Catholic Social Doctrine

[ScottOFurry]

Saying that the Church has no authority to reject political-economic systems is identical as saying that the Church has no authority to reject Soviet/Cuban state socialism, Hitler's national socialism, or Mussolini's fascism. Morality DOES extend to the economic sphere and these austro-libertarians are generally blind to this. Some non-Catholic "libertarians" even go as far as supporting the use of extreme violence to keep their systems of propertarian control over communities.

[houndofgeorge]

Great summation of the errors of business loving Catholics, especially in America.

The social encyclicals support a mild socialisation path of the world's Labor parties obviously.

[buggsie04]

The Papal encyclical " Caritas in Veritate " says it all. This is a very dangerous encyclical.

[paleocrat]

I don't believe it is dangerous whatsoever. It is grossly misunderstood, treated as if it is not to be understood and interpreted in harmony with Scripture, Tradition, and the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching.

[cambycam]

Actually, what is dangerous is Fr. Siricio-just listen to Culturewars "agents of influence" podcast and the one specifically about the good Padre......ACton Institute is funded by part of Amway dou, who also have ties to Mercenary groups

[cambycam]

Well done sir!

[veejmb]

Hello ! I 'm happy to see americans REALLY non-liberals like you, it's the first time !!! VIVE LE REGNE SOCIAL DU CHRIST !!!

[Robo1415]

The problem with too many "social Catholics" is they end up supporting horrific liberal policies(like Obama's) that have nothing to do with true justice,but only end up strengthning the power of the State(accept of course,when it comes to fetacide.......We are seeing that now....

[Robo1415]

Liberal Catholics are going to have alot to answer for helping to elect the Harvard Hitler.....

[paleocrat]

"social Catholics" and Catholic Social Teaching are two different things. Those who call themselves "social Catholics" are in to something called liberation theology. They are very liberal, both politically and religiously. CST, on the other hand, is merely the teaching of the Church on various matters pertaining to the political-economy and culture.

Liberation Theology sucks. It is socialism. Socialism has been condemned by the Church. But one must know how the Church defines Socialism.

[Robo1415]

The thing that galls me is so many ignorant Catholics voted for Obama despite the fact that he opposes the Church on so many moral issues and thought they could get away with it because they felt his economic views were compatible with Catholic Teaching...That troubles me ....After all,couldnt someone be Pro-Slavery and have all the "Right" positions on every other issue and expect Catholics to vote for him or her with a clear conscience.?...

[whoo689]

THAT is how atheists and agnostics like myself figure out what should be wrong and what is acceptable. That is how people did it when religion began, believe it or not. The difference is that religious people didn't acknowledge that's what they were doing. They claimed that "God" told them these moral views. But there's no evidence of that.

[whoo689]

Social contract theory is just as valid, if not more so, than divine command or "natural law." Besides, who is to determine what is and isn't natural in terms of morality? That's what scientists call the naturalistic fallacy: saying what is and then claiming that what is means what ought to be. You cannot conflate positive with normative. Certainly homosexuality is rare, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or 'unnatural.' We can figure out what works for society and what doesn't.

[COCOPUFF093]

I think I'm an atheist, but I'm still formally a Catholic. 14 years old.

Quick question: How do you know God exists?

I just don't get it. And we pray to God for trivial things like getting home safely. When we DO get home safely, he answered our prayer. But he doesn't stop terrorism or hunger, even though we pray for that!

What the Hell!!!!

Paleocrat, please respond. I am about to leave Catholicism and become secular, so if you have any hardcore advice, now is the time.

Peace out

[paleocrat]

Have you seen my videos on atheism? If so, watch them again.

This is a psychological difficulty, not a logical one. In a world where God exists, we can account for meaningful judgments between right and wrong. In a world of moral relativism and chemical determinism, terrorism is neither good or bad and the person doing it really had no free will to stop his chemical impulses.

You want to know how a Christian can account for bad things. I want to know how atheists can account for anything.

