Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[ERose]

Well there you go, when you don’t have the answers, put the person down.

Not putting you down just giving you an observation discerned from your posts. I know you don’t believe me but go back and re-read your posts with an objective mind and you will see a heavy anti-american viewpoint come through.

No I do not hate Americans or your country. What bothers me is that all you can see abt your country are the good things and you can’t accept anything negative.
The saying “the best county in the world” is stuck in your head and you don’t want to listen to anything else.

Regretfully that is not true. Right now I and alot of other people see our country’s values going down the drain and we are seeing a huge takeover by the federal government due to the socialist and communist that have taken over our country. Freedom of speech is being restricted. Good Americans’ names are being ran through the mud if they disagree with the way the federal government is moving this country. Our media has become a cesspool of bias opinions instead of reporting the truth as it is they have to report it with their own bias spin upon it. Our government is going out there supporting and pushing abortions and contraceptions in this country and in others as well. I could go on and on but I do not have time.

Americans I talk to believe they won WWII in Europe. There is never any mention of the British, Canadians, Poles, Russians and all the people who were Partisans.

I don’t believe that. I believe that the US should have gotten into WWII much quicker than it did, which I respect the Canadians for getting involved at the beginning which I know was impacted by the relationship with Britian. I good number of Americans enlisted in the Canadian air force and armies to get involved in WWII. I do believe though that the entrance of the US into the war turned the war in the favor of the Allies and I believe history supports that belief.

Just once I would like to see Americans get off their high horse and know that there are other countries that contribute to the good on this planet.
That’s all, if that bothers you, your still at it.

Well I am probably a little bit more worldly than most Americans and Canadians for that matter due to the amount of international travel I have done in my life. I know that other countries provide significant contributions to welfare of this world. Again I do commend the Canadian general who beseached the world to get involved in Ruwanda and I blast the UN and my own country for not getting involved. They should have and they didn’t. Personnally I do not believe the UN is worth the price of the building they meet in and there needs to be significant reform in that establishment. They are far too liberal, do not do enough concerning women’s rights and abortion issues. Also they do turn a blind eye to the worst atrocities that happen in the world. I do not believe in a one world government either so you can take that how you want it.

If you are going for the most killed, in particular civilians, by who in Iraq, you guys win.

I think you need to do a little more research on this subject. You evaluate the statistics Saddam slaughtered far more of this people than the number of people killed combined during both Gulf Wars. Our military goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties. Unlike the terrorist organizations inside Iraq that were being trained by and supported by Iran, who constantly aims at civilians. I know that liberals want to show how evil we are as a nation. But at the end of the day history will look approvingly on what was done in Iraq.

 

[ERose]

Still, you did not successfully argue that Christianity itself is a progressive social force (in contrast, my position assumes no significant impact of Christianity on social issues). Of course, I was aware of the low status of women in the Roman Republic due to pater familias (I was unaware of their social status in the Roman Empire though), in Classical Greece (Sparta was an exception where women were afforded relatively high status and independence), and in China under its pervasive Confucian culture (during the Tang Dynasty, however, some women were able to own property).

This link made the general claim that the social status of women improved during the Roman Empire when compared to their condition in the Roman Republic. This claim does not seem extraordinary nor surprising, and I readily accept its veracity since it is consistent with my historical knowledge. But, it did not satisfactorily address my challenge, because I wanted evidence that Christianity contributed to the improved social status of women in Late Antiquity. The periodization of the “Roman Empire” is too broad because it also includes the reigns of other pagan Emperor’s, in addition to the Christian Emperors of Late Antiquity (with Julian being the sole non-Christian Emperor after Constantine’s reign). In order to satisfy my demand, one would have to argue that the pagan emperor’s maintained the repressive social institutions of the Roman Republic while Christian Emperors progressively abolished them.

The two moyak.com links had excellent specific content about the generally inferior social status of women in Ancient Greece and Rome, but it did not seem to have much relevance to my request. I never doubted the inferior position of women in those societies.

It does not seem extraordinary that Christian contributed to the cultural abhorrence of paedophila and “female circumcision” as claimed here.

Of course Christianity influenced Roman Society before Constantine. The main question is whether Christianity influence Imperial policies before the reign of Constantine.

