Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcusAndreas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So are you suggesting laws that place an upper limit on the size of corporations or on the size of personal wealth?
Well, I do not think we should have corporations the way they are now anyway.

Distributism itself does not have A Plan for implementation, and does not really require that it be imposed. You might say it’s more like a lifestyle, but I imagine that if enough people started living that way, or at least seeing the benefits, that laws would be put into place encouraging it rather than the type of capitalism we have now. Or maybe at some point it might be that people would say, large companies should be employee-owned, let’s work on making that shift in a gradual way.

Lest you think that would be a bad thing, one thing that is not uncommon is when one corporation buys another, the shareholders are allowed to choose between a changeover of shares or a buy-out of their shares; and ATT was broken up successfully way back in the 70s or 80s. So these things are not unheard-of, nor do they have to be accomplished in a disruptive way.
 
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.
Do you have a reference for your definition of conservatism (specifically its basis). I don’t believe it to be true. If it is just your opinion, so be it.
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.
Again, disagree. A state’s morality depends on its principals and its actions, not of its type.

When you say an autocracy CAN be very moral, you are also saying is that it CAN be very immoral, which would mean that as a system, it is amoral, just like democracy. ‘One moral person’? Who gets to pick him, if it is not a democracy? Who ensures he stays moral (power corrupts). One person controlling the entire world economy? I guess if you are running for the job, you can be convinced that such a system would be good for mankind…
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’ve been very clear that you believe the state should have control over the economy. How does the state control the economy without control over the means of production? That appears impossible, unless you suggest that the state control all trade of things that are produced and of all services. That is the only way to control the economy. And, having control of all things produced and of all services is having ‘ownership’ over them, if the original owner cannot do what he wants with them.
you have to realise there are many types of socialism,
Where do I study the type that you are suggesting for us?
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.
Really? What were the greatest economic nations in the world, at that time? And was it ‘western liberal democracies’ that made them economically great (leaving Russia and Italy behind in their dust), or was it socialism?’
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? :confused:
You seem to be open to socialism having many different forms, with varying degress of licitness. Are you open to ‘slavery’ being the same? Perhaps with some study you will find the answers to alleviate your confusion as to why the Church accepted some forms of slavery, but does not accept socialism as it has been attempted in contemporary times.
 
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.
And what would be the reason for the single person owner to want to grow his\her business then? Grow it so that it gets taken away from them? Sorry, I wouldn’t want to start a business or grow one if that was the end result.
 
And what would be the reason for the single person owner to want to grow his\her business then? Grow it so that it gets taken away from them? Sorry, I wouldn’t want to start a business or grow one if that was the end result.
First, let me clarify that that is my own personal speculation as to something which *could *be done.

Second, let me clarify that what I meant was not a *forced *sale or anything like that, but that if the time came when the owner felt that it was getting too big, or if he wanted the business to grow, or whatever, rather than doing an IPO or that sort of thing, it would go into the employee-ownership direction.
 
First, let me clarify that that is my own personal speculation as to something which *could *be done.

Second, let me clarify that what I meant was not a *forced *sale or anything like that, but that if the time came when the owner felt that it was getting too big, or if he wanted the business to grow, or whatever, rather than doing an IPO or that sort of thing, it would go into the employee-ownership direction.
This unenforced distributism amounts to just asking everyone to be altruistic and play fair, which is fine if everyone is altruistic. But if they are not then it is an invitation for abuse, and those that are greedy can and will violate the principles of distributism and you won’t have distributism. This potential for abuse is not too different from the potential for abuse in communism. If everyone in a communistic state volunteered the fruits of their labor for the use of whoever needs it, then all would be well. But as we know communism does not work out that way, and firm state control is necessary to keep communism communistic. And that state control is the root of the problem with communism. Well, distributism could suffer the same fate if it were implemented by means of harsh state control. And if you don’t have state control to enforce distributism there is nothing to prevent the greedy among us from taking unfair advantage of what resources they do have. At least capitalism is honest enough to admit that people can be greedy, and in fact capitalism claims to work despite or because of this greed, which proponents of capitalism claim will drive innovation.

So it appears to me that distributism is a good ideal to hope for, but I see no practical way of bringing it about short of radically changing human nature.
 
