Hypercrites in my past and Isolation

 They isolated me for 3 decades. I wasn’t materialistic in the beginning. In the beginning they used to call me Forrest Gump, Karl Childers and telling me to listen to Tool and Korn during 9^th grade. When I was at high school, they were waving confederate flags in backThey isolated me for 3 decades. I wasn’t materialistic in the beginning. In the beginning they used to call me Forrest Gump, Karl Childers and telling me to listen to Tool and Korn during 9^th grade. When I was at high school, they were waving confederate flags in back of pickups and driving tractors, having girlfriends. At the time I owned a Windows 95 PC, a N64, a Dreamcast, a PS2, and 40 games. I was chased by dogs when I walked my dog. My cousins were already into dune buggies and motorcycles. My neighbors had ATVs and Snowmobiles. When I drove down the street they were giving me L signs for being a loser. So I had no respect or invites in the beginning. It wasn’t until I finished college, had a videogame collection of 1400 games where anybody took notice, even just barely Took notice. Byen I sacrificed girlfriends, pickups, houses, snowmobiles, fishing boats, rock a concerts, and a lot of other things for a little attention. Then they complain I’m violent or some other excuse, but their lying, because I don’t own guns. Employers wouldn’t employ me more then 17 months. One told me to stop buying stuff as they were buying pickups and ATVs and Snowmobiles. Hypercritical. Then I had to build up my Tiktok, Instagram, and Facebook or nobody would care or make up something. in Wisconsin they need me until they don’t need me, and then I won’t here from them. Their excuse would always be believe in Jesus and do nothing. Then I moved to Minnesota.

Why Economics Alone Will Not Make America Great Again

There is a major problem with books written solely from an economic prism.

Consider the fact that the American economy is booming by all major indicators. Unemployment is down to record lows. Inflation is minimal. Consumer confidence is up. We have not seen times like this for decades. Admittedly, wages are still low, and debt levels are off the charts. Other major economic problems lurk on the horizon, but, for now, everything seems to be running well.

Indeed, for some, never in recent memory have we been so prosperous. However, at no time in postwar history have we been so divided, unhappy, or lonely. If economics is so important, we should be happy … or happier than we are.

Economics as a Secondary Perspective
Of course, books written under an economic prism do provide insights into reality. However, it is a partial perspective—and a secondary one.

 

The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed is a book that attempts to explain the last general election and present administration from this partial yet secondary perspective.

Author F. H. Buckley, a Foundation Professor at George Mason University, readily admits his economic outlook and even likes to define himself as a “right-wing Marxist.” He expresses the American Dream in economic terms as a “mobile and classless society” now gone awry. The author imagines a new class struggle between a rich liberal establishment now holding power and the more conservative yet forgotten working class representing the oppressed. He thinks we are living in revolutionary times, not unlike 1917, and he is on the side of the new proletariat.

\Provocative Positions
In all fairness to Prof. Buckley, he does agree that culture matters and that things like two-parent families and strong communities make economic sense. However, he does not see these moral issues as matters of public policy. He takes a seek-ye-first-real-jobs attitude and “after that, we can take care of ourselves.”

The Canadian now American citizen is provocative. He claims the American Dream is not dead but has migrated to the more upwardly-mobile-friendly Canada (under Justin Trudeau). He likewise proposes a single-tier one-size-fits-all university system, again like in his native Canada, instead of our multi-tiered ”elitist” system.

His Pikettyesque dislike for accumulated generational wealth, especially when parked in private foundations, sparks a call to repeat Henry VIII’s looting of the accumulated wealth of English sixteenth-century monasteries. Social conservatives will disagree with his conclusion that they have accepted same-sex “marriage” because it did not “pick anyone’s pocket.”

The Proper Role of Economics
Such provocative views are to be expected since a solely economic prism will always be unavoidably materialistic, religiously indifferent, and painfully egalitarian. Economics is a pragmatic practice and science that deals with the production, administration, and exchange of goods and services. It involves concrete realities that tend to exclude other human considerations. It can be brutal and without nuance.

