Why No Catholic can Support Socialism W/ Trent Horn
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.พ. 2020
- I ask Trent to give the Catholic position on Socialism. As Catholics we have a moral imperative to object to Socialism as an ideology, and not just because it doesn't work as an economic system.
📖 For more reading there are many encyclicals condemning socialism, as sampled in this article: www.tfp.org/what-the-popes-ha...
📖 Get Trent's new book Can a Catholic Be a Socialist? here: www.amazon.com/Can-Catholic-S...
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/ (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #18...
⭐ Trent's Podcast Website: / counseloftrent
Trent's TH-cam Channel: / trhorn100
Trent's Bibliography: www.amazon.com/Trent-Horn/e/B...
Catholic Answers Site: www.catholic.com/
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
I recommend all Catholics read Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, two encyclicals that explain the evils of both socialism and unrestricted capitalism.
Other social encyclicals should be required as well, not just those two. I've realized that a certain segment of Catholics will only read those two, but not read Laborem Exersens, Caritatis in Veritatae, or Pacem in Terris.
I mean, the syndicalist system they propose would be called socialism by modern-day politicians. We need to be careful not to be deceived by modern political rhetoric.
@@josephgraney1928 I've heard of syndicalism. Does it even have Catholic social teaching as its basis?
@@Montfortracing Syndicalism pre-existed its adoption by the Catholic church in Rerum Novarum, so it isn't based on Catholic social teaching, rather Catholic social teaching is based on it.
Love Leo XIII. How the man is not even a blessed let alone a Saint is beyond me.
Pope Benedict XVI on democratic socialism, “Back to Europe. A third model was added to the two models of the 19th century: socialism. Socialism took two main paths - the democratic and the totalitarian. Democratic socialism became a healthy counterbalance to radical socialism. It enriched and corrected them. It proved itself even when religious confessions took over… In many ways, democratic socialism stands and stood close to the Catholic social teachings. It in any case contributed a substantial amount to the education of social conscience.”
“The Church is aware that the bourgeois mentality and capitalism as a whole, with its materialist spirit, acutely contradict the Gospel.” -Pope John Paul II
👏
@bEn sky render unto Caesar.... read what the Gospel says
@bEn sky yes every man is worthy of his hire... but he still has to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.... no contradiction there buddy
@bEn sky lol... you've got no idea if you think taxation is socialism. You've got no idea if you think taxation is theft and against church teaching... render unto caesar... do your duty to society.
@bEn sky Why would I bother... anyone who thinks society can function without government and taxation is clearly off their rocker.
CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
None of what you said here is incompatible with Capitalism. Rejecting and refusing to accept something are two very different things. The Church refuses to accept certain non-essential Theologies that exclude other (such as Catholic Orthodox, and also within the Roman Catholic branch), it does not follow however that the Church rejects them.
There's a reason they specifically state "in the practice of "capitalism," **individualism**".
th-cam.com/video/toxgdjHlglk/w-d-xo.html
@@Manuel-kl8jc Don't know what more to say mate, I think its pretty clear. If you have time to spare please read the book 'Barren Metal' Cheers!
@@trnslash I'm familiar with E. Michael Jones & his work, he's very famous in our philosophical circles. This is an issue of definitions and ontologies however, which happens to be my field of interest & study. It might be mistaken reading or writing, because EMJ does in fact abide by & reaffirms Essentialism & Nessecity, alongisde other Scholastic Catholic principles. If he attacks my previos points, it leads to both rejecting & affirming the same principles, which is a contradiction & something the Church rejects.
@@Manuel-kl8jc Great! i'm no philosopher, I may exhibit the lack thereof, I basically quoted what was in the Catechism in this thread. I'm sure you'll find the book interesting!
@@trnslash I understand what you're trying to say.
Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction is a book by a Catholic logician, he goes into detail (introductory book) about the principles I'm (and Trent) are talking about. Essential/essentially are extremely strong, specific words. The proper use would be "usury is accidental to Capitalism". Although, it could easily be misunderstood also since "accident/accidental" are misused in the current generations.
Hilarious that TH-cam loaded a Bernie ad on this.
Elena M. Cambio 🤣😂😂
Don't think Bernie is the same as socialism.
@@DANGJOS Bernie is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.
@@Camelepiz Not the most accurate self description.
According to Matt Fradd and Trent Horn, it sounds like Bernie is a capitalist.
It’s reductive to say that the growth of cities was due to people seeking a better life because it leaves out the enclosure movements that forced serfs off their land, leaving them with little other options. The evictions that occurred during the Great Famine in Ireland were a great example of the interests of capital forcing rural poor into cities to participate in wage labor.
Also Marx saw the pursuit of equality of outcome as an unhelpful political goal. That’s why he said from each their ability to each their need, implying that people would be different.
I would agree with your analysis of central planning though.
Even the decidedly anti-socialists Distributists admitted that and talked about it at lenght. But once you open up the discussion on what Marx called "Primitive Accumulation", the enclosures and emerging mercantile and trade economy, etc. you open up the argument for Socialism and of course we can't have that.
I'll also add add that the definition of Socialism in this video is completely erroneous, the state fundamentally has nothing to do with Socialism. Even the most widely acknowledged "State Socialists" and Marxist-Leninists like Lenin make the distriction between a Capitalist State and a Socialist State. The real difference between Socialism and all other systems, which for the sake of simplicity we'll call Capitalism, is that workers (those who work for a wage under an employer) are the ones making the laws in government for their own interest.
I don't blame Matt Fradd or Trent Horn for their errors here though, trying to involve the teaching and morality of the Church in politics has always been and will always be difficult since unlike religious dogmas that have a clear definition, political ideology is always subject to interpretation. My final point is to say perfectly be a Socialist and a Catholic and that actually Socialism may, depending on your interpretation, be the best fulfilment of the Catholic Social Teaching.
@@Aetherius21 oh snap thanks for coming in with the assist friend.
I do think we should fault, albeit fault in a spirit of affirmation, Matt Fradd and Trent for there errors here, especially as they style themselves to be philosophically/dialectically minded and hold protestants/atheists responsible for not radically, reasonably, and rationally assessing their beliefs. To me these errors reflect staying inside Christian conservative echo chambers and serve to alienate other Catholics that may, for example, support Bernie Sanders' economic platform, which to my understanding, is not in conflict with church teaching. Bishop Barron gives a pretty good and well publicized example of how to address this issue I think.
But I would stress an affirmative fault in consideration of their lofty aspirations, as I would agree it is a bit of a nitpick. I would like to see more criticisms of state capitalism (maybe there were some in the Jacob Imam interview?) as I feel like that's much more relevant to the Catholic "anglosphere" but never a bad idea to bash Marxist-Leninist stuff I say.
The irony lies in the fact that the Enclosure Acts are more representative of Socialism - the State acting to bestow land where the State imagines that it will do the most good, however you define that - than Capitalism.
Likewise it was political actions to force down the price of corn (wheat) in Ireland that led to many landholders changing production from corn to livestock, with a consequent reduction in labour.
Politicians and political theorists always believe that they know what is best for us, but they almost never pay the price for unanticipated consequences.
I farm, and come from a long line of farmers. I suspect that those who have never worked a farm with nothing but manual labour have no little idea what it is like to work in the open, all year round, regardless of weather. I suspect that few of you have any idea what rural poverty looks like, or how many people in rural areas were still living on one-room hovels, without windows, doors or floors and which were shared by livestock for additional warmth.
@@peterwebb8732 I am certainly captivated with thoughts of pre-industrialized agriculture and whether our present age of non-farmers is the product of greed/covetousness for the excess. I am certainly divorced from such hardship and I believe everyone should garden/pasture/forestry every bit of land they have in the vein of God's command to Adam after the fall. The poetry of Charles Peguy certainly makes me see it as a cure for our modern heresies, so even though I grant you that some people sought factory work as a way to improve their lives, I think you would agree that people should be able to make economic decisions without coercion, so I'd like to examine the enclosure movement.
My understanding of Enclosure may be inadequate for my statements, so forgive me if so, but I'm unconvinced by your assertion. Yes, the state was technically distributing the land, but it was transferring it from common usage to private ownership: privatization. I have never seen a reason to classify privatization as anything other than a capitalist policy. Are we to understand that recent wave of privatization at the behest of Reaganites and Thatcherites as socialism because the government was the one who decided who got to run prisons, the railway, etc.? Is there a more capitalist way of converting public property to private property?
Also it's hard for me to find your reference to a political reduction in the price of wheat in Ireland, could you send me more info or links?
I’m gonna call BS on this
If a Catholic (christian) can’t be a socialist, can’t either be a capitalist. Haven’t read the book, but have read political/economic books and this analysis is very vague and translates capitalism as market which it’s not the same.
A Catholic capitalist is more possible than a Catholic socialist.
Depends on your definition of socialism and capitalism.
@@jamesmerone You can't be serious. Capitalism is literally a system built upon exploitation. It goes against nearly all of Christ's teachings.
It is incredibly encouraging to see so many fellow Catholics in the comments reminding us all to stay vigilant but not to let Capitalism off the hook for it's incredible offenses against human dignity and justice. Our community rocks!
Amen
Peace be with you.
Yes free market with an "Orthodox" Christian paradigm would be more ideal
Community as in commune?
@Cardboard Cape thanks for pointing that out, it's a really important point. Marx is just one person among many (including the Catholic church) to make scathing critiques about the nature and structure of capitalism.
