Sophist: insincere person trying to confuse

CCNL CCNL CCNL= sophist trolling the blogs making false statements that irritate the rest

YOU, my fake friend, are the sophist that made the amazing statement that the early Christians were Christians for the tax avoidance *without* bothering to check to see if they paid taxes, which indeed they did.

Then you ask ME for references! Oh! that is rich, CCNL, even for you. My good man just because you last read book on ancient history some time ago doesn't mean others share your blinkered ways. So I will cite the historians, two of whom are still teaching: Robin Lane Fox, Martin Goodman, Fr Anthony Meredith, SJ. Goodman is at Oxford, Meredith at Heythrop College, UL (University of London), not sure about Lane Fox.

Lane Fox is an atheist, Goodman a Jew and Meredith a Catholic, so I think bias-wise the three form a good trio. Goodman goes into the issue of taxes in some detail in his "Rome and Jerusalem".

Why do we try to harmonize historical movements as disparate as early Christianity and the development of socialist economic theory 19 centuries later? There is no evidence that I know of that Karl Marx was thinking about early church doctrine when he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

PAULC2 in your response to Charles Larkin: You are aware of Dorothy Day's leftist political affiliations before she and Peter Marin started the Catholic Worker movement? You mention hermits, saints, monks, and nuns as exemplars of Catholic teaching. How well has Catholic teaching worked for the billion or so oppressed poor over the many centuries of domination by ecclesiastical princes?

You say, "There is no room for charity in socialism or communism." Obviously you have very low expectations from human beings. The capacity to love one another, comfort those who suffer, feed the hungry, and perform other acts of ordinary charity are universal, and you will find frequent examples of these actions everywhere, regardless of which religious or political system people live in.

You say, "A true christian nation would allow for voluntary poverty, and hence the ability to show love." One has to be voluntarily poor to have the ability to show love? Should the involuntarily poor convert their poverty to the optional variety?

You live in a more or less Christian nation. Have you adopted voluntary destitution? No? Are you without the capacity to love? I expect not.

CCNL:

More broadly than just for services, money is the 'currency' for living. Outside of living completely separately and with absolutely no connection or intercourse with others, re society, and in a way that one could actually 'live off the land', EVERYONE for millenia have required some way of exchange to support life and living. Show me who does not need some form of making a living or supporting their life.
It is obvious that early christianity would organize itself over time into some structure that would support it to continue to present it's reason d'etre. Any movement organizes into a structure that can support itself, or it fails.
You have a problem with religious or spiritual organizations requiring money? What organization does not?
I have a problem with religious organizations that go off course of stated purpose and become all about the money under a facade of godliness. The Catholic Church and christian sects in general have a history of getting money hungry. That reeks.
But I imagine that early christianity was close enough to it's roots that it remained relatively pure for quite awhile.
"Paul and beyond-"
Paul was in the beginning. Sat next to the Man.

Mary, Mary, Mary,

References to support your theory that Christians paid their taxes???

Justillthen and PaulC,

Money is an exchange for services.

In the beginning (e.g.the bapitiser and the simple preacher man) the services were for basic living.

Paul and beyond- The money collected was, as noted before for the promise of the second coming, the epistles (full of goodness but also hype), the indulgences, trinkets, armies, crusades, businesses, castles, cathedrals, and free passes to heaven, i.e. money/services that did not correlate with the needs of basic living and Christianity.

CCNL:
A bit jaded you are. Of course that has been obvious, by your posts, but then I am jaded too, in my own way. But I take offense at your suggestion that early Christianity was about money. Now, EVERYTHING in temporal world gets connected to money or its equivilent of the day. All need to survive. Even dirt poor spiritual seekers. You could use similar assumptions and say that a hindu sadhu begging for money in the streets of calcutta so to continue spiritual focus is doing it all for money...
Certainly the begging part gets naan and dahl, and survival. So I am sure that all of those spiritualists are in it for the bucks.

CCNl:
Your theory that the early Christians were in it for the money is without merit. These were the people sent out to preach without taking an extra cloak. They were the ones preaching a gospel of love, where a person could not be expected to serve both God and money. In Paul's case, he tells of earning his own keep to avoid putting a burden on his converts. They were also the ones that ultimately died for their faith. They would not have done this if it was all about money...

Teacher's Report

Subject: Christian Economics
Student: CCNL

The early Christians paid taxes. All subjects of Rome did. Jews paid an extra tax to excuse them from sacrificing to the Roman Gods. However, Christians did not pay this extra tax, because they maintained they were no longer Jews. But they paid regular taxes without demur.

Mark: Failure.

Recommendation: CCNL needs to read some ancient history before he runs his mouth again.

THORNEGP - I'll use your post since we have the same last name - I'm shocked that our politics are at such opposite polarities!

As regards Socialism; we have plenty of socialism right here in the USA - Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid all qualify - but here's the big surprise - the Department of Veterans Affairs runs a gigantic socialist operation and will not only be the model for a national healthcare system, but may indeed take civilians as patients one day in the future.

This was actually suggested by a past (republican) Director of Veterans Affairs - as regards healthcare, financial benefits, and overall quality of care, this system is second to none in the world.

Folks that refuse to see the future, are consigned to live in the past - the pure libertarian view is as dead as the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Dead Sea itself.

Certainly there was never a more avowed Socialist than Jesus Christ himself - read the Sermon on the Mount.......could that have been written by a capitalist?

Christian Economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". Socialism, capitalism or simple first century survival?

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. Socialism, capitalism or simple first century survival?

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! Capitalism started in the RCC as Paul invested his "earnings" in added epistles, travels, and money collections.

And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future capitalists as in selling indulgences, saintly trinkets and passes to Heaven.

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious Capitalists as seen with the Vatican Bank and the huge business empire of the Mormon Church.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing. Socialism, capitalism or simple first century survival?

Somebody asked about an opinion by a Catholic theologian. Catholic theologians come in a great variety, with a considerable span of positions. Probably the most unarguably authoritative Catholic source on social questions is still the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, of 1984. (Both the Latin original and the English translation can be found on the Vatican web site; the English version is also available in paperback from Amazon.com or other book dealers.)

Charles,

But wasn't Christ's Kingdom "not of this world"?

As well, in "Jesus of Nazareth" Pope Benedict has postulated that perhaps when he referred to the *Kingdom* Christ was referring to himself (a modern profane version could be Louis XIV "L'etat, c'est moi").

Christians might have lived in common but they believed that Christ was coming again--and soon! That was the centrality of their practices, not the group ownership of goods. They didn't much care about goods, they believed the second coming was close. You can't make a connection between these early practices and 19th century socialist ideology!

Anyway, whatever the earliest Christians really believed and did, they have almost nothing to do with the anti-capitalist origins of socialist and communist theory. The Church has been consistent in its opposition to the materialist view of the world these ideologies engender. (The materialism of Capitalism as well, I might add.) Consistent.

Whatever Arroyo-Stevens might conjur up--and why ever bother to quote Marx, a secular atheist, on early Christian practices? He wouldn't be the best authority--advocacy of socialist and communist ideologies is simply not present in Church teaching.

Charles Larkin:
Of course Pope JPII was scathing in his view of raw capitalism. There is no love in agressively accumulating material goods. He also helped bring down communism in eastern Europe. What God wants and what the church wants is for people to focus their attention on love of God and Neighbor. This can not be legislated. It is good for the government to recommend resource sharing. It is counterproductive for the government to mandate it.

My mistake when I said socialism is a political system (although some political parties *are * socialist). Confusing and I'm sorry. Communism as well is not a political system. Both communism and socialism are political ideologies, ideology defined as a "philosophy, belief, creed, system, dogma". Once a party or group with such an ideology gains power, socialist or communist beliefs then become the law of the land.

I hope this is clear.

