Why do so many Catholics see a conflict between Socialism and Catholicism?

[QuidVeritasEst]

(Discalimer: Whilst I am a Catholic and a Socialist, I do not intend real world politics to be discussed here. Please treat the subject as a compatibility test between two philosophies)

I notice a lot of Catholics seem to have a habitual, almost inherent fear of socialism. To me, socialist theory, which is based on a critique of an economic system which, (if the theory is to be believed), commodities and dehumanizes the person and seeks to make them property (and has) in the pursuit of profit, and one which champions hedonistic values such as self-preservation and success and the accumulation of wealth, articulates very neatly the core values of Christianity. Namely, these are charity, in that the poorest are to be enfranchised and cared for, self-sacrifice and selflessness, that you endeavour the better the lives of others through your work by undertaking a socially useful project, rather than one from which you directly profit and by extension, love of neighbour.

However, I find a lot, oftentimes surprisingly well-educated Catholics who see Socialist theory as a threat to Christian values, and see Capitalist theory as a champion of them. A common theme in this argument seems to be that Christianity is a religion which seeks to uphold human dignity, and that, in the view of many of you, Socialism is counter to this. From my point of view, human dignity is that we are to try to be free from sin, able to fully live up to the commandment to love-thy-neighour, and to me this necessitates radical self-sacrifice, humility, and difference to others. Quite a lot of you, though, seem to believe that the private-property and personal-enterprise provisions in Capitalist theory fully articulate human dignity, in that they give humans volition of their own.

So, I am very curious to:

1. Find out if my if thew question proposed in my title is based in any form of fact
2. See the justification people on the right find for socialism being unchristian

I have theorized it may be to do with Marx’s personal anti-religious beliefs creating a necessity for the Church to align with the capitalist-west, and the influence of the cold war and Americanism. I will be fascinated to find out the truth of this matter.

 

[SimmieKay]

(Discalimer: Whilst I am a Catholic and a Socialist, I do not intend real world politics to be discussed here. Please treat the subject as a compatibility test between two philosophies)

I notice a lot of Catholics seem to have a habitual, almost inherent fear of socialism. To me, socialist theory, which is based on a critique of an economic system which, (if the theory is to be believed), commodities and dehumanizes the person and seeks to make them property (and has) in the pursuit of profit, and one which champions hedonistic values such as self-preservation and success and the accumulation of wealth, articulates very neatly the core values of Christianity. Namely, these are charity, in that the poorest are to be enfranchised and cared for, self-sacrifice and selflessness, that you endeavour the better the lives of others through your work by undertaking a socially useful project, rather than one from which you directly profit and by extension, love of neighbour.

However, I find a lot, oftentimes surprisingly well-educated Catholics who see Socialist theory as a threat to Christian values, and see Capitalist theory as a champion of them. A common theme in this argument seems to be that Christianity is a religion which seeks to uphold human dignity, and that, in the view of many of you, Socialism is counter to this. From my point of view, human dignity is that we are to try to be free from sin, able to fully live up to the commandment to love-thy-neighour, and to me this necessitates radical self-sacrifice, humility, and difference to others. Quite a lot of you, though, seem to believe that the private-property and personal-enterprise provisions in Capitalist theory fully articulate human dignity, in that they give humans volition of their own.

So, I am very curious to:

1. Find out if my if thew question proposed in my title is based in any form of fact
2. See the justification people on the right find for socialism being unchristian

I have theorized it may be to do with Marx’s personal anti-religious beliefs creating a necessity for the Church to align with the capitalist-west, and the influence of the cold war and Americanism. I will be fascinated to find out the truth of this matter.

I think we have to distinguish between pure socialism (the idea that all the economy, or at least the vast majority of it, should be government-owned) from more moderate forms of the doctrine. I think it is clear from the teachings of the Popes that pure socialism, with total state control of the economy, is beyond the bounds of what is acceptable per Church teachings. In particular, it violates the teaching of subsidiarity, with an excessive concentration of economic power in the hands of the state. However, more moderate forms of socialism, in which there is government control of some sectors of the economy, but with there remaining substantial areas of private ownership, I don’t believe that is incompatible with Church teaching.

Pope Leo XIII condemned socialism in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. However, I believe that his condemnation was of pure or extreme forms of socialism, not more moderate forms of socialism.

