Why do some Catholics believe social doctrine is optional?

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by PenitentGrace

I have heard opposite things on this board. And it is confusing. There was a recent discussion about the infallibility of different texts. Some people were arguing that if something is not "infallible or said ex cathedra" then you can disagree with it. But apparently a LOT of things we are required to believe has never been said ex cathedra- such as I believe, the Trinity (correction please, if I am wrong.)

It has been explained to me here on this board that we are supposed to follow ALL Church Teachings even if they are not infallible- that means even the disciplines and even what the Church says about Social Doctrine. Even if we disagree we are supposed to do it out of obedience because even if the Church teaches something that is not infallible- it is still authoritative and should be respected and obeyed.

As a more liberal minded person it is very difficult for me to accept some of the Church's teachings but I really am striving to understand them and to obey them. However, when politically conservative catholics say "Oh, that wasn't said ex cathedra so we can disagree" it confuses me because it seems like the same people are also saying we have to agree on other things that were not ex cathedra as well. Why are we only allowed to disagree when it comes to sharing our wealth with others. If we truly put God first why are we so concerned that some people are getting "hand outs." I do understand the technical difference between giving voluntarily and having a government take money from you. But Jesus constantly preached about not being attached to money. If you are truly not attached (which I know is INCREDIBLY hard not to be- I am the same way) I would think you wouldn't mind whether you were giving money to Church, to the homeless guy on the street, or as part of your taxes. And the Church supports this in its Social Doctrine- so why is it okay to disagree? I don't mean to offend. Just genuinely confused.

Catholics are still obligated to give faithful assent to the non-definitive teachings of the Ordinary [Authentic] Magisterium: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 752).

[CesarAugustus]

The influence of materialism and post French Revolution ideologies goes both ways, right and left. For example, philosophies influenced by Hegel.

Maybe it has do with environment, or/and the easy acceptance of some Doctrines over others. Or the influence of political parties, they know how to attract people with some topics and to left out some issues.

Blessings!



P.S. Distributism, in my opinion, is one of the best options.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by someperson555

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were "obscene wealth" and "environmental pollution". here is the entire list:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88085760

second, it doesnt take a genius to see that the current capitalist system has FAILED to accomplish social justice. therefore we need a new system. an individual DOESNT have a right to own a natural resource. an individual DOESNT have a right to put chemicals into his food supply to make it more tasty and addictive. therefore the state has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to control the economy. notice i say CONTROL not own. private enterprise is fine, but the state needs to be there like a referee at a soccer game to make sure everyone is playing fair.

Where are the Catholic guidelines for implementing distributism? From an authoritive source, please. I know that the proponents of distributism claim that they developed the theory based on Catholic doctrine, but I have not seen any official Catholic Church teaching that it is the only licit economic system, nor guidance on how to introduce it into the world today. Those are the necessary HOW questions that must be answered for something to move from simply an 'idea', to something that is possible.

Secondly, I do not support obscene wealth and true environmental pollution. Those are not requirements in any economic system, including capitalism.

Saying capitalism system has failed to accomplish social justice is like saying getting up out of bed in the morning has failed to accomplish social justice. Sins against social justice are caused by people, independent of the economic system that exists.

And finally, you are duplicitous. You seem to support distributism, but then you suggest support for two things that are in opposition to distributism. You say no individual has a right to own a natural resource, but distributism holds land ownership as a critical right, land being our most important natural resource. Subsidiarity, a very prominent part of Church social justice doctrine, is counter to your suggestions that the state must control the economy. Unless you mean the economy of a close neighborhood.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by someperson555

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were "obscene wealth" and "environmental pollution".

If the Church is giving guidelines then by the meaning of the word she is not specifying means. Opposition to "obscene wealth" and pollution hardly constitutes a road map of actions to take to resolve those issues. That's the entire point here: the Church specifies the ends but leaves the determination of the means to the layman. As Dan Grelinger said, she does not give us the HOW.

There is no question about whether the Church has to say something infallibly for it to be obeyed: we owe assent to ordinary teachings as well ... which is interesting but irrelevant given that the Church has no teachings on things like whether the minimum wage should be increased or eliminated, whether a border fence should or should not be built, or whether a government run health care system is or is not a moral obligation.

As several others have said, political disagreements are about how to help society, not whether or not we should. The premise of the OP is invalid. There is no dispute about our obligation to help the poor and the sick but there is surely an entirely valid disagreement over what steps should be taken to satisfy that obligation.

