Catholic Communist

[VeritasLuxMea]

Ah, there’s the rub… We are supposed to live our Faith every day, in all areas. It’s not like a change of clothes we wear only on Sunday.

I agree with that, however, if the Church wants us to fall in line with each and every one of its whims then it had best be CLEAR as to its demands.We’re not mind-readers here.

 

[JRKH]

It is extremely easy to say that one cannot be both Catholic and communist. The ideaologies of Max, Lenin, Mau et-all are what define communism. Only using analysis of the etymology of the word communism as the basis for your argument is absurd in its over simplicity.

Well absurd or not, when I look up “Communism” in the dictionary (Dictionary.com), I find this.

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2.( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Couple of notes on the above definition…
The first, prime definition says nothing about the form of government. It speaks to the social and economic activity…
The second definition speaks to communism as Capitalized and something more akin to what most people recognize as “Communism” as enacted in the USSR and China etc.
Neither of these definitions mentions theology at all. (hhmmmm)

So - Am I really being absurd in my simplicity by using these definitions as a basis of my response to the OP?

But if one does this, one is being intellectually dishonest because the term communism is now well understood to be the ideologies of Max, Lenin, Mao, et al.

Well again, perhaps we should, as the dictionary does, distinguish between small “c” and large “C” communism.
I do not believe that I am being intellectually dishonest by expressing a view that is based on the definitions of the term and not on the, “well understood”, ideas…

One would also be masking the original question. There is little to none similarity between modern day communism and smaller voluntary communities (beyond etymology) Smaller voluntary communities own property in common, not by the state. Smaller voluntary communities do not inject atheism as a forced dogma. Smaller voluntary communities do not adhere to a historical ideology of the progress of man to a utopia.

Agreed. communism might be viable on a small scale, but runs into severe difficulty with anything larger…As far as atheism goes, as I said earlier, the definition of communism says nothing about theology. Marxism and Leninism on the other hand…

Peace
James

 

[tafan]

James,

if we take your approach and distiquish between small c and large C communism, two things become apparent. The title of this thread uses a capital C as does the initial question posted by the OP; the context of the question leaves no doubt as to which definition is implied.

Secondly, the quoted paragraph of the Catechism, while not capitalizing the C in communism, clearly is referring to the captial C definition in the dictionay.

So we are left to ponder why you would have muddied the waters and brought into the discussion a something you now see to agree is entirely different.

As to not mentioning theology at all??? That would be a misrepresentation of Dictionary.com. The defition you present clearly says that a “all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party”. Surely you are not claiming that religion is not part of social activity? In addition, the defintion is bound to be incomplete, as it does not mention state ownership of propert and means of production, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the theory of communism being the culmnation of human social evolution, the violent destruction of all existing social structure. All, like atheism, bound up and essential to the ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al.

 

[Smugleaf]

Well absurd or not, when I look up “Communism” in the dictionary (Dictionary.com), I find this.

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2.( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Couple of notes on the above definition…
The first, prime definition says nothing about the form of government. It speaks to the social and economic activity…
The second definition speaks to communism as Capitalized and something more akin to what most people recognize as “Communism” as enacted in the USSR and China etc.
Neither of these definitions mentions theology at all. (hhmmmm)

So - Am I really being absurd in my simplicity by using these definitions as a basis of my response to the OP?

Well again, perhaps we should, as the dictionary does, distinguish between small “c” and large “C” communism.
I do not believe that I am being intellectually dishonest by expressing a view that is based on the definitions of the term and not on the, “well understood”, ideas…

Agreed. communism might be viable on a small scale, but runs into severe difficulty with anything larger…As far as atheism goes, as I said earlier, the definition of communism says nothing about theology. Marxism and Leninism on the other hand…

Peace
James

An excellent post Too often the very word “communism” is associated with the USSR and nothing else. Even other eastern European countries had different flavours of communism. Let alone when you come out of that very narrow definition of communism (because it’s a vast and varied ideology like any other).

 

[JRKH]

James,

if we take your approach and distinguish between small c and large C communism, two things become apparent. The title of this thread uses a capital C as does the initial question posted by the OP; the context of the question leaves no doubt as to which definition is implied.

Secondly, the quoted paragraph of the Catechism, while not capitalizing the C in communism, clearly is referring to the capital C definition in the dictionary.

I will gladly concede this point. To be honest I was not really thinking in terms of the small c large C difference when I responded originally.
We keep learning…

So we are left to ponder why you would have muddied the waters and brought into the discussion a something you now seem to agree is entirely different.

To be honest I was not really thinking in terms of the small c large C difference when I responded originally.
We keep learning…

As to not mentioning theology at all??? That would be a misrepresentation of Dictionary.com. The defition you present clearly says that a “all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party”. Surely you are not claiming that religion is not part of social activity? In addition, the defintion is bound to be incomplete, as it does not mention state ownership of propert and means of production, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the theory of communism being the culmnation of human social evolution, the violent destruction of all existing social structure. All, like atheism, bound up and essential to the ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al.

