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

[Vouthon]

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.

His policies at present are not Marxist, precisely because cooler heads in the party are aware that this would not only be unelectable but impractical.

He is himself a Marxist though. He has said so openly in the past. I do no trust a Marxist with the UK economy, just as I would not trust a libertarian capitalist.

I also think that what he did with the Queen was disrespectful. As Catholics we are bound to render to Caeser his (or in this case her) due. If you are willing to serve as the official opposition within a parliamentary system, I think that you should respect the legitimate government of the polity, at least in public.

You are right that the Church is no fan of nationalism, being itself an international and supranational body. However I do not think that is why Corbyn disrespected the Queen. He did it because he wants a republic, which most Brits do not want. The Church does not endorse one political system over another, so I see no reason why a republic is to be preferred to a constitutional monarchy.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

His policies at present are not Marxist, precisely because cooler heads in the party are aware that this would not only be unelectable but impractical.

He is himself a Marxist though. He has said so openly in the past. I do no trust a Marxist with the UK economy, just as I would not trust a libertarian capitalist.

I also think that what he did with the Queen was disrespectful. As Catholics we are bound to render to Caeser his (or in this case her) due. If you are willing to serve as the official opposition within a parliamentary system, I think that you should respect the legitimate government of the polity, at least in public.

You are right that the Church is no fan of nationalism, being itself an international and supranational body. However I do not think that is why Corbyn disrespected the Queen. He did it because he wants a republic, which most Brits do not want. The Church does not endorse one political system over another, so I see no reason why a republic is to be preferred to a constitutional monarchy.

Well, I think his motivation might have been that, since it was a war-commemoration service, that he felt singing the national anthem to remember the dead white-washes them and denies them any form of personality or volition of their own. I say this because he, owing to the 80% support for the monarchy, will not pursue a republic-referrendum.

I think most people who argue a republic desire one because, even though the queen doesn’t rule, she, to many abroad, represents the UK, and most feel that the representative should be democratically elected to allow for people of all races and religious (British Muslims and Catholics are excluded by the monarchy) to be represented. Also, many want a republic to allow the UK to have a constitution, one which explicitly provides freedom of religion, equality of race etc.

 

[Vouthon]

Well, I think his motivation might have been that, since it was a war-commemoration service, that he felt singing the national anthem to remember the dead white-washes them and denies them any form of personality or volition of their own. I say this because he, owing to the 80% support for the monarchy, will not pursue a republic-referrendum.

I think most people who argue a republic desire one because, even though the queen doesn’t rule, she, to many abroad, represents the UK, and most feel that the representative should be democratically elected to allow for people of all races and religious (British Muslims and Catholics are excluded by the monarchy) to be represented. Also, many want a republic to allow the UK to have a constitution, one which explicitly provides freedom of religion, equality of race etc.

On a purely personal level, I am politically neutral regarding the desirability of republics over constitutional monarchies. Admittedly, it is not something I think about on a daily basis or feel particularly strongly about either way.

The important thing to consider, however, is that the British state is synonymous with the monarchy. I honestly could not conceive of the life of this nation without it. The monarchy is an institution integral to the political, legal and cultural history of the country in a manner comparable only to the stature of the Constitution in the US.

We tried republicanism, if you recall, once before and it didn’t go very well. In fact the English had a revolution in 1649 at the end of the Civil War led by Parliamentarian Puritans under Oliver Cromwell, who tried and executed King Charles II before declaring the entire British Isles (then Three quasi-independent Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland) a single unified Republic called the ‘Commonwealth’:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

The Commonwealth was the period from 1649 onwards when England, along later with Ireland and Scotland,[1] was ruled as a republic following the end of the Second English Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles I. The republic’s existence was initially declared through “An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth”,[2] adopted by the Rump Parliament on 19 May 1649. Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in the Parliament and a Council of State. During the period, fighting continued, particularly in Ireland and Scotland, between the parliamentary forces and those opposed to them, as part of what is now referred to as the Third English Civil War. It was tremendously unpopular and became a military dictatorship, such that the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660

I just don’t feel that republicanism “suits” the British character.

