Apostolic communism for clergy

[Vouthon]

Pope Nicholas II proclaimed in the fourth canon of the Synod of 1059:

"At churches where they were consecrated, those in the orders of priests, deacons and subdeacons, who observe celibacy, should, as becomes a pious clergy, have their meals and sleeping accommodations in common and should hold all ecclesial revenues in common. We also urge and admonish that they earnestly strive to achieve an apostolic, that is a common, way of life".

Around the same time, St. Peter Damian (1007 – 1072), a Gregorian Reformer, penned a treatise called, ‘Contra Regulares Proprietarios’ ( ‘Against Property-Owning Regular Clerics’). He wrote:

"…A member of the clergy who possesses money cannot be the property or inheritance of Christ, nor can he posses God as his inheritance…If you read the New Testament with unprejudiced eyes, you will find that the apostles and their successors lived like monks, not like canons."

In this book, St. Peter Damian argued that the vita communis - total relinquishment of private property and communal fraternity - was the cure for clerical immorality and decadence. He invited all clerics of the church to return to the model of the primitive ecclesia in Jerusalem, where the apostles mandated communal ownership.

Many centuries before, St. Augustine of Hippo had called for the same:

“First of all, because you are gathered together in one that you might live harmoniously and that there be one soul and one heart toward God. And you should not call anything your own, but let all things be common to you and distributed to each one of you according to need .”

• St. Augustine of Hippo (Letter 211.5, CSEL 57:359)

Our retention of clerical celibacy to this day is an artefact of the Gregorian Revolution of the 11th century but as can be seen from the above, the revolution was only “half-accomplished”. Abstention from sex was not complemented with abstention from personal wealth and private property.

During Jesus’s ministry, the followers of Christ fell into two categories: (a) itinerants who were properly "disciples" , including but not limited to the twelve apostles, and gave up all private possessions to travel with Christ and (b) householders, who weren’t ‘disciples’ per se but were still part of the movement and aided through donations while retaining private dwellings.

Jesus’ command in Luke 14:33 “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your [private] possessions", was, in the the context of the early church, unequivocal.

After Pentecost, for a time, the apostles imposed the apostolic way of life upon the entire church in Jerusalem.

My question: do you think that this practice would be something good to enforce on clergy today, or not? Priests are In persona Christi a Latin phrase meaning “ in the person of Christ ”. To quote Pope Pius XII (1947):

The priest is the same, Jesus Christ, whose sacred Person His minister represents. Now the minister…possesses the power of performing actions in virtue of Christ’s very person.

 

[Genesis315]

I think the word “communism” isn’t really appropriate here. It entails a whole host of things in addition to simple common ownership by a particular group (we wouldn’t, for example, call joint ownership by a husband and wife “marital communism.”).

You’re also confusing two things–ownership in common and poverty which has no ownership period, not even in common. Both have a history in the Church.

As I am sure you know, poverty is a counsel, not a commandment. Certainly there’s an argument that the clergy should be chosen from those willing to embrace the the counsel of poverty (like we do with regard to continence) or community life. Many clergy at least live its spirit, if not literally (and they are exhorted to live simply). The Church has never taught this to be absolute necessity, however.

Interestingly enough, the idea that Christ or the Apostles had no possessions at all has also been definitively condemned by the Church as heretical (see e.g. John XXII, Quum inter nonnullos).

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed, the medieval popes made it clear that Christ’s apostles had no personal possessions or privately owned goods but that the apostles did own some or a few goods in common (i.e. no house, except when others hosted them, but they kept a common purse for food and other vitals that they would have owned together).

It is this communal life - which I agree can only very imprecisely be called “communism” today because of the marxist baggage that the term has unfortunately gained in modernity - that I’m really speaking of, as opposed to an absolute vow of poverty (a distinct vocation).

Like the Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart, though, I am not averse to using the term ‘communism’ when referring to communal ownership but there is risk in employing the term, I concede.

Since they lived and ate together and held no private property or personal possessions, it was a “commune” in the technical, pre-marxist sense of the term.

Can we settle for “apostolic communalism”?

