I am a distrubutist and i am proud of it - Catholic Distrubutism makes me proud of being Catholic!

[JRRTFAN]

I have never advocated that the state should own the means of production. That is not my position. And i am in complete agreement with what you have written above. I don’t like banks either.

Do you have any idea as to how disturbutists intended to implement their theory in practical reality, given that most of us are at the mercy of the cooperate ownership of the means to production? What i mean by that is, i don’t actually own anything accept the cloths on my back, which actually gives free advertisement for businesses (cloths with designer logos). I rent everything; my electric, gas, my bedsit flat, communication technology, ect, and in order to maintain that i must work for somebody who is free to charge me what they like and reject me when they like. I am more or less an economic slave to the whim of big business and profit margins; and that is why there are so many people unemployed because in the cities they don’t have the means to production and thus neither the power to implement it. This means that if you are poor, like i am, it is very difficult to develop you own means of production with success, and those that succeed appear to be few and far between. Survival of the fittest, competition, and profit seems to be the core goal and motivation of today’s business world. The end benefits tend to be extremely individualistic and thus it would be an irrational stretch to say that the common good is the intended end of big business. So it would seem that distrubutism cannot work under the current system on a large scale, and thus would require a complete and fundamental change to the system. But Is this change even possible, how would it come about, if not through force of the state?

You (and I) are what Chesterton and Belloc called “wage slaves”, most people are enslaved by a job. Belloc has a number of books, published by IHS Press I believe, which expound on Distributism. This is a pretty good exposition: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism. Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII 1891 and Quadragessimo Anno Pope Pius X! 1931 as well as Centessimus Annus John Paul II 1991 are all Catholic prescriptions of Distributism.

What’s Wrong With the World - G.K. Chesterton 1910, now published by Ignatius, will enlarge on the “wage slave” concept.

The concept is that, if you produce a necessary product or service at a local level and are close to the consuming market, you can support yourself and family without reliance on the economic strife around you.

My daughter worked on a farm for the last 3 months. That farmer has 250 acres and via the food he produces (animal and vegetable) and the bartering he does at farmers markets and auctions he survives even if Bank of America fails or AIG tanks. His wife works as a teacher part time and that gives them a source of health insurance and some spending money.

They work their butts off but are beholden to no-one. That must be a good feeling. I think it is a lost cause to think we can, or would, all get to the Distributist level. Most people can’t produce anything of tradeable value. Everybody is responsible for some little part of the whole, not the complete marketable item or skill.

 

[Abu]

reggieM
The state can invest in smaller, more labor-intensive activities to give more people a job.

MindOverMatter2
I believe that each state could legitimately spread the means of production equally or a sufficient means of production to all or most human beings, and thus greatly reduce if not remove unemployment entirely. I don’t like banks.

That’s why communism and socialism failed. Such blinkers are why so many reject the free economy and the right to economic initiative embraced by Christ’s Church, and the emphatic condemnation of the Welfare State.
No business can survive without giving its customers value for money, with other similar businesses competing for the customers’ patronage. The State never has and never will do a better job of allocation of scarce resources.

JRRTFAN
It is actually the preferred economic situation of the Church. I think it is a lost cause to think we can, or would, all get to the Distributist level. Most people can’t produce anything of tradeable value. Everybody is responsible for some little part of the whole, not the complete marketable item or skill.

Sensible to realise that Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”.
It has recognised the vocation of the entrepreneur who can gather people, employees and managers and capital to create wealth and produce goods and services for others – to succeed if they meet customer requirements and fail if they don’t.

Caritas et veritate
Father Fr. Robert Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (U.S.A.), explains…“his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. [Italics added]. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon…. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity. Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to ‘badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.’ But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. Further: ‘Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.’ More, not less, trade is needed: ‘the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.’…Benedict does see a role for the state here [in wealth redistribution], but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange."

 

[Abu]

yorkshiregirl
the idea of ‘socialism’ as it is constantly derided on here, and I’m sorry but by many americans, is not how it is viewed in Europe.
We don’t actually want some huge state telling us what to do and ‘interfering’ but how is someone that comes from poverty supposed to help themselves if they don’t have some of the same chances - good diet, good education etc. - that the rich have. That is why the Welfare State was set up in the UK. I’m not saying it hasn’t gone a bit far but its ideals were then, and still are, good and true. Socialism (with a small ‘s’ if you like) is all about justice in society - giving people a chance. If you think that the Catholic church is against that then I would question why they fight so much for the poor in the third world. Or do you think that there is not injustice and inequality in non Third World countries?

