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

[Oscarthecat]

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.

I think you think you’re responding to someone else-

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

It is off topic- but is easy to find the info in just about any one of the numerous universal healthcare threads on this forum. Not trying to avoid your question, but nothing derails a thread better than universal healthcare, it seems.

 

[Oscarthecat]

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 disagree with you that the Church teaches the role of the State is to help people get to Heaven.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

"The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. "

Of course, “happiness,” understood in the Catholic Tradition, is understood as the state that results from conforming ones self to God’s Will. Understood this way, “happiness” cannot be achieved collectively, but rather is the result of an individual pursuit. Some would try to emphasize what they see as seemingly contradictory ramifications of this model for a society.

For example, say someone believes that a social endeavor reflects God’s Will- feeding the poor, for example. With the best of intentions this person decides that the best way to feed the poor is through a mandatory governmental intervention wherein the necessary funds are collected through taxation, and the poor are fed by paid government workers because it would feed the poor efficiently and quickly. As such, the person heading up this program might believe they are doing God’s Will through a collective pursuit of happiness visavis social programs.

However, government programs such as these are actually in conflict with God’s will because they separate individuals from the act of charity, which is itself a participation in God’s Will. God’s Will isn’t simply that people be fed- but rather the shared experience between two people who are connected through an experience of humility, empathy, and self-giving which can only happen when one person personally responds to the needs of another.

In fact, government programs destroy Charity because they remove the condition of freedom inherent in every act of Charity, and replace it with the compulsory act of taxation and redistribution. It also replaces the process of personal response and reception, which is the context for personal development and the primary focus and end of any charitable act, and replaces it with the material end of charity (i.e. feeding the poor), which is nothing more than a sign of the larger context of God’s Will.

Just one more example of how Socialism ultimately finds itself in conflict with the Church.

 

[DavidHume]

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.

Let’s clarify exactly what you said, and then we’ll let you “get our terms straight.”

I don’t know where you are from, but I can certainly say that European Social Democrats are not anti-family or anti-church. Both institutions are alive and well in western Europe. In fact, the agenda of Social Democrats can be said to be more family friendly than that of the conservatives.

The SD’s support the idea of a living wage for work, and a job as being a basic right. Women who choose to stay at home and raise children need to be compensated because they do not use “day-care” etc. Health care is to be provided for everyone, especially children and the elderly.

This does not strike me as a particularly anti-Christian or anti-family agenda.

The mere fact that the government is taking on these tasks instead of leaving them to the families and churches where they belong is anti-family and anti-church. Rather than turn to God when hard times hit, people turn to the government. Rather than work on their marriages when things are rough, the couple can turn to the government.

Christ said, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.

And as a bonus, you said:

But social democracy is not that different from socialism. In the latter, the companies are officially owned by the government, but in the former, while they are nominally owned by people, the government still has a lot of power over them. Which means that the government has too much power.
…
Believe me, you don’t want those kinds of decisions to be in the hands of the government; again, it goes against the principle of subsidiarity.

And now you say:

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.

Backpedaling really doesn’t change one’s predicament on most bicycles today…

 

[DavidHume]

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.

Ah, so that’s what’s happening in the Vatican City then? You realize it’s the only absolute monarchy in Europe?

“The principle you’re addressing stands true” – does this mean you agree that laws against murder are unconscionable, because they prevent people from making the free choice not to murder? You made two posts about it and never really refuted or accepted the proposition.

If you deny the proposition, then it’s just a matter of negotiating what means the state should employ in ensuring the well-being of its citizenry. If you actually do accept the proposition – which you kind of imply in your posts – well, then … you’re pretty far out there. More power to you, I guess.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ah, so that’s what’s happening in the Vatican City then? You realize it’s the only absolute monarchy in Europe?

“The principle you’re addressing stands true” – does this mean you agree that laws against murder are unconscionable, because they prevent people from making the free choice not to murder? You made two posts about it and never really refuted or accepted the proposition.

If you deny the proposition, then it’s just a matter of negotiating what means the state should employ in ensuring the well-being of its citizenry. If you actually do accept the proposition – which you kind of imply in your posts – well, then … you’re pretty far out there. More power to you, I guess.

Ok, let’s run through this one more time…

You tried to present my position to mean that individual freedom is unduly compromised by prohibitions against murder.

