Our Ignorance of Socialism is Dangerous


One has to ask: ‘What is NOT God’s will?’

I had one guy on another forum argue that he had to support Trump because the fact the he had become president was God’s will. That the guy was a rabid right-winger who accepted every word that spouted from Trump’s mouth as being gospel was, to him, not relevant.

But if you asked if he would have supported Clinton if she had won, because presumably that would also have been God’s will, then there was a deathly silence. Dead air in the thread. Tumbling tumbleweed rolling through the forum. Literaly no response.

It will come as no surprise that people seem to know God’s will when the result is beneficial, but when it isn’t…well, who can know the mind of God.


That’s part of the problem in today’s America. Here we have a thread that some equate Communism with Socialism. The funny part is that many who take this kind of view would not for go their Social Security Medicare/Medicaid.

I think a portion of those who supported Trump did so because they’ve been legitimately left behind and they felt he could be the answer, fine enough. What boggles my mind is how he can attack or rebuff a number of high profile incidents with dishonoring those solders who have given their lives or highly decorated war heroes. Never mind the persistent compromising of those values that they fought for.


There’s more than enough attention and resources to go around. The problem is we spend vast amounts to kill things instead.


To the OP and title of the thread, yes, I agree.


The article gives examples of tyrants and despots, but otherwise doesn’t explain why socialism is dangerous.

Not knowing the history of the tyrants and despots is bad regardless of their platforms.


[quote=“Wozza, post:63, topic:523776, full:true”]

[quote=“PJH_74, post:62, topic:523776, full:true”]

I’m surprised your opponent didn’t claim you made a straw man argument, because God would never choose Clinton. :wink:


I think Wikipedia has it right: “There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.”

I have a feeling–ohhh, just like Trump!!!–that people who attack socialism simply take any policy they don’t like and call it “Socialist.”

I could say “Separating children from their parents is a conservative position.” That wouldn’t be fair. And it’s not fair to lump all sorts of positions under the banner of “Socialism.”

Am I a Socialst? Depends on how you define it! Does everyone on this thread support some Socialist positions? I bet they do. If you went back in time a century and listed some positions that everyone supports today, most people would say “That’s Socialism.” If you asked people today, they wouldn’t see those positions as Socialist.

So not only do you have all sorts of Socialists, but the definition changes over time. Yesterday’s Socialist is today’s Conservative.


In 1998 EWTN reported a study, that the then population in the world; which has ample resources and replenishment technology - along with things like electrosans for proper sanitation;
~~that the then population of the world, aprox. 6 billion; provided proper food, drink, clothing, shelter, and so on with proper sanitation could; (I’m fairly sure single family homes); live in an area the size of Texas. So many want to live with opulence; in a throw away culture and blame ‘too many children.’
I pray for souls, because so many are not aware of the ‘modernist’ ‘naturalist’ ‘Progressive’ moral relativist culture of death agenda that could care less for someone’s soul - seduced into a ‘I’m basically a good person, and it is OK to support these persons;
cause they really care for the poor; those others are rigid old fashioned clinging to their religion - forcing their religion and morality on everyone; even haters/’ mentality.
This world needs an education; and to reach as many young and old alike regarding
the true history. Yes, there is nothing new under the sun; but the lukewarm Church;
and world that has rejected the authentic Jesus Christ the Chief Stone;
eclipses the Remnant Church; which many like Bishop Fulton J. Sheen; Evangelist David Wilkerson; Dietrich von Hildebrand, and many others prophesied would happen.
Yes, Jesus Christ said blessed are they who mourn; so I don’t let it discourage me.
so with joy of The Lord, I convey what The Remnant Church is well aware of in hopes;
some will accept it. But, while they lead a horse to water, they cannot make them drink.
Or as St. Bernadette put it; it is my job to inform, not to convince.
I will never be able to thank Jesus Christ enough for the wondrous immense gift of saving me from rationalizing sin in my personal life. This gives me diligence to share
what those Evangelizing and re-Evangelizing have learned and what they say.

I can’t wait to get my Christmas gift;
a 1993 printing of Dietrich von Hildebrand’s work with a forward by John Cardinal O’Connor. “_ Trojan Horse in the City of God: The Catholic Crisis Explained_ Hardcover – August 1, 1993” - source: https://www.amazon.com/Trojan-Horse-City-God-Explained/dp/0918477182
It should help with my personal faith formation; and be informative;
of something very apropos.


thats hwy we need to investgate if the communist russians affected the last election. they are a sneaky lot and the swamp is full of commies.


If you have something to say about me, then please reply directly to me instead of going behind my back. And it took “4-5 posts” because it wasn’t clear at first whether you were looking for real answers or attempting to pivot the point.

Catholic teaching doesn’t change with the times.

I agree that the government needs to work for the common good; and in order to promote the common good there must be the maintenance of order. If a family doesn’t have hierarchical order, then why teach children to obey their parents? Likewise, in society, there must be authority in place in order for things to run smoothly.


God directly wills certain things, and He also permits certain things when it is necessary in order to respect the free will He gave the men He created, and a greater good is always brought about. As for the part about “wherever you end up”, you seem to be considering only the natural while leaving out the supernatural. However, an honest reading of Pius X’s Fin dalla prima, which I cited earlier, will indicate that the Church teaches that one’s status on earth has absolutely no bearing on one’s status in the next life, and all men are judged justly, each strictly according to his merits and demerits.