Then it is high time that socialism be seen for what it is, wherever one lives – Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

As Fr John Corapi (seen on EWTN) explains:
“The common error is to think that socialism helps the poor and disenfranchised. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out as long ago as 1891 in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum, socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the very sources of capital.”

The Welfare State is condemned.
From Centesimus Annus , 48, John Paul II, 1991:
“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 58].

What is missed here is that the free enterprise system was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics. There is nothing that can compare with its economic laws – it is the economic approach that has revolutionised the standard of living of millions. Individual morality determines how owners or managers or employees treat each other and the customers, which ethic may derive from a policy set by the firm, and requires the morality taught by Christ’s Church.

Apart from some who know nothing about economics, there are those who also know nothing about those many countries steeped in graft and corruption, and often warring tribes and revolution, and which have profited little from the massive aid provided, and the great advances of great men like American Norman Borlaug who actually lived among them and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution. Dr. Borlaug, who died September, 2009, is scarcely known in his own country. Borlaug was one of only six people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[3] He was also a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian honor.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Sensible to realise that Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”.
."

Wha in the wide world of sports would lead you to think that Distributism is anti-thetical to free enterprise? It’s exactly the opposite. Do you know what it is? How about posting a short description so we know you know what you’re calling socialism.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, are you talking about the community reinvestment act? that’s what really caused the meltdown???

wow, JD, to think that every so-called expert i’ve heard and read doesn’t seem to know this. you should write a book to set the record straight. everyone else seems to think it has something to do with irresponsible and predatory lending, screwy derivatives trading, over-leveraging, heads i win tails you lose speculation, and other such technical stuff. you should tell people about how the banks were actually the victims here.

but wait a second. that can’t be right. bank profits are up. maybe you’ll need to do a little more research before you write that book.

rocinante

Interesting. Bank profits are up? The Fed just closed three banks, two in Florida and one in Georgia - for not being profitable. Bank profits are up? Can you document that?

You really don’t want to get into this debate with me. I was in the mortgage business for more than 17 years. I saw, first hand, the before and after of CRA. Let me ask you a question. Where were the banks supposed to get their moneys from, in order to give loans to everyone, to bad credit, to the under qualified, to persons without any means of putting any skin in the game? What, reach around and up their tails? Find it growing on trees?

Lenders did what was necessary to meet their “quotas.” And, all the while, the Fed sat back and said that, “It’s not enough.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Abu]

JDaniel
I was in the mortgage business for more than 17 years. I saw, first hand, the before and after of CRA. Let me ask you a question. Where were the banks supposed to get their moneys from, in order to give loans to everyone, to bad credit, to the under qualified, to persons without any means of putting any skin in the game? What, reach around and up their tails? Find it growing on trees?

Thank you for the facts, which are clear, as against the assumptions of those who don’t know.
Having seen the reasons for the condemnation of the Welfare State and socialism, the lack of support for any third or fourth “way”, and the endorsement of free enterprise by the Church, those who are blinkered need to face reality and study how and why free enterprise was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and revolutionised the creation and distribution ofwealth.

 

[Rocinante]

Interesting. Bank profits are up? The Fed just closed three banks, two in Florida and one in Georgia - for not being profitable. Bank profits are up? Can you document that?

of course.

following losses in 2009, 2010 banks profits were $18.1 billion in the first quarter, $21.6 billion in the second. i don’t think we have numbers yet for the third.

usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-08-31-bank-profit_N.htm

you know whose profits are down? all the people who are out of work thanks to teh policies of the bush administration.

 

[Abu]

JRRTFAN
Wha in the wide world of sports would lead you to think that Distributism is anti-thetical to free enterprise? It’s exactly the opposite. Do you know what it is? How about posting a short description so we know you know what you’re calling socialism.

The reasons that Socialism and the Welfare State have been condemned by the Popes are indicated in Posts # 83, 64, 9.

