Social Justice: Is the Holy Father a Socialist? Is God a Socialist? Are Catholics Socialists?

[wynnejj]

What does this mean?

You seem to be saying that either is morally acceptable, but the Church has condemned both socialism and communism.

I am referring to both socialism & capitalism in the context of a democracy. I’m suggesting more broadly that, no matter what form of government or lack thereof, the factor that counts most as to whether the form of government works is the moral fabric of its people. William Penn, as an apology for the incompleteness of the set of laws in his Frame of Government, described what I’m saying. That is, the completeness of a set of laws is no guarantee of social justice. The rule of law seeks the general level of the citizenry’s sense of morality. Laws are meaningless to a morally bankrupt society, and a complete set of laws is generally unnecessary in a moral Christian society except as guidelines to settle points of confusion.

Whether a country favors the principles of anarchist free trade with minimal government regulation, or a re-distribution of the wealth based on the needs of individuals, or any points in between, is not a moral issue. It is more a matter of the people’s democratically chosen path. Whether a country taxes heavily to pay for more services in the public sector or, reduces taxes to generate and foster private enterprise without undue regulations skewing the free trade system, leaving much to faith-based charities to provide for basic needs in the private sector, is simply a matter of who you trust to better serve the purpose of the common good.

 

[DavidHume]

Interesting article.

Funny that the suicide rates of the nations mentioned in the article as being happier than the US are all but one higher than ours.
(from WHO Country Reports)

A word of caution is needed in relation to the interpretation of rates (per
100,000) in countries with small populations: a few more - or less - suicides can
greatly modify the rates, thus giving a wrong impression of important increases
or decreases, respectively.

 

[St_Francis]

I am referring to both socialism & capitalism in the context of a democracy. I’m suggesting more broadly that, no matter what form of government or lack thereof, the factor that counts most as to whether the form of government works is the moral fabric of its people. William Penn, as an apology for the incompleteness of the set of laws in his Frame of Government, described what I’m saying. That is, the completeness of a set of laws is no guarantee of social justice. The rule of law seeks the general level of the citizenry’s sense of morality. Laws are meaningless to a morally bankrupt society, and a complete set of laws is generally unnecessary in a moral Christian society except as guidelines to settle points of confusion.

I agree with part of what you are saying, in that I believe that any moral form for government will work or not work according to how closely the people adhere to Catholicism, which would be what you are saying about how moral they are; however, you do understand that communism and socialism have been condemned by the Church and are therefore immoral in and of themselves? So they are outside the bounds of moral systems of government, as would be free-market anarchy, which would be called unbridled capitalism, which has also been condemned.

Whether a country favors the principles of anarchist free trade with minimal government regulation, or a re-distribution of the wealth based on the needs of individuals, or any points in between, is not a moral issue. It is more a matter of the people’s democratically chosen path. Whether a country taxes heavily to pay for more services in the public sector or, reduces taxes to generate and foster private enterprise without undue regulations skewing the free trade system, leaving much to faith-based charities to provide for basic needs in the private sector, is simply a matter of who you trust to better serve the purpose of the common good.

I think that the main point would be to consider the Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish, which is to help people get to Heaven–yes, *that *is its task! The laws should not be so onerous as to make people rebel as they did against the Prohibition, nor so loose that people become licentious.

 

[DavidHume]

I think that the main point would be to consider the Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish, which is to help people get to Heaven–yes, *that *is its task! The laws should not be so onerous as to make people rebel as they did against the Prohibition, nor so loose that people become licentious.

I am very amused by your implication that the “Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish” just happens to be the one espoused – at least rhetorically – by the USA’s Republican Party, and by pretty much no major party in any other democracy…

In case you weren’t aware of it, the USA is home to only 6-7% of the world’s Catholics. Why don’t you listen to what Catholics like Harri – who live in those so-called “socialist” countries – have to say, instead of listening to Frank Luntz’s talking points?

 

[Feanor2]

The short answer to the socialist question is a resounding NO!!!

We are NEVER to render unto Caesar what is God’s.

NO!! We should render unto ourselves as much as possible! If we choose to give a tiny bit of our riches then that’s just fine- I mean we earned it. Jesus’ spoke about how godly the rich were right?

If we work hard we will gain riches. If we are lazy and immoral we are more likely to be poor- isn’t that right?

 

[Feanor2]

I am very amused by your implication that the “Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish” just happens to be the one espoused – at least rhetorically – by the USA’s Republican Party, and by pretty much no major party in any other democracy…

In case you weren’t aware of it, the USA is home to only 6-7% of the world’s Catholics. Why don’t you listen to what Catholics like Harri – who live in those so-called “socialist” countries – have to say, instead of listening to Frank Luntz’s talking points?

What didn’t you know- the USA is the greatest country on the Earth and enjoys God’s SPECIAL favor.

God intervened in a special way with America that is distinct from other countries of the wold.

Just ask Hannity. . .

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’m sure everyone must be overjoyed to see so many people redefining both Church teachings and socialism to suit their whims.

 

[Oscarthecat]

We Catholics are a minority in the United States and there are Americans that jump at every opportunity they can to accuse the Church of socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.

