Charity And Socialism

Listen to Comrade Francisco! He is just like me!

Listen to Comrade Francisco! He is just like me!

There a very smart bear around, though I have become aware of it only very recently. St Corbinian’s Bear truly is one of those bear who deserve all the salmon he can get.

This particular bear has the following observation:

[]…. but the Bear senses that God wants you to feed a hungry person more than he wants a hungry person to be fed. God wants us to act for the glory of His Name, and in charity for our neighbor. He doesn’t want us to come up with grand bureaucratic schemes to eliminate poverty or save the planet. Like all of us, The Poor will soon be called to judgment and be spending eternity in either Heaven or Hell. The planet is slated for destruction according to God’s hidden and unchangeable will. [].

This is, as I have said, a smart bear. A bear, I mean, who gets the difference between Charity and Socialism.

The rich help the poor because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. The poor accept their help in gratitude and in charity, because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. Brotherhood is not about rights, and charity is never about rights. Charity demands that love moves the ones to help out of generosity, and the others to be helped in gratitude.

All this is absent from the Socialist thinking now so very pervasive in the West, even among people who would react with indignation at being called “Socialists”. Socialists think that the poor is entitled to an economic transfer decided by people who do not own the rich’s wealth, and that the rich has no right to what is his own insofar as the poor can make a claim on it. 

How destructive this is, is apparent even to Al Gore. This mentality is the contrary of brotherhood. It creates envy and entitlement. The poor considers it unjust in itself that he is poor and the rich is rich. The Socialist helps him in this evil thinking and tells him that he is a victim, and that he is entitled to at least a part of what the rich has. To the Socialist, the very existence of the poor is a man-made defect of society, which he is called to destroy.

The socialist wants to “make poverty history” (thus forgetting, or insulting, Our Lord), because for him poverty is the fruit of an injustice. In so doing, he makes Charity history. In vast parts of the world he will, soon enough, make Christianity itself history. But poverty will, of course, remain; together with the social envy, the social conflicts, the untold economic damage, and the general selfishness that this entails. As always, God will not be mocked.

God wants a world in which charity, not envy, is the engine of social thinking. A world in which the “social engineering” is made not by evil Socialists, but by good hearts. In His Goodness, he has always cared that in Christian societies, for an abundance of poor there was also an abundance of rich with a generous heart. This is why Christian Europe was always spared from the atrocious need, and the atrocious way of dealing with the poor, that you saw and still see among the heathens, for example the heartless Hindu.

Of course, the expropriation of the goods of the rich (or of the “haves”) has brought to the modern “poor” an unprecedented level of unearned prosperity. But are they happy with it? Are they one tad happier than their poor forefathers? No, they aren’t. On the contrary, where their forefathers lived a life in charity and humble serenity, they live a life in resentment. Wanting more, and more, and more, of that which they have not earned, of that which others have earned. And thinking that this more, and more, is theirs by right. And thinking it is an injustice that they do not have more of what is not theirs. But they still feel poor! They still are resentful! They still see rich people among them, and call this inequality, and declare it bad, and an evil to be destroyed!

That by this thinking charity goes out of the window is quite apparent. That envy and hatred take its place is just as obvious.

Francis is the Socialist through and through. He does not even begin to understand why there are poor and rich people. His thinking is entirely secular; his attitude is entirely resentful; he is a Chavez made Pope. He thinks that poverty is the rich people’s fault. he even think that poverty can be defeated. He is as resentful, stupid, blasphemous as every other Socialist out there.

When sanity comes back (and I am fully aware that I will not live to see that day), one of its fruits will be the dismantling of the modern “social state”; a fruit of the godlessness of our times, that has substituted faith in the Lord with the allegiance to the pagan god of equality.


Posted on July 24, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Mundy, I’d have to agree with you about The Bear. He’s an underestimated wit in an overestimated world of clerical duncery.

    To wit, several of The Bear’s keen observations:

    You should always go to other people’s funerals; otherwise, they won’t come to yours.

    The towels were so thick there I could hardly close my suitcase.

    I usually take a two-hour nap from one to four.

  2. Mundabor, there is one other dimension to this subject that might bear some consideration, apart from the Catholic vs. Socialism dichotomy.

    In classical Judaism and Islam, what would nominally be referred to as their concepts of ‘charity’ are actually seen by their religious authorities as justice that is due to the poor, and this is exhibited by the actual words used to describe these commandments. While this doesn’t particularly entail human authority or government, the tradtionalist adherent to these religions is expected to donate to assist those in need, not merely as charity but out of justice due them, as anybody who does not have enough to live on is seen, in some sense, as having been wrongfully deprived of their licit share of the earth’s fruits and has, in some sense, a rightful claim on those who can assist and provide a basic subsistence. But the believer is expected to act upon this from divine command, not from government necessarily enforcing it.

%d bloggers like this: