Socialism and Catholicism

[HarryStotle]

Second, please don’t confuse popular talking points with Catholic social teaching.

That sword cuts into the “popular talking points” from both political sides.

At ground though, the Church respects the freedom of one individual as a free moral agent to engage responsibly with another free agent in voluntary and just exchanges on an economic level to better the lives of each of them.

The state is not required to initiate or sustain a free market except for the introduction of injustice, unfairness, fraud, dishonesty or theft. AND there is no assurance that the state itself won’t commit injustice, unfairness, fraud, dishonesty or theft, so there is no need to give any more control to the state than is required to keep the market free and just.

The only role for the state is to ensure that economic exchanges are just and that respect for the dignity of each individual as a distinctly human moral agent is maintained. The bottom line is that there is no room in the social doctrine of the Church for the unjust confiscation of wealth to impose some sort of egalitarian economic “equality,” precisely because worldly wealth just does not ensure the ultimate eternal well-being (Summum Bonum) of individuals, and, in fact, can be a downright hindrance.

The Beatitudes remind us that “Blessed are the poor.” That isn’t a trite or disposable platitude. It means something. However, it doesn’t justify grinding poverty nor poverty imposed by injustice. It does teach that poverty can reveal a path to God by reminding us that all that we need comes from God.

 

[StudentMI]

The bottom line is that there is no room in the social doctrine of the Church…

That is incorrect. This is what I meant by talking points for doctrine. Please read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, specifically the sections on private property and the economy.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

In addition, Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno demolish the claim you posted. One can disagree on whether one policy is better than another, whether the state should be a night watchman or should take an active role. But to state that Catholic social teaching does not allow the latter is incorrect. Please read the quote from Benedict XVI and the section in the article it comes from. I’ll trust him.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The bottom line is that there is no room in the social doctrine of the Church…

That is incorrect. This is what I meant by talking points for doctrine. Please read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, specifically the sections on private property and the economy.

Why didn’t you quote my statement in its entirety? At least to include the complete thought?

The bottom line is that there is no room in the social doctrine of the Church for the unjust confiscation of wealth to impose some sort of egalitarian economic “equality,”…

Are you saying there is room in Church teaching to allow the unjust confiscation of wealth to impose some sort of egalitarian economic “equality”. Really? That is your claim?

 

[StudentMI]

Define unjust.

I didn’t quote your statement in its entirety because I was addressing your post in it’s entirety regarding what Catholic social teaching does and does not allow. I have seen similar claims from both left and right about what it does and does not allow.

 

[HarryStotle]

Define unjust.

It is rather straightforward: without proper justification.

Here is Leo XIII, from Rerum Novarum…

1. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

That is a direct rebuke of socialism. Pope Leo specifically addresses the apparent motivation behind socialism to “set things right” and to ensure that “each citizen will then get his fair share,” because such measures would be “emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.”

Ergo, another description of unjust would be to deprive the “lawful possessor” of what rightfully belongs to them without proper justification. Clearly Pope Leo finds the argument of socialists, that they are merely trying to “set things right,” fails to meet a proper standard of providing the requisite justification, and is therefore an “unjust” confiscation of wealth even though they claim to be attempting to impose an economic equality of sorts.

So, to your claim that

In addition, Rerum Novarum… demolish[es] the claim you posted.

Clearly it doesn’t.

I will repost the claim:

…there is no room in Church teaching to allow the unjust confiscation of wealth to impose some sort of egalitarian economic “equality” .

My claim is a mere encapsulation of Pope Leo’s statement quoted above.

 

[StudentMI]

You are confusing socialism with democratic socialism, aka social democracy. See Pope Benedict’s article above.

You also left out Quadragesimo Anno.

I’ll also leave this quote from Rerum Novarum:

“The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.”

 

[HarryStotle]

You are confusing socialism with democratic socialism, aka social democracy.

I fail to see a difference, except (perhaps) in the case of “democratic” socialism a majority of citizens are somehow “convinced” to allow the state to relieve them of their rights to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Hitler considered his form of socialism to be national or “democratic” socialism in that he was duly elected through a process that was vaguely “democratic.”

 

[HarryStotle]

You are confusing socialism with democratic socialism, aka social democracy. See Pope Benedict’s article above.

You also left out Quadragesimo Anno.

I’ll also leave this quote from Rerum Novarum:

“The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.”

Define fair.

 

[StudentMI]

That is the issue isn’t it? My point is that Catholic social teaching allows for a wide variety of systems of government. To claim it only advocates for a night watchman state is wrong.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is the issue isn’t it? My point is that Catholic social teaching allows for a wide variety of systems of government. To claim it only advocates for a night watchman state is wrong.

Not quite, and the primacy of the family would be the key to determining whether or not the state has overstepped its own proper authority.

…the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

Ergo, a state that has taken to itself the right to redefine family and the rights thereof, as Leo states, “would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.” Perhaps, that statement would be the critical point at which the state as moved past its proper authority, meaning (for example) that the US already has done so by redefining the meaning of marriage and family.

 

[StudentMI]

Absolutely agree. But that doesn’t bear on economic issues such as universal health care and stimulus, unless the former also includes abortion coverage.

 

[HarryStotle]

Absolutely agree. But that doesn’t bear on economic issues such as universal health care and stimulus, unless the former also includes abortion coverage.