These *ideologies* primarily concern the ownership and distribution of the goods of production. In socialism and communism these are collectively owned. We can also call such economies "command and control" economies.

The history of the 20th century is also clear that socialism and communism ideologies call for a large degree of government control and power. Additionally these ideologies can and have produced huge abuses of said power. Finally communist ideology, when it gained power, was ferociously hostile to traditional religions, and this was the case across time, continents and types of religion. The communists made war on religion where ever they were and as soon as they gained power: Orthodox Christianity in Russia, Catholicism in Poland, Hungary, &tc, Buddhism in Tibet and Cambodia & China, Catholicism in Cuba and Angola. Communist revolutionaries in Mexico, Venezuela & Spain slaughtered priests, burned churches and missions. The inclination of the communist ideology is very clear.

Understandably the Church was against communism. As well, it developed its own theory of Social Justice. Most of the Christian Democratic political systems of western Europe accepted this Catholic theory. But the European Christian Democrats of the 20th c. were almost always arrayed *against* the Socialist.

As you can see, these capitalist and anti-capitalist movements had and have very little to do with Catholicism.

It is stunning to read the responses asserting that that for Christ all this was a matter of personal --- not social -- calling.

We perhaps forget that Jesus was proclaiming a new KINGDOM in which his principles would be LAW, and that anyone "choosing" otherwise would be expelled from the kingdom.

At the risk of redundancy, I repeat that this was the commonly held belief of all Christendom until the ruinous ego-centric individualism of Protestantism rose its ugly head and tore apart the social fabric of the West.

This is a commonplace of modern scholarship -- but then education today, especially history, is another victim of the marginalizing of the public good.

Incidentally, Pope John Paul II was quite scathing in his criticism of what he called "raw capitalism."

Kevink2 says the confusion of 'socialism' and 'liberalism' has been cleared up, but seems to then introduce, in my mind, a lack of understanding regarding the term 'justice'. What seems to be justice to one person may not seem so to another.

And what has been mastered in Europe beyond extreme state supported versions of 'political correctness'?

One of the many nice things about the recently concluded US presidential campaign is that, finally, the world "liberal" ceased to be an insult in public debate in America, to be replaced by "socialist", just like in the good old days of the 1950s.

The word "socialist" carries a lot of different baggage for different people, and indeed it's perhaps appropriate that an article about socialism in the context of Catholicism has provoked a near-theological "dialogue of the deaf" of readers insisting that socialism is or is not an economic or a political system.

By my reading of history, "socialism" isn't a political system as such, any more than "capitalism". Both can thrive under dictatorships, and, with luck, under democracies. But the two systems do assume different forms of coercion. Under capitalism, the state enforces the property rights of individuals, such that basic needs of food and shelter will coerce those who lack property to work for those who do. That can function even with a weak state. Under socialism, in order to reduce the level of coercion by nature - people starving - there's a higher level of coercion by the state: Those with property are obliged to share, whether or not they want to. Socialism is thus incompatible with a weak state.

A strong state may thus be necessary to provide a framework for economic justice, but as history has repeatedly demonstrated, a strong state is often an impediment to *political* justice: The right to dissent can be muzzled, the rights of minorities can be trampled, etc. etc. Those are real dangers of state power, but history has shown, in the social democracies of Western Europe, for example, that those dangers can be mastered.

PATN039 has a comment that sums up this issue very well. Christian doctrine of individual free will and voluntary service tells the story. These concepts are incompatible with government responsibility and any form of compulsion. The secularists are at odds with religion (particularly Christianity) because of this conflict.

The fact that American capitalism coupled with our political concept of individual freedom does not work perfectly to solve everyone's immediate economic need is no reason to think it should be abandoned. Everyone can see the imperfections (most of which are exacerbated by greed, fraud, and criminality) but we can also see that the world has never before experienced the general levels of prosperity yielded by our system.

CharlesLarkin:
There is a big difference between the Catholic virtue of Poverty and socialism. The Catholic virtue of poverty is focused on the individual giving up material goods to focus their attention on God. Yes, Jesus stated that to be perfect, the rich man should give his belongings to the poor and follow him. And yes, there have been numerous examples of this in Catholicism, from the original hermits to St. Francis to the monks and sisters living the communal life to Dorothy Day. However, this is very distinct from the forced redistribution of Goods that socialism or communism imply. There is no room for charity in socialism or communism. Everything is dictated by the state. A true christian nation would allow for voluntary poverty, and hence the ability to show love.

After reading a lot of these comments defending the current system which REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH UPWARD, I think a lot of these people should start considering the size of the eye of a needle. Reminds me of the scene in Mel Brooks History of the World Pt 1 with the Roman Senate. These people are clearly Roman Senators with the same response to the poor. I think Jesus would not approve.

I'm not going to write an opinion on this article. But to those of you who say socialism is a political system, you are wrong. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Communism and democracy are political systems. The last pope spoke out against communism. It's not the same thing as socialism. I wish people would stop confusing the two. We have some socialist systems in this country already. Social security, medicare, food stamps, and even public education are socialist. Not all socialist policies are bad.

I am not quite certain how it is that you, Mr. Arroyo, have been given the position of speaking on behalf of the Catholic church for this paper.

One only needs to look back at the tenure of Pope John Paul II to clearly see that the Catholic Church is 100% opposed to socialism.

Socialism is inherently corrupt. It has failed everyplace that is has been tried. It has never produced the effect of improving anyones lives, only bringing others quality of life down.

As for finding a passage in the bible, we can look through the entire bible and find justification for almost any action.

Mr. Arroyo,

You may want to refer to the comprehensive (exhaustive?) "Compendium of the Church Social Doctrine."

It outlines the rights and responsibilities of all members of society including .....

the rigts and responsibilities of the owners of capital. Capital as in ..... Capitalist/Capitalism.

The Catholic church is NOT an advocate of socialism. It is an advocate of fairness to all members of society.

(I would cite the exact reference but I'm travelling and do not have access to it).

If you think about it, the Church HAS to be opposed to attempts by the socialist state to "remake" sinful man.

The Church sees its mission as protecting and disseminating the Revealed Truth. And that truth is adamant: only Christ can redeem. We give our money and time and love to the poor because that is what He did and because He told us to. What true CAtholics are NOT trying to do is redeem them. Maybe redeem ourselves (a little), but there is but one Redeemer.

Let’s back up. Socialism is a * Political * system. Wiki’s definition is as good as any:
== “ Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.”====

http://tinyurl.com/jnfe5

The socialist thinkers of the 19th century constructed an ideology which was a criticism of *Capitalism.*, another economic system deriving from about the 16th century. Capitalism and Socialism are *economic * not religious systems.

As such, neither has very much to do with early Christianity. Some socialism is tremendously hostile to Christianity.

The early Christians lived during the Roman Empire and were required to pay their taxes to the Roman Government just like any one else. Just because they held their * own * goods in common doesn’t mean they believed that ALL citizens should hold their goods in common. James Larkin also makes an error in his assertion that the religious orders were communist. The religious orders were a response to an impulse to withdraw from a sinful world and await the Apocalypse. Not to change the world by improving sinful man in the manner that atheist creeds like Jacobinism, and its children socialism and communism, would spectacularly, and genocidally, attempt.

Much of what Arroyo writes is simply fallacious. Whilst the 19th Church wrote a great deal on social justice (see my earliest post 7 November 11:12 AM), it was hostile to almost all the tenets of communism, and to the social engineering ideologies inherent in socialism.

It is shamefully revealing that the bulk of the above posts fail to recognize that the redistribution of American wealth, as it is written into the tax code, is actually a system that soaks the weak in favor of the powerful.