Matt, you should speak with Tom Woods. He's an economist, historian, political commentator and a Catholic.
Hi Anthony, thanks for that comment I'm going to check into him.
I had a question regarding international exchange rates and outsourcing. How is it that outsourcing jobs has become the norm? I understand labor is cheaper offshore. But how is the same work just done by non-citizen cheaper? How did we get the current economic model?
What allowed 1 dollar to equal ~70 rupees ? Is this model a morally sound one?
Where can I read about these things? Do you know of any authors that speak on this?
@@dumboxthomas6758
Start with Tom Woods first. He can lead you to the answers of your questions.
A few good economists are Ludwig Von Mises (a nobel prize winner for economics), Murray Rothbard and Milton Friedman (another nobel prize winner).
I also enjoy Thomas Sowell, his writings are very clear and easy to understand and gives very good analogies as well.
If I may put my own 2 cents in. Getting off the Gold Standard was bad for the world. The U.S. dollar is now the standard and all currencies adjust their monetary system based on the value of the U.S. dollar.
In poorer countries, labor comes cheaper than in industrialized nations simply because people are willing to work for lower wages and because there are no to minimal or marginally enforced labor laws.
Anthony Burke okay interesting. Appreciate the recommendations! Thanks!
@@dumboxthomas6758 you should read Rupert Ederer’s review of Tom Woods’s work, it’s on the Culture Wars Magazine website
Most Americans I see on the internet use the word 'socialism' as if we still lived in the 1890s.
If you like this clip please consider subscribing and hitting that bell button; that way TH-cam will be forced to let you know whenever we put out a new video. :)
Equating socialism with Marxism as done here straw-mans socialism. It is unfortunate to see this channel stoop so low.
@@jackparker8759 Where is that done in the discussion?
@@PintsWithAquinas Horn's definitions of the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' are heavily informed by Marx's versions of them (i.e. he seems to think of them as inherently revolutionary or violent). This is revealed when he says that socialism emerged in "the middle of the 19th century." This is not true unless one has the modern bias of thinking of socialism as inherently related to Marxism. Cenobitic monastics have been socialists for millennia in the purist sense of the word. The citation of the Soviet Union and Maoist China as examples furthers the conflation of Marxism with the broad term of 'socialism.' The use of the hammer and sickle (a Russian Marxist logo) in the thumbnail contributes to the confusion too.
I do understand that this video is addressed to the more popular socialism of today as expressed by Marx and our contemporary Bernie Sanders, but to say that a Catholic cannot be a 'socialist' in the broadest sense of the word while only discussing one form of socialism is a mistake.
More personally, the question of whether socialism and Christianity are compatible is one that I am bothered by. On one hand, I recognize that sin prevents socialism from being practical on a large scale, but I also agree with St. Ambrose that "If you have two shirts in your closet, one belongs to you and the other to the man with no shirt.
"
@@Jack-fx4jd Mutualism is one of the types of non-Marxist socialism that I was alluding to.
@@jackparker8759 I think you're confusing Marxism with mutualism. The Catholic church's stance on Socialism/Communism is the same as its stance on Marxism
It is considered a grave sin when one does not render to their laborers what is due. Capitalism can go wrong here on occasion (sweat shops in Asia, etc for instance). It is easy to see why some are ready to criticize capitalism when CEOs earn a lot more than the laborers. However, at least to me, I do not care how much the richest people are as long as I can earn what is necessary to survive and provide, and by and large capitalism has made it possible for even most poor people to live a higher standard of life than medieval kings.
In socialist countries EVERYBODY works in a sweat shop.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh There are no purely socialist countries. PURE socialism is an idea that when manifested in reality turns into kleptocracy quickly. But elements of socialism can and should be incorporated into capitalism. Do you like having an interstate highway system?
@@TheRealShrike There are a few things government does better than private enterprise, like the armed forces, the police, and the fire departments. Building roads? Usually the government will contract with private firms to do that kind of work, don't they?
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh Sure, but the US government more or less owns the Interstates, no?
@@TheRealShrike Like I said, there are a few things that government does better than private industry, but the list of these things is short. And government is famous for hiring private contractors.
I trust the U. S. government to run the Army, the FBI, and the interstate highway system. I do not trust the government to make cars, boats, airplanes, clothes, apple pies, chocolate doughnuts, or to provide doctors, lawyers, plumbers, or refrigeration repairmen.
"No one can be a true socialist and a sincere Catholic at the same time."
--Pope Pius XI
The Pope said it so it must be true?
@@JoeCiliberto Marxism denies God. Enough said.
@@francis1961 Marx denied God, Dorothy Day did not, and I do not.
@Qwerty B*llSh*t... First, I'm not a Marxist, secondly, I'm not a socialist. And most certainly I'm not an apostate. My point has been and is that Capitalism has far more blood on its hands, among many other sins, and continues to do so, than anyone is giving it credit for. Neither form of capital, labor, and trade, in its pure-play form, is Christian. Both capitalist and socialist forms must co-exist to prevent the organic abuses of either. Listen to the encyclical that I put into the comments today. Apostate... Jeez......
@Qwerty Both forms co-exist in America today. Who says Socialism is apostasy? And Why? Because Marx was an atheist? Because communist countries adopted some form of it and shut out churches?
12:59 the principle of communism is "take from everyone according to his/her abilities; give to everyone according to their needs"
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 and after that?
@@wolfthequarrelsome504 except in communism there are classes, the super rich elite and the super poor.
It sounds good, until you realise that what you can produce and what you need are decided by bureaucrats who will not starve alongside you if they have made a mistake.
That is what cause the Holodomor... Millions of people in the Ukraine starved because Russians decided how much each village should produce, and took everything to make up the quotas. People were shot for hiding food to feed their families.
Don’t leave out the other tenets of Socialism, either. Complete State control of all forms of Production, Distribution and Exchange. That means you are TOLD what work you will do, TOLD what you will get paid for it, TOLD what you may buy and TOLD what you must pay for that.
@@peterwebb8732 1. "decided by bureaucrats": is this not so in our contemporary society? they even decide what to inject in your body. I mean, there is no society without bureaucracy. Communism is a theoretical society, people wanted it to be more humane than contemporary.
2. there was no "holodomor" in reality -it is a propaganda construct introduced in 50s to fight Soviet Union in cold war. There was several famines in history of each country. It was caused by the bad weather which happened periodically in pre-revolution Russia not only in Ukraine but also in Volga region, Poland.
Add to that the WW1 and civil war and you will see the whole picture.
Today's situation in politics clearly shows us how history can be rewritten just before our eyes.
A Catholic cannot be a capitalist either
@el Well, Luke 12: 13-21 makes pretty clear that accumulation of wealth is inimical to the Gospel. Accumulation of wealth is anti-Eucharistic. There is a free market in goods, the right to produce and trade, and buying and selling, but that is not "capitalism", per se. Contemporary capitalism is consumerist and depends not merely on supplying needs and satisfying natural longings, but on the ceaseless invention of new desires and more choices. Contrast that with the prohibition against "lust of the eyes" of 1 John 2:16. Capitalism is a system inevitably corrosive of as many prohibitions of desire and inhibitions of the will as possible, and therefore of all those customs and institutions first and foremost the Church that tend to restrain or forbid so many acquisitive longings and individual choices. Capitalism's reliance on immense private wealth makes it a moral problem from the vantage of the Gospel, for the simple reason that the New Testament treats such wealth not merely as a spiritual danger, and not merely as a blessing that should not be misused, but as an intrinsic evil.
What do you think?
@el Thanks very much for your reply. I disagree as to your "simple" definition of capitalism. That is not what capitalism is, that is just buying and selling. I tried to anticipate and address your point head on, and apparently failed. In either case, your definition of capitalism exists no where as governments always intervene in one way or another: taxes, subsidy, tariffs, etc...
Capitalism involves the incessant creation and fulfillment of desires and perceived "needs". That is inimical to the Catholic idea of what a person is and what is beneficial to a person. It is also called advertising. The reduction of creation to "wealth" is problematic as it drains God out of it. What Jesus says about the rich youth selling all his possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor, and about camels trying to pass through needles’ eyes, is anti-capitalist. In the Sermon on the Plain’s list of beatitudes Jesus tells the poor that the kingdom belongs to them and that the rich that, having had their pleasures in this world, they shall have none in the world to come. Jesus condemns those who buy up properties and create large estates for themselves. One cannot serve both God and mammon. Do not store up treasure on earth, in earthly vessels, for where your treasure is, there your heart will also be. The apostolic Church in Jerusalem adopted a sharing of goods.
Paul constantly condemns the desire for more than one needs. Paul instructs the Corinthian Christians to donate all their profits to the relief of the poor in other church assemblies.
James says that God’s elect are the poor of this world; the rich he condemns as oppressors and revilers of the divine name, who should howl in terror at the judgment that is coming upon them, because the rust of their treasure shall eat their flesh like fire on the last day. Hope that is helpful.
