Good question. I have no idea.
However, I thought this was informative [well, okay just humorous] relative to socialism…
Good question. I have no idea.
However, I thought this was informative [well, okay just humorous] relative to socialism…
I would agree with the Church on this. Read it carefully:
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
That passage from the CCC still leaves room for you to define socialism as whatever you want, whatever supports your view – usually the politics and people you don’t like, right? – but it also touches on the basic principles of human dignity and social justice exemplified and taught by Jesus, not to mention a long line of prophets and the early Church.
Have you missed the meaning of the highlighted words? You are completely ignoring the cost of living in the US. So let me ask you one thing. Would you give up your Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare?
Not sure what point you are making here.
However, keep in mind that welfare benefits in the US put those recipients far above the level of Global middle income standard.
Since most of those promoting socialism in the United States are also promoting open borders and extending welfare benefits even to those they call “undocumented” immigrants, what we have is a recipe for disaster as far as the American people go.
All indications are that the politicians who declare themselves to be socialists and promote socialism are only interested in one thing – bringing down the American economy to the level of the rest of the world. Equalizing income on a global scale. That, and keeping the wealthy elites rich beyond imagining in order that this entire utopian enterprise gets adequately funded.
OK, then I invite you to live at the poverty line here. The cost of living is substantially lower outside the “western” world. Housing costs more here, food costs more here, most people need cars here to get to work; something often not present in developing nations. Income dollars are not everything fulfillment and contentedness of life is. What the poor have here is judgment that they are not succeeding, lazy, or something to be looked down on.
You are equating to different things, one does not depend on the other. You also might note that many immigrants, legal or not, work. They pay taxes.
How is that bad? It’s a basic Catholic value. You can’t do this on a Global taxation level, we do it on a world policy level. We understand first the effect our actions will have on the people living there. A great example is USA Food AID. We use it in part to prop up American farming. When we use it we end up dumping tons of food in one area causing a power game between who can control it. This happens with many other types of aid, especially material ones. How would you like it if you lively hood was seriously disrupted by a ton of free whatever you do items or services. Ever wonder why most people in Africa are running around in Western T-shirts? Aid has to be thought thru.
However, If you can only view this from a Capitalistic sense, relative income equality is best for consumption; the basic tenant of Capitalism. We may argue about ways to do it, but it’s a fact. Either companies need not emphasize profit over everything or we have to be willing to pay more to keep jobs in this county. Capitalism finds the cheapest way to do everything. These days it often means of shoring and, guess what, good American jobs gone. The current power in Washington is doing things to allow large companies to make even more money. It’s a farce to think they will just hire more people, they’ve mostly been using tax breaks that to do stock buy backs or dividends. People are costs and companies only employ enough to get the job done. Public threatening of companies who take a jobs away in the thousands is a drop in the bucket, it’s political theater.
But the examples you gave are examples of socialism. When Biden said he didn’t want socialism then the only sensible reponse would have been to ask him what he meant.
If he meant that he didn’t want the government to control food and fuel prices then I’d agree with him. But if he meant that he wanted private enterprise to take over policing and the fire brigades then I think I’d disagree.
All societies (except those who were completely communist) are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. geting the balance right is what is important. Holding up socialism as a bogey man to be avoided at all costs just shows a lack of understanding of the term.
Republicans’ ignorance of everything they don’t like is dangerous
Not every government program YOU don’t like is “socialist” or “marxist”
This is laconic and impressive, about Latin American socialism. https://youtu.be/2K7T_qUv3cg
If your response was a rebuttal it wasn’t required. I agree with this paragraph and I venture to say so would Uncle Joe. Not to say trickle down works as it’s proven time and time again it does not. But, in the words of G.K. Chesterton in an economical comparison, “The problem is not too much capitalism, its too few capitalists”. The problem of corporate monopoly is exploiting the potential of livelihood and always has in our country. The biggest problem with monopoly is that only one person wins.
I agree. A monopoly means that only one person (or group or government) effectively runs the show. You embrace capitalism or socialism and you get the same result. Less choice. At least socialism is up front about it.
No, the idea of equalizing all the wealth in the world is most assuredly not a “basic Catholic value”; on the contrary, it is inherently contrary to all of Catholic social teaching. As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Fin dalla prima, reiterating the teaching of his predecessor Pope Leo XIII in Quo apostolici muneris: “Human society, as established by God, is composed of unequal elements, just as the different parts of the human body are unequal; to make them all equal is impossible, and would mean the destruction of human society.”
What makes you worthy over others to live in a stable county, that follows the rule of law, and most likely good housing and food? You and I won the birth lottery and nothing more. Quoting two Popes from the 19th century does not make a Catholic teaching. Indeed that quote directly implies that people are inherently unequal.
Do you not believe in the founding precepts of the United States; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”? For many sentences after that the Declaration if Independence goes on to justify the right of average people to change government when it denies this. This also the point of the Bill of Rights.
The Church’s opposition to the doctrine of socialism in no way implies that she considers certain persons to be worthier than others. St. Pius X continues in Fin dalla prima: “The equality of the various members of society is only in that all men originate from God the Creator; that they were redeemed by Jesus Christ, and that they must be judged by God and rewarded or punished in strict accordance with their merits and demerits.”
All men are equal insofar as this equality pertains to their essence as human beings created in the image of God; they are equal by virtue of the fact that they were created by the same Creator, redeemed by Our Lord, and have the same end, namely, God Himself.
