Socialists stealing the gospel

Talk show host Glenn Beck is claiming that “social justice” groups in churches often promote socialist ideas under the guise of Christianity.

While some express outrage over this, I listened to his show, and realized there was nothing new in Beck's warning.

Many devout Catholics are well-aware of this problem in our own churches.

Gay marriage being defended in the name of "the social justice teachings of the church" is a recent example.

Authentic "social justice" work includes defending and promoting the God-given rights of others: the right to life, the rights of parents over the education of their children, the right to personal property, etc.

Socialists in the church usually work against these things and, instead, prefer to work for the transfer of power and property from the individual to the government, labeling it "Christian."

Advocating for soda taxes, environmental regulations and the unlimited spending of public money on “programs” is not Christian charity.

Forced redistribution of wealth is a concept expressly condemned by the Church for being intrinsically unjust, but some Catholics seem to have missed the memo.

Pope Leo XIII said "... indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist."

That was in 1878. Beck is not alone in his assessment.

Christopher Rioux, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

RONALD RIML's picture

Pharisees and Scribes

DevoutMaineCatholic tells us "Real followers of the Gospel know true socialists for what they are - hypocrites."

Another hypocrite too gutless to register here by their real name, and another one of the at least 12,648 reasons to leave the the old Church of Rome. 

 

RONALD RIML's picture

I am, "The Count" - and not Dracula...

When you're born into 'Inherited' nobility, with the trappings of wealth, privilege, position, and status, as Count Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci (Pope Leo XIII) was - it's pretty much a given that you'll view any deviation from that 'entitlement' as socialism.

RONALD RIML's picture

The Bible According to Beck

Yep - Glenn Beck's got it right again....

Matthew 19:23-24 (New International Version)

 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Tim Lajoie's picture

Make sure we consider the

Make sure we consider the whole counsel of the scriptures, veritas.  I am no friend of Rome and would agree that the Bible mandates caring the poor and downtrodden.  But we must also consider this:

II Thes. 3:6-10: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.   For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;  Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:  Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I Tim. 5:8: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Nowhere are disciples of Christ commanded to pick up the slack for those too lazy to do for themselves.  Unable, yes.  Unwilling, no.  Beck is right in his assertion that we have created a dependent class in the country that is seeking for a loophole and a chance to get on the government dole.  That, Biblically speaking, is sin...but the churches Beck speaks of have enabled people to do just that, laying blame at the feet of believers who believe what the Bible says about subsidizing the lazy.  Very few people in this country are truly unable to work.  Yet we have 30% of the country receiving some kind of entitlement.  Speaking for myself...I worked two jobs over 11 years so that I would not have to be dependent on someone else.  This has nothing to do with being rich...I make 40k a year.  I don't want to help support someone unwilling to go to a job.  Unable?  More than willing to help and do.  Unwilling?  No, that is subsidizing laziness.  Do you think we should do that?

RONALD RIML's picture

I Tim. 5:8 Makes the case

If we do not provide for our own in America.......then we have denied our faith.

Tim Lajoie's picture

You are avoiding my

You are avoiding my question...I said we should take care of our poor....those who cannot help themselves.  And you have taken the verse out of context.  It speaks to responsibility to care for our own families individually.  It is not written in a national context at all.  I'll ask again...try to answer this.  Should we support those who are too lazy to work and support themselves? 

RONALD RIML's picture

Take care of the poor?Wake

Take care of the poor?

Wake the Hell Up, ReaganRepublican;  the 'middle class' can no longer take care of themselves.

It's 'disappearing'

America Without a Middle Class -- It's Not Far Away As You Might Think

By Elizabeth Warren, AlterNet
Posted on December 5, 2009, Printed on March 18, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/144388/

 Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?

Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.

Families have survived the ups and downs of economic booms and busts for a long time, but the fall-behind during the busts has gotten worse while the surge-ahead during the booms has stalled out. In the boom of the 1960s, for example, median family income jumped by 33% (adjusted for inflation). But the boom of the 2000s resulted in an almost-imperceptible 1.6% increase for the typical family. While Wall Street executives and others who owned lots of stock celebrated how good the recovery was for them, middle class families were left empty-handed.

 

Tim Lajoie's picture

Well, you have taken this way

Well, you have taken this way beyond what I said.  This article is interesting and all that but my question remains:  Should we take care of those who are not willing to work?

And you and I have a fundamental disagreement, apparently as to what poverty is.  This country is not poor, veritas.  It is overcome with an overwhelming sense of "I am owed it."  Just the other day I am in the supermarket while someone buys $300 bucks worth of groceries on an EBT card and them promptly plucks down $100 bucks for lottery tickets and cigarettes.  Is that right? 