Well, it does “bear on” because the political forces that are pushing for MORE state control of health care and so forth, are the same forces that gutted the meaning of marriage and family. Ergo, it is pretty difficult to use family (in the proper sense) as the gauge for when the state is overstepping its proper jurisdiction when there is no proper understanding nor sufficient numbers of functional family left, to speak of.

What is the measuring stick to determine when the state is exceeding its proper authority if you have removed the measuring stick completely, or at least shredded it beyond recognition?

We can’t, then, judge when family rights are being usurped or undermined for the sake of the community or state precisely because not many individuals belong to a well-functioning family to begin with. A far greater proportion of the members of society are far more vulnerable to offers from the state that trade on their proper rights precisely BECAUSE they have no family to act as a counter balance or protection from state usurpation.

 

[StudentMI]

Good points. However subsidiarity allows for societies of a higher order to interfere in societies of a lower order if necessary for the common good. In your night watchman state who will look after neglected children who have a right to care, as Ed Feser explains below.

Edward Feser: The road from libertarianism

It is arguable that private health care has failed the common good. And indeed papal encyclicals have posited the necessity of the state to intervene in the economy. You can go on about capitalist health care but a true laissez faire society, where is it? Where has it been without massive state intervention? Does laissez faire even work in a fallen world?

Please note I am using health care as an example to illustrate my point.

 

[HarryStotle]

Good points. However subsidiarity allows for societies of a higher order to interfere in societies of a lower order if necessary for the common good. In your night watchman state who will look after neglected children who have a right to care…

This is another clear example – based upon the natural priority of the family – that demonstrates some jurisdictions in the United States have overstepped their proper authority.

Who will look after neglected or abandoned or orphaned children? you ask. There were charitable organizations, that have existed since the time of founding, that were set up by individuals and organizations throughout the United States to care for such children. However, the State recently stepped in and mandated that all such organizations MUST, under penalty of law, adopt children out to homosexual couples. Those that didn’t – because they failed to align with the newly imposed legal definition of “marriage” – were de-licensed and not permitted to operate in those states.

So, the State by a kind of unilateral action imposed its authority over the family to redefine and dismantle its legitimate purpose, and thereby also removed those who believe in the primacy of the family over the state from being able to voluntarily offer their charitable services. In a sense, the State unjustly created the mechanism for more unjust state control by effectively removing non-State entities.

So “who will look after neglected children who have a right to care?” Apparently, the State has imposed itself in such a way as to consolidate its own authority by removing the potential for non-State entities to be involved.

 

[HarryStotle]

…subsidiarity allows for societies of a higher order to interfere in societies of a lower order if necessary for the common good.

To be clear: does subsidiarity allow for “societies of a higher order” to systematically dismantle “societies of a lower order” in order to subsume to themselves ultimate jurisdiction which are later justified as being “for the common good?”

Does subsidiarity have the capacity to recognize when such “interference” is ultimately a play for power of “societies of a higher order” over “societies of a lower order?” If so, how would we recognize it before it takes the form of having removed the capacity of “societies of a lower order” from being at all in play?

At what point did Nazi Germany turn from being a benign democratic socialism to a tyrannical democratic socialism? And would anyone have been able to reverse the process? Curious minds want to know.

 

[StudentMI]

At what point did Nazi Germany turn from being a benign democratic socialism to a tyrannical democratic socialism?

I’m going to ignore the fact you are insinuating I’m advocating for a Nazi-like system and just ask this: are you suggesting Pope Benedict, in praising democratic socialism, was praising a Nazi-like state? Because if so I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[JimG]

In many respects Uncle Sam has become everybody’s daddy. Not a good sign for healthy family structure.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

At what point did Nazi Germany turn from being a benign democratic socialism to a tyrannical democratic socialism?

I’m going to ignore the fact you are insinuating I’m advocating for a Nazi-like system and just ask this: are you suggesting Pope Benedict, in praising democratic socialism, was praising a Nazi-like state? Because if so I have nothing more to say to you.

I really wasn’t “insinuating” anything. I was merely observing that political power tends to be a very unwieldy and unmanageable thing, which is why great care ought to be taken before giving it up to any “body.”

I am very certain the German people were not evil, mendacious, devious or malevolent. Yet, they very likely “woke up” one morning in 1945 and wondered how things got to where they were. The same was true in Italy, Japan and a number of other countries, to say nothing of China, Russia, Cambodia, Venezuela and on and on. They were not very different from ourselves, no matter what we flatter ourselves into thinking. A supposition that we are better today, smarter, more moral, etc., is just the psychology that can get us into trouble.

That is my worry right now in much of the western world. (I am not American.) I fear we will take for granted our freedoms and responsibility and be stealthily duped, in sufficient numbers, to buy into a “revolution” of society to transform into a more enlightened and caring people.

The founding fathers understood that the rule of law and the importance of Constitutional safeguards are key to preserving the republic, if we can keep it. Too many are quite willing to trade all for the promise of a mess of pottage from a more empowered hand.

 

[StudentMI]

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...s/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html

 

[twf]

That’s an over simplification. Catholicism does indeed value the individual, but also the collective. We are a communion… a community. And we owe obedience to that community, the Church.