Thanks Dr Gray, for bringing this program to catholics really informative, I have question maybe a silly one but could you help shed some light to what Acts chp 2 ver 44 ono means, did the apostles practiced some sort of socialism during the early church? 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need. 46 With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart, Thank you
To hold all things in common - like what some religious orders like the Frnciscans do it doesn't matter what label you put.on it. You know the joke- how to share three doughnuts with four franciscan monks?
If we go back to the law in the old testament we see that landowners were told to provide for the needy. In Jesus' circle Judas was the purse keeper and the funds were used to help the poor. Matthew 26:8 tells the story of the woman with the alabaster jar. The disciples reacted with indignation because they said that the perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor. How does Jesus respond? He said that the poor you will always have with you. In the OT those who had more were required (in proportion to how much they owned) to set aside a portion for those who had little/nothing. The believers went a step further and held everything in common. It wasn't a requirement but they did it from a heart of Christian love. The core of the gospel is love which is what was missing from the law. Love has us go above and beyond rather than what is merely required. Jesus points this out again and again. Anyway, I've heard that the apostles didn't require that people give everything they owned and that the early believers gave all of their surplus and not the amount they needed to support themselves. The apostles then used this money to plant new churches as well as help those that were less well off (so that they could go on to prosper and spread the word: a form of investment). There's the story of when Jesus told the rich man that if he wanted to be perfect he'd sell everything he had and to give it to the poor. The rich man told Jesus he had always followed the law but Jesus told him that if he wanted to be perfect he had to operate from a place of love. It wasn't a command (the law is based on obligations) but love is a free choice. This is what makes the difference. Jesus wasn't an advocate for capitalism, especially not modern day capitalism. In fact He said not to worry about what we'll eat or how we're to cloth ourselves as God will provide. The concept of modern capitalism is absent in the scriptures. At the end of the day what matters is the heart with which we do something. I have money? Although not an obligation, if I have a heart of service and love, I'll only keep what I need and the surplus I'll use to help others in some way. It could be outright charity (giving it all away or what these days would be labelled as "socialism") or investing in projects that will create jobs or affordable housing for those less fortunate so that they can prosper and do likewise (hopefully). God gives each one of us the intelligence to know which path is wisest in the moment and at the time. There is no right or wrong way just the motivation of the heart with which we operate.
Health care in the US is a racket and it's rationed (perhaps even more so than in Europe). How? Most people can't afford to pay medical bills outright so rely on insurance (also at exorbitant prices) which decides the level of cover the policy holder is entitled to. In Europe decisions are made based on severity of the condition and priority of need. Only the extremely wealthy both sides of the pond can afford state of the art medical care on demand. That's the reality. In Europe we have capitalism with socialist policies. Even though far from perfect it attempts to blend the best of both worlds to make it more balanced. It works far better for the average person that what you have in the US. Even Americans who've lived in Europe will testify to that. The model set out by the church would work if we lived in an ideal world (or in smaller, exclusively Christian communities as the early church did where this model seems to have been prevalent). The reality, however, is that we don't. We live in a fallen world and live in a within a wider context where greed reigns and those who have access to resources tend to exploit any loophole they can to wash their hands of any social responsibility (am I my brother's keeper?). Btw, in Italy (home of the Vatican) many hospitals were founded and are run by charitable religious (all catholic) order. In the US this would probably be considered "socialism". Also, it isn't true that there isn't enough wealth in the world. The problem is that the greedy accumulate, not to reinvest and do good/lift up the less fortunate, but to gain power which they use to their personal advantage over others. Either that or the philosophy behind modern capitalism (just as godless as pure socialism) tend to harden their heart towards those who are less fortunate. This is the reality of the sinful world we live in. Also what about the verses where Jesus said not to worry about what we'll eat or how we're to cloth ourselves as God will provide. He also told the rich man, that if he wanted to be perfect, to sell everything He had and to give it to the poor (he didn't say to use it to create more wealth). Jesus wasn't an advocate for capitalism, especially not modern capitalism. While I think some form of capitalism isn't a bad thing, I also think it needs to be regulated to some extent in order for it to be more just (which is what the European model tries to do: Americans need to educate themselves more on the subject it's not about extremes; either or/all good vs all bad). This conversation is Americentric (whereas the church is universal and there are different models of government across the globe) and to me sounds like justification for American ideology than anything else.
It not only "depends on what you mean by capitalism." It also very much depends "on what you mean by socialism." In the US it appears to be a bogey man, whereas in the UK it has given us a free universal healthcare system and free education. In the US capitalism has meant that some 40 million people have no health insurance at all, and the biggest cause of bankruptcy is a health emergency.
An Ta 1 second ago In Europe we have capitalism with socialist policies. Health care in the US is a racket and it's rationed (perhaps even more so than in Europe). Most people can't afford to pay medical bills outright so rely on insurance (also at exorbitant prices) which decides the level of cover the policy is entitled to. In Europe decisions are made based on severity of the condition and priority of need. Only the extremely wealthy both sides of the pond can afford state of the art medical care on demand.
Very informative discussion, thanks!