The term “socialism” means different things in different countries, and popular feelings about the term vary greatly from country to country. In Eastern Europe, for many it brings back memories of Communist oppression; in parts of Western Europe, it instead brings to mind social democratic parties which seek a substantial increase of government involvement in the economy without anything near a complete government takeover. If in some countries, many Catholics take a certain attitude towards the term, that may be more due to what the term means (or is taken to mean) in the context of that country and its history, than anything specific to the Church’s teachings.

I think that, per Rerum Novarum, both pure socialism and pure capitalism are outside the bounds of acceptable thought for Catholics. But, there is a great deal of territory in between, and the Church doesn’t claim to decide specific policy questions within that territory. To give a real world example - in Australia, the previous national government felt that the private sector wasn’t doing enough to establish fast Internet, so it established a government-owned Internet provider to do this. To a certain degree, this is a limited form of socialism - many economic conservatives would argue the government has no business establishing an Internet company, especially one designed to take over most of the wholesale Internet market in a country. But, whether one thinks it is a good idea or not, that is not the sort of question it is the Church’s job to answer. It is “socialism” in a sense, but it is not socialism in the sense of the doctrine that Rerum Novarum condemns. Some individual Catholics support this government policy, some individual Catholics oppose it (indeed, there are Catholic politicians who support it, and Catholic politicians who opposed it, at least in its original form) but I’ve never heard any Catholic word their support/opposition in terms of the Church’s teaching.

Simon

 

[GEddie]

I’d imagine that this attitude is largely USA-based and originates from a) a cultural preference for capitalism, and b) a belief that socialism and “godless communism” are or are nearly the same.

IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

This is what the Popes have said about Socialism:

PIUS IX (1846-1878)

The Overthrow of Order

“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.”
(Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

LEO XIII (1878-1903)

Overthrow is Deliberately Planned

“… 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.”
(Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27)

Debasing the Natural Union of Man and Woman

“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust.
(Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

LEO XIII (1878-1903)

Overthrow is Deliberately Planned

“… 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.”
(Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27)

Debasing the Natural Union of Man and Woman

“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust.
(Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914)

The Dream of Re-Shaping Society will Bring Socialism

“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.”
(Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique “Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922)

Never Forget the Condemnation of Socialism

“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.”
(Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

PIUS XI (1922-1939)

Socialism Cannot Be Reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

“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.”
(Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

Catholic Socialism is a Contradiction

“[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.” (Ibid. n. 120)

PIUS XII (1939-1958)

The Church Will Fight Socialism to the End

“[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." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The All-Powerful State Harms True Prosperity

“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.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963)

“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”

“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.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

PAUL VI (1963-1978)

Christians Tend to Idealize Socialism

“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.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005)

Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”

“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.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus - On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - 2013)

We do not Need a State which Controls Everything

“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.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

Nonetheless all of the above Popes, while not condemning Capitalism as evil per se (unlike Socialism), have also stated that excessive materialism that puts profits before people are also immoral.

I myself leans more towards Distributism.

 

[SimmieKay]

Johann du Toit, you can quote Popes condemning “socialism”, or even “moderate socialism”, but the question is - what exactly did each Pope mean by that phrase? That cannot be answered by mere quotations, only by a detailed reading of each Papal statement in its textual and historical context. If the original poster wants to call themselves a “Catholic Socialist”, I would not presume to judge their beliefs as condemned by the Magisterium without a detailed analysis of what exactly they mean by “socialism”, and what exactly the various Popes who have condemned it have meant by that term - if they mean by the term something other than what was condemned, then ipso facto their beliefs have not been condemned.

Simon

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I am not judging anyone. I am just stating that true Socialism as it was originally envisioned, i.e abolition of private property, collectivization, revolution, atheism and dogmatic marxism, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, there are a lot of positive policies that I support that were once considered Socialist, but which have now been adopted by many politicians on the centre and centre right, such as universal health care, free education, provision of social security, minimum wage and maximum working hours etc.

If socialism merely means helping to improve the lot of the working and middle classes and focusing on practical means to fight poverty and economic injustice, without abolishing private property and free enterprise, and having an honest debate on progressive taxation, then that is not antiethical to Catholic teaching.

 

[commenter]

The Catholic Church learns from experience. Socialism has been tried in many different kinds of countries, every model somewhat different from the last. It has always led to
the same kinds of problems. Individual liberty is curtailed. The government takes on more and more power, in many areas of life not anticipated originally. The national government absorbs functions formerly served by local government. No matter how much they claim the State to be neutral on religion, invariably there arises a kind of secular humanism, the State promoting its own brand of religion.