Proof? See today's post detailing Paulson's executive decision to rebate banks buying other broken banks. Concerning "redistribution" not only do Americans now reward irresponsible speculation by the banking class (socializing bank failures, while providing stark capitalism for the victims of deregulation and fraud), we now reward economic rentiers for utterly destroying our manufacturing system with massive taxpayer funded bonuses.

That the irony does not strike us is a triumph for scoundrels.

Wax eloquent about G-d, but remember that Jesus stood against Rome and the Pharisees who straddled the poor for material gain and provided false doctrine to sustain inequity.

Wow, what an unbelievably ignorant article. Name me one socialist country you'd rather live in then the US - China, Cuba, Somali .... where???

Socialism is bad news. History has proven that. Quit trying to make it into the latest "in" thing. It's not. People have died defending and protecting out country from the agony of this type of brutal rule.

To wit: the last time I heard someone arguing that christianity was about creating a socialist eutopia, that man was Jim Jones.

Some people drank his kool-aid too.

The point that is being missed is that Obama is not espousing "voluntary sharing". He will be enforcing "involuntary sharing".
It is entirely different when the government takes from one and gives to another (of the govenment's choice).
Robin Hood took from the rich - but he was actually returning what had been taken from them.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him forever. Give a man a fish and you create a loyal democrat.

President Bush started the Iraq war and expected our service men (many from poor and moderate income families) to sacrifice their lives. But what sacrifices did the president ask of the richest Americans (who avoid military duty)? Answer: No sacrifices! In fact, Bush did the opposite. The president lowered taxes on the rich when our nation needed money at a time of great expenditures for the war effort. The rich upper class made no sacrifices.

The Bush and Republican Party form of capitalism which favors the rich is an intrinsic evil that must be buried in the garbage dump of greed and selfishness. The people who promote this trickle down philosophy are either ignorant or just plane self-centered elitists out for themselves at the expense of the middle and lower class Americans.

The $50 million salaries CEOs receive are an obvious sign of extreme greed and evil at the highest levels of our society and business world. WE ARE NOW REPEAPING THE ROTTEN FRUIT OF YEARS OF NO REGULATION OF AN IMMORAL CLASS OF LEADERS IN INDUSTRY AND FINANCE!

This country has been betrayed by a rotten form of Republicanism. I am a conservative pro lifer but I have no use for today's brand of selfish Republicanism which put our nation in great debt while giving away millions to the wealthiest citizens.

President Bush and Benedict Arnold have a lot in common! They both have betrayed the trust our nation placed in them! They do not look out for the good of America, but like Judas merely interested in lining their pockets with gold and silver at poor citizens expense! A government run like the last 8 years we don't want to ever see again.

The only bright spot was the appointment of Supreme Court justices who are obviously pro-life. We can only hope Obama becomes pro-life and will not promote abortions like Clinton did. 50% of abortions in the US are African Americans which is a form of genocide - if Obama signs that horrible - "Freedom of Choice "Act. If he signs, he will be promoting genocide of black Americans!

James 5:19 " My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,

1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

As per most contemporary NT exegetes, the epistles of Timothy and Titus were not written by "prude"St. Paul but were written by pseudo Pauls.

From Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament (RCC approved):

The First Letter to Timothy-

p. 654, 80-90% of the critical scholars believe the letter was written by a pseudo Paul toward the end of the first century, early second century.

"Authenticity - Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death.

and then there is,

Christian Economics 101:

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking".

The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

The underlying principle of Marxism is Metaphysical Materialism. I.E. that nothing beyond the physical exists. Knowing this we must simply brush this article off as another religious pimp for totalitarianism in the tradition of Mother Theresa and the Duvaliers.

Catholics were never as concerned with reducing suffering as they were obtaining power.

The idea that Socialism is a biblical principle, is absolutely absurd. Yes, we are as Christians called upon to help those in need. However, we are called at a personal level. The bible never calls upon the government to help people. If that were true, then why were the tax collectors so despised? The story of the Good Samaritan is a classic example of "personal" responsibility. The bible also says, that he who does not work, does not eat. We were born with God-given rights, the most important one being free will. We must choose to do the right thing and help those in need. It should never be the government's role to force money from our hands and into the hands of others. The bible also teaches that God loves a joyful giver. That would be a pretty tall order to fill if the money was taken from us forcibly rather than given willingly. Think about that Mr. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo!

How many U.S. citizens swim for Cuba on an annual basis?

Actually Charles

Paul state that..."the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have [James 5:19] wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. "

It is not the root of all evil, it is A root of evil.

Jesus speaks of loving money more than God, and of course, this is not what leads to eternal life.

To sakalava47

My point exactly. Could you do what she does? Would you do it for less. I know I could and would. But that shows that the myth of a free market economy ending up paying people what they are worth is just that -- a myth. It is sad that so many people take this as a matter of faith. In my mind, we cannot pay our soldiers enough. But they are poorly paid. They serve not for money, but for higher reasons. The same is probably true to a lesser degree of teachers. On the other hand, when a high school senior is payed millions of dollars to skip college and play professional basketball, does that not say something about this theory also?

Or even worse, the right wing complains about inheritance tax. Of course they make up a name to mislead (much as the "Democratic Peoples Rebuplic of..." is sure to me anything but a democracy or a republic but just a misleading name) as in "death tax"

Think of it, if I work for my father and he pays me, I pay tax on that. It is income and I pay tax on income. If he dies, it is still income, why should I not pay tax on it. To me, they are both income. But, of course, it is only charged on multimillion dollar inheritances and the few who would have get these are crying about having to pay this. If I am not mistaken, it was Thomas Jefferson (as well as Admas, Franklin and others) who first proposed such a tax to avoid large concentrations of wealth. But I suppose many bloggers will call them socialists too and write off their thoughts also.

grandpaw7 :

How do you know that we would have a larger disparity in income? Have you seen any studies of societies without a graduated income tax? I think that taxing the productive rich (not the rich-by-inheritance) often hurts the rich a little but hurts the poor a lot. Why? Because the productive rich are less productive due to higher taxing of their productivity. They make a little less, but they provide much less of their highly valued services (doctors, dentists, engineers etc). This hurts the economy and when the economy suffers the poor suffer the most. Democrats just won't believe it but most of their policies designed to help the poor end up hurting them, and ironically, keeping them in their constituency demographic (poor class; for if they became rich, what party would they belong to?).

TomfromNJ1 :
If anyone can do what Vanna White does then why does Wheel of Fortune pay her gobs of money? Couldn't they just get any old person off the street to do her job or much less? This is a basic economic principle. Socialism tends to not place correct valuation on products and services because socialism uses a lot fewer brains than capitalism does. Furthermore, socialism takes the virtue out of charity because it is enforced. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be enforced sometimes, but please let's know the price we pay for socialism

My opinion is that, call the progressive income tax socialist or whatever, if we had not had a progressive income tax over the years we would be in much worse shape than we are, the income gap would be much worse, and social discontent would have likely reached a dangerous level. We don't help the poor and disadvantaged just for their sake. We do it for our own sake as well. The basis for the progressive income tax is to spread the wealth. The fact that life is unfair does not mean we should just accept that rather than try to mitigate it. Refusing to spread the wealth shows its consequences in many third world nations in Africa and elsewhere. There are nations in Africa with tremendous wealth in natural resources, but only a few at the top benefit from that because they do not believe in sharing the wealth.

cghayes44

I can empathize with your question, why are people so up in arms about Obama's taxing top earners. But I think I have an anecdote that explains a drawback that you might want to consider:
I recently spoke to an attorney who makes more than $250k a year. Almost 300k. He told me that if Obama's tax cuts go into place, he thinks that next year he will stop working once he hits that 250k mark because it is just not worth his time to keep working when he is being taxed at a high rate for each hour he works. Now multiply that by all doctors, lawyers, dentists and other business people who may do the same. The result is a lot less productivity in the economy and that will hur the POOR the most.