Thank you 🙏 for this information
Thanks Dr Gray, for bringing this program to catholics really informative, I have question maybe a silly one but could you help shed some light to what Acts chp 2 ver 44 ono means, did the apostles practiced some sort of socialism during the early church?
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need.
46 With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart,
Thank you
To hold all things in common - like what some religious orders like the Frnciscans do it doesn't matter what label you put.on it. You know the joke- how to share three doughnuts with four franciscan monks?
If we go back to the law in the old testament we see that landowners were told to provide for the needy. In Jesus' circle Judas was the purse keeper and the funds were used to help the poor. Matthew 26:8 tells the story of the woman with the alabaster jar. The disciples reacted with indignation because they said that the perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor. How does Jesus respond? He said that the poor you will always have with you. In the OT those who had more were required (in proportion to how much they owned) to set aside a portion for those who had little/nothing. The believers went a step further and held everything in common. It wasn't a requirement but they did it from a heart of Christian love. The core of the gospel is love which is what was missing from the law. Love has us go above and beyond rather than what is merely required. Jesus points this out again and again. Anyway, I've heard that the apostles didn't require that people give everything they owned and that the early believers gave all of their surplus and not the amount they needed to support themselves. The apostles then used this money to plant new churches as well as help those that were less well off (so that they could go on to prosper and spread the word: a form of investment). There's the story of when Jesus told the rich man that if he wanted to be perfect he'd sell everything he had and to give it to the poor. The rich man told Jesus he had always followed the law but Jesus told him that if he wanted to be perfect he had to operate from a place of love. It wasn't a command (the law is based on obligations) but love is a free choice. This is what makes the difference. Jesus wasn't an advocate for capitalism, especially not modern day capitalism. In fact He said not to worry about what we'll eat or how we're to cloth ourselves as God will provide. The concept of modern capitalism is absent in the scriptures. At the end of the day what matters is the heart with which we do something. I have money? Although not an obligation, if I have a heart of service and love, I'll only keep what I need and the surplus I'll use to help others in some way. It could be outright charity (giving it all away or what these days would be labelled as "socialism") or investing in projects that will create jobs or affordable housing for those less fortunate so that they can prosper and do likewise (hopefully). God gives each one of us the intelligence to know which path is wisest in the moment and at the time. There is no right or wrong way just the motivation of the heart with which we operate.
What does Dr. Abela think of Distributism?
Health care in the US is a racket and it's rationed (perhaps even more so than in Europe). How? Most people can't afford to pay medical bills outright so rely on insurance (also at exorbitant prices) which decides the level of cover the policy holder is entitled to. In Europe decisions are made based on severity of the condition and priority of need. Only the extremely wealthy both sides of the pond can afford state of the art medical care on demand. That's the reality. In Europe we have capitalism with socialist policies. Even though far from perfect it attempts to blend the best of both worlds to make it more balanced. It works far better for the average person that what you have in the US. Even Americans who've lived in Europe will testify to that. The model set out by the church would work if we lived in an ideal world (or in smaller, exclusively Christian communities as the early church did where this model seems to have been prevalent). The reality, however, is that we don't. We live in a fallen world and live in a within a wider context where greed reigns and those who have access to resources tend to exploit any loophole they can to wash their hands of any social responsibility (am I my brother's keeper?). Btw, in Italy (home of the Vatican) many hospitals were founded and are run by charitable religious (all catholic) order. In the US this would probably be considered "socialism". Also, it isn't true that there isn't enough wealth in the world. The problem is that the greedy accumulate, not to reinvest and do good/lift up the less fortunate, but to gain power which they use to their personal advantage over others. Either that or the philosophy behind modern capitalism (just as godless as pure socialism) tend to harden their heart towards those who are less fortunate. This is the reality of the sinful world we live in. Also what about the verses where Jesus said not to worry about what we'll eat or how we're to cloth ourselves as God will provide. He also told the rich man, that if he wanted to be perfect, to sell everything He had and to give it to the poor (he didn't say to use it to create more wealth). Jesus wasn't an advocate for capitalism, especially not modern capitalism. While I think some form of capitalism isn't a bad thing, I also think it needs to be regulated to some extent in order for it to be more just (which is what the European model tries to do: Americans need to educate themselves more on the subject it's not about extremes; either or/all good vs all bad). This conversation is Americentric (whereas the church is universal and there are different models of government across the globe) and to me sounds like justification for American ideology than anything else.
It not only "depends on what you mean by capitalism." It also very much depends "on what you mean by socialism." In the US it appears to be a bogey man, whereas in the UK it has given us a free universal healthcare system and free education. In the US capitalism has meant that some 40 million people have no health insurance at all, and the biggest cause of bankruptcy is a health emergency.
An Ta
1 second ago
In Europe we have capitalism with socialist policies. Health care in the US is a racket and it's rationed (perhaps even more so than in Europe). Most people can't afford to pay medical bills outright so rely on insurance (also at exorbitant prices) which decides the level of cover the policy is entitled to. In Europe decisions are made based on severity of the condition and priority of need. Only the extremely wealthy both sides of the pond can afford state of the art medical care on demand.