A
april32010
Guest
socialism is condemned by the Church and to suggest that someone is in agreement with it is slander .
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
That certainly fits in with the state of societies, worldwide.
Unfortunately, for the same reasons, unless and until there is a re-awakening of the need for sound virtues and values throughout society and the utilization of the sound principles governing free enterprise, conditions will continue to be unfavorable for sound progress in all fields.
The most blatant examples seem to be in the field of “animal welfare” where even alligators, whales and birds involved in “accidents” are given outlandish care and attention while babies are killed by abortion for any reason, and most governments promote this slaughter as well as promoting so-called homosexual “marriage”.
S
Stfassisi
Guest
J
JerryZ
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
The laws concerning usury were originally concerned not with business deals, but with lending from the rich to the poor who were seeking survival. [Roger Charles, S.J., *Christian Social Witness and Teaching, Vol. I, 95]. Money was seen as sterile.
Then, as trade expanded the demand for money expanded from a means of exchange to “a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money; it was capital.” [Ibid. p 201. Emphasis added. (*Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Connor Court Publishing, 2011, p 76)].
That is why the teaching developed as given in post #34: ‘Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.” ’
The Catholic Church, the only one which Jesus built on Peter, tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us the Parable of Jesus in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace, and in which assisting the needy is an obligation.
Then, as trade expanded the demand for money expanded from a means of exchange to “a store or measure of value. It could be used to make more money; it was capital.” [Ibid. p 201. Emphasis added. (*Entrepreneurship in the Catholic Tradition, Fr Anthony G Percy, Connor Court Publishing, 2011, p 76)].
That is why the teaching developed as given in post #34: ‘Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.” ’
The Catholic Church, the only one which Jesus built on Peter, tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us the Parable of Jesus in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace, and in which assisting the needy is an obligation.
S
Stfassisi
Guest
The Catholic Church, the only one which Jesus built on Peter, tells us that socialism is evil, and why. She also gives us the Parable of Jesus in which He rewards only those who are faithful, prudent and industrious with the master’s money. She promotes a free enterprise society built on justice, fidelity, prudence, industriousness, private property, subsidiarity, love and peace, and in which assisting the needy is an obligation.
Not used to this forum yet ,so please forgive me.
Pope Leo XIII was well aware of the problems of Americanism and how the FF’s of the US could easily have implemented Socialism into its foundation
From
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM
TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE NOSTRAE By Pope Leo XIII
hese dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.
Not used to this forum yet ,so please forgive me.
Pope Leo XIII was well aware of the problems of Americanism and how the FF’s of the US could easily have implemented Socialism into its foundation
From
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM
TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE NOSTRAE By Pope Leo XIII
hese dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.
S
St_Francis
Guest
OK, you think capitalism is the right system for this country–the US, I assume. So, do you think there are any problems right now with our economic system?
R
Reep
Guest
And* here* is: What’s Wrong with Distributism?
M
markomalley
Guest
April,
You cite Centesimus Annus 8 when you say:*A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.
*However, there are a couple of things that should be noted:
Finally, any of these teachings, as shown in paragraph 71, as shown in Rerum Novarum, as shown in Laborem Exercens, talk about a living wage with the proviso that the husband/father goes out into the workplace and the wife/mother stays at home and raises the kids (a very honorable profession, in my mind). This implies a different standard for living wage for a young person living at home (they don’t have a family to care for nor do they need to pay for housing), a single person living on his/her own (again, no family to pay for), versus the head of a household.
Well, such a scheme is illegal in the US. The problem is that if you are going to apply one part of Church teaching, you need to apply it all.
You cite Centesimus Annus 8 when you say:*A workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. “If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice”.
*However, there are a couple of things that should be noted:
- …because an employer or contractor will afford no better…That is a very important caveat, as it bounds the argument to employers who would otherwise have the capability to pay better but who will not for reasons of greed.
- 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. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair.
First, note the bolded text from paragraph 72. Pius XI clearly recognizes that a call for a “living wage” should never force a business to shutter its doors. We’ve seen too many cases where demands of better wages have forced businesses to close (as an example, Hostess).
Finally, any of these teachings, as shown in paragraph 71, as shown in Rerum Novarum, as shown in Laborem Exercens, talk about a living wage with the proviso that the husband/father goes out into the workplace and the wife/mother stays at home and raises the kids (a very honorable profession, in my mind). This implies a different standard for living wage for a young person living at home (they don’t have a family to care for nor do they need to pay for housing), a single person living on his/her own (again, no family to pay for), versus the head of a household.
Well, such a scheme is illegal in the US. The problem is that if you are going to apply one part of Church teaching, you need to apply it all.
M
markomalley
Guest
Yes, but most people who throw it out in argument: “Why not distributism” are trying to come up with a “Catholic” argument for government confiscating and redistributing property…and acting like “uncle Sugar” and giving them something for nothing.
That was the reason I asked the OP (whom, I can only conclude from his/her silence, has no clue how to implement distributism) how it should be implemented on a national scale…without violating manifold tenets of Catholic Social Teaching.
The answer for the question “how to implement distributism” is simply “Tea Party 101.”
From Rerum Novarum:It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor.
It’s very simple, really.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
6The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearlinga together;
and a little child will lead them.
7The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
–Isaiah 11
History need not be consistent.
S
Stfassisi
Guest
S
Stfassisi
Guest
Good Post,dear friend. Distributism starts from genuine love of neighbor with the understanding to keep purchases as local as possible within the community.
