Socialism

Summary of Content
This article condemns socialism as anti Christian philosophy. From beginning to end, its hateful tone and description of socialism does not change. In the first paragraph, it already denounces socialism as a deadly plague creeping into society. Later, it ends with calling socialism a step into wickedness.
Most concerning about socialism is condemning of two things. First, the Church (or so the article claims) was built on the inequality of men. Hence, socialism creates chaos because people refuse to obey higher power. This, to the church’s eye, is dangerous because it destroys God’s natural order.
As well, socialism permitting divorces is not viewed pleasantly by the Church. Divorcing, the article states, is not permitted even in barbarous people (keep in mind the date at which this article was written). In eyes of the Church at the time, socialists are regarded lower than even barbarous people are.
Questions On the Article:
1) Why is it that socialism is condemned in the Church’s eye since in Heaven, there is not supposed to be any ownership of property?
2) Why is it that the church seems to promote the inequality of men? Is that not contradictory to the Bible stating that all people are made in the image of God.
3) What is the reason that the Church forbids divorcing?
Objective Conclusion
It is evident that socialism is evil in the eyes of the Church. The church correctly claims that socialism cannot create the Utopia it promises. Most people in socialist nations are not happy. As seen in histories of China and Russia under a communist government, socialism creates tyrannical governments where civilians are lazy and unmotivated. Such is not someone beautiful in the Church’s eyes.

Reflection/Subjective Reactions
“Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty” (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 1); “Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism)’s condemnation is devastating, and seem unfit for a social system created to imitate heaven; now, no longer are the poor oppressed and social inequality plaguing its unfortunate victims. Through invoking language, “Quod Apostolici Muneris (On Socialism) contrasts everything socialism represents with God’s will. From God’s marriage to church and “natural law”, it condemns socialism as “deadly plague that creeps into the very fibers of human” (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 1). Unfortunately, the presented arguments victimize socialism more than to reveal its evils. The language, though full of powerful words, holds empty of evidence to justify the claim.
By attacking socialism’s view human property, it claims that socialism is stealing and robbery of human property which is part of human nature. This, it argues, is part of God’s will. Unfortunately, this fails to recognize that men and women are in made in the image of God. Since all people, regardless of wealth and social statuses are in the God’s image, no inequality should exist. Yet despite this, the document argues that “the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality of rich may be rightly invaded, who are born with different powers of body and mind.” (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 8).”
Most vile in the Church’s eyes is socialism allowing divorces. Such a society, it claims are without “the foundation of society …(which is) the indissoluble union of man and wife. (POPE LEO XIII, 1878, 2),” and cannot be a human place. Human place, defined in this manner, ignores the reason why socialism promotes its philosophy. To comprehend this philosophy, the Church should instead examine why socialism promotes divorce because only that way can the Church be more open-minded. By examining arguments such as, for example, Bernard Shaw’s essay Socialism and Marriage claiming that “socialism’s permitting divorces allows that both parties (to be) either married or unmarried;” will present a fresh prospective on the same issue. It is through examining both sides of an issue that an answer to complicated questions such as whether divorces should be allowed can be answered. Socialism, as correctly condemned the church, fails to delivery the quality to society what it originally intended to do. Yet the arguments presented do more to victimize socialism than to reveal its wrongs. This failure results from inability to understand and acknowledging the true causes of socialism. Only by examining why socialism exists can its errors be corrected.