As for your article, which has nothing to do with my original point anyway,  when do people become responsible for their own decisions?  Credit card debt?  How is that my problem?  People pay for things with money they don't have and...what?  They should be able to pass their bill off to me so I can subsidize their irresponsibility?  Foreclosures?  Sure, some have fallen on hard times.  But what of those who bought houses they cannot afford?  I should subsidize that, too? Back in the day, people learned from mistakes.  I don't have credit cards because they are nothing but trouble.  I don't own a home I cannot afford.  I take care of myself and my family with hard work and responsible decisions.  But the government should have the ability to take from my hard work and give it to someone who was irresponsible?  Some of the folks in your news article are in those bad straights because of bad decisions, too.  Not all, of course, but many.  I am not talking about those truly unable to work and you know it.  But if we are going to use the Bible to prove the welfare state then we have to also use the Bible's definition of work and who was expected to work.  In addition, there are some Biblical expectations about financial responsibility.  You can't just say, "Well, the Bible says to take care of the poor."  There is also the law of sowing and reaping...you reap what you sow.  You make a bad decision, live with the consequences...you'll be wiser next time.  You want to use the Bible?  Use all of the Bible. 

When I drive through the subsidizing housing complexes and I see SUV's, satellite dishes on the side of the buildings, and everyone has a cell phone, someone's priorties of are out of whack.  It is not anyone's job to pick up their food bill when they spend their money on luxuries, is it?  This country doesn't know what poverty is.  Take a look at the third world.  Our welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury compared to these people...give me a break. 

 's picture

Question

Who determines a person's ability to work, you,  or a recognized professional?  I think that is what this debate is all about.

Tim Lajoie's picture

Would you PLEASE just answer

Would you PLEASE just answer the question.  Should we support those who are too lazy to support themselves.  I don't need to be a professional and again, tron, your point is irrelevant and avoiding the question.  I know guy who has no feeling from the chest down and has been in that condition for 30 years.  He finished high school, college, and has been working every day of his life since.  When does supporting those unwilling to work, against our will through taxation, become stealing?

RONALD RIML's picture

Answer the question??

You completely ignored Christ's statement regarding the ease with which a rich man could enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and ask  us whether we should support the lazy.

We didn't advocate supporting the lazy;  but rather providing for our own in America - health care, shelter, education, food.

Beck's obviously grown rich on his rants.

Where do you think his soul is headed?

Tim Lajoie's picture

I am sure we agree on the

I am sure we agree on the destination of Beck's soul, but I am sure for different reasons.  However, I am more concerned with the truth of his "rants."  What is untrue about what Beck says?

RONALD RIML's picture

You're "concerned about the

You're "concerned about the 'Truth' of his rants?"

So tell us what's true.

Tim Lajoie's picture

The burden of proof is on the

The burden of proof is on the accuser, veritas, you know that.  You think Beck is fos, tell me why.  How would that work in court?  "Glenn Beck is a liar, your honor, he's scaring the country with lies!"  "What proof do you offer as evidence?" says the judge.  You answer, "Your honor, tell me what he says that's true?"  You'd get laughed out of court and rightfully so.  This I know, when Beck does his show, or writes a book, he documents his assertions in a manner that would pass graduate school muster, either with documentation or video to prove his assertions.  He offers proof.  What do YOU offer that shows he's not right?

RONALD RIML's picture

The Burden's on you - ReaganRepublican

Reagan Republican writes:

"The burden of proof is on the accuser, veritas, you know that.  You think Beck is fos, tell me why.  How would that work in court?  "Glenn Beck is a liar, your honor, he's scaring the country with lies!""

Where did I write any of that?  Quote my allegations in this thread about Beck, other than I asked where he is going, on the assumption that his Fox Contract has made him rich.  I also said 'He's got it right'  - So he obviously doesn't???

I also pointed out that he did not go to work in Haiti as Sean Penn did.

 

RONALD RIML's picture

Sean Penn was in Haiti aiding

Sean Penn was in Haiti aiding the victims of the eathquake while Beck was where???

 's picture

FOX News

sides with the republican party in NOT giving any assistance to Haiti.  While the Democrats and President Obama have given almost half a BILLION dollars, the republicans, as a group, have given nothing.  Now some individuals may have given, but not one  prominent republican or FOX news person has.  In fact, Oreilly made a big stink against the telethon for Haiti, trying to get people not to contribute.  But what can we expect after Katrina.

RONALD RIML's picture

No fun having Religion rammed

No fun having Scripture rammed down your throat, is it, Big Love.....

 's picture

The point made

by those asserting separation of church/states is the Bible  can be used to defend any position you want.  With the ability to take any verse out of context to mean whatever you want, perhaps it isn't the best reference to dictate public policy, pro or con.

Mark Wrenn's picture

Socialist

Jesus was like the biggest socialist ever. I don't remember reading anywhere he walked around preaching "I got mine, get your own." And what about that whole camel and eye of the needle thing?

 's picture

You lost credibility

the moment you mentioned Glenn Beck.  It vanished the at the quotation of LeoXIII.  The guy didn't even believe in free speech.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...