All men are essentially equal, but concerning their external and worldly characteristics (wealth, education, social status), they are not equal. It is simply part of the natural order for society to arranged in a hierarchy, just as there is also a supernatural order in heaven; the angels, for example, do not complain about their rank within the angelic hierarchy. If the Church, as a perfect society established by Our Lord, has a hierarchy which exists by divine institution, then so must civil society.
First of all, Catholics are not supposed to believe in luck; secondly, nothing occurs without God either willing or allowing it, so this sentence is completely incorrect. God willed that there be a social hierarchy, wealthy and poor, master and servant, lord and vassal. Those who have more power must look to Christ the King as their example, and exercise the power given to them responsibly. Those who serve must look to Christ the suffering servant, obedience unto death, even death on a Cross.
Catholic teaching doesn’t expire or become irrelevant as time passes. If you can quote the current Pontiff as evidence to support a point, then I can certainly quote a Pope from 100 years ago. Certainly, no one would suggest that Francis’s teachings will become irrelevant in 100 years, right? That is an absurd thought; Catholic teaching does not “move with the times” and become irrelevant.
Capitalism is not much better but it appears Americans have no problem with it even though unregulated capitalism has led to unregulated greed. The Church has always promoted a third way known as Distributism under Catholic social teaching. An economic system needs to work for the people, in doing so it must revolve around the fact that each person has an intrinsic value and dignity. The greed of companies and the treatment of many of it’s employees with such indignity is something we need to constantly challenge. We are all humans being and our lives have value.
The only way i believe we will ever come to such a fair society is through evangelization because when a man/woman heart has been converted to God’s then if such a person owns a company they will aim to achieve the greater good in what they supply and how their employees are treated. I’m not talking about the type of so called Christians who goes to mass on sunday but never thinks or lives as a Christian, i’m talking about someone converted to God’s heart where they seek to live as a follower of Christ, such like-minded people will automatically create a fairer and fruitful society because it will be in their actions. A specific ideological system will not lead us to a flourishing society unless it is spawned from love. Complete love
These documents are not sources of doctrine, so it is funny that you should attempt to discredit the words of Leo XIII and Pius X in favor of documents written by 18th-century Deists. No disrespect meant for the Founding Fathers of our country, of course, but the fact remains that they were not Catholics, and the documents they wrote are not sources of Catholic doctrine.
Please see my earlier post for more information on what “all men are created equal” actually means in light of Church teaching. As for “changing” the government, it is important to make a distinction; there is a difference between criticizing actions taken by the government versus attacking the source from which these actions proceed. The former is acceptable when the government acts unjustly and fails to protect the common good, but the latter is never acceptable, because it is never licit to deny legitimate authority, in principle. The revolutionary spirit is inherently opposed to Catholic social teaching.
OK, then tell me you’d be willing to occupy the lowest rung?
You seem it have some discord that one can both play dual Papal quotes and somehow say that Papal teaching in consistently immutable. More importantly, what a Pope says is NOT Cannon law.
You know, if those words weren’t there, especially the 1st Amendment, Catholicism would certainly have no foot hold in America. Deists or not (certainly not all were) they left the door open for your beliefs, an especially rare and brave thing to do at the time.
Did you know that spiritually speaking, poverty is a higher state of life? “He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:11-12).
And by the way, trying to appeal to my feelings without addressing any of my points isn’t going to work. If you’re trying to argue that it is fine for a Catholic to embrace socialist doctrine, then you’re going to need to give me proof. In all likelihood, however, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic social teaching.
…which, incidentally, is exactly that you’re doing. And by the way, this discussion has nothing to do with canon law, if you even know what that is.
God can bring good out of anything; this doesn’t mean that Deism (or humanism, or rationalism, or whatever) is fundamentally and intrinsically good.
Then again would you occupy that position? I have no argument with (Matt. 23:11-12). But based on your beliefs, could you willingly submit yourself to poverty to obtain that higher state? I can’t say I would, but I readily will admit that I’m not worthy over others to have the physical and financial security I was born into. It’s not about playing to your emotions it’s about consistency. I’m going to have real trouble with your position if you can’t personally accept being assigned to a life of abject poverty if this is supposed to be the natural state of the world. I’m not parleying Papal utterances, Cannon Law or changes to it made by a Pope. If you believe this is the truth the Church teaches, then you can’t claim exception to the will of God.
If that were God’s will, then I would be obliged to submit my will to his. Actually, the Church teaches that it is okay to try to improve your social status through morally licit means, but if this is not possible, then someone living in poverty should follow the example of Christ, who came not to be served but to serve.
Some people are not born into poverty but willing respond to the will of God that they do embrace that state. However, not everyone is called to the monastic life, or the life of a hermit, etc. Yet if it is not God’s will for me (or anyone else) to embrace a life of poverty, then we should not oppose His will, for He knows infinitely better than we do.
I didn’t say that some people are worthier over others, because the Church does teach that all men are, insofar as it pertains to their essence, equal. And our status here on earth has no bearing on our status in the next life; each person is judged solely based on his merits and demerits.
Obviously, I can’t speak definitively of what I would do in a hypothetical; yet if I were willed to be poor and refused to accept that state, my subjective lack of virtue in this situation would say absolutely nothing about the objective will of God.
Canon law (and please spell it correctly) has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, as we are discussing doctrine, not discipline. Popes can change canon law, but popes cannot change doctrine. And yes, I very well do notice your lack of sources…so instead of criticizing mine, try citing any sources at all. (And no, the US Constitution is not a source of Catholic doctrine.)