Distributism is not redistribution when grounded in love of neighbor, it called charity
Excerpt from another good article
[distributistreview.com/mag/2011/08/g-k-chestertons-distributism/](http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/08/g-k-chestertons-distributism/)
The dilemma of Distributism is the dilemma of freedom itself. Distributism cannot be done to people, but only by people. It is not a system that can be imposed from above; it can only spring up from below. It can only come from what Chesterton calls “the non-mechanical part of man, the sacred quality in creation and choice.”12 If it happens, it seems most likely that it would be ushered in by a popular revolution. In any case, it must be popular. It would at some point require those with massive and inordinate wealth to give it up. In most popular revolutions, this has been achieved by means that are not always soft and cushy. In order to avoid a lot of blood and broken glass, religion can provide a very practical solution. It usually does. The Christian argument, if taken seriously, should be more terrifying to a rich man than a mob with axes and torches. The Christian argument has to do with eternity and not just immediate creature comforts. The central figure of the Christian religion said quite unambiguously that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. No matter how the rich man may try to breed smaller camels and manufacture larger needles, no matter how hard he snorts and stomps, he cannot get around the reality that to cling to his riches is to put his soul in peril. Although there are commentators who rush to soften the interpretation of this passage, the message is unfortunately backed up by the rest of the New Testament, most notably in St. Matt. xix:16–22, where a very good man is told to sell all he has and give to the poor, and in St. James v:1–6, where the description of the eternal scenario for the rich is not very soft at all. The implication is clear. As Chesterton says, “The obligation of wealth is to chuck it.”13
But the rich are a small part of the problem–only because there are so few of them. The larger part of the problem is the mentality that drives so many people to chase after money. Again, religion provides a practical solution. There is a commandment that states, “Thou shall not covet.” This little known commandment would have to be rediscovered and re-emphasized in order to build a Distributist society.
M
markomalley
Guest
Hint: html tags don’t work here. You have to use UBB code.
Anyway, the bottom line is we’re talking capitalism with a Christian ethic (in as much as the Christian ethic will ensure that people treat each other well…as well as dealing with the greed and envy issues)
S
St_Francis
Guest
Well, I’d say distributism is a little more than that. Distributism proposes that businesses be either single-owner, double-owner, or cooperatives. We would no longer have transnational corporations and the like.
To me, distributism creates a system in which people can do as the pope suggested: to work together to do something rather than what we have now, in which everyone pulls against each other trying to get their own. And this atmosphere of working together should function throughout society rather than just in the economic sphere.
M
markomalley
Guest
The vast majority of corporations are publicly traded. People can and do own those corporations. Most corporations have employee sock purchase plans and/or offer company stock as part of their 401(k) plans.
Therefore, in those corporations, the employees are part owners. In other words, cooperatives.
On edit: I just checked and even McDonalds and Walmart both offer ESPPs with company match.
S
St_Francis
Guest
That is not at all what I am talking about.
Many years before I “became” a distributist, I realized that the corporate structure m
leads to a diffusion of responsibility. When combined with the concentration of power, this leads to the horrible mess of power without resposibility. The goal is the short-term bottom line and all else is ignored.
The fact that many can “own” the corporation is meaningless, because the owners are not involved in the running of the corp. All they do is collect the dividends and if they are not big enough, they sell their shares, which have weirdly become a market in themselves.
The ownership issue for me is tied in with personal responsibility, but there is an additional issue as well, which is the movement of profit outside the area where the profit was made. The community which provides the workers then does not receive the benefit of the profits they helped to produce.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
As I have said before, there are lots of versions of what Distributism is. The Church does not necessarily endorse any particular version of it. The Popes have spoken in favor of particular attributes of a just economic system; some of which has a classic “Distributist” flavor to it.
Pope JPII, for example, affirmed the prior teachings of the Popes regarding the widespread distribution of individual and family productive assets. however, he noted that it would have to take forms different from those of Pope Leo XIII’s day, when the major form of wealth for ordinary people was land ownership.
It does not seem to me that ownership of stocks in, say, 401Ks does not qualify. That would be particularly true of ESOPs in small to medium sized companies. But I have not seen a persuasive argument that a family’s wealth could not consist, in whole or in part, in the stock of transnational corporations or any others. Wealth is wealth, whether you control the corporation or not. People are able to go to shareholders’ meetings of even the largest corporations. They just don’t go because their share of the whole is such a small part of the overall voting rights.
But it’s interesting to go. I have done it, and even spoken, even though I didn’t have enough shares to affect the outcome of anything. I am also a minority owner in a smallish LLC and I go to those meetings and speak my mind even though I can’t outvote the majority.
But then, my vote didn’t carry the day in the 2012 presidential election either.
M
markomalley
Guest
I understood that. But the is minimal control if you have a venture where one party owns 51% and the other 49% are split between 2 or 3 others.
Then you have the economies of scale. You are not going to have Telecom running exclusively as small business. Nor will you have IT. (If each circuit board was manufactured by a small business concern, they’d not be affordable…and that’s not even looking at the components used in each board ).
Can you picture a wildcat petroleum refinery? (Sure, a well…but a refinery? )
The point is, dealing with each other using Christian ethics.
G
Gidge
Guest
We have not had true free market capitalism since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913.
Chesterton’s ideas are intriguing, and clearly Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” theory does not ring true as long as our fallen human nature manifests itself in the marketplace.
I think I’ll look over Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
Chesterton’s ideas are intriguing, and clearly Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” theory does not ring true as long as our fallen human nature manifests itself in the marketplace.
I think I’ll look over Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html
- Status