Women of the Roman Empire
Jo Ann McNamara
Roman women, like Greek women, were usually in a subordinate position to men. Rome was and would remain a patriarchy. However, during the Empire and particularly as Christianity grew in importance, women’s roles evolved. In the following selection Jo Ann McNamara stresses how women were able to use their family roles and religion to gain new power and choices.

Consider: Why Christianity may have been so attractive to women; how Christianity played a role in improving women’s power and status.

The Roman Republic was a patriarchy in the strictest sense of the word. Private life rested upon patria potestas, paternal power over the subordinate women, children, slaves, and clients who formed the Roman Familia. The Roman matron was highly respected within limits established by a strong gender system that defined her role as the supporter of the patriarch's power. Public life was conducted in the name of the Senate and People of Rome, institutionally defined as exclusively male. In the last days of the Republic, the power of these institutions was destroyed by civil war at the same time that the army, led by its emperors (originally only a military title), carried the standards of Rome to victory over the many civilizations of the Mediterranean world and ultimately took power over the city of Rome itself. 
Under the Empire, the boundaries between public and private lives became porous and women began to use their familial roles as instruments of public power. Religion, in particular, offered women a bridge across class and gender differences, from private to public life. Roman women experimented widely with a variety of pagan cults, but increasingly Christianity attracted women with a vision of a community where in Christ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, ... neither bond nor free, ... neither male nor female." (Galatians 3:28)
Christianity was founded at about the same time as the Roman Empire was established, and for the next three centuries the imperial government and the Christian religion developed on separate but converging tracks. As an outlawed sect, the new religion was peculiarly susceptible to the influence of wealthy and noble women. Their participation was so energetic and prominent that critics often labeled Christianity a religion of women and slaves. In the fourth and fifth centuries, when the Empire had become Christian, it consolidated new political and religious hierarchies which reinforced one another. The synthesis was basically a restructured patriarchy with Christian men firmly in control of both government and church. But Roman Law and Roman Christianity contained a wider range of choices for women regarding marriage and property which passed into the hands of Rome's European successors.

 

[Black_Rose]

**Under the Empire, the boundaries between public and private lives became porous and women began to use their familial roles as instruments of public power. **Religion, in particular, offered women a bridge across class and gender differences, from private to public life. Roman women experimented widely with a variety of pagan cults, but increasingly Christianity attracted women with a vision of a community where in Christ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, ... neither bond nor free, ... neither male nor female." (Galatians 3:28)
Christianity was founded at about the same time as the Roman Empire was established, and for the next three centuries the imperial government and the Christian religion developed on separate but converging tracks. As an outlawed sect, the new religion was peculiarly susceptible to the influence of wealthy and noble women. Their participation was so energetic and prominent that critics often labeled Christianity a religion of women and slaves. ** In the fourth and fifth centuries, when the Empire had become Christian, it consolidated new political and religious hierarchies which reinforced one another. The synthesis was basically a restructured patriarchy with Christian men firmly in control of both government and church. But Roman Law and Roman Christianity contained a wider range of choices for women regarding marriage and property which passed into the hands of Rome's European successors.**

The excerpt seems to be correct with no salient inaccuracies and I have no reason to dispute it. McNamara seems to agree with my contention that the establishment of the Roman Empire dissolved patria potestas of the Republic and that the improved social status of women wasn’t a uniquely Christian phenomenon. In other words, Christian influence does not merit full credit. She also acknowledges when Christianity achieve control of the Empire’s political and bureaucratic apparatus, it was still patriarchal.

But I never argued in this thread that Christianity is a significantly repressive force, just that its usual social influence is benignly progressive or slightly repressive. I suppose that for every Oscar Romero or Dorothy Day, there is an influential conservative Catholic defending an injustice/sub-optimal status quo, so the influence of Church Doctrine, layman, and clergy largely cancel out. In other words, Christianity has little remarkable social impact, and most of time, it should not be regarded as a progressive social force. I did not take the position because I believe it to be true, just to express open-minded mild skepticism. In addition, it is a relatively easy position to argue since it does not require me to assume the burden of proof.

The East was even more Christian than the West, its theological disputes far more embittered. The East, like the West, was administered by a corrupt and extortionate bureaucracy. The Eastern government strove as hard to enforce a rigid caste system, tying the curiales to their cities and the coloni to the soil. Land fell out of cultivation and was deserted in the East as well as in the West.

[from the same above…]

Well, the Byzantine government was progressive at all as it operated under a rigid caste system, despite its Christianity. It supports my position that Christianity cannot be considered a progressive social force.

 

[ERose]

Maybe you need to reread the post. i choose this document because it was written by liberal intellectual and the writer had grudgingly accept the positive impact that christianity had on womens rights even though the writer didn’t want to.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
Regarding science: I would say that it was mainly developed during the Enlightenment and was heavily influenced by the philosophy of empiricism. Hume, Locke, and Berkeley weren’t Catholic.

False: science was not developed mainly due to the influence of the above.
How strange that the fact that the Catholic Church built Western Civilization is unknown especially as it was specifically shown in post #145, that “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23]

 

[Holly3278]

I thought it was only communism that restricted or took away religious freedom? I am confused now.

 

[Abu]

Monk21
Today Mr. Hans Blix stated again to a committee in Briton that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Briton was sucked into the war on lies and so were the American people.

False.
We can’t rely on U.N. officials. It is very helpful to know from the horse’s mouth, for in pages 258-263 of his book Saddam’s Secrets, Integrity Publishers 2006, Hussein’s General, Air Vice-Marshall Georges Sada recounts how WMDs were shipped out of Iraqi by converted civilian aircraft to Syria from mid 2002 to 2003 in fifty-six sorties.
The Israeli air attack on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 would seem to have been linked to those shipments.

Such attacks in this thread have nothing to do with the condemnation of socialism by the Catholic Church.

 

[Bub]

Hello

There is a movement called Christian socialism and refers to some christian theology and doctrine. I think Jesus had socialist ideas. some say that he was the first socialist:
examples:

• “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor”
  -"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
  So philosophically,The “perfect” society means socialism, and according to bible Jesus was perfect.

 

[Sonny1954]

“Socialism” is such a broad term, that I’m not sure that ALL of its manifestations are in conflict with Church teaching. Clearly Marxist Socialism–which I think is what most Americans mean by it–promotes atheism and making a “heaven” out of this world. The conflict there is easy to see.

But there have in the past been “christian socialists” and others who put the good of the whole above the desires of any individual. Who pool and share all of their assets. Who distribute those assets based on need and not any individual’s desire or greed.

Various forms of socialism existed long before Marx and Lenin, but it became associated with those two men in the U.S. because of its relationship to the USSR.

 

[sedonaman]

Hello,

I was reading in my AP European History textbook about the beginning of socialism in England in the 1800s, and I was curious why socialism is bad by the Church’s teachings. I see how socialism (allegedly) helps the poor and needy, and everyone would be doing things equal. Is it because we wouldn’t have freedom of religion? Help me out please, I’m not trying to be a heretic, just I’m curious to know why socialism is bad. I already know why socialism is bad in terms of euthanasia, but I’m ignorant in other areas.

Thanks!

Have you ever taken a course in which the instructor divided the class into groups to work on a project, and everyone in the group got the same grade?

Another reason socialism is bad is because it is driven by ENVY, and it encourages more of the same.

 

[jimpres]

It would be great if the US Congress would read this thread. Seems they are implementing some of the socialist ideas.

 

[yampalin]

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not literal interpretations of words written centuries ago. In the same manner, Rerum Novarum must not be taken literally, rather in the context of the time it was written.

Socialism does not have a single meaning, since not all forms of socialism preach the elimination of all forms of private property. The same applies to private property, for there are many forms and meanings which must be looked at before considering it an absolute inviolate right under Natural Law.

I would therefore argue that since all persons have equal rights to the acquisition of property, it stands to reason that only the property necessary for the livelihood of an individual and his (or her) family may be considered an inviolable right under Natural Law, so long as the rights of others are not in any way denied, infringed or violated in the process of acquiring such property.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I would therefore argue that since all persons have equal rights to the acquisition of property, it stands to reason that only the property necessary for the livelihood of an individual and his (or her) family may be considered an inviolable right under Natural Law, so long as the rights of others are not in any way denied, infringed or violated in the process of acquiring such property.

