Catholic or Democratic Socialism?

[ontheway1]

Link please. Seems highly unlikely there is a whole course dedicated to cross dressing at even the most liberal university.

Look it up. Not only is it not unlikely. It is a fact. I will not run through all the dapartments at all the univesities in the US. But, I will venture a guess that every one of them has such a requirement now. There is a set of courses on gender topics that constitute a requirement for all students before they can graduate. Even in the engineering department.

 

[ontheway1]

I find it somewhat predictable that our American members confuse socialist ideals with straight out communism. Of course no society wants to become fully comminist in its ideals. Even China and Vietnam have very much watered down communism regulations in many areas where it suits.

Oh, and one more thing. All the university staff are now subjected to countless hours of mind-numbing “sensitivity training”, aka gender brainwashing, repeated with some regularity, ad nauseam. This is costing millions of dollars and no one can escape. University administrators keep track of who is and is not attending and participating.
This is the Chinese or Soviet model of re-education camps. This is happenning now when they still don’t have all the power. Just wait when the friendly, smiling socialists take over completely!

 

[Gingersnaps4]

So the government there didn’t attempt to make you support abortion in order to secure a grant or be in the summer jobs program (or some such)? And You can easily run for political office there if you are pro-life? Canada is much, much less friendly to the pro-life cause than America is. I think you can even lose your child there if you are against a gender reassignment that they want. Just not the same system at all.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Socialism = Forced/Involuntary Charity = Government “helps” those in need = contrary to Gospel

Free market = Voluntary Charity = Citizens help those in need via their own time/money = consistent with Gospel

Jesus said “render to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God’s”

Jesus did not say “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s so that Caesar can render to God what is God’s ”

This the most cogent post on this thread. You don’t even have to look to Church teaching. We should be caring for our neighbors and encourage others to do so. This is the Christian thing to do…and the HUMANE thing to do. But this is something we do as individuals. This is where the socialists get mixed up. It’s not charity or virtue to rob a person even if you plan to use it for the needy.

 

[EXdrinker]

The article was about socialism and how it is inconsistent with Catholicism. I know it is hard to hear. The truth can be that way sometimes.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Where’s the part about giving all your neighbor has to the poor?

It’s here:

“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common…. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:32–35)

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Of course if don’t believe the New Testament, you can always turn to that great defender of wealth and privilege, the Old Testament:

“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?”
— Isaiah 10:1-3

"This is what the Lord Almighty said: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.” — Zechariah 7:8-10

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.
— Deuteronomy 15:7-8

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. — Proverbs 14:31

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life. — Proverbs 22:22-23

There are, of course, many, many more passages like this. Maybe it’s just me, but it sure looks like God is pretty worked up about helping the poor. Maybe we should be, too.

 

[Moose]

And happy 4th to,you, comrade.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Thanks for the defense. But I’m not sure who the “misguided individual” might be…Isaiah? Zachariah? Moses? St. Luke? the author of Proverbs?

 

[ewohdrol]

I did.

Gender studies as a study requirement is very different to your claim of cross dressing studies.

I couldn’t find any as you claim.

I also couldn’t find any evidence of being an expectation in engineering as an undergraduate.

 

[ewohdrol]

Well…to be fair it predomonantly American posters that equate communism and socialism as basically the same thing.

The rest of western world have higher % of socialist ideals in their societies than the US. So the scaremongering that occurs about socialism doesn’t ring true for many members.

Plus many of the examples of socialist evils by previous posters also happen in capitalist countries. So not great arguments - and again don’t ring true.

 

[Hobgoblin]

“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common…. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:32–35)

This is a group of believers agreeing to hold everything in common. It’s not a majority of believers forcibly taking from others what they don’t want to give freely.

Of course if don’t believe the New Testament, you can always turn to that great defender of wealth and privilege, the Old Testament:

All of these passages are about individual responsibility. None advocate for state sponsored socialism.

There are, of course, many, many more passages like this. Maybe it’s just me, but it sure looks like God is pretty worked up about helping the poor. Maybe we should be, too.

You’re right. Helping the poor is pretty important.

 

[AlbMagno]

forcibly taking from others what they don’t want to give freely.

What you don’t want to give freely? Paying a tax to help run a hospital? I’m sure you would want to help the poor that way, so, why are you complaining? That others don’t want? Then we should “evangelize” people to teach them to help the poor through the state, which is the same (morally) as convincing them to help individually. It’s all the same.

I am not arguing that socialism is compatible with the Church. I am arguing that a not-neoliberal, benefactor state is compatible with the Church.

We are not talking about making the state a God, but just about systematizing basic social help.

 

[Rob2]

Has anyone read “Katolicka Etyka Spoleczna” , a book of Pope John Paul II’s writings on the social problems in the 1940s and 1950s ?

 

[OnAJourney]

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Sell all you have and give to the poor.
It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Etc.

Then ask yourself which party embodies these ideals? It should be easy.

Yes, neither. Because political parties in this country don’t represent the values of the Church. The only party which does is probably the solidarity party

 

[o_mlly]

Socialism attacks personal property and individual freedom, like freedom of religion. Socialism creates equality where the lower and middle classes are equally poor.

Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: those that wish to escape from their freedom (and stay in their parents basement forever) and those who will to dominate others. The technical terms are masochist and sadist. In time, both learn to resent the other, both discover their inter-dependence is unnatural. It always does not end well.

 

[Mary888]

I think it’s an invented term that means nothing but aims to combat those who claim socialism is not democratic. It’s a political electoral gimmick imho. I think both socialism and capitalism are NOT democratic when a large number of people lose ANY control over their situation and life - e.g. excruciating poverty in capitalism and no personal freedom in socialism. If that happens the word “democracy” means absolutely nothing even if it is uttered because people have no power even if they have option to pick between leaders.
The only functional socialism (to those who like it) is happening in the Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) and yes people DO try to break in and because the countries are socialist they are welcoming immigration.

 

[Lemuel]

It’s here:

“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common…. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:32–35)

What’s interesting here is that it worked because the people “were of one heart and soul” and those who owned land and houses voluntarily sold what they have to give to the common good. The problem is that we aren’t of one heart and soul and not only will the democrat’s plan of redistribution not make us become of one heart and soul, but it will continue to divide us. The republicans can’t do it either. The state cannot accomplish it.

The Book of Acts is a description of a utopian society. A society of how it should be. The state has zero possibility of getting us there. In fact, what is blatantly obvious in this passage of scripture is the absence of the state. This is an example of personal responsibility. Of charity. Of love for everyone. It’s a statement of how Christ’s followers should be. It says nothing about forced redistribution of wealth. Nothing.

If you want to argue which party most emulates the teachings of Christ, I would say that none of them do. This scripture is best an argument for anarchy.

 

[Lemuel]

These are all good examples of personal responsibility to care for each other. I don’t have an argument with any of it.

 

[Lemuel]

Why not ignore labels (Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, etc.) and just have a look at what the New Testament says?

Love your neighbor as yourself.
Sell all you have and give to the poor.
It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Etc.

Then ask yourself which party embodies these ideals? It should be easy.

It is easy. None of them.