Economics tends to be considered the most important human field. Such an attitude is risky; as sociologist Georg Simmel once wrote: “Money is not content with being just another final purpose of life alongside wisdom and art, personal significance and strength, beauty and love. But in so far as money does adopt this position, it gains the power to reduce the other purposes to the level of means.”

An Angle Often Ignored
Those holding a solely economic perspective often fail to realize that man has another side that is spiritual and superior. Conservatives have long acknowledged this. Barry Goldwater’s classic manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative, ghostwritten by William F. Buckley’s brother-in-law, Catholic convert L. Brent Bozell, Jr., affirms that every man is a unique and “spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires.”

This superior side of man’s nature makes us unique and establishes our dignity. This side gives rise to political, social, cultural, and religious activities and sciences that tower above mere material economic production. These endeavors help satisfy our spiritual needs and ultimately lead to our eternal salvation.

A Focus that Fails to Consider the Spiritual
The Republican Workers Party suffers from its failure to consider this spiritual dimension seriously. The author focuses on workers and jobs, politics and power, and special interests and privileges. It is a prism that relegates the spiritual to poetic longings for a Christian past with little connection to modernity.

However, we must note that the material perspective offers nothing new, and is itself guilty of nostalgia. The author echoes a typical Enlightenment perspective that waxes lyrical about the brutal trilogy of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Prof. Buckley recognizes no specific metaphysical order and notes his disappointment that we have failed to move beyond the times “when people look to theologians rather than scientists to make sense of a confusing world.”

Thus, this dominant materialistic narrative weighs heavily upon the book since economics needs norms outside itself to judge its ethical value. Church teaching is that economics must be subject to and seek orientation from those higher normative sciences like ethics, logic, and moral philosophy which have as their focus all human activity. Economics is a science that is intertwined with all others and should belong to a worldview since it seeks to understand human action. It is no coincidence that Adam Smith taught moral philosophy and not statistical analysis or macro-economics.

Looking for the Whole Picture
This is not to say that Prof. Buckley does not have valuable insights into what has happened in American politics over the last few decades. He knows many of the characters of the 2016 election and his book is full of anecdotes about the great drama of that campaign which readers will certainly welcome.

However, we are left desirous of the whole picture. The author forgets that America is a religious nation that still clings to its moral values despite pockets of secularism in urban centers and elite circles. Concern for a moral Supreme Court justice figured higher than employment statistics for many of those who voted in 2016. It is all well and good to remember the forgotten worker who lost a job to outsourcing. However, we must also remember the ever-forgotten Christian whose values (including traditional marriage) tend to be treated as bargaining chips on the road to power and deemed inferior to consumer confidence and job creation. Even Prof. Buckley would agree that the fringe campaign agenda of Hillary Clinton (e.g., transgender bathrooms) alienated some of her own base and contributed to her defeat.

While it is true that the ruling class has been increasingly unresponsive to the needs of workers in traditional industries and, especially, religious voters, the author’s scathing generalizations against all elites are likely to unfairly target the competent ones. True self-sacrificing elites have always played a leadership role in American society—especially the Founders. America cannot be reduced to a Labor Party. The Christian soul desires the social harmony of all social classes, both true elites and workers. We are all equally American.

Federal power can only do so much to inspire spiritual renewal, as Prof. Buckley would no doubt insist. Yet that same power should not impede spiritual renewal (as the courts have actively tried to do) and could encourage and inspire state and local efforts to strengthen the social fabric. Indeed, the author’s attempt to explain the present administration in secular terms runs counter to the president’s own references to God and religious imagery. While few would claim the president is a deeply religious man, he is clearly aware of the abiding religious character of the nation. Despite our secular times, we still see ourselves as “a nation under God.” The phrase is found on our coinage and written on countless American hearts. We cannot help but think that so many of the problems that Prof. Buckley mentions in his book could be better resolved if we would get right with God.

Can Halloween be Christianized Again?

As Halloween approaches, the debate over whether people should join in the celebrations has reignited. Many claim it is a harmless holiday for children that Catholics may freely participate in. Others affirm that it has now descended into dark regions with the return of pagan and Satanic imagery; it should thus be off limits.

