Catholicism and capitalism

[Socrates]

​Thanks, I'll read those documents you mentioned.

I thought about to what extent the church implements these ideas. If the Church teaches subsidiarity for secular government then how comes, at least it appears to me, that the church doesn't implement the same approach in its own governance? At present the church operates on a more centralized structure, top down in focus, and there are ongoing disagreements over how collegiality should be realized post Vatican ll. This is greatly different to the governance of churches such as the Episcopalians or Baptists that devolve power downwards, be it end in a good outcome or not.

The ability for local parishes to make decisions is shaped, and at times curtailed, but those above them. Those in the pews have little ability to impact what happens in the parish, unless the priest or bishop agrees. They don't vote or make decisions in their own right, instead providing only advice or opinions to the clergy.

There are pro's and con's to this, and I can see why it benefits the church in many respects. But it seems to highlight that subsidiarity cannot ever be total and detached from a more central or 'higher' relationship figure, body or person that directs the shots on the overall leadership and scope. This would seem to suggest a pecking order pattern throughout life and governance.

Could it be that this influenced secular corporatism in Catholic majority countries to take on a style that was less than desirable once power was acquired? I'm not saying corporatism equals fascism or extremism, but it seems there were power/governance patterns already at play that allowed such ideas to be distorted once power was acquired.

I think there is a need for a free democracy at some level of the governance structure, even if not at the bottom, to remove the chances of a brutal leader. But I'm concerned this type of system would still work against the poor, vulnerable and minority groups who have less ability to match the power of those around and above them.

​The Church is not a democracy, and never claimed to be.  

I don't think Church governance (which involves the passing down of infallible theological and moral doctrines from Christ and the Apostles) exactly corresponds to what is best in secular government, which involves prudential practical decisions by entirely fallible humans.

As Protestant denominations do not have Apostolic Succession, it wouldn't be right (at least from the standpoint of Catholic belief) to compare their structure of authority against that of the Catholic Church.  With Protestantism, you have countless differing and contrary doctrines and "interpretations" in all areas of theology and moral teaching, without any one having an ultimate claim to authority in disputed matters.  That's precisely why Christ gave St. Peter and his successors the final authority.

I really don't think there's any strong connection between Catholic teaching and brutal totalitarian systems of government.  For instance, despite the claims of anti-Catholic conspiracy mongers, the Catholic Church and Nazism were strongly opposed from the beginning.

[Socrates]

It seems that here you are really getting into the politics/economics of it. That is fine. I already agreed that capitalism is a more efficient economic system, and I do not believe that many would disagree with you on that. But I do not see how that is particularly relevant to the matter that we have been debating - I do not believe that the Church advocates "the system that is economically the most efficient."  Such a system might be a pure form of capitalism, which the Church does not support, as She also does not support socialism. That is because both systems are deterministic - please refer to the article I posted from Pope Benedict that expands upon that idea.

​Actually, the Church does not advocate any one "system" of economics, but instead teaches certain moral principles, one of which is that men have a natural right to private property, which others, including the state, are obligated to respect.  The quotes I provided should make this more than clear, yet you seem to keep denying that this a natural right, as the Church teaches.

What I said is very relevant to the matter, as it shows how the extreme (and usually unrealistic) scenario of rich persons hoarding food from starving persons can't be used to justify a socialistic form of government, or the denial of property rights by the state. 

If the goal is actually to feed as many people and eliminate starvation as much as possible, then why on God's green earth would we want to advocate economic system that actually feeds fewer people and actually increases severe poverty?  Especially if that system invariably involves grave injustices and tyranny?

In reality, it's not successful entrepreneurs in free market economies that hoard food from starving persons, but despots in third-world dictatorships.

 

This would not be considered theft according to the Church. Why is that? Because the universal destination of goods trumps the right to private property (See CCC 2403, the section following the section that you quoted).  If there is any theft here, according to the Church, it is theft by the person who hoards the bread and refuses to hand it over to the starving person (See CCC 2406).  So, how is there a natural right to private property, if the property can legitimately be taken away depending on the circumstances (such as a starving person taking from a billionaire)? A right to private property is the right to do with it as one pleases, is it not? A private property right enables the billionaire to give the bread to the starving person if he so chooses, or to keep the bread to himself and allow the starving person to die, if he so chooses.  But the Church does not allow that. You have a duty to give the bread to the starving person. If the starving person takes the bread from you it is not theft. And if you withhold the bread from the starving person it is theft. I think you can see that the Church does not advocate a private property right in a strict economic sense. The common good of all men takes precedence over your right to hold property.

