Pope Demands "legitimate Redistribution" Of Wealth

[Benedictus]

The reality is, there's no way to implement socialism without a despotic state violating property rights (as even Marx himself acknowledged in the Communist Manifesto.):

 

The aim is to have workers own and operate the means of production democratically.

 

Can you give even one real-world example of socialism which has lessened the power of the State, much less removed it?
The Marxist idea that socialism will cause the state to wither away is but a fantastical lie.

You mean all the improvements Socialists, Greens and SD's have made to many parts of Northern Europe? Some of the best healthcare and other outcomes in the world. The aim is to improve life and place power back into the hands of real people. The concept of 'state' can be increased, and often is, even under Capitalists systems, but usually not for the benefit of workers. It's impossible to think a country could go Socialist overnight with the current global and political setup. Capitalists would trip them at every turn: misusing wealth, power and influence.

 

Like I said, it was only guess.  You haven't told us anything of substance regarding your beliefs, other than that you disagree with the Church's teachings on sexual morality and like socialism.

Why would I outline my beliefs unless related to the question. Where did I say I disagree with the church's teaching on sexual morality. I can talk about points of current debate and contention - it doesn't necessarily reflect my personal views. On some points I think the church may shift in the future, even though I hold a contrary view. I'm Ok about saying that. But if it doesn't shift then I'm not at a loss.
On Socialism - I don't agree with certain frames of Marxism. Marxism Leninism would be an example, which I think is the type of thing I think the encyclical gets at. Where we seem to depart is I won't use that to apply a blanket approach to a wide reaching area of theory, including more recent ideas and developments. Although, I can see why you might want to so :blues:

[Benedictus]

 

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world.  The Church has spiritual authority regarding teaching and the sacraments, but is not a political power which uses coercive force.  Christ founded a Church, not a government or a political party.

 

 

True, but the Church does get involved in political and secular issues. It has, at least in the past, had a lot of political power. It has also used force and power, such as wars, conducted trials, held women prisoner against their will (in places like Ireland) for decades, committed forced adoptions etc. This went on until the 1990's. We can't downplay what's happened in years past. Maybe you meant some other sort of force or use of power?

 

 

It in no way logically follows from the fact that I accept the Church's spiritual authority, that I must also accept every tyrannical government, particularly one so opposed to the Church and Christian principles.

Your "argument" is a complete non-sequitor.

 

 

Well, no. But the structures have similar overlaps. You support one and down the other. I'm pointing it out.  I'd want a real democratic socialist political system. A two party state that holds elections every five years and doesn't offer people choice or direct power isn't doing a good job. The banks and corporations are the real stakeholders in this capitalist system.
 

 

 

If Pope Francis, or some future Pope, made such a dictate, I would probably say he was acting outside his competency (this would fall outside faith and morals).  But generally, I think its best not to worry about extremely unlikely scenarios unless they actually occur.

It's a little like asking "What would you do if the Pope declared ex cathedra that there is no God?" or some similar Dairygirl-ism.

 

 

 

 

So why would his encyclical be outside his remit but the ones of past Popes wouldn't be? Well it could be unlikely. But with the growth of th Latin American church and its desires for more cardinals  (better representation globally) it may well be a future issue. Poverty, redistribution issues, people empowerment and liberation theology are aspects that will gain more attention in the future.

 

 

[Socrates]

The aim is to have workers own and operate the means of production democratically.

 

The ends do not justify the means.  

 

Also, I'm not so dazzled by the word "democratic" as others appear to be.  Remember, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

 

 

You mean all the improvements Socialists, Greens and SD's have made to many parts of Northern Europe? Some of the best healthcare and other outcomes in the world. The aim is to improve life and place power back into the hands of real people. The concept of 'state' can be increased, and often is, even under Capitalists systems, but usually not for the benefit of workers. It's impossible to think a country could go Socialist overnight with the current global and political setup. Capitalists would trip them at every turn: misusing wealth, power and influence.

 

 

Sweden is overrated, and a massive welfare state is unsustainable in the long run, which is why many countries are now moving away from more socialistic governments towards freer economic policies.  Welfare statist policies have helped perpetuate and grow a permanent government-dependent underclass in countries such as the US and the UK, rather than lift people out of poverty.  Saint John Paul II has (rightly, imo) strongly criticized the modern welfare state for this reason, as well as undermining subsidiarity and increasing government bureaucracy.

This gets into a whole other debate, though.  And besides, the Nordic countries you extoll have mixed economies, rather than being purely socialist.

 

But now I'm confused.  Are you arguing for more bigger, "better" government, or for the removal of the state?

The reality is that those two objectives are incompatible.

 

 

Why would I outline my beliefs unless related to the question. Where did I say I disagree with the church's teaching on sexual morality. I can talk about points of current debate and contention - it doesn't necessarily reflect my personal views. On some points I think the church may shift in the future, even though I hold a contrary view. I'm Ok about saying that. But if it doesn't shift then I'm not at a loss.
On Socialism - I don't agree with certain frames of Marxism. Marxism Leninism would be an example, which I think is the type of thing I think the encyclical gets at. Where we seem to depart is I won't use that to apply a blanket approach to a wide reaching area of theory, including more recent ideas and developments. Although, I can see why you might want to so  :blues:

 

 

I thought I recalled you arguing against the Church's teachings on the immorality of homosexual activity and contraception.  I apologize if I mis-remembered or misunderstood.

And again, I wouldn't regard a Church that can change or reverse its moral teachings as having any real authority, but I've already been over that.

[Socrates]

True, but the Church does get involved in political and secular issues. It has, at least in the past, had a lot of political power. It has also used force and power, such as wars, conducted trials, held women prisoner against their will (in places like Ireland) for decades, committed forced adoptions etc. This went on until the 1990's. We can't downplay what's happened in years past. Maybe you meant some other sort of force or use of power?

 

The Church has held political power in times past, though it has not always held such power, and holds very little today.  Secular political power is not necessary to the Church's existence and mission.  

 

The political actions of Churchmen are not impeccable, and political power tends to corrupt.

I'm actually not particularly in favor of increased worldly political power by the Church.

 

You seem very critical of political power when exercised by the Church, so why should I favor increased state power in the secular world?

 

Again, your argument is a non-sequitor.

 

 

Well, no. But the structures have similar overlaps. You support one and down the other. I'm pointing it out.  I'd want a real democratic socialist political system. A two party state that holds elections every five years and doesn't offer people choice or direct power isn't doing a good job. The banks and corporations are the real stakeholders in this capitalist system.

 

I don't regard my country's current mix of corporatism and socialism to be ideal either.  I'd prefer a more truly free economy with much less government interference in the market.

 

But I certainly don't believe more socialism is the answer.

 

 

So why would his encyclical be outside his remit but the ones of past Popes wouldn't be? Well it could be unlikely. But with the growth of th Latin American church and its desires for more cardinals  (better representation globally) it may well be a future issue. Poverty, redistribution issues, people empowerment and liberation theology are aspects that will gain more attention in the future.

 

 

Well, that's, like, your opinion, man.

 

I see little point in debating an event that is purely hypothetical.

[dairygirl4u2c]

does this basically say that if you really need it, you can steal a loaf of bread?

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods..

 

 

said by a 'good catholic' and i'd think rightly so...
 

 

Originally Posted by Pieman333272

Is stealing ever justified? For example, if you need to steal to feed your family? What about stealing something back which was stolen from you?

Unjustly taking or keeping the property of another (theft) is a violation of the seventh commandment, however with regard to your specific question, taking property of another in extreme circumstances of need is not theft if consent of the owner could be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. (CCC 2408). Extreme circumstances would involve meeting the essential needs for food, shelter or clothing. So, yes taking food to keep your family from starving if you had no other recourse would not be theft. Not trying to encourage anyone to steal but just giving you the benefit of the teaching of the Church.

As far as the second question, stealing something back that was stolen from you, I think it would depend on the particulars of the circumstances. If someone actually stole your private property then the transfer of custody and control doesn't negate your ownership so in most cases I'd say that you wouldn't be stealing but simply resuming custody of your own property by taking it back. This however is just my own opinion.