

He already has! Several times!

 

[Sy_Noe]

He already has! Several times!

Not just me though, Lily.

 

[estesbob]

He already has! Several times!

Which post?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Which post?

Pull up his posts. It’s there, more than once.

 

[estesbob]

The other issue is that so-called “pro-choice” candidates are NOT “pro-abortion,” unless they have actually come out and said the want more and more women to go and have abortions. I think many of the “pro-choice” people would prefer women not to get into the position of having an unwanted pregnancy in the 1st place, such as by helping make life easier for them so the pregnancy is deemed doable, or helping to reduce rape in society. Many are old enough to know that simply making abortion illegal does not stop abortion, and may not even reduce it. I knew women back in the 60s getting abortions and heard stories about women in decades before that getting abortions in their doctors’ offices. Other women made visits to Mexico. Of course we don’t have stats on it, since it was illegal and under the radar, but I wouldn’t doubt it was quite common.

To me all human lives count, not just unborn fetuses…sinners tho we born people may be in comparison.

Republican candidates are in favor of killing everyone. What do you think Cruz means when he says he wants to get rid of regulations so businesses can make more money? He’s talking about regulations that protect life, including fetuses.* He has a flagrant disregard for life on planet earth. Whether he is inane enough to believe his oil-biz bosses knowingly lying to him that climate change is not real (and therefore he doesn’t realize the harms it can do and deaths it can cause for 1000s of years to come), or whether he does know it is real and understands those harms makes no difference to me. I simply cannot vote for such a massive pro-death candidate. My conscience will NOT allow me to do so. And that weighs more heavily on me than Church statements. After all, maybe Church authorities do not fully understand the issues and ramifications. EWTN certainly does NOT.

---

*The leading cause of death in the US for those under 1 year of age is “congenital anomalies.” Many toxic chemicals and pollutants (some regulated, many needing to be regulated or regulated more effectively) are known to cause such anomalies, including abortions (miscarriages). This is the 2nd cause of death for those 1-4 (after unintentional injuries), with malignant neoplasms being the 3rd cause, and these are also linked to various toxins.

In many parts of the world malnutrition is a strong factor in “natural” abortions and early childhood death; and climate change is now and will be greatly increasingly so harming and decreasing food production, especially in poor countries.

Can you show us where the Church teaches thatv a candidates position on the environment is proportionate enough to allow a Catholic to vote for them despite their support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.?

 

[Siegehammer]

Last night, the Hillary Clinton campaign was obliged to send out this, under the subject line “Bernie’s latest attack is irresponsible and poisonous.”

I want to let you know about a development that just occurred, because it matters. The tone of this primary matters, and the condition of our party at the end of it will matter as we prepare to face Donald Trump or Ted Cruz this fall.

Earlier today, the Sanders campaign wrote a letter to the Democratic National Committee, falsely accusing us of violating campaign finance law.

You won’t be surprised by what happened next: 26 minutes after the letter was sent, his campaign sent a fundraising email attempting to capitalize on the phony charges.

(Before you read any further, let’s get one thing straight: this accusation is false. They’re questioning our joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, which allows us to support Democrats running up and down the ticket—the same fundraising structure used by President Obama in 2008 and 2012.)

This latest incident is part of a troubling pattern of behavior—occurring just as Bernie’s mathematical odds of winning the nomination dwindle toward zero—in which Sanders and his team are not just debating us on issues (which we all agree is perfectly fair), but rather attacking Hillary Clinton’s character, integrity, and motivations.

The fact that they include the Democratic Party in these charges—an organization we want future generations of progressives to trust and support—further confirms that the Sanders campaign has let things get out of hand in its waning days. To wit:

• Over the weekend, they had protesters outside one of our fundraising events—one whose proceeds went not just to Hillary for America, but to the Democratic National Committee and 32 state Democratic Parties—throwing dollar bills at Hillary’s motorcade, as if they were at, shall we say, an adult entertainment venue. This was just days after someone introducing Bernie at a rally called Hillary a “Democratic whore.”

