Communism and the early Church

[EphelDuath]

I’m sure this question pops up all the time, but is the Church against Marxism, or all forms of communism? Because the early Church followed a communist-like style.

Acts 4:32. And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul. Neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own: but all things were common unto them.

newadvent.org/bible/act004.htm

Also, I hear that a Jesuit community in Paraguay was a hardcore religious communism, and it worked pretty well. Are monastic communities considered a separate and OK form of communism by the Church?

 

[lrh]

Hi EphelDuath!

You are worried about communism and about the coherence between Church teachings and Church acts.

So, what I understand is that nobody is forbidden to live in a community where they have all things in common with others. However, the important point is that nobody can force anyone to live this way, since to force go against free will.

Usually, in communist countries you do not have the liberty to choice whether is yours or not, and many times, neither to left the country, neither to criticize the system. This seems more like a slavery system than a social system.

Peace,

lrh

 

[porthos11]

Ah, but Annaias and Sapphira sold their possessions but fell to the lure of capitalist imperialism. And so Comrade Piotr had them smitten as enemies of the state.

 

[JRKH]

I’m sure this question pops up all the time, but is the Church against Marxism, or all forms of communism? Because the early Church followed a communist-like style.

Also, I hear that a Jesuit community in Paraguay was a hardcore religious communism, and it worked pretty well. Are monastic communities considered a separate and OK form of communism by the Church?

One must be careful to distinguish in these cases.
Communism, as a societal system would certainly be acceptable. However, Communism as in Marxist Leninism is an entirely different thing.

James

 

[Peregrino]

Hi EphelDuath!

You are worried about communism and about the coherence between Church teachings and Church acts.

So, what I understand is that nobody is forbidden to live in a community where they have all things in common with others. However, the important point is that nobody can force anyone to live this way, since to force go against free will.

Usually, in communist countries you do not have the liberty to choice whether is yours or not, and many times, neither to left the country, neither to criticize the system. This seems more like a slavery system than a social system.

Peace,

lrh

Thank you for articulating the distinction between socialism and communism without resorting to stating that any form of collectivism is automatically or will necessarily develop into the model of dictatorial Stalinism.

I am sure that the “red scare” crowd will be along shortly…lol

 

[Keikiolu]

I’m sure this question pops up all the time, but is the Church against Marxism, or all forms of communism? Because the early Church followed a communist-like style.

…{Snip}…

Also, I hear that a Jesuit community in Paraguay was a hardcore religious communism, and it worked pretty well. Are monastic communities considered a separate and OK form of communism by the Church?

Firstly, the early Church wasn’t communist.

Secondly:

CCC: Communism / Socialism/ Totalitarianism / Catpitalism / “Market”-ism

A really good place to check for many questions like this is the catechism, the aforemetioned CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Thank you for articulating the distinction between socialism and communism without resorting to stating that any form of collectivism is automatically or will necessarily develop into the model of dictatorial Stalinism.

I am sure that the “red scare” crowd will be along shortly…lol

I’m partial to the Distributism model, personally, as the “collectivist”/“individualist” dipole is just a continuum of one form of slavery or another.

But, I am deathly afraid of “Red” though… and all “Reds” should be rounded up and shot,… with peppermint schnapps,… until stuperous and willing to join the lollipop guild,… like a good Chesterbellocian…!

Alo-------------------------ha…!

 

[lrh]

Thank you for articulating the distinction between socialism and communism without resorting to stating that any form of collectivism is automatically or will necessarily develop into the model of dictatorial Stalinism.

I am sure that the “red scare” crowd will be along shortly…lol

I’m afraid you did not understand well what I meant, or I was not so clear. I didn’t make any distinction between socialism and communism, usually who likes to do this are communists that do not want to assume the failure and dictatorship that always come with that system, and also its hundred-million cadavers…

I just told that nobody is forbidden to living with things in common with his friends, buddies or anyone else. However, communists and socialists usually try to expropriate what belong to others, I do not know about any of them that solved to “share their things with the poors”, they usually think about sharing what belongs to others with their (communists and socialists) friends…

I’m sorry, but maybe if you lived in any communist-friendly country, as Venezuela is or Brazil is becoming, you could see perfectly what I mean: hypocrite politicians talking about killers as Che Guevara, Mao or Fidel Castro as if they were saints, justifying all their faults because of a so-called socialism, and painting the socialism thing as if it were the paradise… After that, usually they protect a free-choice position, criticize the church (usually they start talking “I am catholic, but…”), and so on.

