What do you think?
Rate this book
Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?
This long-discredited economic philosophy is making a comeback, not only on college campuses and political talk shows but among sincere Catholics. Some think it could be the answer to greed, and globalism. Some even argue that it’s the best way to obey Christ’s command to help the poor. Let’s give socialism a fresh chance, they say. A democratic socialism this time, friendly to religion and ordered to the common good, as the Church says the economy should be. In Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?, Trent Horn and Catherine R. Pakaluk refute this tempting but false notion. Drawing on Scripture, history, Catholic social teaching, and basic economic reality, they show beyond a doubt that Catholicism and socialism are utterly incompatible. Along the way, they debunk many of the common claims used to keep afloat the fantasy of a Christian-socialist hybrid, -Since the early Christians kept their property in common, so should we. -Jesus would be in favor an economic system that guarantees everyone food, health care, and education. -The Church teaches that Catholics must find a “third way” between the extremes of Communism and capitalism. -Socialism would work if it were just done right, like in Sweden. Although there is no one “Catholic” economic system, Can a Catholic Be a Socialist? helps you understand commonsense economic principles that are truly in line with the Faith. For we all should work for an economy that gives life, fostering prosperity and the common good while providing opportunities to practice temperance and charity.
136 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 3, 2020
70 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
About the author
Trent Horn
29 books340 followersAfter his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn pursued an undergraduate degree in history from Arizona State University. He then earned a graduate degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College.
Trent is a regular guest on the radio program Catholic Answers Live, a lecturer who speaks across the country on issues related to the Catholic faith, and the author of two books, Answering Atheism and Persuasive Pro-life.
Trent is a regular guest on the radio program Catholic Answers Live, a lecturer who speaks across the country on issues related to the Catholic faith, and the author of two books, Answering Atheism and Persuasive Pro-life.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
March 29, 2020
I’ve been a reader and listener of Trent Horn for several years now and have always appreciated his skilful and sympathetic style of apologetics, particularly when it comes to pro-life issues. When I heard that he was writing a book on socialism from a Catholic perspective, I was both intrigued and confused, as it seemed quite distant from his usual area of expertise. My doubts only increased after hearing Trent talk about the topic on his podcast but, understanding the limited nature of such a medium and knowing nothing about his co-author, Catherine Pakaluk (a PhD in economics), I committed to giving “Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?” a fair reading. I read the entire ebook in one sitting and confess that I was disappointed by the nature of the argument presented and the dearth of evidence used to support it.
The authors’ central thesis is that “not only are Catholics no obligated to be socialists, they… cannot be socialists. It is not a permissible or prudent way to address the problem of poverty”. The target audience are clearly Catholics but evidently those who have only a rudimentary understanding of socialism or have already thrown their lot in against it. It’s a book that preaches to the converted.
Below, I’d like to address some general issues that came up for me.
Firstly, what form of socialism are we addressing here? At one point the authors quote John Paul II who states that capitalism as an economic model to solve poverty issues “is complex and says it depends on what you mean by ‘capitalism’”. This is very true… and telling. Capitalism is hardly a one-suit gentleman and comes in various forms, some more effective and acceptable than others, existing “on a spectrum” (as they acknowledge). Unfortunately, the authors do not give the same courtesy to socialism. Throughout the book, socialism is understood solely as Marxist socialism, with practically every socialist argued against (for instance, Lenin or David Katch) being a Marxist. Even the magisterial documents cited, such as Divini Redemptoris, Rerum Novarum or Notis et Nobiscum are targeting Marxism specifically.
This book completely fails to mention, let alone engage with, the positions of broadly ethical socialism (including guild socialism and Fabianism) and Christian socialism. There is a very rich tradition of the latter. Just off the top of my head I can name almost a dozen ethical/Christian socialists who do not subscribe to Marxism but have nevertheless worked to introduce a more socialist economy and political system, for instance, R.H. Tawney, Archbishop William Temple, Charles Kingsley, F.D. Maurice, John Ludlow, Charles Gore, Philip Snowden, G.D.H. Cole, Saint-Simon, Donald Soper… The fact that none of them receive any attention or that the influence of ethical socialism on the British Labour Party and trade union movement is left unmentioned is astonishing. (And Trent and Catherine are aware of non-Marxist socialism as they state: “The ultimate goal of socialists, especially those influenced by Karl Marx, is the elimination of social classes”, implying there are socialists who are not influenced by Marx.)
To the authors’ credit, they do tackle democratic socialism (see chapter 4: “What about Democratic Socialism?”), and even concede that “a Catholic can advocate for policies that cohere with Catholic social teaching” (emphasis added) if they are democratic socialists (which seems to suggest that a Catholic can be some form of socialist and therefore contradicts their main contention). Unfortunately, this treatment is incredibly brief. Any boons that might be wrought from socialism, such as social welfare, are also warned against; John Paul II is marshalled in critique of a “welfare state” that grows too large and undermines economic enterprise (without any substantiating facts). They highlight moral problems with government control over major industries; however, they fail to consider that privately-owned industries are often equally insidious (neither Planned Parenthood nor Playboy are an organ of the state), and in fact, government policy and funding can be changed far more easily than the direction of private businesses.