As for the various documents that you cited - there are statements in the very same documents that cut the other way. I do not think that I need to repeat them here, as they are already explained in one of the links that I posted above from the NTM website. Please feel free to have a look at them.

 

As I quoted earlier, Pope Leo XIII explicitly stated that the universal destination of goods "can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property."  

All rights come with limits and attendant moral obligations and responsibilities, and the duty to save human life itself can trump many legitimate rights, but this doesn't mean that those rights aren't real, or should be simply taken away by the state whenever it sees fit.  That is the same as what your cited article states, that the right to private property entails moral obligations to others, not that the state should be able to deny property rights.

The right to private property doesn't imply you can deliberately hoard food while others starve, any more than a right to own and bear arms implies you have a right to gun down whoever ticks you off.  It's really not that complicated.

The Church's strong defense of property rights becomes meaningless if the state can simply take away property to redistribute whenever it deems it a good idea.  "Thou shalt not steal" means "thou shalt not steal,"  not "thou shalt not steal unless you think you need your neighbor's stuff more than he does."

 

It would seem to me that this is essentially what tax is. The government takes a portion of our incomes, some of which is given to persons that are less fortunate than ourselves in the form of food and health care subsidies, etc. If you do not pay your taxes, the government puts you in jail. But that is not what the Church would call theft. In fact, the Church explicitly advocates some of these positions (such as Universal Health Care, for example).

I don't think that all taxation is necessarily immoral, but it should be kept to an absolute minimum.  There's a difference between taxes to pay for a few publicly-owned and used services (such as public roads and armed forces), and punitive or redistributive taxation with the purpose of taking away from one to give to another.  

Leo XIII opposed excessive taxation, and John Paul II was heavily critical of the modern welfare state in Centesimus Annus.

The Church teaches that health care should be provided to everyone, but this doesn't mean we have to support government welfare-state measures such as "Obamacare," which force everyone to pay for particular insurance plans.  This actually drives up the cost of health care, and will lead to fewer people actually getting health care, and likely government rationing of life-saving healthcare.  In the past, most persons, insured or not, could get life-saving emergency care when needed.  (Though that gets into another debate.)

Edited June 14, 2015 by Socrates

[Socrates]

Socrates - The government forcibly taking money from wealthy people in the form of tax and redistributing it to the needy in the form of food or health care subsidies such as SNAP or Medicare is not theft. The Church does not teach that. If anything, She seems to support this by Her position on Universal Health care, etc.

Which is more important, that a poor person gets fed, or that a person be allowed to do with his property as he pleases? You seem to think that the property right takes precedence over the poor person being fed. That he should only be fed if the person with money voluntarily chooses to feed him, but that it would be wrong for the government to take part of his money  and give it to the poor person. To me at least, it seems that such a point of view values property above people. I don't think it is consistent with what our blessed Lord teaches.

Why is this right to property so important to you? I support free markets because I think they ultimately produce a system where more poor people are fed than centralized economies. But I do not think that property should be of any value to a Christian beyond the purposes for which God intends it. At least to me, someone living a lavish lifestyle while there are literally millions of people who struggle to find a good meal or running water is a misuse of property, and I do not see what would be wrong with the government taking some of his money and using it to feed poor people.

​

From St. John Paul II in Centesimus Annus:

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.¹⁰⁰

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

[Socrates]

​Good point, though capitalism (or a pure free market) is not necessarily the most efficient system. In fact, efficiency is always centralizing, trying to reduce the system to the simplest organization (for example, in technology the interconnectedness of the Internet is moving all data to the cloud, because it's more efficient than each business housing its own software and services). A socialist or communist economy can be very efficient, if it is operated by the best technique (and preferably if it is a universal economy, so everything can be economized into one efficient system). Free markets can be very inefficient (for example, when investors disrupt the market by withholding investment, or a company prevents innovation because it would harm its business model).

The efficiency of capitalism is dependent on centralized systems...corporations, industries, laws, governments, financial institutions, etc. Capitalism works best when it can bring everything and everyone into line with a centralized plan (for example, fitting workers into 8 hour days, exploiting foreign labor, amassing natural resources in foreign countries, planning production accordingly, etc). It's a very curious freedom to be a worker in the modern economy; in the ancient world, having to work for money was not a sign of freedom but dependence, it meant you had to hire yourself to make a living, you didn't have freedom/leisure (even in Victorian England the wealthy didn't like handling or talking about money, it was bad form).