That it is generally best for a man to own his own business than to work for another is frighteningly vague – working for another, he is not ruined if the business fails, and can usually spend more time with his family if he doesn’t own his own business.

A very useful examination is The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Lexington Books (Rowman & Littlefield), 2005, First Place, Templeton Enterprise Award, 2006.

Some helpful reviews:
“The most thorough examination of Catholic Social Teaching yet available…It should be required reading for priests, bishops, and seminarians, as well as clerics of other denominations, as a remedy for the socialism that has crept into religious circles over the past century.” (William R. Luckey, Chairman, Department of Economics and Political Science, Christendom College).

“A welcome antidote to the various combinations of economic incompetence and self-righteous posturing - ‘liberation theology,’ New Deal welfarism, social democratic interventionism, distributism - that too often masquerade as the only ‘authentic’ interpretations of Catholic social teaching.” (Edward Feser, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University).

 

[Abu]

Rocinante
following losses in 2009, 2010 banks profits were $18.1 billion in the first quarter, $21.6 billion in the second
you know whose profits are down? all the people who are out of work thanks to teh policies of the bush administration

Pity you don’t know the ROI. Further, more people might have been jobless if existing businesses including banks suffered big losses.

Face Reality
You’ve already been shown in post #52: The facts are that the recent financial crisis in the U.S. has the hallmarks of the same interventionist policies that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. As Federal Reserve chairman between 1987 and 2006, Greenspan acted even more irresponsibly than the Fed officials in the 1930’s who he criticized over the “excess credit” that directly brought about the Great Depression. Rather than, “sopping up the excess reserves,” Greenspan added even more, transforming a stock market bubble into a housing and consumer spending bubble of historic and unprecedented proportions.

That’s where the jobless developed.

 

[JDaniel]

of course.

following losses in 2009, 2010 banks profits were $18.1 billion in the first quarter, $21.6 billion in the second. i don’t think we have numbers yet for the third.

usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-08-31-bank-profit_N.htm

you know whose profits are down? all the people who are out of work thanks to teh policies of the bush administration.

So, this is your proof that bank profits are up? Who, in their right minds, would limit it to just one quarter?

Bank profits rebounded in the second quarter, led by the biggest institutions. But many small and midsize banks continued to struggle.
The nation’s 7,830 banks and thrifts earned $21.6 billion in the three months that ended June 30, up from $18.5 billion in the first quarter and reversing a $4.4 billion loss a year earlier, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. reported Tuesday.

How about?

What Do Bank of America, Citibank

and SunTrust Have in Common?

They’re among the 3,466 financial institutions we ranked that could be at imminent risk of failure. And with 73 bank failures so far this year — DOUBLE last year’s pace — it’s CRITICAL . . .

finance.moneyandmarkets.com/roi/x-list.php?sc=G100&ec=A95580&ga_campaign=Banks&ga_adgroup=bank+implosion-text&ga_keyword=content&gclid=CJbKvfOp_qQCFRYM2godoR1yjg

God bless,
jd

 

[Rocinante]

So, this is your proof that bank profits are up? Who, in their right minds, would limit it to just one quarter?

what you do you need? the fact is that profits are up over the past 6 months. aren’t they?

again JD, you have some completely revolutionary views about the causes and consequences of the financial meltdown that none of the experts cited by the national news seem to share. you really ought to write a book to get the word out that the real victims are the banks (despite the millions of dollars of bonuses being dolled out). come on. this is laughable.

 

[JDaniel]

what you do you need? the fact is that profits are up over the past 6 months. aren’t they?

again JD, you have some completely revolutionary views about the causes and consequences of the financial meltdown that none of the experts cited by the national news seem to share. you really ought to write a book to get the word out that the real victims are the banks (despite the millions of dollars of bonuses being dolled out). come on. this is laughable.

Well, Rocinante, that is completely untrue. Another one of your un-, or poorly, supported naked assertions. There are many analysts whose views parallel mine. Glenn Beck is a major radio talk show host, whose views parallel mine. When I first heard the non-industry, moronic pundits spouting their idiotic rationale, I could hardly believe it myself. I was fearful that regular citizens would tend to believe them. My fears have come true.

