Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[TheRealJuliane]

Does working hard include starring in T.V. shows, Movies, and bombing innocent people?
Yes and no, in terms of your first question.** The Common Good **should always override the Individual good. If a billionaire wants to go buy his 8th car, while a family somewhere across the country is barely making ends meet with several jobs, don’t you think it’s fair that they have a chance to actually…live? And Eat? And have a home?

I don’t see how what your saying is true, because if it was, then you wouldn’t have 95% of the wealth with 1% of the population. Wealth should be equally distributed to a certain extent. No one should live in the U.S. or Canada or anywhere else and be given all of these rights protected by our Constitutions, and then left to starve on the street.

Straight out of the Communist manual. I ask you, who is it that makes the decision about how much is too much? Many of what you deem to be super-wealthy people also give a lot to charity. Who is qualified to say how much anyone should make? Because THOSE people usually stand to gain by enforcing what they deem to be equality. This is totalitarianism, not freedom.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Because I have, does not mean you are prevented from also having. There is no pie that is diminished when people gain wealth. If you don’t know what a zero-sum game is, google it.

 

[po18guy]

It is amazing to see the newly resurrected and emboldened adherents of hoary old failed collectivist systems posting here with new found ferocity! Those who claim to be “Catholic” simply leave me in a state of incredulity! Has anyone read the catechism, specifically sections 1878-1896? No Catholic may support any form of collectivism and remain in good standing. Rather than argue, read what the Church you claim to belong to actually teaches.

 

[athair_siochain]

Wrong on all counts. The government is there to protect the rights we have been granted by GOD, not to award us rights as the people in government choose to. Our government is severely limited as to what it is to do, and that does not include forcing us to give to others. We as Christian Catholics already know that we are to give to others out of our time, talent and treasure, and most other Christians do this too. That is what missions have always been about.

Of COURSE there is coercion when the government takes my rightful property (my wages) to give to people who will not work! What else is it when an institution uses its overwhelming power to take from some to give to others?

If socialism is not anti-God, explain why Europe is littered with unused churches? As socialism has risen in importance, religion has waned. Socialism is HUMANISTIC in origin - that heaven may be experienced here on earth created by us humans. That rather leaves God out, does it not?

Anyway, even Marx knew that there is no such thing as socialism - that is merely a step along the way from capitalism to communism, and not a system unto itself. The end result is communism in its full expression.

A blinded by greed Christian has two rules , that govern their lives,

1- The Devil made me do it,

2- I am doing Gods work.

These two rules allow — blame or guilt to be swept aside, ,

Christ was a Socialist of sorts,
a government who looks after the poor ,the sick, the blind, are called Socialists.
That is what Christ said we must do,

Communism is a System apposed to Capitalism. Socialism is not, those hard line Conservative Capitalists on this thread speak with a forked tongue, they will do whatever is needed to stop their gravy train being derailed.

 

[anthony022071]

This is communism, not socialism. Two completely different things. The only things that failed in Eastern Europe were Communism and Fascism, not Socialism.

They are not two completely different things. They are both statist and have as their aim the control over property and the means of production,and the coerced redistribution of wealth. There is no line of demarcation between a socialist government and a communist government. A socialist government can continue to gain control over private property until it becomes like a communist government,and a communist government can allow for the growth of the private sector,as with China. Communism,when it involves a state government,is also socialism. The Eastern European governments that failed around 1990 were socialist as was the communist government of Russia,which called the country the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

 

[anthony022071]

A blinded by greed Christian has two rules , that govern their lives,

1- The Devil made me do it,

2- I am doing Gods work.

These two rules allow — blame or guilt to be swept aside, ,

In case you haven’t noticed,socialist politicians tend to be greedy with the wealth of the citizens,and socialists tend to think that it is doing God’s work to have the government redistribute wealth.