Citations from the Acts of the Apostles aside, it is sheer nonsense to assert that the Catholic tradition has no ideological bias, one or the other, toward either socialism or capitalism.

The evangelical virtue of "poverty" has been extolled since Christian beginnings; not meaning that anyone should live is slovenly squalor, but that no one should claim the exclusive right of use of any private property.

The proof here is in the practice: since the 4th century the "ideal" Christians (in the Catholic tradition) have lived as monks and/or nuns, embracing the evangelical virtue of poverty and sharing all things in common.

It was only with Luther and Calvin that a new aggressive individualism disfigured the Christian tradition, as was classically demonstrated by Max Weber in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" and again by
the economic historian R.H. Tawney in his splendid study "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism."

Capitalism, in case recent events have failed to impress themselves on the public consciousness, is based on the acquisitive instinct and greed.

As Paul stated so clearly: "The love of money is the root of ALL evil."

American Christians may be uncomfortable with the plain facts of scripture and tradition, but
as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously put it, "while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."

The facts are clear.

Given the very defensive attacks on social justice I am reading hear (especially the assumption that those who have the most have worked hardest for it), I would love to hear how some of you rationalize the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.

If anybody thinks for one minute that most people in the world cannot do what Vanna White does and would not willingly do it for half whatever she is paid, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. So much wealth is not earned at all. Much is inherited. Please do not claim that a fairer distribution of income will make poor people work less. That is very unkind to the poor. I thought this was a commentary on Catholic principles but I keep reading the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic" arguments. I am sure they have a place in Protestant Theology, but I am responding to a column about CATHOLIC Theology.

The difference is that in Christian Socialism the members voluntarily participating instead of the state just taking your property. The voluntary nature of the christian socialism helped mitigate problems like "tragity of the commons" (look it up), social loafing, and lack of profit motivation. Gandhi was able to have a commune and it went successfully, but only because the members were all very very dedicated. Socialism or communism on a national scale lacks that dedication.

There is a very real difference between Charity and socialism. Charity, the willing sharing of one's goods and actions with others, is synonymous with love of Neighbor. This, along with love of God, sums up the moral code of Christianity. Socialism is forced redistribution of wealth by the government. While stealing from the rich to give to the poor might make a good myth, in reality, it demotivates everyone. The poor have no motivation to contribute to society, since they get the same as those that work. The rich have no motivation to work either, because all their effort gives them nothing more than the laggard next to them.

What is required of government is to provide a a fair playing field with the necessary oversight to make sure that there is no exploitation. The other thing that is required is to provide support for those that truly can not help themselves.

Other than that, Catholic Social teaching is clear that we should help others as best we can. Not by force, but by choice because that is what shows our love. This is what the early Christians were doing. They were sharing. They weren't being taxed.

Acts 2: 44-45

And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need
------------------------------------------------

Matthew 25:29

For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

To use the Bible (in any passage or passages) as a source for advocating socialism is, in the simplest language possible, silly. To suggest that the Catholic Church promotes socialism is equally silly. The essence of the Church's teaching is the dignity of the human person including the dignity of work and private ownership. Take a serious look at the encyclical Rerum Novarum and see what the Church says. That such a gross misrepresentation of the Gospel and Catholic doctrine is allowed simply defies logic.

CCHayes,

If you would like to raise taxes on the "rich" to fund specific programs or create opportunities for others, we can have that discussion.

But to raise taxes on a segment of the population simply to transfer that money to those who pay absolutely no tax whatsoever is the clearest form of socialism there can be.

Maybe if Mr. Obama wasn't so eager to see 44% of the population not paying any tax at all, he wouldn't approve the EASY solution of taxing those who have worked hard and sacrificed as necessary.

With reference to several comments below:

Government spending on social programs is not "by definition" socialism. Government spending is quite compatible with the thoroughly capitalist system we inhabit. A stable society works better for capital, and that is why social programs exist in this country.

"Socialism" means common ownership of social wealth (factories, railroads, hospitals, schools, etc.) and the even distribution of wealth that is produced. "The rich" are not viewed as the source of wealth and have no reason to exist in a socialist system. There is also no need to have a pool of poor people maintained in poverty to keep the lid on worker's demands.

I don't think the author of Acts 2: 44-45 was proposing socialism. Marx and Engels were definitely proposing a system of socialism. But if the Acts author was proposing anything, then it was a "socialism of consumption" rather than a "socialism of production." The former is a sharing of wealth that already exists; the latter is a sharing of wealth that will be produced.

Socialists can reference Biblical sources if they like, but the best reasons for instituting socialist principles are the conditions of life presented to the current generation that has to deal with them.

Socialists can reference Catholic doctrine if they like, but as with Biblical sources, one will soon run into doctrines that have nothing to do with secular socialism. Take as an example the actions of the Good Samaritan. In secular ethics, it is good to help those who suffer because they are worthy of care, in and of themselves. Mercy is a good thing. But elsewhere, "In as much as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto Me [Jesus]" is not terribly helpful in a secular system.

I now consider myself more or less atheist, and I would like to see secular socialism established as economic policy in the United States, but the inspiration for socialist sympathies came from the Protestant religious heritage I grew up with. Thus inspired, I don't view religious texts as anathema, but I think we need to establish socialism on secular humanist principles.

Yonkers, New York
09 November 2008

Rather late in the day, Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, the author of this essay, "Catholic Socialism," is in effect saying, loud and clear, that as far as Catholics are concerned--and there are some 50 millions Catholics in the United States now-- there is absolutely nothing wrong theologically, ideologically or politically with "socialism."

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's authority is nothing less than the Bible. Acts 2:44-45 reads: "And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need."

I have a feeling that not many American Catholics are fully aware of this biblical provision because
in reality the general consensus among many American Catholics is that "socialism" is a dirty word.

I might even go further and venture to say that not many Protestants, of all stripes, are likewise aware of so clear a scriptural provision which is construable as saying that "socialism" not only is not taboo but should be practised by all faithful and devout Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike.

So why are many Americans villifying George W. Bush and U.S. treasury secretary Henry Paulson for getting Congress to pass the $160 billion "economic stimulus package" which were given as handouts to American families, plus the $700 billion financial and rescue package a good part of which has gone to nine big U.S. banks for them to use to lend to each other, to businesses, and to individuals?

This use of taxpayer money for the purposes intended clearly comes under the definition of "socialism," doesn't it?

And what about George W. Bush's "Prescription Drug Coverage" for needy Americans and costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year--isn't this "socialism" likewise?

Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance--the former for the elderly and the latter for the poor--and costs hundreds of billions of dollars a year of taxpayer funds. This comes likewise under the broad definition of "socialism," right?

I could go on, and on, and on--practically ad infinitum--citing more instances where "wealth" belonging to all is "transferred" to or "shared" with certain sectors of society. These are all instances of "socialism"--no mistake about it.

Socialism is very much a reality of American life. To believe that socialism is evil or abhorrent one way or the other is to be in denial of that crystal-clear reality.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a Looney-tune idea. I don't make a habit of speaking back to the radio, but I couldn't help but scream, "It's in the Bible!"

No it isn't. Unless Karl Marx wrote your Bible. That quote, popularized by Karl Marx, was current among many 19th century socialists. In Karl Marx's citation used in 1875 "Critique of the Gotha System" it applied to a post communist society where abundance was the rule. In other words, it was the goal, not the method of reaching it.

It is common among Christian leftists like Stevens-Arroyo to make the assertion that Christians practiced a normative socialism in the Book of Acts, ignoring the voluntary nature of their sharing and the temporary nature of the arrangement in light of the immediate context. The church in Jerusalem was newly founded and likely included many visitors, without their ordinary means of support while they remained in Jerusalem to learn more from the apostles.

