Catholic Church condemnation of Communism or Socialism

[StudentMI]

Socialism and communism are indeed condemned but one must be careful not to fall into the error of condemning any government involvement in the economy as socialism or communism. Read the Papal Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno by Pope Pius XI for an explanation of the role government can play in economic policy in situations that call for it.

 

[triumphguy]

Such a propensity to ignore reality is astounding as the facts were clearly show to you (in the thread *Are politically liberal Catholics happy with the Pope’s new encyclical?) *just in July, 2013. To express bewilderment again indicates an unfortunate attachment to confusion or selfism.

How did free enterprise arise?
Long before the so-called “Protestant work ethic”, the rise of the West was due to an extraordinary faith in reason, influenced by Greek philosophy, which resulted from Catholic theology and doctrine, unlike Greek religion. Free enterprise “evolved, beginning early in the ninth century, by Catholic monks…seeking to ensure the economic security of their monastic estates.”(The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 55].

Catholic philosophy and theology, based on reason and faith, enabled the birth of free enterprise. From the great monastic estates in the ninth century, immense increases in agricultural productivity grew from “such significant innovations as the switch to horses, the heavy moldboard plow, and the three-field system” away from subsistence agriculture to specialised crops and products, sold at a profit to initiate a cash economy. “As their incomes continued to mount, this led many monasteries to become banks, lending to the nobility.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 58].

There is a solid basis of economic Catholic thought from the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century the Late Scholastics who were Thomists (followers of St Thomas) “writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social; organization.” They “observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value…” For these reasons Joseph Schumpeter applauded them as the first real economists. (Thomas E Woods Jr, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 8).

The Medieval Schoolmen who preferred to be called the “Doctors”, “were the foremost thinkers of their times.” (Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 21). They employed logic and reasoning for the development of mankind. Dr. Chafuen incisively points out: “The Doctors offered utilitarian arguments to show that goods that are privately owned are better used than commonly owned goods. This explanation offers a budding theory of economic development: the division of goods and their ultimate possession by private individuals facilitates increased production.”

“The Schoolmen determined that wages, profits and rents are not for the government to decide. Since they are beyond the sphere of distributive justice, they should be determined by common estimation in the market.” Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius 1986, p 122].

**To express bewilderment again indicates an unfortunate attachment to confusion or selfism. **

Please - don’t be so rude and immature if you want some kind of dialogue.

Stark and Woods et al have an OPINION. And not one that is widely accepted.

We Catholics don’t have to be like Soviet Russia pretending we invented everything.

You’ll be saying we invented the wheel next.

 

[Abu]

To confuse opinions with facts is typical of the immature. No one should be misled by those who do not know Christ’s teaching and are confused as to the meaning of free enterprise developed by Catholics, affirmed by Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and who are unable to justify their confusion.

The Reality of Facts
The first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press, 1969, I; cf. op. cit (Stark) p xii, 55-58).

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

The Catholic stress on individualism was foreign to many cultures, and Jeremy Waldron, in God, Locke and Equality, 2002, affirms that John Locke built his thesis on the doctrine concerning morality; “returning to the standpoint of St Thomas and the Scholastics.” (The Catholic Church And the Counter-Faith, Philip Trower, Family Publications, 2006, p 74).

 

[triumphguy]

To confuse opinions with facts is typical of the immature. No one should be misled by those who do not know Christ’s teaching and are confused as to the meaning of free enterprise developed by Catholics, affirmed by Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and who are unable to justify their confusion.

The Reality of Facts
The first examples of free enterprise appeared in the great Catholic monasteries, about the ninth century. (John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, St Martin’s Press, 1969, I; cf. op. cit (Stark) p xii, 55-58).

Randall Collins has noted that innovation and specialization in the monastic estates was “a version of the developed characteristics of capitalism itself… the dynamism of the medieval economy was primarily that of the Church.” [Randall Collins, *The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change

, 1998, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p 47].

The Catholic stress on individualism was foreign to many cultures, and Jeremy Waldron, in God, Locke and Equality, 2002, affirms that John Locke built his thesis on the doctrine concerning morality; “returning to the standpoint of St Thomas and the Scholastics.” (The Catholic Church And the Counter-Faith, Philip Trower, Family Publications, 2006, p 74).

You know - I think I’ll just put you on ignore.

Catholics have used wheels, they might have even improved wheels, they have described wheels, but they didn’t invent wheels.

Ditto free enterprise.

Bye.

 

[CaptFun]

The Catholic Church has condemned communism or socialism.

But as far as capitalism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church only condemns what can be called “unbridled capitalism” that can happen when “in the practice of” it (2425, CCC).

Livingwordunity’s first two sentences, post #1.