Are we Catholics socialists or not? Were the early Christians socialists or not? Is Christ a socialist or not? What about when it comes to communism, Marxism, Leninism, etc?

For starters, I’m reading a 1937 encyclical by Pope Pius XI, and it’s a beautiful read. And it says:

“Man…is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good.” (LINK)

This sounds pretty socialist, doesn’t it? Or no?

I’m pretty positive that the Catholic Church is anti-communist, but are we socialist? If not, how do I defend against the claims that the Catholic Church is socialist?

The difference is that Socialism assumes power over individual freedoms under the guise of “the common good”, whereas the Church calls us to exercise our rights and responsibilities as individuals seeking the common good.

-Socialists would say that there is no difference between those two things so long as they reach the same end, which is the common good.
-The Church would say that socialism cannot reach the same end because it violates the free participation of the individual to CHOOSE the common good over his own interests.

But the same can be said of most any political system…so here is how I differentiate between Catholic Social Teaching and ANY political affiliation…

The Church teaches principles and values designed to guide us to live in society together as the people of God.
Political systems ACT on the principles and values of the dominant ruling power- whether that power is a socialist regime, an elected official, a dictator, etc.

The Church does not use force, of any kind, to compel individuals to accept or participate in any particular manifestation or interpretation of its principles and values.
Political systems use force and the threat of force to compel individuals to accept and participate in the principles and values of the dominant ruling power.

The Church recognizes that every “right” afforded by membership in society is inextricably linked to “responsibility” to the members of that society, such that one cannot exist without the other.
Political systems destroy the relationship between rights and responsibilities by asserting the authority over what is or isn’t a right, and by assuming responsibility for protecting and providing those rights.

 

[DavidHume]

-The Church would say that socialism cannot reach the same end because it violates the free participation of the individual to CHOOSE the common good over his own interests.

Ah. So a government that prohibits murder violates the free participation of the individual to choose the common good – i.e. not murdering – over his own interests.

I didn’t realize the Church was as anarchist as Emma Goldman…

 

[St_Francis]

A word of caution is needed in relation to the interpretation of rates (per
100,000) in countries with small populations: a few more - or less - suicides can
greatly modify the rates, thus giving a wrong impression of important increases
or decreases, respectively.

True, but if you look at the charts at the link I provided, you will see information by decade and 2005 and 2006. Many of those years were *higher *than the numbers I quoted; I just used the 2006 numbers all across the board. Had I averaged all the rates for all the nations, the US would have looked even better.

 

[St_Francis]

I am very amused by your implication that the “Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish” just happens to be the one espoused – at least rhetorically – by the USA’s Republican Party, and by pretty much no major party in any other democracy…

I had no idea that the Republican Party says that what government is supposed to accomplish is to help people attain Heaven, and if fact am unable to find this information anywhere on their website. Perhaps you could direct me to where you found this information?

In case you weren’t aware of it, the USA is home to only 6-7% of the world’s Catholics. Why don’t you listen to what Catholics like Harri – who live in those so-called “socialist” countries – have to say,

I am sure that you would prefer that I listen to those who agree with you rather than to think for myself.

instead of listening to Frank Luntz’s talking points?

I have never heard of Frank Luntz.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m sure everyone must be overjoyed to see so many people redefining both Church teachings and socialism to suit their whims.

In what why would you say that either has been redefined in this thread?

 

[wynnejj]

I agree with part of what you are saying, in that I believe that any moral form for government will work or not work according to how closely the people adhere to Catholicism, which would be what you are saying about how moral they are; however, you do understand that communism and socialism have been condemned by the Church and are therefore immoral in and of themselves? So they are outside the bounds of moral systems of government, as would be free-market anarchy, which would be called unbridled capitalism, which has also been condemned.

I am sure that communism is outright condemned because of its suppression of religion and forced ideology. I wasn’t so sure about socialism democratically decided, but I see the catechism states that any form of “collectivism” is at odds with the principle of “subsidiarity”. So I stand corrected.

I think that the main point would be to consider the Catholic view of what government is supposed to accomplish, which is to help people get to Heaven–yes, *that *is its task! The laws should not be so onerous as to make people rebel as they did against the Prohibition, nor so loose that people become licentious.

This is pretty much how I take it. That is, freedom with boundaries. Freedom enough to come to God of our own accord without thwarting the progress of our neighbor.

 

[DavidHume]

I had no idea that the Republican Party says that what government is supposed to accomplish is to help people attain Heaven, and if fact am unable to find this information anywhere on their website. Perhaps you could direct me to where you found this information?