You can share all your things with other people. You just can’t force other people to share with you.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m sure this question pops up all the time, but is the Church against Marxism, or all forms of communism? Because the early Church followed a communist-like style.

Also, I hear that a Jesuit community in Paraguay was a hardcore religious communism, and it worked pretty well. Are monastic communities considered a separate and OK form of communism by the Church?

In neither the case of the Apostles/Early Church or religious life is communism practiced. In neither case does the state own all property. Private property is a right proper to man (this is why there is such a thing as the sin of theft)–he may freely give it up and live in a community like the above examples, but the state cannot force him to do so.

 

[JRKH]

Many Good answers.
Obviously there is no problem with a “commune” lifestyle so long as each individual has the right to enter or leave of their own accord and so long as individual rights are upheld and the governance of the commune-ity is equitable.

The issue with Commune-ism is that it becomes a forced way of life and in so doing it loses its ability to fairly represent all of the individuals and adequately defend their rights.

So it is obvious that small commune-ist designed commune-ities are workable, but large commune-ist systems, particularly national-governmental are not workable.

(Note that I deliberatly mispelled above to demonstrate that the root of community and communism is the same)

James

 

[Peregrino]

I’m sorry, but maybe if you lived in any communist-friendly country, as Venezuela is or Brazil is becoming, you could see perfectly what I mean: hypocrite politicians talking about killers as Che Guevara, Mao or Fidel Castro as if they were saints, justifying all their faults because of a so-called socialism, and painting the socialism thing as if it were the paradise… After that, usually they protect a free-choice position, criticize the church (usually they start talking “I am catholic, but…”), and so on.

You can share all your things with other people. You just can’t force other people to share with you.

I agree with the above. The forced redistribution of goods is at the root of the evil in communism. However, the socialism/collectivism (there are many ways to split these definitions) of the early Christians had its source within the teachings of Jesus and the call was for the individual to willingly and freely give up their possessions and share with their neighbor. One of the most explicitly socialist/collectivist parts of the New Testament would be:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Some here would love to ignore the similarity between the above passage and Marx’s classic statement of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” because it is morally/politically inconvenient. One person likes to say that this was a failed social experiement–how they get that I do not know.

It is what it is and the parallels are unmistakeable. There have been some historically brutal regimes that like to claim socialism, communism and Marxism as their “cause celeb”. There also have historically existed brutal actions claimed in the name of Christ. Don’t fault the ideas (they are the same), fault the implemenation.

 

[mlchance]

Thank you for articulating the distinction between socialism and communism without resorting to stating that any form of collectivism is automatically or will necessarily develop into the model of dictatorial Stalinism.

Of course that won’t necessarily happen.

But the Church is opposed to collectivism as it is inimical to social justice. From the CCC:

**1885 **The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Peregrino]

Of course that won’t necessarily happen.

But the Church is opposed to collectivism as it is inimical to social justice. From the CCC:

**1885 **The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

– Mark L. Chance.

So, ALL collectivist activities are opposed by the church?

BTW, nice signature qoute.

 

[mlchance]

So, ALL collectivist activities are opposed by the church?

That would depend on whether you mean by collectivism what the Church means. Basically, socialism and its various permutations have long been condemned by the Church. What cannot glean from this, however, that all activities which may have a superficial resemblance to those condemned philosophies are likewise verboten.

BTW, nice signature qoute.

Danke.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Peregrino]

That would depend on whether you mean by collectivism what the Church means. Basically, socialism and its various permutations have long been condemned by the Church. What cannot glean from this, however, that all activities which may have a superficial resemblance to those condemned philosophies are likewise verboten.

Danke.

– Mark L. Chance.

So the church basically condemns the apostles and perhaps God itself?

**Acts 2:44-45
**All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-37
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Ex. 16:16-18
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.

The Exodus commandment is somewhat interesting don’t you think? What about the apostle’s actions. Suspiciously socialist to say they least. You have left yourself a nice out though with-“superficial resemblance”…

 

[lrh]

I agree with the above. The forced redistribution of goods is at the root of the evil in communism. However, the socialism/collectivism (there are many ways to split these definitions) of the early Christians had its source within the teachings of Jesus and the call was for the individual to willingly and freely give up their possessions and share with their neighbor. One of the most explicitly socialist/collectivist parts of the New Testament would be:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

Some here would love to ignore the similarity between the above passage and Marx’s classic statement of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” because it is morally/politically inconvenient. One person likes to say that this was a failed social experiement–how they get that I do not know.

It is what it is and the parallels are unmistakeable. There have been some historically brutal regimes that like to claim socialism, communism and Marxism as their “cause celeb”. There also have historically existed brutal actions claimed in the name of Christ. Don’t fault the ideas (they are the same), fault the implemenation.

Dear Peregrino socialist,

I can be wrong, but all socialism thougth is based on abolishing the private property, some of them doing this in an absolute way, others hiding it below a so-called social function of the property, what usually means that if the Govern do not like you, your property isn’t fitting in the social function criterion.

And about similarity between statements, you shouldn’t be so astonished. Instead of saying similar statements when tempting Jesus, the devil quoted ipsis literis statements of the Bible. And as you know, it does not make the devil a good creature.

As I told twice, you can share your stuff, no problem. It is not forbidden by the Church, Saint Francis of Assisi and other saints did it, but it is not socialism, it is charity, almsgiven. The most important thing that they gave, however, was not their properties, but their lives to Jesus Christ, following the Church teachings.

It is clear to me that you are able to protect your socialism ideal more then you are worried about following the Church. You prefer Marx instead of Jesus, or at least give to both the same importance. After all, you used one statement of Marx to show that it is similar to Jesus teaching, and after this you considered that Marx teaching is essentialy similar to Jesus teachings. But only the Popes can tell it by sure, and they already did.

Never forget that Jesus is God, and Marx was just a man. The Church teaching is protected by the promisse made by God, you should be more worried about reading Pope’s Encyclics about comunism/socialism instead of believing that its essence is in some way divine or close to Jesus teaching, and that socialism can lead everyone to the paradise on the Earth. Nobody believes in a huge lie. It is necessary that the lie looks like the true to be believed.

There are many Encyclics about socialism/communism:

Pope Pio IX:

Qui pluribus (1846),
Nostis et Nobiscum (1849),
Quanto conficiemur (1863)

Pope Leo XIII:

Quond apostolici muneris (1878),
Diuturnum (1881),
Rerum Novarum (1891)

Pope Pio XI
Quadragesimo Anno (1931)

Just a piece of Quadragesimo Anno:
“111. Socialism, against which Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, had especially to inveigh, has since his time changed no less profoundly than the form of economic life. For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.”

You can think that all these are very old. You need to read to figure out how they are up to date.

Peace, lrh.

 

[Peregrino]

Dear Peregrino socialist,

I can be wrong, but all socialism thougth is based on abolishing the private property, some of them doing this in an absolute way, others hiding it below a so-called social function of the property, what usually means that if the Govern do not like you, your property isn’t fitting in the social function criterion.

Dear IRH ideologue,

Depends on the definition of socialism. If we adopt your definition, then the Apostles and early Christians (see the passages I have quoted) were clearly socialists and have been condemned by the Church according to Mr. Chance.

And about similarity between statements, you shouldn’t be so astonished. Instead of saying similar statements when tempting Jesus, the devil quoted ipsis literis statements of the Bible. And as you know, it does not make the devil a good creature.

I am not astonished at all. In fact, the Gospels make such statements and positions expected. It is completely understandable that we read in Acts that the apostles and other early Christians had adopted this mode of existence. Why are you astonished at this? I would only be surprised if it were different.

As I told twice, you can share your stuff, no problem. It is not forbidden by the Church, Saint Francis of Assisi and other saints did it, but it is not socialism, it is charity, almsgiven. The most important thing that they gave, however, was not their properties, but their lives to Jesus Christ, following the Church teachings.