 

[dmar198]

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)

I don’t think the Church teaches that private property is “the paramount good a society can provide,” especially not “[in] any size.” But it is a great good, and Pope Leo XIII gives 13 reasons why in Rerum Novarum Paragraphs 5-15:

13 Reasons Why Private Property is a Foundational Civil Right - from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum

1. Private Property is a motive to do work - “[W]hen a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own.” (Rerum Novarum 5)
2. Private Property is a just reward of labor - “If one man hires [himself] out to another…he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases.” (Rerum Novarum 5)
3. Private Property encourages responsibility - “[If a man] lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor.” (Rerum Novarum 5)
4. Private Property is a fruit of man’s intellect - “[Because] man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use…but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.” (Rerum Novarum 6)
5. Private Property is a fruit of man’s free will - “[Man is] master of his own acts, [and] guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God… Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice [about] matters that regard his present welfare, [and] also about [his welfare] in time yet to come.” (Rerum Novarum 7)
6. Private Property helps us prepare for the future - “[Man should] not only [possess] the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man’s needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits.” (Rerum Novarum 7)
7. Private Property existed before the State - “Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.” (Rerum Novarum 7)
8. Private Property helps everyone serve their needs - “[T]he earth [is] apportioned among private owners [but it] minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one’s own land, or from some toil.” (Rerum Novarum 8)
   [*]Private Property is the just fruit of hard labor - “[Here] we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. … [For] when [a person] turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates… he should [therefore] possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” (Rerum Novarum 9)
   [*]Private Property follows the law of cause and effect - “As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.” (Rerum Novarum 10)
   [*]Private Property is in the Bible - “The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another’s: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his [donkey], nor anything that is his.” (Rerum Novarum 11)
   [*]Private Property is necessary to families - “[There is] no other way [that] a father [can care for his family] except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.” (Rerum Novarum 13)
   [*]Private Property helps alleviate poverty - “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” (Rerum Novarum 15)
   

in the remaining fuedal societies, the Church retained its land and income purely because social mobility was impossible.

Social mobility was not impossible in feudal society. Serfs, for example, could become free men. Three ways included: they could save up enough money to buy their freedom, they could be set free because their lords thought they had earned it, or they could be set free through charity.

 

[Vouthon]

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.

This is one area where Catholic Social Teaching appears to differ markedly from liberal capitalism in its classical form.

Both are passionate supporters of the right to private ownership. However Catholic doctrine promotes a limited ownership, whereas capitalism endorses an absolute view of ownership.

In the absolute view of property ownership, it can only be relinquished at will i.e. by charitable giving.

Because of the Catholic teaching on the universal destination of goods, we have a somewhat different take: in cases of need all things are common property.

St. Thomas Aquinas explained in the 13th century, following in the foot steps of the Church Fathers, that whatever resources the wealthy have in excess - beyond what is necessary for their comfort - belongs “by right to the poor” such that it is not to be considered theft if the poor should use the property of the rich to satiate their hunger or need in extreme times. Had this been followed by Europeans in the 17th-early 20th centuries, I’m sure a lot of the problems underlying the French and Russian revolutions might have been mitigated, such that these catastrophes could have been avoided. Instead we had lords shooting to death starving poor men stealing the odd chicken to feed their impoverished families.

For while the Church believes that the right to property to be essential for the good of society and argues that it must be upheld, it does not see property ownership as an “absolute” right like right-wing Libertarians would, for instance. It has a social dimension, namely the common good.

Not allowing the poor to share in our goods is to “steal” from their natural law right to a share in the common goods of the earth, since natural law takes precedence over any positive law, and therefore commit mortal sin:

newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm

In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

The ‘Decretals’ St. Thomas mentions are of course a reference to Gratian’s compilation and codification of canon law, which included this precept in it.

This provides a moral basis for a degree of redistributive taxation in a country marked by grave disparities in wealth that are in turn caused by a free market guided by ‘trickle-down’ economics.

Thus we find Pope Leo XIII say in his 1891 social encyclical:

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

1. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own.** Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves**, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

On a purely personal level, I am politically neutral regarding the desirability of republics over constitutional monarchies. Admittedly, it is not something I think about on a daily basis or feel particularly strongly about either way.

The important thing to consider, however, is that the British state is synonymous with the monarchy. I honestly could not conceive of the life of this nation without it. The monarchy is an institution integral to the political, legal and cultural history of the country in a manner comparable only to the stature of the Constitution in the US.

We tried republicanism, if you recall, once before and it didn’t go very well. In fact the English had a revolution in 1649 at the end of the Civil War led by Parliamentarian Puritans under Oliver Cromwell, who tried and executed King Charles II before declaring the entire British Isles (then Three quasi-independent Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland) a single unified Republic called the ‘Commonwealth’:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

I just don’t feel that republicanism “suits” the British character.

Well our previous Republic failed because of the particular conditions of the day, ill-defined, often self serving factions owing to the land-owning selection process for parliament. We now have distinct political parties and whips, and most parties generally desire to follow at least a certain set of egalitarian values which would allow for a proper constitution. We have all the infrastructure required for a republic.

As for “British character”, uniform cultural identities don’t really exist in modern societies. Owing to existence of the Internet, and wide access to media, distinct sub-cultures exist within the same society. Each individual is as distinct from another as it’s possible to be. I am British, and don’t particularly desire a monarchy (perhaps because I’m 19), therefore I disprove the statement that it’s “unbritish”. Even if there were a British character, it’s not genetic and is entirely taught over a lifetime, and therefore should be open to scrutiny and change.

Anyway, this is off-topic and not particularly relevant to socialism any more, so we should probably drop it.

 

[dmar198]

[Socialism] offers, in theory, stability and free-access to public service, in a faith context.

First, stability and access to public service are good things. And so is the faith context. As for “free-access” to public service, in some cases, yes, I think it is probable that access should be free. But not in all cases. Somebody has to pay for these services because all services use material goods and labor, and those things cost money. If citizens pay for their services on delivery, so to speak, that seems just, except in cases where they are unable to pay. In that case, the payment has to come from taxes, charity, or some other source. At least, that’s what I think. What are your thoughts?

Perhaps you and I have different understandings of socialism. In my understanding, socialism replaces Private ownership of business with State ownership of business. Is that your understanding as well? Because I think that is a fundamental reason why the Church has rejected socialism in the past. But from your posts, I get the impression that you think socialism means something much more benign: everyone gets what they need, and the poor get it for free. Is that what you mean by socialism?

 

[Vouthon]

Well our previous Republic failed because of the particular conditions of the day, ill-defined, often self serving factions owing to the land-owning selection process for parliament. We now have distinct political parties and whips, and most parties generally desire to follow at least a certain set of egalitarian values which would allow for a proper constitution. We have all the infrastructure required for a republic.

As for “British character”, uniform cultural identities don’t really exist in modern societies. Owing to existence of the Internet, and wide access to media, distinct sub-cultures exist within the same society. Each individual is as distinct from another as it’s possible to be. I am British, and don’t particularly desire a monarchy (perhaps because I’m 19), therefore I disprove the statement that it’s “unbritish”. Even if there were a British character, it’s not genetic and is entirely taught over a lifetime, and therefore should be open to scrutiny and change.

Anyway, this is off-topic and not particularly relevant to socialism any more, so we should probably drop it.

I am 23 years of age, so not a great deal older than you

With reference to ‘the British character’ I am not speaking of some mythical national conciousness.

I am referring to something much more tangible: our historical sense of solidarity as a political community, which has been anchored around the institutions of parliament and the monarchy.

I would also say that your argument about sub-cultures and differentiation between individuals is accurate but negates, by implication, any idea that the “State” is capable of top-down catering for the needs of all and nationalizing everything in the economy - as “pure” Socialism would demand. There is a need for private associations and a vibrant civil society that is adapted to the diverse, competing conceptions of the public good in a pluralistic social order.

Socialism of the “pure” Marxist form has never understood this, namely due to the fact that it is sees society as monolithic and the progress of history in terms of a uniform narrative of class-warfare. It is reductionist.

 

[estesbob]

(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.