Paul, in 2 Thess 3:10, says "if a man doesn't work, don't let him eat!" Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus say, "Because there are many poor among you, sell all you have and give it to Caesar."

Justice and concern for the needs of the less fortunate are hallmarks of Christian life and teaching. The tragic history of the last two centuries offer abundant proof that socialism and communism provide neither but instead have unleashed unimaginable misery.

I believe the point of the article was to point out that the prinicpals of Christianity are that of sharing.
I agree that the US government should not be in the business dictating that we all somehow share and share alike. That being said I cannot understand why so many of you are up in arms over the fact that Obama wants to suspend the tax cuts for the top earners in the US and require that they pay 39% instead of 35%.

I don't think that these top 5% of earners will somehow not be able to create jobs because they now pay 4% more in taxes.

I would challenge you all to go to the usa.gov site and look at our tax policy in the 1950's and 1960's. These were some of the most productive years in the history of the US economy and the rich paid much more in taxes and it all seemed to work just fine.

Very interesting. Apparently no one has read the book or at least the official explanation of ACTS 2:44. "In common: all were ready to help the needy and as occasion demanded they even sold their possessions to do so: this spirit of fraternal charity is widely different from modern communism." IE: Socialism. The Confraternity Text of the Catholic Bible is the source.

NIHIL OBSTAT
Bernard L. Rosswog, OSB, STD
censor Librorum

IMPRAMATUR
Walter A. coggin, OSB, PH D, DD
Abbot-Ordinary
Diocese of Belmont Abbey Nullius

Personally, conservatism as practiced by the current version of the Republican Party violates Catholic Moral Teachings more than supports it, which is why I left the party after 45 years as a
Moderate/Centrist/Military Republican. You have to like government to govern well. My family loves the ARMY, we have excelled in the Military. I love to coach soccer and succeed at it. Social Conservatives dislike government and failed miserably at it. Oh yes, I'm 67.

You don't have to be Christian or even very religious to understand that those who have more should share with those who have less. But if you are Christian, remember that the woman who had little but gave nearly all she had was held in higher regard than those who had much but gave little.

Well, everyone knows the bible doesn't preach the free market.

Counterww, Counterww, Counterww,

Like many, you suffer from the Three B Syndrome i.e. you were Bred, Born and Brainwashed in good old orthodox Catholicism/Christianity.

Historical analyses will save the day for all the Three B "Syndromers". Enjoy the enlightenment of Reality and Common Sense!!!!

After reading some of these responses all I can say is so much for the Christian Coalition, socialism is not the total answer but tell me this all you who claim to be Christians, if you do nothing to help those who are less fortunate than yourselves then to whom does this responsibility belong too? Or do you believe as Joe the Plumber, its all mine? If you as Christians do not provide for those who are not as fortunate as yourself, then should not the government be obligated to help them? Or is the government only for the rich?

It is amazing how often smart people get Acts 2 so very wrong. This is a picture of how the CHURCH should function--not the STATE. The economy of the Acts 2 church wasn’t legislated by the Roman Senate, implemented by confiscatory taxation, and enforced by the Legions; rather it was the voluntary giving of individual disciples inspired by the Holy Spirit and following in the example of Jesus Christ to further their common mission of spreading the Gospel to all the nations. I’ve never understood why Catholics seem so easily taken in by Marxism-inspired redistribution schemes, a spiritually empty substitute for the beautiful picture of voluntary Christian charity Jesus gave us in his ministry on Earth. Jesus knew the difference between public taxation and private giving. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

"All of these principles are clearly stated in myriad documents.."

would those myriad documents be Encyclicals by chance?

I would like to hear a catholic theologian, rather than you, an untrained lay person, explain the Church's positon on this or anything else.

the article was quite misleading as written.

tboyer33 wrote "What would Jesus say to trillions of dollars spent for fighter planes, aircraft carriers and foreign wars while children go hungry at home."

If America don't have these fighter planes and carriers, the whole world would look like North Korea where everybody are slaves to a "Dear Leader" and often hungry, idiot.

This is a TYPICAL LIBERAL STUPIDITY.

You guys should migrate back to your Catholic countries where you practice socialism and poverty.

Who knows what Jesus would have thought of socialism, but any reasonable reading of the Gospels makes clear Jesus would want a compassionate, democratic government that made the weak, the poor, the sick and the needy its first priority. What would Jesus say to trillions of dollars spent for fighter planes, aircraft carriers and foreign wars while children go hungry at home.

The notion that Jesus blesses tax cuts for wealthy people, persecution of homosexuals, or the withholding of contraceptives from teenagers to punish them for sexual misbehavior by producing unwanted pregnancies -- this is the most absurd possible misreading of Christ's words.

Jststilthen:

Yes time off is helpful, but not a whole TWO MONTHS off a year. That is way more than people need.

Among the industrial large countries, the US is far ahead in GDP per capita. This because we work hard with this time off.

Screwing off 2 months a year is not impressive.

CCNL:

You continue to froth at the mouth at what any of these Jesus Seminar kooks have to say.

Basically you are a atheist that likes to continually poke your nose in here with trolling cut and pastes. Nothing you can say will sway me to read more than I have from the moron Crossan.

You need to do some self examination dude on why you are so rabid on this sort of thing. It is kind of spooky.

guess what tony,i would go for your socialism if the dems pass laws outlawing abortion for convienence

the funny thing about this discussion is that it was started when someone suggested that people pay their appropriate tax liability. we tax in percents, which means the more you make the more you pay. The tax code has been buried in write-offs that gift the wealthy with a way to avoid this obligation...it just so happens that most world religions urge their followers to care for those less fortunate than themselves...
socialism is a political idea...its current use is political. stop degrading the poor and religion in general by infusing the discussion of these things with political pandering.
RELIGION IS OBJECTIVE. POLITICS ARE SUBJECTIVE. the infusion/confusion of the two is ridiculous.

There is a big difference between the communal living of early Christians and the Socialism/Communism of the 20th centruy.

The early Christians held things in common by choice and did not force others to conform to their way of living. They didn't take things by force. The communal lifestyle also didn't work very well for larger groups and was eventually abandoned for that reason.

On the other hand, modern socialism is based on coersion. Here, people don't give to one another, the state takes from some groups of people and gives to others--while taking a healthy portion of the proceeds for themselves. People who don't like having the state take their property are called selfish and are eventually punished or eliminated. (or sent to reeducation camps--arbeit macht frei)

Take Obama's story about sharing his sandwich with a student who had none. That was nice, but not socialism. But under a socialist state the teacher comes in, takes whatever she thinks is more than you need, and gives all the collected food to whoever she wants -- whether they are in the class or not.

Obama says he'll only tax the rich. However the official level of who is rich has been a moving target. It has been anything from $50,000 to $250,000. During the Russian revolution rich was anyone who had more than you. That looks like the direction we're headed.

JI33, superstition exists. Billions of people buy into organized religion. It is a divider and identifier. 2 millenia of wars in the name of gods, 2 millenia of stifling progress and ridiculing science! That's what I am worked up about.
Time to close the fairy tale books and move into the 21st century!

THE CHURCH IN THE USA PUSHED BUSH JR. & McCAIN VOTE DRICTLY OR INDIRECTLY, YET THE GOP IS DEAD AGAINST ANY SHAPE OF SOCIALISM. COULD THE BISHOPS EXPLAIN THIS? ONLY A FOOL WHOULD LET ANOTHER TELL THEM HOW TO VOTE IN THE USA. I HOPE THOES THAT SPOKE OUT IN THIS YEAR POLITICS FILE THEIR TAX CORRECTLY BY LAW.