And then there are those who look for a third way to approach it somewhere in-between. They propose alternative celebrations, All Saints Day commemorations or fall festivals. In this way, Halloween, an originally Catholic feast, can be “re-Christianized” and re-purposed to promote the Faith. They hope to turn Halloween into a teaching moment for all good Christians.

Halloween Cannot be Ignored
Finding a Christian way to celebrate Halloween is a problem for many parents. Halloween cannot be ignored. Their children will necessarily be exposed to it.

It has become a festival that is only surpassed by Christmas in economic terms. Many households now have Halloween decorations inside and outside their homes. It is a huge party night for which Americans spend billions of dollars on costumes and events. It is a big night adventure for children who engage in their traditional quest for “trick or treat.

 

However, another point cannot be ignored. The darker celebrations of Halloween glorify the occult, the bizarre and the macabre. New developments in costumes make zombie-like outfits much more realistic and horrifying. The increasing popularity of Satanic movements like Wicca has helped popularize Halloween as sacred. The modern focus of Halloween is increasingly focused on a fascination with evil, horror, and gore.

Ironically, a liberal society that deplores the rise of violence and abuse in other fields makes few objections to this bloody and macabre holiday.

Halloween’s Pagan Roots
Thus, finding a third way can only succeed if a Christian purpose and meaning of Halloween can prevail over today’s setting of the tone by the macabre. Those looking for alternatives need to go back to the festival’s roots, both pagan and Christian, to see if something might be salvaged.

The remote origins of Halloween are problematic. There is no denying that Halloween is rooted in the Celtic fall festival of Samhain. It involved many superstitions and occult ceremonies directed toward the Druid lord of death. Some historians claim the Druids practiced human or animal sacrifice and even occult orgies to mark special festivals. In this case, dressing up as evil spirits and demons was part of the celebration.

The ghastly and even toxic aspects of the pagan feast certainly stood in need of being baptized. Indeed, the Church responded to such opportunities to overturn the idols and rid peoples of superstitions. Many times, missionaries would take advantage of the habit of celebrating special pagan feast days to institute Christian feasts or holy days in their stead.

Halloween, a Feast of Charity to the Poor
This is exactly what the Church did to Halloween. In the ninth century, this pagan festival was replaced by a double day celebration remembering all the dead who are saved: All Saints Day remembers those who are uncanonized in heaven so that they might have their feast, too. All Souls Day remembers the poor souls who are saved from the eternal fires of hell yet are suffering for a time in purgatory.

On the eve of these two feasts, the bells would ring, and town criers would remind all to pray for the poor souls. Thus, on All Hallows Eve, later Halloween, children from poor families would go door-to-door, receiving food and sweets in exchange for praying for the souls of the dead. This “souling” as it was called, gave rise to canvassing for “soul” cakes which became part of the tradition. Harmless pranks awaited the stingy givers.

The revelers would sing:

Soul! Soul! Soul-cake!
Please good Missis, a soul-cake!
Apple, pear, plum or cherry,
Any good thing to make us all merry.
One for Peter, two for Paul
Three for Him who made us all.

Halloween was thus a feast that benefited the poor on earth and those who were so much poorer in purgatory. It was a time of mirth but also great charity.

The Church as Mother
While there are times of penance and fasting in the liturgical year, there are also times of joy. The Church as a true mother provides the faithful with festive days of feasting and merrymaking. Thus, the Church has no problem with merrymaking with people dressed up in costumes to visit neighbors.

In medieval Europe, it was very popular for people “to go mummering,” the practice of visiting neighborhoods while dressed up in disguises. The revelers would sing, feast, and play tricks in return for refreshment, money or good wishes. Such mummering was very popular on major feast days, of which there were many, in the Middle Ages. They did not degenerate into rowdy or bawdy festivals like those which plague today’s de-Christianized Mardi Gras or other such feasts.