Secondly, the understanding and presentation of socialism in this book is too simplistic and would make a high school politics student blush. Nowhere is it defined, even in general terms, in a way comparable with sophisticated definitions found in academic literature. Furthermore, there are some wild claims that aren’t even true under some Marxist modes of socialism, for example, that it involves “taking away… private ownership of property”, “[t]he communal ownership of wealth and property” where “no one could exchange privately owned goods in order to make a profit”, and that a socialist economy is synonymous with a planned economy. Perhaps the most egregious error is the equivocation of socialism with Communism, as they contend: “we use the terms socialism and Communism to refer to the same kind of centrally planned economic system that rejects the ownership of private property”. You might as well use “free market” or “neo-liberalism” as synonymous with “capitalism” (it isn’t). Neither historically nor academically are “socialism and Communism… used more or less interchangeably” as in this book. (In fact, they rightly state that Communism is a specific stage of a development of socialism, and while this is correct, it is only true under a Marxist framework of necessary historical progress.)
At times, it sounds like the authors’ understanding of socialism comes from just reading The Communist Manifesto. Very few socialist theorists are tackled or given a fair hearing, with points otherwise drawn from writers like Chesterton and Dorothy Day, arguably great thinkers but not exactly experts in this field. The general critique of socialism is also poor. Trent and Catherine say, for instance, that under socialism everyone would be paid identically (which never happened) and this would undermine the division of labour (which it never has). Another reason why socialism is not a wise economic system to adopt is because it disincentivises people if the government simply “confiscates wealth or income above a certain level”. Yet, I am unaware of any socialist government that actually did this and no supporting evidence is provided alongside the claim. (A discussion of progressive taxation would have been helpful at this juncture of the book.)
I thought the chapter dealing with “The Nordic Myth” would be the most fascinating. The authors argue, as they have throughout the book, that social welfare is not the same as socialism. While this is true, it is also true that socialist thinkers have been instrumental in developing government systems of social welfare. Additionally, it is suggested that these Scandinavian countries are not socialist at all (not even slightly, apparently). Based on whose assessment? The Heritage Foundation – a conservative American thinktank, which is obviously the most impartial source to reach such conclusions! Again, the main problem here is that the authors think that any kind of free market is antithetical to socialism because they are just really focusing on Marxist socialism.
Thirdly, many of the points made throughout the book lack evidence to substantiate them. There is not really much else to say here except that most claims are not backed up and perspectives (other than magisterial ones) are poorly sourced. Where historical cases are referenced, they are often biased or irrelevant. Every detailed examination of “socialism” is of a Communist state (such as, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or East Germany – even the Nazis get the benefit of being socialists) and the theorists discussed are like the “Who’s Who” of 20th century villains: Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot. Marx and Engels are also identified as the “real” “first socialists”, which they are not (as any cursory survey of socialist history will tell you). The authors also spend far too much time focusing on the group Tradinista!, which in the world of socialism, accounts for next-to-nothing. They appear to only have existed for three years, are Marxist and haven’t had any lasting influence. Once again, there are entire streams that flow from the socialist river that are completely ignored.
Lastly, if Trent and Catherine were trying to present a defence of capitalism, they did a fairly sad job of it. While I don’t have a major beef with capitalism (in a tempered state, it has been made to work quite justly and equitably), the justification offered by the authors for this economic system is at times frankly bewildering. Without any substantiating facts (yes, again!), the authors make whoopers like “Capitalism doesn’t require greed; it restrains it through voluntary, mutual exchange” and that capitalism curbs our base impulses through an “invisible hand” (a nod to Adam Smith here). This is quite odd considering the explosion of the gambling, tobacco and pornography industries based entirely on profiting on people’s baser instincts in a free market economy. While they are correct in highlighting the importance of profit in industry and how this works as an incentive and motivation, the discussion is far too simplistic, without any real consideration of the exploitation of workers under capitalism. It’s as if every capitalist business owner is a bastion of generosity and virtue (yes, there are some philanthropists – Rockefeller gets a mention in the book – but they represent the exception, not the rule). However, they do admit that capitalism is far from perfect, stating “abuse does not take away the proper use”. A pity such charity does not extend to socialism.
Just as capitalism has an ideal that is never reached, so does socialism. Both systems have positive and negative qualities, both can be corrupted. Instead of approaching it in such an elementary manner and simultaneously attempting to buttress capitalism, Trent and Catherine would have been better off focusing on socialism, its complexities and arguing what would be acceptable and what would not.
I’ll end with a bit of imprudent psychologising. When I read a book like “Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?”, written by two intelligent and articulate people, I often wonder what the motivation is. Socialism is hardly a lively force in Western liberal democracies or any current challenge to Catholicism. Writing as an Australian, our society doesn’t have the hostility towards socialism that is generally felt in America. On the whole, Australian economics and politics have been positively influenced by the tradition of labour politics and trade unionism, which both stem from a socialist root. More than anything, this book seems to be a reflection of that capitalist and independent American psyche that continues to see socialism and “big government” as a big boogey.
