S
Sophie111
Guest
I think it is pretty clear what I have been saying on this thread.
I no longer understand what your issues are sorry.
I no longer understand what your issues are sorry.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No need. If it were even a “counsel” of the Church, the Vatican itself would be run as a socialist state. It isn’t.HarryStotle:
May I suggest you look up the Catholic Encyclopedia for an understanding of the difference between a “counsel” and a “command” in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm
It is a “unitary absolute monarchy under an ecclesiastical and elective theocracy.”
QED.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
Actually, one is not necessarily required to make communal ALL of their assets when entering a Benedictine Monastery. Indeed, if one has substantial wealth, one may retain that until just before entering perpetual vows. While a novice, no such requirements, as you describe, are imposed as no permanent commitment has been made by the novice or the monastery.
The details of how financial and material goods will be worked out is always between the local ordinary and the one joining the monastery. It is not uncommon for monks to have placed substantial wealth in trust funds or given it as gifts to relatives before taking final vows. Yet, in my experience, most do not have substantial wealth prior to becoming a monk, so it is usually a mute point.
Furthermore, Benedictine monks, even today, are far from poor. Their standard of living is the highest among monastics and they are allowed use of personal possessions in the monastery, some quite expensive. I know because I spent five years in such monasteries.
Benedictine monks in medieval times were allowed an allowances of monies and other goods, usually beer or bread or cheese, which made them, for all practical purposes, rich. They were so rich, that many hired “lay monks” (lay people wearing their habits) to pray in their places so they did not have to attend the Liturgy of the Hours. This practice was allowed for centuries before the power and wealth of the Benedictine Order became an object of scrutiny during the Counter-Reformation.
So, you might be surprised to know that no one is trifling over pencils these days at the monastery.
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
Perhaps the inability to understand that counsels and commands can harmoniously sit together in Church teaching is the reason your “it has to be scalable to be true” argument falls over.
The article I linked you to covers this aspect quite well I thought.
It is a subtle distinction and historically Protestant Church’s and heretical groups have always found the distinction too difficult to bear. It may be to do with the tendency of some minds to think in a strong binary all or nothing fashion.
It seems this topic has run its course now.
The article I linked you to covers this aspect quite well I thought.
It is a subtle distinction and historically Protestant Church’s and heretical groups have always found the distinction too difficult to bear. It may be to do with the tendency of some minds to think in a strong binary all or nothing fashion.
It seems this topic has run its course now.
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
Enjoyed the read.
You were perhaps side-slipping a little on your use of the phrase “entering a Benedictine Monastery”. Most realise that being a full member (as opposed to beginning that journey or working as a lay associate) means solemn vows which means absolutely forfeiting of personal property rights so far as the community is concerned. Also being a member of a family trust would likely be highly frowned upon if known to the community and would really be against the spirit of the vows.
Likewise with saying many monks are “rich”. Yes I agree many attain a daily life-style they could never have expected had they not joined. But that is not really the primary definition of “rich” is it.
To be rich most understand that one must be capable of private ownership.
It seems to me that the purpose of the vows is really to be spiritually detached from the good of this world which is not simply being able to live on nothing and trusting in providence.
I think St Paul had it right when he said he accepts whatever God gives him, good times or bad times. That is true detachment and cleaving to God.
You were perhaps side-slipping a little on your use of the phrase “entering a Benedictine Monastery”. Most realise that being a full member (as opposed to beginning that journey or working as a lay associate) means solemn vows which means absolutely forfeiting of personal property rights so far as the community is concerned. Also being a member of a family trust would likely be highly frowned upon if known to the community and would really be against the spirit of the vows.
Likewise with saying many monks are “rich”. Yes I agree many attain a daily life-style they could never have expected had they not joined. But that is not really the primary definition of “rich” is it.
To be rich most understand that one must be capable of private ownership.
It seems to me that the purpose of the vows is really to be spiritually detached from the good of this world which is not simply being able to live on nothing and trusting in providence.
