If Communism had the atheistic elements of it removed, would the Church approve of it?

[Mark_David]

Some argue that the Apostles lived in a communistic way. If that’s true, it was clearly by mutual agreement, not by force. That’s where Communism (capital C) fails; it’s a form of fascism that promises freedom but ends up enslaving everyone. It may work in a small village, but never on a grand scale.

 

[Whadyamean]

Just wondering.

Thanks.

That would be called a monastery or nunnery.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is it the atheistic element that the Church opposes? I thought its the fact that the society is valued more over the individual, to the point that what is good for the society always is chosen over the rights of one individual. So for example if a certain town can only support 1000 people, and a woman becomes pregnant, then its in the interest of the society to abort the baby. While Christianity always teaches people to look for the greater good of all, the dignity of each person should not be sacrificed because God loves us all individually and all together.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some argue that the Apostles lived in a communistic way. If that’s true, it was clearly by mutual agreement, not by force. That’s where Communism (capital C) fails; it’s a form of fascism that promises freedom but ends up enslaving everyone. It may work in a small village, but never on a grand scale.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being in a society that works towards benefiting others. The problem with Communism really is that people are seen as nothing more as parts of a bigger organism, which is the society.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being in a society that works towards benefiting others. The problem with Communism really is that people are seen as nothing more as parts of a bigger organism, which is the society.

That objection could apply to the members of the Church - which is the Body of Christ!

 

[JimG]

I have started reading the book “Bloodlands—Europe Between Hitler and Stalin,” by Timothy Snyder. Chapter 2 is aptly titled “Class Terror.” Stalin’s most numerous victims (and his bitterest enemies) were those very peasants who were alleged to be the beneficiaries of the “dictatorship of the working class.” Forced relocation, forced collectivization, forcible seizure of personal farms, forcible seizure of food farm products by the party bureaucrats, forcible and intentional starvation, all of this does nothing to endear communism to me. And of course such atrocities were repeated by communist regimes in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere. The results were always dismal, not only economic destruction, but death and oppression, mass murder, genocide.

Reading through the early chapters, it struck me as remarkable that people sometimes regard the Middle Ages as the worst of times. That is far from the case; there were some very good times during that span, but even the worst times of the medieval era pales in comparison to the death and destruction offered by Communist regimes of the 20th century.

 

[exnihilo]

Communism is political system. It is a corruption of the good of sharing. All things, including earthly property, belong to God. Man must have some system of ownership. Communism puts that ownership in the hands of a political entity.

Private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth. Therefore if material wealth is good then communism is a bad or inferior means of achieving that good. If ‘sharing’ is more important than material wealth than communism might be a good system. But it seems to me all those who advocate communism first claim that it will offer more material prosperity to people. But if so they are chosing an inferior system to that end.

Sharing via force is not actually sharing. Sharing means voluntarily giving. To have property taken by the state is not sharing. Commuism is incompatible with Christianity because it necessarily denies the Christian the right, duty and privilege to share by removing from him physical possessions.

Our Lord compares Himself to the good shepherd (John 10:11-13). He contrasts the good shepherd with the hireling who will run away. It would seem that ownership has a very important affect upon man.

 

[Nelka]

Communism is based on force, not choice.

The same as democratic capitalism!

I never chose this, it was forced upon me, I had no choice.

 

[tonyrey]

The same as democratic capitalism!

I never chose this, it was forced upon me, I had no choice.

Bravo, Nelka!

 

[tonyrey]

Private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth.

Unlimited private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth for a minority at the expense of the majority - as demonstrated by the immense amount of poverty and misery in the world.

To have property taken by the state is not sharing.

It is sharing if a reasonable portion of an excessive amount of property is taken by the state to alleviate the misery of the homeless…

 

[SonCatcher]

The same as democratic capitalism!

I never chose this, it was forced upon me, I had no choice.

The OP was asking about communism. I think discussion about other sociopolitical ideologies should be left to another thread.

EDIT: In reviewing the thread, I see that the citation of my original posting has been taken grossly out of context. I doth protest vehemently.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

I’m not so sure you could divorce Communism from its atheistic elements, and if you did you’d no longer have a meaningful philosophical system. It is based in principle on atheism, and so to remove that is to remove something very much core to it. It’s not so much that a “theistic Communism” would be in principle acceptable, it’s just that making Communism non-atheistic would void enough of Communism that there’d be nothing left.

Now, if you get down to brass tacks, there have been attempts to meld Marxism and Christianity in the form of the liberationist theologies of more recent times. The Church has never found these to be acceptable, for they take the already unacceptable Marxist ideals and couch them in the language of the Gospel (and vice versa, as they attempt to portray Jesus as some kind of revolutionary ideologue); this kind of thinking runs counter to the Church because it reduces salvation to deliverance from oppressive social structures and says that sin exists as a largely societal reality. This ignores the truth, that Jesus did not come for the sake of ideology, he came to save all of us from our sins; he did not come to liberate us from some worldly oppressor, but to liberate us from the slavery of sin and the devil.

