Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[Monk21]

Luvzminis wrote;
“Just as you now know that police, fire services and schools are NOT socialistic, and that Sadam Hussein DID gas the Iranians, contrary to what you once thought, you really need to appreciate the facts on free enterprise versus socialism.”

You can call these things whatever you want. They are still socialistic. And Hussein gassed the Kurds in his own northern country.

Where is your squiggly line that say this is, that is not socialism?

 

[edward_george]

He said Christ was a socialist… not that the people entrusted with guiding his church are. In fact, everything cast up by anti-Christians as an evil committed by the church seems to have some link to the political right: to greed, power craving, money gathering nonsense.

Just thought I’d throw my two cents in.

Who said Christ was a socialist? None of the Popes ever have–Leo XIII condemns socialism about as strongly as you can in about half of his encyclicals (and he wrote dozens of them). All subsequent Popes condemned socialism. Fr. Corapi certainly wasn’t endorsing it.

-ACEGC

 

[djeter]

In this reading on Dostoevsky I came across one of the reasons the Church came to regret her dalliance with socialism in in the 19th century:

"Dostoevsky makes many Catholic readers uncomfortable. In many of his novels he rails against the Catholic Church. His knowledge of the Catholic Church, however, came largely from the French socialists who had such a profound influence on him in his youth. Dostoevsky viewed the Catholic Church as an institution that had abandoned its spiritual beliefs in a quest to give mankind earthly happiness. He has the Catholic Grand Inquisitor state to Christ in The Brothers Karamazov, “You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race?”

Dostoevsky related his sense of how the Catholic social preoccupation worked. **“The Catholic priest searches out some miserable worker’s family and gains their confidence. He feeds them all, gives them clothes, provides heating, looks after the sick, buys medicine, becomes the friend of the family and converts them to Catholicism.” **This sense of the socially obsessed Catholic Church which places earthly comfort before redemptive suffering and peace on earth before peace of soul must make any post-Vatican II Catholic uncomfortable in its precision. The only error when applied to the Novus Ordo Church is that the priest would no longer attempt to convert the family. The sentimental socialism of the nineteenth-century French intellectuals whom Dostoevsky came to despise found a happy home in the post-conciliar Church."

More here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/10/08/reading-selections-from-%e2%80%9cdostoevsky-and-the-mystery-of-russia%e2%80%9d-by-david-allen-white/

dj

 

[athair_siochain]

I’ve heard this argument from Leftists several times before, so it’s quite obvious their sources are repeating it to “educate” them about Socialism. Be very careful.

While Christ cared deeply about the poor, he certainly did nothing like the Socialists in Washington today are doing to this country. Would Christ be ‘for’ the killing of the innocent in the womb? (Socialists are!) Would he urge us to put unnatural chemicals and gadgets into our bodies (which are temples of the Holy Spirit) so that we cannot procreate? How about making sure there are not enough jobs, nor pay is not sufficient for families to survive on? Would Christ approve that? Socialists do! Would Christ want us to lose control over our lives and have the government nanny-state us in every way conceivable? Socialists are all for that.

Socialism is NOT about equality–it’s about tyranny. While a tiny percentage of it is positive, realistically, it does not, and has never worked, and “the people” always end up losing, while the government dictates their lives. I might add that Socialism does not respect religious liberty, unless you want to call erecting pseudo churches (with ‘teachings’ dictated by the state) “religious liberty.” Certainly, again, Christ would not be ‘for’ that!

I’m reminded of Hitler and the Nazis, as doesn’t ‘Nazi’ stand for National Socialist Party?

The Capitalist system is far from perfect, but it certainly invites more freedom. It does need much improvement, however.

If Christ had been a Capitalist,

he would have charged for public appearances

he would have charged for the loaves and fishes

he would not have booted the landlords and moneylenders out of the temple.

we all know what his thoughts were on the rich-man.

Hitler was a Capitalist, he robbed and murdered the poor. the sick. he wanted to" own the whole world"
What had Christ to say about that?

 

[Vixit]

(China, IMO, is more of a fascist state than a communist one, but that’s another topic! Fascist being defined not as nazis, but as a totalitarian government where private ownership of means of production makes up at least a substantial part of the economy).

Actually, the best definition of fascism comes from its creator, Mussolini. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

Fascism is the maturation of Capitalism. Let’s keep in mind that the Church condemns Capitalism, too.

 

[athair_siochain]

Just thought I’d throw my two cents in.