I think St Paul had it right when he said he accepts whatever God gives him, good times or bad times. That is true detachment and cleaving to God.
V
Vouthon
Guest
@TheOldColonel no one is talking about being impoverished, poverty is not one of the vows of a Benedictine I agree (it is of some other orders) but relinquishing all personal property rights most definitely is.
Common ownership can indeed lead to wealth and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. If people pool resources together, its rather obvious they will amass more than any individual could on their own.
But the point is that by doing so they are not selfishly hoarding possessions but rather sharing everything based upon the need of the recipient, as the Apostles did in Jerusalem, holding back nothing for their own exclusive use or pleasure.
Now, you have to admit that if you actually don the habit in a Benedictine then you can’t own anything individually. That would be a violation of the Rule. Even in your post, you concede that “one may retain wealth until just before entering perpetual vows” which is an admission that the permanent vows prohibit it.
Here’s a link to the website of a modern Benedictine community:
http://www.benedictinenuns.org.uk/Community/Community/FAQ.html
It’s simple, they don’t allow private property. No one’s saying you can’t be collectively wealthy in terms of assets as a community - we’re not talking about a hermitage, which is a different calling.
Common ownership can indeed lead to wealth and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. If people pool resources together, its rather obvious they will amass more than any individual could on their own.
But the point is that by doing so they are not selfishly hoarding possessions but rather sharing everything based upon the need of the recipient, as the Apostles did in Jerusalem, holding back nothing for their own exclusive use or pleasure.
Now, you have to admit that if you actually don the habit in a Benedictine then you can’t own anything individually. That would be a violation of the Rule. Even in your post, you concede that “one may retain wealth until just before entering perpetual vows” which is an admission that the permanent vows prohibit it.
Here’s a link to the website of a modern Benedictine community:
http://www.benedictinenuns.org.uk/Community/Community/FAQ.html
Do you want to tell the good nuns above, devout Catholic women, that they are wrong about St. Benedict’s view of property?
It’s simple, they don’t allow private property. No one’s saying you can’t be collectively wealthy in terms of assets as a community - we’re not talking about a hermitage, which is a different calling.
Last edited:
I
IsaiahSpirit
Guest
Put any spin on ‘socialism’ you want; history shows powers that be use it to manipulate agendas and it doesn’t work.
It certainly wasn’t a small factor in what happened to places like Detroit over 50 years.
In the USA, what ever you want to name a ‘Utopian’ government policy or policies;
it just so happens that most proponents that have power foster and encourage a ‘legal’ culture of death with thousands of casualties every single day. Not to mention fostering taking away right of conscience.
And socialists deliberately used re-branded more palatable terms in a decades
long propaganda war of attrition to steer many venues in the U.S.A.
They flipped on right to life of children yet to be born;
they flipped on marriage between one man and one woman;
and they flipped on the need to protect the borders.
They take any side to gain support for their never going to be realized
‘Utopia.’
This kind of thinking is part of the powerful delusion the world is under;
minimizing the most massive atrocity with thousands of crimes against humanity
every single day.
You do not need totalitarianism; when you can sway so many into accepting or be
complacent regarding atrocity. They’ve even made statements on how much
money is saved by legal killing of helpless children. One even had the audacity
to say the early Christians layed their possessions at the Apostles feet.
Socialism or whatever governmental control over distribution of wealth term you wish to use always fails.
Yes, rampant unbridled capitalism doesn’t work, thus child labor laws, equal opportunity laws, minimum wage laws, and so forth.
But why are attempts to reform generational cycles of government dependency
met with so much resistance? For example, a work requirement for some who receive
food stamps.
Fostering, encouraging, and facilitating government dependency hasn’t shown much success.
I highly recommend watching ‘A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ which aired on EWTN.
I saw it up on youtube.
It certainly wasn’t a small factor in what happened to places like Detroit over 50 years.
