Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[Elizabeth502]

Oh gosh, I’m totally sorry for that…

That’s OK. But how could you have missed this? (See the bolded part especially):

Christian spirituality, including the constructive pursuit of virtue in our effort to root out our individual vices, tends naturally to be focused on the self. We can and should be focused on our personal efforts toward holiness, but that in turn tends to keep our focus on our narow. direct day-to-day relationships. (The micro level.) The macro level is the extension of this, and it’s something that doesn’t come up enough in our consciousness. (It too often becomes “forgotten,” not out of malice but because it is often “invisible” compared to our more visible deficiencies.)

The Christian who is making an effort to grow in the virtue of charity should guide himself and herself toward a macro awareness, as well as a micro one.

 

[TEPO]

That’s OK. But how could you have missed this? (See the bolded part especially):

Sorry, I’m sure it’s just me -or maybe it’s just too complex for me, but are you saying that the Virtues are all one needs to focus on, and that focusing on the virtues with a proper balance will ultimately lead one to a personal understanding of Catholic Social Teachings through Gods Grace? That it comes naturally…? This is my position.

Or are you saying that one must somehow do something themselves in order to be able to understand Catholic Social Teachings. This would mean that a proper understanding of the virtues is not enough. This is not my position.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry, I’m sure it’s just me -or maybe it’s just too complex for me, but are you saying that the Virtues are all one needs to focus on, and that focusing on the virtues with a proper balance will ultimately lead one to a personal understanding of Catholic Social Teachings through Gods Grace? That it comes naturally…? This is my position.

Yes, that is my position. That is, it comes “naturally” if one is being diligent and consistent with regard to growth in virtue, because in that case one will inevitably experience a deepening of that virtue, which becomes more enveloping of mankind as a matter of course.

 

[TEPO]

Yes, that is my position. That is, it comes “naturally” if one is being diligent and consistent with regard to growth in virtue, because in that case one will inevitably experience a deepening of that virtue, which becomes more enveloping of mankind as a matter of course.

Perfect. …And thank you for the clarification. I feel a lot better now.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Good.

 

[TEPO]

Good.

 

[St_Francis]

distrinutionism is a theory which professes that the means of production should be spread out across the people as widely as possible therefore making everyone self-sufficient.

in my opinion distributionism was a good try by the catholic church to establish social justice, but its too reactionary. distributionism has a few errors in its philosophy. i support non-marxist forms of socialism instead. so i dont support distributionism since its too conservative.

What are some of the errors you see in distributism?

i meant that individual people do not have a right to own a natural resource which is used for production (like oil, water, forests, etc) also, individual people do not have a right to own important commodities such as healthcare. but i wholeheartedly support personal property like a house and car.

Who do you think should own these important resources, and how do you think that will work?

and the state has a moral responsibility to control the economy. do you think a corporation should be allowed to produce cars which pollute the environment? do you think planned obsolescence should be allowed? do you think outsourcing should be allowed?

Do you think that the only way to regulate these things is through the government?

this is why we need the state to control the economy. to prevent immoral bussiness practices. and catholic social doctrine even encourages moral state control.
a good example is with pollution, we have the technology to implement totally environmentally safe energies, but we dont, because its not profitable for the capitali$ts.

Socialism is where the government owns and/or controls all the means of production. There is a wide range where the government can regulate actions people take, without taking over complete control. Why do you think a move to socialism is a good idea?

And do you know that the Church has condemned socialism altogether? The Church teaches that people have the right not just to personal property but to productive property.

what proponents of capitalism fail to see is that man is sinful, therefore unless all CEOs are angels appointed by God, capitalism will always fail.

I’m scratching my head here, because you seem to think that this same problem would not occur under socialism…?

 

[St_Francis]

TEPO!!!
I wanted to say I like your idea. Proponents of distributism seem to think it will come about more like that, a sort of gradual expansion of personal efforts. I wasn’t really clear about what you meant by that mixed economy–I thought there’d be a sort of socialist branch, etc,.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Distributism has nothing to do with socialism. It is the antithesis of socialism. Distributism is a fancy name for capitalism spread to as many owners and producers as possible. The goal is achievable by non-participation in the capitalist system and working and producing for oneself and one’s community, and by supporting and participating in small business and cooperative corporations. This is all that is necessary, it’s not a program to “implement.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Distributism has nothing to do with socialism. It is the antithesis of socialism. Distributism is a fancy name for capitalism spread to as many owners and producers as possible. The goal is achievable by non-participation in the capitalist system and working and producing for oneself and one’s community, and by supporting and participating in small business and cooperative corporations. This is all that is necessary, it’s not a program to “implement.”

When you say “achievable” do you mean achievable by individuals acting individually or do you mean achievable by society acting collectively? By your last comment I assume you mean the former. But if that is the case then how can you have confidence that such a society can maintain distributism? That is, unless there is some collective force that “enforces” distributism (i.e. a program to implement) what is to prevent the natural greediness of those who have from striving to control more and more until the means of production (land, resources) is controlled by a few? Distributism is a praise-worthy ideal, but I don’t understand how practically you get there, and once you do get there how you stay there? Sure, if everyone were altruistic then no one would be excessively greedy and try to corner the means of production. But if we allow the possibility of unbounded greed then what is stop a nominally distributistic society from evolving into the same injustices that we see in other forms of society?

