I do not understand this sin?

[Ohokplease]

So I was looking at a list of possible sins as a reference, and I noticed one odd thing.
It listed as a potentially mortal sin “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the communist party” and “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the Socialist party”.

That seems strange to me. Why is this a sin?

I was thinking this over, and I thought of the Soviet Union, which was pretty much the prime example of communism at one point, and how it ran aggresive anti-religion campains and movements. I suppose that’s one possible explanation. And there was also Nazi germany, considered socialist, which not only committed mass genocide but was also against religion, including Catholicism.

At the same time, although that might make support of these particular countries sinful by association, I don’t understand why that makes communism and socialism in general sinful.

Can somebody please explain this to me?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Communism and State Socialism are atheistic movements which do not respect the God given individual rights of human beings. This was true of Karl Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto and remains true of today’s “Progressives.”

Read Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. Note how amazingly prophetic he was:

1. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

1. **The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. **True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father” it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.”(4) **The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. **

1. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

 

[po18guy]

From the catechism:

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but "the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions."4

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This “socialization” also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

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.

The problem is that all collective forms of government implicitly or explicitly place the state above the value of the individual. This is a violation of human dignity.

 

[ready]

Communism and socialism are atheistic/anti-Catholic.

 

[JamesTheJust]

So I was looking at a list of possible sins as a reference, and I noticed one odd thing.
It listed as a potentially mortal sin “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the communist party” and “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the Socialist party”.

That seems strange to me. Why is this a sin?

I was thinking this over, and I thought of the Soviet Union, which was pretty much the prime example of communism at one point, and how it ran aggresive anti-religion campains and movements. I suppose that’s one possible explanation. And there was also Nazi germany, considered socialist, which not only committed mass genocide but was also against religion, including Catholicism.

At the same time, although that might make support of these particular countries sinful by association, I don’t understand why that makes communism and socialism in general sinful.

Can somebody please explain this to me?

1. Both communism and socialism are atheistic movements that leave no room for religion. In fact, thousands were martyred in the Soviet Union and in Red China.
2. Both reject the decency of the individual and seek to eliminate the concept of individuality. In communism and socialism, the worth of each human person is ignored to satisfy the community as a whole. The decency and rights of an individual is a fundamental Catholic social teaching.

 

[JRKH]

So I was looking at a list of possible sins as a reference, and I noticed one odd thing.
It listed as a potentially mortal sin “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the communist party” and “Join, contribute to, or sympathize with the Socialist party”.

That seems strange to me. Why is this a sin?

I was thinking this over, and I thought of the Soviet Union, which was pretty much the prime example of communism at one point, and how it ran aggresive anti-religion campains and movements. I suppose that’s one possible explanation. And there was also Nazi germany, considered socialist, which not only committed mass genocide but was also against religion, including Catholicism.

At the same time, although that might make support of these particular countries sinful by association, I don’t understand why that makes communism and socialism in general sinful.

Can somebody please explain this to me?

You ask a very good question and have received some very good answers.
To delve just a bit deeper on this…
Consider first that this is a list of possible sins. In other words the action itself may or may not be a sin.
I believe the reason for this is because at their most fundamental - just examining the words - neither communism or socialism are inherently evil. After all, we are all social beings and we all live in comunities do we not? The Church does not deny but rather supports the idea of our acting in a manner that supports and builds up the social and communal good. So this, most fundamental idea is not the problem.

The problem comes in when one takes these fundamental roots (societal and communal) and puts the “-ism” at the end. When one looks at the systems promoted and employed and attempted in the world under these terms one finds that neither actually does what it purports to do.
This is where a fundamental difference is revealed between the Church’s teaching on promoting the communal good. Church teaching - at it’s root - sees the communal good coming from the most democratic of sources, the people themselves, freely choosing. This is really what Agape Love, a core value of our faith, is all about.

Communism and Socialism as practiced, do not seek this. They attempt to impose a system on people who do not freely choose it and the way in which these systems must necessarily be implemented erodes rather than enhances personal freedom. This has been shown to be true repeatedly.