​In reality, no government can effectively manage the literally billions of individual actions and transactions of production and distribution involved in an economy, as this is simply too big and complex to be centrally planned and controlled by a small group of persons.  This point is concisely and beautifully illustrated in Leonard Read's classic "I, Pencil."

Centralized Communist governments, such as the USSR's might have been able to effectively manage specific projects, such as those of their space program, but fail miserably at managing the economy of a whole country for everybody.  This led to the Soviet Union's eventual bankruptcy and collapse.

The economy is also a disaster in North Korea, one of the only countries which still holds to the old-school Communist central-planning model.

 

Can you name even one country with a centralized socialist economy which has a more effective economy than those with (comparatively) free economies? 

Or do you actually buy the old "workers' paradise" red propaganda?

[Era Might]

​In reality, no government can effectively manage the literally billions of individual actions and transactions of production and distribution involved in an economy, as this is simply too big and complex to be centrally planned and controlled by a small group of persons.  This point is concisely and beautifully illustrated in Leonard Read's classic "I, Pencil."

Centralized Communist governments, such as the USSR's might have been able to effectively manage specific projects, such as those of their space program, but fail miserably at managing the economy of a whole country for everybody.  This led to the Soviet Union's eventual bankruptcy and collapse.

The economy is also a disaster in North Korea, one of the only countries which still holds to the old-school Communist central-planning model.

 

Can you name even one country with a centralized socialist economy which has a more effective economy than those with (comparatively) free economies? 

Or do you actually buy the old "workers' paradise" red propaganda?

​I'm not sure what a "free economy" actually means. The idea of freedom has nothing to do with technical efficiency, and can be very much against it. The scientist has to be "free" in a certain sense to follow the facts and research, but he is not "free" in a political or personal or moral or social sense...the scientist (or economist) cares little about that kind of freedom, he is a slave to technique, to the cooperation of research and the efficient and abstract determination of things.

An economy, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with political freedom (at least not a modern economy, it once did when economy was just a branch of philosophy and was referred to as "political economy"). A "free" economy has only technical problems and solutions: how to maximize profit, maximize efficiency, maximize production, etc. When you start introducing moral and social ideals into economy, you may be on your way to a better society, but not a better economy.

You assume that because Communist governments failed as political experiments that therefore their economy was different from ours, but it wasn't, economy is a technical discipline, and ours is just as centralized as theirs, but we centralize in different ways and know how to package it better. I don't buy any "workers' paradise" propaganda but I don't buy "free economy" propaganda either, which blends political freedom and economic success into a false ideology that uses one to mask the contradictions of the other.

Even America's economic freedom is dependent on a vast, global, interconnected economy that requires a centralized system of governmence (economic, political, military, etc), and preserving an individual countries advantage in the system requires actual centralized power, wealth, and force, not pious ideas about a farmer in North Carolina and his pencil plant.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Era Might

[Era Might]

It's not arbitrary to be against the state violating the property rights of persons (aka theft).  I (as well as the popes I quoted) believe this to be a violation of natural rights, and outside the proper limits of government.

And conservatives are definitely not against the redistribution of wealth by legitimate and voluntary actions (such as poor people becoming rich, or rich people choosing to give away their wealth to others).  What we oppose is the (attempted) redistribution of wealth by forcibly taking property or money from persons under threat of violence to (supposedly) give to others (aka robbery).  (Though in reality, socialism does not better the lot of the poor, but only empowers government.)

As for conservatives supporting "redistribution of power" as "some great eternal principal," I have no idea what you're even talking about.  Conservatism tends to generally oppose violent revolution.  But such "liberal bourgeoise" notions such as giving "commoners" the vote, does not intrinsically involve theft or the violation of natural rights, as socialism does.

 I suppose a "purer" conservative might oppose liberal (in the classical sense) republicanism altogether, but "conservatism" is always a relative term.  I'm presuming your talking about American conservatism, which supports limited constitutional government.