Rather than one of my usual “post everything that crosses my mind on the subject” posts. :blushing: I just emphasized and reposted the essentials I agreed with in a more prominent and readable-as-proverb form.

The details posted after these (including the papal teaching and Catechism reference(s) are on post #1 and of course highly edifying as well. IMO.

Further non-verbal commentary:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://cdn4.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/No-Swastika.png

http://rlv.zcache.com/no_socialism_...c91e04a0ba70ec00e4bcf01a5_v9waf_8byvr_324.jpg – - On the WHOLE internet I could not find just a crossed out clenched fist by itself! Workers can unite and form unions of course. But like the caution to Capitalism, the last sign (below) applies to them as well as “management”.

http://investmentdirections.com/wp-content/uploads/2013-01-28-1091759_hard_choice__1.jpg – Warning: WHEN you do THIS … remember …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[livingwordunity]

Socialism and communism are inherently, irredeemably evil. They displace the message of the kingdom of heaven under God with a materialistic nirvana realizable through human hands alone.

The worship of Mammon, placing material wealth and acquisition as a higher value than humanity, is possible under capitalism, but it is not inherent to capitalism.

That’s basically the idea I was trying to express.

 

[Abu]

Furthermore, real Catholics follow the wise teaching of the Church through Bl John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 42, 1991:
‘If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”.’

None other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI felt it necessary to teach that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36)

 

[CaptFun]

I wish I could find a Mad Magazine satire comparing American and European Capitalism to Russian and Chinese Communism. They did it by beginning with the proposition: You have two cows. Their take was funny but brutally insightful. Others have resurrected this since I think. I’ll be looking for it.

This site came close to it … without Mad Magazine’s wonderful drawings.

Also MAD"s takes were even funnier than these as I remember them. Then too, at age 11, camping out in my backyard with my pals on a summer night … and reading comic books instead of sleeping … everything was funny to us.

the-philosophers-stone.com/regulars/weird/stoned.htm < This page seems OK. Haven’t seen rest of site. Page is called “Stoned Ideas”. It did have some of the quotes I remembered. Among the best (if you don’t go to the site) IMO are:

**An Easy Guide to Political Ideologies Using Two Cows.
**

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

"PURE COMMUNISM": You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

"APPLIED COMMUNISM": You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

MILITARISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. The government’s wife turns your cows into thousands of pairs of shoes.

T(name removed by moderator)OT DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.

**REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: **You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the President is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair “Cowgate”. The cows sue you for breach of contract.

EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. At first, the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it Pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
**
PURE CAPITALISM**: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

APPLIED CAPITALISM: You ship both of your cows to the developing world and pay peanuts to have them milked there by children. You then ship the milk back to your own country and pay expensive PR companies millions to create a happy smiley image for your Burger Corporation and do very, very well.

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with (the concept of ‘ownership’ is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender.

COUNTERCULTURE: Wow, dude, there’s like…these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.

 

[brjoseph]

And the fact remains that Jesus paid Peter’s taxes, and the early Church, according to the Bible, lived together, pooled their wealth and doled out each according to need. NOTE… they weren’t cared for by the community based on what or how much they contributed… they were cared for EQUALLY according to need. Yes… that means that if you put in six sheep and a pound of silver, you might only get a weeks worth of meat and three pieces of silver back… the same amount as your neighbor, who contributed nothing at all. And when people tried to hold back some of what they had for themselves? GOD STRUCK THEM DEAD.
That’s the Biblical example of Christian life. And it sure ain’t capitalist.

Tell you what. I’m pro-life, pro-family. I’m a devout, praying Catholic. I’m a patriot. I’m a wounded veteran of Bush’s War in Iraq. I have nothing to prove to anyone with regard to my love of God or country.
I’m a homeowner, and a tax payer. I have an appropriate level of hostility toward the Obama administration’s policies, and I strongly favor a religious/moral exemption clause for the impending disaster of Obamacare.
That being said, I’m also very much pro-union, and DO support sweeping health care reform in this country. (Though the abysmal Obama plan is never going to work because it fails to address the real core issues needed to really fix our country’s health care plan.)
I can not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who doesn’t support fully the working class any more than I could for a pro-abortion one, because I’m a union man and right now, both parties balance the needs and desires of both the rich AND poor on the backs of the working class, which are breaking.
I cannot vote for a candidate who favors wars of aggression or the death penalty; when I say “Pro life,” I MEAN it completely. LIFE is sacred.
Supporting life- at all stages- is our responsibility as followers of Christ. That includes caring for the poor DURING life. We must be pro-life* as life goes on*… otherwise we’re just pro-birth, and to heck with the person once born. That’s godly? I think not.
I cannot pretend the “free market” is anything but a myth any more, and cannot support a candidate who believes in unfettered capitalism. It’s neoither Godly nor Patriotic. I cannot and will not support finance over humanity, or profit over compassion. That goes for all. Which of the poor did Christ ask, “Well, how’d you get here, you lazy jerk?”
I cannot pretend one party of corrupt, greedy politicians is better than the other or in any real way represents our views. I cannot play the farce of corporate gain somehow being “good” for the working class. I can tolerate neither Republicans nor Democrats when I look honestly at the condition to which these two parties- TOGETHER- have led this country.
It’s a lie. I can’t choke down one lie over another, even if it sounds better.

