And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
- Ephesians 5:11
Is it logically possible to hold to Rome’s theology while at the same time rejecting her politics and economics? Many American Roman Catholics, some of whom may be more Protestant in their thinking than they realize, would answer yes.
Writing in his 1999 book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins gave the opposite answer. In the Introduction of his book, Robbins noted that Rome’s pronouncements on politics and economics were not, “disjointed statements, but the logical conclusions of premises accepted in Roman theology.” Put another way, if someone accepts Rome’s theology, he logically must also accept Rome’s politics and economics.
Rome’s theology, politics, and economics are part of a “package deal” as Robbins put it, and one does not have the option of following Rome in its theology while at the same time rejecting its political and economic philosophy. “This,” Robbins commented, “flies in the face not only of the claims of the Church-State itself but of reason as well.
I bring up this point as today, December 12, marks the date on which the Church-State celebrates the Feast Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe. According to one article in the America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, Our Lady of Guadalupe (OLG) “remains a cherished part of Mexican national identity.” Another piece in America magazine gives several other titles OLG is known by: Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, La Virgen de Guadalupe, Empress of the Americas, and Our Lady of Tepeyac.
Here’s one interesting item of OLG trivia from one of the America Magazine articles. Juan Diego, the fellow to whom the demon in the form of Mary is said to have first revealed herself, may never have existed. Despite his possible non-existence, he was canonized anyway in 2002, “as part of a strategy to retain indigenous Catholics in Mexico and across Latin America who have been defecting in droves to Protestantism, especially Pentecostalism.”
In one way, this really isn’t surprising. Rome makes up stuff all the time and has done so for centuries. Still, to come right out and say that “there is no hard evidence St. Juan Diego ever existed” while at the same time canonizing him is a bit shocking. Apparently, the Church-State really is running scared that it’s losing its centuries-long grip on “indigenous Catholics in Mexico and across Latin America.”
Lux Lucet 
Could you please explain what you mean by “Rome’s politics and economics”?
By politics and economics of Rome, I mean the the political and economic ideas expressed by by the popes and other church officials. Broadly speaking, Rome’s political philosophy is top down, autocratic and globalist, while it’s economics is fascist. This is in contrast with the biblical political and economic ideas of limited, republican government and in economics, free markets.
Could you point me to an encyclical or similar Magisterial document which states that?
Begining with Rerum Novarum, all of Roman Catholic Social Teaching represents a sustained attack on capitalism and private property together with the approval economic interventionism and the redistribution of wealth by government force. The principal of the “universal destination of all goods” is a recurrent theme in Catholic Social teaching is found in many encyclicals and like documents. In Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis mentions this idea and in paragraph 120 and concludes that “The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right.” But the Bible says “Thou shalt not steal.”
When it comes to world government, the Vatican regularly makes calls for the establishment of a “world political authority.” In Laudato Si, Pope Francis openly called for world government in paragraph 175 “there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”
For more on Rome’s political and economic thought, please see Ecclesiastical Megalomania by Dr. John Robbins. This book is available in paperback https://www.trinitylectures.org/ecclesiastical-megalomania-the-economic-and-political-thought-of-the-roman-catholic-church-paperback-p-159.html or as an eBook https://www.trinitylectures.org/ecclesiastical-megalomania-the-economic-and-political-thought-of-the-roman-catholic-church-book-p-229.html
I have trouble believing that the Catholic Church is communist or socialist if that is what you mean, considering that it was very directly condemned many times by Popes since the very encyclical you cited. Rerum Novarum states explicitly the following:
“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.” Rerum Novarum Para. 4
You are correct, in that sense, that a Catholic must follow what you would call “Catholic economics”, but part of that means that a Catholic very much must believe in private property. As for the “secondary natural right”, I’m not sure you know what that means. It isn’t a right in the same sense one’s life is. Hence it is taught that in grave necessity, all things should be held in common. You have a moral obligation, if you see someone starving, to give him food for instance.
I am not sure what you mean by “regularly”. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never condemned having multiple governments as it has directly condemned socialism, for instance. If it had, I think that would be a bigger deal in the Middle Ages when everyone was Catholic. As for the quote from Laudato Sí, Pope Francis was actually quoting his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, in his encyclical Caritas in veritate. Reading it in context, I think what he meant was that in a time where the world is so interconnected, countries should work together to do certain things for the good of mankind—not for a one world government.
Mr. Matthews, I do not mean to be a bother, but do you think I am misinterpreting Catholic doctrine? I would allow you to argue against the veracity of the Catholic Church’s claims, but make sure that you are actually discussing what Catholics actually believe or else you may simply fall into committing a straw man.
Thank you for your follow up. From your comments, you and I have substantial disagreements. We have both made our points, and I intend to leave it at that. My purpose for this blog is to use it as a forum to artuclate a Biblical worldview. It is not an apologetics blog. You are, of course, welcome to read the blog, but I will not be interacting to any extent in the comments.
I know that. All the same, I was not arguing with your viewpoints as to what Scripture teaches. I was not arguing about apologetics. All I was saying is that I do not think you are stating what the Catholic Church actually teaches and I think it is important to to get these things correct lest you fall into committing a straw man. I do not think that what you are saying Catholics believe actually reflects what Catholics believe.
Lying, deceit, treachery (regicide/assassination/revolution) is all justified in the eyes of the antichrist society because the ends justify the means. If it benefits the Mother “church” it is all good. Also “do it for the greater good” is another of the jesuit’s favorite mantra that justify tyranny like just wear the mask, take the experimental /emergency injection, close down your business for the common good etc.
Mr. Eddy:
The Catholic Church condemns lying, deceit, and treachery. I am not trying to even argue about apologetics at the moment, but this article does not reflect what Catholics actually believe.