Book Review: Papal Teaching on Private Property – 1891 to 1981
giving Catholics a bad name from within since 2009!:
THESE are the type of black-and-white religious people that bother me…
Of course, if you have ever read a single other post on this blog, it is clear that I am strongly against Socialism and Communism. But the unrestrained Capitalism which I would argue should exist in this country is probably just as “evil” according to the eyes of the Church as these are. In truth, the Church, if supporting an economic system, supports a mix of Capitalistic and Socialistic policies aimed at helping the unfortunate while ensuring room for autonomy and individual freedom. But the Church is not pro-capitalist or pro-socialist. It is in the middle. And things are not as clear as the folks over at RealCatholicTV make it sound. Sure, Pope Leo XIII’s Quod Apostolici Muneris condemns Socialism. But many recent encyclical publications and informal statements from both Benny16 and JP-Dub leave Capitalism condemned nearly as thoroughly…
And now it comes to it: The truth of it is, Church policy on economic matters (though perhaps holding some weight as the influence should it hold as another country on this earth) has no place in the United States of America. Yeah, I said it. On matters of morality and faith, I have no higher allegiance than Christ’s Bride. But in areas of scientific study, when I want to know something (as Fr. Beaver always said) I will go to the most credible source for that information. The most credible source for how to run a national economy in a way that will allow the human spirit to flourish is not the Catholic Church. It is an economist. Thought people may think it is “more Catholic” to follow the letter of Church law in matters totally unrelated to morality, and faith, I am not one of those people. Economics, social justice implications that it may possess, is one of these areas…
I respectfully dissent…
No matter the case, RealCatholicTV is so right-slanted that I would rather watch Fox News for the rest of my life than subject myself to their monochrome Catholicism-fudging. Intolerant people like this ensure that the Catholic Church remains hated by many people. Really? “No Catholic could vote for Obama”? How about “no Catholic could be such a self-righteous prig as to think that there is no value to being a Democrat”? With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Aaaaaand CLEARLY this guy doesn’t even know what the word “economics” means. “Communism is just Socialism to the extreme”?????????????? Oh man I am about to have an aneurysm I am raging so much…
(Interestingly, I still would say no Catholic could be fully so while being pro-choice…)
-kj-
I have a lot to say and it's not all good, but I'm going to end on the agreed note.
Thought people may think it is "more Catholic" to follow the letter of Church law in matters totally unrelated to morality, and faith, I am not one of those people. Economics, social justice implications that it may possess, is one of these areas…
No. From a Catholic perspective you are seriously wrong on this. The social justice implications of an economic system are not 'totally unrelated' to morality and faith. How we structure a society–including what economic system we choose–cannot at all be separated from morality (or, I'd argue, our faith.) I actually feel a little burned that you wrote that.
The most credible source for how to run a national economy in a way that will allow the human spirit to flourish is not the Catholic Church. It is an economist.
Smith or Marx? I know there are other options. My point I guess is that if (as I have said, and it is the Catholic standpoint, economics are not divorced from morality and ethics, where we start is essential. Starting with Catholicism is not starting with Protestantism is not starting with Islam is not starting with atheism is not starting with Buddhism is not starting with John Shelby Spong. I agree with you that this video is wrong in its basic message. But I disagree about why; I disagree with what you are saying about where the Church's proper authority lies. It does not lie in the discipline of economics itself–we must trust an economist to tell us what implications a system will have, this is true. But when we are trying to choose a system, that is a choice, by nature of being a part of the construction of a society which can affect human freedom and how the weakest of these are faring, it is a moral choice, and thus the Church does have some authority at least, to speak on matters of whether the implications of an economic system are good and bad. I submit to you that perhaps what this man is going for is more along the lines of how we choose an economic system. I don't quite agree with how he's going about it, or how he's going about condemning President Obama
But the Church is not pro-capitalist or pro-socialist. It is in the middle.
I agree. Not strictly in the middle. It is Catholic. It has requirements, it has boundaries, it has lines we must not cross and obligations we must keep. IMHO it is fine to argue for unbridled whatever-system as long as the system isn't built on an immoral industry and does not by nature do violence to human dignity. In constructing a society the choice of an economic system are only one factor–but it is a factor, and it is a moral choice, not an amoral one. Whichever system you choose, you must compensate for its deficiencies somehow–by charity or by modification–and so we ought to choose the system that is as far as we know the best for respecting the dignity of every human life.
