Compendium of Church's Social Doctrine

[tinytherese]

There's also the book Render onto Caesar.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='13 May 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1273756872' post='2109864']
It basically lays out what orthodoxy demands of the political sphere. Hint: it is not the U.S. Republican Party. Actually, it provides the framework for something [i]similar [/i]to democratic socialism, wherein public options are available for the poor while a free market and private property is retained. Three key words for the entire text: [b]solidarity, subsidiarity, and dignity[/b].

Pretty much the best of all political sides with none of the morally evil stuff. It is frustrating to read because it points to what I think is a perfectly viable civilization / government that is not a fantastic utopia but you still know it won't happen. It has stuff that will make both liberals and conservatives happy which means both liberals and conservatives will hate it.

I marvel at how few of otherwise devout Catholics have read it. The Catechism lays out what the faith is and the CSDCC lays out what that faith naturally results in if applied to the political sphere. Because of this, I think that the CSDCC may actually be a more fruitful tool for evangelism than the Catechism for today's nonbelievers. It reveals what the world would look like if governments were run according to Catholic principles.
[/quote]

It's nothing similar to Democratic Socialism. Democratic socialism places property at the dangerous whim of the state (at best it places it at the whim of the majority) The human person's ability to work and provide for their family and community as they will is taken away. This is why true socialism, even "democratic socialism," is a true affront to human dignity.

And the Compendium doesn't just look at the role of government. It summarizes a social thought. This includes individuals, families, intermediary institutions, etc.

Instead of seeing it as the best of all political sides, I have found that it is best to view Catholic Social Teaching in the framework that the Popes have when deliberating on it in the various social encyclicals - the social teaching of the Church transcends the ideology of the right and the left, and therefore transcends the "spectrum" of politics that we have been presented by the world.

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 May 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1273770059' post='2109962']
Are you saying that the "public option" equals "state assistance"? The state has a very limited role in society, and it is vitally important that Catholics remember that, since no one else at the present time does.
[/quote]

No, the Church doesn't teach that. This is a misconception of subsidiarity. Government ought not be "limited" or "decentralized" but rather appropriate to the role it must play depending on the issue. I think most would agree that in the U.S., subsidiarity calls for a limiting of the Federal Govt in many areas, but in general it is not a call for arbitrary decentralization. Subsidiarity also refers to non-governmental institutions as well, such as corporations and unions, which have also grown in recent years to a size most detrimental to the common good.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='13 May 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1273800294' post='2110249']
Raphael...long time no chat. I just sent you a message [i]via [/i]your blog. I haven't read it, but I think that (after reading Rerum Novarum) there are a few features of the Catholic Social teaching that can be closely related with what is associated with Socialism...namely that we are morally obligated to help people. If that means you are a socialist, then I think the tenants of socialism are too broad! But, regardless, there are many aspects of the Church's social teaching that your fiscally conservative Republican would tag as Socialistic. Perhaps that is what Zig is getting at?
[/quote]

That may make some sense, but we shouldn't worry about what those on the right wing define as socialist, when the Church has done so well over the years in defining for us, the concerns She has with socialism and the materialism of liberal ideology.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Didymus' date='14 May 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1273869337' post='2110722']
That may make some sense, but we shouldn't worry about what those on the right wing define as socialist, when the Church has done so well over the years in defining for us, the concerns She has with socialism and the materialism of liberal ideology.
[/quote]

The Church has outright condemned all forms of socialism commonly defined. I have to be the first one to say that I know extremely little about politics and political systems. Nevertheless, I've been told (literally, my impressions come from a philosophy lecture) that democratic socialism is not really socialism at all; that it maintains a free market and a true right to private property and personal advancement. So my foggy impression is that democratic socialism would look something similar to Norway. I don't know. Based on these impressions, my reading of the CSDCC (and social doctrine encyclicals) gives me a perception of something similar to democratic socialism. Something similar to it. I don't see how anybody could have read the whole text and not seen an urge toward State assistance to the poor in a variety of areas. My impressions of democratic socialism caused me to see at least some similarity between it and the CSDCC (despite the blanket condemnation on all forms of socialism). Maybe I don't understand what democratic socialism is, however.