The authors’ central thesis is that “not only are Catholics no obligated to be socialists, they… cannot be socialists. It is not a permissible or prudent way to address the problem of poverty”. The target audience are clearly Catholics but evidently those who have only a rudimentary understanding of socialism or have already thrown their lot in against it. It’s a book that preaches to the converted.
Below, I’d like to address some general issues that came up for me.
Firstly, what form of socialism are we addressing here? At one point the authors quote John Paul II who states that capitalism as an economic model to solve poverty issues “is complex and says it depends on what you mean by ‘capitalism’”. This is very true… and telling. Capitalism is hardly a one-suit gentleman and comes in various forms, some more effective and acceptable than others, existing “on a spectrum” (as they acknowledge). Unfortunately, the authors do not give the same courtesy to socialism. Throughout the book, socialism is understood solely as Marxist socialism, with practically every socialist argued against (for instance, Lenin or David Katch) being a Marxist. Even the magisterial documents cited, such as Divini Redemptoris, Rerum Novarum or Notis et Nobiscum are targeting Marxism specifically.
This book completely fails to mention, let alone engage with, the positions of broadly ethical socialism (including guild socialism and Fabianism) and Christian socialism. There is a very rich tradition of the latter. Just off the top of my head I can name almost a dozen ethical/Christian socialists who do not subscribe to Marxism but have nevertheless worked to introduce a more socialist economy and political system, for instance, R.H. Tawney, Archbishop William Temple, Charles Kingsley, F.D. Maurice, John Ludlow, Charles Gore, Philip Snowden, G.D.H. Cole, Saint-Simon, Donald Soper… The fact that none of them receive any attention or that the influence of ethical socialism on the British Labour Party and trade union movement is left unmentioned is astonishing. (And Trent and Catherine are aware of non-Marxist socialism as they state: “The ultimate goal of socialists, especially those influenced by Karl Marx, is the elimination of social classes”, implying there are socialists who are not influenced by Marx.)
To the authors’ credit, they do tackle democratic socialism (see chapter 4: “What about Democratic Socialism?”), and even concede that “a Catholic can advocate for policies that cohere with Catholic social teaching” (emphasis added) if they are democratic socialists (which seems to suggest that a Catholic can be some form of socialist and therefore contradicts their main contention). Unfortunately, this treatment is incredibly brief. Any boons that might be wrought from socialism, such as social welfare, are also warned against; John Paul II is marshalled in critique of a “welfare state” that grows too large and undermines economic enterprise (without any substantiating facts). They highlight moral problems with government control over major industries; however, they fail to consider that privately-owned industries are often equally insidious (neither Planned Parenthood nor Playboy are an organ of the state), and in fact, government policy and funding can be changed far more easily than the direction of private businesses.
Secondly, the understanding and presentation of socialism in this book is too simplistic and would make a high school politics student blush. Nowhere is it defined, even in general terms, in a way comparable with sophisticated definitions found in academic literature. Furthermore, there are some wild claims that aren’t even true under some Marxist modes of socialism, for example, that it involves “taking away… private ownership of property”, “[t]he communal ownership of wealth and property” where “no one could exchange privately owned goods in order to make a profit”, and that a socialist economy is synonymous with a planned economy. Perhaps the most egregious error is the equivocation of socialism with Communism, as they contend: “we use the terms socialism and Communism to refer to the same kind of centrally planned economic system that rejects the ownership of private property”. You might as well use “free market” or “neo-liberalism” as synonymous with “capitalism” (it isn’t). Neither historically nor academically are “socialism and Communism… used more or less interchangeably” as in this book. (In fact, they rightly state that Communism is a specific stage of a development of socialism, and while this is correct, it is only true under a Marxist framework of necessary historical progress.)
At times, it sounds like the authors’ understanding of socialism comes from just reading The Communist Manifesto. Very few socialist theorists are tackled or given a fair hearing, with points otherwise drawn from writers like Chesterton and Dorothy Day, arguably great thinkers but not exactly experts in this field. The general critique of socialism is also poor. Trent and Catherine say, for instance, that under socialism everyone would be paid identically (which never happened) and this would undermine the division of labour (which it never has). Another reason why socialism is not a wise economic system to adopt is because it disincentivises people if the government simply “confiscates wealth or income above a certain level”. Yet, I am unaware of any socialist government that actually did this and no supporting evidence is provided alongside the claim. (A discussion of progressive taxation would have been helpful at this juncture of the book.)
I thought the chapter dealing with “The Nordic Myth” would be the most fascinating. The authors argue, as they have throughout the book, that social welfare is not the same as socialism. While this is true, it is also true that socialist thinkers have been instrumental in developing government systems of social welfare. Additionally, it is suggested that these Scandinavian countries are not socialist at all (not even slightly, apparently). Based on whose assessment? The Heritage Foundation – a conservative American thinktank, which is obviously the most impartial source to reach such conclusions! Again, the main problem here is that the authors think that any kind of free market is antithetical to socialism because they are just really focusing on Marxist socialism.