[COCOPUFF093]

But why should I believe in a God that doesn't do a thing to stop suffering, and condemns all non-believers to hell?! give me a break. if only christians can go to heaven then I hate to say it but almost everyone who has ever lived is going str8 to hell.

if your god is so good, then why doesn't he stop evil if he has the power to? He is malevolent, in short.

[paleocrat]

You, as an atheist, can't even account for the necessary preconditions wherein universally meaningful moral judgments make sense. Suffering? Chemical sensation or mindset within a purely material and chemically determined creature who has been in contact with an impersonal and amoral world or another chemically determined creature. Most atheists worth their salt would tell you to grow a couple.

Your too smart for atheism... maybe you'll figure that out, sooner rather than later.

[maximuslaurius]

I dont think that view is required for the athiest. most educated athiests would tell you that moral behaviour and objective reasoning on right and wrong are a product of evolution and social behaviour; youll ind all societies follow certain moral principles, its only when you add religion that you encounter true moral relativism because if we were all endowed by a creator by identicl ideas of right and wrong there wouldnt be any variations in societies.

[paleocrat]

But how do individuals or societies determine which moral code within their ranks is the product of evolutionary progress? Who holds the trump card?

Objective reasoning is the product of evolution and social behavior? Evolution is constant and unpredictable, and social behavior is always in a state of change. It also suffers from diversity. How then do you find objectivity or normativity within constant and unpredictable change?

[paleocrat]

Persons made in the image of God and bearing an internal witness of God's standards regarding right and wrong wouldn't prohibit variations. If one presumes it to be equal in all, and bearing the marks of clones or robots, then maybe. But people differ. Their reasoning capacity differs. Their personal impulses may differ. And as time moved on, these distinctions would be external and relatively solidified, then being a social influence from without. How you came to this idea is beyond me.

[gorgonzolaaa]

There is a valid point to be made, that we should not speak of social justice out of ignorance. Such speech has historically and ironically led to social injustices such as socialism.

[paleocrat]

Most Catholics have never taken the time to read what the Church has authoritatively said about matters such as usury, equitable land distribution, classical liberalism, agriculture, health care, universal destination of natural resources, foreign aid from rich nations, taxes, labor organization, just and family wages, and a host of other issues. Instead, they act as if the Church isn't interested in these matters. Wrong.

Socialism has been condemned along with classical liberalism.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I said nothing of the Church; I was speaking in generalities, and I was not implying that the Church encouraged socialism.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Having an interest in matters is not the same thing as having adequate knowledge on such matters. For instance, in declaring that Catholics have a right to efforts toward "more equitable distribution of wages" in Singulari Quadam, the resulting inequitable distributions between employer and union, and between employed and unemployed created via restricted labor market as a result of inflated salaries, are overlooked.

[paleocrat]

Clarify something for me. Are you saying that the Church has expressed nothing more than an interest in economic matters over against declaring that She has authority and jurisdiction over them? In short, are you claiming that the Church can, has, and does err in Her social doctrine?

Inequitable distributions between employer and unions? Inflated salaries? Hmm... answer me this: do you believe that market forces alone determine Just Wages? Are you a classical liberal? Clarity is the aim.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Are you asking your first question in relation to Singulari Quadam? I don't think the interest here was solely economic, although part of the message was, and this part I found dubious in communication. It seems to be saying that labor organization should remain mostly Catholic in membership and purpose, while giving an accepting nod to the socialist aspect of such organization.

I think that the Church has authority and jurisdiction in all matters involving faith, but is subject to error.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I don't believe, though, that this is an error of purpose. "Equitable distribution of wages" is a fair purpose, although unions generally do not accomplish this purpose. The error may be one of (economic) understanding, communication, or practicality.

I'm not sure how you are defining Just Wages. I think that free market forces allow optimal wages, although market forces are subject to manipulation. I believe that inadequate wages can and should be covered with private charity.