Christ was a Socialist of sorts,
a government who looks after the poor ,the sick, the blind, are called Socialists.
That is what Christ said we must do,

Christ did not tell us to use government to take care of the poor and sick,he commanded us as individual persons to do it. The government cannot love and it is not the proper vehicle for fulfilling God’s commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

Communism is a System apposed to Capitalism. Socialism is not, those hard line Conservative Capitalists on this thread speak with a forked tongue, they will do whatever is needed to stop their gravy train being derailed.

Communist governments (like China) need the money generated by capitalist businesses to support themselves,just as socialist governments do.

 

[Cruxis117]

They are not two completely different things. They are both statist and have as their aim the control over property and the means of production,and the coerced redistribution of wealth. There is no line of demarcation between a socialist government and a communist government. A socialist government can continue to gain control over private property until it becomes like a communist government,and a communist government can allow for the growth of the private sector,as with China. Communism,when it involves a state government,is also socialism. The Eastern European governments that failed around 1990 were socialist as was the communist government of Russia,which called the country the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

Hmm, so, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc, etc, must all instantly become communist?
Are Protestants and Catholics the same? No, why? Because although they share similar base ideas and tenets, they are profoundly different. Socialism and Communism are the exact same way. And with China, that’s not Communist. They’re fascist. Again, two different things. This is the problem, no one knows basic terminology.

 

[Cruxis117]

Straight out of the Communist manual. I ask you, who is it that makes the decision about how much is too much? Many of what you deem to be super-wealthy people also give a lot to charity. Who is qualified to say how much anyone should make? Because THOSE people usually stand to gain by enforcing what they deem to be equality. This is totalitarianism, not freedom.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Because I have, does not mean you are prevented from also having. There is no pie that is diminished when people gain wealth. If you don’t know what a zero-sum game is, google it.

Likewise, there is not an unlimited amount of wealth in a country. There actually IS (contrary to popular belief) a pie that some can have more of, while others have less. When someone holds all of the wealth, someone else will obviously be prevented from having wealth. Money does not fall out of the sky, nor grow on trees. If you wish to look at a case example, check out why France, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and others are way up on the list of countries that have better standards of living (and that don’t, surprisingly, have 14 trillion dollar debts…I wonder what economic system that country follows… )

The problem is that people assume that once you say that you agree with socialism, suddenly you lose all freedom, and everything instantly becomes totalitarian. When it actually doesn’t. I’m saddened that people are under the misconception that once you are socialist, you have become Communist, and likewise, once you become Conservative, you become Fascist. There is no “Communism, Democracy (Freedom), Fascism”. The political (and economic) scale is very widespread, when fully understood.

 

[Cruxis117]

Wrong on all counts. The government is there to protect the rights we have been granted by GOD, not to award us rights as the people in government choose to. Our government is severely limited as to what it is to do, and that does not include forcing us to give to others. We as Christian Catholics already know that we are to give to others out of our time, talent and treasure, and most other Christians do this too. That is what missions have always been about.

Of COURSE there is coercion when the government takes my rightful property (my wages) to give to people who will not work! What else is it when an institution uses its overwhelming power to take from some to give to others?

If socialism is not anti-God, explain why Europe is littered with unused churches? As socialism has risen in importance, religion has waned. Socialism is HUMANISTIC in origin - that heaven may be experienced here on earth created by us humans. That rather leaves God out, does it not?

Anyway, even Marx knew that there is no such thing as socialism - that is merely a step along the way from capitalism to communism, and not a system unto itself. The end result is communism in its full expression.

In terms of the coercion, what about people who can’t work? How about people who lose jobs? How about those who are not able to get jobs? It’s called “sharing”, that’s what it’s called.

No, actually, it doesn’t leave God out. Are you telling me that God would rather have the ONE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WITH NINETY FIVE PERCENT OF THE WEALTH, and have NINETY NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WITH FIVE PERCENT OF THE WEALTH? I mean, that’s ridiculous. You’re advocating that we should all become rich, which happens to make others poor.

