S
St_Francis
Guest
How will the state of politics be improved if good people decide to be uninvolved? And do you not think that a politics which is infused with Catholic morality would be better?
- Status
P
Peepers
Guest
I came across a statement by an Indian prime minister, not too long ago, stating that the unity of the Indian government derives from its secular basis. In other words, there would be no way for the diversity of the varied religious communities to co-exist under a single government, if the government had a religious bias. The same is true in the US. The function of the secular government is to uphold the rights of the individual citizens to freely associate, and to form religious communities, and so on… This is a form of social justice which might not be attainable in any other way.
In browsing this thread, I read the statement that communism does not allow ownership of property, and therefore was not compatible with Christianity. That is not my understanding of Christianity. Marxism denied the existence of God, and therefore that particular flavor of Communism is incompatible with Christianity. However, there are many forms of communal life, where there is no individual ownership of “the means of production”, such as farm lands or a mill or loom…, which are entirely compatible with Christianity. Indeed, some monasteries and convents are organized in this way. Communism, in this sense, works well in agricultural villages where pooling of land and labor works to the benefit of all. The classic examples are in Asia, where a village will share the rice paddies and the harvest. The elderly worked the fields when they were younger, and are taken care of by the now younger workers. Labor is divided according to ability, and so forth.
In browsing this thread, I read the statement that communism does not allow ownership of property, and therefore was not compatible with Christianity. That is not my understanding of Christianity. Marxism denied the existence of God, and therefore that particular flavor of Communism is incompatible with Christianity. However, there are many forms of communal life, where there is no individual ownership of “the means of production”, such as farm lands or a mill or loom…, which are entirely compatible with Christianity. Indeed, some monasteries and convents are organized in this way. Communism, in this sense, works well in agricultural villages where pooling of land and labor works to the benefit of all. The classic examples are in Asia, where a village will share the rice paddies and the harvest. The elderly worked the fields when they were younger, and are taken care of by the now younger workers. Labor is divided according to ability, and so forth.
S
St_Francis
Guest
The issue is on what basis is the government organized? Even the Church teaches against theocracy where clergy are expected to also be the government. The Church teaches that governing is for the laity to do.
If the secular government of a multi-religious society were bad, it wouldn’t work out. It is not the type of government that matters but what they do. King St Louis 9th of France had a good government; Louis 14th, altho Catholic (INO?), left France a shambles due to his spending and manipulation.
The Church outlines the features of a good and moral government. Insofar as any government adheres to those principles, whether as a result of following the natural law God has wriiten on oir hearts or by deliberating following Church teachings, there is good governance.
When a government of any type goes against those rules, you have a bad government.
Now that is talking only about the government side of things. If you have a government attempting to be good in a bad society, things may not work out: there will be comflict between the two and the resolution of the conflict will decide the outcome.
There needs to be a good government in a good society for things to work out well. Simply imposing a good governme t on a bad people doesn’t work unless the people are good enough to change. The system will not cause people to be good.
S
St_Francis
Guest
There is a huge difference between communal activities and marxism/communism/socialism. For example, the monasteries were voluntary renunciations of property for the glory of God.
And as for the communities which divided up the land held in common, first, the people were still permitted to own property (they usually had their own plot of land as well as access to the commons), and they had control over the land they tempoarily held within the commons. Much different from Communism, where people starved in the farmlands because all the crops were taken away.
M
mlund
Guest
The danger with any discussion of State is that the role of the State is inherently coercive. Jesus set before us many examples of behaving is a decidedly non-coercive fashion. He told his followers to give the needy the cloak off their backs - not to mug others for their cloaks to provide them for the needy. State tread a wide and muddy road when they become parties that provide “Charity” and other forms of property rather than taking on a limited role of protecting essential and inalienable liberties. This is why the tenet of Subsidiarity is so crucial and also so often ignored.
Social justice, when applied to politics, demands we restrain the use of coercion against the innocent - by parties public as well as private.
Social justice, when applied to politics, demands we restrain the use of coercion against the innocent - by parties public as well as private.
P
Peepers
Guest
I was not defending Marxism at all, but merely pointing out as you just did, that there are many forms of Communal life or “communism”, which include God and respect for humanity.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Voluntary communalism is in no way equivalent to the normal usage of the word communism.
P
Peepers
Guest
Very amusing. Be as picky as you like.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It’s not a questiin of pickiness, but when people use a word in an abnormal way, it is very hard to have a conversation.
And there are those who try to shape out thoughts or peeceptions by changing the language. True ckmmunists, for example, would just love to have us think of communism as a warm fuzzy sharing instead of the despotic murderous tyranny it is.