More from Professor Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity:

"The second half of Luke's two-volume gospel is now called the Acts of the Apostles and its theological intention is clearly proclaimed in Acts 1:8. The book is about the Holy Spirit's movement from Jerusalem through Judea and Samurai and thence out to the ends of the earth, or at least to Rome as the world's center. It is about the change in the Holy Spirit's headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome."

Considering that the Holy Spirit is a theological invention, most if not all of Acts is a questionable with respect to historic accuracy.

And Pentecost fails historical Jesus exegetes testing via the few number of attestations and late period of addition to the gospels.

A community of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs" can work, and work well. The early Christians, the Pilgrims Fathers at Plymouth, and many of the communal experiments of the 18th and 19th centuries often enjoyed success to one degree or another. I believe some of the Amish communities operate informally on this basis, as well, to a certain extent.
The key difficulty is this: all of these communities were a) small - small enough that almost everyone knew almost everyone else within it (i.e., what each was up to, or not up to), and b) shared an extensive value system to which everyone in the community was held accountable.
These small community socialist models work because everyone pretty much knows everyone else - it's like "a family", and there is a true sense of personal commitment on the part of each member to the others, and also everyone is "on the same page", following the same rules, building according to the same vision and because they WANT to, not because some government requires it of them. The participants are voluntarily in the same boat together; they don't have some members building up the society, while others are attempting to tear it down from within, or have simply dropped out, but are still receiving support.
In a country such as ours that places high values on diversity, freedom, and rights to privacy and self-expression, with several hundred million people speaking dozens of different languages, and holding hundreds of different creeds, the total socialist approach would work for about 3.5 minutes. Then all the productive members would say, "What? I'm doing all the work, and these clowns over here are having an encounter session on the beach? The h*ll with this!" The system would implode utterly. To have the diversity, freedom, and rights to privacy and self-expression that most Americans want, the free market coupled with government entitlements for the elderly, infirm, and at-risk children - more or less what we have now . . . is really the only program that can work.

Counterww

"You can't be productive if you are not there as much ."
Productivity is a measure of how effective we are while we are on. Time off is well documented to increase focus, and productivity, to the time we are on.

"Yes, Socialism may make French or Germans happier.. but the American culture and way of thinking about capitalism is much different. Not better, just different. I prefer us to be more self sufficient. Govt does not know what the hell they are doing.(Dem or Pub)"
The American mythos is quite different, but that does not make it right or better. That, or it is self serving, which is more to the point.
We could do with a more cooperative national interest. The concept of the sanctity of individual freedom and self reliance over collective involvement and concerns is both americans strenth and weakness.

Uh, hello? Having the top 5% of the country's wealthiest pay more taxes than the rest of us is not socialism. We would have to go a long way to the left just to repair democracy and get back to center.

For the benefit of Counterww who has yet to read the referenced book:

Before yelling at your car radio about Acts 2:44-45, please read Professor JD Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity. Acts for example is viewed as a description of the Holy Spirit (mythical?) moving from Jerusalem to Rome. Strange and complicated book is said Acts!!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=GaYKGrqXCwEC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=Acts+2:+44-45+Crossan&source=bl&ots=CUsBPWWyUt&sig=j25cuJAp38IDzJwuVPyWCbmxc-g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

And you did not shout Matt 19:16-22 at the radio?? Tis another passage judged to be not from the mouth of the simple preacher man.

Semidouble:

I understand your point. I just think it's interesting how worked up you are getting about something that doesn't even exist.

"Socialism" is used to mean so many different things, even in the limited scope of these comments, that it makes no sense to argue about whether Christianity (also a term with a multitude of meanings) implies it, or vice versa, or whatever.

What strikes me in the NT (and a good deal of the OT, especially the Prophets) is an attitude, not a prescription for government or a system of economics. That is an attitude of compassion and concern for the less fortunate, "the least of these" as opposed to the "I'm all right Jack, **** you" stance that seems to characterize the free-market idolaters. The form which that concern can take is very much a matter of circumstance.

Sure, the market can punish the makers of defective cars, or tainted food, or bad mortgages eventually, but how many individual, real people will die, or get very sick, or wind up on the street before that happens? What sort of trade-offs are we talking about here?

It is ironic in the extreme that so many who adamantly oppose Darwin's well-verified insights and take a very high tone about the "murder of babies in the womb" seem to espouse a view of economic life which resembles very closely the most bleak Darwinian world possible...Hobbes' "War of All Against All" and let the weak go to the wall; and once the baby is actually born, abandon it to that world wear "man is wolf to man"...which actually insults the wolves.

while the early church was communalist (not communist) this was before the development of Canon and Dogma. But many of the precepts cited did survive the Council of Nicaea.
One of the problems with the term of Socialism being bandied about is the lack of understanding that the basis is controlling the means of production by way of a collective.

While that is not in opposition to Catholicism or any religion (if you do not take the step of Marx), it is in opposition to Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberals believe in the freedom of the individual and collectivization is in diametric opposition. Conservatives want to maintain the Status Quo so they are in Opposition.

But on your point of principles i would agree, but only with the sense of "socialism" that has been misunderstood and used as a pejorative term by Republicans.

If you believe, you have to submit.
That's what faith is all about;
Faith = believe without evidence
You have 10 rules to (submit) live by, the first 4 are plain idolism and narcissism. All ten can be summed up with one word: RESPECT
I have no more respect for a (ficticious) deity that kills at will by the millions, than I have for Ted Bundy. It is an insult to anybody's intelligence to ask and demand idolatry for a vicious, vindictive, self serving killer.
That of course is my opinion. People can believe what they want, as much as I can opine on it.

semidouble:

It's interesting that you use the word "submit" instead of "believe."

I read a lot of quotes from the bible here. I always thought the OT is the foundation of judaism and christianity. If that is true, people of faith worship the most prolific mass murderer in history! According to the good book, god killed over 2 million people (mostly for petty things)! And that does not include the flood, which killed EVERYTHING on Earth! Including the vile Koalas and the vicious Manatees.
Satan in comparison killed only 10 people in the OT. So it would stand to reason that Satan should be worshipped instead of a god.
Personally, I can't find it in my heart to submit to an invisible killer space daddy. But that is of course ignored by the flock. Ignore the atrocities and concentrate on the miracles. Cherry picking at it's finest!

Sorry DMZ, I have seen socialism in action with my company's site in Germany. They are always "on holiday" - Several days off for holidays, and 6 weeks off over that a year. there is always an excuse for not getting things done.

You can't be productive if you are not there as much .

Yes, Socialism may make French or Germans happier.. but the American culture and way of thinking about capitalism is much different. Not better, just different. I prefer us to be more self sufficient. Govt does not know what the hell they are doing.(Dem or Pub)

The difference is, Socialism does not give people a choice. The Christians living together and sharing did so on a voluntary basis. That is Christian charity and giving. Giving denotes CHOICE. Socialism is govt deciding where taxes should be spent, and often it is very inefficient and wrong headed.

