What's wrong with a humanitarism party

[Robert_Sock]

As opposed to capitalism, why not create a humanitarian party? Why not condone corporatism, but replace the CEOs with people having humanitarian values. Capitalism promotes greed, power and prestige. A world-wide vote would certainly choose humanitarianism over all other systems of government.

 

[tabycat]

As opposed to capitalism, why not create a humanitarian party? Why not condone corporatism, but replace the CEOs with people having humanitarian values. Capitalism promotes greed, power and prestige. A world-wide vote would certainly choose humanitarianism over all other systems of government.

Sounds great, but I think it is a bit of ‘pie in the sky’. I have heard only proof that a CEO with humanitarian values would be any better then any other type of CEO.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Humanitarian is claimed by whoever wants to cheat. What better argument than to call your opponent as being opposed to humanity, whatever that means.

That’s the problem with it.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

As opposed to capitalism, why not create a humanitarian party? Why not condone corporatism, but replace the CEOs with people having humanitarian values. Capitalism promotes greed, power and prestige. A world-wide vote would certainly choose humanitarianism over all other systems of government.

The baker bakes his bread not because he loves his neighbor, but because he is greedy and wants to support himself and his family.

Not that it’s necessarily exclusive, but we would have many less bakers in the world if they didn’t have compensation for their work.

 

[mackbrislawn]

As opposed to capitalism, why not create a humanitarian party? Why not condone corporatism, but replace the CEOs with people having humanitarian values. Capitalism promotes greed, power and prestige. A world-wide vote would certainly choose humanitarianism over all other systems of government.

This means a political party, an arrm of Caesar, would replace the Church. Caesar would increase, and Jesus would decrease. It is looking for government to do what the Church should do. Government becomes more important than Church–Jesus is supposed to save us, not Caesar.

 

[Robert_Sock]

This means a political party, an arrm of Caesar, would replace the Church. Caesar would increase, and Jesus would decrease. It is looking for government to do what the Church should do. Government becomes more important than Church–Jesus is supposed to save us, not Caesar.

This is an assumption to maintain the status quo. Humanitarian values are virtuous when implemented without lies.

 

[Vouthon]

I applaud you for the idea brother Robert

I think that Holy Mother Church is more specific in addressing what is needed than the more vague (although accurate) term “Humanitarianism”. The social doctrine of the Church calls for an, “Integral, Solidary Humanism”. Now a party with that as its philosophy, would get my vote immediately. In the UK there have been exciting developments recently. Our two main parties “Labour” and “Conservative” have new radical wings known as, “Red Toryism” and “Blue Labour”, led by Philip Blond and Lord Maurice Glasman, which are directly influenced by Catholic social teaching and are essentially the ideological underpinning of a transformation in these two parties which is supported by the leaders, Prime Minister David Cameron and Ed Miliband.

Blond and Glasman (the latter who is Jewish) are both devotees of a Christian philosophy founded by the Anglo-Catholic Oxford professor John Milbank known as “Radical Orthodoxy”. Its birth child in politics is Red Toryism and Blue Labour.

Catholic social teaching is the new “zeitgeist” in British politics.

On Blue Labour:

In Britain, the ‘new’ idea now being studied, and taken up by Ed Miliband’s Labour Party is – Catholic Social Teaching, as outlined by Pope Leo XIII in 1891. This is partly in response to the banking crisis, and also in response to an awareness that recent times have shown a global tendency for the rich to grow richer and the poor to get poorer.

Three men are working together – at the behest of the British Labour Leader – to develop ‘think-tank’ projects based on Catholic Social Teaching. These are Baron Maurice Glasman, a Glasgow-born academic who was appointed to the House of Lords by Mr Milliband last year: Dr Jon Cruddas, the Member of Parliament for Dagenham, and Professor Philip Booth, economist and author of Catholic Social Teaching and the Market Economy. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has been brought into the conversation at several points.

Maurice Glasman, who is Jewish, believes passionately that society needs to be reconnected through concepts of ‘faith and citizenship’, and (rather like Edmund Burke) that the “small battalions” of local life, from football clubs to post offices, churches, banks, trade unions, universities and schools should have a shared sense of common citizenship. He thinks the Labour party has become “too elitist and managerial” and out of touch with ordinary people; it should respect the values of the people, for whom “family, faith and flag” were points of honour.