The Democrat liberals who instantiated the meltdown have effectively shrugged off the blame onto big, bad business again. How sad.

It would help you, I think, if you could somehow find an accurate time-line for our current demise. The time-line clearly shows the real causes of it. For example, how many years before the meltdown did CRA come into effect? How many years before the meltdown did Bernanke trigger the staged reductions in the prime rate - triggering deflation. How many years after those things did the mortgage industry begin a search for more money? To name a couple.

The money was drying up even for the conforming mortgage side of the industry, as well as for the non-conforming side. That’s when the industries went to Wall St. and Europe. In order to entice Wall St. and Europe, they had to come up with programs that were enticing. Furthermore, the re-sell market was dying off due to the recession. You can’t sell a house when you owe more than it’s worth on it. That’s the current problem: you can’t transfer a cloudless title.

When Greenspan retired, and Bernanke came in, it was said that Bernanke was a chip off Greenspan’s block. Very shortly, that turned out not to be true. The Lib-Dems began putting pressure on Bernanke immediately. That’s when he put the brakes on inflation, instead of allowing a slow, steady inflationary rise. Bernanke lowered the Prime Rate, in six months, to a rate so low that the entire US economy slowed too far down.

The beginnings of the “meltdown” was the instantiation of recession. Banks, like almost all other businesses, got caught up in the recession slowdown. In the mortgage industry, we could see the handwriting on the walls many months before the sub-prime lenders began to falter and die. If it were not for Fanniemae’s, Freddie Mac’s, and Ginnie Mae’s special relationship with the US Government, they would have gone broke too.

Anyway, the meltdown did what was intended. It gave the industry back to them. It is too bad, really, that people have, and are still having, to suffer because of idiots in congress. Also, it killed off almost an entire secondary market industry, from lenders all the way down to brokers. I think time will show that this was not a good idea.

God bless,
jd

 

[JRRTFAN]

The reasons that Socialism and the Welfare State have been condemned by the Popes are indicated in Posts # 83, 64, 9.

That it is generally best for a man to own his own business than to work for another is frighteningly vague – working for another, he is not ruined if the business fails, and can usually spend more time with his family if he doesn’t own his own business.

University).

I don’t think evidence supports your thesis at all. There are millions who have lost their jobs while working for others who have lost their livlihood, savings and homes. That sounds pretty ruined to me. The concept of Distributism is not “to own his own business” it is to “own his own means of production”. The problem with Distributism is not the concept. It is the competition of socialism and capitalism. For instance. my Grandfather born about ca. 1880, had a feed, grain and explosives business in a coal/farming area of western Pa., his Brother in Law, my great uncle, owned a classic hardware store in the same town (I say classic because he sold everything from hand tools, to hardware, to bicycles, to guns, to - literally - horse collars).

Both of them supported their families, not in great style, but in modest comfort. They traded with each other and the rest of the community. Neither ever went bust, trace the economy of the U.S, from 1900 - 1960 - ups and downs, including the Great Depression. It is with the introduction of the mega store and the socialist tax system that such people can no more own the means of production.

It’s machs nichts to me, we can never go back there, but that is a more Catholic view of society than the current scenario. If you think bagging groceries at the Super Walmart Store is more edifying than learning the grocery business from Grocer Smith as an apprentice, more power to you, I don’t agree.

 

[Abu]

JRRTFAN
There are millions who have lost their jobs while working for others who have lost their livlihood, savings and homes.
The problem with Distributism is not the concept. It is the competition of socialism and capitalism….that is a more Catholic view of society than the current scenario.

Trying to blame the free enterprise system so well-endorsed by the Church is tilting at windmills.
Post #89 indicates the interventionist finagling which has produced the present meltdown.

Further, At Hoover’s insistence, followed by FDR, wages remained high even throughout the Great Depression propping up unemployment at an average of 18% throughout. The Keynesian “purchasing power” fallacy of prosperity had trumped over the fact that savings are the source of investment. Yet Americans bought more than twice as many refrigerators in 1935 with unemployment over 20% than they bought in 1929 with unemployment at 3.2%, but over a million had no wages at all. By 1938, 1.2 million were out of work. The continued failure was to realise that wages are a cost of doing business and that for maximum employment have to reach a sustainable level.

