Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[John Ryan]

Yes, exactly. I'd describe myself as socialist (some would disagree as I belong to the British Labour Party :hehe2: ) but I know a couple of priests that describe themselves as Communist or Marxist. The Jesuits, from those I've met, are full of marxists and some are definately more left wing than me. But all religious leaders will have their own political views. The problem, and arguement I've had to often make, is that you could use the Bible to support many political positions. Margaret Thatcher did so to support her ideas -  saying everything had to be down to individual choices. I don't really like church being party political or biased.  But we should expect religious leaders to call governments, representatives and social/ economic systems out when they are unfair or create generational injustices. I don't think the current economic and political structures will hold out as the world is changing and demanding new ways of being and operating. .

 

How many people who rail against socialist as anti-Catholic actually follow the Church's socio-economic teachings? It seems to me that most of those who do are merely Republican party-members, who ignore everything else the Church writes about economics. The Church has always been critical of capitalism, whether it was from a traditionalist-monarchism or redistributist position. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

you guys are aware that there are quotes from popes that condemn socialism right? it's not all or nothing, one way or the other economic systems.

[John Ryan]

you guys are aware that there are quotes from popes that condemn socialism right? it's not all or nothing, one way or the other economic systems.

 

To be fair, most of the pontifical criticisms of the socialism are really criticisms of atheistic communism and heavy-handed state socialism. Thus, St. John XXIII said,“The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.”  

Edited May 18, 2014 by John Ryan

[Socrates]

How is this an example of the Church shifting with the winds of the times? The Church has always been anti-capitalist. For crying out loud, so many priests in South America are Marxists.

 

While Popes have been critical of extreme laissez faire capitalism, the Church has very explicitly condemned socialism numerous times.  

Many priests have also engaged in pederasty, but that doesn't make it in accord with Catholic moral teaching.

 

How many people who rail against socialist as anti-Catholic actually follow the Church's socio-economic teachings? It seems to me that most of those who do are merely Republican party-members, who ignore everything else the Church writes about economics. The Church has always been critical of capitalism, whether it was from a traditionalist-monarchism or redistributist position. 

 

You don't seem particularly knowledgeable about Catholic social teaching (have you read John Paul II's Centesimus Annus, which, among other things, criticizes the modern welfare state?), but that said, as a self-proclaimed "Marxist Communist." you're hardly in a position to judge the Catholicity of those who reject socialism.

 

Elsewhere, you've stated that you reject the Church's teachings regarding contraception and other matters of sexual morality, and have made posts implying you don't believe in the divinity of Christ.  (Though you can correct me if I misunderstood anything there.)

If the Church has no actual divine teaching authority, that begs the question of why we should even care what Popes say about economic matters.

 

Since it's evident you could care less what the Church teaches on most matters, your attacks here are extremely hypocritical and dishonest to say the least.

 

 

To be fair, most of the pontifical criticisms of the socialism are really criticisms of atheistic communism and heavy-handed state socialism.  . . .

 

Actually, no.

 

Pius XI, in Quadragesimo Anno:

 

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.

 

 

And. I might add, the Marxist Communism which you espouse, is atheistic, and clearly opposed to Church teaching.

 

List of more quotes of Popes condemning socialism here.

[Benedictus]

Socrates - The church has also had a troubled relationship with the idea of democracy also. The tone of the church towards socialism got more heated after various revolutions. I could be cynical and say the church did this as it worried about its own standing if this trend had spread. .But I don't think that is the whole picture. I think the church does, or at least did, seem to speak in similar tones to those who founded and advocated Christian Democrat parties. These are still going in some parts of Europe, although in many respects some are virtually identical to most other centrist or centre right parties

[Nihil Obstat]

Socrates - The church has also had a troubled relationship with the idea of democracy also. The tone of the church towards socialism got more heated after various revolutions. I could be cynical and say the church did this as it worried about its own standing if this trend had spread. .But I don't think that is the whole picture. I think the church does, or at least did, seem to speak in similar tones to those who founded and advocated Christian Democrat parties. These are still going in some parts of Europe, although in many respects some are virtually identical to most other centrist or centre right parties

Yeah, good call. I think democracy is kind of overrated anyway. :|

 

I make the jokey mellow face, but I am not really joking.