Who said Christ was a socialist? None of the Popes ever have–Leo XIII condemns socialism about as strongly as you can in about half of his encyclicals (and he wrote dozens of them). All subsequent Popes condemned socialism. Fr. Corapi certainly wasn’t endorsing it.

-ACEGC

Christ was a Socialist of sorts???, it seems the Capitalist supporters see socialism as being like Communism, there is not a lot of difference between Capitalism and Communism , they both exploit those who do the real work, the leaders with the most power have the most comforts are treated like Kings,
Christ was not blinded by greed, that is why his last words were well chosen,“forgive them father they know not what they do” blind greed effects people that way. they will say and do anything to protect their gravy train being derailed ,

 

[Vixit]

I’ve heard this argument from Leftists several times before, so it’s quite obvious their sources are repeating it to “educate” them about Socialism. Be very careful.

While Christ cared deeply about the poor, he certainly did nothing like the Socialists in Washington today are doing to this country. Would Christ be ‘for’ the killing of the innocent in the womb? (Socialists are!) Would he urge us to put unnatural chemicals and gadgets into our bodies (which are temples of the Holy Spirit) so that we cannot procreate? How about making sure there are not enough jobs, nor pay is not sufficient for families to survive on? Would Christ approve that? Socialists do! Would Christ want us to lose control over our lives and have the government nanny-state us in every way conceivable? Socialists are all for that.

Socialism is NOT about equality–it’s about tyranny. While a tiny percentage of it is positive, realistically, it does not, and has never worked, and “the people” always end up losing, while the government dictates their lives. I might add that Socialism does not respect religious liberty, unless you want to call erecting pseudo churches (with ‘teachings’ dictated by the state) “religious liberty.” Certainly, again, Christ would not be ‘for’ that!

I’m reminded of Hitler and the Nazis, as doesn’t ‘Nazi’ stand for National Socialist Party?

The Capitalist system is far from perfect, but it certainly invites more freedom. It does need much improvement, however.

Patently false. One of the main philosophies of the socialist parties in America is “jobs for all, and a living wage for all.” Socialism was born out of the desire to have better job choices and better pay. To say otherwise shows incredible ignorance.

 

[Vixit]

Socialism at its essence represents mercy for the working classes. But capitalism is at best apathetic for the welfare of the working classes except in the global competition of the Cold War between socialism and capitalism where the working classes in capitalist countries had to be looked out for and appeased. For instance** neo-liberal globalization** has caused immense poverty and suffering (much more than Chairman Mao’s programs implemented with his benign intentions

In other words, capitalism requires the perpetuation of poverty as a negative economic incentive for productivity (even in the midst of global industrial overcapacity where there is individual scarcity despite industrial plenitude); the essence of capitalism regards mercy for the poor as a sign of weakness, incompatible with its Darwinian tendencies to cruelly dispose of the economically unfit.

Theologically, I see God’s mercy (not his justice) as the only way to reconcile the existence of a benevolent god with a flawed creation. (My thread about this is here.) (I am not convinced of the “free will” argument at all since I believe it is better [for me at least] to live in a world where suffering and hardship is impossible but I do not experience free will, nor do I believe that human “free will” is anything to be impressed with since our will is obviously limited by our circumstances and intellect capacity [imposed by neurological and biological constraints])

I’m curious about the use of the word “neo-liberal”. Don’t you mean neo-Conservative? They are the ones who love to send jobs overseas…

 

[Vixit]

Let’s go to this paragraph, since I am short on time.

First, the concept of class needs to be examined. The notion that definable classes of Bourgeoisie and Proletariat transplantable from epoch to epoch is a Socialist construct and utter nonsense. It is a creation of Marx. No class, no dialectic. It is necessary to the Socialist model that such classes exist which can then be artificially pitted through the mechanism of envy one against another to provide the lubricant for revolt. Socialism defines class, promulgates it, enshrines it and, in the name of eradicating its own creation, dismantles society.

Capitalism rejects the notion of class, and envisions individuals moving up and down the economic ladder freely based on achievement and ability.

And mercy does not exist in intention, but in outcomes. The current destruction of the European economy and the historical depravity of Socialist experiments were and are not merciful because they purportedly mean well (although even that could be debated). They were and are violence itself, fiscal and real, based on the fruit of the tree.

That’s must be why I keep hearing about the vanishing Middle Class…

 

[Vixit]

Do you know what “socialism” even means or you are just using the term as blunt general epithet? Actually, Nazism can be considered an incarnation of fascism, not socialism if we use the wikipedia definition:

And Henry CK Liu’s summary of fascism, socialism, and capitalist democracy:

lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2001-November/035090.html

America is a fascist nation. Problem is, 90% of Americans have absolutely no clue…

 

[Vixit]

If they are such a panacea, one wonders why the whole world has not copied them. Look beyond the hackneyed hype, and a different picture emerges.