Ender

[PenitentGrace]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Catholic Social Doctrine describes WHAT we must do for the poor. It does not describe HOW we are to do it. The difference between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' (I cringe at these generalizations) is in the HOW. The HOW is not doctrine, and disagreement can exist without either side being able to accuse the other of not following Church teaching.

Thanks for the clarification! If that is true (and I only say "if" because someperson555 disagrees and since I haven't researched this, I want to give you both the benefit of the doubt.) then I think it is just a problem with the rhetoric people are using. If there is merely some disagreement about the way to implement social doctrines- then there is no reason for anyone bring up the fact that social doctrine is not infallible or "not ex cathedra" as Smndtupidisaftr was saying (sorry to single you out Smndtupidisaftr, but it was this argument that confused me.) If it is truly the "how" that people are disagreeing about then no one is actually in disagreement with the doctrines in the first place. Therefore, whether or not the doctrine is ex cathedra or infallible shouldn't even come into play as an argument- not that it ever should anyway. I think using the infallibility argument is what causes the greatest confusion and makes the discussion unravel into accusations of cafeteria catholicism.

Encyclicals are not in and of themselves infallable declarations, but often the information in them is. Take Humanae Vitae: the encyclical described the perrenial teaching of the Church against abc. The Church has always taught abc is wrong--that is infallable because it is a perrenial teaching, not because it is in HV. All HV did, wrt infallable teaching, is to reiterate the already infallable teaching against abc and clarify that the Pill was abc and thus fell under that prohibition.

I have some more information about this which I will try to get back to you with.

Thanks St. Francis!

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by someperson555

two things severely wrong here.
one, the catholic church does indeed give guidelines on HOW to do it. read up on distributism. recently the vatican came out with a new list of mortal sins for the modern era and among these were "obscene wealth" and "environmental pollution". here is the entire list:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88085760

second, it doesnt take a genius to see that the current capitalist system has FAILED to accomplish social justice. therefore we need a new system. an individual DOESNT have a right to own a natural resource. an individual DOESNT have a right to put chemicals into his food supply to make it more tasty and addictive. therefore the state has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to control the economy. notice i say CONTROL not own. private enterprise is fine, but the state needs to be there like a referee at a soccer game to make sure everyone is playing fair.

Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics. There is no Church position.

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by TEPO

Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics. There is no Church position.

Do you mean distribution or distributism?

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by SanctusPeccator

Do you mean distribution or distributism?

Oh, good catch. I meant Distributism, which is something I'm opposed to.

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by TEPO

Oh, good catch. I meant Distributism, which is something I'm opposed to.

Noted, but where has the Church condemned Distributism?

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by SanctusPeccator

Noted, but where has the Church condemned Distributism?

I never actually said it did. I'm saying that the Church condemns all economic ideologies as being specifically Catholic in nature. This includes Distributism, along with Socialism and Capitalism. None of them or any others can ever be specifically -Catholic- solutions.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Ender

If the Church is giving guidelines then by the meaning of the word she is not specifying means. Opposition to "obscene wealth" and pollution hardly constitutes a road map of actions to take to resolve those issues. That's the entire point here: the Church specifies the ends but leaves the determination of the means to the layman. As Dan Grelinger said, she does not give us the HOW.

There is no question about whether the Church has to say something infallibly for it to be obeyed: we owe assent to ordinary teachings as well ... which is interesting but irrelevant given that the Church has no teachings on things like whether the minimum wage should be increased or eliminated, whether a border fence should or should not be built, or whether a government run health care system is or is not a moral obligation.

True. However (of course), there's nothing to prevent the Church, on the local level or a grander level, to bring some of these points into lively discussion. For example, "obscene" (or merely "excessive") wealth would be a good topic for discussion on the parish level. This came up for me in theology school, when I began to open my eyes to the everyday materialism around me: The fact is, unless and until we are hit personally by poverty (self, family member, or see it vividly in our local community), we tend to be oblivious not only to the urgency of others' needs, but also to our own unintentional complacency.

By every stretch of the definition we live -- especially those of us in metropolitan areas -- within abundant wealth on an everyday basis. By this I mean the choices we have. Overwhelmingly, we have a surfeit of options to purchase, rent, enjoy -- the vast majority of which are not essential for everyday needs. I'm not saying any of that is evil -- it most certainly is not; it is merely neutral. It's just that awareness of how much excess characterizes the First World helps us to become more conscious of how we live and how so may others are not able to live.

