Socialism

[Padster]

Party policies are of little interest here. The fact is, we can hold those in power to account. We have no such luxury over those that run the market. And they DO run it. Take the energy companies, for instance. The big six in the UK have a monopoly on utilities. When one company puts it’s tariffs up, they all do. And you only have to witness the recent select committee on energy to understand the utter contempt these companies hold the British public in. Only one out of six bothered to send its CEO. The rest sent underlings. There is no competition in the energy market at present, and even dithering Dave our PM realises that. Though, to be honest, ‘competition’ never achieves its objectives. De-regulation of public transport proved that. It used to cost 9p to travel on the bus to town. Now it costs £2.50. So it is with energy. ‘Switching’ is turning out to be a pointless exercise.

Oh, by the way, 140 jobs went in my home town today. The reason: over-production. Same as it ever was.

Happy Christmas Cowley Hill.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[Mickey_Finn]

How is Gov’t accountable when every party advances the same policies that support entrenched interests?

In a real market, nobody “runs the market”. If someone is running it, it’s not a market.

The reason a large firm (take Goldman Sachs as an example) has inappropriate power is that they have used Gov’t policies to give them unfair competitive advantages. They control the regulators (b/c they all want to get a job at Goldman), they control the politicians (through campaign contributions), they have the implicit guarantee of Federal bailouts.

Without those governmental supports, competitors would eat away their high profit margins, and erode their power.

God Bless

So, we don’t have a market we have an Oligarchy. Great! Any system developed by men is going to be crooked. That’s all there is to it. The only way you can effect control over that is through regulation. When your elected officials are crooked as well. Your just out of luck!

I’ve seen, like Padster has, the harm our system does to human dignity. So, I am amused to hear people say the same about Socialism. To the best of my knowledge True Socialism has not existed so far. So, I wonder what exactly they are commenting on.

As far as mixing Christianity, with Socialism. If you can combine it with Capitalism you can combine it with anything.

ATB

 

[Abu]

Mickey Finn #22
As far as mixing Christianity, with Socialism. If you can combine it with Capitalism you can combine it with anything.

Such a feeling is typical of those who couldn’t care less what the great Popes teach and put their musings above that of the wise.

See Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that Pope Benedict XVI clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also…it does refer repeatedly to the ‘market economy,’ a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is ‘the path to true economic and civil progress.’

 

[Padster]

"Such a feeling is typical of those who couldn’t care less what the great Popes teach and put their musings above that of the wise."

Only Almighty God is truly wise. Leaders of Church and State have the same human brain and comprehension as the rest of us. Yes, they are usually very learned and intelligent people, but then so are court judges.

After all, wasn’t it a Pope that thought the sale of indulgences was a good idea? Or ordering a medal to be struck to celebrate the slaughter of the Huguenots in France?

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Such a feeling is typical of those who couldn’t care less what the great Popes teach and put their musings above that of the wise.

See Centesimus Annus 42, 1991, Bl John Paul II:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

Since here capitalism = free economy, and reaffirmed by Bl John Paul II is the ‘fundamental human “right to freedom of economic initiative.” ’ (*Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Human Concerns), Encyclical, 1987, #42), and initiative = enterprise, it is clear what the pope means.

On Caritas in Veritate Fr John De Celles points out that Pope Benedict XVI clearly states that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer” [CV 9]. Also…it does refer repeatedly to the ‘market economy,’ a term of art which Pope John Paul II used to refer to that form of capitalism that is ‘the path to true economic and civil progress.’

Well, I meant no disrespect to these fine Fathers. Simply that they made observations on what they saw at the time. If they looked at what has become of Capitalism, and the “Market” today. They would most likely be singing a different tune. What we are witnessing today is a little hard for a person of conscience to defend. This you should reflect on my friend.

To be completely open minded. Maybe capitalism is ’ the path to true civil progress’ In which case I say fine. We’ll keep a little of it around so long as it makes itself useful.

ATB

 

[bilop]

So, we don’t have a market we have an Oligarchy. Great! Any system developed by men is going to be crooked. That’s all there is to it. The only way you can effect control over that is through regulation. When your elected officials are crooked as well. Your just out of luck!

