In today’s world
it is easy to get the impression that the meaning and purpose of life is for
everyone’s needs to be provided by someone else and all desires gratified
without effort on the part of the recipient.
Current thought as reported in the media suggests that a justly
structured social order is one in which matters are arranged in such a way that
as many people as possible can remain permanent children, complete with “safe
spaces” and periodic “time outs” for temper tantrums.
 |
| "Like, wow, man, get your own safe space. This is mine." |
In all
probability, however, that impression is largely generated by media hype. It is helped along by academics who, if they
believe their own propaganda, think they can design the perfect society. Life would be free from want and care simply
by stripping everyone (except academics and politicians) of power and turning
people into dependents of the State.
In the modern
world most people — the ones generally disregarded by the media — would
probably go along with or remain ignorant of the proposals of academics, fringe
groups, or the economic and financial élites
that control the world’s monetary systems.
This would not necessarily be because they want to, but because they see
no alternative to the current system that concentrates wealth and distributes
power on the basis of political expedience instead of justice. They have to go along to get along.
 |
| Notice we put this image on the left. . . . ? |
According to
media reports, the democratic socialist movement in America originated in the
three socialist parties co-founded by Eugene Victor Debs (1855-1926), Social
Democracy of America (1897), Social Democratic Party of America (1898), and the
Socialist Party of America (1901).
Despite Debs’s remarkable performance in the 1912 presidential race,
however, the movement did not pick up steam until the so-called global “Great
Recession” of the late 2000s and early 2010. (“Rise of the Democratic
Socialists,” The Week, July 30, 2018,
http://theweek.com/articles/786937/rise-democratic-socialists, accessed August
1, 2018.)
Democratic
socialism actually goes back much further than its adherents believe,
however. As our research demonstrates,
modern socialism began in the early nineteenth century as “the democratic
religion,” a materialist replacement for traditional faiths.
 |
| "Party like it's 1848, Dude!" |
Modern socialism
first appeared in reaction to the totalitarian excesses of the French
Revolution. It was promoted as a
replacement for outdated traditional Christianity, both Catholic and
Protestant, which seemed incapable of dealing with the problems that arose with
the rise of nationalism and the Industrial Revolution. Atheistic “scientific socialism,” which Karl
Marx (1818-1883) called “communism” to distinguish it from forms of socialism
tainted by religion, only made its appearance a generation later.
Whatever its
roots, the latest phase of the movement got its primary impetus from the
growing uncertainty many people today have about the future. Especially in the United States, millennials
were confronted with a rapidly rising cost of education and a greatly
diminished “jobs market” — the latter an interesting concept in itself.
In search of
something, anything, that would guarantee them the security they believed they
had been promised and that was their due, millennials flocked to the standard
of democratic socialism. Official
membership of the Democratic Socialists of America increased 900% from 2005 to
2015. (Ibid.)
 |
| "Guys, like, you know I never said half the things I said." |
In religious
society, particularly in the Catholic Church, the election of Pope Francis in
2013 seemed almost as if Heaven itself was handing down a mandate for
democratic socialism. Francis was now
head of an organization wracked by scandal and saddled with what many perceived
as outdated and inadequate responses to the evils afflicting the modern world. His initial statements as reported in the
media appeared to endorse democratic socialism in all but name as his proposed
solution to the problems of Church and State.
When — as was
inevitable — Francis failed to live up to the expectations of the socialists
for not following through on things he never said and promises he never made,
advocates of the new socialism cast their nets wider. This led seekers to “Europe and Its
Discontents,” an essay in the anthology Europe:
Today and Tomorrow (2004) by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. After Ratzinger’s election as Pope Benedict
XVI in 2005, the essay was revised and included in Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam
(2006). The latter is a compendium in
the form of a dialogue with the atheist philosopher and politician Marcello Pera,
at that time president of the Italian Senate.
Although it was
written before Ratzinger became pope, a passage from the essay was widely
touted as proof of a papal endorsement of democratic socialism. Like Francis’s reported statements, however,
the piece was not what it might have seemed at first glance.
 |
| "I do wish people would would stop putting words in my mouth." |
In the essay,
after sketching a very brief history of Europe up to the French Revolution, the
cardinal noted that out of the wreckage of the vestiges of the Holy Roman
Empire two views of the State emerged, both of which were “liberal.” These, to paraphrase and summarize, were:
·
French or
European (Totalitarian) Liberalism.
The collective or the State itself is sovereign. People have only such rights as are useful or
expedient and are agreed upon by consensus or by those who have power. Church and State are completely divorced; the
State absorbs the Church, or the Church takes over the State.
·
English
or Germanic (Laissez Faire)
Liberalism. The political or
economic élite that controls the
State is sovereign. This élite has whatever rights it can
maintain against others, while ordinary people only have such rights as the élite finds useful or expedient.
Ratzinger then
noted a third model, the American system which he hesitated to call “liberal,”
although the label is accurate. In the
system that developed in the United States, people come together to form a
state, a state does not create people.
 |
| "You ought to see what they've done to me, Ben." |
As declared in
the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the idea of the American system is that
the State “establish[es] justice” and keeps order at the direction of “We, the
People.” In this way a “more perfect
union” is formed that provides the proper environment for every person to
promote “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the Declaration of
Independence puts it.