If an experiment has been tried multiple times, under many different social conditions, in very different political circumstances, and always produces the same negative results, this refutes the idea constantly proposed, “Oh, but our new way of socialism is designed with safeguards against the tyranny and inefficiency produced in the 40 or so prior experiments.”

Baloney. All the earlier socialism experiments promised the same safeguards for religion and individual liberty. They all failed. Insanity is repeating the same intervention over and over again, expecting a different result.

It is true there are also problems with capitalism. That is why Catholic teaching is based on Distributism. Read Chesterton and Belloc.

 

[Church_Militant]

Probably because to many of them think of it in the context of Godless Communism, which is not really the same thing. Note the following New Testament examples.

***Acts 2: [44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common; [45] and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4:[32] Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. [33] And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. [34] There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. [36] Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, [37] sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

So there is indeed a scriptural precedent for Christian socialism, but it somewhat flies in the face of capitalism as most of the West sees it. *
**

 

[Vouthon]

The problem with “Socialism” is that it has become a terribly vague term.

Originally, it had a fairly specific technical definition: state ownership of the means of production and enforced abolition of private property. This ideology is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine, whether taken in its “pure” Marxian form or in any other variation.

However since the early 20th century, the term ‘socialism’ has been used as a synonym for Social Democracy, which refers to economic intervention by the state to promote social justice within a free-market economy. This is not condemned by Catholic Social Teaching and indeed correlates very well with it in many respects. One form of social democracy, known as the ‘Social Market Economy’ has been explicitly favoured by Bishops in Europe since its creation in the 1950s. This economic system was directly inspired by Catholic Doctrine:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

The social market economy (German: Soziale Marktwirtschaft) is a form of market capitalism combined with a social policy favoring social insurance,[1] and is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy.[2]…

The social market economy was designed to be a third way between laissez-faire economic liberalism and socialist economics.[5] It was strongly inspired by ordoliberalism,[6] social democratic ideas, and the tradition of Catholic social teaching or, more generally, Christian ethics.[5]

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once stated in a speech:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

Many Catholics in Europe vote and have always voted for ‘social democratic’ parties that often label themselves (some would say inaccurately) as being “socialist”, with the full endorsement of the Church. Labour was always the traditional party of choice for British Catholics. If I may quote from a book, “The Foundations of the British Labour Party”:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fki0YScKbA8C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=catholic+socialist+britain+labour+1918&source=bl&ots=2uCiaFSCCp&sig=8HrpikP1M0leWocFATxEvqQNah4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCJOVYHFLePR7QaTvIG4BA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=catholic%20socialist%20britain%20labour%201918&f=true

“…The religiosity of tone that British socialism acquired reciprocally served to reduce tensions with the churches. In particular, it helped to reassure the Catholic hierarchy in Britain that, in contrast to the materialism and atheism detected in Continental socialist movements, the Labour Party was both compatible with Catholicism and a bulwark against Communism…Labour was thus able to draw much of the Catholic working class to its camp.…”

Yet their “socialism” had nothing to do with Marxist-Leninism - whether “pure” or “moderate” in form (until Mr Corbyn came along this year that is ).

It is therefore very complex, as Blessed Pope Paul VI explained:

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens.html

Attraction of socialist currents

1. Some Christians are today attracted by socialist currents and their various developments. They try to recognize therein a certain number of aspirations which they carry within themselves in the name of their faith. They feel that they are part of that historical current and wish to play a part within it. Now this historical current takes on, under the same name, different forms according to different continents and cultures, even if it drew its inspiration, and still does in many cases, from ideologies incompatible with faith. Careful judgment is called for. 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. **Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. **Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link which, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.

 

[marymary1975]

I think is because people confuse Marxist socialism( a path to arrive to communism)/communism which is inherently atheist and anti religious (and which is what Pope Leo quoted above referred to) and which is what existed in the Soviet Union and China, with Democratic Socialism.which is what exists in the Netherlands, Denmark, and many other European.countries. Most people in the US are completely unaware of the difference, hence they think everything is the same.and are against it.

I also think it has to do.with the fact that in the US full.freedom.is a.very.ingrained concept. in socialist places Governments have a lot of control over everything and I don’t think that idea sits wells here where people want very little intermission of the government in their life.

