What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]February 24, 2010 | Gustavo Solimeo  8 Comments[/color]


Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.
PIUS IX (1846-1878):
“Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs”
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscuм, December 8, 1849)
 
[color][size][font]
LEO XIII (1878-1903):
Hideous monster
“…communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)Ruin of all institutions
“… For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, ѕєdιтισn permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).
A sect “that threatens civil society with destruction”
“…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. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ (Jud. 8).” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)
Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property
“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life.” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)
Destructive sect
“…socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations.” (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)
Enemy of society and of Religion
“…there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to ѕєdιтισn; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.” (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):
The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [“Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circuмstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
PIUS XI (1922-1939):
Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
“… For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two
sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)
Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.
That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)
Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
PIUS XII (1939-1958):
The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialism
“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the ‘Leviathan’ become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls.” (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)The state can not be regarded as being above all
“To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations.” (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):
“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”
“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
PAUL VI (1963-1978):
Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism
“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)
 
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):
Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”
“It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope’s critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’” (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100thanniversary of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
“Continuing our reflections, … we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13)
 
BENEDICT XVI (2005 – present):
“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything”
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)
[/font][/size][/color]

Two problems with socialized medicine:

1.  uncontrolled illegal immigration, with free health care as a "right" and

2.  limited resources "necessitating" death panels.

Neither are big problems.
1.  Illegals in the UK are given emergency treatment only.  I know of a case where a British legal immigrant got her illegal (overstaying) Ukrainian mother-in-law cancer treatment and they tracked her down and put a lien on the daughter's UK house.
2.  If you are poor then it is no different than not having any or enough insurance coverage or not being covered for a precondition. If you are rich there is nothing to stop you having private health coverage.  Well off people in the UK have private healthcare.
There are always death panels in the sense that bureaucrats always decide the economic cost and benefit of a life.  This is done with safety inspections on aircraft, annual car inspections, road gritting and health screening.  If a country spent billions screening for cancer it could catch and cure 1000s of cases per year.  But it does not because the costs outweigh the benefits.
It is just a question of whether an accountant or a medical bureaucrat makes a decision as to whether your life is worth the money.

Free enterprise assumes you are free to do enterprise.

The talented and the naturally hard working are going to do well.  I have done very well in a free enterprise system.  CEOs are generally speaking alpha men with a close to psychotic level of competitiveness and ambition.  This was always true but in Christian nations in the past their behavior was steered and influenced by what would happen to them after death.

But the painfully shy, the very ugly, the less intelligent, the unhealthy (physically and mentally), those who are very badly raised by parents, those born into corrupt countries are going to do badly on the whole.  The rich will corrupt any free enterprise system, form monopolies and cartells and corrupt politicians to their own end.  They have the people skills, the money, the ambition and the lust for power to do that.

Then there is the fact that once you are rich, the supply costs of wealth go down in comparison to your wealth.  Money costs less to borrow, lawyers are relatively cheaper, you can pounce on a new opportunity or grease the palm of a bureaucrat or donate to a politician to get what you want.

Start a Home Depot rival and I guarantee you that Bernie Marcus and his shareholders and senior executives will use zoning laws, lobby groups, tax investigations and price manipulation to drive you out of business.  The only reason they won't succeed is that you are harder working and cleverer than they are, or their habits and assumptions cause them to make a mistake.  They talk free enterprise, but when your free enterprise affects theirs you will soon find they become fascist as possible.

Matthew works hard programming a computer but if a Chinaman or an Indian can provided the same service for 1/3 the price he is going to be out of work.  If a robot can write code then they will be out of work too.  Those lucky to be born and raised with the right parents, schooling, personality, drive and determination are going to adjust and move on and adapt their business.  Over the last 21 years I have morphed my business to deliver a different service than I used to offer, as technology has changed around me and the perception of value changed.

I am all for free enterprise but when read the Gospel I don't get the overall impression that Jesus is telling the rich to get richer or the poor to work harder.  Jesus examples of heros are the relatively wealthy who show mercy and compassion to the deserving poor, sick, destitute.

The person your describing would have any major medical bills (hospital) written off once they submit paperwork showing their income. A write-off from the hospital often leads to a write-off from the doctor as well. Every non-profit hospital in the US has to write off a certain % of their business as "charity care" in order to keep their non-profit status.

This is to say nothing of the large percentage of poor Americans who qualify for free health care through Medicaid. What it takes to qualify varies by state. In some states, a family of 3 can make over $40,000 and qualify for Medicaid. The child(ren) in this scenario would always qualify for free or really cheap health care, but the parents might or might not depending on what state they live in.

What it takes to qualify varies by state. In some states, a family of 3 can make over $40,000 and qualify for Medicaid.

I looked it up and it's only Washington DC which is this generous ($46,000 for a family of 3). Most states that offer Medicaid for adults cut the adults off at $28,000 for a family of 3.

The biggest problem with food stamps is that they are used on other stuff than food.

Society is easily rich enough to fund the poor and feckless in food and housing, free medical (not including expensive new treatments) and education for those who value it.  But like professional sailors or expert construction workers it would be a lot better if these people simply accepted the charity and lived out their lives.

With some exceptions, such as injured veterans, I don't think people on substantial government welfare programs should get a vote for example.