I feel (and can defend the idea) that these opinions and attitudes are clearly reflected both by our Holy Father Francis and by the teachings of Christ, the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So now what? Everyone loves their little labels so much… go ahead. I choose, “Christian.”

 

[Abu]

brjoseph #21
I cannot pretend the “free market” is anything but a myth any more, and cannot support a candidate who believes in unfettered capitalism. It’s neoither Godly nor Patriotic. I cannot and will not support finance over humanity, or profit over compassion

Wealth cannot be distributed until it is produced.

Catholic social teaching develops and free enterprise has never been unfettered.
Pope Leo XIII referred to the minds and actions of those people described as “the inhumanity of employers and the unbridled greed of competitors” (Rerum Novarum, # 6).

After defending the right of private property against the attacks of the Socialists, Leo XIII emphatically affirmed:
“The great mistake made in regard to the matter under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.

“Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion – whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian – in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other” (n. 19).

What all should be working for is to re-establish what Fr Fr Shall emphasises, to reduce poverty – a free, governmentally “limited society guided by principles of justice and generosity” having “a productive, expansive, and efficient economy…[can]…actually make the poor rich, if given a chance…. but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organisations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” (Fr James V Schall, S.J., in *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House 1994, p 178, 185).

 

[triumphguy]

And the fact remains that Jesus paid Peter’s taxes, and the early Church, according to the Bible, lived together, pooled their wealth and doled out each according to need. NOTE… they weren’t cared for by the community based on what or how much they contributed… they were cared for EQUALLY according to need. Yes… that means that if you put in six sheep and a pound of silver, you might only get a weeks worth of meat and three pieces of silver back… the same amount as your neighbor, who contributed nothing at all. And when people tried to hold back some of what they had for themselves? GOD STRUCK THEM DEAD.
That’s the Biblical example of Christian life. And it sure ain’t capitalist.

Tell you what. I’m pro-life, pro-family. I’m a devout, praying Catholic. I’m a patriot. I’m a wounded veteran of Bush’s War in Iraq. I have nothing to prove to anyone with regard to my love of God or country.
I’m a homeowner, and a tax payer. I have an appropriate level of hostility toward the Obama administration’s policies, and I strongly favor a religious/moral exemption clause for the impending disaster of Obamacare.
That being said, I’m also very much pro-union, and DO support sweeping health care reform in this country. (Though the abysmal Obama plan is never going to work because it fails to address the real core issues needed to really fix our country’s health care plan.)
I can not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who doesn’t support fully the working class any more than I could for a pro-abortion one, because I’m a union man and right now, both parties balance the needs and desires of both the rich AND poor on the backs of the working class, which are breaking.
I cannot vote for a candidate who favors wars of aggression or the death penalty; when I say “Pro life,” I MEAN it completely. LIFE is sacred.
Supporting life- at all stages- is our responsibility as followers of Christ. That includes caring for the poor DURING life. We must be pro-life* as life goes on*… otherwise we’re just pro-birth, and to heck with the person once born. That’s godly? I think not.
I cannot pretend the “free market” is anything but a myth any more, and cannot support a candidate who believes in unfettered capitalism. It’s neoither Godly nor Patriotic. I cannot and will not support finance over humanity, or profit over compassion. That goes for all. Which of the poor did Christ ask, “Well, how’d you get here, you lazy jerk?”
I cannot pretend one party of corrupt, greedy politicians is better than the other or in any real way represents our views. I cannot play the farce of corporate gain somehow being “good” for the working class. I can tolerate neither Republicans nor Democrats when I look honestly at the condition to which these two parties- TOGETHER- have led this country.
It’s a lie. I can’t choke down one lie over another, even if it sounds better.

I feel (and can defend the idea) that these opinions and attitudes are clearly reflected both by our Holy Father Francis and by the teachings of Christ, the Bible, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So now what? Everyone loves their little labels so much… go ahead. I choose, “Christian.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

And yet the Church today condones that ‘communism’ inherent in monasteries and to a large degree within the Vatican itself!

 

[triumphguy]

And yet the Church today condones that ‘communism’ inherent in monasteries and to a large degree within the Vatican itself!

Well technically/factually that’s not communism ie., Marxism, material dialectics, alienation from the means of production, historical determinism, class warfare, redistribution of wealth, dictatorship of the proletariat, withering away of the state etc. …

it’s people voluntarily sharing .