I'm still semi-agnostic about the Obama question (I lean towards "no well-informed and committed Catholic should vote Obama" but for different reasons than the rather ill-defined concept of socialism that exists in today's world.)" I shall end by agreeing again that this guy hasn't made the case that a socialistic policy by nature promotes what is condemned as socialism by the Popes, just like the Catholic anarchists won't be able to make the same case about our current economy and capitalism.
Just as a pre-emptive defense against one possible objection–that is, that the framework of the United States just doesn't allow for morality to influence the choice of economic policies…If that's the case, then we need a new framework. If something's not amoral, it's not amoral. Even if two or more economic systems tie, that all should be equally moral strikes as a highly unlikely if not outright untenable proposition.
I knew this one would get you, Daniel. Of course I knew…
I did see that "totally unrelated" as perhaps a stretch when I wrote the sentence. But not too far. Wat I mean by totally unrelated is totally unrelated in this country. We are not the United States of the Vatican. We do not do what the Vatican says because it holds moral authority. What system we choose depends little on the wishes of the Baptists, the Mormons, the Muslims, or the atheist agenda. What we do in this country economically is tied very strongly to our Constitution, not to documents of a religion, foreign government though they may possess…
Marx or Smith are a start, by the way. They are obviously not an exhaustive list, which you very well know and state here. But take any science. Evolution, for example. Something just as contentious. Concerning matters of evolution, it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to go to Darwin's materials. Or David Attenborough. Hell, I would rather ask Richard Dawkins specific inquiries about evolution than any priest in the world who does not study the matter exclusively. The Church has no place in defining scientific matters (as doctrinal), nor should it.
And you are right, the Church should tell us which choices should be made on moral matters. But economics is such an imprecise science that the Church endorsing one side or the other does not sway me as to the eternal truth it holds. This is especially true of this country. And implications are exactly what we are talking about here. The implications will be defined by an economist, as you have granted. But the implications of socialistic policies are less of an evil than cruel dictatorships and communist regimes. In Venezuela, capitalism could not simply sprout, given the oligarchy that ruled there before Chavez took over. Socialism is right for them, right now. Capitalism resembling ours will hopefully be the next step for them in the future, but these things are not so fluid that this one necessarily is an evil step.
I am viscerally against socialism, and I feel it with every ounce of my body and soul. But everyone can't just up and be capitalist overnight. It is the right step for MANY many countries out there. The USA is not one. But neither is a theistic religion-sponsored moralist position. What is right for the US is to adopt the system which economists decide will be best for the citizenry. Not that which the Church decides for us. Socialism is a step back from where we are now. And it may have moral implications that the Church can ponder. But the jury is still out on many of these practices, because of the lack of preciseness that measuring an entire system of millions of people results in. But the outlandish hyperbole that those on the right engage in by claiming socialism is right around the corner baffles me. Okay, okay. This guy is right. It WOULD be immoral for us to engage is socialism. But you might as well make a video that claims it would be wrong for all the men in this country to unilaterally slaughter all the women. ("It's happening" feminists will tell you by looking at the crime rate. But that doesn't mean it is true, simply because some men have murdered some women).
Socialism is government control of the system of output. Give me an example of where this is the case in this country (other than military matters), and I will delete this whole post. The government doesn't own wall street or the car companies (or the health insurance industry) even though they were bailed out. Yeah, the bailouts were totally stupid. But "government control of the system of output"?! Absolutely not.
You forget these lines that I draw in my head between Catholicism and Country. And though you may not have them, I assure you this matter is borne of the same type of thinking. It isn't right for us, because it would be a reversal of many of our freedoms. In North Korea, socialism would be the best thing to happen for decades. Economics are not so black-and-white (because they are theories of human behavior) as to be prohibited by the Church in this allegedly valid blanket moral prohibition.
And addressing your preemptive comment, you know I disagree. I do not think this country should do what is necessarily morally right. It should do what is necessary to protecting the freedom of the citizenry. If Capitalism is the economic answer to that question, so be it. But not because it is "morally right". Drug use should be legal, but that doesnt make it morally right. Alcohol use the same. Divorce the same. Morality is not legality, nor would I ever hope it to be. There is no room for virtue in a place where morality is required…
I'm obviously way out of my league talking to you on the economic fronts, but on the theological intersections and miscommunications (probably mine):
The Church has no place in defining scientific matters (as doctrinal), nor should it.