P
Peepers
Guest
The sense that I was using it is the first definition in the dictionary. The sense that you were using it is the third definition:
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (usually capital) a political movement based upon the writings of Karl Marx, the German political philosopher (1818-83), that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production See also Marxism, Marxism-
S
St_Francis
Guest
I am not exactly sure how this differs from Marx’s goal?
There is a difference between voluntarily entering into communal situation and a state in which all private property has been abolished, which is imposed, not entered into voluntarily.
The problem with these types of arrangements is that they do not take sufficient account of man’s true nature and they abolish private property.
What you described was a voluntary arrangement which does not preclude ownership of private property, and bears no relation to the definition you have given.
P
Peepers
Guest
I may voluntarily enter a monastic order which has a communal life. I don’t understand how you come to the conclusion that free will and communism are contradictory.
Communism (with a big c) is associated with the tyranny of the former soviet union and some of the asian states, but the idea of communism predates the modern Marxist version of it by many centuries, and may have been more common form of life 2,000 years ago than capitalism was.
S
St_Francis
Guest
From your primary definition: "… a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished…"
The word communism was coined by Marx and Engels to explicate their goal; it has never meant anything other than a society in which people are forced to love in a propertyless situation.
C
contentedself
Guest
When I refer to the role of Religion, I am not limiting it to the role the catholic church plays.
Religion encompasses (or should encompass) all aspects of our lives, and that includes a divine penal code, a divine social system, a divine financial system etc. when you limit the role of religion, you are limiting the role of God in our lives, and since we’ve been created to worship Him, I’m guessing He would want us to do things His way.
Giving free reign to Marx, Russel, Keynes, et al to decide how to best to run our lives, I doubt that was in God’s original master plan. He can create the universe in all its glory, the Human being in all his beauty and complexity, and cannot provide him with a set of fundamental social codes to base his life on, so that he can prosper and be happy, and utilize his energies and resources available to him to the best possible and ethical means? Again, I have my doubts.
There can be no social justice without a divinely inspired law to last for eternity, suitable to all nations and all times irrespective of the change of circumstances. The fundamentals have been laid down, it is up to the learned scholars of theology, who are also experts in the sciences of their time, to figure out the detail.
Marxism and Capitalism has been refuted quite extensively by our scholars, proving without a doubt that a divinely inspired social code is the only way to Man’s destiny for happiness in this world and the next.
Sources available if desired.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, you’re on a Catholic board, so yoi’re going to get Catholoc answers.
And since we believe that in the Catholic Church we have the fullness of God’s revelation to us, we also think that whatever you’re looking for, you will find it in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is precisely what we have been saying
The Church lays down the parameters, the necesaary aspects, and then it is up to lay people who are in a position to do so to figure oit the details.I think that you would be interested in the various social encyclicals written by the popes over the past more than 100 years. What I tell my children, one of whom i recently taught to drive, and one of whom is in the process now, is that the Church will see a society driving too close to the curb and say, drive more to the left (in the US). Then when the Church sees society about to cross over into oncoming traffic, a call goes out to move to the right. [Note: I am not analogizing to left and right in politics–the Church really transcends that.]
I’d be interested in a sample
Thanks.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Wikipedia has a comprehensive list, which seems to inclide links.
The ones I like best are Rerum Novarum, Quadresimo Anno, the ones by Pope PiusXII, and Centissimus Annus, but I probably have a totally different background, so it may be that othrs will strike you more. Altho I have read a couple of them several times, I still learn more when I read them again.
Oh, I checked, the links are to the Wikipedia articles, but then at the external links part, ther is a link to the original text. Sorry, but the other lists I found tended to have agendas.
ETA: altho titles are in Latin, text should be in English.
The ones I like best are Rerum Novarum, Quadresimo Anno, the ones by Pope PiusXII, and Centissimus Annus, but I probably have a totally different background, so it may be that othrs will strike you more. Altho I have read a couple of them several times, I still learn more when I read them again.
Oh, I checked, the links are to the Wikipedia articles, but then at the external links part, ther is a link to the original text. Sorry, but the other lists I found tended to have agendas.
ETA: altho titles are in Latin, text should be in English.
P
Peepers
Guest
I will accept that Marx/Engels coined the term, as it is late and I am not inclined to research the origin of the word. But they did not invent communism. It existed for thousands of years (at least) prior to the word. Monasteries predate Marx. Asian villages with rice fields predate Marx… the list is very long.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Can you see that there is a difference between a voluntary communal life-- such as the medieval sharing of fields-- which may go so far as voluntary renunciation of all property as in a monastery, and an involuntary state in which one is not permitted to own property of any substance?
The former has indeed existed for all times and is in accordance with human nature and Church teaching (all else being all right), and the latter is communism, which is not in accordance with human nature
P
Peepers
Guest
Yes. I am glad that you are finally seeing my point. I think our difference is just one of semantics.
S
St_Francis
Guest
- Status