In my personal opinion - and you mentioned above the Soviet State - the greatest mistake that Marx and his successors made was to adopt atheism and not just atheism, but a radical and aggressive atheism. The second greatest mistake was to adopt the idea that “violent revolution” was the best way to implement their ideas.
By embracing these principles, atheism and violence, they automatically set themselves at odds with the vast majority of the people they hoped to help. After all, the majority of the people of Russia believed in God, and the Church, and they desired only peace - to live and raise their families and love their children and their neighbors.
When Marx and others wrote - and embraced these principles they made an enemy of God and an enemy of His Church…and that is doomed to failure.

Sorry - I’m prattling - - -

Ultimately the sort of communal living that works best is small scale, freely entered into - like the communities of monks and nuns and other religious orders who live and work together for the common good.

Peace
James

 

[thistle]

Communism and socialism are atheistic/anti-Catholic.

Where did you get that from? Tony Blair, who was the British Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party (the socialist party) is Catholic.
Socialism is not anti-Catholic.
Why do Americans persist in the strange view that communism and socialism are basically the same. They are not. Many European countries have had socialist governments.

 

[meme1961]

Where did you get that from? Tony Blair, who was the British Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party (the socialist party) is Catholic.
Socialism is not anti-Catholic.
Why do Americans persist in the strange view that communism and socialism are basically the same. They are not. Many European countries have had socialist governments.

There is a basic similarity: both systems value the group over the individual, and consider the rights of the individual as optional and state granted, and thus state revocable.

Yes, man European countries have socialistic aspects to their governments, and those aspects can be quite strong, but their systems are better described as Democratic-Socialism, rather than pure Socialism.

 

[JRKH]

Where did you get that from? Tony Blair, who was the British Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party (the socialist party) is Catholic.
Socialism is not anti-Catholic.
Why do Americans persist in the strange view that communism and socialism are basically the same. They are not. Many European countries have had socialist governments.

If I may - -

You are quite right - they are different systems and the only one that has ever really been tried on a large scale is socialism. The so called “Communist” countries are not actually communist - but socialist. Communism can only really be applied on a very small community scale. The larger the application, the less communist and the more socialist it becomes.

In the course of conversation - part of the problem is that we often blur the line between the economic system of a country and the political system of a country. Basically, communism and socialism are economic systems…not political ones. They could, theoretically, exist in a variety of different political structures.

I believe the biggest problem with the communist and and socialist forms (as applied) is that they tend to very quickly concentrate too much power into too few few hands. In addition they tend to build up a larger and larger bureaucracy to try to administer the system instead of working to disseminate the power - and the responsibility - into the hands of the people.

Of course the same thing can happen in a republic or democratic political system as well…even a country such as the U.S. which embraces the capitalist economic system can find itself drifting off course - either towards a capitalist oligarchy where “big business” gains too much power, or towards socialism where the “government” gains too much power.
In either case it is the “little guy” who ultimately suffers.

As to Mr Blair and his being a socialist, I think that this is something important for the OP to recognize. As I said in a previous post, the list the OP was looking at is one of “potential” mortal sin. So one needs to look deeper into the matter of what one is supporting to determine if it violates the teachings of the Church.
The Church seeks to uphold the rights of the individual. In a democratic republic we see the individual’s rights being upheld through the ballot box and free and fair elections as well as other rights to free speech, petition the government etc.

I would assume that Tony Blair would seek to combine the two principles in a manner that would uphold the dignity of the individual while also seeking to do what is best for the community as a whole.

How well those things work in practice - - - - well - - - - that is much of the debate isn’t it?

Peace
James

 

[PTL]

“Hideous”, “destructive”, “wicked”, and “perverted” are only some of the adjectives used by the Popes to describe socialism. From Pius IX to Benedict XVI, the popes have thoroughly and consistently condemned socialism.

Here is a good summary what each Pope has said about socialism - socialism, not even communism.

tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/socialism/what-the-popes-really-say-about-socialism.html

 

[DMC12]

to my understanding, the rules are the ten commandments plus the 5 from the Church, look if by supporting socialism you are breaking one of those and you might found out. besides you gotta know that they might know what something you don’t about socialism, that breaks one of the commandments.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Where did you get that from? Tony Blair, who was the British Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party (the socialist party) is Catholic.
Socialism is not anti-Catholic.
Why do Americans persist in the strange view that communism and socialism are basically the same. They are not. Many European countries have had socialist governments.