Jon Cruddas and Philip Booth are both Catholics: Cruddas is highly influential within the British Labour establishment and Philip Booth is a leading public intellectual (and a Fellow of Blackfriars College, Oxford).

This trio are developing policies for Ed Miliband based on the famous encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, which identified the Church with the masses, “not only collectively, but individually”. It rejected state socialism, maintaining the primacy of the individual and the family, but also underlined the value of every person and the entitlement of every person to be a part of the public square. It affirmed that there was a “natural right” to a living wage, and declared that it was morally wrong for the rich to “enslave” the poor. Archbishop Nichols says that the social construct here is “moral”, not political; banks and other economic agencies should have a moral approach to what they do.

Ed Miliband’s mother, Marion, was saved from the Nazis by being sheltered and protected by a Polish Catholic family, and he may be more open to Catholic values because of this

Matthew Taylor of the BBC’s Radio 4 has today provided a nuanced analysis of a recent resurgence within British political circles of Catholic Social Teaching. This resurgence has been driven by the advocacy of Philip Blond’s “Red Tory” and Maurice Glasman’s “Blue Labour” campaigns, and given further intellectual traction by Adrian Pabst’s The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Pope Benedict XVIs Social Encyclical and the Future of Political Economy.

What these movements prove is that it is possible for Catholic social teaching to form the philosophical and moral basis of political parties.

It is ironic that the UK rather than the US is proving more open to Catholic social teaching given that we are a far more secular country in outlook.

Weird but true.

 

[Vouthon]

From the introduction to “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church” (a few excerpts):

INTRODUCTION

AN INTEGRAL AND SOLIDARY HUMANISM

a. At the dawn of the Third Millennium

1. The Church moves further into the Third Millennium of the Christian era as a pilgrim people, guided by Christ, the “great Shepherd” (Heb 13:20). He is the “Holy Door” (cf. Jn 10:9) through which we passed during the Great Jubilee of the year 2000[1]. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life (cf. Jn 14:6): contemplating the Lord’s face, we confirm our faith and our hope in him, the one Saviour and goal of history…

1. Christian love leads to denunciation, proposals and a commitment to cultural and social projects; it prompts positive activity that inspires all who sincerely have the good of man at heart to make their contribution. Humanity is coming to understand ever more clearly that it is linked by one sole destiny that requires joint acceptance of responsibility, a responsibility inspired by an integral and shared humanism. It sees that this mutual destiny is often conditioned and even imposed by technological and economic factors, and it senses the need for a greater moral awareness that will guide its common journey. Marvelling at the many innovations of technology, the men and women of our day strongly desire that progress be directed towards the true good of the humanity, both of today and tomorrow.

b. The significance of this document

1. The Christian knows that in the social doctrine of the Church can be found the principles for reflection, the criteria for judgment and the directives for action which are the starting point for the promotion of an integral and solidary humanism. Making this doctrine known constitutes, therefore, a genuine pastoral priority, so that men and women will be enlightened by it and will be thus enabled to interpret today’s reality and seek appropriate paths of action: “The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church’s evangelizing mission"…

1. The Church, the sign in history of God’s love for mankind and of the vocation of the whole human race to unity as children of the one Father[21], intends with this document on her social doctrine to propose to all men and women a humanism that is up to the standards of God’s plan of love in history, an integral and solidary humanism capable of creating a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity. This humanism can become a reality if individual men and women and their communities are able to cultivate moral and social virtues in themselves and spread them in society. “Then, under the necessary help of divine grace, there will arise a generation of new men, the moulders of a new humanity”[22].

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#INTRODUCTION

As you can see the entire basis of modern Catholic social teaching is founded upon this philosophy of “Integral, Solidary Humanism” with a threefold cornerstone according to BJPII of, “human dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity” and according to the Compendium, “peace, justice and solidarity”.

That should be our political philosophy and value system. It can be embraced by non-Catholics and non-Christians as well, indeed the whole human race.

I also fully agree with what Robert says regarding “corporatism”, the idea of a more organic view of society as a single body comprised of many parts which undercuts political, social and all other perceived divisions.

 

[Vouthon]

This means a political party, an arrm of Caesar, would replace the Church. Caesar would increase, and Jesus would decrease. It is looking for government to do what the Church should do. Government becomes more important than Church–Jesus is supposed to save us, not Caesar.