Protestant Prohibition and Eventual Acceptance
In Protestant Europe and America, Halloween was on the prohibited index of religious practices in colonial times, a list that some radical sects extended to Christmas. It was not observed until Irish Catholic immigrants in the nineteenth century brought the custom with them to their new homeland. In the twenties, a secularized version of Halloween was introduced with the practice of trick or treating. It gradually gained traction and acceptance by the fifties.

However, the more recent celebrations have stressed its pagan origins with its preternatural and ghoulish overtones. It has combined with slasher and horror films and zombie-themed parties and events to make it a festival of darkness embracing the evil side of the spiritual world.

Thus, Halloween has returned to its pagan origins and abandoned those of Christian charity. It no longer belongs to the poor but to those engaging in amusement and self-indulgence. Once the feast of innocent little children, it now includes reveling adults. Those who celebrate do not pray for the salvation of poor souls but harbor instead a diabolical glee over damned souls.

Can Halloween be Re-Christianized?
The question remains if Halloween can be re-Christianized in today’s world.

Resourceful clergy and parents have found alternatives that capture the imagination of children. Many of these include parties in which children dress up as saints or religious figures as a way of celebrating All Saints Day. These alternative events can be helpful in imparting some Catholic culture to children. But they can only go so far.

Such celebrations cannot compete with the super-charged media promotion of today’s neo-pagan Halloween. Children will be exposed to the ghoulish side of Halloween in stores, schools or the house decorations in their neighborhood. Like other aspects of modern culture, they cannot be ignored, or Benedict Optioned out.

Arranging a peaceful co-existence between Catholic and pagan celebrations of Halloween is bound to fail since it does not address the need to fight against evil. It prepares the child for defeat later in life, since all must eventually confront the reality of evil without the help of others.

Re-Christianizing Halloween
That is why the only real way to re-Christianize Halloween is to reject any peaceful co-existence in these cultural matters. This will happen when clergy and parents teach children to confront the world they cannot ignore or avoid. They must delve deeply into the Faith. Children must be fortified by sacramental life and prayer to engage in this battle in a manner appropriate to their age.

Thus, any Christianized celebration of Halloween needs to reinforce the idea that there is a cultural battle going on between the forces of good and evil. Hell exists, and its fires must be avoided. What better way to demonstrate these truths than to point out the macabre manifestations of evil that appear everywhere during Halloween.

It could also serve as an occasion to point out the victory of the saints over the evils of their day. The eve of the Church’s two holy days may once again become a time to make merry and eat sweet soul cakes while praying for the poor souls suffering in purgatory.

A Soul Cake recipe can be found here.

The Roots of American Alienation

After the 2016 elections, many tried to explain what happened. Some theories are not convincing since they seem to hide a darker reality of which we dare not speak. Others appear a bit too simplified to explain what we experience in daily life.

To start the process of understanding our crisis, we need a clear vision. One book that manages to sift through the simplifications and penetrate some dark mysteries is Alienated America, Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse (2019) written by journalist Timothy Carney.

Straddling the Line Between Two Americas
The book does not aspire to be a major scholarly work of sociological analysis. Although well documented, Mr. Carney lets others do the heavy lifting. He borrows liberally from the theses of sociologists like Charles Murray and Charles Putnam, who have convincingly described the emergence of two separate Americas after the 1960s.

One America consists of a more vibrant sector that prospers with its networks and social institutions. The other is a shattered, dysfunctional America lacking sufficient community links and well-constituted families.

 

Mr. Carney manages to straddle the line between the two Americas in observing the 2016 elections. We can identify with his observations, experiences, and anecdotes. He describes vividly how a massive collapse of civil society is destroying the America we once knew.

The book raises important questions about where we went wrong in our society and culture. More importantly, it also provides insights upon which we might ruminate and ponder.

The Concept of Alienation
The concept of alienation is one such point to ponder. Mr. Carney makes use of sociologist Robert Nisbet’s definition of alienation as “The state of mind that can find a social order remote, incomprehensible, or fraudulent; beyond real hope or desire; inviting apathy, boredom or even hostility.”

Large sectors of America are alienated. This notion helps explain the great disconnection of those all across the political spectrum who no longer participate in civil society. No one prevents them from associating with others, but they have lost their desire or interest in being part of a social order.