I think most educated Americans understand the differences between socialism and communism (your statement was a bit of a generalization, if I do say so myself).

Marx is clear on what he thinks about religion:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

Any ideology derived entirely from that of Marx is bound to be somewhat state atheistic (as others pointed out, Blair would probably be better classified as a Democratic-Socialist). Granted, there are small religious communities that managed to get by in communist countries (I have a Muslim friend who used to live in China), but much bigger are the piles of martyrs who stood up for their beliefs and were silenced.

Pope St Pius X is clear on what he thinks about socialism:
The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism
“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ … What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique “Our Apostolic Mandate”] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

As is Blessed John Paul the Great:

“Continuing our reflections, … we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Centesimus Annus, n. 13)

 

[Ohokplease]

Thank you so much, and to all the answers here! Not only does this help greatly in understanding why the communist party is of sinful nature, it also gives a LOT of insight into just why Americans are/were so against it! I’ll admit I never understood what the huge Red Scare of the 1950’s was all about, but knowing a bit more about the theological standpoint helps it make a lot more sense xD
Thank you to all!

 

[silver2soul]

.

Both reject the decency of the individual and seek to eliminate the concept of individuality. In communism and socialism, the worth of each human person is ignored to satisfy the community as a whole. The decency and rights of an individual is a fundamental Catholic social teaching.

Yes and no…

The church is a body of believers and it is not just about the individual, but the flock; the church as a whole. This is socialism and communism working together for the greater good of the believers and not as individual parts, but much as a tree has a central stalk and branches and roots. It is a whole entity, but has parts.

**John 15:5

New International Version (NIV**)

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

The fundamentals of teaching in truth is categorized by him who is the way, the truth and the life. The church embodies that principle in it’s spirit. We are told not to have anything to do with fruitless deeds of darkness, and reprove them. We are told…

**2 Corinthians 6:14-18

King James Version (KJV)**

14* Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty*

Lean not on your own understanding, but on the grace of GOD through his son JESUS .

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Shin]

1. That right to property, therefore, which has been proved to belong naturally to individual persons, must in like wise belong to a man in his capacity of head of a family; nay, that right is all the stronger in proportion as the human person receives a wider extension in the family group. It is a most sacred law of nature that a father should provide food and all necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, it is natural that he should wish that his children, who carry on, so to speak, and continue his personality, should be by him provided with all that is needful to enable them to keep themselves decently from want and misery amid the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except by the ownership of productive property, which he can transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, “at least equal rights”; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.
2. The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. “The child belongs to the father,” and is, as it were, the continuation of the father’s personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that “the child belongs to the father” it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.”(4) The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.
3. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

Exactly so!

‘The final goal shared by these teachings, whether of Communism or Socialism, even if approached differently, is to excite by continuous disturbances workers and others, especially those of the lower class, whom they have deceived by their lies and deluded by the promise of a happier condition. They are preparing them for plundering, stealing, and usurping first the Church’s and then everyone’s property. After this they will profane all law, human and divine, to destroy divine worship and to subvert the entire ordering of civil societies. In this critical period for Italy, it is your duty, venerable brothers, to help the faithful realize that if they let themselves be deceived by such perverted doctrines and theories, these theories will cause their temporal and their eternal destruction.’

Pope Bl. Pius IX

‘But if the faithful scorn both the fatherly warnings of their pastors and the commandments of the Christian Law recalled here, and if they let themselves be deceived by the present-day promoters of plots, deciding to work with them in their perverted theories of Socialism and Communism, let them know and earnestly consider what they are laying up for themselves. The Divine Judge will seek vengeance on the day of wrath. Until then no temporal benefit for the people will result from their conspiracy, but rather new increases of misery and disaster. For man is not empowered to establish new societies and unions which are opposed to the nature of mankind.’

Pope Bl. Pius IX