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

[reggieM]

Socialism has been condemned by the Church, I believe. People have the right to private property and the Socialist State denies that. Distributism is philosophically opposed to Socialism also. It’s the opposite. Not centralization, but decentralization and subsidiarity. Moving away from State-control to private control.
I see Distributism more as a philosophical position than as a precise economic or political policy. It’s a certain orientation that favors some developments in society and culture rather than others.

 

[JDaniel]

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

Did I say that he was an expert source? He is notable and famous. Do you think he prepares for his show in the dark?

jd

 

[Rocinante]

Did I say that he was an expert source? He is notable and famous. Do you think he prepares for his show in the dark?

he is notable and famous for promoting completely asinine conspiracy theories.

i’m not at all surprised to learn that that is what you have been talking about here all along.

sorry, i just wouldn’t even know where to begin with a glenn beck adherent. well let me try this. you do know that he is a mormon, right? if he can believe that crazy theology, is it at all surprising that he has all these other crazy theories about what is really going on?

 

[JDaniel]

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

And, in Mark 10:21, Jesus said to the rich man,

Jesus looked steadily at him and he was filled with love for him, and he said, ‘You need to do one thing more. Go and sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’

And, in Mark 10:26-27, Jesus said,

They were more astonished than ever, saying to one another, ‘In that case, who can be saved?’

Jesus gazed at them and said, ‘By human resources it is impossible, but not for God: because for God everything is possible.’

Let’s keep it in context, please. Jesus didn’t say he could not get into Heaven, he said it would be difficult. Then he said, 'In truth I tell you, there is no one who has left house, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children or land for my sake and for the sake of the gospel." Mark 10:29

I think Christ was making a point about all people here. I believe Christ was saying, “This life is not important. Your afterlife is.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

he is notable and famous for promoting completely asinine conspiracy theories.

i’m not at all surprised to learn that that is what you have been talking about here all along.

sorry, i just wouldn’t even know where to begin with a glenn beck adherent. well let me try this. you do know that he is a mormon, right? if he can believe that crazy theology, is it at all surprising that he has all these other crazy theories about what is really going on?

What is amazing about your summary, is that Beck is the third largest radio talk show host in America. Further, he is the target of every leftist kook out there. If his theories were so wrong and so bad, one would think he’d be assailed at every corner. But, he isn’t.

Your are insipid to think that I have been speaking of Glenn Beck all of this time. Rather, I’ve been speaking as an expert from the mortgage industry. I have been a guest speaker. I have been a trainer. What have you done, in the mortgage industry? What have you done in business? nothing, I’ll bet. Yet you try to debate me? And hurl more quasi-insulting slander at me.

Sorry. You wouldn’t “know where to begin” because you don’t know where to begin. I’ve tried to give you some research ideas, but, instead, you fix on a strawman.

I am aware he is Mormon. I’m not happy about that. But, one of my best friends is a Jew. Should I never regard anything he says with verisimilitude either?

God bless,
jd

 

[Abu]

JRRTFAN
This is a thread about Distributism, which is endorsed by the Church.

Where is the endorsement as an economic system, compared to the free market? While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.

reggieM
we should be open to various, Church-approved philosophical perspectives

We should realise who developed free enterprise and the great good that development has enabled. You have the ringing endorsement of the free market in Centesimus Annus, and the fact that having seen the reasons for the condemnation of the Welfare State and socialism, the lack of support for any “third way”, and the endorsement of free enterprise by the Church, we can face reality and study how and why free enterprise was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and revolutionised the creation and distribution of wealth.

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

Those who adore wealth to the detriment of solidarity. Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in the parable of the talents.

Rocinante quotes “Acts” on communal living.
Some misrepresent Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

 

[Brendan]

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

So what harsh words did he have for Zacheus, the tree climbing tax collector?

None actually, but went to eat at his house. He didn’t tell Zacheus to give anything away, or threaten him with imprisonment ( as Socialists do to those who don’t what the State demands).

Rather, He left the decision on what to give, if any, to Zacheus himself.\

We can also see the example of the rich young man who asked Christ “What must I do to be saved?”. And part of what Christ told him was to give his belonging to the poor.

The young man chose not to do that, so did Christ send the Apostles after him to take his money anyway?

So why don’t we all follow the example of Christ; that is to tell the rich that their Salvation depends, in part, upon their charitable giving, and leave the decision on how much charity to give to the person themself.

 

[JRRTFAN]

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.

I’ll give Abu the benefit of the doubt. Distributism (particularly in the day of Obama etal) as a NAME for an economic system is immedately vilified by pople who never heard of the concept which, by the way, built Europe and America. I will also give him the benefit of the doubt vis Chesterton and Belloc who are both under read and under appreciated.i

 

[JRRTFAN]

Where is the endorsement as an economic system, compared to the free market? While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.

lvation.”

Abu, we can stop now, at least I will. You are ignorant, which doesn’t mean stupid and is not derogatory, it simply means uninformed. So I’m going to quit wasting time responding. But look, do yourself a favor and go to wikipedia and enter the word “Distributism”. Then you’ll know how simply flawed all your posts pitting distributism (the ultimate free market) against capitalism are. And it’ll give you something to talk about with your pals. Something CATHOLIC! Education, my friend, it will set you free!

 

[Abu]

On Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI, 2009, 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. 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.

T.S. Ashton has observed that the major problem of the first half of the nineteenth century was “how to feed and clothe and employ generations of children outnumbering by far those of any earlier time.
“If England had remained a nation of cultivators and craftsmen, she could hardly have escaped the same fate [as Ireland].”
It is those who “seeking no doubt their own narrow ends, had the wit and resource to devise new instruments of production and new methods of administering industry.” [See Woods, p 173-4, *The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005].

That book is a great resource for an appraisal of Catholic Social Teaching and the economics. (See Post #88].

 

[reggieM]

We should realise who developed free enterprise and the great good that development has enabled. You have the ringing endorsement of the free market in Centesimus Annus, and the fact that having seen the reasons for the condemnation of the Welfare State and socialism, the lack of support for any “third way”, and the endorsement of free enterprise by the Church, we can face reality and study how and why free enterprise was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and revolutionised the creation and distribution of wealth.

You’re taking an extreme and one-sided view on the topic. The Church doesn’t approach this question in that manner. Your “ringing endorsement” sounds like agressive propaganda. Centesimus Annus gives many warnings and strictures, and it affirms prior papal teaching. The papal document gives a broad overview with many correctives to capitalism:

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called “unbridled capitalism” was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity.

Why do you take such a narrow, ideological view to this important matter? What you’ve been promoting here is the “unbridled capitalism” that Centisimus Annus condems with “severity”.

Capitalism does not contain within itself, by its nature - so to speak, these correctives that the Church has had to stress since Rerum Novarum and even before then.

Distributist principles have already made significant contributions to American economic life.

I guess I don’t get it – why a faithful Catholic would take such a one-sided view on this complex matter which the Church has offered subtle and balanced guidance.

 

[reggieM]

But look, do yourself a favor and go to wikipedia and enter the word “Distributism”. Then you’ll know how simply flawed all your posts pitting distributism (the ultimate free market) against capitalism are. And it’ll give you something to talk about with your pals. Something CATHOLIC! Education, my friend, it will set you free!

This is one case where wikipedia has some excellent content. That is a great overview of Distributism. It is the ultimate capitalism, and our American system is already indebted to Distributist principles. That’s what can save us from the evils of unbridled capitalism (and socialism).

 

[reggieM]

“If England had remained a nation of cultivators and craftsmen, she could hardly have escaped the same fate [as Ireland].”

I wonder what my Irish friends would say about this comment. Did English policy have anything to do with the “fate” of the Irish? Let’s not forget our Catholic brothers and sisters who suffered there.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So what harsh words did he have for Zacheus, the tree climbing tax collector?

