"Jesus was a socialist" -- rebuttal

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s the point. We’re far better off here in the United States. We should appreciate what we have. And we should encourage other countries to become like us.
Pew Research Center continues: Compare that with the rest of the world, where 13% of people globally could be considered middle income in 2011. Most people in the world were either low income (56%) or poor (15%), and relatively few were upper-middle income (9%) or high income (7%).
 
DaveBj said:
A FB friend recently hit me with the old saw that “Jesus was a socialist,” and in the process of answering him, I came up with the following. If any of my fellow CAF denizens have similar friends, this may help in answering that old lie.

In part, socialism is the central government’s taking away a significant portion of what people have or earn and then giving part of what was seized to those in need, while lining other people’s pockets with the rest. If Jesus had actually been a socialist, he would have agitated for the Roman government to take care of Jerusalem’s poor – housing projects, welfare payments, and all that. But he didn’t, because he wasn’t.

What Jesus preached was charity, which is those who have possessions voluntarily giving part (maybe even most) of what they have to those in need. There is a BI-I-IG difference between this and socialism. In fact, neither socialism nor capitalism were gleams in anybody’s eye in 30 A.D.

(Besides charity, Jesus also preached other concepts, like repentance from sin, conversion of life, holiness, righteousness, morality, etc., but these concepts get completely overlooked by those who are trying to use Him to make a political point that would have been completely foreign to Him.)

D
Click to expand...
Just a few thoughts
  1. In socialism, government is the pillar and foundation of truth. NOT the Church.
  2. Socialists for the most part aren’t religious. For the most pat they don’t believe in God
  3. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Catholic Church Jesus builds on Peter and those in union with him. That doesn’t fit with socialism and government under socialist rule.
  4. Socialism wants to keep and or make people poor and dependent on government . It is about full government power and control over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, people, assets, resources,…EVERYTHING… while leaders make themselves wealthy.
That’s NOT who Jesus is or what He taught.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Just a few thoughts
  1. In socialism, government is the pillar and foundation of truth. NOT the Church.
  2. Socialists for the most part aren’t religious. For the most pat they don’t believe in God
  3. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Catholic Church Jesus builds on Peter and those in union with him. That doesn’t fit with socialism and government under socialist rule.
  4. Socialism wants to keep and or make people poor and dependent on government . It is about full government power and control over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, people, assets, resources,…EVERYTHING… while leaders make themselves wealthy.
That’s NOT who Jesus is or what He taught.
Click to expand...
In response to the 4 statements:
  1. The Church itself has outlined vital roles for governments universally, and as such recognizes government within these roles as components of a civil society.
  2. There are “tenants” of socialism that live within devout religious communities. A true socialism so to say, where all things are shared in a communitarian style. It is not, nor has it ever been the word itself that the Church speaks against, nay, the Church has endorsed social programs within the teaching of preferential option for the poor!~It speaks out against socialism for it’s concept that all men should be considered a cog in a wheel, depriving them of their individuality and calling.
  3. The gates of hell may not prevail, but with so many of it’s leaders having the millstone around their necks they will hemorrhage faithful followers when hurting children. No one has the right to stand for sexual abuse and put their children in that type of harms way. Not if you consider yourself made in the image and likeness of God.
  4. And unfettered capitalism isn’t endorsed by the Church either. The simplest reason best described by Pope Francis is that within this type of system, instead of the glass flowing over where the poor have a share in the wealth, the glass at the top magically just gets bigger.
Our Lord taught charity. The Church has expanded (with the authority to do so) this teaching within the idea of subsidiarity. Handle all things at the most local level when possible. Nowadays with global implications of mass tragedy (on the scale of 911), mass murders, national epidemics, devastating natural disasters that have wiped out cities, I beg your pardon. But, local and private charities cannot and should not be expected to shoulder these types of burdens alone.
 
Last edited:
You need to define socialism.
Americans likely define it differently from others.

If we use this definition:
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

then I suggest a better case could be made for saying the Church is socialist than not.

The Church is a community. It counsels but does not command that this community hold things in common and that there be no individual ownership. Just as it counsels perfect chastity rather than marriage for those capable. Many sub communities do follow this advice. Monastic communities for example. I visited one recently in Provence, France where the brothers make a living from harvesting lavender on their farm.
Sounds like common ownership of the means of production to me!
 
redbetta said:
If Jesus was a socialist, wouldn’t the man who ended up with 10 talents at the end of the parable be made to share them with the man who had one and did absolutely nothing with it in the end?
Click to expand...
Jesus was speaking in parables, the talents were referring to the good deeds done, people have talents to do good deeds or evil. If you have done lots of good deeds in your life, how can you share them on judgement day with someone who has done nothing with his talents?
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
steve-b:
Just a few thoughts
  1. In socialism, government is the pillar and foundation of truth. NOT the Church.
  2. Socialists for the most part aren’t religious. For the most pat they don’t believe in God
  3. Not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Catholic Church Jesus builds on Peter and those in union with him. That doesn’t fit with socialism and government under socialist rule.
  4. Socialism wants to keep and or make people poor and dependent on government . It is about full government power and control over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, people, assets, resources,…EVERYTHING… while leaders make themselves wealthy.
That’s NOT who Jesus is or what He taught.
Click to expand...
In response to the 4 statements:
  1. The Church itself has outlined vital roles for governments universally, and as such recognizes government within these roles as components of a civil society.
  2. There are “tenants” of socialism that live within devout religious communities. A true socialism so to say, where all things are shared in a communitarian style. It is not, nor has it ever been the word itself that the Church speaks against, nay, the Church has endorsed social programs within the teaching of preferential option for the poor!~It speaks out against socialism for it’s concept that all men should be considered a cog in a wheel, depriving them of their individuality and calling.
  3. The gates of hell may not prevail, but with so many of it’s leaders having the millstone around their necks they will hemorrhage faithful followers when hurting children. No one has the right to stand for sexual abuse and put their children in that type of harms way. Not if you consider yourself made in the image and likeness of God.
  4. And unfettered capitalism isn’t endorsed by the Church either. The simplest reason best described by Pope Francis is that within this type of system, instead of the glass flowing over where the poor have a share in the wealth, the glass at the top magically just gets bigger.
Our Lord taught charity. The Church has expanded (with the authority to do so) this teaching within the idea of subsidiarity. Handle all things at the most local level when possible. Nowadays with global implications of mass tragedy (on the scale of 911), mass murders, national epidemics, devastating natural disasters that have wiped out cities, I beg your pardon. But, local and private charities cannot and should not be expected to shoulder these types of burdens alone.
Click to expand...
There is no place on the planet where socialism is a success. The U.S. govt is the MOST charitable govt on the planet.
 
Define what you mean by “Socialism”.

I find it to be the most ill-defined term in American parlance - applied to everything from full-blown Stalinism and Trotskyism to our European social market economies.

Consider Pope Emeritus Benedict’s remarks in an essay back in 2006:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents
EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
Define what you mean by “Socialism”.

I find it to be the most ill-defined term in American parlance - applied to everything from full-blown Stalinism and Trotskyism to our European social market economies.

Consider Pope Emeritus Benedict’s remarks in an essay back in 2006:

firstthings.com/article/2006/01/europe-and-its-discontents
EUROPE AND ITS DISCONTENTS
by Pope Benedict XVI
January 2006

But in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness .
Click to expand...
We have social policies and systems in this country. That does NOT mean we are for socialism.
Click to expand...
 
You still haven’t defined it.

Look again at what Pope Benedict said.
 
The trouble is that most democratic socialists in the US are in favor of a stronger safety net and tighter regulation, not state ownership of the means of production but have decided they may as well call themselves socialists since their opponents do.
 
I think it well established that there are as many views on what “Socialism” is as there are interpretations of the Bible.

There seems nothing productive in absolutising one’s own particular definition and arguing from there as it ends up being a strawman exercise.

