Quite the contrary, I am much more likely to accept that than the rest of your argument. I agree that forcing Catholic institutions to cover contraception is wrong, and my [Episcopal] priest, who is politically very liberal and does not agree with the Catholic position on birth control, entirely agrees (though admittedly, he’s one of the very few mainline clergy I’m aware of who stands with the Catholic Church on this issue, very much to his credit).
What I’m asking is what about the basic provision of the law (not the incidental issue of contraception) is unjust according to Catholic teaching.
You seem unwilling or unable to answer this question.
It’s obviously not “pure” socialism. It may be socialism by your very broad definition, but for the purposes of my challenge you need to show that it is socialism in the sense intended by the Popes who condemned socialism. I think that will be pretty hard for you to do.
But then, I suppose I shouldn’t expect much in the way of verbal precision or intellectual seriousness from a person who thinks the childish slur “OmamaCare” is witty.
I’ll trust Chief Justice Roberts over you on the Constitutional issue, thank you very much. But in fact that’s irrelevant to my challenge. I asked about justice, not constitutionality; about Catholic teaching and natural law, not about the intention of a bunch of 18th-century gentlemen.
Socialism being defined here as the complete abolition of private property, which ObamaCare certainly does not do.
Where does Aquinas say this? You give no citation. Aquinas did not believe that private property was a natural right. In fact, in ST II/II Question 66, article 2, he raises the point that according to natural law all things are held in common. In his reply to objection 1 he clarifies what this means:
For Aquinas, private property is not a fundamental natural right but a legitimate, useful, indeed necessary human convention. Its purpose, however, is the common good. Indeed, Aquinas explicitly says that rulers have the authority to take the property of their subjects for the common good (“state” wasn’t really a concept in the 13th century), and even use violence to do so (Article 8 of the previously cited question, reply to objection 3):
Leo XIII did appear to believe that private property was a natural right. But as far as I know even Pope Leo never said that taxation was illegitimate.
There’s a “bait-and-switch” frequently going on here in “conservative” American arguments about this. Folks will sound like libertarians in the way they talk about taxation, and then back away by saying that of course reasonable or legitimate taxation (for defense, for instance) is OK. But the lines being drawn seem pretty arbitrary.
Traditional Catholic teaching has never rejected the government’s right to tax. You may think that present levels are too high and that the common good can best be furthered in other ways. You may be right. But it makes no sense to cry “socialism” when the government is just using its acknowledged power to tax for the service of the common good.
Yes, section 34. The problem is that the Pope didn’t define “moderate Socialism.” You and those who think like you claim that this means that anything you choose to label socialism is condemned by the Church. But that’s obviously illogical. Neither of the Popes in question (John XXIII or Pius XI) had the benefit of your expertise in defining socialism (unless you claim to have been one of John XXIII’s advisors in drafting this document?).
John XXIII is summarizing Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno, sects. 113-20. What’s notable about this passage is that Pius XI explicitly says that “moderate socialism” has come very close to a legitimate Christian position. He insists that even this moderate socialism cannot be reconciled with Christianity not because of its specific social proposals (which he admits are basically legitimate) but because of the underlying materialistic philosophy and the idea that everything, including personal liberty, takes second place to the efficient production of goods resulting in material prosperity.
It therefore follows that anything that doesn’t clearly rest on this material philosophy and doesn’t make the efficient production of material goods its primary goal does not come under the condemnation of these two Popes and is not “socialism” in their sense. You and many other contemporary Americans are radically misusing the term “socialism” and twisting the teachings of the Popes.
At the same time, pro-capitalist economists have made a very strong case that in fact material prosperity and efficient production are best served by the free market. And many Christians are arguing that in that light, the best way to serve the poor is to promote capitalism. This seems to fall into precisely the same false way of thinking condemned by the Popes in the case of socialism. Socialism is condemned not because it gives the government the authority to care for the common good (which is just classic Catholic social teaching), but because it subordinates moral and spiritual considerations to economic ones. But today it is the advocates of capitalism who most often do that.
Here’s a specific passage from Mater et Magistra (section 20), illustrating how far the Pope thought the state could and should go in furthering the common good (more detail is found in Quadragesimo Anno):