@el That is helpful. This may sound/feel like a cheap shot, but I do not intend it that way.... My point is for Catholics, and probably Orthodox as well, and not "americans" Buddhists, or secularists, etc.... Your assertion of "Spend our money the way we want" points to freedom as an individual’s sovereign liberty of deliberative and acquisitive choice, and we understand individual desires either as rights or at least as protected by rights, just as you assert. This assertion of yours is highly individualist, devoid of the communal/koinonia responsibilities and opportunities that are required of us as being members of the Body of Christ. Your point makes no reference to God, creation, the sacraments, repentance, etc... and that is not accidental, but essential to capitalism, as I described earlier. Secularism is the necessary cultural expression of capitalism as all restrictions on desire, etc... are swept away in favor of "free market" and promotes a logic that enables/requires that pornography by easily accessible to children to protect free speech. For a Catholic/Orthodox, this is contrary to faith and the organization of ourselves as the community of the Body of Christ/Church. Hence, a Catholic cannot be a capitalist.
@el Of course, Disagree! You are ignoring and giving no account for Jesus' many, many statements that I provided earlier. I hope you have a fruitful Lent!
2 Corinthians 9, before verse 7 states: So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren to go on to you before me, and arrange in advance for this gift you have promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift. 6 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
Then goes onto say:
Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written, "He scatters abroad, he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever." 10 He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God; 12 for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God. 13 Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others; 14 while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!
The Italian friar's name is Luca Pacioli (lu-ka pa-cho-li). Accountant here and I love your show! God bless your ministry!
2:00 is a fallacy. Socialism is where the WORKERS have control over the means of production, not the state. Also, not all socialism is a central planned economy. There can be a free market socialist countries with workplaces being controlled democratically.
“The people” have control over the means of production. That means the state. Of “the people”. If in doubt, watch a court hearing where the state is prosecuting (hint: the people vs...).
@@robertnorris8831 I'm sorry, I was talking about the complete democratic control over the workplace. Sorry about the confusion.
Yep. Catholic priests started Mondragon. The most successful worker co-op in the world. No state involvement whatsoever.
Socialism takes away Caritas1.) Geopoliticalfutures article:"The World Bank began tracking poverty in China in 1981. In that year, 88.3 percent of China’s population lived on less than $1.90 a day (roughly 870 million people). Push the threshold up a little bit and poverty in China was even more striking: 99.1 percent of China’s population lived on less than $3.10 a day (over 980 million people). The last year for which the World Bank has official data is 2010, and the transformation, as you can see in the line graph above, is extraordinary. In 2010, only 11.2 percent (almost 150 million people) lived on less than $1.90 a day. Not shown above is that 27.2 percent (almost 360 million people) lived on less than $3.10 a day.
However, the problem with these data sets should already be clear. If you factor in population growth, you can make the claim that China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty if you define poverty as living on less than $1.90 or $3.10 a day. This doesn’t say anything about how well those lifted out of poverty are doing. A rural household living on $1.91 a day by this standard wouldn’t be counted as suffering from extreme poverty, even though by any objective measure a household earning that much on an annual basis would be cripplingly poor."...
2.)Telegraph.UK:" 1978, nine out of 10 people in China’s population of a billion were struggling to survive on an income below the “extreme poverty line”, set by the World Bank at just under $2 a day.
Today, the pyramid has been flipped on its head. As a result, almost all the more than 1.3 billion individuals who previously would have spent most of their life hungry have doubled their calorie intake"...(notice the change from numbers to calories,while not mentioning that chinese are slaves now for 6 billion people,but get only double the calories).5 DEMANDS! St.Francis Xavier pray for us!
Capitalism is not simply a market economy, and socialism is not communism.
Bingo ; ) Kisses from Poland.
To me, one of the inherent flaws of socialism is that it hinges on the belief that the government can be more charitable than the constituents. People are essentially saying 'I don't trust other people that have things to be kind and charitable towards those that don't, and only the elected officials can be kind and charitable to others'. If this were in fact true, then the elected officials would not all be in the upper class. They have excess compared to most citizens and they choose not to give most of it back to the poor so how can we expect them to do a better job with our money than theirs? The most direct and cost effective way to help our communities is to give willing of our own time and money directly to our community rather than be forced to give it to the government to give to someone else to give to someone else to give a small amount back to the community.
Your opinion does not scale well at all to things like health care, interstate highways, etc. Churches cannot provide $1,000/mo insulin pumps to diabetics, for example. Churches cannot build roads. We already have socialist elements to our country.
US American? Right? What in US is called "socialism" (by mostly populists), is norm in Europe. The social system in US would in Europe be called primitivism if it would be politically correct to say it load. Redistribution of wealth through the state 1. IS better working in comparison to the model in the US. That is a pure fact. Just look at Your streets. Beggars, prostitutes, junkies etc. Visit Finland and try to find one Finnish beggar. 2. This European social system has nothing to do with kindness or charity (to constitute the state social system as state charity is already perverse and ideological), but with social JUSTICE. Free access of all to market has nothing to do with justice ("all have the same set of rules"), because in no point in history all participants have the same starting point. It is like You would say `lets do a fair 100 miles race`, all go the same route, but some have a Ferrari and others bicycle. Guess who will be winner and who loser. And guess if the reason is that those with bike are lazy. And guess if the distance between them is going to increase or decrease during the race. And 3.: the next level of perversion is the arrogance to dare this American model even connect with Catholic teaching or even go so far and question if a catholic can support "socialism". This manipulation is the definition of sin.
Acts 5
Do you know what Democratic centralism is?
@@imatrOlda not primitivism, but protofascism. Primitivism was known for the peacefulness and care that humans had for each other then.
"[God] said "love yourself before you love your neighbour" - Where is Trent getting this idea from?
"Love your neighbor as yourself" at least appears to presuppose that self-love precedes and informs one's love of others.
Augustine writes that this command includes one must love them self as well otherwise you could hate yourself and then it would mean you would have to hate your neighbour.
It’s easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle rather than a rich man go through the gates of heaven…so L + ratio
Hey Matt, please invite Ryan T. Anderson on your show. Of course, he’s famous for his thoughts on gay marriage and transgenderism, but his doctorate navigates a middle road between liberalism and libertarianism, so he’s great for discussions on the role of government, the common good, social doctrine, etc.
Liberalism and libertarianism is inherently anti catholic.
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 why do you think he said “a middle road” 🤦♂️
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 how so ?
And for those asking below whether a Catholic can be a capitalist-or who think capitalism is the inverted evil of socialism-here is an excerpt from Trent's book on that question: www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-a-catholic-be-a-capitalist
How many of you actually live under socialism as a Catholic? I did. I remember forced "marches for socialism", brainwashed into thinking that we live in the greatest place on earth and at the same time long lines for everything, empty shelves and rations cards: one pair of winter boots for us kids, no choice for style or color, ill fitting jackets and parents struggling to put a meal on the table: potatoes with fried onions as the dinner staple in our family. Practicing our faith was the only way of feeling free. I cannot believe demons of my childhood are finding their voices here.
I did.
I lived (luckily as a Free American ) in a Socialist Country for 2 years and I CANNOT contemplate the idiocy of people who think Socialism is GReat. It reduces people to beasts of burden and breeding stock for the elites.
Where did you live?
@@splinterbyrd as you would have any idea how easily a thin line bordering these two ideas is crossed.
NHS is a socialist ideology as is any welfare system. Confusing communism with socialism, as per usual.
God bless you guys and your efforts! +
Nice mugs where can I get them?? Also nice decor-what’s with the Sherlock Holmes piped? Lol. But a good economic explanation and one I agree with
Holodomor is depressingly understated in today's dialog and it's reassuring to hear these perspectives on socialism; liked and subbed!
Much of the Holodomor was a lie created by Nazi aligned people; there was a starvation because of Famine- not even comparable to the damage like the pestilence the English caused to the Irish.
I think there is definitely a balance between the two. For example, I would still have free markets with certain protections for workers, the environment, etc, as well as a couple of socialized industries like medicare for all; especially if it's a life-threatening situation.
How could the hosts write a book, and then host a podcast on the topic, specifically note Rarem Novarum, and even take a question about "distributing" and never ever even once mention Distributism? It's completely baffling. Distributism is the economic theory that came out of Rarem Novarum and it specifically was designed to address the failings of socialism and capitalism.
There is a distinction between personal and private property within socialism that is entirely glossed over here
A distinction that is arbitrary and nonsensical.
$2USD a day in 1820 is like $50 now, which is a lot less, but you needed less money in those days. Most people in the world still live in poverty, governments and organisations just keep moving the goalposts
Excellent. Thank you both.
What about anarchism and other forms of decentralized systems?
Wow, incredibly brilliant insights Trent!
It depends what you mean by Socialism. Is it what the right calls Socialism or actual Socialism?
I think you've got be really careful with terms and who you describe as socialist. I notice the Sanders is on your thumbnail. Sanders is not a socialist - he actually advocates for a European/Nordic mixed economic system with safety nets for those who are left behind by markets. He does not advocate for government nationalisation of means of production. If you look at Christian social teaching, particularly Catholic social teaching, there are strong limitations of where they think markets can go - be that because of protection of the poor or because markets are amoral and you can profit really from any activity. Limitations on certain kinds of market activities should be objected to. Furthermore, the East Asian example is used as an example of market economies reducing poverty, which is true, but it's got to be nuanced. They didn't adopt markets wholesale over all aspects of the economy. They targeted high value industries that the government would protect and support. Korea is a prime example of this. So I think the discussion should be nuanced a bit, and there needs to be recognition that markets can lead to distorted and, frankly, immoral incentives if not regulated.