The author invites us to think about the causes for this alienation—whether it be hyper-individualism, social media, trade policies, lost jobs, opioid abuse, secularization, or the Sexual Revolution. He shows how all these influences have played their role in fragmenting America, although they are not the causes.

Not Collapsing but Disintegrating
Mr. Carney goes to great lengths to prove that the real cause of our crisis is the collapse of civil society. “America is the land of opportunity because it is the land of civil society,” he affirms.

Those opportunities are now dying out.  In some places, the moral institutions of family, community, and faith are not just collapsing but disintegrating before our eyes.

The gravity of the problem is highlighted by the fact that restoring civil society cannot be done by simply bringing back jobs, government programs, or tweaking the system. In many places, there is no system upon which to build. In others, individual self-interest reigns supreme.

This is especially true in areas where the family is in shambles. Without this basic social unit, no society can be rebuilt. Consequently, communities are also missing. There are no longer those intermediary associations that protect the family and its members from an intrusive state.

The Disintegration of Religion
However, Mr. Carney has the courage to say that the most important cause of alienation is the collapse of religion. He rightly proclaims it as “the largest and most important institution of civil society.”

From his purely natural perspective, he notes that the church has always been America’s indispensable institution. Tocqueville said that Americans value their churches as the first of their political institutions. Where churches are shuttered, communities crumble. The author does not hesitate to say that “The erosion of civil society is largely [due to] the collapse of churches.”

This makes sense. Religion is the institution that establishes and maintains the norms of right and wrong. It should defend the natural law, which is so well laid out by the Ten Commandments. Society will maintain order to the extent that it follows this objective law suited to the nature God gave us so that we might prosper.

Mr. Carney’s vision is limited to his sociological treatment of the subject. Although a Catholic, he does not enter into the role of the Church as the guardian of the moral law. He does not consider the supernatural action of grace that facilitates enormously the practice of virtue in common.

He only deals with the decay of this institution which clashes so violently with our self-destructing culture.

Abandoning God
Hence it should be no mystery as to why so many Americans are alienated. We have abandoned God and violated his law. Historically, this turning away from God has always had drastic social and economic consequences. Of course, The Washington Examiner journalist does not put it in these almost biblical terms. However, his conclusion does give special meaning to the culture wars since one side seeks to call Americans back to God and his law.

The author’s more immediate conclusion is that the moral wasteland of an alienated America explains the victory of President Trump, who appealed to those who feel that society does not make sense anymore. He makes a compelling case that the alienated vote—especially the vote of the unchurched—favored the president.

The Other America
Mr. Carney also presents the other America: those who are not alienated. This is an America in which the moral institutions of family, community, and faith survive. Its properly constituted families all but guarantee some degree of prosperity. These families build networks and vibrant faith communities.

Their rates of divorce, drug use, criminality, and other negative social indicators are all low. These successful families tend to cluster themselves as elites in exclusive neighborhoods or super zipcodes. They might also be found in certain closely-knit ethnic and rural communities with strong personal ties.

The author tends to agree with the conclusions of Charles Murray and Robert Putnam who portray this other America as almost immune to the moral crisis that devastates the nation. Such communities survive in enclaves and bubbles that seem to mock the alienated.

A Generalized Crisis Affecting Everyone
From a material perspective, this evaluation might appear to be true, for there are rich neighborhoods and excellent schools. These visible signs perpetuate the idea of a better life.

However, from a spiritual perspective, this conclusion ignores the upheaval of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s which devastated relationships and public morals. No family is exempt from the effects of this vast destruction. Social networks might mitigate its effects, slow down the processes of decay, or change the way social rot manifests itself. However, it does not change the generalized crisis affecting everyone.

Indeed, all is not well in the other America. Studies show that unhappiness is a universal postmodern phenomenon that respects neither education nor income level.

More Not Less Social Capital
By framing the debate in terms of social network haves and have-nots, it is hard not to construct a class struggle narrative. However, Mr. Carney resists the temptation. He sees the need to create more social capital—not less—between the social classes.

