Socialism

[vern_humphrey]

This doesn’t work on a broad scale. When property is held collectively, no one takes care of it. In economics it is called the tragedy of the commons. People only work hard, invest, save for tommorrow if they know they, personally, will benefit from these actions.

The best way to care for the poor is through generous private charity, which the Church, historically has been very good at administering.

The best way to care for the poor is to educate them, so they can get jobs and care for themselves.

But to the extent charity is needed, it is us – the Church – who are called, not the government.

Government social programs tend to enforce negative behaviors among the poor, including a sense of entitlement, and sap the means and motivation for private efforts.

And anyone who doesn’t believe that should take a walk through a crumbling center city, or a rural poverty pocket – socialism in action!

 

[levi86]

1. We know the Church tried and abandoned the socialist experiment.
2. We know the members complained about unequal distribution of funds
3. We know that the experiment was in Jerusalem, only
4. and it is Jerusalem, not Corinith, or Antioch, or any of the other Christian communities that had to be supported by charity from without.

.

Id be very interested to see any scriptural support for any one of these assertions.

“We know the Church tried and abandoned the socialist experiment.” Really? How much private property does your Parish Priest own?

 

[urban-hermit]

Couldn’t agree more. A Christian could not “give up everything” without the support of the Church. All I am saying is that the most effective way to serve the poor is to establish collectives that resemble the Church of Acts (post 46) and to donate all available resources to the poor.

I think the key point, Levi, is that those biblical collectives were entered into FREELY and VOLUNTARILY, without denying anybody their legitimate rights to property.

St Thomas Aquinas said (I believe) that it was not prudent to attempt to REQUIRE every virtue, from every human, by legal obligation. We can give incentives to people to do the right thing, but there’s only so far we can go in attempting to force the rich to provide for the poor.

As Jesus said, we will always have the poor with us. It’s part of this fallen world. That’s not to say we don’t have a moral obligation to do what we can. It’s just we need to keep a realistic perpective, and remember that many times we will disagree on what is the best way to help the poor. Maybe the best solution will turn out to be some aspects of socialism and some aspects of capitalism, thereby attacking the problem from a variety of angles.

But Socialism tends to portray poverty as the problem of the rich, rather than the problem of the poor. That’s one problem I have with it. Also, it tends to portray poverty, or a lack of “power”, as the worst thing that can befall a person - something else which the Church teaches is deceptively false. Of course, Marxists latch onto this and call it the “opiate of the people”. But if that “opiate” is actually true to some extent - that a simplicity, or some tolerable degree of poverty, is perhaps a sanctifying influence if accepted in the right spirit - it would be wrong to deny it. (Hope that doesn’t sound like a rationalization not to help people - I think we can see that the Church does indeed help people and does not use this thinking as a rationale to be lazy or indifferent.)

The other thing that came to my mind is that some people do still live the biblical collective ideal, or some form of it, to this day. People in religious orders and lay associations practice a sort of communal living which I find interesting. Perhaps this is the wave of the future. But again I think forcing people to enter into such a living arrangement would be very wrong - it has to be freely chosen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Id be very interested to see any scriptural support for any one of these assertions.

“We know the Church tried and abandoned the socialist experiment.” Really? How much private property does your Parish Priest own?

How many members of your parish have given all their property to the Church? Do you all live in a commune?

 

[levi86]

I think the key point, Levi, is that those biblical collectives were entered into FREELY and VOLUNTARILY, without denying anybody their legitimate rights to property.

St Thomas Aquinas said (I believe) that it was not prudent to attempt to REQUIRE every virtue, from every human, by legal obligation. We can give incentives to people to do the right thing, but there’s only so far we can go in attempting to force the rich to provide for the poor.

As Jesus said, we will always have the poor with us. It’s part of this fallen world. That’s not to say we don’t have a moral obligation to do what we can. It’s just we need to keep a realistic perpective, and remember that many times we will disagree on what is the best way to help the poor. Maybe the best solution will turn out to be some aspects of socialism and some aspects of capitalism, thereby attacking the problem from a variety of angles.

But Socialism tends to portray poverty as the problem of the rich, rather than the problem of the poor. That’s one problem I have with it. Also, it tends to portray poverty, or a lack of “power”, as the worst thing that can befall a person - something else which the Church teaches is deceptively false. Of course, Marxists latch onto this and call it the “opiate of the people”. But if that “opiate” is actually true to some extent - that a simplicity, or some tolerable degree of poverty, is perhaps a sanctifying influence if accepted in the right spirit - it would be wrong to deny it. (Hope that doesn’t sound like a rationalization not to help people - I think we can see that the Church does indeed help people and does not use this thinking as a rationale to be lazy or indifferent.)

The other thing that came to my mind is that some people do still live the biblical collective ideal, or some form of it, to this day. People in religious orders and lay associations practice a sort of communal living which I find interesting. Perhaps this is the wave of the future. But again I think forcing people to enter into such a living arrangement would be very wrong - it has to be freely chosen.

Great post. Perhaps I have not stressed the importance of a voluntary submission of ones resources (as opposed to the forced acquisition of capital)

However we disagree on this point…

But Socialism tends to portray poverty as the problem of the rich, rather than the problem of the poor.