I agree there needs to be rules for corporations to run by so they don't run rough-shod over consumers and small businesses. Nordic countries aren't socialist, the president of Denmark hates when people call his country socialist. Bernie just claims he wants a system like theirs because it sort of works with the Nordic countries small homogeneous populations. Bernie's plans call for 90% tax on the rich, which will make them and their companies move to different countries. He wants control over whole segments of the economy like everything medical, the energy sector, and many more. Central planning of businesses never works because people far away don't have the knowledge of the local business sphere. The had his honeymoon in the USSR, praised the Sandinistas, and Castro. He is a socialist. Catholic teaching stresses subsidiarity; local people supporting each other, which is often one of the best way to help the poor and sick. Heck the Us already has socialist policies like Social Security and that is going to go bankrupt. I totally agree with you that some markets lead to immoral incentives and exploitation. I wonder what Trent Horn thinks of distributism?
In many discussions people always associate socialism with the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century and completely ignore the fact that there is a possibility of a democratic socialism (or social market economy if you'd like) where the state does not own means of production nor determine business plans but enforces a highly functioning market by not allowing conglomerates to reach a dominant market position by M&As. However, there might be special industry segments where monopoly makes more sense than free market, like cross-country railroad or oil pipelines. I see no reason why it would better if a private company operates a monopoly than the state.
And both Christian democracy both democratic socialism believes in the principle of subsidiarity, which means that in ideal case decisions should be made in the forum closest to the people whose tax money is included and whose lives will be affected by those decisions.
My real beef with contemporary western socialists is that they're typically engaged with hardcore progressive social ideas. I'd gladly work toward a conservative socialism.
@Qwerty byzantine? I think that's a massive anachronism. And Sanders is not a socialist
@@belakovacs7013 Thanks for your comment. I completely agree with you. Even in standard economic models, which only work when there is perfect competition, monopolies are not optimal. It follows that it makes more sense for monopolies, like the utilities you mention, to be nationalised or regulated.
I also agree with you about progressives in the West. I don't think social policy should be liberalised. Conversely the problem with Conservatives in the West is that they are actually liberal when it comes to economics. So both left and right are inconsistent in applying their ideology. I don't want liberalism in either social policy or economic policy. I want guidelines for social and economic behaviour to ensure the good of society as a whole - whether they be State legislated, social norms or both. Sometimes I think American Catholics have caught this cavalier, "every man for them-self" attitude from America's Protestant roots. The radical individualism you find in America is at odds with Christian social teaching just as much as communism is. It's interesting and disturbing to see some American Catholics flirting with libertarian philosophy and the radical individualism we find in libertarian ideology.
It should be said that the School of Salamanca. A Catholic school, had ideas on economics and in favor of a market even before Adam Smith.
When we say 'capitalism' we usually mean free enterprise (most small businesses and entrepreneurs don't start with large capital but with ideas, innovation etc). As a conservative reasonably concerned about the increasing popularity of 'Socialism', I wish we'd say free enterprise. Mostly I'm just pleased to watch this - Catholics and Christians (including your current Pope IMO) can be misguided about this. Christian charity is not the same as government redistribution, in fact it's the opposite. Just my opinions.
Great interview!
Catholic social teaching is the most beautiful part of Catholicism, it truly is the answer to the excesses of our age.
That is not the most beautiful part of the Faith, Werd.
paxcoder Well, I’m Eastern Orthodox, so it’s the best thing about Catholicism in my mind.
@@drewmann856 I agree with you Werd, and I'm Roman Catholic. Christ's sermon on the mount is our (yours and mine) social teaching. This show is today's typical generalization and side taking. It synthesizes schisms and absolutes instead of understanding (or even discussing) the necessary complexity and mixture of approaches of a moral economy, for a shared quality of life, and salubrious brother and sisterhood. Instead we are to take two gentlemen ganging up on a word (or term) and battle against it, and like a boxing match aiming to throw scoring punches at the other shadow. Worse they succeed at gathering a following crowd who carry on the shallowness of their vanity. I know these comments may be great torrent of maligning, hate and discontent. But know that we walk a narrow road in faith, hope, and in practice of those two, charity. Yours in Christ, Joe
@@JoeCiliberto I really don't see that in the show. They were careful to discuss the ways unfettered capitalism is also immoral. It's one thing to acknowledge complexities, but the Church at times also needs to clarify lines between right and wrong.
As long as you convert to people to Christ that Capitalism will work. Business must be able to freely help their customers and workers. Not through regulations.
Id love for this conversation to continue with Elizabeth Breunig. Trent and Elizabeth both cite catholic social teaching for their positions yet they are on opposite sides of the argument.
God has made us a social species. For the most part, we live in social groups and a great deal of God’s law and church tradition are in that context.
Socialism, on the other hand, is a political system of enforced government control of Production, Distribution and Exchange. It is inherently coercive, depending on force and the threat of force to regulate what people do, what they can buy and what they pay for it.
Lutheran here Brothers and Sisters, remember that feeding the poor isn't just continuously giving your hard earned bread to suffering beggars, but to radically change the systems of the world so that beggars cannot exist.
Lutheran? Nobody listens to you. 400 years of hairsplitting. Go to mass.
Sorry, there is no need to change the system, you just need to help a poor man to get a job and then he is no longer poor.
Merchants can also keep prices low to remove competition then get market share and price however they wish.
This needs to be taught in schools, Catholic or otherwise.
That is a false debate regarding faith.
Perfect. Thanks for explanation.
Hey Matt, thanks for a great interview and video. I really could not agree more with the conversation, but I have a question: what is the difference between the early church and their rather socialistic organization of money and resources and the modern socialism of the state? Why is the former praised and the latter condemned? I have a few potential answers, but I am curious to see what you all have to say! Thanks again for your wisdom, and God bless.
@Qwerty The way I heard it, the second generation of Christians abandoned the Church's experiment in socialism because it wasn't working. The Bible never said Pope Peter was an expert in economics, and the Church claims no infallibility in economics or other political matters.
In the early Church, it was entirely voluntary. In every application of socialism beyond that, it requires coercion and the forcible appropriation of the fruit of people’s labour. Jesus and the disciples lived on voluntary gifts from willing supporters, not forced payments or the taxpayer’s account.
As an example, when Ananias was confronted with his lie, Peter explicitly told him that the money was his, to dispose of as he liked. Peter was no Socialist.
Also, the early Church believed that Christ was returning so soon that they did not have to plan for the long term. If you read through the rest of the NT, you will find that collections were being taken up for the Church in Jerusalem, because of their extreme poverty and need. The model that they used was not sustainable.
@@peterwebb8732 As we see in the US people refuse to vote for tax increases and 60 million go without proper medical care / insurance We even have a multi billion $$$ industry helping the rich half avoid paying their fair share of tax so the poor are kept in poverty .......
If we’re treating capitalism as tool, it would be nice if we treat socialism as a tool too. Both doesn’t have to be on the extremes, they just have to make it work to create bigger welfare for everybody. If this means mandating taxes that exponentially multiplies social wealth when given as subsidy or amelioration to the poorest, then so be it. They are management of strings in an increasingly universal locality.
The rich pay nearly all the taxes. You’re basing your reasoning on envy which by the way is one of the 7 deadly sins.
AS somebody who grew up under communist regime, in country, which had in name "socialistic" and somebody, who had to study and pass exam in marxism, other way wouldn't be able finish university.. I will round it in few points. Marxism aka socialism it's not base on love for the poor, it's base on the hate of the rich. And it doesn't matter, how somebody got rich (hard work themselves, their parents, grant parents), as in most causes it wasn't case, that they stolen the wealth from somebody. Socialism doesn't make everyone same well off, it makes every body equally poor. Marxism/socialism is base on envy of somebody else's property. Socialism is base on entitlement for something one haven't work for and in many cases it was taken from somebody, who work hard for it. And there is never enough. First they will take from the super rich. That it's used and gone fast. Then they go for the rich. Then the middle class, then for the next and then everybody... even the super-poor have to give what they have...
My summary why Catholics can't support socialism will be in this words:
hate
envy
jealousy
baseless entitlement
laziness
larceny/theft/robbery
greed
(just mention few...)
And if you look around: in each country, where "this experiment was taken", you can see, that one class was torn down and new one risen up. And the new one, didn't got up or rich on their own hard work, but by stolen it from the hard work from the "previous class" and then later on the hard work and back of the poor, they were saying how they care for them...
Amen!!!
@Justina In the early 1950 my father as senior student was hold in "holding comp" for a year just for going to school, which was catholic, with the monks and other senior students... I know from my grand parents, parents and other people talk how it was, when the communist were taking over (after WWII they won the election by deceit, as they were the only party, who could candidate in both states. They didn't won in mine, had only few %, but together with the other it tip over) In the late 1960 there were 2-3 years ease, but then the Warshaw pact invasion happened. I was born in former CSSR in the years after that invasion in the hard reinstalment of the regime. In the ease my parents got small land. I remember and know, how communist took it from us and I still feel this funny nag about it. They build kinder garden on the land.. There were people, who had much much more (and I could tell stories how they got it...), then my family, (and could take just part, but they took all of ours) but they were communist now, we weren't. We were the "working intelligence" (academics) as they called people with education or from educated family and not part of the communist party; and as that the enemy of "the party and the people"... It's really saddens me, how people forget so fast or that don't learn from hard experience of the others. I am from hard working and hearty nation, but it's so hard to watch, how the "socialism" ruined that... how they struggle to go back to the original nature... And it's not so funny to watch, that after the regime fall down, that the people, who were able start to do business were all the "former communist", as they were the only one, who had connections and money! And no, I am not saying as envy, just the irony. Sarcasm. I already saw how some of them already finished. We have this saying: "God's mills works slow, but surely... " Justice will be on the end.
probably you need to read St John Chrysostom about what he thinks of the excesses of riches. In terms of communism, of course this is bad. But not because of stupid accusations of laziness, envy and so on. Do you think the Soviet Union could have put people in space and created a huge industrial base if they were lazy? Communism is a misplaced economic theory that doesn't work due to it being monolithic and autocratic. It severely distorts economic incentives. But to say that it inherently promotes hate, laziness, envy, theft and so on is just stupid and contradicts facts. You can easily same the same things about the capitalist system. It can promote greed and even laziness. Look at how capitalists on Wall Street make money. Not by doing anything productive, but by skimming cuts out of other productive businesses. How does that promote virtue?