In the USA, what ever you want to name a ‘Utopian’ government policy or policies;
it just so happens that most proponents that have power foster and encourage a ‘legal’ culture of death with thousands of casualties every single day. Not to mention fostering taking away right of conscience.
And socialists deliberately used re-branded more palatable terms in a decades
long propaganda war of attrition to steer many venues in the U.S.A.
They flipped on right to life of children yet to be born;
they flipped on marriage between one man and one woman;
and they flipped on the need to protect the borders.
They take any side to gain support for their never going to be realized
‘Utopia.’
This kind of thinking is part of the powerful delusion the world is under;
minimizing the most massive atrocity with thousands of crimes against humanity
every single day.
You do not need totalitarianism; when you can sway so many into accepting or be
complacent regarding atrocity. They’ve even made statements on how much
money is saved by legal killing of helpless children. One even had the audacity
to say the early Christians layed their possessions at the Apostles feet.
Socialism or whatever governmental control over distribution of wealth term you wish to use always fails.
Yes, rampant unbridled capitalism doesn’t work, thus child labor laws, equal opportunity laws, minimum wage laws, and so forth.
But why are attempts to reform generational cycles of government dependency
met with so much resistance? For example, a work requirement for some who receive
food stamps.
Fostering, encouraging, and facilitating government dependency hasn’t shown much success.
I highly recommend watching ‘A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ which aired on EWTN.
I saw it up on youtube.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
I can only reiterate to you that what I relay is reliable and true.
But for your prompt and thoughtful response, I confer upon you the Blue Max Medallion of Merit…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Wear it with proudly, soldier! Hoorah!
But for your prompt and thoughtful response, I confer upon you the Blue Max Medallion of Merit…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Wear it with proudly, soldier! Hoorah!
H
HarryStotle
Guest
On plain reading of the opening post, “Jesus was a socialist,” the implication is that Jesus would have endorsed socialism as, at the very least, a viable form of state governance.
If your point regarding “other forms of socialism” simply means a non-governmental communal sharing voluntarily engaged in at the level of personal interaction, then we can concede your point that Jesus might have been a “socialist” in that sense.
However, I am not clear that such an admission would be anything more than a trivial one, something like: “Jesus advocated sharing.” Okay, but that means “socialist” simply means “willing to share with others.”
Seems to have been a radical shifting of the goalposts, however.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Like you, I strongly believe that the “term” Socialism cannot be applied to the apostolic communalism of the Jerusalem Church or monasteries. It’s a secular, political ideology.
Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. He didn’t come with a political plan of action or preaching revolution or legislative reform of the Empire.
That said, it would be a serious error to equate the early Christian or Benedictine communalism with mere “sharing”. It is a complete and thorough abandonment of any claims to owning anything for oneself or one’s exclusive use. Everything is owned by the monastery and under the direction of the abbot as dispenser based upon need. In this sense, and in this sense alone, it could be described as a religious precursor to socialism or communism - albeit of a non-statist form and without any of the nonsensical materialist dialectic.
It’s a supremely high calling (a vow of poverty is even more stringent of an ideal).
My decision to get involved in this thread was not to endorse or give credence to the spurious notion that Jesus might have been a socialist but rather to counter equally spurious claims made in response to it, which went too far the other way in denying that common ownership has been both practised and praised in the church’s history.
Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. He didn’t come with a political plan of action or preaching revolution or legislative reform of the Empire.
That said, it would be a serious error to equate the early Christian or Benedictine communalism with mere “sharing”. It is a complete and thorough abandonment of any claims to owning anything for oneself or one’s exclusive use. Everything is owned by the monastery and under the direction of the abbot as dispenser based upon need. In this sense, and in this sense alone, it could be described as a religious precursor to socialism or communism - albeit of a non-statist form and without any of the nonsensical materialist dialectic.
It’s a supremely high calling (a vow of poverty is even more stringent of an ideal).
