Communism and the early Church

[lrh]

Hi Peregrino.

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…

First of all, the decree is not mine.

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

In second, a few moments of logic:

1. You told that you don’t have a clear definition about socialism/communism…
2. So, you are defending something that is not so clear for you.
3. The definition is not so clear when someone ask, but is clear enough to condemn the Church when the Church say that it is a bad thing.

Conclusion: you prefer to defend something you don’t really know (or pretend to don’t know) and to attack something that you know (or think you know).

I asked you if what you consider socialism is the same thing the Popes have combated in that Encyclics which links I posted to you. You told that you already had read all them, so I thought you were able to say if you agree or not with the definition that one can extract from them.

About the Popes positioning, you told:

Debatable.

You mean that the authority of the Popes is debatable? Hum… Catholic?

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.

For someone that don’t know how to define something that is defending, you seem to be very well known: Fourierism and Owenites are not the most common or known ways of socialism…

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…

Are you sure you haven’t promoted communism/socialism? What you call “general concept” seems to me just a way to avoid been clear when asked, but seems to be very clear as a way to act when you want to defend or to attack.

Last but not least, you condemn the Church, and you are arrogant enough to propose that the Church should “look to the bible”:

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…

“Suspiciously collectivist ideas”… Suspicious just to those who wants to find something beyond what they mean, maybe trying to find Marx inside the Bible… And why you stopped calling that socialist ideas? Are you ok?

Please, read the Encyclics. And I expect you have a humble heart to accept the Church teachings.

Pray for me, I will pray for you.

 

[rlg94086]

lrh:

Dear Peregrino socialist,

Peregrino:

Dear IRH ideologue,

Feel the love! :grouphug:

My :twocents: …

IIRC, the ultimate utopian goal of Marx was a stateless community where everyone worked for the common good. I think that is probably compatible with Jesus’ teachings. However, the $100,000 question is “how do you get to that utopia?” IMHO, you can’t get there through a government system. In a community of saints, it would be very possible.

Last night a friend of mine asked how Capitalism can be compatible with Christian teaching, and I think it is quite easy. Jesus’ teachings have to do with how we treat each other. There is nothing inherently wrong with earning a profit. The key is our attitude toward the profit. If we are good stewards, treat our employees well, treat the environment well, etc., then we are living the Christian ideal. In order to do that though, freedom is essential. The reason Socialist/Marxist-Leninist/Fascist systems don’t work is that they take away the freedom of the individual. Unfortunately, with freedom, we also have to deal with the fallen nature of man - greed, pride, selfishness, etc.

So, the struggle really is to win the hearts of our fellow man. The more Christian we become as a group (and I mean following Christ’s teachings…not just being affiliated with a Christian church), the better our society will become.

 

[Peregrino]

Hi Peregrino.

First of all, the decree is not mine.

In second, a few moments of logic:

Sadly, you only apply your “logic” to statements you think I have made or things you selectively choose.

1. You told that you don’t have a clear definition about socialism/communism…

Wrong. I said that any definition might be inaccurate given the many and various permutations of “socialism” or " “communism”. Please get what I have said right, otherwise it is completely a waste of my time spent here with you. Would you like to pick one of these (or other) permuations and address it? I would probably agree with your assessments.

1. So, you are defending something that is not so clear for you.

Wrong, 1) on basis of your above faulty assumptions/selective premises, 2) the fact that I have read much in this area as you yourself pointed out, and 3) I am not defending anything other than an observation. I have actually only worked with the definition you provided.

1. The definition is not so clear when someone ask, but is clear enough to condemn the Church when the Church say that it is a bad thing.

Again wrong. For the second (third?) time, I pointed out that the condemnation came from Mr. Chance and seemed to specifically apply to your definition. Please get this straight. I have not however, above questioning the church and pointing out parallels, which is exactly the ONLY thing I have done on this thread. If you are defensive about this issue, it is not my problem but rather something you should take to prayer.

Logically, your tactic should be to prove WHY the instances I have pointed out DO NOT resemble socialism/communism or any other “collectivist” orientation that you seem to be so defensive about given the definition you were working from. Rather, you have sought to attack me. Since you seem to want to emphasize logic, please proceed logically…

Conclusion: you prefer to defend something you don’t really know (or pretend to don’t know) and to attack something that you know (or think you know).

Wrong for above reasons.

I asked you if what you consider socialism is the same thing the Popes have combated in that Encyclics which links I posted to you. You told that you already had read all them, so I thought you were able to say if you agree or not with the definition that one can extract from them.

I certainly have read them before. I find no reason to re-read them for purposes of these posts. I don’t have that kind of time or interest, especially given that I am NOT defending anything but (for the billioneth time) pointing out a similarity. Please proceed logically as requested above.

About the Popes positioning, you told:

You mean that the authority of the Popes is debatable? Hum… Catholic?

Once again you are being selective. My comment “debatable” followed your post of:

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

I was referring to your comment about “apostolic orientation”, not apostolic succession. Given your claim (with supporting evidence) that popes have decried “socialism” and “communism”, I find it debatable whether “apostolic orientation” has been consistent because of the scriptural passages I have highlighted. This therefore becomes a definitional issue. Given your description of communism/socialism, I say it is debatable because it appears that those scriptural passages fit your definition (thus the reason of this thread…talk about running in circles…). You prefer to make a knee jerk reaction to the word “socialism” and decry it outright. I am merely pointing to a similarity to what you are decrying and scritpture. Please proceed logically as stated above.

Additionally, your selective choice here (and previous comments about excommunication) demonstrates to me that you are not addressing the thread issues and parallels that I have raised but are attacking me personally. Please refrain from this…

 

[Peregrino]

continued from above:

“Suspiciously collectivist ideas”… Suspicious just to those who wants to find something beyond what they mean, maybe trying to find Marx inside the Bible…

I call it like I see it. I neither want to see or don’t want to see. However, as I stated before, the gospels would lead me to expect people who followed Jesus to make (and live) the very statements we find that I have highlighted.

And why you stopped calling that socialist ideas? Are you ok?

I am not sure I understand you here. I am guessing that English is not your first language (if so your english is very good). Could you please rephrase here?

Please, read the Encyclics.

Previously answered.

And I expect you have a humble heart to accept the Church teachings.

I have had the humility to accept church teachings previously. I have also had the humanity to acknowledge my conscience which requires me to question them.

Last but not least, you condemn the Church, and you are arrogant enough to propose that the Church should “look to the bible”:

Wrong for reasons above. I have not condemned the church, but I certainly do question and will continue to do so. The church should always look to the bible, it assembled it for crying out loud…lol

Pray for me, I will pray for you.

Done.

 

[Peregrino]

Feel the love! :grouphug:

My :twocents: …

IIRC, the ultimate utopian goal of Marx was a stateless community where everyone worked for the common good. I think that is probably compatible with Jesus’ teachings. However, the $100,000 question is “how do you get to that utopia?” IMHO, you can’t get there through a government system. In a community of saints, it would be very possible.

Last night a friend of mine asked how Capitalism can be compatible with Christian teaching, and I think it is quite easy. Jesus’ teachings have to do with how we treat each other. There is nothing inherently wrong with earning a profit. The key is our attitude toward the profit. If we are good stewards, treat our employees well, treat the environment well, etc., then we are living the Christian ideal. In order to do that though, freedom is essential. The reason Socialist/Marxist-Leninist/Fascist systems don’t work is that they take away the freedom of the individual. Unfortunately, with freedom, we also have to deal with the fallen nature of man - greed, pride, selfishness, etc.

So, the struggle really is to win the hearts of our fellow man. The more Christian we become as a group (and I mean following Christ’s teachings…not just being affiliated with a Christian church), the better our society will become.

BINGO! Thank you for concisely expressing these ideas. I agree 100%. IMHO, one of the main reasons attempts at socialism/communism (whatever you want to term it) have failed is because of what RLG pointed out: externally imposed “virtue” is nothing of the kind. When you take people’s freedom or force their “virtue” for the “common good”, evil often results. Oppression of human freedom often seems to produce the worst in the humanity. “Socialism” (or whatever you want to call it) must be voluntary and from the heart, a product of a conversion process and the turning oneself over to Christ out of love for your neighbor and God. Did Christ take the goods from the young, rich “perfect man” who had done everything except give up his goods and follow Christ? NO! It has to be voluntary.

My consistent perspective in this and any previous argument on this topic is that the concept is not wrong, the implementation has always been wrong. You can’t force people to be saints or emulate Christ. The church is not wrong to decry this type of oppression, but people certainly (often based on ideological positions) leap to the conclusion that the concept is flawed or evil. It is nothing of the kind. It is all about the implementation. IMHO, the church (due to the atheistic elements of Marxism, Leninism, etc) has lumped any “collectivist” concept into the same bucket and banned it when these very things are hinted at in the scriptures.