[paleocrat]

The "socialist" aspect to labor unions is a rather unfortunate choice of words. Corporatist, yes. Medieval, yes. Socialist, no. At least not in the way that the Church has defined and understood Socialism.

I presume you meant that the Church is subject to error in its social theory, not in regards to faith. To say otherwise would be heresy. Still, I am amazed that you would say such a thing after watching this video. The burden of proof you carry is awfully heavy.

[gorgonzolaaa]

"Socialist" is the correct word, in spite of possibly being unfortunate. It is a collective ownership of a labor market. That being said, unionism is not socialism in the broader sense of being part of a larger socialist system.

Suffice it to say, if you will, that I am not trying to be heretical here, and I am not denying dogmatic infallibility. However, in any Church statement on worldly matters, faith is likely to be intertwined, to some degree. Decoupling these may be subjective.

[gorgonzolaaa]

For me, I am making this decoupling at what I see as purpose. The purpose of "equitable distribution of wages", for example, is moral. Beyond this, the assumption that this purpose can or would be achieved via unionism, is an economic assumption.

[paleocrat]

It is not an assumption for the Popes. They have been rather consistent in their advocacy of corporate ownership of the means of production (whether union or guild).

[paleocrat]

Due to the adamant opposition of the Church to socialism of any degree or type, I would think it prudent to rely upon Her definition of the system and, to the best of my ability, refrain from describing any of her positions as such. This is especially true when other words would suffice.

I am confident you aren't trying to be heretical. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Still, the Church is quite clear in regards to requiring trust and obedience in these matters. It "admits of no doubt."

[gorgonzolaaa]

I trust in the overall moral message, but not in the economic analysis of achievement of equity via unions. Is this wrong?

[paleocrat]

I believe so.

[paleocrat]

SQ #2 deals with the Church's authority over economic matters and #3 insists that the Just Wage cannot be left to economics alone, but requires ecclesiastical direction. You do agree with the Pope, correct?

What type of labor association did they support? The type that looked much like the Regulative Guilds of old. These are much different than modern Unions and, due to their corporatist nature, gave laborers a means by which to better discern the level of pay they wished for. Check & balance.

[gorgonzolaaa]

What I would consider a Just Wage, would be a fair market wage, and from that perspective, I read that morality dictates that an employer must pay fair wages, appropriate for each job. This does not alleviate the employer from personal charitable responsibilities (apart from salary), in the event that such fair wages led to hardships.

To me, #3 seems to leave economic execution mostly open, while keeping moral responsibility intact.

[gorgonzolaaa]

To me, the language, including mention of living conditions, strikes, wages, and "other justified advantages", seems to be indicative more of modern union, rather than that of regulative guild. Either way, however, it is a monopoly, which is only a "check and balance" when the employer itself is a labor market monopoly as well.

[paleocrat]

If you look at this encyclical in isolation from other documents touching on this matter, then yes. But the popes have desired nothing less than full participation and partial ownership in means of production.

The check and balance has to do with the inner-workings of businesses where wage-slaves begin to participate in the decision making process concerning the means of production. Their proximity to the financial aspect would (or should) temper their desire for superfluous wages.

[gorgonzolaaa]

From where have you gotten this notion of desire for "full participation and partial ownership"?

Outside instances of monopolistic labor demand, "wage slavery" is little more than a connotational term, which does not necessitate checks and balances.

[paleocrat]

Does it not bother you that the popes have consistently disagreed with your assertion? Why do you evaluate the Church's doctrine in light of your economic suppositions rather than using the Magisterium as your starting point? Do you feel comfortable standing by Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard over against Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John XXIII?

I must encourage you to be careful here. Heed the warnings of the Popes concerning those who would privately or publicly disagree with their pronouncements.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Which assertion are you referring to here?

[paleocrat]

That the Just Wage is a fair market wage. Thought that is an interesting way of putting it. Most would simply say market wage rather than qualifying with the word "fair." Fair is all too subjective and incorporates too much discernment.