Thirdly, many of the points made throughout the book lack evidence to substantiate them. There is not really much else to say here except that most claims are not backed up and perspectives (other than magisterial ones) are poorly sourced. Where historical cases are referenced, they are often biased or irrelevant. Every detailed examination of “socialism” is of a Communist state (such as, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba or East Germany – even the Nazis get the benefit of being socialists) and the theorists discussed are like the “Who’s Who” of 20th century villains: Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot. Marx and Engels are also identified as the “real” “first socialists”, which they are not (as any cursory survey of socialist history will tell you). The authors also spend far too much time focusing on the group Tradinista!, which in the world of socialism, accounts for next-to-nothing. They appear to only have existed for three years, are Marxist and haven’t had any lasting influence. Once again, there are entire streams that flow from the socialist river that are completely ignored.
Lastly, if Trent and Catherine were trying to present a defence of capitalism, they did a fairly sad job of it. While I don’t have a major beef with capitalism (in a tempered state, it has been made to work quite justly and equitably), the justification offered by the authors for this economic system is at times frankly bewildering. Without any substantiating facts (yes, again!), the authors make whoopers like “Capitalism doesn’t require greed; it restrains it through voluntary, mutual exchange” and that capitalism curbs our base impulses through an “invisible hand” (a nod to Adam Smith here). This is quite odd considering the explosion of the gambling, tobacco and pornography industries based entirely on profiting on people’s baser instincts in a free market economy. While they are correct in highlighting the importance of profit in industry and how this works as an incentive and motivation, the discussion is far too simplistic, without any real consideration of the exploitation of workers under capitalism. It’s as if every capitalist business owner is a bastion of generosity and virtue (yes, there are some philanthropists – Rockefeller gets a mention in the book – but they represent the exception, not the rule). However, they do admit that capitalism is far from perfect, stating “abuse does not take away the proper use”. A pity such charity does not extend to socialism.
Just as capitalism has an ideal that is never reached, so does socialism. Both systems have positive and negative qualities, both can be corrupted. Instead of approaching it in such an elementary manner and simultaneously attempting to buttress capitalism, Trent and Catherine would have been better off focusing on socialism, its complexities and arguing what would be acceptable and what would not.
I’ll end with a bit of imprudent psychologising. When I read a book like “Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?”, written by two intelligent and articulate people, I often wonder what the motivation is. Socialism is hardly a lively force in Western liberal democracies or any current challenge to Catholicism. Writing as an Australian, our society doesn’t have the hostility towards socialism that is generally felt in America. On the whole, Australian economics and politics have been positively influenced by the tradition of labour politics and trade unionism, which both stem from a socialist root. More than anything, this book seems to be a reflection of that capitalist and independent American psyche that continues to see socialism and “big government” as a big boogey.
June 14, 2020
EXCELLENT discussion of socialism--what it is (and what it isn't), where it came from, and why it's wrong. A totally absorbing read that taught me a lot! There's also a good discussion of capitalism--why it works so well, and why it's morally acceptable.
The appendix on distributism was also intensely interesting. The authors are very critical of GKC's system, and I see where they're coming from. So I definitely need to do some follow-up research.
Not sure how quickly I'll get to that area of study, however, because this book has whetted my appetite for all the post-WWII history I never had much of a taste for. Cold War and Russia and Cuba and POLAND. Gimme gimme gimme.
The appendix on distributism was also intensely interesting. The authors are very critical of GKC's system, and I see where they're coming from. So I definitely need to do some follow-up research.
Not sure how quickly I'll get to that area of study, however, because this book has whetted my appetite for all the post-WWII history I never had much of a taste for. Cold War and Russia and Cuba and POLAND. Gimme gimme gimme.
July 19, 2020
I feel the need to justify myself. I do enjoy listening to Trent Horn on occasion, and I agree that socialism is impractical with regards to fallen human nature. But this book is a poor argument against Catholic socialism, due to the way it is presented.
First off, the book has little sense of structure. The chapters jump around from history to papal teachings to economics and back again, without much indication as to where they will go next. This would be fine if each chapter were self-contained, but they are in fact not. Instead of taking the time to consider the all implications or counterarguments that a point raises, authors often simply write that they will talk about these "in the sections to come". This allows them to make random affirmations without having to back them up immediately; it's a sort of verbal divide-and-conquer, in which the premises can be assumed true before even proven. To cite one instance in chapter seven, by following Pope Leo XIII's argument in Rerum Novarum, the authors say that the natural right to private property is supposed to enable us to fulfill our moral responsibilities. The example given is the duty of parents toward their children, which "stands in contrast to Marx's call to abolish... the family (which we'll examine in more detail in chapter ten)." Not good form.
Secondly, I feel like the historical analysis of socialism actually obscures the argument. Multiple times, it is affirmed that socialism is irreconcilable with a Catholic perspective. If this is the case, then why should we even spend time talking about the particular instances of socialism in the world? Instead, an argument should be made to prove the philosophy's inherent evil, using Catholic principles as premises; anything else is superfluous. Perhaps the authors thought it important to give the historical context for the papal documents they cite. But the actual effect is making the entire first half of the book feel like a historical overview, rather than a coherent argument. The same can be said for all the pragmatic arguments against socialism, especially when considering how advances in technology and AI could (in theory) eliminate human self-interest from the equation.