[Perigrina]

Yeah, good call. I think democracy is kind of overrated anyway. :|

 

I make the jokey mellow face, but I am not really joking.

 

I think sliced bread is overrated.  I don't know why people keep saying things are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

(That was me enigmatically agreeing with you.)

[Nihil Obstat]

I think sliced bread is overrated.  I don't know why people keep saying things are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

(That was me enigmatically agreeing with you.)

Such ominous. So enigma.

[Perigrina]

Such ominous. So enigma.

 

 

You really understand me.  

[Socrates]

Socrates - The church has also had a troubled relationship with the idea of democracy also. The tone of the church towards socialism got more heated after various revolutions. I could be cynical and say the church did this as it worried about its own standing if this trend had spread. .But I don't think that is the whole picture. I think the church does, or at least did, seem to speak in similar tones to those who founded and advocated Christian Democrat parties. These are still going in some parts of Europe, although in many respects some are virtually identical to most other centrist or centre right parties

 

If you read the Popes' statements on socialism, you'll see that the Church's position is quite a bit stronger than just a "troubled relationship."  These statements are clear formal condemnations, and are pretty consistent.

 

I also believe the Church has good reason to be wary of democracy, as absolute democracy is hardly an unqualified good.

 

The Church gives us general moral principles regarding economics/government, rather than dictate a particular system.  I agree with St. John Paul II's teachings on subsidiarity, and that we need less centralized bureaucracy and more voluntary giving at the local level.  However, socialism, directly or indirectly, violates private property rights, which the Church has always upheld.  This is certainly true of Marxist Communism.

[superblue]

Does anyone wonder, during the time of Christ, what side he was on in that time frames political era, you had the Romans on one side, and the Pharisee s, and scribes on the other... label them what ever you like, republican, democrat, far left or right, socialist, or capitalist. We hear constantly about Christ being the way,truth and light, and all the other good stuff, but exactly what was expected of the political powers of that time ?

 

 

I do find it troublesome to first hear about this redistribution of wealth from Obama, and now from the Pope, but I have more trust in the Holy Father than I do in any president, so I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt that what the Holy Father is talking about is not exactly as what Obama is saying and doing.   But I am all for leading by example, if the Holy Father feels there is a great need of this

redistribution of wealth in a legitimate way, then the Vatican should start doing just that, start  the redistribution, go through the museums sell of a few things, start by capping all clergy salary to a certain number to reflect the living wages of those they serve, dump the proceeds of that money into Catholic Sharing Appeal and other Catholic Charities and start helping those in need to build decent homes etc. 

 

But until those who want this redistribution of wealth actually start leading by example instead of demanding others do it while they live the good life of comfort, then I find it questionable.

 

I also find it troublesome since no one can reasonably figure out where Christ stood politically, or say yes he would of wanted everyone to be in this category, and that all of his followers were this that or another party, then why should a Pope or any clergy be taking a political stance or view in general.  I do not see how one mixes politics and religion, it seems comparable to trying to mix oil and water and saying see they go together just fine and more over one makes the other better.

Edited May 29, 2014 by superblue

[dairygirl4u2c]

 However, socialism, directly or indirectly, violates private property rights, which the Church has always upheld.

 

from a pope.

QUOTE
"Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty."

 

if above poster didn't always make it seem like it's either socialism or lassiez faire capitalism, i might not make it a point to point this out. yes, it's possible to reconcile all the teachings of the popes, and not be on a far end of the political spectrum.

i do acknowledge that popes have surely advocated for respect for private property rights, too, though.

[dairygirl4u2c]

more from popes.

a common post dump by me.

 

QUOTE
Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty.

QUOTE
Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace

QUOTE
"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. "

QUOTE
�it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation:the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.

QUOTE
Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

QUOTE
What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice.