One need only look for the answer to this puzzling question at Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers Movement. There was a truly biblical and socialist movement that drew people to the committed work of Christ and did not impoverish those who worked in the movement.
I am ashamed at the so-called Catholics who for want of a better term, say that democracy and socialism cannot co-exist in the same government.
Much to the chagrin of those people, Hugo Chavez, is running a people's revolution and doing a damn fine job of meeting the people's needs first, before benefiting the corporations that have so impoverished his nation.
As to the early Christian "commune-ism," that is so denigrated in this day and age of "private property," I for one would be glad, to see that all people thought more of others than of themselves. For is not that the heart of the Christian faith, thinking of others before thinking of oneself.
In America, we have become a nation of self-centered, self-righteous, mass-consumerist ideologues for the "Christian Right Wing Nuts."
We must return to the values that have made this country great, one of being our "brothers keeper,' one in which we look out for the interest of others in our nation and do good to those who need it and not look down upon the needy and impoverished as we do today.
One need only look at the homelessness in America and you will get a sense of the powerful lobby that seeks only to gain and not to give. People who are homeless are looked down upon as less than human and worse than that as those who have caused their own misery and degradation.
I, was one those millions of homeless that people did not see, could not help and would not help because of their greed and avarice.
Yet their stand shining examples of those who give of themselves for nothing more than thanks and the privilege to serve. One example is the creation of, "the HOME Van," an organization that has no leader other than those who help the homeless and hungry in the city of Gainesville Florida. Arupa Freeman, the person with the drive to help, started this organization on a shoe
string budget and continues to operate this most needed of services without so much as any government grants. It is only the caring of the community that continue this organizations help and fight for the causes of ending homelessness and hunger in the "greatest nation on the earth."
Should anyone like to, they can find out about all of the grassroots organizations in their communities by just looking for the nearest food bank or homeless shelter.
This is the work of the gospel, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked. No better can be said of a man, than that he did the work of the gospel without fanfare or recognition, with the G-d of Love and Kindness at the heart of his/her helping those in need.

CCNL:

No one gives a rat's behind about the liberal speculator Crossan. Find another place to spout your cut and pastes for goodness sake.

ASA wrote:"People must be placed before profits when there is a conflict between the gains of Capitalism and the general social welfare. Perhaps the best example of this socializing principle is in health care. If there is a choice between running a hospital as a business or taking care of those in need, there is no choice for a Catholic."

Why must one be Catholic to live by this standard? It is a question of human rights, it seems to me. We need to get past sectarian morals to human morals. Are not Atheists humans too? And if an Atheist is ill, and cannot pay his/her hospital bill, should human decency not prevail?

If churches are to survive as institutions, their administers or clergy need to consider the news that Jesus is back, and that He is at work among everyday people in the world. Wake up people. http://www.share-international.org

My Priest says that if you are a Catholic and support abortion, that that is a different religion, not the Roman Catholic Church...
Seems I have read where you, who calls himself a Catholic, have advocated support of abortion...
Please stop representing My Catholic Church, go find a religion that best suits what you stand for...
Shame on all Catholics that voted for the aborter Obama...
He won't keep his promises and you will all suffer...

Unlike Margaret Sangster, Marie Stopes , Planned Parenthood and other abortion-advocates Catholic teaching on social justice *never* supported eliminating poverty by eliminating the poor themselves. Or their unborn children, which amounts to the same thing.

Never.

Of course socialism is biblical. The problem is that in our current political context the socialist party also has to be the party of death, inexplicably advocating for abortion. Please let the next version of the Republican party be one that is socially just, economically wise, but above all pro-life, pro-human in every possible way.

Steve, Steve, Steve,

Before yelling at your car radio about Acts 2:44-45, please read Professor JD Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity. Acts for example is viewed as a description of the Holy Spirit (mythical?) moving from Jerusalem to Rome. Strange and complicated book is said Acts!!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=GaYKGrqXCwEC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=Acts+2:+44-45+Crossan&source=bl&ots=CUsBPWWyUt&sig=j25cuJAp38IDzJwuVPyWCbmxc-g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

And you did not shout Matt 19:16-22 at the radio?? Tis another passage judged to be not from the mouth of the simple preacher man.

rroyo wrote ""socialism" is not a dirty word for Catholics."

Correct. You should ask yourselves why Catholic countries remain one of the poorest in the world.

It is because they don't know the true biblical meaning of giving and they are the most corrupt people in the world.

The idea of not taxing big is for business to flourish and create more jobs to the jobless, idiot.

Arroyo wrote "Socialism is biblical."

Giving must come from the heart. You don't forced it from people who don't want to give. Also, Americans are already excessively taxed.

If Marx is is hero, you should go to North Korea, idiot.

Athena,

FYI: The word "slave" did not carry the same meaning in ancient times as it does today.

Now, I understand that topics such as this aren't discussed on Jerry Springer or Oprah, so you would be oblivious to this fact. Maybe you could read a book once in a while? I know, I know. Baby steps.

MARCEDWARD,
There is always a choice. No one has to be a Christian or to do good. This has never been the case and never will be. This doesn't even take into account that much is a gray area when doing good.

There are consequences of course. But consequences don't force people to do anything. Just look at the number of smokers.

There also is also some reports that believe FDR did prolong the depression:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/10/27/ucla-economists-government-intervention-prolonged-great-depression

Actually this shouldn't be a surprise that someone would suggest this. The depression went on for more than 8 years after he took office and didn't peak until 33-34. FDR seems to be the only person who can completely remove blame for something he obviously had an influence on. You know for sure that Republicans would have been crucified if they let this go on for 8 years. But FDR was doing so much to "help" people. Maybe it wasn't help at all.

Take it for what it's worth. We should at least understand these things so we are better prepared.

Steve, Steve, Steve,

Before yelling at your car radio about Acts 2:44-45, please read Professor JD Crossan's book, The Birth of Christianity. Acts for example is viewed as a description of the Holy Spirit (mythical?) moving from Jerusalem to Romes. Strange and complicated book is said Acts!!!

http://books.google.com/books?id=GaYKGrqXCwEC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=Acts+2:+44-45+Crossan&source=bl&ots=CUsBPWWyUt&sig=j25cuJAp38IDzJwuVPyWCbmxc-g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

And you did not shout Matt 19:16-22 at the radio?? Tis another passage judged to be not from the mouth of the simple preacher man.

You know how the economy of Ancient Israel functioned? With slaves.

You can see anything you want in the stories of the bible. That's a reason why even christians can't see eye to eye. Its entirely subjective. So either you can commit your entire life to putting faith into your indoctrination or you can just think for yourself and adhere to one simple tenet. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. amen.

Anthony, thank you for boldly opening up this important issue. Few American Catholics have any idea that economic socialism is a fundamental view of their church, springing directly from Christ's examples in his biography in the New Testament. And judging from some of the comments here, few Protestants have any idea how convoluted and inaccurate their idea of Christianity is, indoctrinated as they are with all the sideshows which make up Protestant theology, which was designed to justify breaking from the Church and its doctrines by any means. American Capitalism is the result of 500 years of Protestants fighting too hard for individualism until they at last lost track of what they should be fight for. For Catholics and Protestants alike, the essence of Christianity is found in the examples Christ set in his own behavior and not in convoluted talk about afterlife or forming a "personal relationship" with Jesus, or in continuing to justify organizing the church around the 2500-year-old Roman pagan priestly bureaucracy. A true Christian fundamentalist must be a socialist in its literal sense...

I've been to France and it is a very nice country. I'm still not impressed with the economics there, or with most of Western Europe. I'm not sure how they calculate unemployment but it is well known it is a problem. And every time the government tries to fix it. It never works. Shortening the work week to 35 hours was supposed to fix it and it didn't. Some say it made it worse. Hardly anyone looks to France for expansion because there is no financial incentive to go there. I believe it is in the best interest of the government and people to make things good for business.

If you want to look for places with great economics in Europe, look at Ireland, Georgia, and Russia. They slashed Taxes to promote business and the economies have boomed. Everyone is trying to expand their and the people and government prosper.

I'm not necessarily saying their will be Soviet stype communism in France or anywhere else. I just see the country going further left and with people rejecting religion more often, something similar could happen. Most of the world continues to go further left to more government control and I don't like it. We'll se where we end up.

kert,

There was a very powerful communist party in France, Italy too. The countries didn't turn communist--and won't--because offsetting the atheism of communism was the Christian Democrats (basically inspired by Catholic teachings on social justice).

Now the Labour movement in the US, well, at least part of it, was similary inspired by this teaching. Walther Reuther, head of the AFL, was a devout Catholic, as was Cesar Chavez, head of the Latino movement in California. You need to separate communism, which was atheist to its core and evidenced tremendous hostility towards religion EVERYWHERE (Cuba, Tibet, China, Angola Poland ,Hungary, Russia...everywhere)and Christian Democracy which ultimately prevailed in Western Europe. Socialism falls in between.

