Why are Catholics generally less critical of Capitalism compared to Socialism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krisdun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Krisdun

Guest
I say in general because of course there will be some Catholics that may think differently.
 
This will sort of answer your question, albeit in a round-about way.

“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.” (CCC 675)

“The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.” (CCC 676)

“The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.” (CCC 677)

Socialism is a type of “secular messianism.”
 
Just to clarify, it’s your general observation, right? I’m not disagreeing about which system Catholics are more critical of. I guess if you look worldwide, part of it would be the suffering under socialist countries, which at times reached a certain intensity, and was sometime inflicted specifically on Christians
 
I’ve only noticed this sentiment in the US. Most people I’ve met don’t care that much.
 
In the United States, capitalism is historically associated with people who built the country, lived generally good lives as Christians, and also built the Catholic Church in USA. Most of the Catholic immigrants to USA historically were not coming to found or be part of a socialist society. They wanted to do well economically, own property and get ahead in life, and their home countries had often oppressed their efforts to do that, sometimes because they were Catholics.

Socialism in USA quickly became more associated with those who wanted to destroy organized religion, including Catholicism. We did have some good Catholic and Christian socialist thinkers, but they were the exception. Most people in US associate the concept of socialism with godless Communists.

Also, private property rights and profiting by one’s own work ethic are very important principles to many US citizens, including Catholics. Socialism is just not how we think.
 
Last edited:
Both have been criticized by popes.

Communism is explicitly condemned.

Socialism has a tendency to kill millions of people and capitalism doesn’t have that track record.
 
Because socialism is all mixed up with communism and all sorts of mean nasty stuff like political oppression and gulags.
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
Because socialism is all mixed up with communism and all sorts of mean nasty stuff like political oppression and gulags.
Click to expand...
That is complete nonsense. Many European countries have and have had socialist governments. They have absolutely nothing to do with communism. These socialist governments are capitalists.
I really wish Americans could actually differentiate between socialism and communism.
 
I never said it was the same.
Communism is a form of government.
Socialism is an economic system.

However, the most notorious pairing of the two for Americans was the Soviet Union, and it was a nasty piece. of work.

And that’s the answer to the OP’s question.
 
Montrose said:
That is complete nonsense. Many European countries have and have had socialist governments. They have absolutely nothing to do with communism. These socialist governments are capitalists.
I really wish Americans could actually differentiate between socialism and communism.
Click to expand...
American culture generally, and American Catholic culture specifically, does not view socialism like Europeans do.
As I already explained, part of this is due to the USA’s heavy focus on personal property ownership and individualism. Europeans tend to look to the state or to some central group collective (Political party, etc) to take care of them. In USA, that’s frowned upon.

The Communist/ anti-clerical sentiments just confirmed the negative opinion Americans already had of socialism. It is unlikely to ever be viable in USA except maybe in some urban areas where people are heavily into European goverrnance models and leftist thinking in general. As for wishing Americans would think differently, I could just as easily say I wish certain European countries’ peoples would start taking care of themselves and quit looking to the government for everything, but one has to respect cultures. That includes also respecting the US culture.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
As for wishing Americans would think differently, I could just as easily say I wish certain European countries’ peoples would start taking care of themselves and quit looking to the government for everything, but one has to respect cultures. That includes also respecting the US culture.
Click to expand...
Do you mean you don’t think its a human right to have access to universal health care whether you can pay for it or not?
 
Montrose said:
Do you mean you don’t think its a human right to have access to universal health care whether you can pay for it or not?
Click to expand...
You can’t have a right to something someone else has to provide or can be limited by finite resources.
 
Montrose said:
human right to have access to universal health care
Click to expand...
See, this is one of those very fuzzy areas that sounds real good, but the devil is in the details.

First, you have to define “health care”.

Then you have to decide…if one person has a right to health care, does another person have the obligation to provide it? Which person carries that burden of obligation?
 
I think fundamentally because whereas capitalism isn’t intrinsically evil, socialism is.

That doesn’t mean capitalism is being performed well right now. And people might argue the above statements depending on which definition of ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’ they use.

But that’s my understanding of it, in a nutshell. That it’s intrinsically evil to place total economic control in the state, whereas it’s possible under capitalism to avoid monopolization and distribute productive property among the masses. Again: possible, not guaranteed without antitrust legislation etc (ie capitalism can tend towards centralization/monopolization similar to socialism).
 
I think the problem Americans have traditionally had with socialism (and I don’t think this is all that true anymore) goes to their interpretation of what a “right” is.

Americans have traditionally understood a right to be what the individual (or other entity) can DO. It has not traditionally been understood to mean something that is done for the individual by another person or group of persons. (A possible exception might be that the obligations family members have to each other would be considered rights.)

The point here is that Americans used to make a clear distinction between rights and entitlements.

As such, receiving health care is not a right unless the individual is providing care for himself/herself. But it would be understood that an individual had the right to buy/trade for healthcare.

Today, the Catholic Church generally does not make such a clear distinction between rights and entitlements. A traditional American who is also a Christian would probably say we have the obligation to care for the poor but would also say that the poor don’t truly have right to receive it. I think the Church would have probably said that at one time too, but probably not anymore.
 
Last edited:
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
See, this is one of those very fuzzy areas that sounds real good, but the devil is in the details.

First, you have to define “health care”.

Then you have to decide…if one person has a right to health care, does another person have the obligation to provide it? Which person carries that burden of obligation?
Click to expand...
The US is the only developed country in the world that does not view universal health care as a human right. It appears there that if you can’t pay then sorry you just have to go home and die.
Society has to “carry that burden”.
Define health care? Any medical needs. If someone needs a heart transplant or long term cancer treatment but cannot pay they should be given it.
 
Montrose said:
right. It appears there that if you can’t pay then sorry you just have to go home and die.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. No medical center can legally refuse care because a patient can’t pay.
Montrose said:
Define health care? Any medical needs.
Click to expand...
2 people have been fatally wounded in a place there is only one doctor. In the time it takes for one person to be helped the other will die. Who has the right to healthcare?
 
RhodesianSon said:
That’s not true. No medical center can legally refuse care because a patient can’t pay.
Click to expand...
You don’t pop into a medical center for a transplant and long term cancer care.
Are you telling me that a person who needs a heart transplant will get it even if they cannot pay?
Are you telling me that someone diagnosed with cancer and will need long term treatment, maybe years, will get it even if they can’t pay?

You said 2 fatally wounded people. That means they both die.
Everybody has a right to healthcare.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top