However if we accept that what all forms of socialism have in common is the communal ownership of property as opposed to individual ownership then it seems impossible to gainsay the view that the Catholic Church has always counselled the former (That is a sine-qua-non re any definition of socialism it seems to me). And in imitation of Jesus’s own teaching.

And the fact that it is a counsel rather than a command does seem to negate the worst instances of historical or theoretical (totalitarian) socialism whereby the individual is lost and only the “hive” is important.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
I think it well established that there are as many views on what “Socialism” is as there are interpretations of the Bible.

There seems nothing productive in absolutising one’s own particular definition and arguing from there as it ends up being a strawman exercise.

However if we accept that what all forms of socialism have in common is the communal ownership of property as opposed to individual ownership then it seems impossible to gainsay the view that the Catholic Church has always counselled the former (That is a sine-qua-non re any definition of socialism it seems to me). And in imitation of Jesus’s own teaching.

And the fact that it is a counsel rather than a command does seem to negate the worst instances of historical or theoretical (totalitarian) socialism whereby the individual is lost and only the “hive” is important.
Click to expand...
Where on this planet is socialism working?
 
Vouthon said:
To provide you with the full quotation:
“… Now what a ruler can do in virtue of his office, so that justice may be served in the matter of riches, is to take from someone who is unwilling to dispense from what is superfluous for life or state, and to distribute it to the poor . In this way he just takes away the dispensation power of the rich man to whom the wealth has been entrusted because he is not worthy. For according to the teaching of the saints, the riches that are superfluous do not belong to the rich man as his own but rather to the one appointed by God as dispenser , so that he can have the merit of a good dispensation… as Basil said, it belongs to the indigent …”

- Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), “Commentary o n the Summa Theologica,” vol. 6, II-II, 118.3
Click to expand...
Except both Cajetan and Basil can be read as the rich man having the role of “dispenser” of wealth in the sense of making available economically feasible work so the “indigent” can lead a gainful and productive life, over the long term. In that sense, the wealth belongs to everyone but is left to the discretion of those with it to make the best use of it. For that they will be judged.

They shouldn’t, however, be judged merely for having it, merely to “satisfy … needs and standing.” The ends may be far beyond merely those.

Why would charity (receiving of goods for no work) ever be considered the normative way in which human economic life should be founded and structured?

Seems to me that the rich man would have the responsibility to use wealth for the benefit of all by investing and building long-lasting infrastructure and employment rather than merely giving it away and distributing it such that everyone merely remains tolerably (although) equally poor.

Why should a wealthy man/woman feel the necessity to give away excess wealth rather than use it wisely and prudently to raise the standard of living for as many as possible? Isn’t that an even better use of wealth than merely giving it away because you are burdened by guilt for having it?

Yes, I do understand that greed can put a wrench into this rather idyllic view, but so can the desire to obtain wealth without working for it put a wrench into the idea of socialism.

It isn’t clear to me which is necessarily worse.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure what the point is - one might ask where on the planet there isn’t priestly sexual abuse or where is there an adult Catholic who has never sinned.

Anyways, in the monastic community in Provence I just presented - and no doubt many more sub communities of the Catholic Church.
But as usual, whether it is working well or poorly will likely depend on your personal definition of Socialism.
The same applies to Capitalism I would think.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
Not sure what the point is - one might ask where on the planet there isn’t priestly sexual abuse or where is there an adult Catholic who has never sinned.

Anyways, in the monastic community in Provence I just presented - and no doubt many more sub communities of the Catholic Church.
But as usual, whether it is working well or poorly will likely depend on your personal definition of Socialism.
The same applies to Capitalism I would think.
Click to expand...
Except where both have been tried at a national or international level, the results haven’t exactly been favourable to the socialist propagandists, nor to the people who had to suffer through the socialist experiment.

Now it appears that some “socialist” dabbling here and there might work, even at a national scale; but the hard-learned lesson has been: don’t let the socialists take over the entire government or direct the economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top