He laments the formation of “elite bubbles” that cluster those in leadership positions within exclusive neighborhoods, thus depriving other areas of the organic leadership structures they need.

Efforts to help the less fortunate are further hampered by a militant egalitarian culture that leads elites to what he calls “infertile virtue.” They suffer from an unwillingness to spread good habits and practices lest they reveal their advantages. Delegating such tasks to the government avoids this embarrassment.

In addition, the author stresses the need for involved local communities fortified by religious ties, as these have proven rich in social capital and innovative in providing solutions.

A Need for Spiritual Regeneration
However, it is one thing to point out the need for leaders and local communities; it is another to create them. Thus, Alienated America proposes a return to a society where everyone gets along without resolving the essential differences that caused the problem in the first place. Such solutions try to satisfy everyone but usually convince no one.

Nothing can avoid the conclusion that this is a moral crisis and not an economic one. We must return to God whom we have abandoned. The Church with her immense treasury of social teachings has a vital role to play in any eventual restoration of the social order. The more we flee from such solutions, the more we deceive ourselves and adopt schemes that increase the ranks of the alienated.

The role of the alienated in the 2016 elections should give us pause to ponder the kind of America we need. What ails us will not be easily resolved. It will take much courage and a resolve to suffer in order to set things aright.

How Socialists Will Usher in a New Hell on Earth

Americans are a generous people ready to lend a hand to those in need. When God blesses us with prosperity, we naturally want to practice acts of charity to help the less fortunate.

However, this charitable spirit is now threatened. There are those who hate this charity and desire to destroy the structures from which these material blessings flow. Indeed, we may face the coming hell of an America without charity.

One might ask what kind of heartless person could be against helping the poor. How could such people exert enough power in America to extinguish the light of charity?

“I Don’t Believe in Charities”
The answer comes from an anecdote of a popular political figure who spoke at a United Way charity benefit dinner many years ago

 

“I don’t believe in charities,” he said gruffly, adding that he did not “believe in the fundamental concepts on which charities are based and contend[s] that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for charity programs.”

The outspoken figure was then-Mayor Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. The comment was quoted in a 1981 New York Times article that recently resurfaced. As the ranks of socialist politicians are increasing, ideas like this one now blanket the nation and are gaining some traction.

Some might object that it seems exaggerated to link the comment of Bernie Sanders to the demise of charity in America. The Vermont senator is known for his outspokenness that may not always reflect socialist thought.

However, socialists do not “believe in the fundamental concepts on which charities are based.” By their toxic ideology, they are the natural enemies of private charity, and above all Christian charity. Thus, we do well to fear the terrible specter of a socialist America without charity.

No Such Thing as Socialist Charity
Indeed, socialist charity is an oxymoron. Most socialists hold that charity is a capitalist structure used to keep the poor downtrodden. Socialist literature is hostile to charity. Ironically, the greater the charity, the greater is the hostility since they do not want charity to solve social problems. They want the government to take control.

“Seize the charities!” writes Patrick Stall on the radical Jacobin website. “Private charity will never cure capitalism’s ills.”

There are three reasons why socialists hate charity.

A Toxic Egalitarian Ideology
First, socialists hate charity because their egalitarian ideology demands economic equality above all things. To them, all inequality is unjust. Charity will always participate in this injustice since there can be no charity when everyone is equal.

When someone aids another, it presupposes that one person has more than another. Worse yet, this person has excessive wealth that might be given without harming his or her fortune. Thus, superfluous wealth, inherited wealth, and accumulated wealth are hateful because they represent an unjust system of excess that exploits the worker and facilitates inequality … and charity.

This is why socialists seek state ownership or regulation of the means of production. It is better to refuse the goodwill of the rich than perpetuate this system. It is better to overtax the rich and allow the government to redistribute these “ill-gotten” funds than to allow the rich to give them freely.

The Humiliation of Receiving
Socialists also hate charity because it creates receivers of aid. Socialists hate the idea of contingency. They cannot bear the idea of people accepting gifts from others because they believe the needy are always victims of injustice. The poor can never be the victims of misfortunes, disasters, or their vices. Thus, socialists believe charity humiliates the poor who are forced to ask for what is rightfully theirs. Private charity perpetuates the structures of poverty. The poor must demand the fruits of another’s success as a right not as a gift.