Thirdly, in my opinion, there is never a rigorous argument for why private property is a natural right. This seems to be the biggest issue when Catholicism and socialism collide. Granted, in a capitalist system, the government ought to protect the right for people to own things; there is no way how anyone could live otherwise. But what makes this a right *natural* to human beings, rather than merely a legal right that justice dictates given the circumstances? Like mentioned above, the book claims that it is based partially on "the ability to carry out moral duties", but this isn't adequately defended. It is also based on the fact that the individual has a right to the fruit of his labor, but this is exactly what socialists deny; they say he only has a right to what he needs to survive.
The strongest part was definitely part four, a brief defense of capitalism as a viable, morally permissible alternative; I found it very interesting! However, this section doesn't further the argument that Catholics can't be socialists. Another plus is the accessibility to readers who do not normally read philosophy; there is minimal abstract reasoning or "hairsplitting" here.
There is certainly some truth to be found in this book, but I don't think it was worth sifting through the clarity and structural issues. I would recommend reading the papal encyclicals cited instead.
First off, the book has little sense of structure. The chapters jump around from history to papal teachings to economics and back again, without much indication as to where they will go next. This would be fine if each chapter were self-contained, but they are in fact not. Instead of taking the time to consider the all implications or counterarguments that a point raises, authors often simply write that they will talk about these "in the sections to come". This allows them to make random affirmations without having to back them up immediately; it's a sort of verbal divide-and-conquer, in which the premises can be assumed true before even proven. To cite one instance in chapter seven, by following Pope Leo XIII's argument in Rerum Novarum, the authors say that the natural right to private property is supposed to enable us to fulfill our moral responsibilities. The example given is the duty of parents toward their children, which "stands in contrast to Marx's call to abolish... the family (which we'll examine in more detail in chapter ten)." Not good form.
Secondly, I feel like the historical analysis of socialism actually obscures the argument. Multiple times, it is affirmed that socialism is irreconcilable with a Catholic perspective. If this is the case, then why should we even spend time talking about the particular instances of socialism in the world? Instead, an argument should be made to prove the philosophy's inherent evil, using Catholic principles as premises; anything else is superfluous. Perhaps the authors thought it important to give the historical context for the papal documents they cite. But the actual effect is making the entire first half of the book feel like a historical overview, rather than a coherent argument. The same can be said for all the pragmatic arguments against socialism, especially when considering how advances in technology and AI could (in theory) eliminate human self-interest from the equation.
Thirdly, in my opinion, there is never a rigorous argument for why private property is a natural right. This seems to be the biggest issue when Catholicism and socialism collide. Granted, in a capitalist system, the government ought to protect the right for people to own things; there is no way how anyone could live otherwise. But what makes this a right *natural* to human beings, rather than merely a legal right that justice dictates given the circumstances? Like mentioned above, the book claims that it is based partially on "the ability to carry out moral duties", but this isn't adequately defended. It is also based on the fact that the individual has a right to the fruit of his labor, but this is exactly what socialists deny; they say he only has a right to what he needs to survive.
The strongest part was definitely part four, a brief defense of capitalism as a viable, morally permissible alternative; I found it very interesting! However, this section doesn't further the argument that Catholics can't be socialists. Another plus is the accessibility to readers who do not normally read philosophy; there is minimal abstract reasoning or "hairsplitting" here.
There is certainly some truth to be found in this book, but I don't think it was worth sifting through the clarity and structural issues. I would recommend reading the papal encyclicals cited instead.
March 1, 2020
This is a great read - a clear explanation that’s not too academic but still exposes the reader to original sources.
July 12, 2020
Great Book. Easily digestible and concise. Catholics should spread this book amongst the faithful ahead of this 2020 election
October 31, 2023
Great book to get to know in a dynamic way the catholic social doctrine. It shows to the roots of the issues that brought it up, tells us about the historical roots of socialism and makes a synthesis of some of the experiments that happened throughout the world.
It is a pity that the book doesn’t address some important themes like interest and finance. Even though that might turn out to be complex and not the focus of the book, it is a question that calls for the authors’ address, and it gets none.
The book has a great system of highlighting the main ideas in the end, which helps keeping the focus and line of thought.
It is a pity that the book doesn’t address some important themes like interest and finance. Even though that might turn out to be complex and not the focus of the book, it is a question that calls for the authors’ address, and it gets none.
The book has a great system of highlighting the main ideas in the end, which helps keeping the focus and line of thought.
December 19, 2020
Fast and easy read. Short chapters and nice formatting. Very accessible. Read easily over a few days.
This book is highly relevant to the culture today! I know many left-leaning catholic friends who have all but embraced socialism as a "catholic" concept. This book explores the history of socialism, Catholic teaching regarding socialism and uncovers the lie in modern "catholic" arguments for socialism including:
- Since the early Christians kept their property in common, so should we.