[Aloysius]

[quote]No, the Church doesn't teach that. This is a misconception of subsidiarity. Government ought not be "limited" or "decentralized" but rather appropriate to the role it must play depending on the issue. I think most would agree that in the U.S., subsidiarity calls for a limiting of the Federal Govt in many areas, but in general it is not a call for arbitrary decentralization.[/quote]



decentralization, but not arbitrary decentralization. to help the poor in a city, you need a city government. to keep peace among nations (... gets prepared to run away from Jack van Impe who will be labeling me the antiChrist...) you need a global government, or at least a "a true world political authority" (Caritas in Veritate). yes, something with more teeth than the UN that can actually restrain nations from waging war.

[quote] Subsidiarity also refers to non-governmental institutions as well, such as corporations and unions, which have also grown in recent years to a size most detrimental to the common good.[/quote]

!!exactly!!

private sector subsidiarity is way too neglected a subject for people who've caught on to the idea of subsidiarity as if it were the Church's endorsement of Reaganomics.

btw, since this is a thread from six years ago, does that mean myself from six years ago can see me? because if so, i'm sure he's currently preparing a scathing rebuttal... six years of reading the Church's social teachings have changed me quite a lot; I started out seeing them as a mere confirmation of what I already thought and always tried to quote them to my advantage; but in the end they got the better of me..

Edited May 15, 2010 by Aloysius

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 May 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1273942281' post='2111099']
. . . to help the poor in a city, you need a city government.
[/quote]
It is not the job of government to help the poor; instead, that is a function of the Church. As soon as government takes over such things . . . charity within society dies.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

yeah you do need the Church, and the state shouldn't take over; but so long as the state has the right to exist, it itself has a duty to charity ALSO. you may say this is charity with other people's money, and yes, it is. but either the government ought to be abolished and never take anyone's money, or it is obligated to do good for the poor with the money it takes as tax.

everyone has an individual duty to the poor; but also, society at large has a communal duty to the poor. simple as that. the Church's social teaching is this: let the government help the poor, but let no one consider that justification to not also help the poor themselves (ie "i do enough because i pay taxes")

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='15 May 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1273947831' post='2111132']
yeah you do need the Church, and the state shouldn't take over; but so long as the state has the right to exist, it itself has a duty to charity ALSO. you may say this is charity with other people's money, and yes, it is. but either the government ought to be abolished and never take anyone's money, or it is obligated to do good for the poor with the money it takes as tax.

everyone has an individual duty to the poor; but also, society at large has a communal duty to the poor. simple as that. the Church's social teaching is this: let the government help the poor, but let no one consider that justification to not also help the poor themselves (ie "i do enough because i pay taxes")
[/quote]
As the [i]Compendium[/i] makes clear - through quotations taken from [i]Centesimus Annus[/i] - the state (i.e., the government) can supply certain functions of assistance but only temporarily, moreover extreme caution should be used when this is done in emergencies because there is a danger that the state could permanently usurp functions that are not its proper domain.

[Aloysius]

it would be helpful if you would provide specific quotations; certainly government interventions must be temporary in the sense of not creating dependence of people upon the government, ie the government help of the poor is to get them back onto their own feet, and in that sense is a temporary help, which is what Quantregisimo Anno and Centesimus Annus makes clear; but I have never seen it claimed in any social encyclical that a government should not constantly provide available its help to the poor (nor did I get that sense from the Compendium) and I'm inclined to believe such an interpretation is a misinterpretation of a call to avoid the state in which the government is a provider of individual wealth, rather than an agent which helps in temporary actions to bring someone back to a situation in which they themselves have more self-sufficient economic security. ie, the government can be the one to nurse the poor back to economic health, but should never be the thing required for someone to maintain that economic health.

it's basically this: the government must intervene to correct injustice and promote justice, but that doesn't mean it should ever be the source of justice. justice should be a state independent of the government and independent of church charities, while the government and church charities help those who have fallen into unjust situations (situations in which they live below their human dignity) back into that state.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Aloysius

[Laudate_Dominum]

I disagree with something.