 

[JerryZ]

Uhmm, You can find out fairly easily on the web which orders allow property to be owned by their members and which does not. It is commonly known as a “vow of poverty”.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, because as Pope John XXII stated in the bull Quia quorundam of 10 November 1324:

“the Gospel life lived by Christ and the Apostles did not exclude some possessions in common, since living ‘without property’ does not require that those living thus should have nothing in common…And this, to have some things in common in respect of ownership, does not derogate from the highest poverty, according to the statement of the before mentioned Gregory IX."

But when one refers to a “vow of poverty”, it can also mean an even more rigorous vocation of St. Francis-style mendicacy that involves begging and absolute relinquishment of both personal and common property.

This is a distinct vocation from the “apostolic poverty”, which was characterised by as much minimalism as possible and complete poverty of personal possessions but did not disdain a few essential pieces of property owned in common and distributed according to need.

But you are right that the church has traditionally viewed common property ownership, of a minimal kind necessary for survival, as a type of “holy poverty” and this was the kind actually practised by the apostles.

 

[poche]

It applies to religious life but not to the diocesan clergy.

 

[Peeps]

I am a convert to Catholicism (2004), and don’t know much about priestly private life.

BUT…common sense seems to me to indicate that priests should live in "family"settings, with women present. JESUS and His disciples did this–when you read the Gospels, you notice that the women travel with them.

I’m not talking about gorgeous movie-star-like babes! I’m talking about holy women who are called to help care for/cook for priests. They certainly can be pretty/attractive, but I think they should be older than the young priests–old enough to be “mom.”

In fact, I would love to see priests live with their real families, if not parents, then siblings, grandparents, cousins, aunts/uncles. I know that some families are toxic to their children, but if the families are strong, Christian families, this would be the best way for the priest to live their private lives. Even Jesus stayed close to His family–often His Mother is mentioned, and also His “brothers” (cousins, other male relatives). If Jesus didn’t live with His actual family, He lived near enough to see them often.

If real families are not an option, I think it would be excellent if mature, married couples (retired, but still in good health) lived with priests and acted as surrogate parents.

But above all else, I think that priests lifestyles and life-settings should be studied, and priests should be extensively interviewed to try to learn what has made it easy for priests to be involved in sexual sins–not just molestation of little ones (rarer), but grooming and sexual activity with same-sex older boys/teens/young men, homosexuality between fellow priests, sexual activity with women of-age and with young women/teens, sexual activity with prostitutes, involvement with pornography, and all other sexual sins that have recently come to light and hurt the faith of many, and hurt the reputation of Holy Mother Church.

Again, I know very little about these things (and I’'d like to keep it that way!). But I know that others are experts and I think that these experts should be consulted about the safest way for priests to live their private lives to lessen the possibility that they will become entangled with sexual sin.

I think many men, not just those with some kind of psychological problems, but just ordinary men, struggle to stay sexually pure, and I think the Church should study the way priests live and find out the best way to help their priests improve the odds that they will stay sexually pure.

Finally, I believe that what worked in the past (if it worked–we are discovering that a lot of things we thought were “good” were actually pretty terrible when it comes to priests) will not necessarily work at this time in history. We cannot cling to the past and insist that “the old ways are the best ways.” There needs to be research and a body of facts before a decision can be made about the best living circumstances for priests.

 

[o_mlly]

This thread puts forward an interesting proposition to consider: What are the negatives, if any, for secular priests to take an added vow of poverty? Would such a vow impede or liberate priests in the execution of their responsibilities?

 

[Vouthon]

Celibacy is not, in principle, necessary in this equation.

After the Gregorian Reform, the church adopted celibacy without the vow of poverty/communalization.

It could do the reverse today and adopt the poverty without the celibacy, as was the case with the Twelve Apostles - most of whom, including St. Peter, were married men.

Even in the late second to early third century, the church father Tertullian could still say:

One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.

— Tertullian, “The Apology,” cap. 39 in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian , ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 46.

Matrimony does not, in itself, detract from a vow of poverty (of the non-Franciscan kind, I mean - Benedictine monasteries could be wealthy as a collective, just that no one personally owned anything!) - although kids would, naturally, complicate matters.

And in case one wonders (“but how would the kids be raised”?), any offspring could receive money from the common fund, I presume, for rearing.

But priests are celibate right now, and have been for a thousand years, so I think its best to consider this question within that framework.