Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[elts1956]

One way to understand socialism for what it is, is to compare it to its exact opposite, objectivism. Best way to understand that can be found by reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Now, bear in mind, she turned into an atheist. A bit of her philosophy will rankle good Catholics. But in this book the contrast of socialism and objectivism, while not making objectivism seem like the complete right answer, will sure put socialism in its proper perspective.

Great book. Am half way through it for the second time. Had to stop for a while and read some cheerier material like Beck’s The Overton Window because I was getting too depressed.

 

[elts1956]

One way to understand socialism for what it is, is to compare it to its exact opposite, objectivism. Best way to understand that can be found by reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Now, bear in mind, she turned into an atheist. A bit of her philosophy will rankle good Catholics. But in this book the contrast of socialism and objectivism, while not making objectivism seem like the complete right answer, will sure put socialism in its proper perspective.

This is what someone else on this forum wrote:

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on socialism is very interesting in this regard. Of course, the historical parts of the entry are incomplete, because it was written before WWI. But the discussion of the ways in which socialism is inconsistent with Catholicism remains applicable.

In sum, the Encyclopedia identifies the following respects in which socialism conflicts with Catholic teaching:

1. Socialism is materialistic. “Socialism appropriates all human desires and centres them on the here-and-now, on material benefit and prosperity. But material goods are so limited in quality, in quantity, and in duration that they are incapable of satisfying human desires, which will ever covet more and more and never feel satisfaction.”
2. Socialism is deterministic. “Holding that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, and not vice versa, it has quite lost touch with the invigorating Christian doctrine of free will. … Any power which claims to appropriate and discipline [the individual’s] interior life, and which affords him sanctions that transcend all evolutionary and scientific determinism, must necessarily incur Socialist opposition.”
3. Because of 2, socialism is hostile to the Church and the family. “Socialism, with its essentially materialistic nature, can admit no raison d’etre for a spiritual power, as complementary and superior to the secular power of the State. … The State was never meant to appropriate to itself the main parental duties, it was rather meant to provide the parents, especially poor parents, with a wider, freer, healthier family sphere in which to be properly parental.”
4. Socialism conflicts with the natural law regarding private property. “If man, [according to Aquinas], has the right to own, control, and use private property, the State cannot give him this right or take it away; it can only protect it.”

In other words: “It is true that the institutions of religion, of the family, and of private ownership are liable to great abuses, but the perfection of human effort and character demands a freedom of choice between good and evil as their first necessary condition. This area of free choice is provided, on the material side, by private ownership; on the spiritual and material, by the Christian Family; and on the purely spiritual by religion. The State, then, instead of depriving men of these opportunities of free and fine production, not only of material but also of intellectual values, should rather constitute itself as their defender.”

Government Socialism means being forced to do a benificent act for someone else. The Social Justice of the Church means freely caring for your neighbor. However, I do think some people have forgotten the difference.

 

[Abu]

St Francis
I do not think that the Church has always taught that the state must assist in the welfare of the citizens by giving money to them.

This is too simplistic. While the principle of subsidiarity is paramount, here is the teaching on the family:
“The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done” (no.19). This, as we have seen, has been a major theme of papal social teaching since Leo XIII. John Paul reminds his readers of the connection of just wages with the family. “Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future” (no.19). This can be done either by means of “what is called a family wage – that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home” or by “family allowances or grants,” which are common in many European countries. Such arrangements are a way in which a society can ensure that mothers are not forced to leave the home to take up paid work, something which is “wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders [the] primary goals of the mission of a mother” (no. 19).
Catholic Social Teaching: John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, (Thomas Storck)
[catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0286.html]](http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0286.html])

“Single men and the married men with families receive the same rates of pay for the same work. As a result, one sector of the population bears a disproportionately large share of the financial burden of maintaining the child population, which means the future nation, except for income tax benefits, which may unfortunately, be cancelled out by consumer taxes. The effective solution we are urging may well require a family allowance system in the United States similar to those adopted by Canada, many European nations, Australia, New Zealand and some governments of South America. We stand ready to support enlightened legislation in this sense.”
[ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/USBPSHV.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/USBPSHV.HTM])

This is all the more urgent now because of the population devastation facing Western nations, and the difficulties facing families.

 

[Black_Rose]

Huh?

“The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done …Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future”

I thought there is no such thing a “just remuneration” in the “free market” since it operates on amoral principles of individual conduct that respect the principle of liberty which does not take into account utility, need, and merit.