You don’t hear much about gulags and death camps coming out of Shaker communities…

 

[Montalban]

Although this thread is about ‘the early Church’ I think it’s important to note that many proto-Communistic groups were Christians, such as the Diggers, and** the Levellers**

 

[mlchance]

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

“God itself?”



No, the Church condemns socialism and all forms of collectivism. Not a single cite you provided is an example of either. If you have a problem with that, your problem is with the Church, not me.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[lrh]

Thanks, Mark. Your post were strictly to the point.

“God itself?”



No, the Church condemns socialism and all forms of collectivism. Not a single cite you provided is an example of either. If you have a problem with that, your problem is with the Church, not me.

– Mark L. Chance.

Peregrino,

I’m sorry, but it seems that your life is still full of doubts about the Church. As you told in the Thread “How Much Disagreement Is OK in the Church?”,

Personally, I remain silent for some parts of the creed

I guess you should start studying and reflecting more about the Creed before disagreeing with less important topics about the teachings of the Church, as the socialism thing.

And about the Encyclics, I just can say that re-read is always a wonderful experience. You should try.

Thanks for your patience, English really isn’t my first language. Unfortunately, in my country there is not a few priests that are forgetting to teach the Scriptures during the Homily in order to make a “Marxism-Christianism” Mass (or mess…). They use to forget “Quadragesimo Anno” teaching:

*“120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
*

And because of this kind of omission (which of course leads to many other errors) there is a huge decrease in the number of catholics in Brazil every year. I expect that the Catholic Church in USA can be strong enough to avoid priests claiming about Jesus being a “countercultural radical” or other dangerous reductionisms… I have seeing many Mass where the priest is very proud of to say that “he has disobeyed Vatican orientations”, as if it could be a proof of superiority, rationality or anything but not a proof of dishonesty.

Peace.

 

[Peregrino]

I guess you should start studying and reflecting more about the Creed before disagreeing with less important topics about the teachings of the Church, as the socialism thing.

I have done so and will continue to do so. Thanks.

And about the Encyclics, I just can say that re-read is always a wonderful experience. You should try.

I probably won’t do so in the near future.

Thanks for your patience, English really isn’t my first language.

Your english is great. I was wondering if your native language was Spanish or Portuguese (I guess its Portuguese) given your sentence constructions. Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, in my country there is not a few priests that are forgetting to teach the Scriptures during the Homily in order to make a “Marxism-Christianism” Mass (or mess…).

This puts it all in perspective. You have been subjected to Liberation Theology priests.

They use to forget “Quadragesimo Anno” teaching:

“120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

And because of this kind of omission (which of course leads to many other errors) there is a huge decrease in the number of catholics in Brazil every year.

I think you are confusing correlation with causation. It is often the stance of an organization facing membership crises that it is misunderstood by those within and without. The attitude seems to be “only if they would just see the truth as I see it, they would understand”… Sadly, this attitude is rather hegemonic and oppressive of diversity and freedom.

I expect that the Catholic Church in USA can be strong enough to avoid priests claiming about Jesus being a “countercultural radical”…

I have only heard one priest say this, but I have read it also from several scholars. I agree with them.

I have seeing many Mass where the priest is very proud of to say that “he has disobeyed Vatican orientations”, as if it could be a proof of superiority, rationality or anything but not a proof of dishonesty.

A priest doing so publicly acknowledges the fact and is obviously following his conscience (you will say “incorrectly formed”).

Ciao

 

[lrh]

Hi Peregrino.

This puts it all in perspective. You have been subjected to Liberation Theology priests.

Should I be wondered that you know something about the existence of Liberation Theology?

I think you are confusing correlation with causation. It is often the stance of an organization facing membership crises that it is misunderstood by those within and without. The attitude seems to be “only if they would just see the truth as I see it, they would understand”… Sadly, this attitude is rather hegemonic and oppressive of diversity and freedom.

It is not the case. Of course there are many other causes to the “membership crises”, but I am sure that not following the head of the Church, the Magistery orientations, is one of the most important problems, not just correlation. Anyone feels uncomfortable, anyone starts asking where is the so-called union. There are many realities inside the Church where one can emphasizes diversity and freedom, and also are a number of things that cannot be guided by a kind of relativism. When one does not know what is absolute and what is relative, you have a big mess, and usually many errors come together.

I have only heard one priest say this, but I have read it also from several scholars. I agree with them.