That is just one of many examples in which the laity of the Church could take initiative in opening up dialogue. It's not always specific (social justice) measures which are at issue: mere awareness can result in individuals and communiities deciding to institute measures, create local or global initiatives, or merely become more conscious of waste or of what they have discerned is excessive consumption on their own parts.

Also, there's nothing to prevent the laity from discussing more specifically topics like minimum wage levels, like the many issues involved in immigration -- not to invent doctrine, but to get Catholics and other believers talking and listening about what is and is not social justice relative to particular measures and approaches.

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by TEPO

I never actually said it did.

Not explicitly, but it comes extremely close: “Distribution has been condemned by the Church as being a Catholic solution in economics” [ http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....6&postcount=37 ]

Originally Posted by TEPO

I'm saying that the Church condemns all economic ideologies as being specifically Catholic in nature.

This is correct only insofar as the Church is not specifically entrusted to provide any practical solutions of a technical nature. While it is true Socialism has been repeatedly condemned, Capitalism has been provisionally tolerated with crucial qualifications (cf. Quadragesimo Anno; Centesimus Annus).

Originally Posted by TEPO

This includes Distributism, along with Socialism and Capitalism. None of them or any others can ever be specifically -Catholic solutions.

Not necessarily. Unlike Socialism and Capitalism, such little-known alternative third-way economic systems as Distributism, Solidarism, and the Economy of Communion [in Freedom] are predominantly derived from the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

True. However (of course), there's nothing to prevent the Church, on the local level or a grander level, to bring some of these points into lively discussion. For example, "obscene" (or merely "excessive") wealth would be a good topic for discussion on the parish level. This came up for me in theology school, when I began to open my eyes to the everyday materialism around me: The fact is, unless and until we are hit personally by poverty (self, family member, or see it vividly in our local community), we tend to be oblivious not only to the urgency of others' needs, but also to our own unintentional complacency.

By every stretch of the definition we live -- especially those of us in metropolitan areas -- within abundant wealth on an everyday basis. By this I mean the choices we have. Overwhelmingly, we have a surfeit of options to purchase, rent, enjoy -- the vast majority of which are not essential for everyday needs. I'm not saying any of that is evil -- it most certainly is not; it is merely neutral. It's just that awareness of how much excess characterizes the First World helps us to become more conscious of how we live and how so may others are not able to live.

That is just one of many examples in which the laity of the Church could take initiative in opening up dialogue. It's not always specific (social justice) measures which are at issue: mere awareness can result in individuals and communiities deciding to institute measures, create local or global initiatives, or merely become more conscious of waste or of what they have discerned is excessive consumption on their own parts.

Also, there's nothing to prevent the laity from discussing more specifically topics like minimum wage levels, like the many issues involved in immigration -- not to invent doctrine, but to get Catholics and other believers talking and listening about what is and is not social justice relative to particular measures and approaches.

These are great points Liz, in describing what should be done in regards to Catholic Social Teaching.

But I think this greater awareness that you talk about should never become a seperate doctrine from the moral teachings of the Church. Both Moral and Social teachings/doctrines stem from the common message of the Virtues.

In other words, I think Social justice will naturally flow from a greater awareness of the ideology of Virtuousness... Not the modern ideology of Tolerance. We cannot focus on Moral and Social teachings as being separable, because one cannot exist without the other... This is how I interpret Pope Benedict's encynicals, as well as general Church teaching.

Anyways, I hope this makes sense -it's getting late...

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by SanctusPeccator;9387487Not necessarily. Unlike Socialism and Capitalism, such little-known alternative third-way economic systems as Distributism, Solidarism, and the Economy of Communion [in Freedom

are predominantly derived from the fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching.

Yes, "derived from" Catholic teaching.... But then again, Protestantism is also derived from Catholic teaching, however this doesn't make it any more or less Catholic. To claim it does is bordering on heresy. Not saying that you have claimed anything of the sort, but there have been others here on CAF who have tried.

[TEPO]

Personally, I believe in multiple economic systems working side by side under one roof. After all, variety is the spice of life. The basis of freedom and free will... Who's to say we can't have every economic system imaginable working interdependently.?

(all being privatized of course)