And I don’t really care about what Marx thought, he was Communist. Whereas I’m Democratic Socialist.

 

[Cruxis117]

A blinded by greed Christian has two rules , that govern their lives,

1- The Devil made me do it,

2- I am doing Gods work.

These two rules allow — blame or guilt to be swept aside, ,

Christ was a Socialist of sorts,
a government who looks after the poor ,the sick, the blind, are called Socialists.
That is what Christ said we must do,

Communism is a System apposed to Capitalism. Socialism is not, those hard line Conservative Capitalists on this thread speak with a forked tongue, they will do whatever is needed to stop their gravy train being derailed.

Exactly! I’m glad to finally see someone with some sense here. Although I know that Christ and his Church do not take any political ideology as their own, what the Church teaches does involve Socialism, when fully understood.

 

[jimpres]

Exactly! I’m glad to finally see someone with some sense here. Although I know that Christ and his Church do not take any political ideology as their own, what the Church teaches does involve Socialism, when fully understood.

I think it involves one helping another, not an overseeing government helping everyone and leveling the playing field.

 

[Abu]

TheRealJuliane
the Church has become confused over what “social justice” even means

Well not the Church, but too many people including some priests and bishops – you won’t find the Popes teaching a false doctrine.

From the late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN the answer is clear:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003 (EWTN):
“The term ‘social justice’ was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls ‘general justice’ (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by ‘social engineering.’

“Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase ‘social justice’ is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.” [My underlining].

Those self-styled “Catholics”, blinkered and mired in the morass of socialism, are the cafeteria posters who manipulate the social teaching to suit their pet prejudices.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Likewise, there is not an unlimited amount of wealth in a country. There actually IS (contrary to popular belief) a pie that some can have more of, while others have less. When someone holds all of the wealth, someone else will obviously be prevented from having wealth. Money does not fall out of the sky, nor grow on trees. If you wish to look at a case example, check out why France, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and others are way up on the list of countries that have better standards of living (and that don’t, surprisingly, have 14 trillion dollar debts…I wonder what economic system that country follows… )

The problem is that people assume that once you say that you agree with socialism, suddenly you lose all freedom, and everything instantly becomes totalitarian. When it actually doesn’t. I’m saddened that people are under the misconception that once you are socialist, you have become Communist, and likewise, once you become Conservative, you become Fascist. There is no “Communism, Democracy (Freedom), Fascism”. The political (and economic) scale is very widespread, when fully understood.

You did not look up “Zero-sum game.” Because Bill Gates has billions of dollars, am I prevented from inventing a product everyone needs, wants and will pay for, and making billions of dollars myself? You are confusing wealth with the supply of money. If I make billions on my invention, does that money then come out of Bill Gates’ bank account? No, of course not. Now, government’s tinkering with the monetary supply can affect how much money I end up getting when all is said and done, but what I create for myself is NEVER related to what another person produces or creates. Some people will never sacrifice the time or effort it takes to become wealthy, they are satisfied with less, and that’s fine. They shouldn’t be given more out of some arbitrary desire to equalize everyone in society. It’s actually OK for people to decide how much money they want to make, or not make, or how much stuff they want to buy, or how much they don’t want to buy. Freedom comes from God, not an institution of man.

 

[Abu]

TheRealJuliane
Capitalism is the ONLY economic system that has the potential of truly allowing people to be free and care for themselves and others.

Correct.
The freedom of the individual here is the freedom so forcefully declared in the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”

The other key doctrine here is the principle of SUBSIDIARITY.
In Caritas in Veritate, the latest social Encyclical (2009), Pope Benedict XVI has explained that “Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (#36).

“Space also needs to be created within the market for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to act according to principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing the production of economic value in the process.” (#37).
True world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (CIV #67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (#57).

