Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[Brendan]

He never said not to either. Caesar is us these days because it’s we that elect our ogvernement.

Who did Christ tell to “feed my sheep” and “tend my sheep”, was it Caesar or Peter?

Why should we look at replacing Peter with Caesar in this role, when it was Christ who put him there in the first place?

And I have yet to see the State take these roles and NOT attempt to force the Church out of them. We saw that in Boston recently when the State placed restrictions on who the Church could, and could not, offer ministrial services to.

So no thank you, the State should not have a role in social ministry. They try and secularlize what should be acts of God inspired Caritas.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Who did Christ tell to “feed my sheep” and “tend my sheep”, was it Caesar or Peter?

Why should we look at replacing Peter with Caesar in this role, when it was Christ who put him there in the first place?

And I have yet to see the State take these roles and NOT attempt to force the Church out of them. We saw that in Boston recently when the State placed restrictions on who the Church could, and could not, offer ministrial services to.

So no thank you, the State should not have a role in social ministry. They try and secularlize what should be acts of God inspired Caritas.

When he told Peter to feed his sheep, he was talking about spiritual food. But if you want to be so literal, he said FEED my sheep. Medical care is not feeding. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Brendan]

When he told Peter to feed his sheep, he was talking about spiritual food. But if you want to be so literal, he said FEED my sheep. Medical care is not feeding. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

He meant it in both ways, which is why the Apostles dealt with the bringing of food to the widows ( and thus the institution of the Diaconate to Holy Orders).

And Christ said to TEND His sheep too, as in guide and care for. Do you think a good shepherd does not bind the wounds when his sheep is injured, or helps the ewes birth their lambs? Is that not part of tending to the flock?

So why did Christ give this task to Peter instead of Caesar?

 

[aspawloski4th]

He meant it in both ways, which is why the Apostles dealt with the bringing of food to the widows ( and thus the institution of the Diaconate to Holy Orders).

And Christ said to TEND His sheep too, as in guide and care for. Do you think a good shepherd does not bind the wounds when his sheep is injured, or helps the ewes birth their lambs? Is that not part of tending to the flock?

So why did Christ give this task to Peter instead of Caesar?

Back then Caesar would not have obeyed it. Youcan’t compare any governement of that time anywhere in the world to any first world ogvernemnt of today. Back them governemnt was all about bringing tribute to the ruler, and whatever the ruler wants. Yes Rome had a senate, but it didn’t represent the people. Everytime there was a vacuum leeeadership wise then there was a power struggle for new leader. Today we vote! Now we are our own caesar. Remember not everyone is Catholic or Christian. We have to have a system that works for everybody, not just for us.

 

[thinker]

Because mother church has said so - in a way that is wise and subject to examination and discussion but not - in my experience - refutation.

See: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.206 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."207 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.
at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8C.HTM

See also the whole of this article. It makes sense.
The Church points out the truth that property exists. The best ways to protect and defend God’s creation require men to behave responsibly.
HE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P89.HTM

 

[Brendan]

Back then Caesar would not have obeyed it. Youcan’t compare any governement of that time anywhere in the world to any first world ogvernemnt of today. Back them governemnt was all about bringing tribute to the ruler, and whatever the ruler wants. Yes Rome had a senate, but it didn’t represent the people. Everytime there was a vacuum leeeadership wise then there was a power struggle for new leader. Today we vote! Now we are our own caesar. Remember not everyone is Catholic or Christian. We have to have a system that works for everybody, not just for us.

So what you are saying then, is that Christ gave that ministry to Peter only because of political expediency? And that His real intention was to give it to “Caesar” when a democratice form of governance came about.

That’s an interesting premise. It seems to be a rephrasing of the aruguments that the “women priest” movement uses to justify why Christ only chose men for the priesthood.

Neither their premise or yours is in line with a full understanding of the role of the Messiah. He is not bound by geo-political dictates. The Word of God is timeless and speaks to us in every generation.

The Roman government of the time had social programs, the infamous “bread and circuses”. Why didn’t Christ use those instead of giving the authority to a Gallean fisherman?

 

[tjm190]

Wall Street wants billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and socialism for the rich on Wall Street, but they don;t want government to lift a finger to help the poor of America or those Americans who have to leave their houses which are being foreclosed on them.

Yes, I suppose allowing all of the upper echelons of our economy to fall apart would have been the more moral decision. I didn’t want anybody to be able to get a loan or put their money in a bank anyway.

 

[tjm190]

Back then Caesar would not have obeyed it. Youcan’t compare any governement of that time anywhere in the world to any first world ogvernemnt of today. Back them governemnt was all about bringing tribute to the ruler, and whatever the ruler wants. Yes Rome had a senate, but it didn’t represent the people. Everytime there was a vacuum leeeadership wise then there was a power struggle for new leader. Today we vote! Now we are our own caesar. Remember not everyone is Catholic or Christian. We have to have a system that works for everybody, not just for us.

