Blog

There’s a lot of talk about capitalism and socialism today. As we discussed in a recent blog, capitalism can be compatible with Catholicism in certain ways, although extreme capitalism leads to violations of human dignity.

What about socialism? Here we repeat the words of Pope Pius XI: “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

Here’s what socialism is and the problem with it.

What is socialism?
The socialist system is characterized by the state owning the means of production and allocating goods and services to people based on their needs. This differs from capitalism since private entities, instead of the state, hold control in the capitalist system.

Some people say the difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is peaceful and communism relies on violence. But, there have been peaceful communists and authoritarian socialists. Violence or peace could be found in either system.

Why Catholics can’t be socialists.
Socialism contradicts important social teachings of the faith. Pope Leo XIII, Pius XI, and many other pontiffs have condemned the system.

Pope Leo XIII taught that there should be ways for the oppressed to share in the greater wealth in society, but not by having it taken by force. He observed that if wealth were taken by governmental force, the sources of wealth would eventually run dry.

According to the pope, socialism violates the human person’s right to private property and the right of families to support themselves. It also undermines the Church’s support of subsidiarity — the idea that leadership should be kept at a local level as much as possible.

Don’t misunderstand this. The popes have all taught that individuals and families who can’t support themselves should receive help. But putting the state in charge of everything isn’t the answer.

Capitalism says, “Give me what I want and I’ll give you what you want.” Socialism says, “Give the state what you have and it will give you what it thinks you need.”

Depending on how closely the state aligns with Christian values, you can’t always trust that it will give you what you really need.

Many Catholics are aware of the Church’s condemnation of socialism. But are there also issues with capitalism? While popes have praised many values often associated with capitalism, they have also warned against extreme forms of the system that undermine human rights.

Here are some problems with capitalism that we see in our world today.

Capitalism, like socialism, can lead to a concentration of power.
G.K. Chesterton famously remarked that, historically, the problem with capitalism is there are “too few capitalists.” As a result, power is taken from families and put in the hands of a small number in charge.

We see these problems when a few big businesses dominate certain industries. Not only is competition weakened, but these corporations end up having more political power and money and can more easily exploit their workforce.

Extreme forms of capitalism may ultimately lead to socialism.
When capitalism gets out of hand, the government has to enact regulations. That’s fine as long as these genuinely protect the legitimate rights of businesses, their workers, and their customers.

When big business continually undermines the rights of workers and the public at large, people more readily embrace extreme government intervention, as socialist and communist societies demonstrate.

The ultimate measure of an economic system is how well it respects and protects the dignity of the human person, who is made in God’s image.
One may argue that capitalism does this better than socialism. But even capitalism needs to be reigned in, as Pope St. John Paul II taught: “….Can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society?.…If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

The Church doesn’t officially endorse a particular economic system. It does teach the values that any truly just economy should have. It’s incumbent upon us to let our minds be molded by these teachings as we participate in political life.

There are many powerful arguments for God’s existence, such as St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency.

Then there are trickier ones, such as invoking our free will to prove that there must be a creator. This explanation can work, but it does have some pitfalls.

Here’s how to frame (and not frame) the argument from free will when you’re debating an atheist.

Don’t act like the existence of God automatically follows from the existence of free will.
For those who don’t accept God’s existence, it’s easy to account for free will by referencing natural causes through biological evolution. It’s a similar mindset to the scientist who — though witnessing the extraordinary order in creation — thinks that natural explanations suffice in lieu of a creator.

Many atheistic philosophers and scientists have written and lectured extensively on how free will could have arisen without divine guidance. Their arguments are faulty, but be wary of debating them without being able to refute these arguments.

Adding love to the free will argument makes it more convincing.
It helps to point out that love can’t be mere subjective desire, but it is ordered toward the divine. You can demonstrate that it’s something we’re responsible for and can freely choose.

The problem with arguing for free will without love is that many atheists embrace an isolated, ego-centered view wherein they see themselves as masters of their own fate. To them, free will merely proves their own power, not God’s. It’s this mindset that leads some atheists to say that if they did discover God was real, they’d shake their fists in defiance of Him.

Theists have yet to find an argument from free will alone that convincingly leads to the existence of God. As it stands, various metaphysical arguments are much more effective.

But if you have developed a good argument building from this point, please share!

Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary always remained a virgin. She never had intimate relations with St. Joseph — Jesus being conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit.

While many Protestants believe in Christ’s miraculous conception, they hold that Mary and Joseph had other children after our Lord was born.

But Scripture, the Church Fathers and even the early Protestant Reformers are against them.

Here’s the evidence that Jesus was indeed Mary’s only child.

The “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are not his blood brothers.
In Matthew 13:55 we read, “Is not this [Jesus] the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Sure sounds like Jesus had siblings!