​"Natural rights" are not natural. The idea of private property assumes an abstraction of property and the state, which is of course central to modern societies, but it is hardly "natural." Peasant communes are not based on that abstraction of private property (i.e., the idea that property can be bought and sold by whoever, the peasants are allotted and belong to it), but that doesn't mean they are unnatural. You speak of "the proper limits of government" but one can just as well speak of "the proper limits of the individual." The radical individualism on which modern capitalism/economics depends is NOT "natural." Communistic ideals of society are very traditional, going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans, as is, of course, ideals of personal freedom, though the American idea of freedom is a modern one. Socialism, whatever its imperfections, is closer to the traditional ideal of economics and society as one aspect of a larger vision for society, as opposed to the dog-eat-dog, profit-driven motives of capitalism and free markets (which also have their virtues, but are hardly "natural").

Edited June 16, 2015 by Era Might

[Peace]

It would be interested to read, say, St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas on advocating distributing wealth. For to support such a drastic measure - in many Western countries people are forced to give up to 20% of their money so that the government can provide food, health care, education etc. to the less-well-to-do - a Catholic should reasonably seek the advice of Tradition, not just Rerum Novarum and Populorum Progressio, but also De Civitate Dei and Summa Theologiae. 

I think it would be interesting. One person's take on Aquinas can be found in the link below. I don't think that they really take on the question of "wealth distribution" per se, but I think you can discern from their writings that they seem to consider private property more of a prudential necessity than a God given right.

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-private-property-natural_16.html

If the goal is actually to feed as many people and eliminate starvation as much as possible, then why on God's green earth would we want to advocate economic system that actually feeds fewer people and actually increases severe poverty?  Especially if that system invariably involves grave injustices and tyranny?

To clarify. I do not advocate socialism. I do not believe that it works from a practical standpoint. And I also believe that it contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, which you raised in one of your responses. Where we disagree, I think, is that I would not go so far in the other direction as you would.

What I said is very relevant to the matter, as it shows how the extreme (and usually unrealistic) scenario of rich persons hoarding food from starving persons can't be used to justify a socialistic form of government, or the denial of property rights by the state. 

Again, I do not believe that the state should be able to absolutely deny property rights. I think that the Church teaches that the right to property must ultimately be subservient to moral considerations. But in a classical economic sense, I do not think that the right to private property is seen as seen as a right that is subservient to moral considerations. You are free to dispose of your property as you wish, even if that means that a starving person should go hungry. The Church does not go that far. But it seems that on this point we agree to for the most part. I think our disagreement here has more to do with how we are defining things.

As far as the "unrealistic" scenario of rich persons hoarding food from starving persons, I think the scenario is very much realistic. We have a huge amount of wealth in the USA and Europe. In the USA we literally have people dying of having an overabundance of food. But there are still roughly a billion people on the Earth who live on a dollar or two a day. Who are malnutritioned, who do not have access to clean water, who do not have access to quality health care. And we do not do nearly as much as we could to help them. For example, I spent $400 on a PS4 about a year ago and I barely even use it. I could have very easily given that money to an organization that supports the poor in Africa, for example.

500 years ago I think that it would have been difficult for individual people in wealthy nations to reach out and help people in these poorer nations. Today we have huge access to media and transportation that enables us to be aware of their needs and to take concrete steps to help them. Personally, I think that our failure to do so is something that we will have to account for on judgment day. I think that our failure to help is exactly like a rich person hoarding food from a starving person, or a person on a boat not throwing a life preserver to a drowning person. I do not think that we have the excuse that they live far away, any longer.

I don't think that all taxation is necessarily immoral, but it should be kept to an absolute minimum.  There's a difference between taxes to pay for a few publicly-owned and used services (such as public roads and armed forces), and punitive or redistributive taxation with the purpose of taking away from one to give to another. 

I would not go this far, nor do I think the Church goes this far. You can see that She has consistently supported Universal Health Care. I do not think you will find her objecting to things such as food stamps for the poor, either.  As for subsidiary, it is not a panacea. Subsidiary means that things should be accomplished at a local level to the extent possible, but it does not deny a more removed body from taking action where necessary to accomplish some good. That is clearly the case with the government in many areas. The government, for example, is much more adept at providing health care to needy persons than could otherwise be expected if we just had a free-for-all system where individual people were left to provide health care for those who did not have it. That is why we have medicare for old people. The government is more adept at identifying people who do not have adequate nutrition. That is why we have food stamp programs. These programs involve the redistribution of wealth and are things that the Church has been supportive of. I do not see any reason why taxation should be limited to the purposes of public roads and armed forces. I think that is a rather extreme position that the Church has not supported.