This unenforced distributism amounts to just asking everyone to be altruistic and play fair, which is fine if everyone is altruistic. But if they are not then it is an invitation for abuse, and those that are greedy can and will violate the principles of distributism and you won’t have distributism. This potential for abuse is not too different from the potential for abuse in communism. If everyone in a communistic state volunteered the fruits of their labor for the use of whoever needs it, then all would be well. But as we know communism does not work out that way, and firm state control is necessary to keep communism communistic. And that state control is the root of the problem with communism. Well, distributism could suffer the same fate if it were implemented by means of harsh state control. And if you don’t have state control to enforce distributism there is nothing to prevent the greedy among us from taking unfair advantage of what resources they do have. At least capitalism is honest enough to admit that people can be greedy, and in fact capitalism claims to work despite or because of this greed, which proponents of capitalism claim will drive innovation.

So it appears to me that distributism is a good ideal to hope for, but I see no practical way of bringing it about short of radically changing human nature.
I am not by any means an expert on distributism. All I am doing is responding to comments or questions people have, and not going into a thorough analysis of how it will work.

You are criticizing distributism on the one hand for not having enforcement and on the other for having harsh enforcement. The reality is that distributism would have less enfocement on the one hand because there wouldn’t be several layers of government imposing any old idea that they think will make voters happy and on the other, the decisions would be made locally in a group of which the businessman affected would be a part.

The reality is, how much business can one person fund and/or run at a time, anyway? I know a guy who owns a small grocery store; he acquired another one, but someone else is running it for him. So, really, he can’t run two grocery stores; he can only run one. That’s fine, but in distributism, he would only *have *one, and the guy who is running the other one would own it. (And lest you say that the first guy bought it so he made the investment, well, no, *you *did. It’s in a rural area, and the USDA gave him a combination of grants and loans to acquire it.)

And if you think that we do not have abuse and greed in our current set-up, then I suggest you look up Enron, Madoff, Solydra, what happened to the premium share-holders in the GM “bail-out” (whose money was given to the unions instead), etc. The reality is that all over the world, this mixed-up form of “capitalism” is *failing, *and failing badly, and hurting a lot of people in the process.
 
You are criticizing distributism on the one hand for not having enforcement and on the other for having harsh enforcement. The reality is that distributism would have less enfocement on the one hand because there wouldn’t be several layers of government imposing any old idea that they think will make voters happy and on the other, the decisions would be made locally in a group of which the businessman affected would be a part.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was criticizing distributism itself. I did not mean to. I would love to see distributism a reality. I just don’t see how it could be done.
The reality is, how much business can one person fund and/or run at a time, anyway? I know a guy who owns a small grocery store; he acquired another one, but someone else is running it for him. So, really, he can’t run two grocery stores; he can only run one. That’s fine, but in distributism, he would only *have *one, and the guy who is running the other one would own it. (And lest you say that the first guy bought it so he made the investment, well, no, *you *did. It’s in a rural area, and the USDA gave him a combination of grants and loans to acquire it.)
OK, that’s one way it might work. Tax everyone to generate funds so those who do not have a grocery store can get one (or something equivalent).
And if you think that we do not have abuse and greed in our current set-up, then I suggest you look up Enron, Madoff, Solydra, what happened to the premium share-holders in the GM “bail-out” (whose money was given to the unions instead), etc. The reality is that all over the world, this mixed-up form of “capitalism” is *failing, *and failing badly, and hurting a lot of people in the process.
You are preaching to the choir on that one. I am no huge fan of that kind of capitalism either.
 
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was criticizing distributism itself. I did not mean to. I would love to see distributism a reality. I just don’t see how it could be done.
Ahh, I see! I didn’t realize that! Well, one way it could be doneis to remove what are called barriers to entry. A really terrific example is the recent change Texas put in, when they re-allowed people to start small food companies in their home kitchens: people can make things in their kitchens at home and sell them, provided that they clearly label it as having been made in a non-inspected kitchen. They can make up to $50,000/yr.

This is really exciting because it means that, say, a woman with small children can make a small amount of items for a local grocery store. She can generate a few hundred dollars/month that way. Under the usual situation, she would have to rent or acquire access to a commercial kitchen, so right off the bat, she would have to work full-time just to cover the expenses and the whole idea would be undoable.

