Catholics and Socailism

[vern_humphrey]

No! You invert history. Feus are based upon tythes, not VV.

You said it, now prove it. Tythes and fees are not the same thing.

I gave you two public and authoritative definitions, one English, the other American.
The words were plain.
There is none so blind as who will not see.

But you didn’t give the laws themselves.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You said it, now prove it. Tythes and fees are not the same thing.

But you didn’t give the laws themselves.

1/ Feus are feudal dues.
2/ gnats and camels.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1/ Feus are feudal dues.

And not tythes.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
1/ Feus are feudal dues.

Exactly, and Feus were based upon the tythes, not the tythes upon the feus.
Feus are still levied in Scotland.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly, and Feus were based upon the tythes, not the tythes upon the feus.
Feus are still levied in Scotland.

No. Fees were based on land holding and other benefits.

Fedualism is not socialism and the Church was not, and has never been socialist.

 

[repo_man]

Church was not, and has never been socialist.

eh … i guess you could argue they were communist, but that’s just a subsect of socialism.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
- Acts 2:42-45

held everything in common? from each according to ability to each according to need?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No. Fees were based on land holding and other benefits.

Fedualism is not socialism and the Church was not, and has never been socialist.

Dices stercum.
Cognosces nihil.
Vade: fatigo.

 

[vern_humphrey]

eh … i guess you could argue they were communist, but that’s just a subsect of socialism.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
- Acts 2:42-45

held everything in common? from each according to ability to each according to need?

Yep. And they failed.

Luke makes it very clear that the experiment with socialism or communism was in the past, long before he wrote. Catholics no longer practiced socialism in his time.

You can also see the impact – especially in the works of Paul - of this experiment. It bankrupted the Christians of Jerusalem and left them dependent on the charity of other communities.

Note also, Paul’s insistance on a pay-as-you go approach and his attitude toward those who do not work, “Who will not work, let him not eat.”

 

[mlchance]

eh … i guess you could argue they were communist, but that’s just a subsect of socialism.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
- Acts 2:42-45

held everything in common? from each according to ability to each according to need?

You could argue that the early Church was communist, but you’d be wrong. Communism is a necessarily violent, anti-religion form of totalitarianism. The early Church’s form of communal life was pacificistic, Christ-centered, and based entirely on voluntary sharing.

All of the tedious back-and-forth about tythes and feudalism has perhaps distracted from an important point: The Church has condemned socialism and all forms of collectivism for more than a century.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally Posted by repo man
eh … i guess you could argue they were communist, but that’s just a subsect of socialism.

It would seem that there is either a misunderstanding of language here, or a misunderstanding of fact.
The Church ran, and still runs, societies, whose internal ecconomies are based upon what is now recognised as the Marxian maxim: From each, according to ability, and to each according to need.
As political entities, Communism, and Socialism, in as much as they attempt to replace Christian Charity are indeed anathema, but where the philosophy embodied in the Marxian maxim is allied to Christian Charity, then it is not, for if it were then the Church Herself would be anathema!

 

[vern_humphrey]

It would seem that there is either a misunderstanding of language here, or a misunderstanding of fact.
The Church ran, and still runs, societies, whose internal ecconomies are based upon what is now recognised as the Marxian maxim: From each, according to ability, and to each according to need.
As political entities, Communism, and Socialism, in as much as they attempt to replace Christian Charity are indeed anathema, but where the philosophy embodied in the Marxian maxim is allied to Christian Charity, then it is not, for if it were then the Church Herself would be anathema!

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

The Church supports capitalism with “reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives.”

 

[mlchance]

It would seem that there is either a misunderstanding of language here, or a misunderstanding of fact.

Indeed there is. To wit:

The Church ran, and still runs, societies, whose internal ecconomies are based upon what is now recognised as the Marxian maxim: From each, according to ability, and to each according to need.

The Church does not run societies based on the above cited Marxist ideal precisely because in Marxism the “From each” is involuntarily, the “according to ability” is defined by the dictator, the “to each” are only those included by the dictator, and the “according to need” is a need determined, again, by the dictator.

There is no getting around the fact that the Church condemns socialism and collectivism.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
It would seem that there is either a misunderstanding of language here, or a misunderstanding of fact.

Like Vern, whom I have dismissed as empty of usefulness, you fail to grasp the difference between the utopian ideal, and the political entity which poorly approximates it.
The ideal is Marxian, while the political entity is Marxist.
There is a universe of difference between the two.
If you cannot grasp this, then you belong with Vern.

There is no getting around the fact that the Church condemns socialism and collectivism.

– Mark L. Chance.

In the limited way you understand these words, what you say is true, but in the context, of redesigning society, and the guidance as to the ecconomic rules for this New Kingdom, the Marxian ideal is very apt. The way the Marxists enforced that ideal is certainly not.
If you consider that the Church condemns the Marxian Utopian ideal, then the Church condemns Herself, for she still, and has always run societies based upon those ideals, which are written into Our Lord’s prayer:
Give us each day our daily bread, (To each according to need)
And bring us not to the test. (Do not test us to the limit - From each according to ability.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Like Vern, whom I have dismissed as empty of usefulness, you fail to grasp the difference between the utopian ideal, and the political entity which poorly approximates it.
The ideal is Marxian, while the political entity is Marxist.
There is a universe of difference between the two.

