As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, there has been a veritable tsunami of
authorities — usually self-appointed — insisting that “democratic” (or any
other kind of) socialism is not merely consistent with Christian social
teaching, but is the purest form of it.
The evidence presented . . . okay, asserted without a shred of evidence
. . . was that C.S. Lewis “approved” of socialism.
 |
| Pope Benedict XVI, not a socialist |
Since the
individuals making that assertion didn’t bother to support it with any evidence
or even a vague reference or cite, we did a search for mentions of Lewis and
socialism. All we found was a statement
that any rational person would take as rejecting both socialism and capitalism.
This is
consistent with the socialist modus operandi. Anxious to find any justification for their
position, they twist everything to fit their private interpretations. If that doesn’t work, they simply find
something new to twist.
Thus, when Pope
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.
 |
| Cardinal Ratzinger, also not a socialist |
Although it was
written before Ratzinger became pope, a passage from the essay was — surprise!
— 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.
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 called “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.
 |
| Pope Pius XI condemned socialism . . . oops. |
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.
 |
| "Hi, guys. Did you miss me?" |
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.)
(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:
 |
| Bishop von Ketteler, not a socialist, either. |
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 — which we will address in the next posting
on this subject.
#30#