I’ve seen, like Padster has, the harm our system does to human dignity. So, I am amused to hear people say the same about Socialism. To the best of my knowledge True Socialism has not existed so far. So, I wonder what exactly they are commenting on.

As far as mixing Christianity, with Socialism. If you can combine it with Capitalism you can combine it with anything.

ATB

Really? You haven’t seen the harm Socialism does to human dignity? Were you not paying attention to that whole 1917-1990 period in Eastern Europe? Or 1949 to the present in China? There are 100 milion+ dead (many of them Christian martyrs) who would point out the ridiculousness of that comment, if they could.

Socialism, at the end of the day, is theft. It involves the Gov’t seizing private property and outlawing private enterprise.

Note: the is not true, in general, of the welfare state. It is legitimate for the Gov’t to tax people to provide relief for the poor. It is not legitimate for it to forcibly seize control of entire industries. The Gov’t has no right to say all Hospitals or all power companies or all railroads will now be run by the state.

And yes, we have an oligarchy. The way to break it up is not to give Gov’t more power, but to give it less power. Also, to enforce anti-trust laws, and reverse the massive subsidies Gov’t provides to large corporations.

God Bless

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I seem to remember the Apostles having ‘a common purse’ or some such. So sure keep a free market but also keep a common purse for the widows and orphans, i.e. for those who need help.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Really? You haven’t seen the harm Socialism does to human dignity? Were you not paying attention to that whole 1917-1990 period in Eastern Europe? Or 1949 to the present in China? There are 100 milion+ dead (many of them Christian martyrs) who would point out the ridiculousness of that comment, if they could.
You’re confusing communism with what we are talking about. True Socialism

Socialism, at the end of the day, is theft. It involves the Gov’t seizing private property and outlawing private enterprise.
Talk radio Rhetoric

Note: the is not true, in general, of the welfare state. It is legitimate for the Gov’t to tax people to provide relief for the poor. It is not legitimate for it to forcibly seize control of entire industries. The Gov’t has no right to say all Hospitals or all power companies or all railroads will now be run by the state.
Obviously, there would be a different government in power. (lol)

And yes, we have an oligarchy. The way to break it up is not to give Gov’t more power, but to give it less power. Also, to enforce anti-trust laws, and reverse the massive subsidies Gov’t provides to large corporations.

See, there is something in True Socialism to please even you. There certainly wouldn’t be any Oligarchs.

God Bless

 

[JB_Dugan]

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good.

I prefer a Free Market.

The Free Market is a powerful institution. It allows people to interact with one another and achieve things they could not achieve acting on their own.

The Free Market allocates resources in ways that no single individual or government bureaucrat could even begin to duplicate. It lowers the social costs of meeting human wants and needs far better than any other institution known to man.

Free Market outcomes may, on occasion, be improved by VERY limited, judicious regulation. But it is never worthwhile to suppress the market entirely in almost any field of human endeavor.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good.

I prefer a Free Market.

The Free Market is a powerful institution. It allows people to interact with one another and achieve things they could not achieve acting on their own.

The Free Market allocates resources in ways that no single individual or government bureaucrat could even begin to duplicate. It lowers the social costs of meeting human wants and needs far better than any other institution known to man.

Free Market outcomes may, on occasion, be improved by VERY limited, judicious regulation. But it is never worthwhile to suppress the market entirely in almost any field of human endeavor.

I agree and from my understanding,so do our Church Fathers.

 

[uther]

Fascinating discussion.

What might be called true socialism existed in the earliest days of the Church, as we can all read about in the Book of Acts. It was a real application of the axiom, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

It had two important and essential features. All of the members of this early “collective” loved Jesus Christ above all, and they were all volunteers.

So, if we wish to see true socialism again, we must expect those two conditions to be met.

Padster, when all of Britain loves Jesus Christ above all, and when they volunteer to pool all of their resources, voila! you will see true socialism.