[gorgonzolaaa]

In "fair market wage", the word "fair" describes the market, not the wage. That is, market wage under the circumstance of full competition, where if the wage were economically unfair, you could simply switch employers.

When Just Wage departs from fair market wage, it results in unemployment, which, as such, does not solve moral economic problems, but rather creates them, although in a less directly visible manner.

[paleocrat]

The popes have explicitly said that the market should not and cannot determine the Just Wage. They have even gone so far as to say that competition alone cannot ensure the fairness of the market.

I am not sure I'll be doing videos on this, but I will be blogging about the matter. I'll let you know when I do.

[paleocrat]

To quote #3:

The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority.

This is forceful and broad.

The latter portion says that these matters are moral and religious. For this reason they are "mainly" dealt with by the pronouncements of the Pontiffs.

[gorgonzolaaa]

And here, on your comment to #3, I will come full circle to my original comment, that we should not make moral statements on economic matters, in ignorance of economic principle. Unions simply do not lead to equitable wages. Their entire purpose is an unfair advantage in position.

[paleocrat]

But is this in harmony with the popes? The popes have been criticized by free market advocates for insisting that the market is not an autonomous discipline and for being harsh towards the notion of economic law. This being said, your remark only makes sense in so far as you disagree with the popes, analyzing what they say through the lens of economism rather than analyzing economism through the lens of the Magisterium. I think it most safe to follow the latter, using the Church as the standard.

[gorgonzolaaa]

We're not talking economism here; we're talking basic economics. You don't need to understand economism before making moral judgments, but you do need to understand economics.

Economics, not economism, states that unions operate suboptimally.  They operate this way by giving an unfair advantage to the worker, and a disadvantage to the employer, the unemployed, and, indirectly, the consumer. This disadvantage to both consumer and unemployed negatively affect "Just Wage".

[gorgonzolaaa]

Notice the difference here, that this is not viewing economics via the lens of economism, but rather (morally indifferently) understanding economics first, and then judging it (unionism in particular) differently, but still via the lens of moral law.

[paleocrat]

I don't believe economics is morally indifferent. We are talking about man's relation to man, things, and the world. As the Pope has said, it is, at its base, anthropological. It's underpinnings are those of theology, and specifically moral theology. Once again, I do not believe that the popes have ever granted the idea that economics is a neutral or secular matter that can in any way be separated from ethical judgments.

This is my last comment. My next two vids explain. One is on this matter.

[gorgonzolaaa]

I was applying "morally indifferently" to the understanding, not to the economics.

I look forward to your next videos. Thanks for the discussion.

[paleocrat]

Why defensive? I wasn't coming at you. I was simply agreeing with what I thought you were saying.

I was also agreeing with you in regards to socialism, but said that the same can and must be said of classical liberalism. Once again, no offense intended.

[gorgonzolaaa]

Sorry, I thought that you were expressing an opposing viewpoint. I did not find what you wrote to be offensive, though, and I hope that you did not take my response as attacking.

At the risk of sounding obsequious, I am a fan of your videos, and usually silently watch them while rating them five stars.

[cathaustralia]

The church has an absolute duty to speak out on Social Justice issues, no doubt at all. It is the duty of every Catholic to take an interest and speak out when necessary when exploitation or any other social injustice occurs.

Jesus and the Apostles spoke out on injustice then so should we.

[stuart20017]

I'm interested in seeing the comments that you get from this vid!

[paleocrat]

Thomas Woods will remain silent. So will most all others who attempt to minimize the authority of the Church's social doctrine. I mean, how else could they justify their beliefs? They could:

a. Admit they're wrong, submit, and change.

b. Ignore the Church, continue on as before.

c. Publicly discredit the church and continue in open violation of its doctrine.

Dr. Woods has chosen C. Not a good choice.

PS- He goes to the same church as the people who led me to he Catholic faith. haha