The first-century Jews used the word “brother” to mean more than blood brothers. It also meant “cousin” and, in some cases, “uncle.” The Hebrew and Aramaic languages don’t have a word for “cousin.”

Scripture confirms that James and Joseph are not Jesus’ blood relatives. In Matthew 27:56, they are identified as the sons of a different Mary than Our Lady.

The Church Fathers defended Mary’s perpetual virginity.
From The Protoevangelium of James (written c. A.D. 120) onwards, there is a clear consensus among early Christians that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. The first record we have of someone challenging this universal belief is Tertullian (A.D. 160-240), but this was after he became a heretic. The Church Fathers roundly criticized him and later heretics for their doubts about the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity.

The Reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli was one of the most extreme early Protestants, yet his words on Mary’s perpetual virginity sound Catholic: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the Gospel as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the Son of God, and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Martin Luther had this to say about our Lady: “Christ…was the only Son of Mary and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.”

Even some later Protestants — such as Methodist founder John Wesley – believed in the ancient teaching, saying, “as well after as before she brought [Christ] forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Here’s a question for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters: Why contradict the unanimous voice of Scripture, the early Church Fathers, and the early Protestants?

Among atheists, a popular objection to Christianity is the so-called “dark passages” of the Old Testament, wherein God seems to command the slaughtering of an entire people. Even many Christians are troubled by these passages, which include Deut. 20:16-18:

“But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per′izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb′usites, as the Lord your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God.”

If our Lord is a God of love, why would He command the killing of an entire people, which seems to include non-combatant children and women?

Here are a few explanations:

1. God has the right to take life. If God has the right to take life, He has the right to deputize others to do so. In other words, He can choose the methods by which He takes life. For example, He sent plagues that probably killed innocent people. He is free to choose the sword as well. While this view is technically correct, it’s probably not the best one to use in a debate with an atheist.

2. These passages don’t literally describe the killing of noncombatants. Instead, they were written several centuries later, using exaggerated warfare rhetoric. This was meant to highlight that the Israelites shouldn’t mix with the other nations. Evidence for the exaggerated rhetoric view comes from the Book of Judges, which states that not all members of the nations mentioned in Deuteronomy were destroyed. This continues in modern times. For example, a friend asks, “How’d the basketball game go?” You respond, “We slaughtered them!” Obviously, you didn’t kill off the team.

3. These passages are provisional. There are elements of the Old Testament that are imperfect and provisional and are meant as temporary rules or directives for God’s people until they reach the capacity to accept the fullness of His law of love in Christ. In other words, God was working with what He had: creatures with free will who weren’t ready to embrace certain truths, including the immorality of slaughtering innocent people in combat.

Of these three explanations, number two is the best one to share with most atheists. However, they all show that our God is not the capricious killer some atheists portray Him to be.

Many times pro-lifers have to convince abortion supporters that the unborn child is a person. Yet some pro-abortionists agree with us on the unborn child’s personhood and dignity. They’ve created another argument to attempt to justify abortion called the Violinist Argument.

In a nutshell, it says that someone can be equal to another but not have the right to their body. To support this point, pro-abortionist author Judith Jarvis Thomson asks you to imagine that you’re kidnapped, wake up in a hospital bed, and find a violinist attached to you. The violinist will die unless they stay connected to you because you’re the only person in the world with the body type to sustain their life. The doctor says you only have to be connected for nine months.

Thomson argues that although the violinist has equal rights to you, they don’t have the right to use your body without your consent. Therefore, you have the right to unplug them.

According to Thomson, pregnant women have the same right to “unplug” from the child in their womb through abortion.

Here’s why the Violinist Argument fails.

1. In most cases, a woman consented to the act of sex that produced the child.
Generally, most people know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. That’s why when a couple has sex, breaks up, and the woman finds out she’s pregnant, the father has to pay child support. He may not want the child, but he consented to the sex that led to the child’s conception.

In the violinist scenario, you were kidnapped and attached to the musician. You had no idea the misfortune would befall you.

2. Parents have a responsibility to their children.
The violinist is a stranger, so you have no obligation to keep them plugged into you. But parents of an unborn child have an obligation to care for their offspring. They’re not required to do that for a stranger.

This is also why abortion is still wrong in cases of rape. Even though the woman didn’t consent to intercourse, she is still the mother of the child. While she isn’t obligated to care for the child long-term, she does have to provide for its basic needs until another caregiver can be found.

3. The uterus is in the woman’s body, but it’s meant to nurture other bodies.
A spin on the violinist argument goes like this: “You give birth to a child who gets kidney disease and will die unless you give them a kidney. You’re not obligated to give them your kidney. In like manner, a woman isn’t obligated to give her unborn child her uterus.”

Now ask yourself this: “What is the nature and purpose of the kidney versus the uterus?” The kidney exists in your body, for your body. That’s why the law can’t force you to give someone else your kidney.