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185, elegantly reveals the encompassing economic initiative of the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason and will in free enterprise in a democratic society as seen by Christ’s Church:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

Facing reality necessitates acknowledging and following Christ’s Church in understanding the nature of man and encouraging the right use of the laws of economics for the benefit of mankind, not some bozo intent on a selfist fantasy in denying what His Church points out.

 

[homosapien15]

Correct.
The freedom of the individual here is the freedom so forcefully declared in the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II teaches: “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”

The other key doctrine here is the principle of SUBSIDIARITY.
In Caritas in Veritate, the latest social Encyclical (2009), Pope Benedict XVI has explained that “Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (#36).

“Space also needs to be created within the market for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to act according to principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing the production of economic value in the process.” (#37).
True world political authority not only “would need to be regulated by law, [but also] to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity” (CIV #67). Subsidiarity “is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state” (#57).

Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 184-185, elegantly reveals the encompassing economic initiative of the principles of human action – of cause and effect involving God-given reason and will in free enterprise in a democratic society as seen by Christ’s Church:
“Since the Catholic Church wants poverty confronted, since She wants this confrontation to be done justly and with the interest and cooperation of the workers and the poor, She has had to acknowledge, as did the socialist systems themselves, that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.”

Facing reality necessitates acknowledging and following Christ’s Church in understanding the nature of man and encouraging the right use of the laws of economics for the benefit of mankind, not some bozo intent on a selfist fantasy in denying what His Church points out.

Yes, correct. Capitalism gives complete freedom to advance himself and others, which is why it’s time to let it go. Capitalism has had free growth for a century now, and we have more working poor, marginalized, and neglected people. At the same time, we see GDP’s climbing, and wages stagnant, and other countries and continents destitute on account of capitalists’ actions.

You dismiss my post on Rerum Novarum by saying socialism’s main tenants are control of private property, which Cruxis corrected, and still. Socialism is government control of business, but people own their own houses. Socialism does not require all land belonging the government, that’s Communism.

Additionally, in a former post, you dismiss the views of priests and bishops for only the Pope. That I think is the true problem here. Devotion to the Holy Father is fantastic, but huge Church reforms took part because of the actions of those out of Rome, a stirring so to speak. Being Catholic isn’t following Rome’s every word in my opinion, it’s about living as Christ wanted us to. My central point is thus, being a Socialist should not exclude one from Catholicism.

Everyone sees I have no religion listed, but I was raised Catholic, and I left because of rigidity of dogma that’s caused people to be hurt even more by inactivity. Take this into account as you will, but know that none of my post are intended to attack the Catholic Church or Catholics with a venom.

 

[Abu]

homosapien15
Capitalism has had free growth for a century now, and we have more working poor, marginalized, and neglected people. At the same time, we see GDP’s climbing, and wages stagnant, and other countries and continents destitute on account of capitalists’ actions.
Socialism is government control of business. My central point is thus, being a Socialist should not exclude one from Catholicism…. I left because of rigidity of dogma.

The confusion and lack of knowledge displayed in this thread is staggering – which reflects why there is so much that is wrong in the world. Your “central point” is to reject the clear teaching of Christ’s Church, not just on socialism, but on other issues of faith and morals which is a rejection of Christ – many have placed themselves in this state.
Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Free enterprise arose from the way God made man, to reason from cause to effect – as confirmed by Jesus of Nazareth in the parable of the talents.
The rise of the West was due to an extraordinary faith in reason, influenced by Greek philosophy, which resulted from Catholic theology and doctrine, unlike Greek religion. Free enterprise “evolved, beginning early in the ninth century, by Catholic monks…seeking to ensure the economic security of their monastic estates.”(The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 55].

The free enterprise system of economics by its nature and results has enabled the creation and spread of wealth for untold billions since the days of eking out an existence before the 18th century. Nothing can compare with the wealth created and widely spread from this great system developed by faithful members of Christ’s Church.