I wasn’t aware that things like access to health care regardless of ability to pay was a significant obstacle to attaining Heaven. Catholic Charities USA doesn’t seem to think so…

Specific Policy Proposals Supported by CCUSA
To combat poverty systematically and effectively, the federal government must implement policy changes to address the current weaknesses in our economic and social policies. These policy changes include steps to:

1. Create more livable wage jobs and raise wages, including the minimum wage
2. Invest in social policies that support low-income families and individuals
   • Strengthen and protect our nation’s nutrition safety net
   • Improve the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to benefit more families
   • Ensure universal health insurance coverage
   • Improve access to safe and stable child care
   • Support policies that strengthen families
   • Create more affordable housing
   • Improve the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to be more inclusive
   • Improve access to education and training
   • Address the growing wealth disparity
   To assist in paying for these policy changes, Catholic Charities USA supports progressive tax policies that will benefit lower and middle income taxpayers while asking those who have more to pay more.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ah. So a government that prohibits murder violates the free participation of the individual to choose the common good – i.e. not murdering – over his own interests.

I didn’t realize the Church was as anarchist as Emma Goldman…

That’s a ridiculous distortion of what I said, but it does clearly demonstrate how people have come to regard government, and not the individual, as the cornerstone of society.

But to get to the underlying principle you’re criticizing, you’d have to decide whether you believe that individuals in society generally don’t murder one another because the understand that murder is wrong, or if you believe that the only thing holding most of us back from murder is our fear of what the state might do to punish us.

This same principle can apply to all kinds of things- for example, the difference between taxes and charity.

Most people give to charity out of concern for their fellow human beings, but pay taxes out of fear of what might happen to them if they don’t pay taxes.

Consequently, in the absence of the threat of force, the government would have a great deal of difficulty collecting taxes from people- but those same people would continue to give charitably at the same rate- because charity is not the result of force. In fact, when taxation goes down, charitable giving goes UP.

So, despite your ridiculous comment, the principle you’re addressing stands true- base a society on strong government, and individual moral choice will be reduced to a simple assessment of what is legal and what is not legal.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ah. So a government that prohibits murder violates the free participation of the individual to choose the common good – i.e. not murdering – over his own interests.

I didn’t realize the Church was as anarchist as Emma Goldman…

Just another quick response from a different angle-

You’re comment also ignores the interplay of rights and responsibilities within a society- and the way we, as individuals and a society, address the tendency of one person’s rights to conflict with another’s.

In the context of this thread, the answer socialism poses is for the State to become the ultimate arbiter of all rights and responsibilities. In this way, Socialism teaches that the individual’s primary responsibility is to do what they are told by the State, and individual rights are reduced to a set of prescribed “goods” which can be awarded or restricted based on whether one fulfills their primary responsibility of obeying the State.

It is exactly that kind of drift toward moral reductionism that causes Socialist regimes to feel so threatened by religious belief.

One more thing… this is particularly interesting if you take into account what kind of political system Emma Goldman grew up under.

 

[akoso]

True, but if you look at the charts at the link I provided, you will see information by decade and 2005 and 2006. Many of those years were *higher *than the numbers I quoted; I just used the 2006 numbers all across the board. Had I averaged all the rates for all the nations, the US would have looked even better.

Should this at all be contrasted with the U.S. having the second highest homicide per capita rates in the world?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Should this at all be contrasted with the U.S. having the second highest homicide per capita rates in the world?

Those homicide statistics change dramatically when you exclude those homicides committed by the state against its own people. Several governments that have ascribed toward the socialist end of the spectrum (fascist, communist, marxist, etc) culled their own populations for the “common good.”

And if you believe those are just isolated incidents committed by ruthless dictators, keep in mind that Universal Healthcare systems across the world are beginning to limit care for the elderly and the very ill (i.e. expensive patients) for the very same reason. For crying out loud- how many progressives in our government justify abortion because it reduces strain on the welfare state??

 

[St_Francis]

I wasn’t aware that things like access to health care regardless of ability to pay was a significant obstacle to attaining Heaven. Catholic Charities USA doesn’t seem to think so…

I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out what exactly you are trying to say to me. This thread is about the *political system of socialism. *The Church has condemned socialism.

Maybe, as Sailor Kenshin implied, we need to get our terms straight. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about socialism: A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of “natural monopolies”, but also of all the sources of wealth… Nor is [socialism] merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty…

The CE goes into much greater detail so is well worth looking at in its entirety.

So, what the European governments are doing in terms of health care, etc., are not socialism per se; a government’s decision to fund health care for all is not in and of itself socialism, as the CE implies.

Ergo, the Church, et al, are not socialistic; the Church has condemned socialism, which is what I have been saying all along.

 

[akoso]

Those homicide statistics change dramatically when you exclude those homicides committed by the state against its own people. Several governments that have ascribed toward the socialist end of the spectrum (fascist, communist, marxist, etc) culled their own populations for the “common good.”

No they don’t. DavidHume posted an article related to the “happiest countries”. You then posted a chart showing the suicide rates for those countries and how they’re higher than those in the U.S. I then suggested that homicide rates also be included in that discussion (the one where you brought up suicide rates as a way of comparing the U.S. to Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Belgium).

If you add in homicides committed by the state against its own people, I don’t imagine the numbers for the countries that you listed will change at all.

And if you believe those are just isolated incidents committed by ruthless dictators, keep in mind that Universal Healthcare systems across the world are beginning to limit care for the elderly and the very ill (i.e. expensive patients) for the very same reason.

Where is this happening? I’m completely unaware of it.