Mickey Finn, communism, as we know it and have seen in action, is the natural end of socialism as we find it in the real world.

We also can infer from Scripture that the original socialist experiment didn’t work out in the longer term, because we see St. Paul later making the point that those who don’t want to work shouldn’t eat.

There’s the rub. In any economic organization, the difficulty always arises when the human heart’s tendencies lead someone to figure out a way to benefit from the labors of others. The collapse of any society, any socio/economic system is always a result of that particular problem.

And, there is no political economic solution to that problem. It has not been devised and will not be because the problem is the human heart. All we are left with as Christians is the decision of which is the most practical, hurts the least amount of people, is the most tweakable ongoing and to my mind the most important characteristic is to what extent it allows Christians to practice and preach their faith.

Call it what you wish. Capitalism, socialism, some hybrid of the two. It will always fall when the weight of those who have figured out how to live from the labor of others crushes those who are actually carrying the weight.

 

[Abu]

Mickey Finn #25
If they looked at what has become of Capitalism, and the “Market” today. They would most likely be singing a different tune. What we are witnessing today is a little hard for a person of conscience to defend.

A person of conscience promotes and defends what is true and good – precisely what Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have done with free enterprise, and they excoriate the PEOPLE who by their greed and selfishness defraud others, and governments whose policies distort and ravage free enterprise.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

The Popes have some realization of the cause and effect of economic laws:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42].

In 1931, we were taught: “…lastly, summoning to court the contemporary economic regime and passing judgment on Socialism, to lay bare the root of the existing social confusion and at the same time point the only way to sound restoration: namely, the Christian reform of morals. [Pius XI in *Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 15].

Let us recall that Bl John Paul II warned:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991).

Thus the principles of free enterprise are true and good, the evils of Socialism and the Welfare State are condemned, and the absolute necessity of the practice of virtues and sound morals by individuals is emphasised if truth and goodness are to be the essence of society.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own collective good.

I prefer a Free Market.

The Free Market is a powerful institution. It allows people to interact with one another and achieve things they could not achieve acting on their own.

The Free Market allocates resources in ways that no single individual or government bureaucrat could even begin to duplicate. It lowers the social costs of meeting human wants and needs far better than any other institution known to man.

Free Market outcomes may, on occasion, be improved by VERY limited, judicious regulation. But it is never worthwhile to suppress the market entirely in almost any field of human endeavor.

I tend to agree, in the limited capacity I have of understanding the free market.
I understand there are attempts by traders to find ‘as fast as light computer communications’, to take advantage of the market, whatever that is.
But there is room for the poor in society to be given ‘an institutional help’. For a person to be forced to ask only for charity is very difficult for some. An institutional form of funds for the homeless and jobless and untrained would be of great benefit to society. A type of door in the wall through which every citizen is entitled to enter to receive a home or a micro-grant or loan to start a business so they can be independent without looking for charity would be beneficial. For many, especially in the first world, being forced to ask for charity as their only hope is an assault on their dignity in a society which can well afford a more organized and dignified approach to poverty and economic crises.

 

[Abu]

uther #31
What might be called true socialism existed in the earliest days of the Church, as we can all read about in the Book of Acts. It was a real application of the axiom, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
It had two important and essential features. All of the members of this early “collective” loved Jesus Christ above all, and they were all volunteers.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or “true socialism” or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, 12:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

 

[JB_Dugan]

I tend to agree, in the limited capacity I have of understanding the free market.
I understand there are attempts by traders to find ‘as fast as light computer communications’, to take advantage of the market, whatever that is.
But there is room for the poor in society to be given ‘an institutional help’. For a person to be forced to ask only for charity is very difficult for some. An institutional form of funds for the homeless and jobless and untrained would be of great benefit to society. A type of door in the wall through which every citizen is entitled to enter to receive a home or a micro-grant or loan to start a business so they can be independent without looking for charity would be beneficial. For many, especially in the first world, being forced to ask for charity as their only hope is an assault on their dignity in a society which can well afford a more organized and dignified approach to poverty and economic crises.

I don’t think you can expect an economic system to provide charity. That is individual benevolence.