Call it what you want. Using your own definition, I would disagree given that the NT clearly describes actions which you described as socialist. Calling a dog a cat doesn’t change the dog into a cat. The fundamental element of difference between the NT “socialism” (to use your definition) and a communism in the modern sense of the term is the voluntary nature of the giving. It would be truly evil to use state power to enforce the redistribution of goods. What spiritual merit is there in that? It would seem to me that the early Christians were giving up their goods in an attempt to follow Jesus.

Following Jesus is surely important.

It is clear to me that you are able to protect your socialism ideal more then you are worried about following the Church.

Yes and no. It is not my ideal; I would say that it belongs to Christianity and Jesus and is part in parcel of the Gospel preached by Jesus. I will “follow” the church to the degree that my conscience allows.

You prefer Marx instead of Jesus, or at least give to both the same importance.

Absolutely, completely wrong. I know it is more comfortable for you to try and pigeon-hole me, but please don’t ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

After all, you used one statement of Marx to show that it is similar to Jesus teaching,

The statement could correctly be ascribed to the author of Acts. If you are a follower of the “inspired” scripture school, then credit the statement to God. Either way, I think it is totally congruent with Jesus’ teachings.

and after this you considered that Marx teaching is essentialy similar to Jesus teachings. But only the Popes can tell it by sure, and they already did.

Once again, totally wrong. Marx is not even in the same neighborhood as Jesus, albeit he was concerned with the general well being and equality of humanity.

Never forget that Jesus is God, and Marx was just a man. The Church teaching is protected by the promisse made by God, you should be more worried about reading Pope’s Encyclics about comunism/socialism instead of believing that its essence is in some way divine or close to Jesus teaching, and that socialism can lead everyone to the paradise on the Earth. Nobody believes in a huge lie. It is necessary that the lie looks like the true to be believed.

First of all, I have read them. Second, you are again ascribing a position to me that I don’t remotely hold (socialism “is in some way divine”-- I have never said or written anything even remotely close to that. Gimme a break).

Sorry if you don’t like the parallels I have drawn; do me a favor and accurately represent my position in your attempt to critique it, upbraid me or insult me.

 

[lrh]

Hi, Peregrino.

Such a weird thing happened. I didn’t change my position about communism/socialism since my first post. I still consider that anybody can share anything with anyone, but canot be forced to do this, and this imposition aspect I consider that is in the structure of communism and socialism. You, however, made a compliment to my first post, and decided to desagree with me in my last, telling that I’am condemning the Apostles and other false statements. I’m following the Apostles orientation, given by his authorized sucessors, the Popes. They know whether communism and socialism is or is not a christian way of life.

However, it seems that you make a distinction about socialism and communism, and in order to maintain a dialogue I need some help. As you already read the Encyclics I mentioned, I can ask you now:

1. What you mean about communism or socialism is the same thing the Popes mean?
2. If your answer is “no”, what are the differences?
3. If your answer is “yes”, I’m afraid you are excomunicate, because you agree with their definitions, and considering what they defined Pope Pio XII declared such a think in the decree below:

*Decretum Contra Communismum
Pope Pio XII
Holy Office Decree of 1949

Q. 1 Utrum licitum sit, partibus communistarum nomen dare vel eisdem favorem praestare.

R. Negative: Communismum enim est materialisticus et antichristianus; communistarum autem duces, etsi verbis quandoque profitentur se religionem non oppugnare, se tamen, sive doctrina sive actione, Deo veraeque religioni et Ecclesia Christi sere infensos esse ostendunt.

Q. 2 Utrum licitum sit edere, propagare vel legere libros, periodica, diaria vel folia, qual doctrine vel actioni communistarum patrocinantur, vel in eis scribere.

R. Negative: Prohibentur enim ipso iure

Q. 3 Utrum Christifideles, qui actus, de quibus in n.1 et 2, scienter et libere posuerint, ad sacramenta admitti possint.

R. Negative, secundum ordinaria principia de sacramentis denegandis iis, Qui non sunt dispositi

Q. 4 Utrum Christifideles, Qui communistarum doctrinam materialisticam et anti Christianam profitentur, et in primis, Qui eam defendunt vel propagant, ipso facto, tamquan apostatae a fide catholica, incurrant in excommunicationem speciali modo Sedi Apostolicae reservatam.