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. The Church is a Mystical Body. However it currently has a “secular arm” in the form of the Holy See/Vatican City state, and used to have it in the form of the Papal States. The Church is active in the earthly city without tresspassing on the legitimate divergence between church and state since it respects secularism particularly the kind at work in the US which is not anti-religious but simply open to everyone irrespective of religion and keeps a healthy difference between the two.

A political party or movement which has as its moral foundation Catholic social teachings would in my view be positive and certainly not infringe upon a positive secularism (distinction between church and state) in any way.

 

[Neildown]

I think you’re getting way ahead of yourselves. Last I checked, the world still wasn’t ready for global peace and harmony. Furthermore, it wasn’t willing to refrain from taking advantage of thriving peace and harmony. Capitalism works perfectly fine as long as people regulate themselves correctly. I think self-moderation is a better solution than yet another governmental party…

 

[mackbrislawn]

This is an assumption to maintain the status quo. Humanitarian values are virtuous when implemented without lies.

This is an odd response–maybe because it is not a response at all. Jesus says the function of Caesar is to maintain order and to punish wrongdoers. Jesus also says to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. He makes a clear distinction between Caesar and God. It is dangerous for God and Church when we start giving to Caesar when we should be giving to God. Caesar is always in competition with Church, and how best to to win than by taking over the functions of Church?

It is fine to have a political party that reflections one’s views, as long as that party does not replace our own Christian duties. That is, not to allow the party to do what we ourselves should be doing.

 

[Vouthon]

It is fine to have a political party that reflections one’s views, as long as that party does not replace our own Christian duties. That is, not to allow the party to do what we ourselves should be doing.

I cannot speak for brother Robert but I merely like the idea of a political movement thoughtfully reflecting Catholic social teaching in its broad aims and philosophy and integrating/infusing these teachings into society for the common good. Is there anything wrong with that from your perspective?

 

[Vouthon]

I think you’re getting way ahead of yourselves. Last I checked, the world still wasn’t ready for global peace and harmony. Furthermore, it wasn’t willing to refrain from taking advantage of thriving peace and harmony. Capitalism works perfectly fine as long as people regulate themselves correctly. I think self-moderation is a better solution than yet another governmental party…

Self-moderation is very key. We should live out this integral, solidary humanism in our lives, indeed. However it can therefore become a reality in society through us as well.

I quote again from the Compendium:

"…The Church, the sign of God’s love for mankind and of the vocation of the whole human race to unity as children of the one Father, intends with this document on her social doctrine to propose to all men and women a humanism that is up to the standards of God’s plan of love in history,** an integral and solidary humanism capable of creating a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity**…

**This humanism can become a reality **if individual men and women and their communities are able to cultivate moral and social virtues in themselves and spread them in society. Then, under the necessary help of divine grace, there will arise a new generation of new men, the moulders of a new humanity…"

(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, page 7)

A new “social, economic and political order” goes merely beyond individually applying these social teachings through “self-moderation”, does it not? Nonetheless it obviously does begin with “self-moderation” on a personal level, undoubtedly.

Read: catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=43257

Catholic social teaching is not republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, libertarian or European socialism. Catholic social teaching is Catholic.

Often, conservatives firmly adhere to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, but they refuse to examine the social teaching of the same Church. Liberals tend to pick and choose certain aspects of the social teaching of the Church, leaving behind other dimensions of the same teaching such as the unwavering stand of the Church that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

The answer to the upheavals around us is for a new generation of thinking men and women to imbue themselves with the social teaching of the Catholic Church and to put it into practice. A new generation of thinking men and women who have freed themselves from radical individualism and ideologies will be capable of drinking in the teachings of the Catholic Church with objectivity and intellectual honesty.

Each week, the writers of Catholic Online come together for a phone conference, directed by Deacon Keith Fournier, to pray, reflect and to come up with new ideas of how we can help our readers become fully engaged in the new missionary age of our times. Deacon Keith continually points us to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and he does so with great passion and conviction. It is in that volume, Deacon Keith continues to affirm, that we will find the solutions for the political, economic and social challenges of our day.