• In last week’s debate, Bernie questioned Hillary’s commitment to fighting climate change because a whopping 0.2% of the money given to our campaign has come from employees of oil and gas companies. Not even 2%, mind you: 0.2%.

• And of course, Sanders spent several days calling Hillary unqualified for the presidency, based on an entirely false claim that Hillary had said the same about him. She hadn’t (and still hasn’t, even after what he said).

To be clear, we welcome a debate on the important issues facing Americans, like how to prevent gun violence, encourage tolerance, and do more to level the playing field for Americans who are counting on us.

But it’s hard to see how anyone—other than Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—benefits from this downward spiral of irresponsible and baseless attacks. Right about now is when we ought to be talking about coming together as a progressive movement, not undermining a generation of voters’ faith in the Democratic Party and in the woman who is almost certain to be its nominee.

Thank you for everything you do to support our campaign.

Robby Mook
Campaign Manager
Hillary for America

Meanwhile, Sanders’ chief strategist Tad Devine was doing an appearance on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show, in which he accused Clinton of using President Obama as “human shield.”

Bernie Sanders has every right to keep running, but the way he is running is destructive. He is running as a Democrat against the Democratic Party. And he’s employing decades-old right wing smears against his opponent, sounding utterly indistinguishable from his Republican opponents.

Building the Democratic Party has been a hallmark of Hillary Clinton’s career, and it’s astonishing that this fact us now being used against her by someone who is actively working to undermine it , even as he exploits its infrastructure to mount his presidential bid.

 

[estesbob]

Pull up his posts. It’s there, more than once.

I have No one has provided it I am looking for a clear direct quote to refute this:
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

Pope Benedict XVI

“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone”

Cardinal Burke

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2273).

Cardinal Burke

]Note that “proportionate reasons’] does not mean simply weighing a wide range of issues against abortion and euthanasia and concluding that they cumulatively outweigh the evil of taking an innocent life. Rather, for there to be proportionate reasons, the voter would have to be convinced that the candidate who supports abortion rights would actually do more than the opposing candidate to limit the harm of abortion or to reduce the number of abortions

Bishop Joseph A. Galante

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

"Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

"The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

“The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry). Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and introduces legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils, which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

Bishop Rene Gracida

What are “proportionate reasons”? To consider that question, we must first repeat the teaching of the church: The direct killing of innocent human beings at any stage of development, including the embryonic and fetal, is homicidal, gravely sinful and always profoundly wrong . . . .

What evil could be so grave and widespread as to constitute a “proportionate reason” to support candidates who would preserve and protect the abortion license and even extend it to publicly funded embryo-killing in our nation’s labs?

Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate

Archbishop John J. Myers

What is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless human life? That’s the question that has to be answered in your conscience. What is the proportionate reason? . . . It is difficult to imagine what that proportionate reason would be

Cardinal Burke

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

Pius-IX

PIUS IX (1846-1878)

The Overthrow of Order

“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.”
(Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

Leo-XIII

LEO XIII (1878-1903)

Overthrow is Deliberately Planned

“… 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)

Debasing the Natural Union of Man and Woman

“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust.
(Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

The Harvest of Misery

“…there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement.”
(Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

St-Pius-X

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914)

The Dream of Re-Shaping Society will Bring Socialism

“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.”
(Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique “Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

Benedict-XV

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922)

Never Forget the Condemnation of Socialism

“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)

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

PIUS XI (1922-1939)

Socialism Cannot Be Reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

“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.”
(Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

Catholic Socialism is 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)

Pius-XII

PIUS XII (1939-1958)

The Church Will Fight Socialism to the End

“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the ‘Leviathan’ become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The All-Powerful State Harms True Prosperity

“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

John-XXIII

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)

Paul-VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978)

Christians Tend to Idealize Socialism

“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)