The Medieval Schoolmen who preferred to be called the “Doctors”, “were the foremost thinkers of their times.” (Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 21). They employed logic and reasoning for the development of mankind. Chafuen incisively points out: “The Doctors offered utilitarian arguments to show that goods that are privately owned are better used than commonly owned goods. This explanation offers a budding theory of economic development: the division of goods and their ultimate possession by private individuals facilitates increased production.”

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. The finagling by governments has ensured that free enterprise has been blamed for many crises which have nothing to do with the free enterprise laws and operation.

Facing Reality
Mark Steyn pertinently sums up the problem:
nationalreview.com/articles/229215/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn?page=2
“The problem is there are never enough of ‘the rich’ to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out of Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?"
Then there is the Spanish, the Irish, Portugal, Italy.

Of the world’s biggest economies, only the U.S., Britain and Italy are still contracting. All three are big stimulators, (the Keynesian idiocy) though Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi can’t compete with Obama’s $800 billion fiasco… The president has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet. (July, 2010).
Unlike America, France and Germany had no government stimulus worth speaking of.
[Mark Steyn]](Mark Steyn])

 

[TheRealJuliane]

^

What I see on this thread is that there are several non-Catholic socialists arguing for their system. It’s obvious that is the case, since facts and Church doctrine are ignored in favor of a diatribe against capitalism.

If the socialists are Catholic, by birth or happenstance, they illustrate exactly what I have seen in my lifetime - the invasion of the Church and this country with people who want to tear down what we have achieved and replace it with a failed system that has been responsible for millions of deaths.

It may seem as though there are many of these individuals, but they are only a very small minority. We need to purge this element from the Church and our government. One of our good qualities as Americans and Westerners is our belief in the individual and a sort of optimistic trust that everyone is well motivated. This is not so, unfortunately, and that’s also a part of humanism that we need to deal with. This utopia that humanists seek is impossible on the earth. We start as sinners, and although Christ redeemed us from sin we still have that capacity, as long as we breathe, so building some sort of socialist (which is merely one step along the way toward communism) utopia is impossible, futile, and totally against the Bible.

 

[Cruxis117]

^

What I see on this thread is that there are several non-Catholic socialists arguing for their system. It’s obvious that is the case, since facts and Church doctrine are ignored in favor of a diatribe against capitalism.

If the socialists are Catholic, by birth or happenstance, they illustrate exactly what I have seen in my lifetime - the invasion of the Church and this country with people who want to tear down what we have achieved and replace it with a failed system that has been responsible for millions of deaths.

It may seem as though there are many of these individuals, but they are only a very small minority. We need to purge this element from the Church and our government. One of our good qualities as Americans and Westerners is our belief in the individual and a sort of optimistic trust that everyone is well motivated. This is not so, unfortunately, and that’s also a part of humanism that we need to deal with. This utopia that humanists seek is impossible on the earth. We start as sinners, and although Christ redeemed us from sin we still have that capacity, as long as we breathe, so building some sort of socialist (which is merely one step along the way toward communism) utopia is impossible, futile, and totally against the Bible.

While many socialists have searched for a utopia (which will never exist, if pursued only by humankind), I am certain that I and others who are defending Socialism understand that it is not because we believe that it is able to create a utopia, that we say that we think it works. We look at America and see the failure of a country, under it’s economic policies, it has become. If you look at the other countries in which America backed (Chile and the Dictator Pinochet, Venezuela and Suharto, etc) to implement a pure capitalist system, it failed. A pure Communist system also fails. A pure Fascist system also fails. (now I’m referring to political ideologies, not economic, although Communism is both). However, if you look at the best countries in the world, they acknowledge that people are to work and earn their pay, but that also, they should not be left to the wolves while the Minority of people have and control the Majority of the wealth.