- Jesus would be in favor of an economic system that guarantees everyone food, health care and education.
- The Church, especially Pope Francis, teaches that Catholics must find a "third way" between the extremes of Communism and capitalism.
- Socialism would work if it were done right, like in Sweden.
The book then goes on to explore capitalism; how it is a tool that can be used in communion with catholic teaching (unlike socialism) but how it can also be misused. Strong warnings about given about pitfalls and sins that can occur within capitalism. A heavy dose of Catholic social teaching is included, which personally challenged me and gave me a lot to think about.
Most Catholics know vaguely that the Church opposes socialism, but this books offers a much deeper understanding of what socialism is (and isn't) and why the Catholic Church opposes it. You might be surprised. I certainly was. It is an adjustment to look at things through the lens of Catholic teaching and wisdom, versus the polarizing and shifting political language of the modern day. Beauty and genius have been developing in the Catholic Church under the guide of the Holy Spirit for two millennium. And, there is nothing new under the sun. What a blessing the Catholic Church is!
I was surprised to find authentic catholic support for guilds and unions. Growing up, I witnessed a ton of corruption within unions. Hello, Jimmy Hoffa. Modern unions constantly seem to be whining and trying to cast themselves as victims for ridiculous reasons. Total entitlement. I can see how they were useful and necessary in other time periods or cultures, but they seem very powerful and corrupt in the US today.
I was also surprised to find support for distributionism among some respected Catholic thinkers, like CK Chesterton. It seems to me that economies of scale yield better results for everyone with mass production. I personally prefer dealing with Mom&Pop boutique shops, but I recognize this is a luxury. Access to cheap mass produced items is a public necessity especially for the poor. Or so I would think.
Another concept that I struggled with was the "fair wage". Apparently the Church teaches that a fair wage is one that represents the work done AND makes it manageable to support a family - even a large one. Is it really the restaurant owners responsibility to financially support a dishwasher with 6 children? What about someone who doesn't invest his time or energy in gaining skills or better employment to support himself and his family? How much is his responsibility and how much is his employers?
For example - If two people incur tens of thousands of dollars in college debt but then drop out before graduating, have many children with the wife staying home and the husband refusing to work jobs that are "beneath" him while accepting public assistance - is society really responsible to support them to the level that they have iPhones and can keep up with the Jones? This is the position of one family I know. They keep tabs on what material possessions others have and constantly complain about a lack of social equality. They see any disparity as fundamentally unfair. They seem to lack any sense of personal responsibility or ownership of their life decisions.
These are just my thoughts. I still have a lot to learn from the wisdom of the Catholic Church and this book has given me much challenging food for thought.
I find it fascinating to think about the spiritual consequences of different political models. All systems are not equal. Some are inherently incompatible with the Catholic faith. But even those compatible with faith can be misused. Catholics must always be on guard against vice and sin, if they want to grow into a deeper relationship with God.
There is so much negativity about America right now. This book compelled me to be grateful for America and our system of government.
One typo found on page 24 (once vs. one). Some light/circular thinking spotted in other places. This book is very accessible and intended for use by the common man. Serious academics or devoted socialists will be able to find small things to attack, although the overall premise is solid.
My favorite quote (on page 66) from Pope Leo XIII's critique of socialism in Rerum Novarum concerning the universal distribution of good by the state is pretty clear: "There is no need to bring in the state ... man precedes the state, and possesses, prior to the formation of any state, the right of providing for the substance of his body". Also, he states that the duties of parents to provide for their children "can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the state". When socialist seek to give the state the parent's duty to provide for children they "act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home".
This book is highly relevant to the culture today! I know many left-leaning catholic friends who have all but embraced socialism as a "catholic" concept. This book explores the history of socialism, Catholic teaching regarding socialism and uncovers the lie in modern "catholic" arguments for socialism including:
- Since the early Christians kept their property in common, so should we.
- Jesus would be in favor of an economic system that guarantees everyone food, health care and education.
- The Church, especially Pope Francis, teaches that Catholics must find a "third way" between the extremes of Communism and capitalism.
- Socialism would work if it were done right, like in Sweden.
The book then goes on to explore capitalism; how it is a tool that can be used in communion with catholic teaching (unlike socialism) but how it can also be misused. Strong warnings about given about pitfalls and sins that can occur within capitalism. A heavy dose of Catholic social teaching is included, which personally challenged me and gave me a lot to think about.
Most Catholics know vaguely that the Church opposes socialism, but this books offers a much deeper understanding of what socialism is (and isn't) and why the Catholic Church opposes it. You might be surprised. I certainly was. It is an adjustment to look at things through the lens of Catholic teaching and wisdom, versus the polarizing and shifting political language of the modern day. Beauty and genius have been developing in the Catholic Church under the guide of the Holy Spirit for two millennium. And, there is nothing new under the sun. What a blessing the Catholic Church is!