 

[Vouthon]

It is true there are also problems with capitalism. That is why Catholic teaching is based on Distributism. Read Chesterton and Belloc.

Catholic Social Teaching is not based on any economic model. It derives from divine revelation and rational deductions based upon natural law.

Its function is not to promote a “third way” between Socialism and Capitalism, nor is it to endorse any one particular model in and of itself.

Rather its purpose is to clarify for Catholics the degrees of commitment that are possible vis-a-vis a given economic system without contravening natural law and ethics. Distributism is one possible economic system that is in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine. It cannot, however, be held up as the Catholic model of the economy. There are many others, for instance “Solidarism”:

emphaticalism.org/Solidarism.php

The passing of the eminent American Catholic economist, Dr. Rupert J. Ederer, at the age of ninety on Thanksgiving Day 2013 calls attention to** the great, but equally unsung, economic thinker and system that he devoted most of his career to furthering: Heinrich Pesch, S.J. and solidarism. Pesch, who died in 1926, was thought to have inspired Pope Pius XI’s great social encyclical Quadragesimo Anno five years later. In spite of Pesch’s relative obscurity, Ederer called him an economic “system builder,” on par with Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes—although the system he constructed was based firmly on Catholic teaching and the natural law. The word “solidarism” rings of the principle of solidarity, which has been stressed more recently in Catholic social teaching. In fact, solidarism is also referred to as “the solidarity work system.” There is some indication that Pesch’s solidarism influenced the famed Solidarity trade union movement in Poland** that rose to prominence a generation ago and led the way to the collapse of Eastern European communism.

What, broadly, are the basics of solidarism? First, it rejects both individualism and collectivism and seeks to uphold the good of both the individual and society. In short, it embraces the common good as understood by sound ethics. Second, there is a solidarity among all men because of, simply, their common humanity. There is also a more particular solidarity among people in the same nation and within the same occupation or industry or area of the economy. That means that there is or should be solidarity between employers and workers; both need each other to achieve successful economic results. This does not mean that there may not be competing interests on each side—so that, say, labor unions don’t have a purpose—but that these interests can be balanced and reconciled. Class conflict is not inevitable. Its stress on such solidarity distinguishes solidarism from both economic liberalism and Marxism.

The Church has outlasted many systems including feudalism, laissez-faire capitalism, colonial mercantilism, totalitarian socialism, fascist corporatism et al. It has condemned many of the former economic systems outright as being incompatible with Catholic Social Teaching. None of them exist any more in their “pure” form, unsurprisingly, despite the fact that they were once heralded as “utopian” ideals by their devotees.

Forms of both capitalism and socialism - which are very broad categories - have been condemned by the Church. Within these very wide margins there is room for various levels of commitment. Discernment, under the guidance of the Social Doctrine of the Magisterium, is needed.

Liberal capitalism of the libertarian variety is certainly condemned by Catholic Social Teaching, no matter what some biased American pundits might tell you, precisely because it deifies the “individual” and promotes self-interest at the expense of solidarity. Likewise totalitarian socialism with its deificaton of the state contravenes subsidiarity and has always been condemned by the Church.

Once these two “extreme” evils are dispensed with (sadly the first one still exists and is worshipped by some Americans whereas the latter has thankfully been consigned to history for the most part thanks to the fall of the Soviet Union) there is “wiggle-room” for Catholics to have legitimate disagreements about economic matters stretching along a continuum from what secular theory would call “centre-left” to “centre-right”.

 

[marymary1975]

The problem with “Socialism” is that it has become a terribly vague term.

Originally, it had a fairly specific technical definition: state ownership of the means of production and enforced abolition of private property. This ideology is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine, whether taken in its “pure” Marxian form or in any other variation.

However since the early 20th century, the term ‘socialism’ has been used as a synonym for Social Democracy, which refers to economic intervention by the state to promote social justice within a free-market economy. This is not condemned by Catholic Social Teaching and indeed correlates very well with it in many respects. One form of social democracy, known as the ‘Social Market Economy’ has been explicitly favoured by Bishops in Europe since its creation in the 1950s. This economic system was directly inspired by Catholic Doctrine:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once stated in a speech:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

Many Catholics in Europe vote and have always voted for ‘social democratic’ parties that often label themselves (some would say inaccurately) as being “socialist”, with the full endorsement of the Church. Labour was always the traditional party of choice for British Catholics. If I may quote from a book, “The Foundations of the British Labour Party”:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fki0YScKbA8C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=catholic+socialist+britain+labour+1918&source=bl&ots=2uCiaFSCCp&sig=8HrpikP1M0leWocFATxEvqQNah4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCJOVYHFLePR7QaTvIG4BA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=catholic%20socialist%20britain%20labour%201918&f=true

Yet their “socialism” had nothing to do with Marxist-Leninism - whether “pure” or “moderate” in form (until Mr Corbyn came along this year that is ).

It is therefore very complex, as Blessed Pope Paul VI explained:

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens.html

very well written post

 

[Vouthon]

I think is because people confuse Marxist socialism( a path to arrive to communism)/communism which is inherently atheist and anti religious (and which is what Pope Leo quoted above referred to) and which is what existed in the Soviet Union and China, with Democratic Socialism.which is what exists in the Netherlands, Denmark, and many other European.countries. Most people in the US are completely unaware of the difference, hence they think everything is the same.and are against it.

I also think it has to do.with the fact that in the US full.freedom.is a.very.ingrained concept. in socialist places Governments have a lot of control over everything and I don’t think that idea sits wells here where people want very little intermission of the government in their life.

Great post and very true. There is an American national preference, on account of your nation’s history of “rights” and “popular sovereignty”, for ‘individualism’ in the economic sphere with minimal state interference.

While in and of itself this “tendency” isn’t necessarily problematic as far as Catholic Social Doctrine is concerned, since people and countries are entitled to have their own economic preferences, it becomes a serious problem if the logic of liberal individualism in economics is taken to an “extreme”.

It also becomes a problem if “American exceptionalism” leads US citizens, especially Catholics (who have a greater responsibility as children of the Church first and nationals of their own state second), to erroneously hold up the particular variant of liberal capitalism practised in the US as the “perfect”, God-given system - which it most definitely is not - and as an exemplar for other countries, for example the social-democratic ones in Europe that you refer too.

One sometimes finds this to be the case, particularly, among so-called ‘Traditionalist’ Catholics in the US - the irony of course being that there is nothing ‘traditional’ about capitalism, an economic system pioneered by secular theorists that has never been endorsed by the church in principle - although ‘variants’ of it, such as the social market economy, have been adapted under the influence of Catholic teaching and are therefore acceptable (even, perhaps desirable at present).

Again the analysis of Blessed Pope Paul VI is very illuminating:

Immediately following his section on socialism and the various levels of commitment possible for Catholics, Pope Paul has two sections entitled, “Marxism” and the “Liberal Ideology” in which he makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Marxian collectivist or a Liberal capitalist. His view of “socialism” is cautious but nuanced in comparison, based upon the fact that it is such a generalized term.

A little earlier on in the Apostolic Letter he notes:

Ideologies and human liberty

1. Therefore the Christian who wishes to live his faith in a political activity which he thinks of as service cannot without contradicting himself adhere to ideological systems which radically or substantially go against his faith and his concept of man. He cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history; nor can he adhere to the liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by with drawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarities as more or less automatic consequences of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of the social organization…

Where some Americans might fall by the wayside is that “liberalism” for the Catholic Church refers to the “classical” liberalism of laissez-faire style economics and modern libertarianism, as one can see from his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio:

Earlier on in the encyclical he explicitly attacks the ideology of liberal capitalism:

Unbridled Liberalism

1. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. **These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations

This unbridled liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny**, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the “international imperialism of money.”(26)

Such improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man. (27)

Elsewhere in the encyclical he defines this “liberal” economic and philosophical theory again:

Section 33# of the encyclical:

33 Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations

 

[Neofight]

Because many of the many you ask about, know less about Catholicism or Socialism than they think they might.

 

[NovusFidem]

I dislike Socialism for a much simpler reason: if we leave the State to do every “good” work, what is there for us to do?

Sure, people will be fed. But they’ll be fed, not because people are good and do good, but because people pay taxes. In a **perfect **socialist society, while every “mundane” concern will be taken care of (habitation, education, health, safety), there will be no place for Charity.

If people evolved into a “socialist society” by themselves, it would be one thing. Everyone would be working for the good of everyone. Kudos to them! That would mean a change of heart in the population, causing a transformation in Society by each of their own actions, as individuals. Hospital workers would be doing that because they care, not because of the money. Teachers would teach because they love their students. Even the bus driver would be working because he finds joy in taking people to places they want to be. Everyone would be taken care of, because everyone would care about everyone.That would be Charity working.