Any well catechized Catholic would see this confilct

 

[Peebo]

I think it all depends on which county you live…ie…many (including Catholics) here in the US would view government controlled universal healthcare as socialism akin to communism…those countries who have universal healthcare would no doubt view it as a more compassionate system and as a right entitled by all its citizens… and view the US system as one controlled by private greed where its citizens are at the mercy of unsympathetic health insurance companies…this applies to other issues as well…most if not all Christian countries have done away with capital punishment except the US…same goes for gun control…other countries see the US as an anything goes gun crazy culture…the US views those countries with strict gun control laws as people controlled by socialist governments…so what is socialism to some is not socialism to others…and that would apply to many Catholics on both sides…

 

[Pat_Albertson]

If you want to share all of your worldly goods with, or give them all to, the poor, who and what is stopping you? Just give it all up and leave everybody else alone.

You don’t have the right to impose your will on other people, no matter how virtuous it makes you feel.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

First, stability and access to public service are good things. And so is the faith context. As for “free-access” to public service, in some cases, yes, I think it is probable that access should be free. But not in all cases. Somebody has to pay for these services because all services use material goods and labor, and those things cost money. If citizens pay for their services on delivery, so to speak, that seems just, except in cases where they are unable to pay. In that case, the payment has to come from taxes, charity, or some other source. At least, that’s what I think. What are your thoughts?

Perhaps you and I have different understandings of socialism. In my understanding, socialism replaces Private ownership of business with State ownership of business. Is that your understanding as well? Because I think that is a fundamental reason why the Church has rejected socialism in the past. But from your posts, I get the impression that you think socialism means something much more benign: everyone gets what they need, and the poor get it for free. Is that what you mean by socialism?

No - I think it means state ownership of the means of production. What I haven’t been able to glean thus far is exactly why people beleive the state, a democratic entity, in some cases directly so, is somehow distinct from the people, and therefore immoral.

Anyway, you’re right, someone does have to pay for it, and that person is the tax-payer. To me, it seems patently immoral that some Catholics in the U.S. Oppose Obamacare, for instance,purely because it denies a charitable individual the ability to provide charity to a sick person suffering from and arbitrary disease or affliction that, obviously, affects the virtuous and the virtueless in equal ensure. I personally do not think people have a right to surplus capital if that can be used to i prove the life of another, or for a social purpose. The difference is, I won’t wait for the person to overcome the failings of humanity to fund that social purpose.

On a purely practical level, as you’ll learn from macro-economics, to achieve a socially-useful purpose, large capital investments, and targeted ones, are preferable to the ran charity of individuals, as valuable as this is.

If you want to share all of your worldly goods with, or give them all to, the poor, who and what is stopping you? Just give it all up and leave everybody else alone.

You don’t have the right to impose your will on other people, no matter how virtuous it makes you feel.

And a socialist would argue that you have no right to hoard resources, especially if you’re a business owner, since it’s not built off of your own hard-endeavour but arbitrary invest,net of capital. It’s the product of the workers in your employ. Nor, in socialist theory, do you have the right to keep resources for yourself when they could be used for a social purpose.

If I thought my individual charity would help enough, I wouldn’t be a socialist. I am happy to have my taxes raised (when I graduate university, that is), but individual charity on the scale of the capital I can raise has never had any meaningful impact beyond the individual I might help.

 

[GEddie]

if we leave the State to do every “good” work, what is there for us to do?

And when average sinners are too self absorbed to do the good works, leave them undone rather than allow the political body to do them?

I would rather see the state take care of genuine human need than see the needs go unmet while waiting for private do-gooders, who are often a day too late and a dollar short.

If the Church stepped up to the plate when needed in NA, not only Obamacare, but the state-directed educational system everybody kvetches about would be unneeded. After all, the Church created both universities and hospitals in a world where none existed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

Thank you for the detailed reply.

I don’t think the Church teaches that private property is “the paramount good a society can provide,” especially not “[in] any size.” But it is a great good, and Pope Leo XIII gives 13 reasons why in Rerum Novarum Paragraphs 5-15:

13 Reasons Why Private Property is a Foundational Civil Right - from Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum

1. Private Property is a motive to do work - “[W]hen a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own.” (Rerum Novarum 5)

Is this desirable, though? Isn’t the purpose of Christianity to reconcile us with God, through Christ. Does a Godly person require incentive to work in terms of personal gain, rather than personal security for his/her family, and the ability to provide charity to others?