QUOTE
To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality.

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.

QUOTE
property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital"in opposition to "labour"-and even to practise exploitation of labour-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour,they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownerhip or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labour,and thus, by serving labour,that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order,namely,the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.

From this point of view,therefore,in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man,one cannot exclude the socialization,in suitable conditions,of certain means of production.

QUOTE
Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equality...If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

QUOTE
In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are " freely n set in the market can produce unfair results.

QUOTE
Given these conditions, it is obvious that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and progress.

QUOTE
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences.

[superblue]

Does anyone wonder, during the time of Christ, what side he was on in that time frames political era, you had the Romans on one side, and the Pharisee s, and scribes on the other... label them what ever you like, republican, democrat, far left or right, socialist, or capitalist. We hear constantly about Christ being the way,truth and light, and all the other good stuff, but exactly what was expected of the political powers of that time ?

 

 

I do find it troublesome to first hear about this redistribution of wealth from Obama, and now from the Pope, but I have more trust in the Holy Father than I do in any president, so I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt that what the Holy Father is talking about is not exactly as what Obama is saying and doing.   But I am all for leading by example, if the Holy Father feels there is a great need of this

redistribution of wealth in a legitimate way, then the Vatican should start doing just that, start  the redistribution, go through the museums sell of a few things, start by capping all clergy salary to a certain number to reflect the living wages of those they serve, dump the proceeds of that money into Catholic Sharing Appeal and other Catholic Charities and start helping those in need to build decent homes etc. 

 

But until those who want this redistribution of wealth actually start leading by example instead of demanding others do it while they live the good life of comfort, then I find it questionable.

 

I also find it troublesome since no one can reasonably figure out where Christ stood politically, or say yes he would of wanted everyone to be in this category, and that all of his followers were this that or another party, then why should a Pope or any clergy be taking a political stance or view in general.  I do not see how one mixes politics and religion, it seems comparable to trying to mix oil and water and saying see they go together just fine and more over one makes the other better.

bumps are easier to read than quote dumps

[Benedictus]

If you read the Popes' statements on socialism, you'll see that the Church's position is quite a bit stronger than just a "troubled relationship."  These statements are clear formal condemnations, and are pretty consistent.

 

I also believe the Church has good reason to be wary of democracy, as absolute democracy is hardly an unqualified good.

 

The Church gives us general moral principles regarding economics/government, rather than dictate a particular system.  I agree with St. John Paul II's teachings on subsidiarity, and that we need less centralized bureaucracy and more voluntary giving at the local level.  However, socialism, directly or indirectly, violates private property rights, which the Church has always upheld.  This is certainly true of Marxist Communism.

 

It depends on the specific way socialism is implemented as this can vary depending on what political/ economic trend and policy is adopted. Not all socialist systems remove the concept of personal property or private business. But it can progress that concept over time. I don't believe any Pope has an academic background in political theory or government. It has been said many times that Christianity can equally support various economic structures. But we can't ignore the political and economic systems the Vatican has supported, and also abused for personal gain in its history. 

If the economic system implemented has the desire and consent of the people then it can work for the common good. One of the biggest dupes of all time has been the wealthy and powerful stakeholders in the world tricking aspiring people that they can reasonably aspire to wealth and celebrity with hard work. It's a lie for the majority of people, and the media encourages people to lap these ideas up. If you can make people competitive against each other for wealth or status then they'll bid and conflict against each other to aspire for that dream.This stops people working together to 'wake up' and implement reforms.

It is difficult to reform economics and bring justice to people when the economic/political power is concentrated, even skewed, a specific way from the start. People with vested interests hold onto what they have (and pass it to their immediate 'peers') whilst simultaneously ignoring the privileges the system has handed them and the suffering this causes to others. It can be argued this is a collective moral sin.  The world cannot function anymore on charity and volunteers from the 'worthy' who take pity on the deserving poor, or manipulate them (or use them politically) when it suits for profit. The world needs something fundamentally different altogether.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Benedictus