Moreover, the nature of charity creates another injustice in that it distributes wealth to the poor unequally. Those who receive support must “humiliate” themselves by asking for aid conditioned by the decision of the givers who give as they will. Rather than favor a system in which the needy are dependent on the wealthy, even if the benefits the poor receive from the rich are better, socialists prefer to construct huge government programs to distribute equally scarce tax dollars.

Socialists Hate Social Harmony
Finally, socialists hate the idea of charity because it undermines their concept of history as class struggle. The socialists do not want the harmony of the social classes but want to pit one class against another as a means of bringing about major social change. Their system presupposes and desires class strife.

To do this, they must break any links between the social classes, especially those of charity. Normally, the rich and poor live separate lives with little contact between them. Charity manages to unite rich with poor by creating bonds of affection. The rich extend compassion to the poor whom they seek to help. The poor on their part respond with gratitude to those who help them. These rich personal relationships have historically united the social classes that would otherwise be divided.

Socialists hate these mutual relationships and prefer the cold machinery of the state. Consistent with their class struggle philosophies, socialists desire to create disharmony. By using the power of the state to distribute wealth, socialism destroys the bonds of charity and replaces them with resentment. The rich resent being overtaxed and forced to help the poor.  The poor see government assistance as entitlements and thus have no gratitude. This attitude breeds resentment when there are not enough benefits—as often happens.

This resentment on both sides facilitates the class struggle that will bring about further socialist change.

An Incapacity to Understand Charity
All these are natural reasons why socialists hate charity; they are based on a misguided and distorted vision of the world.

However, the greatest obstacle to the socialist acceptance of the concept of charity is much more spiritual and theological. From their limited materialist perspective, socialists cannot understand true charity. They cannot grasp the enormous scope and efficacy of Christian charity. They only believe in power and self-interest; they cannot admit an order in which people might freely help one another for a higher cause.  Socialists do not think of helping their neighbors since they do not recognize others as neighbors but only equal comrades. They erroneously think that only cold, brutal state systems can ensure the proper distribution of wealth—although they usually distribute corruption and misery as well.

The True Nature of Charity
The Church teaches that charity is that habit that disposes us to love God above all things and love our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, we who gratuitously receive blessings from God become capable of gratuitously giving to others without expecting anything in return. By grace, we overcome our selfishness and our repugnance of suffering to help others. We become capable of deeds that are beyond our fallen human nature. This action multiplies our capacity for giving, and in doing so it allows us to achieve things that are admirable, heroic, and sublime. This explains the incredible accomplishments of the saints and heroes who performed marvelous deeds and transformed society.

This spirit of charity gave rise to Christian civilization. Ancient pagan culture nor even today’s neo-pagan culture has been or is able to practice charity to the high degree achieved by the Church. This is due to the limitations of defective first principles that do not recognize our human dignity as endowed with an immortal soul.

There is no greater social unity than that produced by Christian charity which perfects the practice of justice and allows us to put the greater good over the lesser. It serves to quell the desire for personal gain and disordered passions. The practice of Christian charity creates a true union of heart and mind as all is directed toward the love of God, the source of all Good. Thus, we see our neighbors as brothers and sisters in Christ and not as faceless wards of the State.

A Hell on Earth
The socialist worldview could not be more contrary. Socialists deny any contingency on God and his Providence and embrace the state completely. A socialist society is a materialistic society without a higher purpose or meaning. Since the structure of society determines individual conduct, there can be no moral responsibility for one’s acts—including infanticide. Since the primary injustice is inequality, society is doomed to an eternal class struggle against the natural accumulation of property. Such an immoral society built on resentment is a hell on earth—and this happens whenever socialism is fully implemented.

Thus, the rise of socialism in America today represents a grave danger to the America we know and love. The rhetoric of socialist politicians must not deceive us. Wherever socialism rules, charity is suppressed.  Should socialism triumph in America, we will then see the establishment of a cruel and savage hell without charity.