I was surprised to find authentic catholic support for guilds and unions. Growing up, I witnessed a ton of corruption within unions. Hello, Jimmy Hoffa. Modern unions constantly seem to be whining and trying to cast themselves as victims for ridiculous reasons. Total entitlement. I can see how they were useful and necessary in other time periods or cultures, but they seem very powerful and corrupt in the US today.
I was also surprised to find support for distributionism among some respected Catholic thinkers, like CK Chesterton. It seems to me that economies of scale yield better results for everyone with mass production. I personally prefer dealing with Mom&Pop boutique shops, but I recognize this is a luxury. Access to cheap mass produced items is a public necessity especially for the poor. Or so I would think.
Another concept that I struggled with was the "fair wage". Apparently the Church teaches that a fair wage is one that represents the work done AND makes it manageable to support a family - even a large one. Is it really the restaurant owners responsibility to financially support a dishwasher with 6 children? What about someone who doesn't invest his time or energy in gaining skills or better employment to support himself and his family? How much is his responsibility and how much is his employers?
For example - If two people incur tens of thousands of dollars in college debt but then drop out before graduating, have many children with the wife staying home and the husband refusing to work jobs that are "beneath" him while accepting public assistance - is society really responsible to support them to the level that they have iPhones and can keep up with the Jones? This is the position of one family I know. They keep tabs on what material possessions others have and constantly complain about a lack of social equality. They see any disparity as fundamentally unfair. They seem to lack any sense of personal responsibility or ownership of their life decisions.
These are just my thoughts. I still have a lot to learn from the wisdom of the Catholic Church and this book has given me much challenging food for thought.
I find it fascinating to think about the spiritual consequences of different political models. All systems are not equal. Some are inherently incompatible with the Catholic faith. But even those compatible with faith can be misused. Catholics must always be on guard against vice and sin, if they want to grow into a deeper relationship with God.
There is so much negativity about America right now. This book compelled me to be grateful for America and our system of government.
One typo found on page 24 (once vs. one). Some light/circular thinking spotted in other places. This book is very accessible and intended for use by the common man. Serious academics or devoted socialists will be able to find small things to attack, although the overall premise is solid.
My favorite quote (on page 66) from Pope Leo XIII's critique of socialism in Rerum Novarum concerning the universal distribution of good by the state is pretty clear: "There is no need to bring in the state ... man precedes the state, and possesses, prior to the formation of any state, the right of providing for the substance of his body". Also, he states that the duties of parents to provide for their children "can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the state". When socialist seek to give the state the parent's duty to provide for children they "act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home".
February 1, 2025
Solid overall with plenty of citations. Wish he got into free international trade and its implications for labor movement and national sovereignty but its Trent Horn so it’s well written and thoughtful.
Love it.
Love it.
July 29, 2020
Great read
This book is a must for Catholics who think that socialism is compatible with Christianity. Easy to understand and masterfully written and documented.
This book is a must for Catholics who think that socialism is compatible with Christianity. Easy to understand and masterfully written and documented.
December 20, 2021
Interesting book. I think it lays out an compelling dialogue for why the socialist agenda does not work. I also appreciated the contrast with capitalism, as the church also does not support capitalism if people are not acting in good faith, which is the case with many capitalists. I also found the appendix interesting to look into briefly distributism, which many of my Catholic friends think is the best economic system. It was interesting to discuss some of those shortcomings, and how distributism also requires people to act in good faith.
From my personal takeaway, some of the latter chapters led to some introspection of am I living correctly within my countries current capitalist framework. Some of the dialogue around materialism and living a rightly ordered life(albeit I am not sure what was the purpose of this book) led me to rethink how I can use my income and opportunities to live in beter unity with the catholic faith.
I also wouldnt say this is solely a catholic book, some of the case studies, such as Venezuela could be understood outside of the catholic context, however most of the references point to the social justice encyclicals since rerum nevarum.
From my personal takeaway, some of the latter chapters led to some introspection of am I living correctly within my countries current capitalist framework. Some of the dialogue around materialism and living a rightly ordered life(albeit I am not sure what was the purpose of this book) led me to rethink how I can use my income and opportunities to live in beter unity with the catholic faith.
I also wouldnt say this is solely a catholic book, some of the case studies, such as Venezuela could be understood outside of the catholic context, however most of the references point to the social justice encyclicals since rerum nevarum.
December 25, 2020
A concise but thorough walkthrough of why a Catholic in good standing can never be a “true Socialist”. A bit simplistic in terms at times, nevertheless this book is solidly sourced and relies on the teachings of the Magisterium to refute all objections to the notion an orthodox Catholic cannot be an adherent to Marxist inspired socialism. I found some arguments to be particularly helpful-including that socialism obscures the natural truth that we all are made with different abilities and strengths and God desires for us to help others but if we had equal abilities that would be impossible. Socialism is defined in this book as the collectivist attempt to remove all elements of free enterprise in order to make public all property and institute state control of the means of production. Socialism is not the same as social democracy or social services, which can fit well within the Catholic social doctrine framework.