IOW, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”

 

[yampalin]

It seems clear that Burt Prelutsky does not know nor understand the nation’s foundation. Do you?

 

[Giangiacomo]

Here is the Socialist mantra on this paragraph: I’m jealous. Since these high earners waste so much money and other people need it more then they do, lets take it.

I read somewhere that if all the world’s wealth were distributed equally, eventually it would fall back into the hands of those who first posessed it.

 

[Monk21]

False.
We can’t rely on U.N. officials. It is very helpful to know from the horse’s mouth, for in pages 258-263 of his book Saddam’s Secrets, Integrity Publishers 2006, Hussein’s General, Air Vice-Marshall Georges Sada recounts how WMDs were shipped out of Iraqi by converted civilian aircraft to Syria from mid 2002 to 2003 in fifty-six sorties.
The Israeli air attack on a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007 would seem to have been linked to those shipments.

Such attacks in this thread have nothing to do with the condemnation of socialism by the Catholic Church.

Since when was my post an attack? There were no WMD and most of the world knows that. If all lies are believed by everyone it does not make them true.
Maybe the good General id trying to save his butt?

 

[yampalin]

Wishful thinking of those deprived of their wealth if all property were indeed distributed among all equally.

Let’s give it a try and see the results. I’m sure the vast majority of the world’s population would agree with me to give it a try.

 

[sedonaman]

It seems clear that Burt Prelutsky does not know nor understand the nation’s foundation. Do you?

I’ve down that road many times before, and found it to be a waste of time because you have to know history. Liberals have no principle [e.g., God] by which to discern truth since it is whatever they want it to be. It is as though history started yesterday, and if you disagree with them, you are an immoral person. [If you don’t believe me, then please explain why they have worked so hard to drive God out of the public sphere. An odd thing here is liberals claim the moral high ground while maintaining that morality is relative.] As a result, they give us such profound statements as, “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” Liberals, I have found, see history as a point of view instead of the study of actual events. Liberal academicians have even tried to convince us that we can’t really know anything. How they can justify what must be six-figured salaries for an apparently useless endeavor was not explained.

Since liberals won’t agree on even the basics, meaningful dialog is impossible. Therefore, I decline to answer your question.

 

[sedonaman]

Wishful thinking of those deprived of their wealth if all property were indeed distributed among all equally.

Let’s give it a try and see the results. I’m sure the vast majority of the world’s population would agree with me to give it a try.

See what I mean about history starting yesterday?[1]

Jesus didn’t start out at the top; he worked with people at the bottom. Confucious tried and tried to get a government appointment so he could put his ideas into practice, but was unsuccessful. He returned to his home village and began to teach, and as a result, he is well-known today. If he had gotten that appointment, no one would probably know of him today.

So I challenge you to try your theory by starting at the bottom and giving all your wealth away to charity. But before you do, consider “The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp” by R.A. Radford, from Economica, November, 1945 [2]

[1] “The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – The Quotable Paul Johnson: A Topical Compilation of His Wit, Wisdom, & Satire, edited by George J. Marlin et al. (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1994), p. 138.

[2] facstaff.uww.edu/kashianr/POWCampRadford.pdf .

 

[sedonaman]

Since when was my post an attack? There were no WMD and most of the world knows that. If all lies are believed by everyone it does not make them true.
Maybe the good General id trying to save his butt?

That would be true if most of the world consisted of Bush-haters. “…No one, including the intelligence services of governments opposed to the war, doubted before the war that he [Saddam] had WMD; and only a fool would have interpreted his years-long non-compliance with the inspections regime as implying anything other than that he had something to hide. Finally, it takes a Flat Earth Society-level of credulity to believe that not only Bush, but also Blair and dozens if not hundreds of their employees, would have risked political suicide and/or criminal prosecution to cover up their alleged knowledge that Iraq had in reality absolutely no WMD to speak of.” – “The Mustache on the Left,” by Professor Edward Feser, techcentralstation.com/010804A.html

So there were no WMDs? Saddam USED WMDs against the Iranians. The fact they weren’t found is not proof they didn’t exist. The use of the word “stockpiles” in describing WMDs was unfortunate because people envisioned just that, stockpiles, just like the ones you see in pictures of U.S. military depots during WW-II, when they could have been spread all over the country, which was mostly wilderness.