So to me, quite a bit of distributism is to *get rid of *laws which make it difficult for people to start really small: the laws incline to make people need *huge *amounts of money to start a business.
OK, that’s one way it might work. Tax everyone to generate funds so those who do not have a grocery store can get one (or something equivalent).
No, that was not my point. I included that because some people who are really into super-free market economy would say that the owner *should *be able to do this because he is funding it.
You are preaching to the choir on that one. I am no huge fan of that kind of capitalism either.
I kept feeling that things were wrong with what we have now, but the free market arguments seemed to make sense. It bothered me, but I kept reading Rerum Novarum over and over, and finally found the problem: we are supposed to work together to make everything work, not be at each others’ throats.
 
two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were “obscene wealth” and “environmental pollution”. here is the entire list:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88085760
The NPR (not Vatican) article is an utter distortion of what was said. Sadly, rather than depending upon common sense, many Catholics have picked up on that distortion and have run with it…rather than checking with their own God-given common sense.
From the NPR article:
In an effort to appeal to the modern Catholic, the Vatican has announced a list of seven new mortal sins. Some of the new don’ts: thou shalt not pollute and thou shalt not have too much money.

Madeleine Brand speaks with Father James Martin, acting publisher of the Jesuit magazine America, about the importance of updating the 1,500-year-old sin list.

“I think it’s to remind people that sins are not just individual,” he says referring to the Catholic church’s old seven deadly sins — lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. “There’s also social sins … .sins that affect the community at large and sins that an institution can engage in.”
From Fr Martin at America magazine (HARDLY a conservative Catholic voice):
As an example of how the media sometimes can get a story wrong, or at least confuse things unnecessarily, witness the story from the March 8 issue of L’Osservatore Romano, which included an entirely sensible interview with Bishop Gianfranco Girotto, an official at the Apostolic Penitentiary, on the subject of social sin. Contrasting an older understanding of sin as more individualistic in nature, Bishop Girotto noted that sin “today…has an impact and resonance that is above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization.” He pointed to a number of “social sins” (by now a familiar term to Catholics accustomed to hearing it applied to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism). Among those he mentioned were economic injustice, environmental irresponsibility, accumulation of excessive wealth and genetic experimentation with unforeseen consequences.

From Zenit:

Reports that the Vatican has published a new list of the seven deadly sins of modern times that includes littering and economic inequality is simply not true, affirmed the episcopal conference of England and Wales.

The conference released a statement today clarifying that an interview published Sunday by L’Osservatore Romano with Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the tribunal of he Apostolic Penitentiary, was misinterpreted in the media as an official Vatican update to the seven deadly sins, laid out by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century.

“The Vatican has not published a new list of seven deadly sins; this is not a new Vatican edict,” said the conference. “The story originated from an interview that Bishop Gianfranco Girotti gave to the L’Osservatore Romano in which he was questioned about new forms of social sins in this age of globalization.”:

From the original interview (translated courtesy of the Acton Institute):
Does the attention to sin come from a sensibility to the needs of modern society or from a reference point of a past time?
The reference is always the violation of the covenant with God and with brothers and the social consequences of sin. If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a value, a resonance beyond the individual, above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization. In effect, the attention to sin presents itself more urgently today than yesterday, because its consequences are wider and more destructive.

(snip)

In your opinion, what are the “new sins”?
There are various areas today in which we adopt sinful behavior, as with individual and social rights. This is especially so in the field of bioethics where we cannot deny the existence of violations of fundamental rights of human nature – this occurs by way of experiments and genetic modifications, whose results we cannot easily predict or control. Another area, which indeed pertains to the social spectrum, is that of drug use, which weakens our minds and reduces our intelligence. As a result, many young people are left out of Church circles. Here’s another one: social and economic inequality, in the sense that the rich always seem to get richer, and the poor, poorer. This [phenomenon] feeds off an unsustainable form of social injustice and is related to environmental issues –which currently have much relevant interest.

So this bishop expresses his opinion. He talks about the social dimension of sin. And the media picks up on it, saying that the Vatican has replaced the traditional list of deadly sins with a new, modern, more up to date one…that, oh by the way, agrees with their point of view…and then many Catholics buy off 100% on secular media reporting and adopt it as dogma.