My decision to get involved in this thread was not to endorse or give credence to the spurious notion that Jesus might have been a socialist but rather to counter equally spurious claims made in response to it, which went too far the other way in denying that common ownership has been both practised and praised in the church’s history.
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
Yes, I believe Jesus would have endorsed the early Acts community, our monastic country communities and many other small socialist movements taken on by those spiritually mature persons of every generation in the Church who feel called to do more.
You are right, neither the world nor the Church as a whole can likely succeed in even the best forms of socialism. However those called to such perfection clearly can as the monastic communities of the Church regularly demonstrate.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
No, he told the rich young man that if he wanted to be “perfect” then he should relinquish every one of his (personal) possessions and follow him - that is, join the band of “hard-core” disciples living in this way as part of an itinerant, preaching lifestyle in Judea (after they’d left their homes and families behind).
The rich youth didn’t like that idea one bit, so ran away crying his eyes out.
And whether or not Jesus preached common ownership, God the Holy Spirit - Third Person of the Trinity - most certainly did through those verses of the Book of Acts that inspired the Benedictines and other monastic communities to eschew private ownership. Since Jesus is also God, ergo, Jesus taught it as well - unless one wants to create division in the Godhead.
Nevertheless, in terms of the ministry of Christ while on earth, the Church has already taught in the past that Jesus himself had no private possessions.
I am aware that you don’t agree with this assessment but consider the following.
Why do you think the apostles had a “common purse” with Judas Iscariot appointed as the dispenser, rather than individual purses? (Judas, being a bad egg, exploited his position as keeper of the common fund of pooled money and resources to enrich himself, behind the scenes. Like Ananias and Sapphira, he wanted to have some of it for his own personal use and pleasure).
See:
The only time we see Jesus having something for his own exclusive use, is when Mary of Bethany anoints his body - it was a gift, a spontaneous outpouring of devotion on her part. He didn’t ask it from her or buy it because he wanted to look pretty or smell nice.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The reason for the confusion, I suggest, is the use of the word “own.” A person might relinquish ownership, but you cannot relinquish responsibility. And responsibility requires a modicum of control over what you are responsible for.
Private property, in the sense of having absolute right of authority over it, is not in the lexicon of the Church. Not even the entire monastery has that level of ownership, even under the direction of the abbot.
Human being are, properly understood, stewards of creation and not “owners” of it. We are not authors of created things, so we don’t “own” them in any real sense.
The question of stewardship revolves around the kind of control that individuals have over the parts of creation under their stewardship. The concept of private property, at best, within a theological framework, means that God places individuals, and not just communal bodies, in positions of stewardship (control) over some parts of the created order.
Given that control is required of everyone at some level, the recognition should be that individuals cannot, without just cause, remove control or stewardship from others. We all have moral responsibility for what we have stewardship of.
What is interesting, however, is that if the monastic community is under the direction of the abbot alone, then it isn’t “socialist” in any real sense since it isn’t the entire community that makes decisions. It is essentially an autocracy, so “stewardship” or control is still in the hands of the one most competent to make decisions, the abbot.
So this question of stewardship relative to who is actually making decisions runs up against the idea of socialism as communal control. In what sense is a monastic community actually socialistic, if communal “ownership” does not entail communal control.
The other issue that comes up here is competency. Why would we expect stewardship to belong equally to all if the competency to manage wealth or goods is not distributed equally?
Socialism always appears to separate control from ownership, claiming ownership is in the hands of the entire community, but actual control seems not to be.
The resolution to the question of control and ownership is not a simple one-size-fits-all, but a tight rope balancing of competency and need.
V
Vouthon
Guest
The Abbot does not “own” the property.
He is the elected administrator of it as a first among equals. Someone has to be, it isn’t an anarchical system. Judas fulfilled that role among the apostles, appointed by Jesus.
The Abbot is forbidden from taking personal advantage of it just as much as everyone else. He is acting as an agent on behalf of the community. It’s not his personal possession.
Decisions about it are made by the monks’ collective consultation, their ‘common counsel’.
You are aware that monasteries operate according to an elective system of governance? The Abbot is strictly limited by the constitution in the exercise of his duties, it’s about as far away from an autocracy as one can imagine. He is subject to the one same Rule.
By the way, your statements regarding stewardship - I wholeheartedly concur.
He is the elected administrator of it as a first among equals. Someone has to be, it isn’t an anarchical system. Judas fulfilled that role among the apostles, appointed by Jesus.
The Abbot is forbidden from taking personal advantage of it just as much as everyone else. He is acting as an agent on behalf of the community. It’s not his personal possession.
Decisions about it are made by the monks’ collective consultation, their ‘common counsel’.
You are aware that monasteries operate according to an elective system of governance? The Abbot is strictly limited by the constitution in the exercise of his duties, it’s about as far away from an autocracy as one can imagine. He is subject to the one same Rule.
By the way, your statements regarding stewardship - I wholeheartedly concur.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That makes an interesting talking point, but it is difficult to see how Jesus would have made a living for a decade or more as a tektōn (τέκτων) without any tools or furnished places to work and live that he personally could have considered his or his family’s “private possessions.” We have no evidence that Mary, Joseph and Jesus were part of some socialistic community that shared everything they didn’t own.
It may be true that during his ministry he likely had minimal possessions, but the claim he had NO private possessions whatsoever isn’t a sustainable one.
Members of the early Church very likely pooled their possessions, but that does not mean that no members of the various Church communities had no private property.
V
Vouthon
Guest
@TheOldColonel this part of St. Benedict’s Rule is sure to amuse you:
Chapter 55: The Clothing and Footwear of the Brothers - Benedictine Abbey of Christ in the Desert
1 The clothing distributed to the brothers should vary according to local conditions and climate, 2 because more is needed in cold regions and less in warmer. 3 This is left to the abbot’s discretion. 4 We believe that for each monk a cowl and tunic will suffice in temperate regions; 5 in winter...
christdesert.org
Yes, really, mandatory BED-CHECKING for hidden stashes of private property
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
@HarryStotle you are referring to Jesus’ life prior to his ministry. He lived as an ordinary worker for that stage of his life, just like his fishermen apostles, just like monks and nuns before they take permanent vows to live in common.
Then, they were called to a new life, which Jesus embarked upon after his baptism by John and temptation in the desert.
If it isn’t sustainable to claim that Jesus and his apostles didn’t have any private possesions but owned everything in common (the common purse/fund), then why can I find magisterial texts from the medieval period explicitly saying this? Where do you think the monasteries derived their common ownership from with the backing of the Church?
It’s simple, Jesus lived the perfect life. Therefore, it’s ludicrous to imagine that monks and nuns could be pursuing a more perfect lifestyle and community than that of Jesus and his apostles.
The Didache, the earliest catechism of the Church from the first century (50 - 80 A.D.) and part of the Apostolic Fathers collection, makes this quite clear:
https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Didache/Didache_Lesson_1.htm
Then, they were called to a new life, which Jesus embarked upon after his baptism by John and temptation in the desert.
If it isn’t sustainable to claim that Jesus and his apostles didn’t have any private possesions but owned everything in common (the common purse/fund), then why can I find magisterial texts from the medieval period explicitly saying this? Where do you think the monasteries derived their common ownership from with the backing of the Church?
It’s simple, Jesus lived the perfect life. Therefore, it’s ludicrous to imagine that monks and nuns could be pursuing a more perfect lifestyle and community than that of Jesus and his apostles.
The Didache, the earliest catechism of the Church from the first century (50 - 80 A.D.) and part of the Apostolic Fathers collection, makes this quite clear:
https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/Didache/Didache_Lesson_1.htm
Do you imagine that monks and nuns are leading an aberrant lifestyle that has no precedent in scripture or sacred tradition? Where do you think this time-honoured, sacred Christian vocation comes from?
Last edited:
S
Sophie111
Guest
Well said.
I was about to mention the common purse as indicative that Jesus’s disciples shared things in common (as opposed to literally giving everything away to the poor including their clothes).
Most Church monastic communities are different from most Buddhist ones (use of personal begging bowls).
Obviously the Gospels are not meant as a Socialist Manifesto and is silent on many such matters.
Regardless we can see from immediate subsequent Church history (eg Acts, Didache, monastics) and common sense (communities clearly are not anarchic and require common ownership frameworks as you rightly observe) what Jesus lived/taught even if not all the dots are joined.
Even HarryStotle advances historical evolution of Socialism as a valid means of defining its inner principles…so food for the goose is food for the gander i would have thought.
There seems to have been some variations in how these early communities of perfection survived.
Jesus’s disciples (most of them) likely were self employed and could earn a living even when itinerant (eg Paul was a tent-maker). Jesus also had wealthy patrons in his mixed community of disciples who retained personal ownership (especially women, including wealthy ex prostitutes) but who supported those disciples who renounced personal ownership…such as Jesus.
I was about to mention the common purse as indicative that Jesus’s disciples shared things in common (as opposed to literally giving everything away to the poor including their clothes).
Most Church monastic communities are different from most Buddhist ones (use of personal begging bowls).
Obviously the Gospels are not meant as a Socialist Manifesto and is silent on many such matters.
Regardless we can see from immediate subsequent Church history (eg Acts, Didache, monastics) and common sense (communities clearly are not anarchic and require common ownership frameworks as you rightly observe) what Jesus lived/taught even if not all the dots are joined.
Even HarryStotle advances historical evolution of Socialism as a valid means of defining its inner principles…so food for the goose is food for the gander i would have thought.
There seems to have been some variations in how these early communities of perfection survived.
Jesus’s disciples (most of them) likely were self employed and could earn a living even when itinerant (eg Paul was a tent-maker). Jesus also had wealthy patrons in his mixed community of disciples who retained personal ownership (especially women, including wealthy ex prostitutes) but who supported those disciples who renounced personal ownership…such as Jesus.
Last edited:
V
Vouthon
Guest
That’s a good point.
Monks from other religions are not like the majority of Catholic monastics, since they don’t own property in common but live off donations, like our mendicant orders (i.e. Franciscans). Bhikkhu, the Sanskrit term used in the Pali Canon for a monk, actually means “beggar”.
The concept of a monastery functioning as a wholly self-contained society with independent legal personality that collectivizes wealth, resources and property and distributes it based upon need, is without precedent in Hindu, Jain or Buddhist monasteries so far as I can tell. The only real precursor was the Qumran community of Essene Jews.
Our mendicants are really the only analogue to what other religions call “monks”.
Last edited:
S
Sedona
Guest
Good Evening Harry Stole: Thank you for the reply. I never cite anything you can’t find on your own. In this case, you pretty much would have to study biblical history at an accredited institution to know much about this particular subject, although you may be able to find something about it on the internet, but I doubt you would find much. I can’t recall many of the messiahs at the time of Jesus but I remember some of the more famous ones such as Hezekiah the Bandit Chief (at the time, Bandit meant Seditionist, not robber), Simon of Peraea, Judas the Galiliean and Anthronges the Shepherd Boy. You may be able to find something on them if you did a search. They all claimed to be Messiahs and had large followings, but there were lots of others due to the zealous turbulence of the times. The Romans and Jews in power, such as the Sanhedrin, saw them all simply as seditionists. It is interesting to note that sedition was the only crime for which the Romans used crucifixion as a punishment. They killed people in a lot of ways, but crucifixion was for seditionists. Anyway, please feel free to do some research on the matter if you have the time or are interested. Thanks again for the reply.
All the best!
All the best!
Last edited:
- Status