I’m afraid more of the world is Socialist than Capitalist. Do some research.

 

[Vixit]

Try to tune in to the Glenn Beck show on the Fox channel at 5pm each day to learn about Socialism. Everyone at churches in our area watch this show and are forming groups to study the Constitution and learn the difference between the two. You will learn alot on this show and will enjoy it.

Jesus Christ have mercy on us the day Catholics start taking Glenn Beck seriously…

 

[exoflare]

LOL so there’s actually a serious debate taking place here on whether socialism is actually bad… Are we as a nation really that far gone that we have to convince people that the sky is blue, or is this more of an internet type of thing?

 

[edward_george]

I think the problem is twofold here. First, people believe in a strict dualism–it’s either capitalism or it’s socialism. There are other economic systems out there, however, and some work a bit better than those. Second, people have this idea that Catholicism necessarily equals capitalism, which isn’t the case. The Popes have had much to say about both socialism and capitalism, and it’s not entirely favorable. While John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been somewhat more supportive of capitalism than their predecessors, say, Leo XIII and Pius IX, it’s still not necessarily the best way–much less some kind of approved system. I’ve also heard of people, not necessarily in this thread, equate American Republicanism with Catholicism, which definitely is not the case (I made that mistake for a long time). Neither of the major parties in America lines up completely with the Church’s teaching, due in large part to the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are very philosophically similar. This is why there is always peaceful transition when new governments are voted in here–the ideologies are not terribly different, even though the liberals and conservatives in the media will swear up and down that they’ve got the corner on truth and the other side is nothing short of the great Satan.

-ACEGC

 

[luvzminis]

Jesus Christ have mercy on us the day Catholics start taking Glenn Beck seriously…

Beck doesn’t always represent the Catholic position. However, he’s a heck of a lot closer than those who are promoting socialism via “news” sources.

 

[luvzminis]

I think the problem is twofold here. First, people believe in a strict dualism–it’s either capitalism or it’s socialism. There are other economic systems out there, however, and some work a bit better than those. Second, people have this idea that Catholicism necessarily equals capitalism, which isn’t the case. The Popes have had much to say about both socialism and capitalism, and it’s not entirely favorable. While John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been somewhat more supportive of capitalism than their predecessors, say, Leo XIII and Pius IX, it’s still not necessarily the best way–much less some kind of approved system. I’ve also heard of people, not necessarily in this thread, equate American Republicanism with Catholicism, which definitely is not the case (I made that mistake for a long time). Neither of the major parties in America lines up completely with the Church’s teaching, due in large part to the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are very philosophically similar. This is why there is always peaceful transition when new governments are voted in here–the ideologies are not terribly different, even though the liberals and conservatives in the media will swear up and down that they’ve got the corner on truth and the other side is nothing short of the great Satan.

-ACEGC

I can agree with much of what you say. Catholics, when sincere in their Faith, are neither Democrats or Republicans. However, I’d have to say the Republicans are still at least a bit closer to what the Church teaches, save for a few libs in the Republican Party.

 

[luvzminis]

Just thought I’d throw my two cents in.

Who said Christ was a socialist? None of the Popes ever have–Leo XIII condemns socialism about as strongly as you can in about half of his encyclicals (and he wrote dozens of them). All subsequent Popes condemned socialism. Fr. Corapi certainly wasn’t endorsing it.

-ACEGC

 

[Abu]

athair_siochain
we all know what his [Jesus’] thoughts were on the rich-man.

It is a common error to equate the condemnation of an inordinate attachment to riches with the creation of wealty through hard work and thrift.
Face Reality:
Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them. Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ, God the Son, lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30).

 

[Abu]

Vixit
Let’s keep in mind that the Church condemns Capitalism, too.

False.

edward_george
While John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been somewhat more supportive of capitalism than their predecessors, say, Leo XIII and Pius IX, it’s still not necessarily the best way–much less some kind of approved system.

False. Such confusion can easily be dispelled by the facts.

Face Reality
Learning the facts enables us to follow Christ more closely.
“Capitalism” is Marx’s term of derision.
Listen to Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus #42:
“If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ ”

 

[luvzminis]

It is a common error to equate the condemnation of an inordinate attachment to riches with the creation of wealty through hard work and thrift.
Face Reality:
Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them. Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ, God the Son, lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30).