And then they condemn those of us who actually refer back to the Social Magestierum as being devilish. And consign us to the nether regions.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Archbishop Chaput, speaking at the 2011 World Youth Day, had some very wise words that everybody should heed:

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.
 
hey,
wheres my comment that i posted a few days ago?? :mad:
wow, so it seems you censor the people that you guys disagree with…
 
hey,
wheres my comment that i posted a few days ago?? :mad:
wow, so it seems you censor the people that you guys disagree with…
Are you sure you posted it? I have been watching this thread and I have not seen anything from you since June 9th - not even briefly. So what did you say that you think might provoke someone to censor your posting?
 
hey,
wheres my comment that i posted a few days ago?? :mad:
wow, so it seems you censor the people that you guys disagree with…
-Lots- of people around here disagree with me and not seen any of my posts poof. Your post might’ve not gotten posted, or maybe the server just kinda ate it? Anyways if mods take action against a post, it’d be very obvious. Other the that, no censoring here that I have seen.
 
I think that in order to have a well-run country that takes care of its most vulnerable and supports a robust private sector, we have to acknowledge that we need both the public and private sectors. There are some things that the private sector (when it is well regulated by the public sector) does well, like the auto industry; then there are some things that the public sector does well like building wealth through the reasonable redistribution of wealth such as “The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944” more commonly known as the “GI Bill.” The GI Bill for the most part built the middle class in this country in the 1940’s through the 1960’s.
The idea that taxes and government are bad and that socialism is the way to go, does not measure up to Catholic Social Teaching. CST has always taught that there is a place for the government to step in and collect taxes to pay for programs to help the poor and at the same time CST has always taught that the state should not be over intrusive in regulating the free market.
A safe measure of how the country is doing could be seen in how the poor are doing. If the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (as is the case in our country right now) that is an indication that taxes are too low and there is not enough entitlement programs. On the other hand if the rich are staying the same or not growing in wealth, then there is a problem with too much tax or entitlement. The balance should be that the rich are growing in wealth and the poor are being lifted out of poverty. Again, we need both the public and private sectors. They balance each other.
 
This is an interesting view that we are meditating upon? Personally, I would like to say that it is not sound to have options in ethics. The social doctrine is an ethical issue. It is where every has this inbuilt rule ‘do good and avoid evil’ How can one break this rule and starting making options? Lets all appeal to our conscience first before we are twisted around with the ideas confronting us that are very alien to our belief…:
 
I find it a little amusing that a sincere question about the universal social doctrine of the Mother Church very quickly devolves into a debate on American politics, American taxation policy, etc.

“Both political parties”? We have 5 where I live.
 
I find it a little amusing that a sincere question about the universal social doctrine of the Mother Church very quickly devolves into a debate on American politics, American taxation policy, etc.

“Both political parties”? We have 5 where I live.
I spoke to soon. Reading further, the thread improved. I was set off by a posting talking about objectives of attracting business to the US and away from other countries…the absurdity of that being that what may be advantageous and prosperous for the US will come at a price to whichever country, potentially a more faithfully Catholic one, those attracted or repatriated businesses come from. 🙂 Social policy is social policy and the Church most certainly would not espouse a preference or favor for one nation over another as a matter of policy.
 
I see why some do and some don’t. Jesus never went through the government and it taxation by force. Government “charity” is not charity. Jesus always gave from the heart. USCCBs is learning a very hard lesson in being too close to democrats (HHS mandate).

We can all fulfill the demands Jesus gave in the Sheep and Goats parable without the government.
Amen!
 
I spoke to soon. Reading further, the thread improved. I was set off by a posting talking about objectives of attracting business to the US and away from other countries…the absurdity of that being that what may be advantageous and prosperous for the US will come at a price to whichever country, potentially a more faithfully Catholic one, those attracted or repatriated businesses come from. 🙂 Social policy is social policy and the Church most certainly would not espouse a preference or favor for one nation over another as a matter of policy.
Diana,
The problem we Catholics are and have been faced with in the US is our blessings and command to give has been stolen by the government. If there is one way to satisfy emotional problems it is to love. The government has decided it will do it for us. They are the givers and they do such a poor job.

Love the Lord you God with all you heart and let the government do the work of Charity for you. No, not quite right.
 
I find it a little amusing that a sincere question about the universal social doctrine of the Mother Church very quickly devolves into a debate on American politics, American taxation policy, etc.

“Both political parties”? We have 5 where I live.
Well it kinda makes sense that people on an American Catholic blog would be discussing American politics during an election year. Catholic social teaching is another way of saying political ethics. Of course CST is much wider than American politics to be sure, but it is not unreasonable to be talking about American economic issues here. As a matter of fact, it’s really a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top