I ignored your ridiculous example because I found it to be obviously specious and a bit trollish, but in an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt I instead addressed the underlying principle you were distorting- specifically, the role of Society in mediating conflicting rights and responsibilities between individuals.

So, to take your ridiculous example in the other direction, I could accuse you of advocating a society that takes such extreme measures to protect life that any action which might possibly result in loss of life is explicitly prohibited. This would include, for example, using any kind of tool whatsoever, including toothpicks, because individuals ought not be even the smallest possibility, no matter how remote, of harming others.

But I’d rather not pursue that line because it would not advance this discussion in any meaningful way- it would only turn it into a frustrating contest of distortion and counter-distortion of our respective positions.

So, to offer a substantive response to you concern, all I can say is that you need to refine your final question. You are trying to make me choose between totalitarianism and anarchy- but what you’re forgetting is that there is plenty of levels of difference between those extremes. One such level has to do with whether (a) the government’s proper role is to limit freedoms proactively across a large group in the hope of preventing the possibility that some of those would otherwise violate the freedoms of others or (b) the government’s proper role is to respect a maximum degree of individual freedom, and only limit freedoms on an individual basis when actual harm is done.

As you can see, your question doesn’t have any teeth because it does not obligate me to choose between tyranny and anarchy- in fact, it doesn’t even make me choose between socialism and a free market.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Ah, so that’s what’s happening in the Vatican City then? You realize it’s the only absolute monarchy in Europe?

I would support the right of the citizens of Vatican City to choose the form of government that serves them, so long as they do not make any effort to inflict that form of government on myself or anyone else who does not desire it.

Given that I cannot seem to find any stories of political or social unrest among the citizens of VC, I can only assume that they are satisfied with their government.

Did you have a point with this?

 

[St_Francis]

Let’s clarify exactly what you said, and then we’ll let you “get our terms straight.”

And as a bonus, you said:

And now you say:

Backpedaling really doesn’t change one’s predicament on most bicycles today…

Right, I was wrong In fact, I was wrong twice on this thread…

(Off-topic–please respond in another thread if you want to continue. However, while I know understand that these actions are not necessarily socialism, my *personal *belief is that 1. they will lead to too-great a concentration of power (as per the CCC 1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24 ) and 2. that they are wrong in and of themselves *in the USA. *I say this because European nations are much much smaller than the USA and so there these actions *might *not violate the principle of subsidiarity.)

 

[St_Francis]

I disagree with you that the Church teaches the role of the State is to help people get to Heaven.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

"The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, and its proximate purpose the preservation of external juridical order and the provision of a reasonable abundance of means of human development in the interests of its citizens and their posterity. Man himself however, as we have said, has a further goal of perfect happiness to be realized only after death, and consequently a proximate purpose to earn in this life his title to the same. "

You are correct; I was wrong. I had been struck by that notion, which is partially correct, but which I put waaay too generally without thoroughly thinking it through.

Of course, “happiness,” understood in the Catholic Tradition, is understood as the state that results from conforming ones self to God’s Will. Understood this way, “happiness” cannot be achieved collectively, but rather is the result of an individual pursuit. Some would try to emphasize what they see as seemingly contradictory ramifications of this model for a society.

For example, say someone believes that a social endeavor reflects God’s Will- feeding the poor, for example. With the best of intentions this person decides that the best way to feed the poor is through a mandatory governmental intervention wherein the necessary funds are collected through taxation, and the poor are fed by paid government workers because it would feed the poor efficiently and quickly. As such, the person heading up this program might believe they are doing God’s Will through a collective pursuit of happiness visavis social programs.

However, government programs such as these are actually in conflict with God’s will because they separate individuals from the act of charity, which is itself a participation in God’s Will. God’s Will isn’t simply that people be fed- but rather the shared experience between two people who are connected through an experience of humility, empathy, and self-giving which can only happen when one person personally responds to the needs of another.

In fact, government programs destroy Charity because they remove the condition of freedom inherent in every act of Charity, and replace it with the compulsory act of taxation and redistribution. It also replaces the process of personal response and reception, which is the context for personal development and the primary focus and end of any charitable act, and replaces it with the material end of charity (i.e. feeding the poor), which is nothing more than a sign of the larger context of God’s Will.

Just one more example of how Socialism ultimately finds itself in conflict with the Church.

This was great :clapping:

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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

Maybe we’re reading different threads?