I know that you agree, since your first post. I could just let it be, pretending that you tried to name socialism the “not-forced” piece of my first post because you have misunderstood something. However, someone that not only uses a broad definition to tell something about socialism, but also makes a tenuous apology about it and in the sequence announce that *“red scare” crowd * will come soon, seems that is not exactly just trying to make an innocent “correlation”. All the knowledge that you have shown about topics related to socialism let clear that you know what you are doing.

A priest doing so publicly acknowledges the fact and is obviously following his conscience (you will say “incorrectly formed”).

No, I won’t say incorrectly formed. It is not just formation the point, it is also choice. You choice to be Catholic, you are not just formed Catholic. And this choice imply to follow what is taught by the Church, condition * sine qua non* to be considered Catholic. As in Revelation 3:

15."`I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
16.So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

Be inside the Church, or be outside the Church. But not a kind of “inside, however…”.

You can say: “Hey, where is your love? You are so abrupt!”. I can say that I love you more than you imagine, and who loves have to say some strong sentences, sometimes. If I am wrong in something, I ask you to apologize me. You can imagine that sometime in my life I thought as you are thinking now, and it is true. I can understand you, and probably you can understand my efforts. But I can’t force you to follow what the Church say, nobody can, it is your decision. I just can show my reasons.

Peace.

 

[Peregrino]

Should I be wondered that you know something about the existence of Liberation Theology?

I am not sure, should you?

I know that you agree, since your first post. I could just let it be, pretending that you tried to name socialism the “not-forced” piece of my first post because you have misunderstood something. However, someone that not only uses a broad definition to tell something about socialism, but also makes a tenuous apology about it and in the sequence announce that *“red scare” crowd * will come soon, seems that is not exactly just trying to make an innocent “correlation”. All the knowledge that you have shown about topics related to socialism let clear that you know what you are doing.

I am not sure what “tenuous apology” you are referring to. I am not apologizing for any of my observations, however I do hold out a blanket apology to any I might have offended.

Since you are a proponent of logic, I will again beseech you to follow logic. You are stating that because I 1) possess knowledge of these subjects that I am promoting these subjects-I have answered you on this issue and stated my actual position with regards to these issues (see above post #25). You stubbornly refuse to at least aknowledge that I have done so and intend on labeling me something I am not. 2) Your logic is weak; it is analogous to saying that a police officer, in possession of much knowledge about how crimes are committed, is unconditionally promoting crime when s/he makes observations about specific offenses. 3) you have failed to point out how these scriptural passages I have highlighted do not equate with even your own definition of socialism; this would be the logical step in your debate with me given that I have made the observations and claimed that there exist similarities. Whats the problem?

No, I won’t say incorrectly formed. It is not just formation the point, it is also choice. You choice to be Catholic, you are not just formed Catholic. And this choice imply to follow what is taught by the Church

Though I actually agree with the church on some elements of this issue, I do not see where it is implied that I am automatically mandated to follow church teaching (I don’t remember this in my baptismal vows…). I will follow my conscience; to take the path you are holding out would be to automatically participate and defer to the church when I feel it is in the wrong (and yes, the church has been wrong in the past). Sure, the church will of course say that one who follows the orders of a “superior” (aka “the Church”) is absolved from any sin committed in the assent to those orders, but I think it is incumbent upon the person to be held responsible for the things s/he assents to.

Be inside the Church, or be outside the Church. But not a kind of “inside, however…”

I am pretty comfortable with “inside, however…”

You can say: “Hey, where is your love? You are so abrupt!”. I can say that I love you more than you imagine, and who loves have to say some strong sentences, sometimes. If I am wrong in something, I ask you to apologize me. You can imagine that sometime in my life I thought as you are thinking now, and it is true. I can understand you, and probably you can understand my efforts. But I can’t force you to follow what the Church say, nobody can, it is your decision. I just can show my reasons.

Agreed. And I thank you for those efforts. God bless you! I too once thought as you do now; that obediance, blind or otherwise, is necessary. My conscience tells me I need to be responsible for the choices I make, even those choices concerning whom I am obediant to.

 

[lrh]

Hi Peregrino. The posts are becoming longer and longer, I would like to apology by being using your precious time.