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Individuals withdrawing from capitalism and supporting and participating in small businesses and cooperative corporations on a large scale IS society acting collectively. The only legal powers necessary to “enforce” distributism are strong antitrust laws.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Individuals withdrawing from capitalism and supporting and participating in small businesses and cooperative corporations on a large scale IS society acting collectively. The only legal powers necessary to “enforce” distributism are strong antitrust laws.

In other words there must be laws that limit the amount of resources that any one person may accumulate? I’m not sure what sort of antitrust laws you are thinking of and how those laws would prevent concentration of control over resources or otherwise ensure fair availability of those resources to people who don’t currently have such access.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

In other words there must be laws that limit the amount of resources that any one person may accumulate? I’m not sure what sort of antitrust laws you are thinking of and how those laws would prevent concentration of control over resources or otherwise ensure fair availability of those resources to people who don’t currently have such access.

Because concentration of wealth and power is the evil of capitalism and socialism. Distributism is about freedom and living as a human being, monopolies destory freedom and dehumanize.

 

[reconman]

So many Catholics I know seem to think that certain social doctrine is irrelevant.

I think this happens because (in the USA at least), some church officials sometimes support left-wing political causes or legislation under the guise of “social responsibility.”

These are political statements with which I disagree, so I pay no attention to them.

 

[fakename]

sorry, i misspoke, it wasnt created by the catholic church, it was developed by catholic thinkers based on catholic social teaching. although if you read rerum novarum, it does pretty much give an outline of distributionist philosophy.

conservatism is bad because it is based on the belief that mankind is unimprovable, therefore conservatives just want to maintain the status quo and fight against any change. although the liberalist world view isnt any better either, their world view is that progress cannot be defined.
this is why a socialist world view is the best of the three. since socialists believe that progress is both attainable and definable.

i never said i 'supported it", but i did say its preferable to the typical conservative solution. as i said, its a good first step, but ultimately it is still lacking.

the state’s morality depends on the type of government, and the people in charge. a democratic government is indeed amoral, but an autocracy can be very moral. that is why an autocracy is preferable to a democracy, its a good idea for a autocratic state to control the economy, since its better to have one moral person in charge than to take your chances with hundreds of corporations, hoping that their hearts will soften.

im not saying all corporations are bad, but unfortunately the majority are. they just focus on self-interest. they rarely ever consider the common good.

first of all, you are refering to state socialism. which is a system of state monopoly over the means of production. i never said i supported this type of socialism. in fact the reason i dont support it is because it is very much like capitalism, right now under capitalism the majority of wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, it was the same under the USSR except these corporations were owned by the state. the role of the government should not be to own the means of production, but to intervene whenever and wherever it deems necessary.

you have to realise there are many types of socialism, the type that was implemented in the USSR was just one type. although even that type was ultimately better than feudalism. it helped russia and china industrialise. before state socialism, russia was a backwards feudal nation, but the soviets industrialised it in a matter of years. and Mussolini also did wonders in italy. italy was living in the year 1200 before the fascists took power, but after the fascists came to power the italian economy greatly improved. im not saying i support everything these people said, but honestly, they did a lot more good than the western liberal democracies.
and is the catholic church really more incompatible with socialism than with feudalism or capitalism? at one time slavery was even incorporated into the canon law, am i really to believe that slavery is more compatible with catholic social teaching than socialism?

The USSR did increase its output of stuff related to iron and steel but I feel that it was economically worse off than czarist Russia in that it was quite responsible for destroying vast quantities (1/4-1/2) of all Russians and in destroying the agricultural system that nourished the late czarist empire turning Russia into a net importer of grain instead of an exporter.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because concentration of wealth and power is the evil of capitalism and socialism. Distributism is about freedom and living as a human being, monopolies destory freedom and dehumanize.

This does not answer my question. I am asking how distributism can be established and/or maintained without the use of very coercive laws. You said strong antitrust laws are all that is needed. I asked for further clarification of exactly what sort of antitrust laws would do the job (because there are many flavors of antitrust laws). It seems to me that antitrust laws only address the worst examples of anti-competitive behavior - explicit collusion between the top dogs. We have antitrust laws right now in the US, but we don’t have distributism, so apparently you are thinking of something very different when you say antitrust laws. Please tell me what that something is.

 

[St_Francis]

This does not answer my question. I am asking how distributism can be established and/or maintained without the use of very coercive laws. You said strong antitrust laws are all that is needed. I asked for further clarification of exactly what sort of antitrust laws would do the job (because there are many flavors of antitrust laws). It seems to me that antitrust laws only address the worst examples of anti-competitive behavior - explicit collusion between the top dogs. We have antitrust laws right now in the US, but we don’t have distributism, so apparently you are thinking of something very different when you say antitrust laws. Please tell me what that something is.

If we made it so that there was either one-person or ownership or employee-owned businesses. Once a company gets to a certain size, it is too unweildy for one person to run, and then ownership could be transferred to the employees.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If we made it so that there was either one-person or ownership or employee-owned businesses. Once a company gets to a certain size, it is too unweildy for one person to run, and then ownership could be transferred to the employees.

So are you suggesting laws that place an upper limit on the size of corporations or on the size of personal wealth?

 

[TEPO]

This is why it’s not going to happen that way I think… Just wait until the market bottoms out and everyones 401k’s dry up to nothing -then they’ll be ready to make changes…

That or start a new monetary system. A private one. This way there needs to be no new laws what-so-ever, just private rules.

 

[TEPO]

Once it gets going, get some clergy members and rabbi’s and pastors on the committee board to ensure a religious presence there… To keep out the corruption.