Isn’t that imposing one’s external normative values on what the “free market” should do since the market allegedly provides remuneration for capital and labor based on its value, where “value” is defined and quantified by the signal of price judged by the aggregate self-interested actions of market participants? The ideal “free market” does not apportion resources based on concepts such as “social justice” nor does it operate teleologically towards an externally designated economic goal such as the prosperity of the nation-state or the family as an economic unit, but should be driven by one’s ability to provide value. Those who are unable to provide any value to any market participant would then be condemned to the material privation, social humiliation, and despair of poverty.

 

[josethekke]

I believe there exists an inherent link between Socialism and atheism that renders it completely incompatible with Christianity. That link is made in the underlying premise of Socialism - positivism, the notion that through human activity, the ills of humanity can be cured. Positivism leads the Socialist to conclude that as man continues to flounder and fail, other activity or more activity must be tried. Thus any institution that limits the scope of possible human effort on other than pragmatic grounds must be put down and eradicated (i.e. Christianity, which red lines a variety of behaviors or possible positivist solutions on moral grounds). Positivism also leads the Socialist to conclude that central orchestration of human activity is necessary to effectively attempt solutions, and that natural human tendencies must be countered and corrected by human, rather than other (spiritual) means. Precisely because Socialism shares with Christianity the recognition that natural human tendencies need reform, many Christians confuse the aims of Socialism, which are entirely materialistic.

Capitalism differs. Capitalism makes no statement as to reform of the tendencies of the human being, but rather recognizes and attempts to use those inadequacies to a practical end. At its worst, Capitalism tries to co-opt religion. Here, the Capitalist hopes to find in religion a justification for human weakness and a means of embracing it (as in success theology). At its best, Capitalism leaves hands off religion, and the Capitalist is chastened and informed by it.

I also share the ideas of Biggie Socialism,Capitalism ,Communism all have merits and demerits .The way it is implemented and understood make the problem The absence of love and sharing will cause people to attract towards communism or socialism

 

[ERose]

Those who are unable to provide any value to any market participant would then be condemned to the material privation, social humiliation, and despair of poverty.

Then you learn a new trade or skill and continue in the workplace. The days of staying in one job or trade for your entire life is fading away. We all have to be flexible and willing to learn a new job when necessary.

 

[Abu]

Black_Rose
I thought there is no such thing a “just remuneration” in the “free market” since it operates on amoral principles of individual conduct that respect the principle of liberty which does not take into account utility, need, and merit.
Those who are unable to provide any value to any market participant would then be condemned to the material privation, social humiliation, and despair of poverty.

This displays the confusion which is all too prevalent. Since when does free enterprise operate “on amoral principles of individual conduct”? Your false assumptions continue to cloud your conclusions. It is high time that the many erroneous assumptions about free enterprise be discarded and replaced by conscientious study of this system which has transformed the economies and welfare of the world.

Free enterprise is not “greed driven” it is common good driven for the welfare of the greatest number and dependant on consumer satisfaction and competition, dependant on the laws of cause and effect involving God-given reason, and based on a standard social principle of Christ’s Church – subsidiarity. How individual employers act is based on their morality and on which they will be judged.

It is the viable, well-run enterprises, that produce wealth due to good management, good investment and productive well-paid employees, that can contribute to the support of the needy and whose managers and employees themselves can contribute to those in need.

While the social teaching of the Popes may fail to reflect at times the understanding of free enterprise developed by the Late Scholastics, in *Quadragesimo Anno *(Pius XI, 1931) you will see:
“72. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.”

That is why bonuses or allowances for children born into a family and offered by the State continue to be, and now more so than ever due to the birth dearth, a real need for the welfare of a nation.

 

[elts1956]

Then you learn a new trade or skill and continue in the workplace. The days of staying in one job or trade for your entire life is fading away. We all have to be flexible and willing to learn a new job when necessary.

There is a GREAT difference between a CHOICE to move to a different career and being FORCED to do so. What do you think made this country great if it was not free enterprise and individual initiative to better one self giving a sense of accomplishment and focus?

 

[jburgherr]

So you are saying that capitalism relies on greed (money and goods) and that this is a good thing because it respects human freedom. One forgets the barbarism in capitalism; the stick of poverty instead of the carrot of wealth. Capitalism needs poverty as a motivator too:

archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2001/msg01580.htm

As Mao said:

That you quote Mao who killed millions of his own citizens speaks volumes of who you are. Socialism leads to a small group controlling everything. It always leads to slavery of the people and it always leads to genocide. Every time! Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, killed nearly 110 million people between the years of 1900 & 1987 for the sake of Socialism & Communism. Their brutality make the WW2 Jewish holocaust look tame. How very sad that you think this is what the world should evolve to.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Huh?

“The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done …Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future”

I thought there is no such thing a “just remuneration” in the “free market” since it operates on amoral principles of individual conduct that respect the principle of liberty which does not take into account utility, need, and merit.