Good point.
In the same vein, since the definition I quoted does not specify “Atheism” a community functioning under the “communist” (note small c) system could just as easily be a theistic community as a non- or a-theistic.
And as you note in your last sentence, atheism is, “bound up and essential to the ideologies of Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al”. An ideology connected with their specific brand of communal society rather than with the communal concept per-se

Peace
James

 

[tafan]

An excellent post Too often the very word “communism” is associated with the USSR and nothing else. Even other eastern European countries had different flavours of communism. Let alone when you come out of that very narrow definition of communism (because it’s a vast and varied ideology like any other).

Again, I could not disagree with some of this more strongly.

It is very clear from the CCC that the Church is rejecting the ideologies associated with modern communist states. There were more than 30 communist states prior to the end of the cold war, controlling more than half the worlds population. This ideaology, tactics, and policies of each and every one of these states was extremely consistent; it was not varied AT all. Read Warren Caroll’s Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution if you must know how rigid and consistent the ideology was.

Furthermore, the association between Christian communities who freely choose to hold property in common with these horrific states ( as Jeff did in post #12) is no less than calumny against these often good and holy groups of men and women. I know that those who make this association are rarely culpable for this grave act against them, as they do not understand what they are doiing. But to call a spade a spade, that is what one does when one makes this association.

I am continually appalled at the lack of understanding of how evil Communism is/was. People rightly condemn the Communist’s actions, and then immediately not only excuse the ideology but go farther and compare it to something that can be inarguably good.

Oh well, at least people recognize Nazism for the evil it was. Unfortunately we are not under the thread of another Nazism wave. I am not so sure about communism.

 

[Smugleaf]

Dude, I’m Polish. I’m sorry, but I know about communism. And the brand of communism we had in Poland differed from the practices in Romania or Russia, because they were implemented differently. Yes, they were similar, yes, they were all in breach of basic human rights and caused a lot of damage, but they were not all the same. Attitudes to religion for example are different in for example North Korea than they were in communist Poland.

Also communism as an idea has little to do with how it’s implemented, because ultimately, people are greedy little souls.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

The issue is not as black and white as some are making it out to be. There are many forms of catholic/christian socialism and anarchism (the jesus radicals come to mind, albeit not catholic). Distributionism has strong catholic roots and when properly understood resembles the early church. Our modern economic set up is hardly christian in nature, we have just become complacent and used to it.

 

[St_Francis]

All good points…

My primary goal was to express to the OP, and to others who read the Catechism, that the Church rarely reject a system per-se, but will always reject those things within a system that are evil. The paragraph quoted from the CCC demonstrates that fact clearly.

Pope Leo XIII rejected both communism and pure socialism because they both strip men of their rights to property. The systems themselves were condemned by the Pope for this reason, and for these reasons, the Catholic Church continues to reject them.

I would say that if one were to expand the term “communism” to include smaller voluntary communities (communes etc.) there need not be confusion…There are already a couple of other terms out there that point to specific types of communism. One is Marxism. I’ve also heard the term Marxist/Leninist - though I’m not sure what the difference might be between the two things…

The point is that we should not “expand the term” to include other things. Yes, there are various schools of thought within communism, but we should let the word mean what it has always meant and not expand it, which will necessitate continual clarification in discussions such as these.

Then too - speaking of confusion, when we speak of “communism”, more often than not we are not speaking of an “economic system in which the means of production are held in common”. Instead, what is being discussed is the form of government employed by certain groups. The form of government is Totalitarianism and Dictatorship.

No, communism stands for a certain economic system which necessitates the imposition of tyranny and atheism.

That said - I do agree with you that in any normal discussion “communism” means modern, totalitarian, Godless communism.
to sort out the good from the bad would require a whole new set of terms.

So if we leave the terms as they are, there will be no problem…

 

[St_Francis]

Source: przk.pl/nr/historia/generalowie_i_biskupi.html (in Polish)

Poland is predominantly Catholic, so yes, 66% of communists were Catholics. Most of these would go to church every Sunday

On the other hand, some claimed that among the members of the Party there were only 20% of people who were actual communists, while the rest signed up for profits…

And it was not too long after this poll was taken that the Poles realized you cannot be both a good Catholic and a good communist and rejected communism.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Catholicism is NOT for wimps—it’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done, getting harder day by day.

What did YOU mean, Capitalism ‘replaces’ God?

It replaces God with Money

 

[St_Francis]

…Also see Christian Communism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Liberation theology has also been condemned by the Church.*

Yes. An interesting point is that secular humanists in the US first argued in court that they were religious organizations, in order to get the tax breaks. But in the context of education, it was ruled as not a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment (which forbids the federal government in the US from “establishing a religion” in the sense that England’s government had “established” the Anglican church).