 

[Robert_Sock]

Well technically/factually that’s not communism ie., Marxism, material dialectics, alienation from the means of production, historical determinism, class warfare, redistribution of wealth, dictatorship of the proletariat, withering away of the state etc. …

it’s people voluntarily sharing .

Why can’t socialism or communism contain religious liberties and people ‘voluntarily’ sharing? If it’s coercion that you’re talking about, I certainly feel coerced by capitalism.

 

[Abu]

brjoseph #21
And the fact remains that Jesus paid Peter’s taxes, and the early Church, according to the Bible, lived together, pooled their wealth and doled out each according to need. NOTE… they weren’t cared for by the community based on what or how much they contributed… they were cared for EQUALLY according to need.

Some false ideas here, for in his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

“In Acts 2:44-47, so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.” Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius 1986, p 46].

St Augustine taught that wickedness was not inherent in commerce that price was a function not simply of the seller’s costs, bit also of the buyer’s wants, and it was up to the individual to live righteously. *Politics *I, 1254]. Thus legitimacy was acquired by merchants, and the deep involvement of the Church in the birth of free enterprise. [Stephen P Bensch, *Historiography: Medieval European and Mediterranean Slavery 1998, p 231; Cf. Stark, The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 57,58, 254].

 

[Brendan_64]

Threads like this come across as trying to use our faith to justify our political beliefs.

The catechism states that the Church condemns forms of socialism that have an atheistic component, so we have people jumping on the bandwagon and insisting that this implies that the Church condemns socialism. The same part of the catechism also condemns capitalism that puts profit above people, so we have people jumping on the bandwagon insisting that this implies that the Church condemns capitalism.

You can be a Christian socialist, and you can be a Christian capitalist. You cannot however be a Christian socialist if you do not believe in God and do not believe in private property of any sort, and you cannot be a Christian capitalist if you regard the generation of personal wealth and profit as the main purpose of your business. There are many socialists and many capitalists who can indeed be in line with the teachings of our Church, there are also many socialists and many capitalists who are not in line with the teachings of our Church.

 

[brjoseph]

Some false ideas here, for in his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
(This) shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

“In Acts 2:44-47, so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.” Christians For Freedom, Dr Alejandro Chafuen, Ignatius 1986, p 46].

St Augustine taught that wickedness was not inherent in commerce that price was a function not simply of the seller’s costs, bit also of the buyer’s wants, and it was up to the individual to live righteously. *Politics *I, 1254]. Thus legitimacy was acquired by merchants, and the deep involvement of the Church in the birth of free enterprise. [Stephen P Bensch, *Historiography: Medieval European and Mediterranean Slavery

1998, p 231; Cf. Stark, The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 57,58, 254].

Some false ideas indeed, my friend!
Jesus most certainly DID preach the renunciation of property to meet the needs of others. Additionally, his wealthier friends clearly used their wealth and positions to support his ministry. Zaccheus didn’t need to be told… when forgiven, he gladly agreed to give what he had to repay those he’d previously wronged. He paid them double. Jesus sent the apostles out and wouldn’t let them even own so much as a walking stick, and after Pentecost, the followers’ life of sharing and communal living most certainly was compulsory… to the extent that when Ananias and Sapphira tried to hold back something from the rest, they were struck dead on the spot.
I’m not saying they were communists. But they certainly weren’t capitalists, either.

 

[Abu]

brjoseph #28
…the followers’ life of sharing and communal living most certainly was compulsory…

Real Catholics don’t conjure up fantasies – they listen to those who know and Dom Bernard Orchard is the general editor of this massive work which was highly recommended by Bernard Cardinal Griffin of Westminster [England] with these words; “I am confident that for many years the value of this commentary will be deeply appreciated by all English speaking Catholics….I am speaking for thousands who will appreciate its immense value and scholarship.”

Thus real Catholics are humble enough to listen and learn from those knowledgeable Catholic theologians and pastors who take the time and trouble to give us the facts.
So, we see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953, p 1027:
The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”

I’m not saying they were communists. But they certainly weren’t capitalists, either.

While acknowledging the reality that they were not communists, we also need to understand that the free enterprise system only began to evolve from the Catholic monasteries in the ninth century as described in posts #12 and 15.

 

[Darryl1958]

And yet the Church today condones that ‘communism’ inherent in monasteries and to a large degree within the Vatican itself!

The Church indeed condones family life. It is not without reason that they call each other brother and sister in the monastery.

 

[Darryl1958]

And yet the Church today condones that ‘communism’ inherent in monasteries and to a large degree within the Vatican itself!

The Church indeed condones family life. It is not without reason that they call each other brother and sister in the monastery.