1. Private Property is a just reward of labor - “If one man hires [himself] out to another…he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases.” (Rerum Novarum 5)

Indeed, except it has been a hallmark of capitalist societies that the market desires to make commodities of workers. Indeed, the market created the conditions necessary for slavery, in that cotton prices dropped, and the cost of workers needed to be reduced. In fact, in some countries (like the U.S.), legislation against low-wages is routinely opposed by certain parties, ([cough]GOP[cough]) citing that the market will create wage competition. But this is a fiction, since for unskilled workers there is more incentive for companies to set a flat rate of pay between themselves than to compete for the same workers.

1. Private Property encourages responsibility - “[If a man] lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor.” (Rerum Novarum 5)

In an extremely materialistic framework, yes. Most people fear the loss of property, including myself, like expensive TVs, computers and so on, objects which, while it is just that we can enjoy them some of the time, have no inherent worth.

1. Private Property is a fruit of man’s intellect - “[Because] man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason - it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use…but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.” (Rerum Novarum 6)

I sincerely agree with this point, however, I doubt the majority of TNCs are responsible enough to steward the disproportionate portion of our Earth, and eventually other bodies in this system, they do or will control, without any accountability.

1. Private Property is a fruit of man’s free will - “[Man is] master of his own acts, [and] guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God… Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice [about] matters that regard his present welfare, [and] also about [his welfare] in time yet to come.” (Rerum Novarum 7)

I don’t particularly have any criticism for this one, it seems a bit obtuse.

1. Private Property helps us prepare for the future - “[Man should] not only [possess] the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man’s needs do not die out, but forever recur; although satisfied today, they demand fresh supplies for tomorrow. Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits.” (Rerum Novarum 7)

Indeed, but in a culture with promotes materialism and immediate, hedonistic reward, like capitalism, this is more under threat than in state-owned, accountable hands, in my view.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

1. Private Property existed before the State - “Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body.” (Rerum Novarum 7)

That doesn’t make it absolute. The Catholic narrative is actually specifically contrary to this, for me, that man was aligned with God at his genesis, and God has ever since tried to reconcile with him. Through a series of failed Kings, who were to order the kingdom to God, until finally Jesus, God has attempted to allow humans to order themselves according to a better, ultimately absolute society. Hence, societies of the past are not necessarily more aligned than ours, and the existence of private property in the past means nothing.

1. Private Property helps everyone serve their needs - “[T]he earth [is] apportioned among private owners [but it] minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one’s own land, or from some toil.” (Rerum Novarum 8)
   

Not really, quite often, the land is concentrated in the hands of large corporations, who desire monopoly, who variably bend environmental regulations in the pursuit of profit, or extort those dependent on the land for profit. Those who own the land aren’t “toiling”, they’re extorting. Withholding a right to sustenance, a right, by the way, which frees humans for serving themselves and allows them a greater purpose, for personal gain because a piece of paper says they own the land.

1. Private Property is the just fruit of hard labor - “[Here] we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. … [For] when [a person] turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates… he should [therefore] possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” (Rerum Novarum 9)

Perhaps, except for this to be true, we would each have to hold private property only according to our need. To each according to need is a mantra of Socialism, capitalism allows for us to take a greater portion than needed, then ransom those fruits back to those who need it are are owed it. Don’t be under the illusion that hard work correlates with success in capitalist societies, it doesn’t. We are all far too late to the game.

1. Private Property follows the law of cause and effect - “As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.” (Rerum Novarum 10)

This is quite literally the justification for Socialism, those who contribute their labour have it taken from them by a capitalist, who owns the plant by virtue of capital, and have it sold back to them.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

1. Private Property is in the Bible - “The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another’s: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his [donkey], nor anything that is his.” (Rerum Novarum 11)

Well, yes, this is true, but it only applies to what is just for him to hold. From this very encyclical, it is mandated that each person must benefit is property directly from their labour, it can’t simply justify an indulgence of property. It all speaks more to the virtue of avoiding materialism, than to oughts and rights.