It’s nice when I explain to you why an argument is invalid and then you make that same argument again on the same page.

 

[fish90]

Wall Street wants billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and socialism for the rich on Wall Street, but they don;t want government to lift a finger to help the poor of America or those Americans who have to leave their houses which are being foreclosed on them.

Since when should I be compassionate for somebody losing a home they could never afford? Was that not the cause of the economic downturn?

The job of the Federal Reserve is supposed to be the lender of last resort in situations like in 2008-2009. On the other hand, I have to accept the crucial role these financial institutions have. Then again, even I would purchase AIG or Lehman Brothers for pennies on the dollar. Bankruptcy has its place in capitalism.

 

[AP4Him]

I like Margaret Thatcher’s statement: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

HA!!!

 

[humblelurker]

Wow everyone has been busy on this thread.

Timcfc said:
This basic principle is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reads: “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good. Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance”

“Society” means all of us. “Society” does not mean socialism or the government. A society would include private subsidiarity.

Timcfc said:
I believe that the Church’s stance on subsidiarity needs to be looked at,with regards to the US.

In what way?

Timcfc said:
How are those who are recieving Healthcare in the US looking after those who dont?
The numbers that dont have health insurance run into the tens of millions,how can you,as a good Catholic with no medical experience,i presume,help them?

In our community we have doctors who give of their time and talents to help the uninsured; furthermore, we have a parish nursing program. Many of the churches in our community help, and one non-catholic church helps with blood and bone marrow transfusions. What can a Catholic who has no medical training do if there is little or no assistance in your community? Speak out. Evangelize. Talk to many Catholics in the medical field to donate some of their time and talent to help the less fortunate in their community. Donate blood and bone marrow. There is nothing that says the government has to do everything for us; we can do for ourselves without the government. Be pro-active. The churches should take back charities. After all who were St. Francis and Bl. Mother Theresa representing when they were helping people? If each community were to help those in their community then we would take care of many problems. I believe the fault, dear friend, is not in the system, but in ourselves.

peary1
I think this thread is very clear in quoting the church and documents. However people are determined to believe that it is either the government or nothing.

Sorry, but this is just what I humbly think.

 

[sidbrown]

It has to be paid back.

However, this is not true for the government and for the banks if there is inflation.
For example, let us suppose that the government has borrowed $100K to pay for something, but the inflation rate is 10% per year. Further suppose that the debt is due in 2 years. The government pays back its debt of $100K, but now because of inflation the actual worth of the currency is $80K. So they are only paying back 80% of what they originally owed, which results in a net gain for them of 20% of what they borrowed.

 

[TenBobNote]

However, this is not true for the government and for the banks if there is inflation.
For example, let us suppose that the government has borrowed $100K to pay for something, but the inflation rate is 10% per year. Further suppose that the debt is due in 2 years. The government pays back its debt of $100K, but now because of inflation the actual worth of the currency is $80K. So they are only paying back 80% of what they originally owed, which results in a net gain for them of 20% of what they borrowed.

Wow free money! … wait didn’t some guy… Bernie Madoff… get many years in prison for that? … oh but the government can do that with our money… ok ic…

 

[sidbrown]

Wow free money! … wait didn’t some guy… Bernie Madoff… get many years in prison for that? … oh but the government can do that with our money… ok ic…

Yes, the govenrment which is in debt profits by inflation. This is what some people call a hidden tax.

 

[fultonfish]

He meant it in both ways, which is why the Apostles dealt with the bringing of food to the widows ( and thus the institution of the Diaconate to Holy Orders).

And Christ said to TEND His sheep too, as in guide and care for. Do you think a good shepherd does not bind the wounds when his sheep is injured, or helps the ewes birth their lambs? Is that not part of tending to the flock?

So why did Christ give this task to Peter instead of Caesar?

There is an interesting parable, that of The Good Samaritan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

A private individual at great risk to himself picked up an injured stranger and put him up at an inn, took care of his immediate medical needs, left some money for him to be looked after with the promise to donate more on his return trip.

What would have happened if The Good Samaritan didn’t have any money?

The Good Samaritan didn’t use a weapon to hold up other travelers to force them to pay the expenses of the injured stranger.

It was someone who had money who volunteered it to help people less fortunate than him.

Jesus didn’t condemn the fact that The Good Samaritan had money. Or that The Good Samaritan should be taxed to within an inch of his life so that the tax collector could take the money. Or that The Good Samaritan was “wealthy” and therefor evil.

Instead, Jesus went out of His way to set up as an example that The Good Samaritan volunteered to help someone.