The Church teaches that health care should be provided to everyone, but this doesn't mean we have to support government welfare-state measures such as "Obamacare," which force everyone to pay for particular insurance plans.  This actually drives up the cost of health care, and will lead to fewer people actually getting health care, and likely government rationing of life-saving healthcare.  In the past, most persons, insured or not, could get life-saving emergency care when needed.  (Though that gets into another debate.)

Well. That is certainly up for debate. Personally, I have had the experience of being in a financially good state while in the USA, and in a financially bad state while in the USA. I have also had those experiences while living in a country with Universal Health Care (Japan, to be specific). Just based on my own personal experiences, I would prefer Universal Health Care. I think that when you have money and everything is good the US system is great. If you lose your job and find yourself without insurance, or (prior to Obama-care) if you found yourself with a pre-existing medical condition, you are in for some serious trouble. Isn't medical expenses one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country? In Japan when I was out of work I had my medical expenses taken care of, and it was so easy. I never had to worry. I never had to argue with anyone. I had a heart procedure done at this hospital: http://www.ntt-east.co.jp/kmc/en/ and the quality was great. Here in the USA, I had to spend hours calling my insurance company or threatening to sue them just to get them to cover certain procedures. That is because everything is profit driven here. To the extent that they do not pay for the medical services you need, they make money.

I think that there are positives and negatives to both types of systems, but I would much rather have the assurance of living in a country with Universal Health Care, based on my own experiences with both systems.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Peace

[Socrates]

​I'm not sure what a "free economy" actually means. The idea of freedom has nothing to do with technical efficiency, and can be very much against it. The scientist has to be "free" in a certain sense to follow the facts and research, but he is not "free" in a political or personal or moral or social sense...the scientist (or economist) cares little about that kind of freedom, he is a slave to technique, to the cooperation of research and the efficient and abstract determination of things.

An economy, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with political freedom (at least not a modern economy, it once did when economy was just a branch of philosophy and was referred to as "political economy"). A "free" economy has only technical problems and solutions: how to maximize profit, maximize efficiency, maximize production, etc. When you start introducing moral and social ideals into economy, you may be on your way to a better society, but not a better economy.

You assume that because Communist governments failed as political experiments that therefore their economy was different from ours, but it wasn't, economy is a technical discipline, and ours is just as centralized as theirs, but we centralize in different ways and know how to package it better. I don't buy any "workers' paradise" propaganda but I don't buy "free economy" propaganda either, which blends political freedom and economic success into a false ideology that uses one to mask the contradictions of the other.

Even America's economic freedom is dependent on a vast, global, interconnected economy that requires a centralized system of governmence (economic, political, military, etc), and preserving an individual countries advantage in the system requires actual centralized power, wealth, and force, not pious ideas about a farmer in North Carolina and his pencil plant.

​Well, you completely avoided answering my first question, though that hardly surprises me.  If centralized government control of an economy is really so effective and efficient at providing the most goods for the most people, then  communist countries with centralized planned economies should be models of economic prosperity for its people.  However, the facts of the real world prove that to be contrary to reality, as is the rest of socialist theory.

A free economy has been described thus:  

Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

(From the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.)  You can find another similar definition here.

You can find a lot more detailed and interesting information on their website, including their specific criteria for measuring economic freedom, and a list ranking the world's countries on economic freedom.  There is a strong positive correlation between economic freedom and prosperity among these countries.

(I'm linking to that information for whomever wants to read it, tbhough I'm quite aware you'll likely dismiss it all as "Bourgeoise" propaganda to Oppress the Masses, or such, without bothering to read it in depth.)

And yes, all an economy does is allow for the production, sale and distribution of money and goods.  An economic system (of any kind) can't save your soul.  Also, a "free economy" does not mean complete anarchism or lawlessness, but laws that protect property rights and individual freedoms.

Claiming that free market or "capitalist" economies are really just the same as Communist or socialist economies is not an argument, but an ignorant cop-out.

You yourself have not made any factual arguments to back up your claims, but have mostly just spouted leftist pieties.

 

You spend a lot of time on here giving vaguely Marxist rants against "Capitalism" and "Bourgeois society" and the like.  But this brings up another question:  Is there any country or society in the real world (either currently existing or historical) that you think would be a good model for us, or that we should look up to?  (I'm asking here for real, actual times and places, not some academic's utopian theory.)

 

 

 

 

[Socrates]

​"Natural rights" are not natural. The idea of private property assumes an abstraction of property and the state, which is of course central to modern societies, but it is hardly "natural." Peasant communes are not based on that abstraction of private property (i.e., the idea that property can be bought and sold by whoever, the peasants are allotted and belong to it), but that doesn't mean they are unnatural. You speak of "the proper limits of government" but one can just as well speak of "the proper limits of the individual." The radical individualism on which modern capitalism/economics depends is NOT "natural." Communistic ideals of society are very traditional, going all the way back to the Greeks and Romans, as is, of course, ideals of personal freedom, though the American idea of freedom is a modern one. Socialism, whatever its imperfections, is closer to the traditional ideal of economics and society as one aspect of a larger vision for society, as opposed to the dog-eat-dog, profit-driven motives of capitalism and free markets (which also have their virtues, but are hardly "natural").

​The seventh and tenth commandments, "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" presuppose the existence of private property and the right to own it, and long predate "modern capitalism" and even ancient Greece and Rome.

And most people (at least Catholic/Christian thinkers) regard these commandments as part of natural law, and in fact some concept of personal property and the wrongness of theft is common to the vast majority of human societies, whatever Marxist ideology might say to the contrary.

Tyranny may have a very long history, but I don't think most people would regard communistic societies, such as those of ancient Sparta, as an ideal, unless the goal is to organize all society into an inhuman war machine.  You've still yet to give an example of a "good" communist/socialist society you think we should emulate.

[Peace]

Actually, if you have a look at the article I posted from Pope Benedict, he does seem to equate capitalism and socialism, in the sense that they are both systems that aim for the efficient allocation of resources, and are not concerned with ethics, or the use of resources to  further God's plans. The only real difference is that they attempt to allocate resources in different manners - through prices in the case of capitalism, and through centralized decisions in the case of socialism.

As for the Seventh Commandment, it seems that you are equating theft under our criminal laws with theft as defined by the Church. Our criminal law assumes a right to private property . But the Church defines theft in a different manner. There is no theft of property if the holder of the property withheld it unreasonably. And unreasonably holding onto property that you own instead of giving it to a poor person is theft as the Church defines it. That would never be considered theft under the criminal law. The Seventh Commandment assumes the universal destination of goods. It does not assume a right to use property as one pleases, or to use or to hold onto property in contradiction to God's purposes for it.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

It really depends on what you mean by "capitalism," which is in reality a pretty vague term.  I would strongly disagree that the traditional social teaching of the Church is in fact "closer to socialism."  Most of the Popes over the past 150 years or so have strongly condemned socialism in all its forms (not merely hard-line communism).  Particularly strong is Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno (which contains his famous statement that "no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.")  The Church does condemn extreme laisseze faire capitalism, or the idea that everything should be left purely to the market, without moral obligations on employers and businessmen.  The Church does strongly teach the right to private property, though like every other right, it carries moral obligations.

I recently read an excellent book by Anthony Esolen, Reclaiming Catholic Social Teaching:  A Defense of the Church's True Teachings on Marriage, Family, and the State, which focuses on the teaching of Pope Leo XIII ("the father of Catholic social teaching"), and refutes the common error that Catholic social teaching implies a vast welfare state.  He shows instead that the modern leviathon welfare state is contrary to true Catholic teaching, which stresses the rights and primacy of the family, and the local community of persons, favoring voluntary associations of persons, such as the family and worker's guilds.

John Paul II was explicitly critical of the modern welfare state (or "social assistance state") in his encyclical Centesimus Annus.

 

​1. it is saint john Paul the 2nd. I haven't read his encyclical about social assistance, a quote from there would be nice, perhaps i will read the whole thing to check. Everyone don't trust people here unadulterated coz they can be misleading this site i believe comes under attacks from free masons posing as Christians so check and read all things people post and say pope dada has said this and st dada has said that.

And even if the pope was critical of the modern welfare system,why? Your very vague with your response please expand what he meant to give us a clearer picture as to why the pope is critical and please don't say read it yourself because that proves to me that if your not a free mason spreading confusion than you don't really understand what you read and are spreading confusion yourself. If St John Paul 2 was critical of it it probably needs some tweeking and also did he ever try to beg for money at the gates of a catholic church, most of them say "Get a job" and other such things to avoid giving you money,including simply no!, or put there tail between there legs and hurry off, i've had to do it enough times i know. There is no common bucket in the catholic church though holy scripture states for Christianity to be christian it must and the poor christians must be able to dip there hands into the pockets of the rich, no questions asked. And the lack of true charity in the church has had God have to make social security to feed the poor. If JP2 truley was criticizing social welfare them im bold enough to say that is one place where he was dead wrong.