@Qwerty Si Rasputin
makes a good point. One could say capitalism without soul, without Christian principles is the flip side of the same coin that is based on materialism. Their God is their belly.
@Qwerty Regardless, it is not justice the way capitalism is ran, which is unbridled capitalism. Are we supposed to tell people, "Consider yourself fortunate you do not live in a totalitarian regime." So much for the way businesses behave here in the states such as moving jobs and equipment to a communist country such as China while leaving the middle class to fend for themselves. Thanks in part to lobbyists.
There is a charitable organization in Germany that is devoted to reducing food insecurity in the United States. They advertise here on TH-cam. I find that shameful as an American. Note that Germany has a mixed economy (both capitalist and socialist), also known as democratic socialist. Germany's food insecurity has remained at about 2.5% per capita for years. Ours is more than 10%.
I would be interested to know when and why the Church jettisoned the example of the Apostles and first believers as noted in Acts 2:42-47: "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers. A sense of awe was felt by all for many wonders and signs were performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and owned everything in common. They would sell their property and possessions and distribute the proceeds to all according to what each one needed. Every day, united in spirit, they would assemble together in the temple. They would break bread in their homes and share their food with joyful and generous hearts as they praised God, and they were regarded with favor by all the people. And day by day the Lord added to those who were being saved."
Also in Acts 4:32-35: "The entire community of believers was united in heart and soul. No one claimed any of his possessions as his own, for everything was held in common. With great power, the apostles bore witness to the resurrection[g] of the Lord Jesus, and they were all greatly respected. There was never anyone among them in need, because those who were the owners of lands or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and lay them at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed to any who were in need."
This way of life, inspired by the Holy Spirit, appears to have been mandatory and approved/enforced by St. Peter, whom the Lord backed up with this miraculous sign, as recounted in Acts 5:1-10: "There was a man named Ananias who with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property. With the approval of his wife, he held back some of the proceeds, and he brought the remainder to the apostles and laid it at their feet. Then Peter asked, 'Ananias, why has Satan so gained control of your heart that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the sale price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not belong to you? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds yours? What caused you to contrive this scheme? You have lied not to men but to God.' When Ananias heard these words, he collapsed and died, and a great sense of fear seized all who heard about it. The young men came forward and wrapped up his body. Then they carried him out and buried him. After about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for this much.” She replied, 'Yes, that was the price.' Then Peter asked her, 'Why did the two of you agree to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Listen! The footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will also carry you out.' Instantly, she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in, they found her dead. And so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And a great sense of fear seized the whole Church and all those who heard of this."
The Church was able to send missionaries all over the known world at the time, spreading the Gospel at a wonderfully alarming rate. They were able to provide relief to those under persecution (such as St. Paul while he was in prison). There are historical accounts of the earliest Christians reaching out to both believing and unbelieving earthquake and plague victims. This was way more than throwing money into an offering plate on Sunday, and it must have taken incredible discipline that could only have been accomplished with the help of the Holy Spirit...but there was clearly great joy in it. Back then, becoming a follower of Jesus was to leave *everything* behind, *as He taught*. When the Church stopped this way of life, everyone kind of drifted off into the lonely individualism that we see in the Church today...both Catholic and Protestant alike. One can attend church with people for years and never even learn their names.
I really do hope that the Church, in condemning socialism, isn't just defending rich people and their wealth. St. James was clear about how the Church is to regard the wealthy vs. the poor. Why is all socialism condemned as bad, when, like capitalism, it can be rightly used or abused? Do you have the money to hire your own personal fire or police department? Can you build your own interstate highway, bridges or local roads and sidewalks? Can you raise your own personal military or build your own personal hospital complete with doctors, nurses and medical equipment?
I don't think Trent Horn understands the difference between a planned economy and an economy without markets. I'm not going to do the "it wasn't real Communism bit," but there can be a system that centrally plans the general direction an economy is going to be headed towards while also having markets. These aren't mutually exclusive things.
He's going to have a tough time explaining China because he's a "market good...plan bad" simp.
Catholics can, actually.
@Qwerty Really? Then why do we have multiple saints and blessed and servants of of God, who've been on the left or who were outright socialists?
I agree with what he said. But it seems that in the USA (especially) any attempt of the gov. to interfiere with the inherent injustices of Capitalism (e.g. braking monopolies, charging fair taxes, providing help to the poor via social programs etc.) is label as socialism. That is a strawman argument of corrupt powerful people to discourage any attempt to correct the game. The catholic teaching is clear and must be laud as Pope Francis is doing and I as a Catholic applaud more than ever. The economy must be in service of the people, not people being in service to the economy. Doing otherwise, would be making the Market your God.
Francis is Globalist who supports open borders. He is more concerned with progressive/marxist talking points than with saving souls. I guess you dont mind that he was McCarricks pick for Pope. The predator class in the church elected their guy. To bad the lid was blown of the lavender mafia. Read infiltration by Dr. Taylor Marshall. You'll get a better understanding of what's going on in the church.
Absolutely right
I am a conservative, and I could never support a pro-abortion candidate as long as there is one who is pro-life. Just wanted to put that out there.
Regarding “democratic socialism” in today’s context, it cannot be conflated as a salvific system-which is primarily what the Church has the authority to condemn in political systems, which are not moral acts, but imperfect systems to operate with in an imperfect world-but surely it is different than the socialism of the past, and is simply in line with Catholic social teaching. As a Christians with the East, you know as well as I do that the Church condemns heretical notions more than words, which can change meaning to different people. You know about the Nestorians who are not Nestorians as condemned by the Councils which the Church is seeking to restore union with (without requiring them to adopt the language of the Councils as their way of articulating... while of course requiring acceptance of the teachings), but which have a more developed system of understanding which developed out of its heretical aspects.... I am not saying that all socialists have developed beyond the heretical aspects.... but the idea of public services provided through taxpayer dollars, which most every government has always provided and which the Church is not fundamentally opposed to, has come to be conflated with socialism. This is a natural development of language.
The Church at one time condemned “religious liberty”... which doesn’t work as a salvific system to be sure... we cannot presume to leave the Church because another religion consumeristically appeals to us more... and is not the ideal in a world where Christ rules as active personal King over humanity (which will not be fully actualized until His Return, and which right before His Return we know that the world will look like the opposite of that)... but religious liberty in politics is essential for the Peace of the Church in a turbulent world where “narrow is the path and few find it”. We can’t stably survive in a world where every 4-8 years we go from having our Churches burned down to
Condemnation of a political ideology, in as much as it not a matter of theological or moral doctrine (and in which the political ideology quote-unquote can develops different meanings and connotations with time), is outside of the jurisdiction of the Pope, and he is not guaranteed preservation in it as the Successor of St. Peter. The Pope can hypothetically order us not to vote for anyone in favor of it, and I suppose we would be forced to obey? I am not sure if it could be regarded as the same as resisting an evil Pope’s sexual advances, since a lack of religious liberty can directly result in and is a grave evil (according to the Church’s current articulations) in an imperfect world that ultimately destroys the Church in her purpose. I am not 100% sure either way on what to do in this instance. I would err on the side of not voting, if I could risk mortal sin by voting against the gravely binding command of the Church. Regardless of my imperfection of knowledge in this... this is not currently morally binding against us in the Church.
I think that hypothetically the Church’s voice on religious liberty and socialism are similar. The Pope can condemn moral political and personal moral evils to be sure, and can order any Christian do anything that isn’t grave sin. But he cannot speak so completely to things like religious liberty or socialism because the meaning of the notions can change. Pride and the idea of being so great is a sin and condemnable... and that is what has been condemned as Americanism... but having initiative and a good work ethic isn’t a heresy, applied in an ordered way, it is a moral good.
It depends his one defines socialism on whether or not it is condemned. It is if it eliminates the source of and incentive for the production of wealth. So the extremes of it are certainly condemned. But some level (within reason and sustainability) of taxation and allocation of those funds to public services for the poor is a moral good, not a moral evil.
There is no "as long as," if there are no pro-life candidates, dont vote.
Bert Nernie // I am glad that I don’t have to make such a call. But that is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that at that point we may vote prudentially OR not vote at all.
And in some countries it is criminalized not to vote... and some of these counties don’t have pro-life candidates. I have not heard the Church opposing this as a persecution of the Church.
@@alexanderduvall2567 Massachusetts currently has a bill in the Legislature that would fine a person $15 for not voting. I hope it doesn't pass.
I'm Catholic and live in the Uk. The NHS is wonderful and has been there for me and the people I love since before I was born. It's a product of a socialist idea and I fully support it. I however (for the record) wouldn't consider myself a socialist.
Same here. I'm also British and grateful to the NHS and our welfare system. However I fully agree with Pope Pius XII who condemned Marxism-Leninism as intrinsically evil. Later JPII echoed Pius teaching.
Trent and Matt. You had those definitions correct in the beginning when defining socialism as a midway point between Captialism and Communism. There after, the definitions errored. Socialism involves government control of large industries. Healthcare System, Airlines, Utilities. Those within an economy that naturally grow into monopolies. Most don't don't this, but some do. Socialist governments don't plan an entire economy. They heavily influence those industries described above. Communism plans an entire economy. The USSR and China topics brought up, are examples of Communism. Anyone interested in learning the definition of communism, read the Marx Communist Manifesto. That refers to the classless society. Europe is a great example of socialism. Did the popes have an issue with Italy, Spain, France, England, Germany on this economic issue with their current economic structure?
A great read on Economic Growth is the book, "The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created". The 5 pillars of economic growth are- Hypothesis of Wealth, Property, Reasom, Capital, Power/Speed/Light, and Synthesis of Growth.
Society Europe had a large part to play in this development. Matt Fradd and Council of Trent need to redefine their definition of socialism.
Catchy title. But an accurate title for this clip should be, Why Catholics can't be Communists.
It's hard because theres many different definitions of socialism. The one you mentioned is one way to go about socialism, but there's other ways suggested by other people. Personally, I think many of those European countries are not communist or socialist, but have capitalist and socialist elements like most governments.
@@u.s.citizen9933 Yeah the definition of socialism I go by is different than that which they use.
The problem is people apply the word socialism to things like welfare, regulations of industry and taxing the rich and think if they are against Soviet gulags they must be against people like Bernie Sanders
@@christophersnedeker2065 agreed. For me, I don't like soviet gulags or Bernie Sanders' views lol because I lean libertarian. What he suggests sounds like more government power and more taxes as a result.
I understand some will say that we might have more security due to government power and taxes for programs, but I like think the, "government which governs least governs best" in most situations. A henry David Thoreau quote. What's even funnier is that I'm a catholic, and the 2 seem to oppose each other but they can actually fit quite nicely in many situations and even support each other in some regards.
From my experience, almost all forms and definitions of socialism and communism involve giving up some power for the expectation that the community or institution as a whole will benefit together. I dont like that, because that often leads to the opposition of freedoms.
I may be in vain in trying to academically respond to this video, but hey.
Most of the disagreement behind Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism can be attributed to semantics, especially definitions. The definitions in this video used to describe Communism and Socialism is not the same definition that many Socialists and Communists use to describe their own socioeconomic ideology. For example,
Trent Horn states in the video around 2:00 that Socialism and Communism say, "An economy should be planned by a central authority, and so the means of production should be owned by the state, and so the state should be the one to produce goods and services, and then allocates those goods and services based on need."
This is a definition of Socialism and Communism (two different things, which Trent Horn seems to not be able to differentiate between in economic terms), but Socialists and Communists would probably take much issue with this definition. For example, Communists might say that, and rightly so, according to Karl Marx, the arguable founder of the socioeconomic ideology of communism, it describes a "classless and stateless society." If Karl Marx is to be trusted as an authority on Communism (and if he cannot be trusted as an authority on that, what can he be trusted as an authority on?), Trent Horn's definition of Communism being a system in which a State makes and allocates resources would be insufficient in describing the ideology that Communists follow, since it is not stateless. What then occurs is that Horn argues against this definition of Communism that he has proposed, but which is not the definition that Communists subscribe to. So has Horn really proven that Communism is against Catholic values by arguing against a version of Communism that Communists do not subscribe to? I don't think so.
As for Socialism, there is such a broad range of Socialist theories (Communism being one theory of Socialism) that grouping them all in with Communism under the aforementioned definition would be dishonest. Horn argues against State Socialism, in which the State owns the means of production, and since the State is an elected and representative organ of the people, the people, in a sense, own the means of production. Most Socialists are not State Socialists. More commonly today, there are market socialists or democratic socialists, which subscribe to different ideals than State socialists. A Market Socialist would apply the free market to a socialist business structure, such as a Worker Co-Operative, where workers are the owners of their own business, as opposed to a CEO, which is the Capitalist business structure. A democratic socialist is a socialist who attempts to institute socialistic ideals into the government via democratic means (as opposed to revolutionary means). Neither of these are inherently anti-Catholic, however, but Horn does not seem to address them.
I mostly agree. I would add, though this may be slightly beside the point, that even communism itself is a broad range of related ideologies. Marxism-Leninism, the most common and influential form of Marxist communism throughout the 20th century, essentially discarded the orthodox Marxist view that a capitalist economy was even necessary in order to transition into socialism and finally communism. Maoism, or Mao Zedong Thought as the CCP calls it, perhaps the most influential strain of Marxism in the world (if not the western world) today tries to circumvent that inconsistency by essentially placing the state under the Leninist principle of the vanguard party in charge of the transition to capitalism before the economy can transition to socialism and finally communism - which runs counter to the claim often heard in media and popular discussion today that China has abandoned its ideological roots, as the development of the Chinese economy today IS largely in line with the Maoist viewpoint. Neither one of these currents conforms to orthodox Marxism as laid out by Marx in the Communist Manifesto or Capital.
Again, that may be slightly beside the point, but as the general sentiment of your post seems to be that we need to have a thorough understanding of what we are criticizing (which I strongly agree with) and that to do otherwise and to lump things together that don't belong together in pursuit of a narrative that's easier to consume would be intellectually dishonest, I thought I'd add them.
Agree. Denial of education is another sign of communism, fascism
This is like Joe Rogan, without all the swear words
I would change the thumbnail there, bud.
This video represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is. Socialism is in fact more responsive and democratic than the political-economic system that currently exists in the United States.
@Dan by the standard of accounting for the needs of the most amount of people
frankly i need no other reason to oppose socialism but that every major socialist tradition is anti-church to its every bones. There is no reason to shill an ideology or work with people that oppose me.
@@ikengaspirit3063 there have been many forms of religious socialist movements, especially ones that are Christian.
@@FriarJoe66 I said major. Aside from some medieval movement like the diggers that modern socialists claim, every Christian socialist movement has been minor and temporary(like the Socialists among the Christadelphians) or one person(like Leo). So aberrations
And Liberation theology isn't Socialist.
@@ikengaspirit3063 how do you define major?
The history of capitalism in the United States is an affront to Catholic Social Teaching. We must always be mindful that usury and the abandonment of the safety of workers, both of which thrive in the United States market economy, are sinful. As St. JP II tells us in Laborem Exercens, the right to a family/livable wage, paid vacation and leisure, and the ability to form, join, and support unions are necessary for the health of an economic ethic that promotes dignity over capital.
Man over economy, not economy over man.
Alexander J
Yes!!!!!
This is so great!
I thought Jesus didn't like rich people, but I guess it's up for interpretation that fact that a camel can't pass a needle eye
The holodomor rom a perspective of slavic people was an act of the NKWD against the ukranian population at the time, focused on depopulation of an area. It wasnt much of a socialist experiment this would be misinterpreting the holodomor. The holodomor was teh withholding of food from the people, letting it grow and rotting or collecting it as said and shooting anyone who went out to get food. It was an act of genocide. However with much of the soviet union, it is hard to say who the NKWD were, as we have two revolutions that culminate in the soviet union. The NKWD were often times not even Russian, much like much of the ruling class that was then established in the member nations were not ethnic Poles, Bialorusians, Ukranians, etc. not even russians but often foreign, yet for a long time part of russia or its allies.
This wasnt socialist mismanagement this was conscious starvation of the ukranian people. this isnt mismanagement.
this also isnt derivative from private property per say. This has far more to do with hirarchy and our concepts of society and the rules therein. As later said with capitalism, its not that much of a tool. Its a rather defunct system much like communism and we can easily see the issue here. We cant support capitalism either. Here we are talking about capitalism and the rules necessary. We discover the issue here. And smiths analysis applies today however free competition provides the exact issues we see today. "give me what you want and I will give you what you want" I dont think this is accurate either. Its not really this idea of free exchange it is utopian and places man under economy much like communism does. In the end man is a part of the machine rather than being the goal of the machine.
We can see the issues in modernity expounded in cmmunism the state is the company, in capitalism the companies are the state. This is an issue, that and we see the issue of monetary flow, where it stagnates and that is also an issue. The way we price reward for work etc. There are issues here that need to be adressed and once adressed we can no longer call this capitalism in any sense of the word, it will by all means be something new.
God bless the Ukrainian people forever! 🇺🇦🌾🇺🇦🌾🇺🇦🌾🇺🇦🌾💙🌾💛🌾💙🌾💛🌾💙
Bogatyr
There is an old adage - "never ascribe to malice, what can be more easily explained by stupidity or incompetence". I'm not saying there was no racist treatment of Ukrainians - but it seems to me a more parsimonious explanation is that this racism meant that when the system failed, the central government didn't really care about the effects of that failure, and so didn't bother trying too hard to solve the crisis.
"Communism means a centralized state that controls the means of production." Ancom left out as usual. Also, you mentioned it's a classless system based on equality, but forgot to mention it's also stateless and moneyless. And Marx never advocated for equality as a goal, his popularized phrase was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That doesn't scream equality, does it?
Of course, none of the previous communist regimes ever came close to that utopic ideal, probably none ever will. I'm not saying Catholics should be communists, far from it. But you fall on so many misconceptions that it's hard to take the discussion too seriously. If you wanna be able to better refute communism or at least Marxism I suggest reading Critique of the Gotha Program.
Also, Bernie is in the thumbnail but he isn't even a socialist lol, he's just a social democrat which means capitalism but high progressive taxation and a social safety net - universal healthcare among other things. Which is actually pretty close to Church social teaching, except for abortion, of course.
“Democratic socialists” state that they hate capitalism, so not sure how you can reconcile that with the above opinion. “Millionaires should not exist”. Even if, as Catholics, we believe that the wealthy should give as much as they can to help those in need, it doesn’t mean we must necessarily support socialism (state control over the means of production)
@@robertnorris8831 Social democracy is capitalism with universal welfare state. It's not the same as democratic socialism.
jacurutu then I think we agree if you support social democracy, that there should be systems to help people in need funded by wider society. I would only make the point therefore that Bernie should rethink some of his talking points, namely “capitalism has failed” and the like. Capitalism has lots of room for improvement would be better IMO.
@@robertnorris8831 Yes that is at the core of social democracy, working within the system of capitalism to alleviate its excesses by redistributing wealth generated by the free markets, through progressive taxation and other means, into public institutions of universal healthcare, education, transportation and the like. It doesn't even mean government pays everything, it often involves cooperation with private companies, but in the end every citizen should be covered through a combination of public healthcare and private insurance. Take a look at Norway's system, for instance: www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/denmark
If I understand correctly Bernie proposes an even more extensive option, but it eliminates the option of private insurance. I think he goes too far in that regard. The mixed European model seems to be working alright.
Trent horn wrote a book discussing some of these topics and he demonstrated a huge ignorance in what socialism actually was. Within a few pages, he was using simple narratives and mixing up ideologies from communism and different types of socialism.
I gave up on him then.
Why not judge socialism by looking at socialist countries or talking to people from socialist countries
@@crossbearer6453 I'm not against that. I'm just saying trent horn wrote a book that was as unintelligible and unacademic as fiction
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧐 Capitalism vs. Socialism: Understanding the terms and why a Catholic can't support socialism.
02:04 🏭 Capitalism: Private actors control means of production, goods exchanged on the market.
02:47 🌐 Communism and Socialism: Centralized planning, state-owned means of production, goods distributed based on need.
05:02 🌍 Historical context: Changes in wealth distribution, emergence of cities, challenges in implementing communal systems.
07:51 ❌ Issues with Communism: Examples of Soviet Union and China, failure of central planning, famines, and oppression.
11:09 ⚖️ Catholic Perspective: Socialism consistently condemned bypopes, socialism vs. capitalism vs. ethical capitalism.
12:59 💡 Core of Capitalism: Voluntary exchange, harnessing self-interest for mutual benefit, contrasted with socialism's state control.
13:43 ⛪️ Moral Argument: Socialism treats unequals equally, replaces God with the state as provider, against human nature and freedom.
Made with HARPA AI
I can't give my time of day to watch a video by someone who is so misinformed that they think Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
So disappointing.
@Qwerty He's more than a little bit, but he isn't actually a socialist. Just because I generally agree with conservatives on guns doesn't mean I'm suddenly a Republican. He's a Democratic Socialist, which has some seriously meaningful distinctions.
@Qwerty The main, big, huge colossal difference is that in straight Socialism, the workers/community own the means of production. Democratic Socialists are okay with continuing the Capitalist trend of private ownership of businesses. In Bernie's case, the big exception is healthcare. But he's not gonna take Walmart, or fuel companies, or shoe stores or whatever. It basically works within the confines of the current system rather than throwing the whole thing out. It's basically democratically expanding on social programs that we already have like SNAP, Medicare and Social Security, for example.
@Qwerty Bernie does not admit to being a "socialist," but a democratic socialist.
God didn't say love yourself before you love your neighbor. He said love your neighbor as yourself (meaning equally). (At least I thought so?)
I like this channel but this particular video felt like I was in tenth grade again learning about simple ideas like capitalism and socialism. The Adam Smith reference is essentially the minimum of what you have to know to pass the Regents exam (or at least get one question right). I was looking for a deeper analysis.
Amen. Love you brother.
Socialism means that the (working) people own and control the means of production. That's the opposite of "the (undemocratic) state taking over". Also, this simple definition of Socialism doesn't say all people are payed equally no matter the amount of work.
Keep in mind that back in the day you couldn't successfully run a big company because of lack of infrastructure (phones, planes, internet, computers), thus it was also difficult for a Government to run the "means of production". But as we have more and more technology, both multinationals become doable and thus Governing becomes doable.
The knowledge about socialism, capitalism, feudalism, state capitalism, etc in this piece is _severely_ lacking and very misrepresented.
Yup. He says the “state” controls the economy in communist societies when a state doesn’t exist at all in communism
Exactly
Adam Smith was working in a natural law tradition that had Catholic precedents. Check out "Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics" (Studies in Ethics and Economics) for a good summary of economic thought in this tradition prior to Smith.
Philip Crouch
Except he degenerated it with Calvinist rationalizations, his most egregious being the false notion that there such a thing as a “little” bit of usury was “not” a bad thing. There is no such thing as a “small amount” of usury, and it is ALWAYS a sin, period.
He bloated micro-capitalism, which is another way of describing Chesterton’s Distributism, into Macro-Capitalism, which has since partly degenerated into Mega-capitalism.
The Macro kind is usually what we mean by the modern free market, but Mega is Cronyism and Neocon oligarchy.
Macro is better than Mega, but Micro is vastly more ETHICAL than either, even though Macro is very profitable for nations as a whole. Micro can be just as profitable in the long run but takes longer to do so. But running at breakneck speed is not always a good thing.
Unfortunately, the Catholic social doctrine set up the pins for Corporatism, i.e., Fascism, another Anti-Capitalist cult.
@Qwerty Qwerty Perhaps less redundant than you think. Philosophers of the Silver Scholastic looked at issues of monetary policy and economics largely as an attempt to understand things like the influx of gold from the Spanish (or Portugese) colonies and the effect it had of devaluing the Spanish currency. It was also conducted in response to questions about business ethics, such as what constitutes usury. This was going on in the Iberian countries after the Reformation, which is why it didn't have an enormous influence on British thought prior to Smith: Spain was a major rival and typically an enemy. What attracted him to them was the natural law tradition, which was the means by which he approached jurisprudence, and the economy as a branch of jurisprudence. Smith was also influenced French Physiocrats, of course, and allied French thought around such questions of jurisprudence. The French Englisghtenement was quite favourable to the natural law tradition too.
@Qwerty Catholic social teaching came about in the 19th century, in response to socialism, especially Marxism. The Silver Scholastics were working a few centuries before hand.
@@eldermillennial8330 You might read the work of the Silver Scholastics on Just Prices. I think you will find that it was they, many of whom were Jesuits, that promoted the idea that usury was charging an extortionate rate of interest, not changing interest as such. The Calvinists may also have done so, although I'm not aware of Smith as having been a Christian of any variety. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
By Horn's definition of socialism, China is not socialist.
Would you say that a Catholic can have National Healthcare? A lot of Americans believe that it is a terrible socialist and communist evil, yet some of the freest countries in the world, France, Australia and the UK have it, and definitely aren't socialist? Would appreciate an answer
Luke Hyland those countries are also significantly smaller in population size and have more doctors per capita
Read Ha Joon Chang, "23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism". Capitalism only works by shortchanging workers. Thie level of this talk is more than usually disgraceful. This man is no political philosopher, why ask his opinion?
This guy is a simpleton...A simp author. Does he know that in reality Benie Sanders is more of a social democrat. Does he know what social democracy is? Does he know that even the "communist" countries said they were Socialist and paid different wages depending on occupation...You could change jobs, etc. Does he know how communism defeated fascism and let to massive gains for the working masses? It's all relative...most people chose communism over fascism.
I appreciate this discussion, but this is clearly a little overly apologetic toward capitalism compared to Church teaching
Louis Jones 🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️
I agree. Christ or the Church do not favour any specific economic system, and condemm the excess and worldliness of all of them. Intent in favouring others is the root of all teaching. You can be socialist or capitalist as a Catholic, as long as God and neighbour truly come first. And despite the fact that socialist has traditionally been atheistic at its root.
Boom! Louis gets it!
Christian Sandoval nope
Killan Orji yup
I have Trent’s book called why we’re catholic and it’s a really good read
What do you do with the people that don't want to join?
God didn't say love yourself before you love your neighbour; He said love your neighbour AS YOU love yourself.
"As" you love yourself would suggest emulating the same love you tend to have for your self so he's not wrong I guess
Thank you for this!!!! It’s so important for people to understand!
Matthew O'Rourke Totally!
As someone who is just getting the experience of entering the workforce and managing home finances and thinking about having a business one day. It sure is good to have some knowledge about these things. That just as there is an order and proper way of going about living your life, there is also a proper way/model for economies.
Very to see this video and will be learning more about this.
This is a joke. Libertarian capitalism isn’t compatible with Christianity. The Christian community started as a commune. Essenes lived in voluntary poverty. Christians like Pints with Aquinas in America are heretics.
Would you agree that "Socialist" in the title would refer to Marxism rather than for instance Christian Socials, formerly Christian Socialists, of Austria (name change done to avoid confusion with Marxists)?
Yeah the answer hinges on how we define socialism.
I thought monks and nuns were the best examples of socialism - The monks and nuns sure mislead me.
They voluntarily accept that commitment. A government does not impose it on them by law.
Never forget Jesus' words in Matthew 25:31-46 were aimed at the Church, not the government.
John Florio Matthew 25: 31-46 wasn’t just aimed at the Church to teach but as a way God will Judge his Creations.
How can that be, when the passage explicitly refers to "All the nations"?
"Democratic socialism"
Socialism with sprinkles on top.
So true
*sweden has entered the chat*
And arsenic dripped throughout
“Killing the rich but we ask the 51% if they think it’s ok to do so”
@@sawyersmith5242 Social democracy is not socialism.
AMEN!
Incredible conversation. Thank u.
I am a farmer. I grow what I want, on my land, and sell it to people who want it, at a price that is agreeable to both of us.
That is how the free market works.
I challenge anyone claiming that Socialism isn't inherently coercive and controlling, to tell me how they are going to let me keep doing what I want, under their system.
Depending on your definition of socialism you are a socialist.
@@christophersnedeker2065 …. Only if your definition is dishonest.
@@peterwebb8732 Many socialists define socialism as the workers having power over the means of production.
@@christophersnedeker2065 …. Then they don’t know what Socialism means or how it functions.
State control of the means of Production, Distribution and Exchange are foundational to Socialism. Socialism ASSUMES that the “working class” will rule the State, but in practice it never works that way.
People like me are amongst the first put up against the wall or sent to the gulags. Not only do I own my own land, but I sell on the free market and expect to keep and enjoy the profit therefrom.
Actually got a Bernie ad on this video
Bru Master $$$$
Russia knows
Bernie sanders isn't a Socialist, his economic policies are actually far closer to that of FDR
Cesar Riojas I consider FDr a socialist
OK, I watched the video. I am anti-socialist/anti-marxist, but couldn't the same arguments be used to say that no Catholic could support monarchical forms of government, and yet every Pope for 1500+ years supported monarchical forms of government.
The national socialists in Germany didn't abolish private property. So, his definition wouldn't apply there. Just some input to add.
You can read a good quote from Hitler on how his economic system differed from international socialists
Matt, thank you for all you do. I’m a huge fan of Pints With Aquinas and will continue to be one. I must say, this particular understanding of socialism is quite narrow to say the least. I say that because this is only a sliver of even the Marxist tradition itself. Let alone the entirety of leftist theory. I suggest to anyone interested in (or just looking to spy on “the enemy) leftist writing to look into the Anarchist tradition. Anarchists critique Capital and the State at the same time. Focusing the human person in a much more generous light then Marx. I’m reading “The Conquest of Bread” by Peter Kropotkin currently. It’s the anarchist equivalent to the Communist Manifesto but hold human dignity as a motivation rather then Hatred. Dorthy Day drew a lot from Anarchism within her work with The Catholic Worker. I would agree with many others here that Marxism presupposes atheism. But there are many many other for substantive traditions to draw from if someone finds their politics on the left.
The founding fathers deserve more credit in modern society for the amazing system that we abuse today.
Our founding father we HEAVILY ANTI CATHOLIC, the vast majority of them were secular Protestants or out right atheists that believed religion and the church were remnants of a feudal society that was inherently dark and repressive, they believed the Protestant work ethic and liberalism were the ways society were to function. And economic and social liberalism are the greatest factor that leads to atheism and secularism in the west. People lose faith in christ and Begin worshiping markets and capitalist products and idols in place of god.
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 The founders were against oppressive Empires and Kings. Unfortunately the Church was on the wrong side of European politics for hundreds of years. As to the rest; here, here!
@@RL-ck8zk oppressive empires. While being an oppressive empire themselves??
What I’ve learnt from history is it’s a lot more complicated that people think so to say the Catholic Church was at the wrong side of history is an oversimplification
I am not a capitalist, neither am i a Socialist, first and foremost i am a Christian period!
Based and my kingdom is not of this world pilled.
This is an incredibly American centric argument. I don’t know if anybody in the Netherlands where are my parents were born that says you can’t be a socialist and be a Catholic because the country has a lot of socialism in it. It’s only in America were the constant fear of the socialist bogeyman raises its head.And by the way what I mean by socialism is free healthcare in college. That’s what pisses people off it makes them say that socialism is evil in the United States.
By your fruits shall ye know them. How's the death count for socialism in the 20th century?
@@Amfortas Socialism as applied in The Netherlands? Or communism? Because if you want to play the “who killed more” game then capitalism under the United States killed far more than socialism in The Netherlands
Socialism isn’t just when the government does things for the people. And socialism is explicitly condemned by Catholic teaching
7:05 "violates man's right to private property". And where is the right to private property in the Bible?
You can argue that "socialism doesn't work", but that's not a sufficient reason for why Catholics can't support it. Trickle down economics doesn't work; but that's not a reason for Catholics to be unable to support it.
"Up to the 16th century, usury was condemned by the Catholic Church". This is one of the most anti-capitalist stances one could have. And since this is "Pints with Aquinas", let's look at what he thought: "St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading scholastic theologian of the Roman Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to "double charging", charging for both the thing and the use of the thing."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
The thumbnail showing Bernie Sanders is misleading since he is not a socialist, but a democratic socialist (I would even argue a social democrat).
If Jesus was anything, he would most closely align with socialsim.
Matt 19:21 "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A21&version=KJV
Trent Horn appears to be a died in the wool libertarian. Buzzwords like "take by force" and "voluntary exchange" are the telltale signs. Here's a thought experiment. If I hold a gun to your head and ask for your wallet - and then you hand your wallet to me, have you voluntarily given me your wallet? I think we would both agree that the answer is "no" and that you have been coerced. Now replace the gun (threat of death) with the threat of eternal torment.
@@karmayeshengondrubs4594 LOL. I'm not even Catholic.
Brian Dill
That’s funny! I liked your presentation, that’s why I responded . Your analysis was well thought out.
@Qwerty but usury is the epitome of capitalism yet I have never seen a video about how Catholics can't be capitalists. One one expect this before one against socialism - especially from a channel or segment with "Aquinas" in the name.
@Qwerty what it is outside of Christianity (or Catholicism) is irrelevant. The point is them condemning socialism on weak grounds, yet with the clear case of usury they have more evidence to make a video saying that Catholics shouldn't support capitalism.
@Qwerty It's not a heresy, it's an observation. I think Brian Dill is right on the mark.
I have always enjoyed your show and respected the honesty and freshness of your inquiries. With all due respect, though, I will now be unsubscribing. When one closely follows politics in this lamentable year 2020, the media is filled with a daily smorgasbord of outrageous enough sights these days..but the sight of my beloved senator from my home state of Vermont, Bernie Sanders, with the word ‘evil’ near his head, as I see in the title picture for this video...it is too much to endure. He is a good and compassionate man, a man of integrity, which is is hard enough to find in a human being at all these days, let alone a politician. Yes, he is a Democratic Socialist. He wants a single payer health care system. I fail to see what is inherently irreligious or immoral or anti- Catholic about fighting for Medicare for All, when 21,000,000 Americans lacked health insurance in the most recent statistic I could find...and that was before so many Americans lost their jobs due to the economic fallout of the pandemic. According to a study by Harvard Medical School, 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of insurance. Is there some hidden, inherent moral good in this? If so, I surely would like to be enlightened on what exactly it is. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you were born and raised in Australia, were you not, Mr. Fradd? Your country utilizes a single payer health care system, does it not? How, therefore, am I failing to be an ardent Catholic if I aspire that my son might someday benefit from the same health care system that you had access to, growing up?
Hello from Australia. Yes our health care system is pretty good even though we pay through our nose in tax. There can be a happy medium with capitalism and redistribution of income to the needy (socialism).
I'm sorry that you worship a man and politics than you do God, Laura. For shame!
Sanders is a horrible person who hates the global poor.
He probably wants to show he's more 'American' than the NRA
I hate to be critical but this is shameful behavior. for one, don't you see how awful it is to admit you're unwilling to hear someone who simply has a different opinion on a single issue? especially someone you otherwise enjoy. to just reflexively reject them because they expressed a general opinion that you don't like? he didn't even say anything about bernie sanders. but anyway, more importantly, your whole conception of these issues is missing the point. what is it exactly that you don't understand about this? can you think of a single occasion when Jesus advocated using the violent force of the state to steal people's money and spend it elsewhere? he advocated voluntarily giving and total pacifism.
any form of statism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. you can't be a christian if you advocate a system of government that uses force for anything other than self-defense, defense of basic human rights. charity NEVER involves the use of force. "fighting for Medicare for All" is just another way of saying "lobbying the government to force some people to give up their possessions for the benefit of other people (and for the benefit of an ever-growing class of bureaucrats who waste most of the money anyway)."
if you truly care for other people you will give freely of your own time and your own possessions. you didn't see mother theresa wasting her time marching for socialism. on the contrary, she spoke out against it, and worked her fingers to the bone providing for the neediest people she could find. why? because that's exactly the example that Jesus set, and the commandment that he gave us.
Hladomor in slavic languages literally means "plague of hunger" ("hlad" meaning hunger and "mor" meaning plague). Hladomor simply means famine.
I loved those pipes in the shelf!