My, aren’t we nasty and uncharitable today!!

The Parable of the Chocolate Cake

There was a man who had a recipe for chocolate cake; “Mix mud and straw and bake.”

Someone tried it and said, “That’s not a recipe for chocolate cake – it produced a brick!”

But the man pointed out that the recipe card plainly said, “Chocolate cake.”

Others tried it, and they all produced bricks.

But the man explained the theory behind his recipe, and showed all the research he had done. He blamed the other people – they must have got the proportions of mud and straw wrong, or perhaps they didn’t bake the ingredients at the right temperature.

But more and more people tried it. And they all produced bricks.

And finally a man stood up and said, “It don’t make a diddly-dang what the heading on your recipe card says, and your theory is just hot air. This is a recipe for a brick!”

So I say, “It don’t make a diddly-dang what the heading on Marx’ recipe card says, and his theory is just hot air. Communism is a recipe for a brutal, repressive dictatorship – and every nation that has tried it has got just such a dictatorship.”

 

[mlchance]

Like Vern, whom I have dismissed as empty of usefulness, you fail to grasp the difference between the utopian ideal, and the political entity which poorly approximates it.

Bwahaha!

How fortunate there is no limit to the number of people one can put on an ignore list.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Bwahaha!

How fortunate there is no limit to the number of people one can put on an ignore list.

– Mark L. Chance.

The choice is yours Mark.
Do you address the points made, or pretend like Vern, that you can, like a politician, bend the question to fit the answer you wish to give.
The former is useful to both of us, the latter is the rattle of hollow vessel.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The choice is yours Mark.
Do you address the points made, or pretend like Vern, that you can, like a politician, bend the question to fit the answer you wish to give.
The former is useful to both of us, the latter is the rattle of hollow vessel.

What a pompous and empty post!

 

[RobHom]

You can flog a dead horse until there is no remains, however… trying to label “Catholics” and/or the Catholic Church as “Socialist”… is just another cheap shot from a weak “protestant” popgun.

There is nothing socialist about Catholics or the Catholic Church. While there may be some members of the Church who might be somewhat liberal leaning…you have to ameliorate that with the knowledge that God gave man “free will”, and those people are merely exercising that free will to their own avail.

Myself…as a Catholic am very “conservative” and not at all a believer of “socialism”…its merely a failed political system that enables the do-nothings of the world to take a free ride…but on the other hand, while I am very conservative…I see the plain need and also recognize our Lord’s very words and commands to care for our brothers and sisters… Feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc… I also believe that we as a people have an obligation to educate and provide for people. Educating all the people negates the need for hand-outs and people on the dole. There is nothing socialist about it.

Eliminating the problems as much as possible is not socialist… its “responsible” and for the good of all.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You can flog a dead horse until there is no remains, however… trying to label “Catholics” and/or the Catholic Church as “Socialist”… is just another cheap shot from a weak “protestant” popgun.

There is nothing socialist about Catholics or the Catholic Church. While there may be some members of the Church who might be somewhat liberal leaning…you have to ameliorate that with the knowledge that God gave man “free will”, and those people are merely exercising that free will to their own avail.

Myself…as a Catholic am very “conservative” and not at all a believer of “socialism”…its merely a failed political system that enables the do-nothings of the world to take a free ride…but on the other hand, while I am very conservative…I see the plain need and also recognize our Lord’s very words and commands to care for our brothers and sisters… Feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc… I also believe that we as a people have an obligation to educate and provide for people. Educating all the people negates the need for hand-outs and people on the dole. There is nothing socialist about it.

Eliminating the problems as much as possible is not socialist… its “responsible” and for the good of all.

Hi Rob,
Be careful in how you read my words.
I never said that Mother Church was socialist.
I said, and the Gospels, and Acts concur, that the New Kingdom was, and is, an exercise in social engineering, and it shared with socialism, ideals which very closely matched the Marxian ideal which has already been much quoted.
If you wish not to call Her ideals socialism, that is fine, but Her ideals lie parallel and close.
Note that She does not cleave to capitalism as She rejects socialism. She rejects both in as much as each rejects mercy.

 

[RobHom]

Hi Rob,
Be careful in how you read my words.
I never said that Mother Church was socialist.
I said, and the Gospels, and Acts concur, that the New Kingdom was, and is, an exercise in social engineering, and it shared with socialism, ideals which very closely matched the Marxian ideal which has already been much quoted.
If you wish not to call Her ideals socialism, that is fine, but Her ideals lie parallel and close.
Note that She does not cleave to capitalism as She rejects socialism. She rejects both in as much as each rejects mercy.

Not a problem Dave. I probably should note that my original post was rather “generic” in nature and not directed toward anyone in particular. It was just a few thoughts on the matter. In the past I have often heard comments about the Church being “socialist” in nature…and while in ages gone by it may have seemed that way, I’m not sure I would call it “socialism”…as socialism had not yet been invented. I think of it in terms that, yes…it was some exercise in social engineering…, some collective action on the part of many to benefit the good of all. I guess it could be compared to Karl Marx’s notions of “socialism”…which in reality is more of a dreamers “utopian society”…

Reconciling the fact that the Church is neither socialist or capitalist…is an odd thing in a way…but at the crux of the matter is the fact that it is a Church…not a political or financial organ.