None actually, but went to eat at his house. He didn’t tell Zacheus to give anything away, or threaten him with imprisonment ( as Socialists do to those who don’t what the State demands).

Rather, He left the decision on what to give, if any, to Zacheus himself.\

We can also see the example of the rich young man who asked Christ “What must I do to be saved?”. And part of what Christ told him was to give his belonging to the poor.

The young man chose not to do that, so did Christ send the Apostles after him to take his money anyway?

So why don’t we all follow the example of Christ; that is to tell the rich that their Salvation depends, in part, upon their charitable giving, and leave the decision on how much charity to give to the person themself.

The Apostles were certainly socialistic as they walked in the footsteps of Christ (see post # 98)

 

[Robert_Sock]

So what harsh words did he have for Zacheus, the tree climbing tax collector?

None actually, but went to eat at his house. He didn’t tell Zacheus to give anything away, or threaten him with imprisonment ( as Socialists do to those who don’t what the State demands).

Rather, He left the decision on what to give, if any, to Zacheus himself.\

We can also see the example of the rich young man who asked Christ “What must I do to be saved?”. And part of what Christ told him was to give his belonging to the poor.

The young man chose not to do that, so did Christ send the Apostles after him to take his money anyway?

So why don’t we all follow the example of Christ; that is to tell the rich that their Salvation depends, in part, upon their charitable giving, and leave the decision on how much charity to give to the person themself.

[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: 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 heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. [27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? [28] And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
–Matthew 19:21-28*

 

[Rocinante]

The Apostles were certainly socialistic as they walked in the footsteps of Christ (see post # 98)

yep. it’s easy to imagine where marx may have gotten some of his ideas:

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

 

[Abu]

Robert Sock
The Apostles were certainly socialistic as they walked in the footsteps of Christ

False.
In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ, God the Son, lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

One aspect of insanity is in feeling that others in need can be helped without the creation of wealth, thus trying to pit Jesus against Himself – a common failing. Those who adore wealth to the detriment of solidarity Christ condemns, while praising the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence.

In Acts 2:44-47 these so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

By being oblivious to such inanity, people make their own trouble, and some never learn.

As Fr John Corapi 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.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

False.
In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ, God the Son, lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30). Christ certainly praised the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence in this parable.

One aspect of insanity is in feeling that others in need can be helped without the creation of wealth, thus trying to pit Jesus against Himself – a common failing. Those who adore wealth to the detriment of solidarity Christ condemns, while praising the wise use of the fundamental right of economic initiative and prudence.

In Acts 2:44-47 these so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

By being oblivious to such inanity, people make their own trouble, and some never learn.

As Fr John Corapi 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.”

That’s some stretch of the imagination you got there! The interested reader should read post # 116 and make up their own minds.

 

[Brendan]

[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: 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 heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. [27] Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? [28] And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
–Matthew 19:21-28*

Correct, Christ left the decision up to the person. In a Socialistic Gospel it would read

"Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go and take what someone else hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: "

But that is NOT what Jesus said. Did Christ go and take the money from the Rich man, or simply preach the Good News and let the person make his own choice. That is the Christian way.

Christ asked rich men to give of his wealth; one ,Zacheus, gave freely. The other Christ allowed to go about his way without claiming a single cent from him. Is that the type of Socialism that you advocate? If so, I do not have a problem. In fact, as a Catholic I would highly approve.

If you advocate compelling the rich to give of their wealth, that is something that Christ never did, and thus I would refuse to participate.

 

[Brendan]

The Apostles were certainly socialistic as they walked in the footsteps of Christ (see post # 98)

No, the followers gave freely of their own wealth it was not taken from them under threat.

Free gifts are charity, a virtue, compulsion is not a virtue, in fact breeds vice in both the one from whom wealth is taken, and in the one who recieves it ( see my post from St. John Chrysostom)

.