But with Socialism as an ideology, acting in our government, we would be forced into doing that work. People would still be mean, resentful, and would only be working in hospitals because they need hospitals, teachers would be teaching because the government says that’s what they have to do, and a bus driver would only drive people places because he needs to fill his quota in order to be paid his share of the economy they live. This lacks charity in every sense. If you go the extreme route, in a Socialist society that strives for secularism, THEN you’d have it worse. People would see everyone fed and all, and would ask themselves: “why do I need to care about their needs, if everyone is taken care of?”

If you compare the two examples I gave, you’ll see, for example, why Pope Francis said that Socialism copies Christianity, and not the other way around. Socialism sees the good that can be done, but doesn’t understand where the good comes from: the good doesn’t come from fed people and children in schools; the good comes from within each of us. And that is something socialism will never be able to change; it will only make it more difficult, for curbing our own freedom to do things.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I am not judging anyone. I am just stating that true Socialism as it was originally envisioned, i.e abolition of private property, collectivization, revolution, atheism and dogmatic marxism, is incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, there are a lot of positive policies that I support that were once considered Socialist, but which have now been adopted by many politicians on the centre and centre right, such as universal health care, free education, provision of social security, minimum wage and maximum working hours etc.

If socialism merely means helping to improve the lot of the working and middle classes and focusing on practical means to fight poverty and economic injustice, without abolishing private property and free enterprise, and having an honest debate on progressive taxation, then that is not antiethical to Catholic teaching.

I find it very telling that the quotes you highlighted reflect exactly what it is the Church might have to fear from the initial Marxist form of Socialism, Communism, and very rarely represent a rational critique.

A common theme in those arguments was “loss of order” - terrible wealth distribution and commoditisation of a workforce were serious problems in early industrial societies, leading to widespread poverty and creating the “order” of a large working class. Additonally, in the remaining fuedal societies, the Church retained its land and income purely because social mobility was impossible. The Church of the past benefited from the presence of “order” and sought to intellectually justify it. To me, your first few quotes are merely reflective of the times when the Church failed to properly articulate and hold to its own beliefs. The only rational critique I found was about the inefficiency of a state-monopoly, but then, that’s an economic critique, not a religious one.

I would very much like someone to explain why private property, seemingly of any size, is considered the paramount good a society can provide, and used to condemn system which offers, in theory, stability and free-access to public service, in a faith context. Why is private property this great good? (note, I don’t oppose private property)

Thank you for providing those quotes, though, it’s at least interesting to discover what exactly it is popes have said on the subject, even it seems transparently self-serving, as I thought.

 

[NovusFidem]

I would very much like someone to explain why private property, seemingly of any size, is considered the paramount good a society can provide, and used to condemn system which offers, in theory, stability and free-access to public service, in a faith context. Why is private property this great good? (note, I don’t oppose private property)

Because it is someone’s property. Adding to my tirade up there, it would be one thing for me to offer everything I have to the State to redistribute (which I can do in a Capitalist society). It would be another thing for me to **insist **that you do the same (which would happen in a Socialist society).

It is the “paramount good” because you have the option to choose what to do with it - you can do good with it (share with others), or evil (keep to yourself, even if yo have 5 other laying around). It’s just like free will, in a sense, I guess.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

I dislike Socialism for a much simpler reason: if we leave the State to do every “good” work, what is there for us to do?

Sure, people will be fed. But they’ll be fed, not because people are good and do good, but because people pay taxes. In a **perfect **socialist society, while every “mundane” concern will be taken care of (habitation, education, health, safety), there will be no place for Charity.

If people evolved into a “socialist society” by themselves, it would be one thing. Everyone would be working for the good of everyone. Kudos to them! That would mean a change of heart in the population, causing a transformation in Society by each of their own actions, as individuals. Hospital workers would be doing that because they care, not because of the money. Teachers would teach because they love their students. Even the bus driver would be working because he finds joy in taking people to places they want to be. Everyone would be taken care of, because everyone would care about everyone.That would be Charity working.

But with Socialism as an ideology, acting in our government, we would be forced into doing that work. People would still be mean, resentful, and would only be working in hospitals because they need hospitals, teachers would be teaching because the government says that’s what they have to do, and a bus driver would only drive people places because he needs to fill his quota in order to be paid his share of the economy they live. This lacks charity in every sense. If you go the extreme route, in a Socialist society that strives for secularism, THEN you’d have it worse. People would see everyone fed and all, and would ask themselves: “why do I need to care about their needs, if everyone is taken care of?”

