At first it didn’t read like a “Catholic” article, then I noticed it was written by Armstrong Williams, and I found this part both good, and not so good:
“..By returning to the lessons of the past. Decent and God-fearing souls must help rebuild American community by reclaiming the traditional values that built it — faith, thrift, work, social justice, personal accountability, and enlightened compassion. Taken together, these elements make up the fertile soil out of which a vibrant community may grow....”
Social Justice should be replaced with Education, and “enlightened compassion” should have desire to own one’s own property free from the tyranny of the majority or minority.
For me, I liked it.
oblomov: Given that this was published in a CAtholic journal, I would guess that the author might advocate some form of distributism rather than socialism per se.
HM-BAGiven that this was published in a CAtholic journal, I would guess that the author might advocate some form of distributism rather than socialism per se.
FWIW, authentic Catholic social teaching advocates a strong element of personal responsibility of those who have to those who don't. Authentic Catholic social teaching gives grave cautions against what is called the "social assistance state." Authentic Catholic social teaching does condemn "unrestrained capitalism," true, but it condemns "socialism" outright. It warns against government interference except for the briefest amount possible during serious emergencies. (The type of assistance the government might provide refugees after a tsunami, for example)
Authentic Catholic social teaching includes a principle known as subsidiarity: matters ought to be handled by the smallest social unit possible -- the individual, the family, the neighborhood, the community, the province (or county),the region (or US state), and only then by the State. One other point: just because the unit that should do something isn't doing their part, doesn't mean that the responsibility should default to the next higher level. For example, if a city doesn't take its responsibility to provide a police force to protect its citizens, it doesn't automatically mean that the Feds should roll in and take over the place.
And one other thing is that it draws a clear distinction between the responsibilities of society (i.e., people) and the responsibilities of the State (i.e., government).
Unfortunately, you don't hear much of that from AMCHURCH® -- I don't mean to give a catechism class, but I wanted to clear up that AMCHURCH® doesn't always give the whole picture (especially when it comes to "social justice" issues).