1. Private Property is necessary to families - “[There is] no other way [that] a father [can care for his family] except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance.” (Rerum Novarum 13)

Really? What about instructing his child in moral virtues, and preparing him or her to work for their own upkeep in a social useful purpose, rather than granting them a free-ticket in life. This encyclical seems more material as it goes on, that ensure ability to live comfortably is the best way to care for someone, rather than to make them a better and more charitable person.

1. Private Property helps alleviate poverty - “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.”

That’s demonstrably untrue, you merely have to research the history of capitalism.

(Rerum Novarum 15) Social mobility was not impossible in feudal society. Serfs, for example, could become free men. Three ways included: they could save up enough money to buy their freedom, they could be set free because their lords thought they had earned it, or they could be set free through charity.

Do you think the justifies it? Said person could never rise on merit to a position of authority, especially not to head-of-state.

 

[GEddie]

Well, yes, this is true, but it only applies to what is just for him to hold. From this very encyclical, it is mandated that each person must benefit is property directly from their labour, it can’t simply justify an indulgence of property. It all speaks more to the virtue of avoiding materialism, than to oughts and rights.

Really? What about instructing his child in moral virtues, and preparing him or her to work for their own upkeep in a social useful purpose, rather than granting them a free-ticket in life. This encyclical seems more material as it goes on, that ensure ability to live comfortably is the best way to care for someone, rather than to make them a better and more charitable person.

That’s demonstrably untrue, you merely have to research the history of capitalism.

Do you think the justifies it? Said person could never rise on merit to a position of authority, especially not to head-of-state.

There is no right to become head of state.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vouthon]

No - I think it means state ownership of the means of production. What I haven’t been able to glean thus far is exactly why people beleive the state, a democratic entity, in some cases directly so, is somehow distinct from the people, and therefore immoral.

Can you name for me one society that was both a fully-functioning democracy with a high human index and had an entirely planned, state-controlled economy that flourished?

I know of only one democratic state that attempted to create a Marxist economy, 1960s India. The Communist Party was democratically elected in the states of Kerala and later West Bengal. Their victory was followed by complete economic stagnation, widespread famine and near governmental collapse that left the country disillusioned with state socialism (in the real Marxist sense of the term). And so in the 1980s and 1990s, India’s government systematically privatised the economy and attracted extensive foreign investment.

Now, India’s economy in 2015 is outstripping even China’s - which introduced market reforms at the same time to its own state socialist system:

bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-10-16/why-india-s-economy-is-outperforming-china-s

Why India’s Economy Is Outperforming China’s

There is not one country which has experimented with state ownership of the means of production that has not ultimately come to the conclusion it doesn’t work or deliver the egalitarian ideals promised.

One should note that India still claims to be a “socialist state”, as does China - they just don’t mean by it what they used too. The Constitution of India, which came into effect on 26 January 1950, states in its preamble that India is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. This hasn’t been repealed or amended, precisely because “socialism” is such a vague term with a wide-ranging meaning.

A market economy is not the same as “liberal capitalism”.

 

[yppop]

Consider this quote from The eminent historian, Will Durant:

“He (Christ) resembled Caesar only in taking his stand with the lower class, and in the quality of mercy; otherwise what a world of outlook, character, and interests separated them! Caesar hoped to reform men by changing institutions and laws; Christ wished to remake institutions and laws by changing men." Vol III Caesar and Christ, pg 562

Interpret whichever way suits you, but it seems to me that Durant is supplying a stark contrast between Christianity and Socialism.

Yppop

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

Consider this quote from The eminent historian, Will Durant:

“He (Christ) resembled Caesar only in taking his stand with the lower class, and in the quality of mercy; otherwise what a world of outlook, character, and interests separated them! Caesar hoped to reform men by changing institutions and laws; Christ wished to remake institutions and laws by changing men." Vol III Caesar and Christ, pg 562

Interpret whichever way suits you, but it seems to me that Durant is supplying a stark contrast between Christianity and Socialism.

Yppop

It’s still a weak argument - why tolerate a system which enables and puts the world in the hands of those who refuse to be reformed?