Poverty is indeed a situation for which the wealthy carry the bulk of responsibility, in that they possess the capability to better the situation. To assert that the poor must simply take responsibility for their own situation, negates our Christian obligation to others.

 

[levi86]

How many members of your parish have given all their property to the Church? Do you all live in a commune?

How odd. I didn’t remember mentioning the lay people within my parish. If I recall correctly I asked about your Parish Priest not your lay community. The purpose of this was clear; to show that socialism still exists within the Church in some form.

 

[levi86]

How many members of your parish have given all their property to the Church? Do you all live in a commune?

How odd. I didn’t remember mentioning the lay people within my parish. If I recall correctly I asked about your Parish Priest not your lay community. The purpose of this was clear; to show that socialism still exists within the Church in some form, and that the assertion that the Church has “abandoned” socialism is misleading.

 

[Lantz]

I would think one of the principal problems with Socialism to a Catholic would be the socialist concept of the primacy of the state over the individual. Though the state is an important conceptual entity and warrants proper allegance (see the CCC) this idea (from another source ) is in complete agreement with our faith: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

 

[Lantz]

Couldn’t agree more. A Christian could not “give up everything” without the support of the Church. All I am saying is that the most effective way to serve the poor is to establish collectives that resemble the Church of Acts (post 46) and to donate all available resources to the poor.

Finally, some validation. It’s not much but ill take it

Hmmm, who would run these collectives?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How odd. I didn’t remember mentioning the lay people within my parish. If I recall correctly I asked about your Parish Priest not your lay community. The purpose of this was clear; to show that socialism still exists within the Church in some form, and that the assertion that the Church has “abandoned” socialism is misleading.

What an odd parish you have, where the lay people, those in the pews are not considered part of the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hmmm, who would run these collectives?

That’s exactly the problem the Apostles ran into – who will run the collectives?

 

[levi86]

How many members of your parish have given all their property to the Church? Do you all live in a commune?

What an odd parish you have, where the lay people, those in the pews are not considered part of the Church.

You are clearly the more skilled apologist. :tiphat:

G’night and Gad Bless

 

[levi86]

How many members of your parish have given all their property to the Church? Do you all live in a commune?

What an odd parish you have, where the lay people, those in the pews are not considered part of the Church .

You are clearly the more skilled apologist. :tiphat:

G’night and God Bless

 

[urban-hermit]

Id be very interested to see any scriptural support for any one of these assertions.

“We know the Church tried and abandoned the socialist experiment.” Really? How much private property does your Parish Priest own?

I believe here in my archdiocese, the Church is set up as a legal corporation with one person on the board: the archbishop.

But I’m not sure of myself there - somebody surely will read this and be more knowledgeable.

But I do think the priest actually owns nothing. I believe it all “belongs” (legally speaking) to the bishop.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe here in my archdiocese, the Church is set up as a legal corporation with one person on the board: the archbishop.

But I’m not sure of myself there - somebody surely will read this and be more knowledgeable.

But I do think the priest actually owns nothing. I believe it all “belongs” (legally speaking) to the bishop.

But that’s hardly socialism. Acts makes it perfectly clear that in the very early Church, anyone who joined gave all his property to the Church, and this property was administered by the Apostles. That system was a failure and was soon abandoned.

 

[bilop]

I believe here in my archdiocese, the Church is set up as a legal corporation with one person on the board: the archbishop.

But I’m not sure of myself there - somebody surely will read this and be more knowledgeable.

But I do think the priest actually owns nothing. I believe it all “belongs” (legally speaking) to the bishop.

This varies by country, and diocese. Some places the whole diocese is one corporation, in others each parish is a seperate corp. (e.g. NY).

While the parish priest doesn’t own the parish, he needn’t be poor.
His salary is low, but if he earned a lot before entering the priesthood, or inherited wealth, he is free to keep it. Diocesan priests take no vow of poverty. And any religious priest who is ordained a bishop is released from his vow of poverty.

God Bless

 

[Montalban]

Where in the Bible does Christ promote social equality?

Blessed are the meek, first shall be last, rich man entering heaven, etc.

 

[Montalban]

I thought it was because they LIED about the money, saying “here’s all our money”, as opposed to being honest and saying “we do not wish to give you all our money”. I could be wrong though. Check me on that …

The actual punishment was for lying about their money, but they were expected to hand over their money for it to be doled out by the elders. They lied about what they handed over and were killed for that. But this doesn’t take from the fact that they were supposed to be handing over their money in the first place.

 

[Brendan]

The actual punishment was for lying about their money, but they were expected to hand over their money for it to be doled out by the elders. They lied about what they handed over and were killed for that. But this doesn’t take from the fact that they were supposed to be handing over their money in the first place.

So it’s your claim that if they told Peter that they were keeping some of the money for themselves, that they still would have been punished?

Or, perhaps, that they would not have died, but maybe Peter would have denied them the Sacraments for keeping some of the money?

 

[vern_humphrey]

So it’s your claim that if they told Peter that they were keeping some of the money for themselves, that they still would have been punished?

Or, perhaps, that they would not have died, but maybe Peter would have denied them the Sacraments for keeping some of the money?

I think the point is, the experiment failed. No other Christian community was founded as a socialist community. And it economically crippled the Jerusalem community – having consumed their seed corn, they were dependent on the charity of other Christian communities for a generation or more.