The Church has had private charities within the overall supervision of the Church that looked after sick people. They existed from the very early days of the Church.

Someone posted on CAF that before Medicare, old people just died. That is false. Doctors often set up their own hospitals. Voluntary hospitals. Doctors set up their own financial bases to pay the hospital expenses. Wealthy people, people who had “wealth” donated money and services to the hospitals. There were and are religious orders that provided and still provide medical assistance to people.

As a sidebar, I was watching an episode of “If Walls Could Talk” and it featured a house from the early 1800’s in Texas. It turned out to have belonged to a doctor who did well for himself. He had built up an extensive library of medical books including some interesting exhibits on Malaria and infectious diseases) and his large house may also have been used as a hospital. The idea that we need government to take over what would normally be charitable functions is utterly false.

Sometimes, to help encourage some folks to donate, they would name a building expansion after the donor. Some people enjoy criticizing people with wealth. Well, very few poor people endow a hospital or build a new wing or buy an MRI for a hospital.

But the private Good Samaritan system worked well. And still does. Absolutely no need for government’s socialism to take over, except where the government set up demands and standards that could not be met and provided an excuse and an opportunity for the government to impose socialism.

It’s interesting that at one time, there was a military hospital transport plane that was nicknamed the “Samaritan”.

 

[xindybobx]

As christians, I believe, we are called to be charitable. A government seizing the property of an individual against their will, however, is more like theft. A government of some sort, and the taxes that must accompany, is necessary, but must be treated as carefully as a loaded weapon. It is too tempting for those in power to abuse it. Government power must be limited (and acts of charity must be encouraged) if the people are to be free.

 

[fultonfish]

There is an interesting parable, that of The Good Samaritan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Good_Samaritan

A private individual at great risk to himself picked up an injured stranger and put him up at an inn, took care of his immediate medical needs, left some money for him to be looked after with the promise to donate more on his return trip.

What would have happened if The Good Samaritan didn’t have any money?

The Good Samaritan didn’t use a weapon to hold up other travelers to force them to pay the expenses of the injured stranger.

It was someone who had money who volunteered it to help people less fortunate than him.

Jesus didn’t condemn the fact that The Good Samaritan had money. Or that The Good Samaritan should be taxed to within an inch of his life so that the tax collector could take the money. Or that The Good Samaritan was “wealthy” and therefor evil.

Instead, Jesus went out of His way to set up as an example that The Good Samaritan volunteered to help someone.

The Church has had private charities within the overall supervision of the Church that looked after sick people. They existed from the very early days of the Church.

Someone posted on CAF that before Medicare, old people just died. That is false. Doctors often set up their own hospitals. Voluntary hospitals. Doctors set up their own financial bases to pay the hospital expenses. Wealthy people, people who had “wealth” donated money and services to the hospitals. There were and are religious orders that provided and still provide medical assistance to people.

As a sidebar, I was watching an episode of “If Walls Could Talk” and it featured a house from the early 1800’s in Texas. It turned out to have belonged to a doctor who did well for himself. He had built up an extensive library of medical books [including some interesting exhibits on Malaria and infectious diseases) and his large house may also have been used as a hospital. The idea that we need government to take over what would normally be charitable functions is utterly false.

Sometimes, to help encourage some folks to donate, they would name a building expansion after the donor. Some people enjoy criticizing people with wealth. Well, very few poor people endow a hospital or build a new wing or buy an MRI for a hospital.

But the private Good Samaritan system worked well. And still does. Absolutely no need for government’s socialism to take over, except where the government set up demands and standards that could not be met and provided an excuse and an opportunity for the government to impose socialism.

It’s interesting that at one time, there was a military hospital transport plane that was nicknamed the “Samaritan”.

Got timed out.

The early hospital/house was built in 1926 in Denton, Texas.
[/quote]

 

[sidbrown]

A government seizing the property of an individual against their will, however, is more like theft.

But governments do that all the time. And they are always taking your money with taxes. Federal income tax, captial gains tax, state income tax, state sales tax, local city taxes, car taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.

 

[humblelurker]

But governments do that all the time. And they are always taking your money with taxes. Federal income tax, capital gains tax, state income tax, state sales tax, local city tax, car tax, gasoline tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax (Tax sung with the Monty Python Spam theme).

That was the first thing that hit me when I read your post sidbrown. That is one song the political bureaucrats would love.

 

[sidbrown]

But governments do that all the time. And they are always taking your money with taxes. Federal income tax, capital gains tax, state income tax, state sales tax, local city tax, car tax, gasoline tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax (Tax sung with the Monty Python Spam theme).

That was the first thing that hit me when I read your post sidbrown. That is one song the political bureaucrats would love.

Well, the question is whether or not it really is theft for the government to take your money.