The Free Market does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth.

A Free Market does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit. It does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance and, above all, The Free Market does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned.

In all human relationships, private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral, a Free Market requires that men be guided by the principle of justice.

 

[uther]

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or “true socialism” or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

You missed my point Abu. The structure was socialist in its purest form, and as you point out, was not forced. That is because the circumstances were unique and apparently short-lived. Anywhere and everywhere else that socialism has been tried it has been through coercion, as you rightly point out.

But we must recognize the reason for this. The problem is the human heart. Others here have said that the free market must be accompanied by honesty, integrity and justice. That is what the Church teaches, but is that what happens?

For limited periods in history a society can be dominated by godly and moral people. In which case the free market works well. But for the most part history teaches that we have lurched from one form of government to another and in every case the collapse or rebellion, which ever comes first, can be traced to the avaricious and lazy human heart.

In the days of aristocracies in Europe, the upper classes were the ones living from the hard, back-breaking work of others.

Today, in our much vaunted democracies we have developed the scenario whereby the top tier of our system live much the same, without contributing anything to the economy. Vast armies of men and women sit in towers of steel and glass and trade money with each other and skim from the top, creating nothing. They milk great wealth from the economy, and every young person coming up in this society aspires to have the ability to do the same, getting rich without creating anything, without adding any value.

Meanwhile at the bottom, to salve our conscience and placate the socialists, as well as seemingly insulating ourselves from revolution, we use public money freely to not only help those who cannot work, but also many who will not work, creating another class of dependency.

Those in the middle carry all the weight of this monstrosity, and when the parasites at the top suddenly find they have overstepped and face the prospect of the crash of their house of cards, the government frightens the people into propping up the top heavy mess with tax dollars, grinding those who work and produce even further down with the burden. And those at the top go back to business as usual.

All of this happens because of the desire of the human heart to have material wealth without having to work for it.

Socialism doesn’t fix that, but rather suppresses the ones who actually can create wealth by hard work and invention, through the heavy burden of taxation. Communism, socialism’s nastier cousin, goes right for the throat, taking over and coercing whatever creativity it can squeeze from them. Once they have raped every bit of wealth and achievement the economy goes into steady and rapid decline.

There is no system to fix this. It doesn’t exist.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope Pius XI

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

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9nostis.htm

Pope Leo Xlll

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

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus_en.html

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

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18011901_graves-de-communi-re_en.html

Pope Pius X

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

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10notre.htm

Pope Benedict XV

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

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html

Pope Pius XI

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

[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

Quadragesimo Anno

Pope Pius Xll

[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

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

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20101939_summi-pontificatus_en.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

Pope John Xlll

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

No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html

Pope Paul Vl

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

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens_en.html

Pope John Paul ll

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

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

Pope Benedict Xl

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

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

 

[Padster]

"No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism"

Well, I am a Catholic and I DO subscribe to moderate Socialism. I don’t give money to it, in the true sense of subscription, but I agree with its values of brotherhood and common decency. The level of condemnation of it from Papal authority amazes me. But then again, a chap living comfortably in luxurious surroundings with access to a summer palace and a private helicopter is hardly going to want to change the status quo, is he? Even though he and his State wealth would remain unaffected by a change to a Socialist model.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[uther]

"No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism"

Well, I am a Catholic and I DO subscribe to moderate Socialism. I don’t give money to it, in the true sense of subscription, but I agree with its values of brotherhood and common decency. The level of condemnation of it from Papal authority amazes me. But then again, a chap living comfortably in luxurious surroundings with access to a summer palace and a private helicopter is hardly going to want to change the status quo, is he? Even though he and his State wealth would remain unaffected by a change to a Socialist model.

Best wishes,
Padster

Sikorsky’s first helicopter design went into production in 1942. Pius XI died in 1939.

Do you really think people can be coerced into brotherhood and common decency? If that is true we have been going about evangelization the wrong way. We need to take a page from Mohammed.

(By the way, if you live and work in the UK, you actually do give money to socialism)