No pun intended bruz.

God iz Good, God iz Love.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
hence why

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Most crimes of theft,selling drugs and prostitution are crimes of necessity not of passion, it is done out of an assumed need, and we are not to judge what a person needs and what a person doesnt.

Want to lower the crime rate, get charitable, no questions asked like "whats the money for ?" You are not endorsing a persons drug or alcohol habit by giving them money because there going to get it anyway, if you dont help them they are forced to lie, cheat, steal, sell drugs and prostitute. 

Charity is the only perfect system and can exist in any political system except perhaps communism here everyone gets the same pay, but even than you still can give to those that have none and live off bread and water. If charity can exist in any political system than charity is upon the peoples head and not the governments, it is up to the people. Think about it and rise up!

 

Jesus iz LORD!

 

P.s. If you read the old testament you will find there are 3 payments to be made from your wage, tithe,offering and 1st fruits, oh plus it think one more once ever 3 years something to do with the ends of your crop to be given to the poor. Holy scripture hints to Godly people living just off what they need and giving the rest away kind of thing. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

​That's what socialism is in reality.

The almighty, all-eoncompassing Leviathon State usurping the proper role of family, Church, and other free associations of persons, is evil whether it calls itself "socialist," "capitalist," "Communist," or what have you.

​notice that every political system since Christ that has oppressed the churches freedom to practice her faith has collapsed eventually or been beaten in war.

 

P.s. In my 1st post when i said it needs tweeking i was referring to the social security system. It's a proven fact that a good social security system( the one in australia anyway) reduces criminal activity and gives criminals less grounds in court to make a plee under the alias of " a crime of poverty/nescisity" because they re given ample funds to exist.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye
my 1st post

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

*flood warning*

comfortably mind you when you add cheap rent, free water, cheap medicine and free doctors, in australia.

I would have thought the church would be all for every person in a nation having access to there needs, no questions asked. Even if that is provided on the back of the nations tax system.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Socrates]

 

To clarify. I do not advocate socialism. I do not believe that it works from a practical standpoint. And I also believe that it contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, which you raised in one of your responses. Where we disagree, I think, is that I would not go so far in the other direction as you would.

Again, I do not believe that the state should be able to absolutely deny property rights. I think that the Church teaches that the right to property must ultimately be subservient to moral considerations. But in a classical economic sense, I do not think that the right to private property is seen as seen as a right that is subservient to moral considerations. You are free to dispose of your property as you wish, even if that means that a starving person should go hungry. The Church does not go that far. But it seems that on this point we agree to for the most part. I think our disagreement here has more to do with how we are defining things.

 

 

​Well, it sounds like we at least agree that socialism is wrong.  I think where we disagree is that you place a lot more trust in the inherent benevolence and wisdom of politicians and government bureaucrats than I do, as you seem to place a lot of trust in them to wisely and justly spend other people's money on other people.

(As the late, great Milton Friedman observed, people generally make the most foolish decisions when spending other people's money on other people, as government's do.  The immense irresponsibility and waste in government spending is proof of that.  $18,000,000,000,000.00 in national debt and counting . . .)

 

As far as the "unrealistic" scenario of rich persons hoarding food from starving persons, I think the scenario is very much realistic. We have a huge amount of wealth in the USA and Europe. In the USA we literally have people dying of having an overabundance of food. But there are still roughly a billion people on the Earth who live on a dollar or two a day. Who are malnutritioned, who do not have access to clean water, who do not have access to quality health care. And we do not do nearly as much as we could to help them. For example, I spent $400 on a PS4 about a year ago and I barely even use it. I could have very easily given that money to an organization that supports the poor in Africa, for example.

500 years ago I think that it would have been difficult for individual people in wealthy nations to reach out and help people in these poorer nations. Today we have huge access to media and transportation that enables us to be aware of their needs and to take concrete steps to help them. Personally, I think that our failure to do so is something that we will have to account for on judgment day. I think that our failure to help is exactly like a rich person hoarding food from a starving person, or a person on a boat not throwing a life preserver to a drowning person. I do not think that we have the excuse that they live far away, any longer.