Define "scientific matters." Some people would take as a scientific matter that all dead men stay dead. Does that mean the Church has no place asserting the Resurrection or the life of the world to come as a doctrinal matter? I certainly hope not.
What is right for the US is to adopt the system which economists decide will be best for the citizenry.
Can economists define 'best' without the act of defining being an act of moral judgment?
Socialism is government control of the system of output. Give me an example of where this is the case in this country.
I don't mean to claim this. I'm defending the notion that the Church should indeed have a voice in how we construct our society–economics included, not to mandate a certain system but to set limits on how those systems may and may not treat persons in a moral society. I am not defending this video per se. Like I said, I have my disagreements as well.
[This country] should do what is necessary to protecting the freedom of the citizenry.
Isn't the current official view of the US government that this includes legalized and often largely unrestricted abortion? Doesn't such freedom include (in Nevada) the freedom to prostitute oneself?
The thing that troubles me most about the argument you're making isn't the argument itself. I'm not entirely sure I disagree entirely. What troubles me the most is my fear that eventually the separation of legality/morality will get stricter, and expand to include things like abortion, even if neither of us ever intended that result.
There is no room for virtue in a place where morality is required.
I kind of get what you're saying, but this is technically wrong, especially in Catholic terms, where virtue means striving to be perfect as the Father is perfect; if I read you correctly you are speaking of technical laws which would mandate following a certain moral code, but that is a negative command, a "thou shalt not," whereas virtue is more of an ideal, or a "thou shall." I should give pre-emptive agreement, in case this comes up, to the idea that it is much more problematic to legislate on an ideal than to legislate on a prohibition. Maybe that can give us our solution in terms of legislating on abortion-related moral questions but not on which economic system to choose.
Just to put in my two bits here.
Kevin, you stated this later on in comments:
the Church endorsing one side or the other does not sway me as to the eternal truth it holds.
The rest of the essay ought to flow from this statement. In economics, the Church has made no definitive endorsement. it HAS condemned those features of each system that are morally repugnant, especially to human dignity. And as an American Catholic (as opposed to a Catholic American), I am (as I expect you would be) properly concerned with the moral ramifications of ANY system employed by the secular arm of society. So, the Church's moral teaching, especially in terms of social justice, ought to come in to play in how the country employs its capitalism. (If you wish to see this sort of argument in action, consult with your Uncle Tom the lawyer in Pasco. He'll give you an earful, if he hasn't already).
As far as the indictment on RealCatholic TV, I didn't even watch it. Such media, and that which can often be found on EWTN, needs to be consumed with a large grain of salt. I'll accept your judgement on the matter. 😛
Science too. The Church has not condemned evolution. It has condemned some of its erroneous conclusions, such as the much-bandied "proof" that God now cannot exist.
DANGIT!! I ALSO meant to say that the Church is not concerned with picking sides; Republican, Democrat; Socialist or Capitalist. It is concerned with Truth, first, last, foremost and least of all.
Nations will rise and fall but the Catholic Church will stand until the end of days. That said, politics are (unfortunately for me) a real issue that faces all of us in American society. But for the Catholic to adhere to the Church on matters of morality is a must. The issue that arises often is just what is the Church saying? I would have to agree with quite a few that Michael Voris is not a good voice of the Church or its standpoints. This I agree on. He makes an occasional point, but his political charge often seems to leave him forgetting the real issues – the ones that pertain to the whole Body of Christ, not just us Americans. That is where politics, when crossing our faith, can often shift our focus from the path.
Now Kev does make some certain points on the 'ideal nation'. With so many opposing groups, and such different demographics, how do you adopt the economic model that is of benefit to everyone? I don't think you do, but I think that was part of Kev's point.
The point of letting the economists decide what is best over the Church in many ways seems like a better decision. That is not to say "Don't stand up for what is good." Much rather, it is an admittance that the world shall choose where it wants to go despite what the Church may recommend. But Kev is right in another way too. The Church shouldn't plainly tell someone on which side to err in these situations. It is better to teach one Christian morality so that they too can use critical thinking to make conscious decisions.
CompassRose, I'm with you on this whole issue; this kind of media needs to be taken with a grain of salt.