R. Affirmative
*

I am not condemning you, after all, I just can condemn myself. But it is my obligation to expose what I know the Church, by the person of the Popes, already had decided. If you find some decree telling that the decree above is not more valid, you can be a communist-catholic, or a socialist-catholic…

Peace.

 

[lrh]

Hi, Peregrino. Just 2 important points I would like to show.

Dear IRH ideologue,

I am not astonished at all. In fact, the Gospels make such statements and positions expected. It is completely understandable that we read in Acts that the apostles and other early Christians had adopted this mode of existence. Why are you astonished at this? I would only be surprised if it were different.

No, I’m not astonished. All socialists tell always the same thing, it is nothing but an old wrong idea to show similarities to sell divergences…

Call it what you want. Using your own definition, I would disagree given that the NT clearly describes actions which you described as socialist. Calling a dog a cat doesn’t change the dog into a cat. The fundamental element of difference between the NT “socialism” (to use your definition) and a communism in the modern sense of the term is the voluntary nature of the giving. It would be truly evil to use state power to enforce the redistribution of goods. What spiritual merit is there in that? It would seem to me that the early Christians were giving up their goods in an attempt to follow Jesus.

Following Jesus is surely important.

Hum… You will need to show where in the NT someone force somebody to give their things to the government, state or anyone. As I told you, you can give all your things to the poor (not to the Govern or State, please!) and follow Jesus, as He told in Matthew 19, 21:

*Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
*

But you can’t force anyone to give anything to somedoby, as Jesus told in Luke 12:

1. One of the multitude said to him, “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.”
2. But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?”
3. And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Peace.

 

[Peregrino]

I think the issue here irh is your definition of communism and socialism. I haven’t defined either and actually used the general term of collectivism for the purpose of extreme generalization and to avoid the ideological connotations of socialism/communism-we could debate all day on minute definitional issues if you like. I am not really* that* interested…lol

You, however, made a compliment to my first post, and decided to desagree with me in my last, telling that I’am condemning the Apostles and other false statements.

You corrected my misunderstanding of your first post-you clarified for me the fact that I gave you credit for subtlety that didn’t apply. Thank you. FYI, I did not condemn you but only pointed out that a previous poster had stated that the Church has condemned socialism. Either this is incorrect or your beef is with the previous poster given that the definition of socialism you gave appears to fit the descriptions of activities and views held within the scriptural passages I have cited…

I’m following the Apostles orientation, given by his authorized sucessors, the Popes.

Debatable.

They know whether communism and socialism is or is not a christian way of life.

Needs definitional attention before I can agree or disagree.

However, it seems that you make a distinction about socialism and communism, and in order to maintain a dialogue I need some help. As you already read the Encyclics I mentioned, I can ask you now:

I was using socialism in the very general sense of contributing to the common good (much like the gospel and biblical values of meeting everyone’s needs). No political organization was intended or implied.

1. What you mean about communism or socialism is the same thing the Popes mean?

You mean “is” my use of communism/socialism the same as the popes? I haven’t defined either in any specific sense-in fact it might be inaccurate to do so given that there have existed so many different permuations, evidence Maoism, Stalinism, Fourierism, Owenites etc. You consistently infer a modern political philosophy in your use of socialism/communism that I am not even addressing. The “decree against communism” you have cited below doesn’t even make a distinction…lol How could I know if the definition they infer is even remotely releated to anything I was speaking about. The decretal gives no guidance for discernment on this other than a label.

1. If your answer is “yes”, I’m afraid you are excomunicate, because you agree with their definitions, and considering what they defined Pope Pio XII declared such a think in the decree below:

Given that I have not defined nor even promoted “communism”, in the vague sense listed in the decretal or in a specific sense, but merely pointed out parallels between a general concept and scripture, I have no fear of excommunication (for this reason or in general). Sadly, your efforts to waive the stick at me really have no effect…good luck with that on other people…

Additionally, given per your decretal, it is not licit to promote “communism” through books or other literature; the church should look to the bible, which as I have pointed out contains some suspiciously collectivist ideas and practices…