Of course, we should do what we can to help the less fortunate, particularly those starving or lacking basic necessities.  However, the U.S. and other wealthy countries actually give huge amounts in food and aid to poor countries.  However, due to the immensely corrupt governments in many of these countries, much of the food never actually makes it to the starving people, as corrupt government leaders and warlords actually horde the food and money to strengthen their power.  The problem is evil leadership, rather than simple lack of food.

What is needed is massive political and economic reform in those countries to help them feed themselves, rather than merely giving greater and greater amounts of food and money.  Of course, that's much harder and easier said than done.  Even advocates of the African poor such as Bono (whom I'd hardly consider a right-winger) say that what is really needed in Africa is more free market capitalism and entrepreneurship to open up economic opportunity.  It's the whole principle of teaching a man to fish, rather than just giving him a fish.  And countries being perpetually dependent on the charity of rich countries to feed themselves is not a good thing either.  I don't think more forced government spending is the answer.

I don't disagree with you about the importance of charitable giving, but Christ calls us all to personal sacrificial self-giving charity, not the massive forced redistribution of wealth and spending by a bureaucratic state.  Charity is a virtue.  Forced government spending of others' money is not.

 

I would not go this far, nor do I think the Church goes this far. You can see that She has consistently supported Universal Health Care. I do not think you will find her objecting to things such as food stamps for the poor, either.  As for subsidiary, it is not a panacea. Subsidiary means that things should be accomplished at a local level to the extent possible, but it does not deny a more removed body from taking action where necessary to accomplish some good. That is clearly the case with the government in many areas. The government, for example, is much more adept at providing health care to needy persons than could otherwise be expected if we just had a free-for-all system where individual people were left to provide health care for those who did not have it. That is why we have medicare for old people. The government is more adept at identifying people who do not have adequate nutrition. That is why we have food stamp programs. These programs involve the redistribution of wealth and are things that the Church has been supportive of. I do not see any reason why taxation should be limited to the purposes of public roads and armed forces. I think that is a rather extreme position that the Church has not supported.

I'm not saying there should be no safety net to care for those in truly desperate circumstances, but the massive growth of the bureaucratic welfare state has not been an unqualified good for the poor, and in the U.S. and elsewhere has helped create a permanent government-dependent underclass, as government takes on more roles which formerly belonged to the family and community, and has helped destroy both family and community among the urban poor, with disastrous results.  Illegitimacy, fatherless kids, crime and abortion have soared in such communities since the vast increase in federal social spending in the U.S. since the 1960's.  If more and more government spending on the poor were an unqualified good, then John Paul II would have no reason for concern about the growth of the welfare state.

 

Well. That is certainly up for debate. Personally, I have had the experience of being in a financially good state while in the USA, and in a financially bad state while in the USA. I have also had those experiences while living in a country with Universal Health Care (Japan, to be specific). Just based on my own personal experiences, I would prefer Universal Health Care. I think that when you have money and everything is good the US system is great. If you lose your job and find yourself without insurance, or (prior to Obama-care) if you found yourself with a pre-existing medical condition, you are in for some serious trouble. Isn't medical expenses one of the biggest causes of bankruptcy in this country? In Japan when I was out of work I had my medical expenses taken care of, and it was so easy. I never had to worry. I never had to argue with anyone. I had a heart procedure done at this hospital: http://www.ntt-east.co.jp/kmc/en/ and the quality was great. Here in the USA, I had to spend hours calling my insurance company or threatening to sue them just to get them to cover certain procedures. That is because everything is profit driven here. To the extent that they do not pay for the medical services you need, they make money.

I think that there are positives and negatives to both types of systems, but I would much rather have the assurance of living in a country with Universal Health Care, based on my own experiences with both systems.

 

The problem is that socialized medicine plans such as "Obamacare" are economically unsustainable, and in reality will help raise the cost of healthcare, and make it less available in the long run.

http://triblive.com/opinion/editorials/4762694-74/obamacare-health-spending#axzz2g5IPRWOD

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/failing-hospitals-rising-costs-unsustainable-business-model/

http://dailysignal.com/2010/05/28/in-their-own-words-cbo-admits-obamacare-unsustainable/

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/how-obamacare-is-unsustainable-why-we-need-a-single-payer-solution-for-all-americans-300031687.html

Yes, good people can disagree about this, but it's wrong to suggest that the Church requires the implementation of socialized medicine as a teaching of the Faith.

Also, as Friedman noted, it is impossible to maintain a welfare state with massive unchecked immigration like we have in the U.S.  Countries such as Sweden and Japan do not have such massive immigration.