Isn’t that imposing one’s external normative values on what the “free market” should do since the market allegedly provides remuneration for capital and labor based on its value, where “value” is defined and quantified by the signal of price judged by the aggregate self-interested actions of market participants? The ideal “free market” does not apportion resources based on concepts such as “social justice” nor does it operate teleologically towards an externally designated economic goal such as the prosperity of the nation-state or the family as an economic unit, but should be driven by one’s ability to provide value. Those who are unable to provide any value to any market participant would then be condemned to the material privation, social humiliation, and despair of poverty.

I’m not sure I accept this argument. A worker is free to change jobs, increase their skills or refuse to work if the remuneration is insufficient. The laws of supply and demand work both ways. Do you think a socialist system provides adequate remuneration? Ask those in N Korea

 

[Geowitz]

It seems to me that a lot of people are using “social justice” to confuse and marry justice with charity. Justice and charity are two completely different concepts. Charity has nothing to do with justice and justice has nothing to do with charity. Justice is what is due to you. It is not a choice. Charity is what is given in love with no expectation of something in return.

So here’s my point - “just price” is the “market price” and “just wage” is the “market wage”. A job can only pay what is just relative to the output of the job whether someone can live off it or not. Distributists claim “just wage” is what is required to live comfortably. Can we get more subjective than that? This flies in the face of natural and economic laws, not to mention common sense.

Economics is a part of natural law and free will. All attempts(distributism/socialism/comunism whatever you want to call it, they all become the same in varying time spans) to subvert the laws of economics only lead to bad things. It’s like ignoring gravity and saying you can fly. Sure, you can try, but it’s not gonna work out well. Natural law with respect to economics is all about free will and agreements between parties - ie the free market.

Charity has nothing to do with the laws of economics and their existence. The popes who tried to write on economics have no more business guiding the faithful on the laws of economics than they do on brain surgery or the laws of physics. No catholic is morally bound to their writings. We are free to disagree…wow what a great thing… freedom…hmmm…

Catechism # 1884 - God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. **The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. **They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

 

[jewells17]

The social justice groups I have been a part of through Catholicism and Pacifist Churches in America …are social revenge groups that feel qualified to look back through history and decide who was right or wrong and get even with the side they think was wrong…through reparations. They are a hoax and not qualified to review history and make any judgement call. They come across as wanting to make things up to the under dogs of history…but this is a rackett. They are judgemental towards souls that are not here to defend themselves…and that’s why they do this. Pray for them…forgiveness is the key…not what they are doing.

 

[mike45]

I think you are all confusing socialism with communism. All the monastic institutions are socialist in that goods and property are shared. That is how the first Christians lived, according to the Acts of the Apostles. Also, take a look at the great labor parties of the world. Many of them have been headed by devout Catholics. In Australia, at the moment, we have a wonderful Catholic leading the NSW Labor Party. She is actually American and has a degree in theology.

 

[Geowitz]

Socialism and communism are both distributist and evil, but different degrees of it. The principal of private property is violated by both ideologies at whatever degree the party in power decides. Hardly fair.

Being a part of a monastic society is voluntary and part of an individuals free will decision. Jesus never forced the apostles, nor did he condemn those who were not living like the apostles. Quite the contrary, he knew there were different vocations for all. And you only prove the importance of subsidiarity when you say the apostles lived as socialists because they chose to do that as a community not controlled by a governement. Imagine that - they chose to live that way and didn’t force it on anyone and didn’t need the power of government to enforce it. Isn’t that a better way to do it? I do the same with my community. Those who don’t want to participate don’t have to. Socialism and distributism is mandated through threat of force. We are supposed to be more voluntarily socialistic in our family and community, but the farther you go from the individual the less socialistic it has to be to ensure the freedom and liberty of man.

The fact that catholics(not immune from original sin) lead various institutions does not justify their positions.

Economics is a science with laws.

Catechism # 1884 - God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

It seems to me that a lot of people are using “social justice” to confuse and marry justice with charity. Justice and charity are two completely different concepts. Charity has nothing to do with justice and justice has nothing to do with charity. Justice is what is due to you. It is not a choice. Charity is what is given in love with no expectation of something in return.

So here’s my point - “just price” is the “market price” and “just wage” is the “market wage”. A job can only pay what is just relative to the output of the job whether someone can live off it or not. Distributists claim “just wage” is what is required to live comfortably. Can we get more subjective than that? This flies in the face of natural and economic laws, not to mention common sense.