I have no obligation to give details about my own life on a public forum; additionally, trying to make the argument a “personal” one is fallacious. What I think, subjectively speaking, has absolutely no influence on the truth of God’s Church, objectively, because He is infinitely greater than I.


No, you have to constantly work in accordance with His will, in order to save your soul. Working toward supernatural life forever in heaven is more important than pursuing earthly happiness. If you can’t see that, then no wonder why the “utopia” on earth which socialism calls for seems so appealing to you.


It takes discernment to know something like this.

I never spoke about myself. I simply said, “you have to constantly work in accordance with His will, in order to save your soul”, with the “you” in the generic sense, which is a correct theological statement.

There is nothing which happens without God either directly willing it or allowing it, so in that sense, if the situation I’m in is not an effect of His perfect will, it is at least allowed by His permissive will. So no, it’s not a “dangerous” position, it is a correct, Catholic theological position.

And once again, stop trying to make this a “personal” issue, because my subjective situations have absolutely no effect on the objective truth of God’s Church. The Catholic Church is opposed to socialism, period. To argue that objective teachings are at the service of subjective situations is nothing but relativism, and your constant questions concerning my personal situations are not only irrelevant, but also hint at an attempt to pivot the point.

And given that you are not Catholic and reject this Catholic teaching, you could at least show some respect and stop attempting to misrepresent the social teaching of a Church you don’t even belong to.


The relevant section in the Catechism says otherwise. It is not a blanket condemnation of socialism:

[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.


??? “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.” Following this very unambiguous statement with criticisms of certain aspects of capitalism doesn’t negate the fact that the Church opposes socialism. Incidentally, I wasn’t speaking of socialism as a purely economic ideology, but rather speaking of its social effects, which reject the social kingship of Christ and the natural order.


Notice what is being rejected in 2425. It is not socialism or capitalism. It is totalitarian and atheistic ideologies and individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. If you have capitalism that does not embody individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor, then that practice of capitalism is not rejected. If you have socialism that does not embody totalitarian and atheistic ideologies, then that practice of socialism is not rejected. It is obvious there are many systems today that people call “socialism” that are neither atheistic or totalitarian. Take for example, Social Security in the US. Or government-mandated health insurance in Israel. The Church does not condemn either of these systems, even though they are called socialism by some.

So when you say that the Church condemns socialism, it is important to look at the specific instance of socialism before you and determine if it violates 2425. Just being labelled socialism does not do it automatically.


While we may very well be defining “socialism” differently, I think it’s worth commenting on what the Catechism actually means in this context.

“The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.”

Here, it is quite clear that what is being rejected is not limited to certain principles of socialism, but complete ideologies based on socialism or communism. If entire ideologies based on these two are condemned, then we can logically conclude that socialism and communism, as ideologies in their own right, are to be rejected as well. Again, I am not speaking of certain aspects of socialism, but of socialism as a whole, taken as an entirety. It’s not only certain parts of socialism that are incompatible with the Faith. Its fundamental principle, as well as the end to which it is directed, makes it is contrary to Catholic teaching.

In rejecting the ideologies of socialism and communism (which will inevitably lead to full-blown atheism), the CCC simply repeats, though in a more vague/general sense, what the ordinary magisterium already taught:

“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings”. —Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum

Socialism has been rejected not only due to some of its principles, but because its fundamental concept of human society is contrary to the Faith:

“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.

“That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth”. —Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno


No, that’s not what 2425 says. The rejected ideologies are totalitarianism and atheism. It does not say those ideologies are based on socialism or communism. It says they are, in modern times, associated with socialism and communism. Don’t change the words to suit your point. If they meant to simply reject socialism they would have simply said the Church rejects socialism. But they did not. To support your view you would have to show somehow that every instance of socialism is necessarily atheistic. Can you do that? I noticed that you are reluctant to discuss examples, like the ones I mentioned. If you did, you would have to face the fact that some examples of socialism are not atheistic or totalitarian, and so do not violate 2425.


In quoting something written long ago, we need to consider if the definitions used at that time are the same as the definitions in common usage today. Even Pius XI in this quote recognizes the possibility by saying “if it remains truly Socialism” I wonder if Pius XI would have called a Affordable Care Act “truly” socialism?


CCC 2425 is not the only source of Catholic teaching; rather, the purpose of a catechism is simply to summarize Catholic teachings in a succinct manner. And because the CCC was written later than the documents I cited, it must be harmonized with past teaching.

Strawman; I said socialism eventually leads to atheism, not that every “instance” of socialism is necessarily atheistic.

If you’d like me to stop “changing words to suit my point”, I will ask the same from you. The condemnation of socialism does not apply to “instances” or specific expressions of socialism’s teachings in practice, but apply to socialism as an ideology in principle. Because its fundamental belief is inherently contrary to the Catholic view of human society, it cannot be reconciled with the faith. No matter how many examples you give, this will always remain so, in principle.

Do not confuse principle and practice; to say that the extent to which an ideology is or is not in accordance with Catholic teaching is dependent on specific “instances” is not only relativistic (as though objective good/evil were dependent on circumstances), but also not what is being addressed in those condemnatory statements.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.