Freedom comes from God, but is protected by the Government that the people elect to power. Have you ever known that this year, the U.S. dollar has dropped more in value than any other currency in the world? Do you know what other country had that problem? Weimar Republic Germany, right before the National Socialist Party took over. And why is that? Because of the attempts to induce and protect any form of pure capitalism that can be grabbed.

A Socialistic Government believes that humans have the right to a home, to a good education, to health care, to freedom of choice and of opinion. But for some odd reason, you advocate that we have a system where you have to buy everything yourself, and where you have people choosing to forsake health care insurance just because they can’t afford it, while you have Celebrities in Beverly Hills who have just bought their 8th car for the year. Certain things are NOT meant to be on the market. Likewise, Socialism does not want the complete destruction of the market, not at all. It is what we call “Regulation”. Do you know what happened the last time America and other countries were close to pure Capitalism? …The Great Depression. And now, the latest recession proves what you keep denying. That a Democratic Socialist Government works.

You somehow keep saying that The Church advocates Capitalism, whereas I’ve heard many Catholic Priests talk rather poorly of such a system. Likewise, they recognize that going to either extreme of the political scale, Communism and Facsism, fails as well. Only by going to the middle of the scale, of balancing out, or, as we understand it, Reverting to a Government that believes in Democracy but regulates the Economy, we find Democratic Socialism, or, even more to the middle, liberalism.

If you wish to call me humanistic because I believe that Humans should be equal, should be taken care of, and should have equal opprotunities in life, and share in the same freedom as everyone else, then yes, I am humanistic. If you believe that I am humanistic because I believe that we can do this without God in any way or form, no, I am not humanistic. You somehow believe that the best Catholic is a Free-Market Catholic. Surely, that means that we should leave everything to the free market then! Including Abortions. Certainly, if it is a service needed, then it belongs in the free market. And Lord forbid the Government get involved, that is none of their business.

You believe that the only true Catholics are those who particularly ascribe to your own political ideology, where I merely mean to make a correction, a rebuke, if you wish, of such a misunderstanding of what Socialism and other political systems are and what they entail. If you believe that Capitalism equals freedom, look at Nazi Germany, who was Fascist, meaning that they had Political Control, but had Economic Freedom. Surely, such misconceptions need to be corrected. I have stated in previous posts that I know that Christ and his Church do not officially advocate any political or economic ideology, they see that yes, we need elements of Both the Left and the Right sides, which is what Democratic Socialism is.

 

[Sandy_Kay]

You guys are missing the obvious. Any Capitalistic nation can afford and should meet the basic needs of its poorest citizens. I’m not talking about wants, but needs. Basic needs like food, clothes, shelter, and basic medical care. That doesn’t include things like braces for the kids teeth and Viagra for the old man. A Christian nation should be just as charitable as a Christian family. There is a difference between meeting the basic needs of the poor and the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism and socialism isn’t a choice between helping the poor and not helping them. It is a choice between who is God, God the Father or the government. No nation has the right to determine how rich a citizen is allow to be. No nation should have the authority to take what it discerns as too much wealth away from some and give it to others. If it does, it is playing god. A Capitalistic nation can and should pass laws to protect the basic rights of workers to a living wage, reasonable time off and fairly safe working conditions with respect to the employers right to be profitable. Destroy the profitability of a company to give the workers an ever greater share of the pie like this nation has done to the auto industry is also playing god. That is why socialism is unchristian.

Well not the Church, but too many people including some priests and bishops – you won’t find the Popes teaching a false doctrine.

From the late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN the answer is clear:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003 (EWTN):
“The term ‘social justice’ was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls ‘general justice’ (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by ‘social engineering.’

“Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase ‘social justice’ is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.” [My underlining].

Those self-styled “Catholics”, blinkered and mired in the morass of socialism, are the cafeteria posters who manipulate the social teaching to suit their pet prejudices.

 

[portarica]

Well not the Church, but too many people including some priests and bishops – you won’t find the Popes teaching a false doctrine.