Economics is a part of natural law and free will. All attempts(distributism/socialism/comunism whatever you want to call it, they all become the same in varying time spans) to subvert the laws of economics only lead to bad things. It’s like ignoring gravity and saying you can fly. Sure, you can try, but it’s not gonna work out well. Natural law with respect to economics is all about free will and agreements between parties - ie the free market.

Charity has nothing to do with the laws of economics and their existence. The popes who tried to write on economics have no more business guiding the faithful on the laws of economics than they do on brain surgery or the laws of physics. No catholic is morally bound to their writings. We are free to disagree…wow what a great thing… freedom…hmmm…

Catechism # 1884 - God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. **The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. **They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

Thank you for a very well thought out post. I am going to like you on this board. But as you probably already know…it is very difficult to convert a liberal based on sound logic.

 

[Monk21]

I sense here a form of McCarthyism. I am in Canada and like the USA we do have some aspects of our lives in what most here would call socialism.
But, there is a warped idea of what we have and what Americans have in bits and pieces of socialism.
You have your Police, payed by the state.
The Fire Depts. paid by the state.
The libraries, paid by the state.
Your schools paid by the state, as well as the curriculum formed by the state.
And yet Americans scoff at health care to be provided by the state.
I have had major health problems involving the heart, yet all tests and procedures completed and I have paid not one penny for this.
There is a difference between total and partial socialism.
Canadians can only look at the American fear of socialized medical treatment as dumb, dumb and dumber.
The Republicans tried to paint our medical system as bad…funny we love it.
No one in Canada goes bankrupt over health problems, yet over 50% of American bankruptcies in the states are from medical costs.
Sad!

 

[estesbob]

I sense here a form of McCarthyism. I am in Canada and like the USA we do have some aspects of our lives in what most here would call socialism.
But, there is a warped idea of what we have and what Americans have in bits and pieces of socialism.
You have your Police, payed by the state.
The Fire Depts. paid by the state.
The libraries, paid by the state.
Your schools paid by the state, as well as the curriculum formed by the state.
And yet Americans scoff at health care to be provided by the state.
I have had major health problems involving the heart, yet all tests and procedures completed and I have paid not one penny for this.
There is a difference between total and partial socialism.
Canadians can only look at the American fear of socialized medical treatment as dumb, dumb and dumber.
The Republicans tried to paint our medical system as bad…funny we love it.
No one in Canada goes bankrupt over health problems, yet over 50% of American bankruptcies in the states are from medical costs.
Sad!

And when Canadians really have a major health problem they come to the US. If we had socialized medicine where would they go?

blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2%80%99-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/

BTW-unless you dont pay taxes or dont purchase good from companies that do you paid more than a penny for your health care

 

[jewells17]

I think you are all confusing socialism with communism. All the monastic institutions are socialist in that goods and property are shared. That is how the first Christians lived, according to the Acts of the Apostles. Also, take a look at the great labor parties of the world. Many of them have been headed by devout Catholics. In Australia, at the moment, we have a wonderful Catholic leading the NSW Labor Party. She is actually American and has a degree in theology.

 

[jewells17]

I think you are all confusing socialism with communism. All the monastic institutions are socialist in that goods and property are shared. That is how the first Christians lived, according to the Acts of the Apostles. Also, take a look at the great labor parties of the world. Many of them have been headed by devout Catholics. In Australia, at the moment, we have a wonderful Catholic leading the NSW Labor Party. She is actually American and has a degree in theology.

If you get a chance…watch Glenn Beck on Fox each afternoon. Everyone in our area is learning so much about this topic from his show. See what you think and check up on the things he says…for youself. Don’t just buy into his info…research for yourself like we all do. Take care and God bless!

 

[RonGawthorp]

“I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it”.

Though one can define concrete tenents of socialism, there also does seem to be a proof of its inherent ineffectiveness in its practical applications.

We do have schools paid for by the state, but very inefficiently. Money there is wasted in abundance. Private schools always do much better with much less.

The same goes for health care in the US that is already paid by the state.

In general, government run programs are highly inefficient and waste taxpayer monies on a large scale. The proof of this comes in our current situation in the US.

Also, socialism seems to be based on a philosophy of scarcity. The psychological bent is opposed to God’s abundance. In practice, the US system (even with its flaws) has produced a much larger distribution of wealth than socialist regimes. The US is also the most generous in charitable giving.

Higher taxes are necesary for socialist programs to operate. While taxes are necessary, there does come a point where the burden of taxes becomes too much for the society to bear. This seems to be the case in the socialist societies today that are experiencing break down.

In the end, the moral code must govern men first. The well formed conscience must guide the individual in private and public service. We are seeing how capitalism can be infected with greed through different but similar avenues as socialism. Greed is inherent inherent in the structure of socialism, while greed creeps into the capitalist system voluntarily.