I would also say what bothers Catholics is not so much socialism based on social justice but SOCIAL ENGINEERING based upon secularist ideology. But today social engineering:gay marriage,political correctness, abortion--Oh! especially abortion--is just as much a part of socialism as is social justice.

It's a Hobbesian choice for devout Catholics. If you want Social justice you have to accept Social Engineering, especially eugenics and unlimited abortion. This Catholic believes THERE CAN BE NO SOCIAL JUSTICE with unrestricted abortion, but that is not what we are discussing.

Kert1:

The unemployment rate in the U.S. is also 10% if you count the way the Europeans do. The French count everyone whi is unemployed, we don't. We don't count the homeless, we don't count people whose unemployment insurance has run along with other groups. So, that's just a canard.

The French do have occasional violence, but not that often, and crime is far less than here. I live in France 4 months per year, and it is a very nice place. You should go there to see for yourself.

Finally, there is no risk of Soviet-style communism in Western Europe. They rejected that a long time ago. Democratic socialism has never turned into communism. Why do you keep saying that it will?

DMZ1,
Congratulations on restraint. Seems a lot of people are lacking it here.

Anyway, you can have France. It doesn't impress me. 10% unemployment, with much civil unrest. They decided to riot in the street when government was going to let people work 40 hours a week (as opposed to 35). It was actually quite violent.

I guess the people of France prefer things this way but I don't. They are also still heading left and not right. They aren't all the way there but they could go complete communist. My point was more or less that countries just keep slipping more and more until they are communist and no one even saw it coming. They aren't there yet but I see them continuing on the path. I hope not.

I find it intriguing that some people will on the one hand argue that scripture has no direct relevance or bearing on the kind of government we have and then turn around and advocate that legislation be enacted that supports their particular religious viewpoint and world view.

The difference between Biblical sharing and socialist sharing is as bright as night and day. The first is voluntary, movitivated by charity and love. The latter is mandatory, even coercive. There is no virtue in doing what is required of you under penalty of law.

Then, too, the argument is further clouded if final outcomes don't match intent. One could argue, for example, that capitalism provides the better overall result for all, despite individual inequities. One gets no points if everyone is equally poor.

The Bible could also be said to sanction rule by imperial decree (Render unto Caesar...), but one assumes the author is going to recommend that governmental model today.

Yet another sorry excuse to promote federal intervention in the affairs of mankind. Jesus, and the Scripture, exhort the individual to charity. This, of course, can take place within groups that are voluntarily joined, whether it be churches or other organizations.

There is very little about the government in the Bible - perhaps we should infer that there should be very little government in the affairs of man?

Living in Chicago, I see the folly of government run welfare whether it be Cabrini Green or Cook County Hospital. Both are dreadful. On the other hand, Lawndale Christian Health Center exemplifies the outstanding service committed volunteers can provide the poor.

Kert1:

I have vowed not to be harsh to anyone in my posts, and I will continue to try here. However, you said "Socialism in the government has never worked and generally leads to communist rule, which is never good", and that statement is almost beyond belief.

I can't think of a single country that was socialist that became communist. The exception might be Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, but we don't know yet. There are no others.

Also, democratic socialism works quite well in Western Europe. The vast majority of people there would never agree to return to a more laissez faire system. Conservatives love to bash France, but, per hour worked, the French are the most productive workers in the world. They simply aren't willing to work the hours that we do. There is very little poverty, there is universal health care, transportation systems work, and there is broad personal freedom. They haven't figured out the immigrant thing, but neither have we.

It's one thing to oppose socialism, but it is quite something else to avoid the facts in your opposition to it.

The verse below doesn't have anything to do with taxation, it has to do with giving.

It is an execellent example that it is not only the rich who are to give but those who are poor (at least by worldly standards). We should remember that a heart that gives willingly, will be blessed.

progressive taxation -

"Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

"'...from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a Looney-tune idea.'" I'd guess the minister thought it was understood that he was referring to a temporal government. Note also that the Catholic Church recognizes the right to private property. Participation in the socialism of "the early Church" was voluntary, not compulsory, and was based on the participants' religious faith, not on their geographic location.
The U.S. economic system's most-recently-recognized "serious flaws" were placed there by mostly-Democratic, socialist federal politicians and those they scared into "playing along" due to their threats to prosecute and persecute uncooperative businesses.
Having ripped a wing off (a la the financial meltdown), on January 20, the Democrats will embark on round 2 of its program to dismember the U.S. economic goose that laid the golden eggs from which we've all benefitted these last 200+ years. So, now, it's time to say goodbye to all that, at least for the next 4 years. With FDR's New Deal serving as "a good start", the Democrats will want to ensure they do a "more thorough" job of socializing the U.S. economy this time around.
Given that many economists today agree that the Depression in the U.S. was prolonged by FDR's New Deal policies and programs, I regretfully predict that Obama's administration and the Democratically-controlled Congress, instead of implementing sound fiscal policies to allow the U.S. economy to ascend from the ledge of Financial Instability to the Plateau of Economic Sustainability, will implement catastrophic socialist policies that will push the U.S. economy off that ledge into Chasm of Extended Depression.

I would hazard a guess that the United States will go the same way--a conservative, traditionalist party which values religion and a socialist party which is dominated by secularists and/or atheists--I think we saw the beginning of the divide in this election. The conservative Catholics even under terrible economic circumstances opted for the GOP.

The great Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe are an outgrowth of Catholic social teaching

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching#Europe

and the labour movements affiliated to Catholic organisations of the 19th century. These were also active in the US, although never as powerful as in Europe.

Socialism or parties that called themselves socialist were always secularist and tended to be atheist as well. The Christian workers parties were arrayed in opposition to the socialists. When communism came on the scene, their tremendous hostility to religion, especially the traditional apostolic ones--Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism--further hardened the divide.

Today Europe is secular but the socialist parties still tend to be dominated by atheism, while the Christian Democrats are far more friendly to religion.

Well, at least we are talking about socialism. I suspect this is because many people are aware our government is dabbling in it already with promises of more to come.

I should point out that this passage from the Bible does present a social responsibility but does not represent government. This is how groups of believers or churches should operate. From what I have seen they do. The point of the passage is that Christians should help brothers out when they are going through hard times and pool together wealth that is given to use for the common good. The churches I have been involved with do this and it works great.

This isn't to superscede personal responsibility. There are more potent scriptures that tell us if someone won't work then they don't eat (since they didn't earn anything). We are also told that someone who does not supply for their family is worse than an infidel. So this sharing of wealth does not apply to the lazy and unresponsible.

The Bible does not ever support socialism on a government scale. Whenever government is talked about it is to establish order and to promote good. Socialism in the government has never worked and generally leads to communist rule, which is never good.

I believe that Christians need to continue to promote good through there churches, since this is the most effective method of expanding good. I don't believe we should try to force people through the government to give. In the end this makes people more lazy and less good.

Once again we are comparing what is spiritual (God's kingdom which is not on earth) to what is worldy (kingdoms on earth). The Bible speaks concerning the Lord's kingdom and how people on earth can attain it through faith in Jesus Christ.

How does this get confuse with the type of government (democracy, socialism, etc.) we run is beyond me.

Kingdoms run by man will ALWAYS be imperfect because man himself is imperfect. But God's kingdom, which is in the believer's heart, will always be perfect (do not confuse this with actions). But trying to combine the two together will never work. In 1 Samuel chapter 8, the Lord explains this clearly to the prophet Smauel when the Israelites desired for God to give them a king to rule over them. What they failed to understand was they already had a ruler over them.