August 20, 2020
An excellent read. Trent Horn lays out the underlying problems inherent to socialism, with historical, philosophical, and theological arguments for why the system ultimately fails. However, he also points out the problems and dangers that often accompany capitalism, citing Saint John Paul II’s critique of consumerism, materialism, and utilitarianism that can accompany capitalist economies. The appendix is devoted to defining the economic system of distributism, and addressing some of the problems that lay within it.
September 16, 2020
It is a resounding No! I learned alot about what Popes have taught since Leo XII thru Pius XI and John Paul II and how socialism is incompatible with our faith and even more how it is completely unworkable, unjust, and is historically shown to fail. Good read especially during the rise of millenials who ignorantly think that socialism is chic.
July 30, 2021
Pretty good arguments against Socialism. I had no idea Socialism was strongly condemned by several popes even in the 19th Century. I read the book so I could argue against the Socialists I met in college . . . unfortunately, none of them were Catholic or followed the pope, so the "infallibility argument" doesn't really work there. But it did help me nonetheless!
December 2, 2020
I have read several books with this similar theme. This was the easiest to understand. It wasn't dummied down, it just was written in a clear manner. I recommend this book to anyone interested in why Catholics cannot be socialists.
March 23, 2021
Excellent overview of the history and theory behind past and present socialist movements, as well as a peek into what the Church has had to say throughout the decades. This book makes this critical information accessible to anyone, and is an excellent first book on the topic.
April 30, 2021
Must read
This is a very finely book. Even if you're not Catholic everyone should read this book to understand the difference between socialism and capitalism, not to mention the teaching of Church over the last 100 years.
This is a very finely book. Even if you're not Catholic everyone should read this book to understand the difference between socialism and capitalism, not to mention the teaching of Church over the last 100 years.
June 18, 2021
I enjoy listening to Trent Horn on EWTN. This was a good explanation of why Socialism doesn’t isn’t the answer to Catholic social teachings about how to take care of the poor. It made sense to me anyway.
December 21, 2024
This was a really solid book tackling socialism and Catholic teaching. The authors do a great job of citing sources when making their arguments and making it concise and easy enough to read that anyone could pick this up and learn about the topic.
July 4, 2020
Better than I expected it to be.
January 15, 2021
The book is written simply for anyone to understand, and it fulfills the expectations of the title.
Socialism is an evil.
Socialism is an evil.
February 19, 2021
The summary of Catholic teaching and especially Papal encyclicals was well done. However I was disappointed in the conclusion and final chapters.
November 21, 2024
Horn’s prioritization of how socialism is an inherently flawed system that we as Catholics should not and cannot support is great to get the point across. Given the fact that this book has tons of references and presents both sides of a story I’d recommend it.
August 15, 2020
This book is a great resource for someone beginning to understand the issues with Socialism, and compiles ample references that can be used for further education. I'm not sure that the contents live up to the promise of the provocative title. There is little time spent on breaking down the reasons why a Catholic can't be a Socialist, and far more time spent on explaining the differences between Socialism and Capitalism. I would definitely recommend this book as a reference source for further reading, and look forward to someone else addressing this issue with better clarity and depth.
July 25, 2023
A bit basic and overly simple at times but very clear and well written. In particular the explanation of intrinsic evil in socialism compared to the potential evil in capitalism was new to me and very interesting.
July 28, 2024
No surprises here this is an excellent book by Trent Horn! In this book, Trent Horn explains why Catholics cannot be socialist. Me and my mother both read this book on our trip to Colorado for Christmas break and the excellent thing about this book is not only does Trent Horn explain why Catholics cannot be socialist. He also explains why Christians of any denomination cannot be socialist and why Jesus was against both socialism and communism, Trent Horn also explains why socialism in general is a terrible idea that destroys countries and no countries like Sweden and Norway are not socialist countries. They are just high taxed capitalist countries if you want to look at a country with real socialism look at Cuba, but our politicians don’t want to say that truth out loud because they will know socialism will get shot down in a heartbeat. As a matter of fact, both me and my mother like this book so much that I got my grandmother a copy of this book for Christmas and she liked it so much that she got her good friend a copy and I do believe churches like St. Thomas Moore in Denver Colorado carry this book in their library and I hope to see other Catholic churches carrying this book as well because as always Trent does an excellent job I would highly recommend you to read this book not only if you are a Catholic who wonders about socialism, but just if you want to learn the dangers of socialism in general.
October 7, 2022
Trent spends the whole book arguing with people he has a feud with on Twitter and not engaging with modern socialists. He never even considers the idea of market socialism which is on the rise, probably because his research into the matter seems to include little more than bloggers. The whole text is an exercise in cherry picking papal encyclicals in order to make the kindest possible assumptions of capitalism and the worst assumptions of what they say regarding socialism. He fails to address whether what is meant by socialism today is actually what is meant by socialism in the encyclicals. Overall, this is unserious drivel that I wouldn’t bother spending time on. Surely there must be better opponents of socialism then Horn fit to write a book on this matter and I would recommend looking for them.
September 5, 2021
I really learned a lot about economics and what capitalism and socialism really are. I definitely agree with Trent Horn and Catherine Pakaluk on this issue.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews