I can’t find evidence of anti-communism in the Bible?

[gregoryphealy]

I disagree. Just like the church supports the capitalist democracy we live in, where it is against the law for the state to nationalize entire industries without the consent of the justice system and parliament, I can imagine it could support a system where it is against the law for a group of people to take over ownership of some productive asset that is collectively owned by society in a communist society, as long as it is the law of the country, agreed upon by the people and the country does not practice imposed atheism like the Soviet Union, but respects freedom of religion

I think I’d just caution that we don’t conflate a Pope’s or clergy member’s stance or statement with an official Church teaching ex cathedra (which coincidentally comes from the Pope). The latter is binding to Catholics and is what I’m referring to when I talk about actions or positions of the Church, the former is just a dude’s opinion. The Church, based on Her dogma, will excommunicate Catholics who endorse, enable, or defend the “bad” communism I mentioned above.

 

[Curious11]

I guess “force” could be a way to put it. But it’s like saying the law forces you to pay taxes. It does, but the word force somehow elicits a sense of oppression that need not be truly present.

The idea, in theory, of communism is to have the means of production owned by everyone socially, not in private individual hands, and to distribute the goods produce on a basis of equality and classlessness. I guess you could say it “forces” you to give up ownership of your land and factory, but in theory there’s much more to it than just taking things away from people

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Yes I can. Kibbutz. They are neither a state nor totalitarian

That is not communism. Communism is not voluntary.

 

[Curious11]

Right, I have consistently said that there are other forms of communism apart from Marxism, and forms of Marxism that are not atheistic.

On the other hand, however, I cannot agree to call social democracy “democratic socialism”, they’re 2 different things

 

[Rob2]

Speaking in Brazil in 2007 Pope Benedict said , " Both capitalism and Marxism promised to point out the path for the creation of just structures, and they declared that these, once established, would function by themselves; they declared that not only would they have no need of any prior individual morality, but that they would promote a communal morality. And this ideological promise has been proved false. The facts have clearly demonstrated it."

 

[Curious11]

Does the bad communism you refer to coincide with the system y described in the post you just responded to?

 

[Curious11]

Ok, in that case you can move out of a Kibbutz if you don’t like communism, but if you live in a Kibbutz, the rules are the rules. Communism is imposed on you, it’s a condition you must accept if you want to live there

 

[Vouthon]

The Church in France was Gallican, a heresy that denied papal supremacy and supported divine right of kings. This was at odds with the Vatican.

Here’s some notable examples to mull over.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), vicar-general of the papal states, in his seminal work
De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance) (1434):

The Catholic Concordance | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

"…That all legislation is based on the natural law, and that all coercion must be brought about by the choice and consent of the subjects, since we are equally free by nature, and that jurisdictions that are created have no power from themselves, but only according to the laws and canons. This is a fine argument.

Therefore since all men are free by nature, every government that restrains its subjects from evils and uses the fear of punishment to orient their freedom towards the good, whether it consists of written laws or of a living law in the person of the prince, is constituted only by the agreement and consent of the subjects. For if by nature men are equally powerful and equally free, then the true and well-ordered authority of one who is a fellow and equal in power can only be established by the choice and consent of others, just as laws are established by consent.

So in a truly well-ordered regime there ought to be an election of the ruler himself, by which the ruler is set up as the judge of those who choose him. Well-ordered and correct lordships and honors, then, are established by election, and so also are general judges established over those who elect them…"

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

St. Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), a great Doctor and Cardinal of the Church, tells us in chapters 3-6 of his De Laicis:

De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine’s Treatise on Civil Government

"…Secular or Civil authority is instituted by men; it is in the people unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the Multitude, as in the subject of it; for this Power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this power to no particular man. If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason amongst the Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear the Rule over the Rest.

[Political] power resides, as in its subject, immediately in the whole state, for this power is by Divine law, but Divine law gives this power to no particular man, therefore Divine law gives this power to the collected body.

Furthermore, in the absence of positive law, there is no good reason why, in a multitude of equals, one rather than another should dominate. Therefore, power belongs to the collected body. Finally, human society ought to be a perfect State, therefore, it should have the power to preserve itself, hence, to punish disturbers of the peace, etc.

Note, in the third place, that, by the same natural law, this power is delegated by the multitude to one or several, for the State cannot of itself exercise this power, therefore, it is held to delegate it to some individual, or to several, and this authority of rulers considered thus in general is both by natural law and by Divine law.

Individual forms of government in specific instances derive from the law of nations, not from the natural law, for, as is evident, it depends on the consent of the people to decide whether kings, or consuls, or other magistrates are to be established in authority over them; and, if there be legitimate cause, the people can change a kingdom into an aristocracy, or an aristocracy into a democracy, and vice versa…

It follows from what has been said that this power in specific instances comes indeed from God, but through the medium of human wisdom and choice, as do all other things which pertain to the law of nations…"

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Third, the Jesuit Francisco Suarez, regarded as the pre-eminent Catholic philosopher after St. Thomas Aquinas:

Francisco Suárez - Wikipedia

Francisco Suárez (5 January 1548 – 25 September 1617) was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement, and generally regarded among the greatest scholastics after Thomas Aquinas. His work is considered a turning point in the history of second scholasticism, marking the transition from its Renaissance to its Baroque phases. According to Christopher Shields and Daniel Schwartz, “figures as distinct from one another in place, time, and philosophical orientation as Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf, Schopenhauer, and Heidegger, all found reason to cite him as a source of inspiration and influence.”[2]…

Suárez denies the patriarchal theory of government and the divine right of kings founded upon it, doctrines popular at that time in England and to some extent on the Continent…When a political society is formed, the authority of the state is not of divine but of human origin; therefore, its nature is chosen by the people involved, and their natural legislative power is given to the ruler.[11] Because they gave this power, they have the right to take it back and to revolt against a ruler, only if the ruler behaves badly towards them, and they must act moderately and justly…If a government is imposed on people, on the other hand, they have the right to defend themselves by revolting against it and even kill the tyrannical ruler.[12]

In 1613, at the instigation of Pope Paul V, Suárez wrote a treatise dedicated to the Christian princes of Europe, entitled Defensio catholicae fidei contra anglicanae sectae errores(“Defense of the Universal Catholic Faith Against the Errors of the Anglican Sect”).[16] This was directed against the oath of allegiance which James I required from his subjects.

King James (himself a talented scholar) caused it to be burned by the common hangman and forbade its perusal under the 'severest penalties, complaining bitterly to Philip III of Spain for harbouring in his dominions a declared enemy of the throne and majesty of kings.

The views of Suarez upon the human origin of political order, and his defense of tyrannicide emanating from popular dissent were heavily criticized by English philosopher Robert Filmer in his work Patriarcha, Or the Natural Power of Kings. Filmer believed the Calvinists and the Papists like Suarez to be dangerous opponents of divine right monarchy, legitimized by the supremacy of fathers upon their offspring, which Filmer claimed could be traced back to Adam

 

[Curious11]

Anti-communism does not imply pro-capitalism.

 

[Curious11]

There were differing opinions of course, but as an institution the church did not oppose absolutism, it was a team player along with aristocracy.

 

[po18guy]

Communism is, by definition godless. Now do you see the problem? Also the catechism is perhaps more valuable to the believer than the scriptures, as it lists the entire deposit of faith, rather than the fragmentary biblical record. Not only that, it gives the reasons behind its teaching.

Check CCC1885 fto see why all forms of collectivism are taught against.

 

[Rob2]

Catholics who adopt the “isms” , be they “isms” of politics or of economic systems , endanger their fidelity to the Gospel .

There is a tendency to mould one’s faith by adapting it to fit in with one’s politics , thus compromising the truth .

 

[Curious11]

Communism is, by definition godless.

You have not read the posts we have posted here today. They prove wrong this assertion.

The catechism is a modern invention. It holds much less value to me than the Bible. If all the church can offer is the catechism to justify anti-communism, how can I be certain that the church is honest in its claim of theological oposition to communism, how can I know it doesn’t oppose communism merely to protect its own private wealth?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Ok, in that case you can move out of a Kibbutz if you don’t like communism, but if you live in a Kibbutz, the rules are the rules.

It doesn’t matter how you twist it. Communism is not voluntary. Everyone must capitulate to the will of the group “or else”. Everyone must give up their natural rights in communism. As Cardinal Ratzinger puts it, communism creates new forms of slavery. History has borne this out time and again.

A Kibbutz is an example of communalism. This concept is voluntary. Because it is voluntary you can combine it with Christian theology. Your human dignity is respected in this arrangement. You can freely join or leave the system as you wish. Communalism has existed since prehistory. Even within the Catholic Church you could argue that monasteries are communal in nature.

 

[Curious11]

I can’t find evidence of anti-communism in the Bible? Sacred Scripture

I disagree. Just like the church supports the capitalist democracy we live in, where it is against the law for the state to nationalize entire industries without the consent of the justice system and parliament, I can imagine it could support a system where it is against the law for a group of people to take over ownership of some productive asset that is collectively owned by society in a communist society, as long as it is the law of the country, agreed upon by the people and the country does …

 

[po18guy]

I do not base my perception of reality on CAF posts. And your claims, well…

 

[Rob2]

Anti-communism does not imply pro-capitalism.

How true .

But in ways that it what has happened in much thinking .

Before the collapse of Communism in Europe and elsewhere some took a moral high ground proclaiming their espousal of Capitalism to be the sole remedy for the world’s ills , and the only orthodox road a Catholic could go down .

 

[Vouthon]

Consider one of the authorities I quoted above: the great scholastic theologian Francisco Suarez. In his 1613 treatise, which he wrote at the behest of Pope Paul V, he argues against the divine right of kings and for popular sovereignty on the following basis and in the process illustrates something important about Catholicism:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/selections-from-three-works

8. From these considerations finally it is concluded that no king or monarch has or has had directly from God or from divine institution a political principality, but by the medium of human will and institution. This is the honored axiom of theology, not for derision, as the king proposed, but in truth, because rightly understood it is most true and especially necessary for understanding the purposes and limits of civil power.

St. Thomas insinuates it in Ia IIae, q.9 a.3.

9. Besides this truth can be taken from the holy Fathers, first, because they assert that man was created by God free and free-born, and only received directly from God the power of ruling over the brute beasts and inferior things; but the dominion of men over men was introduced by human will through sin or some adversity. This Ambrose hands down on Colossians 3, at the end; and more broadly Augustine, 19, The City of God, ch.15, and bk. Quaestion. in Gen. q.153, and Gregory bk.21, Moralia, ch.10, elsewhere ch.11, and in Pastorali, p.2, ch.6.

For what they say about the liberty of each man, and the slavery opposed to it, is by the same reasoning true of a mixed or fictitious person of a single community or human city. For, according as it is directly ruled by God with the law of nature, it is free and sui iuris. This liberty does not exclude, but rather includes, the power of ruling itself, and of giving commands to its own members, but it excludes subjection to another man, as far as it is by force of natural law alone, because God has given directly such power to no one among men until through human institution or election it be transferred to someone. Secondly, this is particularly confirmed by the opinion of Augustine, bk.3, Confessions, ch.8, where he says: “It is a general pact of human society to obey its own kings.” For by these words he signifies that the regal principality, and the obedience owed to it, has its basis in a pact of human society, and therefore it is not from the direct institution of God, for a human pact is contracted by human will.

But this power of which we are treating was given by none of these methods to kings by God, speaking according to the ordinary law, because neither through the special will of God was it directly given, nor also does the natural law alone dictate by itself that this power should be in kings, as has been shown; lastly, the institution, or determination, or transfer of this power was not made directly by God to the kings, as is plain from experience itself…

Do you notice that he cites numerous earlier church fathers, popes, canonists etc. for this doctrine and claims that it is “the honored axiom of theology”?

It stems from his religion, not his own opinion that’s why.