From the late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN the answer is clear:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Nov-24-2003 (EWTN):
“The term ‘social justice’ was introduced into Catholic teaching in the 19th century. On the one hand, it is intended, at least in part, to avoid the error of reducing what Aristotle calls ‘general justice’ (devotion to the common good of one’s country) to LEGAL justice. On the other hand, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ aptly reflects the political philosophy of the modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, according to whom justice is fundamentally a matter of achieving the proper institutions and external settings that would effectively mold human beings into model citizens. In other words, for Rousseau, justice is not rooted in nature as it is for Aristotle and for the Church’s teaching. It is something that has to be attained by ‘social engineering.’

“Unfortunately, in the minds of many if not most, consciously or not, the term ‘social justice’ is viewed more in a Rousseaunian than an Aristotelian way. From the vantage point of both Aristotle and the Church’s teaching, the phrase ‘social justice’ is redundant because justice is already social: it is the social virtue par excellence.” [My underlining].

Those self-styled “Catholics”, blinkered and mired in the morass of socialism, are the cafeteria posters who manipulate the social teaching to suit their pet prejudices.

I would suggest that Jesus’ version of social justice is best explored within the context of treating each of the least like they may be Jesus in the guise of the least.

That would require a selfless approach to living that neither precludes one from generating opportunities for others nor defends the selfish accumulation of wealth.

What are the best means for achieving that balance that provides for a bigger pie to be shared and results in treating the least like they may be Him?

Is it the label or the outcome that should determine what is acceptable for Catholics?

Peace

 

[TheRealJuliane]

In socialism (again, merely a step along the way to full-blown communism), the government which is tyrannical has become God. Freedoms are given and taken away by the State. There is not some institution that is free from the influence of human beings, and socialism aka communism is not without that influence. Look at the former Soviet Union - who enjoyed that system? The people on top. They enjoyed the fruits of the workers’ labor, while the people that would supposedly benefit from “equality” were abused and deprived. Totalitarian governments are always heartless and cruel. Stalin himself was responsible for an estimated 10 MILLION deaths, either directly or indirectly due to famines caused by destruction of crops.

And yet, some people still look to Marxism (a soft word for communism) as some sort of solution to the world’s problems. It’s GOD, the real God, not men, that we need to look to for the solution. God told his people to take care of widows and orphans, and I believe God’s Word. We are to take care of our own families, take care of our own communities, and through the Church, help to take care of others if they have no families.

I am not an absolutist - capitalism in some forms can be ruthless, but is not usually fatal to huge numbers of people. Just because you are envious of people who happen to have a lot of money (today) does not mean that you have the right to take any of that wealth from them. Who is making the decision about how much is too much? Why would that person decide that he or she is wise enough to decide that?

Please remember that there is no such thing as a “government” that is an object unto itself. It is made up of human beings who are flawed and will have some good and some wicked motivations. Socialists seem to have an attitude that a government will always act as a protector of rights, while the reality is that under socialism, people lose many of their rights in trade for what they perceive as more security (I posit that it is far from security). Who makes the decisions? Ask yourself if you trust any human being that much. I do not. I want my government to get out of my way and allow me the dignity to make decisions for myself, even the decision not to work which will mean that I do not eat. It used to be a shame on people to take a handout from anyone, and a point of pride that a man could support his family. Even if times were lean, at least he and his family knew that they were making it on their own, not taking from someone else. If someone did need help, he or she would WORK in return for that help. When people traveled the country looking for WORK during the Great Depression, if any help was offered, there was WORK offered in return. That way, the person who received kept his dignity and his pride, and was not diminished for that need.

Taking welfare destroys men’s souls. We are not meant to take for nothing. It goes against what God created us to do. Socialism gives for nothing, based on someone’s ideal of what society should be. Jesus did not advocate giving someone the benefit of another person’s work, or he would have told a parable about the worker who took everything from the others and gave it to the sluggard out in the street.