And maybe some people might like to start their own socialist apologist thread.

 

[wynnejj]

“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?

What you said does sounds socialist. The sentence that was chopped from the encyclical does not!

“If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty.”

The way I read this statement is that:
When the rights of the individual are to be subservient to the dictates of the common good, the man who supports this to such an extent that the collective mentality causes him to compromise values to an extent that he loses his faith in God Almighty due to lack of complete religious freedom and state-sanctioned views perverting truth, then the majority in such a collective society is not accepting his duty but refusing his duty due to peer pressure. This, I believe, is one of the prime reasons against collectivism. (Welcome to the BORG. Resistance is futile.)

 

[Oscarthecat]

What you said does sounds socialist. The sentence that was chopped from the encyclical does not!

“If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty.”

The way I read this statement is that:
When the rights of the individual are to be subservient to the dictates of the common good, the man who supports this to such an extent that the collective mentality causes him to compromise values to an extent that he loses his faith in God Almighty due to lack of complete religious freedom and state-sanctioned views perverting truth, then the majority in such a collective society is not accepting his duty but refusing his duty due to peer pressure. This, I believe, is one of the prime reasons against collectivism. (Welcome to the BORG. Resistance is futile.)

Speaking of taking things out of context, what I think you just said was “…the rights of the individual are to be subservient to…the collective mentality…Resistance is futile.”

 

[wynnejj]

Speaking of taking things out of context, what I think you just said was “…the rights of the individual are to be subservient to…the collective mentality…Resistance is futile.”

What I tried to say is:

When men with the good intentions of suppressing their hard egos to the common good tend toward making the rights of individuals subservient to the collective mentality, to the point of losing the support of God and their religious freedom due to collective mentality subversive influences, the result is that the majority of men tend to refuse their duty to stand-up to injustices of the rights of the individual and accept the collective mentality unjust actions.

Is that not what the sentence in the encyclical is saying?
“If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty.”

Especially in the context of point of the encyclical which was how the German government and secular society was seriously threatening the Catholic faith in that country.

In today’s society, the principle stands. Take secular humanism and the idea of population control. The idea of population control is at odds with growing families. Secular humanism would like to slow - nay, stop - the growth in population because of the threat of overpopulation. They promote condoms, abortion, and homosexuality. This is at odds with “Be fruitful and multiply.” and the support of God. The compromises we make politically are collective mentality and, too many Catholics make unjust compromises to the collective mentality by well-intentioned suppression of their hard egos to the common good, but neglecting the rights of the individual (unborn).

 

[Oscarthecat]

What I tried to say is:

When men with the good intentions of suppressing their hard egos to the common good tend toward making the rights of individuals subservient to the collective mentality, to the point of losing the support of God and their religious freedom due to collective mentality subversive influences, the result is that the majority of men tend to refuse their duty to stand-up to injustices of the rights of the individual and accept the collective mentality unjust actions.

Is that not what the sentence in the encyclical is saying?
“If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty.”

Especially in the context of point of the encyclical which was how the German government and secular society was seriously threatening the Catholic faith in that country.

In today’s society, the principle stands. Take secular humanism and the idea of population control. The idea of population control is at odds with growing families. Secular humanism would like to slow - nay, stop - the growth in population because of the threat of overpopulation. They promote condoms, abortion, and homosexuality. This is at odds with “Be fruitful and multiply.” and the support of God. The compromises we make politically are collective mentality and, too many Catholics make unjust compromises to the collective mentality by well-intentioned suppression of their hard egos to the common good, but neglecting the rights of the individual (unborn).

I wasn’t actually refuting your point- in fact, I agree with you. I was just attempting to make a joke by taking what you said completely out of context, and by incorporating your star trek reference.

 

[wynnejj]

I wasn’t actually refuting your point- in fact, I agree with you. I was just attempting to make a joke by taking what you said completely out of context, and by incorporating your star trek reference.

Ahh. My original critique of the OP was about splicing phrases used by an author to create new sentences that might unintentionally convey new meanings that were not in context of what was actually said.

But in your case, you spliced my words in way that actually was pretty much the gist of what I said - that is, the warning that if you subscribe to the collective mentality then resistance becomes ever-increasingly futile as time progresses.

In a way, you spliced my words to form a new sentence that said what I said… and suggested it was out of context. That makes you a sort of ‘double agent’ word spin meister.