Taking up Deacon Keith’s passionate challenge, I plan to offer a series of articles in the next few weeks. These articles will be a humble attempt to at least get us reading the social teachings of the Church and to really begin to see how **we can begin to be “the moulders of a new humanity.” **

 

[Neildown]

"…The Church, the sign of God’s love for mankind and of the vocation of the whole human race to unity as children of the one Father, intends with this document on her social doctrine to propose to all men and women a humanism that is up to the standards of God’s plan of love in history, an integral and solidary humanism capable of creating a new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice and solidarity…

This humanism can become a reality if individual men and women and their communities are able to cultivate moral and social virtues in themselves and spread them in society. Then, under the necessary help of divine grace, there will arise a new generation of new men, the moulders of a new humanity…"

However it can therefore become a reality in society through us as well.

If these virtues were to be applied via the individual on a massive scale (without governmental involvement) why would there be a need for it to be legislated?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I cannot speak for brother Robert but I merely like the idea of a political movement thoughtfully reflecting Catholic social teaching in its broad aims and philosophy and integrating/infusing these teachings into society for the common good. Is there anything wrong with that from your perspective?

But isn’t that the job of the Church: to infuse society with its philosophy and teachings? To educate the people, so they will behave properly and will elect politicians who will act for the common good? It seems redundant and a contributor to secularism.

The whole point of a political party is to come into governmental power and use the coercive sword of Caesar to enforce its aims. The power of Caesar is always a danger, and a danger to the Church when Caesar becomes Church.

 

[Robert_Sock]

But isn’t that the job of the Church: to infuse society with its philosophy and teachings? To educate the people, so they will behave properly and will elect politicians who will act for the common good? It seems redundant and a contributor to secularism.

The whole point of a political party is to come into governmental power and use the coercive sword of Caesar to enforce its aims. The power of Caesar is always a danger, and a danger to the Church when Caesar becomes Church.

Let me get this straight, bringing humanitarianism into politics is going to destroy society and the Church? talk about beating around the bush.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Let me get this straight, bringing humanitarianism into politics is going to destroy society and the Church? talk about beating around the bush.

Another odd response. Who said anything abouit destroying society, and what is beating aroundthe bush. Also, when has humanitarianism not been in politics? The danger is relying on Caesar to do the what Christians should be doing. The state is always eager to take over the functions of the Church and become the Church itself.

 

[Kevin_B]

Another odd response. Who said anything abouit destroying society, and what is beating aroundthe bush. Also, when has humanitarianism not been in politics? The danger is relying on Caesar to do the what Christians should be doing. The state is always eager to take over the functions of the Church and become the Church itself.

That’s funny of you to say. It should be the Church’s responsibility, not the state, to determine who people should or should not marry. Yet the Church is demanding that the state take that responsibility.

Its amazing how people want the government to stay as small as possible, except when it helps them.

Any and every argument used in this thread as to why we should not trust the government with more power can be used word for word to argue that the government should not be given any of the powers that the catholic church is currently demanding they have.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That’s funny of you to say. It should be the Church’s responsibility, not the state, to determine who people should or should not marry. Yet the Church is demanding that the state take that responsibility.

Its amazing how people want the government to stay as small as possible, except when it helps them.

Any and every argument used in this thread as to why we should not trust the government with more power can be used word for word to argue that the government should not be given any of the powers that the catholic church is currently demanding they have.

I don’t quite follow the above. As for marriage, I’m not sure how the state got involved in the business of marrying people. Are you saying it was on the the insistence of the Church? That the Church demanded that there be a secular marriage in addition to the Church marriage?

It’s true, the conditions for permission to marry from a secular point of view are very similar to the Church’s. Not too closely related, not already married, the prospective partners be of opposite sexes, things like that.

Anyway, for whatever reason, the state already has taken upon itself powers of marriage. Are you thinking about the state relaxing the condition that the prospective partners be of the opposite sex? And that the Church is opposed to that? No, the Church certainly isn’t demanding the state have marriage powers it hasn’t already taken.

 

[Kevin_B]

Sorry, I realize that I was not very clear. According to the Church, the following are immoral:

1. two people of the same gender getting married
2. not giving humanitarian aid to poor, needy people.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people think the first should be the responsibility of government but not the second.

Either
A) you believe the government should enforce morality, in which case same sex marriage should be illegal and the government should provide aid for the needy, or

B) you believe the government should not enforce morality, in which case private religious organizations, not the government, decide who should marry who and take care of the needy, or

C) you’re a hypocrite. I honestly can’t think of any other reason besides hypocrisy why one would want the government to enforce some morals but not others