The Great Depression was fuelled by Hoover and then F.D.R. using his socialist New Deal by raising taxes, expanding public works spending, establishing welfare programs, destroying existing crops, imposing acreage reduction requirements, legislating for cartels to establish minimum selling prices, and limit output. We all know how deep and long that fiasco was.

Without those policies econometric estimates show that the “Depression would have been completely over (less than 5% unemployment) by 1936.” [Richard K Vedder & Lowell E Gallaway, *Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America (New York, Holmes & Meier, 1993, p 142].

The application of the development of free enterprise through the great Catholic Late Scholastics saw the “estimated real income per capita in England doubled between 1760 and 1860.” (Cited in Woods, p 169, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005).

 

[JRRTFAN]

Trying to blame the free enterprise system so well-endorsed by the Church is tilting at windmills.
Post #89 indicates the interventionist finagling which has produced the present meltdown.

Further, At Hoover’s insistence, followed by FDR, wages remained high even throughout the Great Depression propping up unemployment at an average of 18% throughout. The Keynesian “purchasing power” fallacy of prosperity The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005).

This is a thread about Distributism, which is endorsed by the Church. So let’s go back to the beginning. Do you know what Distributism is? It is not socialism and is not redistribution of wealth. Do you think being a wage slave is superior to Distributism? Do you know who G. K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc and Pope Pius X are? Have you read “What’s Wrong With the World”? I think this is like a political argument. I’m talking about red Fords and you’re talking about river boats on the Mississippi, it’s simply not a cogent discussion.

Have a great day!

 

[reggieM]

This is a thread about Distributism, which is endorsed by the Church. So let’s go back to the beginning. Do you know what Distributism is? It is not socialism and is not redistribution of wealth. Do you think being a wage slave is superior to Distributism? Do you know who G. K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc and Pope Pius X are? Have you read “What’s Wrong With the World”? I think this is like a political argument. I’m talking about red Fords and you’re talking about river boats on the Mississippi, it’s simply not a cogent discussion.

Have a great day!

I believe you asked that question once already, and Abu launched off on an impassioned defense of Capitalism and American economic policy.
I can’t see why the Distributist proposal should elicit such a defensive response. Abu, it does seem like you’re trying to sell a political platform, when I think we should be open to various, Church-approved philosophical perspectives instead.

 

[Brendan]

Also, I tend to have socialistic ideals, like government taking care of the poor, and I think I fit in with the Catholic Church. Go **back to the Gospels **and ask what would Christ do. Christ, I think, was a socialist at heart.

Yes, go and read Matthew 25 and tell me exactly where Christ told us to rely on the State to do the things He mentioned.

Where did Christ say tell the tax colllectors to go and take more taxes from rich men, and if they don’t cough it up, put them in prison.

No, Christ was about each person giving FREELY of their own will. That is what charity is all about.

St. John Chrysostom (a Doctor of the Church) articulated the Catholic position very well

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone?

Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm.

Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.

If you believe the Christ was a Socialist, could you cite one single passage where Christ compelled money to be taken from an unwilling rich man and given to a poor man?

 

[Rocinante]

If you believe the Christ was a Socialist, could you cite one single passage where Christ compelled money to be taken from an unwilling rich man and given to a poor man?

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and the distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus. Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
Acts 4:34-5:11

 

[Rocinante]

Well, Rocinante, that is completely untrue. Another one of your un-, or poorly, supported naked assertions. There are many analysts whose views parallel mine. Glenn Beck is a major radio talk show host, whose views parallel mine…

glenn beck??? this is your expert source???

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, go and read Matthew 25 and tell me exactly where Christ told us to rely on the State to do the things He mentioned.

Where did Christ say tell the tax colllectors to go and take more taxes from rich men, and if they don’t cough it up, put them in prison.

No, Christ was about each person giving FREELY of their own will. That is what charity is all about.

St. John Chrysostom (a Doctor of the Church) articulated the Catholic position very well

If you believe the Christ was a Socialist, could you cite one single passage where Christ compelled money to be taken from an unwilling rich man and given to a poor man?

Christ certainly had harsh words for the well-to-do.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
–Mark 10:25