In a state in
which economic and political sovereignty starts with the human person — not
society in any form (Cf. Divini
Redemptoris, § 29.) — the State has only such rights as the citizens
delegate to it. Organized religion
(“Church”) and State are separated into their respective spheres, but with
common areas of interaction and mutual support.
Each person is free to follow any religious or spiritual belief or
philosophy as long as no one is harmed.
Nor may the State, the only “social tool” with legitimate monopoly
power, interfere.
Although the
United States is predominantly Protestant (at least in culture), the future
pope noted that the American model allows more equitable cooperation between
any organized religion and the government.
As he noted favorably, if not entirely correctly, “[t]he religious sphere thus
acquires a significant weight in public affairs and emerges as a pre-political
and supra-political force with the potential to have a decisive impact on
political life.” (Joseph Ratzinger and Marcello Pera, Without Roots: The West, Relativism,
Christianity, Islam. New York: Basic
Books, 2006, 70.)
 |
| "Uh, huh. Don't tell ME God told you that." |
(Ratzinger, of course, seems
to have meant “political” in its much broader, Aristotelian sense. This would not be prohibited under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which precludes control by any religious
body over the monopoly powers of the State, i.e.,
governance and administration.)
Despite the prevailing
Protestant culture and the limitations on organized religions — and surprising
many — Ratzinger maintained that in regard to Church-State relations the U.S.
“is in profound compliance with the faith.” (Ibid., 71) He then made the
statement that a number of people have taken as an endorsement of democratic
socialism:
Let us return to the situation in Europe. In the nineteenth century, the two models
that I described above were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split
into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within
the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal
positions, which it developed and corrected.
It also managed to appeal to various religious denominations. In England it became the political party of
the Catholics, who had never felt quite at home among either the Protestant
conservatives or the liberals. In
Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism
than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was
and is close to Catholic social
doctrine, and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation
of a social consciousness. [Emphasis added.] (Ibid., 71-72; cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Europe: Today and Tomorrow.
San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2004, 28.)
As this passage
gives the impression that Ratzinger gave a moderate approval of socialist
goals, it is possible for someone seeking to justify democratic socialism to
take it as something of an endorsement.
A critique of Marxist or totalitarian socialism that follows (Ibid., 72-74.) only strengthens that
impression. There are, however, two
serious problems with asserting that the passage constitutes an endorsement of
democratic socialism or anything else.
 |
| "They've twisted our words since before my day." |
One, given the
context, it is difficult to see how the expression “close to” could be
construed as an endorsement of socialism of any kind. Instead, Ratzinger explained that when
socialism first appeared, it split into a totalitarian branch corresponding to
European liberalism, and a democratic branch that did not quite correlate with
English liberalism. (Ratzinger dated the origin of socialism from the first
general use of the term in the late 1840s, although it was coined in in the
early 1830s.)
Consequently, as
Ratzinger related, European Catholics rejected both the “conservative”
(elitist) liberalism on the English/Germanic model and French/European
collectivist liberalism. They turned
instead to the democratic socialist model.
This, in the
absence of the American alternative, appeared to hold the middle ground between
totalitarian liberalism and its socialist counterpart in the form of Marxist
communism, and elitist liberalism and its monopoly capitalist counterpart. Democratic socialism was therefore the closest to Catholic teaching among the
available alternatives in Europe where the American system did not operate.
As Ratzinger
implied by contrasting the situation in the United States with that of Europe,
however, democratic socialism and the alternatives are not Catholic teaching.
Democratic socialism not only does not tend to the good, but in
Ratzinger’s opinion is part of the problem.
 |
| Durkheim: "God is a divinized society!!" |
Two, in his
conclusion to his critique of Marxism a few pages after the cited passage,
Ratzinger noted that “[t]he unresolved issue of Marxism lives on: the crumbling
of man’s original uncertainties about God, himself, and the universe.” (Ratzinger and Pera, Without Roots, op. cit., 74.) He then declared,
[H]uman rights and human dignity should be presented as values that
take precedence over the jurisdiction of any state. Fundamental rights are neither created by the
lawmaker nor granted to the citizen.
“But rather they exist in their own right and must always be respected
by lawmakers, to whom they are given beforehand as values belonging to a higher
order.” [Giovanna Borradori, Philosophy
in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003,
88, 114-15. (Note in text.)] The value
of human dignity, which takes precedence over all political action and all
political decision-making refers to the Creator: only He can establish values
that are grounded in the essence of humankind and that are inviolable. The existence of values that cannot be
modified by anyone is the true guarantee of our freedom and of human greatness;
in this fact, the Christian faith sees the mystery of the Creator and the
condition of man, who was made in God’s image. (Ratzinger and Pera, Without Roots, op. cit., 74-75.)
Since the
fundamental principle of all forms of socialism is that the welfare of the
people as a whole takes precedence over the needs, wants, desires, and even
rights of any child, woman, or man, there is only one possible interpretation
of Ratzinger’s statement. That is, while
socialism, democratic or otherwise, may contain much that is good and true,
even to the extent of a certain similarity to Catholic social doctrine — “which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied” (Quadragesimo Anno, § 120.) — it is essentially and irrevocably directly contrary to
nature itself.
#30#