Posted on 11/30/2007 1:17:41 PM PST by NYer
It’s only fair. After all, atheists criticize the Pope.
He is criticizing Socialism ?
Isn’t this the same Pope who a few months ago admonished wealthy Italians to stop trying to legally avoid taxes because the Italian government needed the money for more Socialist spending programs ?
Where do you see a mention of socialism?
I’ve read the encyclical twice and I have read 3 news reports on the encyclical. All 3 have highlighted this theme, that the document blasts atheism. Well, I suppose it does, but the deeper message is this: God has arranged the human virtues and desires in such a way that there is a gradation in meaning and satisfaction in them. So, in the encyclical on Love (Deus Caritas Est), B XVI made the case that there exists a variety of loves, but all flow from the source of Love; and now, in the encyclical on Hope, he makes the case that humans entertain low, middle, and high hopes in life, but there exists the Hope Greater than All Hopes which propels our lives forward even in the most horrible circumstances. From my reading, that’s the real message of the encyclical, but it doesn’t make a good headline.
I am looking forward to reading this one. Benedict is explaining what Vatican II actually said and meant.
“... the proletarian revolution instigated by Karl Marx.
Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution...”
Marx and Engel were the fathers of Socialism and Communism. So he appears to be critical of socialism now, even though he recently berated Italy’s rich from using overseas banks to shield some of their income from taxes, because it was their duty to give that money to the state so it could provide for the people of Italy.
Maybe he isn’t criticizing Marx *and* the atheist revolution he spawned, but just the atheist revolution alone, while the socialist revolution itself was OK ?
I’m not sure how not believing in a religious doctrine equates to believing in a dictatorship of the proletariat, but whatever.
I don’t either, but the Pope seems to think atheism was the driving force behind the Socialist and Communist revolutions.
While Marx, Stalin and Castro were atheists, so was Ayn Rand. Rand was just about the biggest supporter of capitalism you could find and she denounced all forms of socialism.
I like your tagline, by the way. It’s so true. The Left has a blind faith in an all-knowing, benevolent, omnipotent Creationist Government from which all things flow.
The Popes have been condemning socialism, and related "isms" for quite some time. Below is the beginning of an encyclical written by Pope Leo XIII in 1878.
At the very beginning of Our pontificate, as the nature of Our apostolic office demanded, we hastened to point out in an encyclical letter addressed to you, venerable brethren, the deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibers of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction; at the same time We pointed out also the most effectual remedies by which society might be restored and might escape from the very serious dangers which threaten it. But the evils which We then deplored have so rapidly increased that We are again compelled to address you, as though we heard the voice of the prophet ringing in Our ears: "Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet."1 You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning—the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.
The Pope’s position is that Christianity in itself is not an economic system, although obviously some systems may be more favorable than others.
He criticizes Marxism not only for its atheism, but for the fact that it regards man as an entirely economic being, having no life outside of his economic condition. But the position of the Church is that his real life is elsewhere. In other words, the economic sphere is, in a sense, the backdrop for the individual’s life and choices. Anything that does not impede his moral choices is neutral.
Socialism, however, usually implies statism, and the Pope is very opposed to this. It’s possible that there could be benevolent, basically paternalistic systems that would not only receive work and taxes, but provide some level of care, but without taking away man’s initiative and free will. It’s a perhaps overly idealistic vision of an integrated society, where people do what it is best for them to do, but no one starves to death if his job isn’t in the top money making category; instead, those top money makers (who ultimately depend on the people at the bottom) see themselves as having a responsibility to help the rest, upon whom they actually depend for labor, etc.
Starting in the early part of the 20th century, there were many Catholic businesses that were essentially paternalistic in nature, because this was a Catholic solution to the conflict between an all-powerful state and a completely savage capitalism. In other words, the successful capitalist had responsibilities, and if he fulfilled them, this prevented the state from taking over.
I remember that even as late as the 1960s, the (very Catholic) Schrafft’s restaurant chain regarded itself as a sort of complete world, helping employees send their kids to college, working things out when they were sick, etc. It’s actually quite effective, and is one of the reasons that the Marxists in Latin America always attack the best businesses, the people who help the poor, etc. They want to reduce man to an economic unit again.
“In other words, the economic sphere is, in a sense, the backdrop for the individual’s life and choices. Anything that does not impede his moral choices is neutral.”
That sounds like a fine attitude for the church to take.
(This and other articles on the newest Encyclical do seem negative toward socialism, but I wish he wouldn’t mix atheism into it. While all Marxists are atheists, not all atheists are Marxists.)
There are still some of his comments about taxation that bother me. As a fiscal conservative, I hold it to be immoral to advocate taking away wealth that was honestly obtained. Each person should pay an equal share of government services, and there is no moral formula whereby tax burden can be lighter or heavier based on a person’s ability to pay. That is a tenet of Marxism — “FROM each according to his ability, TO each according to his need” is the slogan from the Communist Manifesto. So if Popes have been fighting against Marxism for centuries, Benedict’s stand on taxation seems out of place.
Yet your comments jibe with his “social justice” view that the wealthy somehow “owe” somebody else for their wealth. That cannot be true as long as capitalism is free to do its job of promoting willing exchanges between people. Wealth cannot be created in a capitalist system without the willing exchange of value for value, so the possessor of wealth has paid fairly at each stage of its creation and “owes” nobody anything at the end. Only when the state applies force or one person exerts force on another can wealth be tainted since it was not obtained through a series of willing exchanges. To say that taking wealth away from somebody is moral is the same as suggesting the wealth was obtained dishonestly.
Could you cite that? Catholic teaching has always held that taxation above 10% is immoral.
“So he appears to be critical of socialism now, even though he recently berated Italy’s rich from using overseas banks to shield some of their income from taxes, because it was their duty to give that money to the state so it could provide for the people of Italy.”
Yes, but one can also argue that paying taxes is the duty owed to the temporal authorities, which Christians are supposed to be obey as well as long as the State does not enact laws compelling what God has forbidden or forbidding what God has commanded.
The answer is probably “What is the nature of the taxation, and what is the nature of avoiding taxes?” before we make a blanket condemnation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2237625.ece
Although you seem to have misunderstood me. Any percentage-based tax is immoral as it is a measure of someone’s ability to pay rather than an equal sharing of the burden of government costs. It is Marxist since it takes FROM based on ability.
Under a 10% tax on income, the man who earns a billion dollars is supposed to pay 100 million dollars for the same government protections that a poor man might pay only 1000 dollars for.
If the cost of government is a trillion dollars, and there are 100 million people, then each person owes the same $10,000 amount. It is immoral to use government to forcibly extract 100 million dollars from one man while another man is forced to pay only 1000 dollars. The only moral government, then, is the one that can be afforded by EVERY citizen.
It’s funny, but on another thread somebody mentioned HOAs (Home Owners Associations) as the most local form of government — below city, county, state, and federal. It is true that an HOA must collect “taxes” to pay for those common services each homeowner must have, as well as enforce the rules the homeowners have agreed to live under. And they “tax” in the most equitable fashion. Each homeowner pays the same. Even though there are wide gaps in income levels, the HOA dues are not based on a percentage of those incomes.
**Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution**
BTTT!
Gotta love him all the way!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.