-ACEGC

Thank you!!! Well done… Do not feel I can do any better than “emphasize” what you stated at the front ( and fully agree with…)I also…cannot conceive any manner in which Atheism could be pulled from Communism …it’s …in there good and tight…a firm embed …or at a simple level …like that thread on your sock…that you start pulling on …and …you toke the toe off…I agree with my Brother here… I also cannot conceive of any way to remove it. On the inverse… to force Catholocism into this System in theory…if done fully…would create…a False Catholicism …a False Gospel…an…Anti-Church…I will not lie…those in our Church who desire this…frighten me. This is no hyperbole …it truly scares me some Catholics “think” Catholocism and Communism could marry and merge…and still have a true Catholicism .

 

[SonCatcher]

Unlimited private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth for a minority at the expense of the majority - as demonstrated by the immense amount of poverty and misery in the world.

Communisim has been clearly demonstrated to produce even greater disparity. That’s why China is attempting to liberalize its economy.

It is sharing if a reasonable portion of an excessive amount of property is taken by the state to alleviate the misery of the homeless…

I do agree with the principle that those who have excess means should support those who cannot adequately support themselves. However, “sharing” is an inaccurate term if done by force (including taxation). A better one is “legal plunder.”

 

[tonyrey]

Communism has been clearly demonstrated to produce even greater disparity. That’s why China is attempting to liberalize its economy.

 

[SonCatcher]

SonCatcher;8698183:

I agree. The Party bosses distort its original intention…

Plunder implies that property or wealth is

taken wrongfully when in fact it is a legitimate act.

Consider that the sole thing that makes such taking legitimate is the rule of law. Hence the full term “legal plunder”

 

[tonyrey]

Consider that the sole thing that makes such taking legitimate is the rule of law. Hence the full term “legal plunder”

I consider that it has moral as well as legal legitimacy! The law should have a moral foundation.

 

[JimG]

Communism simply has no claim to moral legitimacy of any sort, given its record of oppression, starvation, and murder on scales heretofore unknown in history. Read “The Black Book of Communism.” After millions of deaths, why would anyone wish to try this system again? One need only contrast starving North Korea, a communist state, with prosperous South Korea, a capitalist state. From its inception, communism has been at war with the Church, and in states where communism remains, the war with the Church continues.

 

[exnihilo]

Unlimited private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth for a minority at the expense of the majority - as demonstrated by the immense amount of poverty and misery in the world.

At the expense of the majority? What evidence suggest that? The US which was a country that protected private property had the richest middle class and poor in the world. The majority of people benefit from protecting private property. That not everyone is equally rich is an unavoidable consequence of needing poor people to exist for rich people to exist. Certainly we could all have an exact equal amount of recources. Of course not even communism proclaims that ideal. It says to each according to his need.

Regarding poverty and misery I’ll take Jesus at His word that the poor you shall always have with you. This side of heaven there will be misery. No political system can stop that. At best people actually living the Christian ideal would improve the world, but it would still be a fallen imperfect world. Imagining man can create a perfect world in this life is evil.

It is sharing if a reasonable portion of an excessive amount of property is taken by the state to alleviate the misery of the homeless…

How do you define reasonable?

How do you define excessive?

Sharing involves taking? That is a complete perversion of the idea of sharing. You must own something to share it. If the government owns everything then the individual is not sharing. The political entity is not even sharing unless it gives to those outside of its control. Internally it would only be distributing. .

 

[tonyrey]

Unlimited private property has been clearly demonstrated to produce the most material wealth for a minority at the expense of the majority - as demonstrated by the immense amount of poverty and misery in the world.
At the expense of the majority? What evidence suggest that? The US which was a country that protected private property had the richest middle class and poor in the world. The majority of people benefit from protecting private property. That not everyone is equally rich is an unavoidable consequence of needing poor people to exist for rich people to exist. Certainly we could all have an exact equal amount of recources. Of course not even communism proclaims that ideal. It says to each according to his need.

How do you define reasonable?
That which is required to give everyone a home…

How do you define excessive?

That which results in needless misery and suffering…

Sharing involves taking? That is a complete perversion of the idea of sharing. You must own something to share it. If the government owns everything then the individual is not sharing.

I have not stated that the government should own everything.

The political entity is not even sharing unless it gives to those outside of its control. Internally it would only be distributing.

“By their fruits you shall know them”…

[/QUOTE]

 

[carn]

That which results in needless misery and suffering…

How do you determine that some part of someones property is causing needless misery and suffering and thereby is excessive?
Could you please look in the Forbes 100list, select one member of that list and elaborate what percentage or part of that persons obviously vast property is causing needless misery and suffering?
You havefree choice, so select one with whom its easy. But mind, that you need to show that the ownership is causing the suffering. Showing that Castro robbed his nation to be a near-billionaire does not show that his excessive property is the problem. It only shows that the way he acquired it - theft, robbery and murder - is a problem and should be sanctioned (which currently is hard to do, as it would mean war).