If you compare the two examples I gave, you’ll see, for example, why Pope Francis said that Socialism copies Christianity, and not the other way around. Socialism sees the good that can be done, but doesn’t understand where the good comes from: the good doesn’t come from fed people and children in schools; the good comes from within each of us. And that is something socialism will never be able to change; it will only make it more difficult, for curbing our own freedom to do things.

I find it a common theme also in Americanism that the state, an elected body, in generally seen as an entity other than the people, instead of one representative of the people and, in some cases where direct democracy is being trialed, identical to the people. To me, since socialist theory requires the democratic participation of every member of society (notice I say theory, not Soviet Union), then it inherently does allow for the individual to, his or herself, articulate christian values.

However, I take and understand your point. Perhaps I have a little less faith in humanity, but I personally wouldn’t allow an unrestrained free-market unless I sincerely believe it could be ran with christian values (which if, for instance, Indiana’s RFRA proves it can’t - as if Jesus would fire gay people), and I see no evidence for a move towards that. If anything, captialism is as much a materialist ideology as Marx’s original writings in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.

Because it is someone’s property. Adding to my tirade up there, it would be one thing for me to offer everything I have to the State to redistribute (which I can do in a Capitalist society). It would be another thing for me to **insist **that you do the same (which would happen in a Socialist society).

It is the “paramount good” because you have the option to choose what to do with it - you can do good with it (share with others), or evil (keep to yourself, even if yo have 5 other laying around). It’s just like free will, in a sense, I guess.

Thank you, again, we seem to be getting to the heart of the issue. You deem it a matter of volition.

To me, a socialist society doesn’t deny a human the ability to be virtuous and christian of their own volition. I say this because a person raised in a socialist system would still be able to choose a profession that allows them benefit humanity. In capitalist systems, taxation still exists, and this is mandatory, some socialist societies merely reconfigure this system of involuntary taxation and use it to fund either state-enterprise or state-monopolies. A person would still be free to be charitable of their own volition, in merely ensures that, if people don’t, the disenfranchised in society are still looked to.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

The problem with “Socialism” is that it has become a terribly vague term.

Originally, it had a fairly specific technical definition: state ownership of the means of production and enforced abolition of private property. This ideology is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine, whether taken in its “pure” Marxian form or in any other variation.

However since the early 20th century, the term ‘socialism’ has been used as a synonym for Social Democracy, which refers to economic intervention by the state to promote social justice within a free-market economy. This is not condemned by Catholic Social Teaching and indeed correlates very well with it in many respects. One form of social democracy, known as the ‘Social Market Economy’ has been explicitly favoured by Bishops in Europe since its creation in the 1950s. This economic system was directly inspired by Catholic Doctrine:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

This is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once stated in a speech:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents

Many Catholics in Europe vote and have always voted for ‘social democratic’ parties that often label themselves (some would say inaccurately) as being “socialist”, with the full endorsement of the Church. Labour was always the traditional party of choice for British Catholics. If I may quote from a book, “The Foundations of the British Labour Party”:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fki0YScKbA8C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=catholic+socialist+britain+labour+1918&source=bl&ots=2uCiaFSCCp&sig=8HrpikP1M0leWocFATxEvqQNah4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCJOVYHFLePR7QaTvIG4BA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=catholic%20socialist%20britain%20labour%201918&f=true

Yet their “socialism” had nothing to do with Marxist-Leninism - whether “pure” or “moderate” in form (until Mr Corbyn came along this year that is ).

It is therefore very complex, as Blessed Pope Paul VI explained:

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-vi_apl_19710514_octogesima-adveniens.html

Well, I am a member of the British Labour Party and was one of the 300,000 people who voted for Mr Corbyn, and I have to say, I’m very proud of his conduct so far. In fact, he drew controversy for refusing to sing “God Save the Queen”, specifically resisting a protestant institution, though for anti-nationalistic motivations. Nationalism is hardly a friend of the Church. I think it’s also pretty contrived to think Corbyn is a Marxist, considering his policies, aside from essential commodities, are to be achieved by state-enterprise.

Anyway, you are forgetting the addendum to your definition of socialism, namely that each citizen actively participate in government, and that government and people are identical.