I’d like to use your police officer analogy:

Since you are a proponent of logic, I will again beseech you to follow logic. You are stating that because I 1) possess knowledge of these subjects that I am promoting these subjects-I have answered you on this issue and stated my actual position with regards to these issues (see above post #25). You stubbornly refuse to at least aknowledge that I have done so and intend on labeling me something I am not. 2) Your logic is weak; it is analogous to saying that a police officer, in possession of much knowledge about how crimes are committed, is unconditionally promoting crime when s/he makes observations about specific offenses. 3) you have failed to point out how these scriptural passages I have highlighted do not equate with even your own definition of socialism; this would be the logical step in your debate with me given that I have made the observations and claimed that there exist similarities. Whats the problem?

If the police officer make observations about specific offenses trying to treat all them as if they were not offenses, it is a crime. He cannot say that he didn’t know.

I will consider that:

1. You are the police officer
2. You know the crimes, and as we are talking about communism/socialism, these are the crimes in question.

So, I think you can conclude by yourself…

Agreed. And I thank you for those efforts. God bless you! I too once thought as you do now; that obediance, blind or otherwise, is necessary. My conscience tells me I need to be responsible for the choices I make, even those choices concerning whom I am obediant to.

I questioned almost everything that I know about the Church, looking for the true meaning on the sources. Every time I thought that the Church was wrong, I discovery soon or latter that the wrong was… me.
And now, what I feel is not blind obediance. It is complete confidence. I trust in the Church that so many people gave all their lives to defend, because of the words of Jesus Christ. The Church of Saint Bernard of Claraval, Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Vincent of Paula, Saint Ignacio of Loyola, and of John Paul II “the Great”, who made so many efforts to destroy the socialism reality in Soviet Union.

Peace.

 

[Peregrino]

Sadly IRH, you took the path I expected but hoped you wouldn’t take.

I’d like to use your police officer analogy:

If the police officer make observations about specific offenses trying to treat all them as if they were not offenses, it is a crime. He cannot say that he didn’t know.

I will consider that:

1. You are the police officer
2. You know the crimes, and as we are talking about communism/socialism, these are the crimes in question.

So, I think you can conclude by yourself…

I could have used several analogies to make my point. For example, just because someone knows alot about basketball doesn’t mean that they are a basketball player or just because someone who understands the issues surrounding taxation does not allow someone to logically conclude that they are advocating more taxes… These are the errors in logic you are committing. To further compound the problem, I chose the police analogy because I knew that you could not resist drawing a comparison between the issue in question (socialism/communism/communalism/whatever) and a crime. This further proves to me that you are apparently incapable of carrying on an objective and informed discussion on the topic. You can only parrot dogmas and doctrines that you concede that you are required to believe…what merit is there in that???

There is no point in continuing this conversation with you, especially given that you have again refused or failed to address the questions that are begged by the topic and the observations that I have made. You can use your definition or any definition you choose, but you have failed to rise to the occasion. Apparently you are incapable of answering those questions beyond labeling and condemning me personally and citing church documents to support your condemnation.

Peace be with you my friend.

Ciao.

 

[lrh]

Hi Peregrino.

A few points about your last post.

Sadly IRH, you took the path I expected but hoped you wouldn’t take.

I could have used several analogies to make my point. For example, just because someone knows alot about basketball doesn’t mean that they are a basketball player or just because someone who understands the issues surrounding taxation does not allow someone to logically conclude that they are advocating more taxes… These are the errors in logic you are committing. To further compound the problem, I chose the police analogy because I knew that you could not resist drawing a comparison between the issue in question (socialism/communism/communalism/whatever) and a crime. This further proves to me that you are apparently incapable of carrying on an objective and informed discussion on the topic. You can only parrot dogmas and doctrines that you concede that you are required to believe…what merit is there in that???

There is no point in continuing this conversation with you, especially given that you have again refused or failed to address the questions that are begged by the topic and the observations that I have made. You can use your definition or any definition you choose, but you have failed to rise to the occasion. Apparently you are incapable of answering those questions beyond labeling and condemning me personally and citing church documents to support your condemnation.

Peace be with you my friend.

Ciao.

Maybe I didn´t understand your posts, maybe you didn´t understand my posts. I liked your police analogy, because I would like to work out some thing that you proposed. I was expecting some definition about socialism, however you don´t want to give one. Ok. If you don´t give me some definition I need to work with something that I have… So, I took one that I believe I can trust, that is the set of characteristics one can grasp from the Encyclics. I believe that there is no problem using documents of the Church to explain something, but it seems that you don´t like it.

About merits, yes, I don´t have any merit. The only thing I´m sure I have are sins. What I expect following the Church is not to have merits, but to allow grace abound, if God someday decide to.

“But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rm 5,20b).

I would not be shy of being a “parrot” of God…

Peace.