But the uterus exists in your body for another person’s body. During a woman’s fertile years, her uterus is frequently preparing to receive the next generation’s body.

Like all other pro-abortion arguments, the Violinist Argument fails on many levels. Supporters could try to find a better argument for abortion or, better yet, embrace the dignity of every human person, born and unborn.

We still await a renewal of religious life in the Church, as the number of men and women entering religious communities remains historically low.

It’s likely that some of you reading this have a call to religious life. But there may be things standing in the way of discerning your call.

Here are a few of the most common objections people make to becoming a religious sister or brother.

1. I can’t commit to something for the rest of my life.
We live in an age of broken promises. The high divorce rate has destroyed many people’s faith in life-long commitments, including religious life. Plus, our modern world offers us seemingly limitless alternatives to whatever vocation we are considering.

When you join a religious order, you don’t immediately promise to stay there for life. You go through a period of discernment where you’ll test your call. Don’t let fear of commitment keep you from trying religious life. If it’s not meant for you, God and your superiors will make that clear.

Time spent in a religious order is never wasted. You’ll grow in ways that will help you in the future, no matter what vocation you ultimately choose.

2. I have a strong desire for marriage.
Good! Then you’ll make a great sister or brother. Here’s the thing: The vocation to marriage is written in our human nature. Even those called to the priesthood or religious life may feel the tug toward marriage at some point.

Religious life doesn’t destroy our marital instincts, it elevates them. Every religious is called to be a spouse of the eternal Bridegroom and a spiritual mother or father to the people they encounter.

Religious life is simply a different way to be a spouse and parent.

3. There are difficult people in the community I’m thinking about entering.
Religious life isn’t easy. Those of us on the outside are tempted to look in and see nothing but brothers or sisters living in eternal peace and harmony. But becoming a religious doesn’t automatically purge us of annoying habits. In fact, one way that religious life sanctifies you is by teaching you to continue loving even difficult brothers or sisters. Frankly, that’s not much different than marriage, where spouses have to learn to put up with each other’s faults.

If you’ve thought about religious life and still aren’t sure about your vocation, talk to a priest or a spiritual director. Religious life is a very fulfilling vocation that will do much to help you reach heaven.

Protestants believe in sola scriptura, the idea that Scripture alone is the final authority for determining Christian beliefs and practices. Catholics contend that we need an authoritative Church to correctly interpret the Bible.

Some Protestants have countered this by saying that Catholics believe that the Church is more important than the Bible.

That’s not true. Here’s why.

The Church is not a source of revelation.
When we speak of the “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, note that only Scripture and Tradition pass on God’s divine revelation. The Church is not a source of revelation but rather the infallible interpreter of the other two “legs.” In this sense, you could say that the Bible is more important than the Church.

But Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter, which is the Church’s Magisterium. When there seems to be opposition between the words of Scripture and the Church, we listen to the Church.

“Doesn’t this put the Church above Scripture?” you may ask.

No. Any perceived conflict between Scripture and infallible Church teaching is really a conflict between our personal interpretation of Scripture and that of the Church. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible also guides the Magisterium. And if there’s one thing we know about God, it’s that He does not contradict Himself.

The Church’s magisterial authority doesn’t make it better than Scripture, as Vatican II explains: “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”

In other words, the Magisterium is a servant of God’s Word, and God wishes to speak to us through His Church’s voice.

Nobody likes to wait, especially in our fast-paced world. We enjoy fast food, instant connections with people via social media, and on-demand news updates.

Yet life still makes us wait on many things, whether it’s discovering our vocation, finding a new job, or recovering from a long illness.

God gives us a special virtue to help with the waiting: patience. It’s something we can all use more of.

What is patience?
Patience is a form of courage. There are two parts to courage: attacking and enduring. Enduring involves patience.

Patience helps you hold onto something good and preserve the use of your reason despite obstacles, especially obstacles that have stood in your way for a long time.

For example, you may have to care for a sick loved one for a month. This places some obstacles in the way of certain goods you want to pursue, such as traveling. Patience helps you wait for that good or opens you up to another good God wants to give you in its place.

Patience balances you between two extremes.
Some people expect nothing but bad things out of life. Others think they are above misfortune. Both extremes are dangerous.

God wants you to experience some trials in life to help you grow, but He doesn’t want you to be destroyed by them. Patience helps you peacefully accept that bad things will happen and fortifies you so you can face them. The good will win in the end.

Patience doesn’t require you to be a doormat. There are some obstacles in life that you should confront. For example, if you’re bullied at work or school, you should take steps to stop it. (This may require getting help from others and that’s OK.)

Be assured that God will grant you complete freedom from tribulations if you follow Him. He can neither deceive nor be deceived. Meditate often on this truth to find the patience to bear whatever life brings you.