[/QUOTE]

 

[karaleigh]

It replaces God with Money

As a once communist country, Russia is now putting religious studies into the middle schools in the Russian Republic. Read the story here…

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came out in favor of robust religion and secular ethics classes in Russian schools, saying they should be taught by theology specialists or priests.
Banned during the Soviet era, religion classes returned to middle schools in selected Russian regions in 2009. Last year Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov proposed making them compulsory as of September 2012…
Maybe a job for someone one day! :tiphat: to those who worked so very hard to see this day come into a reality. God bless you all!

 

[St_Francis]

The issue is not as black and white as some are making it out to be. There are many forms of catholic/christian socialism and anarchism (the jesus radicals come to mind, albeit not catholic).

The Church condemns unrestrained individualism, anarchy, socialism, and communism. No matter how much some people may want to try to meld one of these with Catholicism, they remain intrinsically incompatible.

Distributionism has strong catholic roots

Having been started by two Cathoics and based on Rerum Novarum, I’d say yours is an understatement.

and when properly understood resembles the early church.

And the medival societies of Europe, which were based on the Catholic foundation of those societies.

Our modern economic set up is hardly christian in nature, we have just become complacent and used to it.

I agree with you on this being something of a distributist myself.

 

[JRKH]

The point is that we should not “expand the term” to include other things. Yes, there are various schools of thought within communism, but we should let the word mean what it has always meant and not expand it, which will necessitate continual clarification in discussions such as these.

Actually I believe that I did that when I based my responses on the dictionary definitions…

No, communism stands for a certain economic system which necessitates the imposition of tyranny and atheism.

Why does the idea of “communal” living necessitate the imposition of tyranny and atheism??
The mere fact that there are religious communities all over the world who live communally, sharing all things equally, seems to fly in the face the above assertion.

So if we leave the terms as they are, there will be no problem…

I agree. If we leave the terms as they are, and as anyone who cares to can look up in a dictionary, there will be no problem.

Peace
James

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The Church condemns unrestrained individualism, anarchy, socialism, and communism. No matter how much some people may want to try to meld one of these with Catholicism, they remain intrinsically incompatible.

Having been started by two Cathoics and based on Rerum Novarum, I’d say yours is an understatement.

And the medival societies of Europe, which were based on the Catholic foundation of those societies.

I agree with you on this being something of a distributist myself.

It’s awfully convenient that your pet political philosophy happens to be the one you claim the Church holds.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s awfully convenient that your pet political philosophy happens to be the one you claim the Church holds.

No, I don’t claim that and would argue against the idea that the Church holds to distributism.

When it comes to the social teachings, the Church outlines the moral boundaries, and we must use our prudence and apply those moral teachings to a system. There are good Catholics who hold to a much less regulated system which allows for transnationalism: I disagree with them but not based on the idea that the Church holds to distributism.

My point was 1. that Catholics developed the idea of distributism directly from Rerum Novarum, a Catholic document; and 2. that it was not based on early Catholic society; and 3. incidentally, I lean towards distributism myself.

I could see someone else looking at the documents and coming up with a different system, and some of my own ideas may not line up precisely with what Distributists currently advocate.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

It’s disheartening to me, as an anarchist.

Veritas, you may find this article in First Things interesting: firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/11/anarcho-monarchism. It’s on JRR Tolkien and what’s referred to as Anarcho-Monarchism. Sound odd? It is. But also rather compelling–it embraces a radical communitarianism while recognizing a fundamental human need for hierarchy which is not static but dynamic, and characterized by the idea that one is given authority in order to empower others. I believe the idea of subsidiarity is close to this.

Anyway, it’s an interesting article.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It replaces God with Money

I dispute that. Capitalism is an economic system, wherein property rights are recognized. If that disturbs you, wait a year or two; property rights will have been obliterated.

 

[Dirt]

Socialism and Marxist Communism have been denounced by numerous Popes. Capitalism has been discussed and warnings of materialism and greed have been given. Bottom line: all economic structures are man made. And everything created by MAN has shortcomings and pitfalls. Government and governing will only be just when every system is based on the Laws of God. And we know that that is not going to happen, at least not in the secular controlled world we now live in.

From Pope Leo XIII, Diuturnum:
“4. Although man, when excited by a certain arrogance and contumacy, has often striven to cast aside the reins of authority, he has never yet been able to arrive at the state of obeying no one. In every association and community of men, necessity itself compels that some should hold preeminence, lest society, deprived of a prince or head by which it is ruled should come to dissolution and be prevented from attaining the end for which it was created and instituted. But, if it was not possible that political power should be removed from the midst of states, it is certain that men have used every art to take away its influence and to lessen its majesty, as was especially the case in the sixteenth century, when a fatal novelty of opinions infatuated many. Since that epoch, not only has the multitude striven after a liberty greater than is just, but it has seen fit to fashion the origin and construction of the civil society of men in accordance with its own will.”

“8. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.”

“15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,”[18] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”[19] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.”

Please read the entire Encyclical here: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm