What does the Church think about facism, communism, anarchy, and socialism?

[Generic_Man]

I’m 99% sure it disapproves of the first three, so I’d like explanations why.

And before anyone asks, no, I am not interested in any of these, I was just wondering.

 

[Della]

What you are really asking about it totalitariansim. Here is a link to some papal encyclicals that deal with this subject.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I’m 99% sure it disapproves of the first three, so I’d like explanations why.

And before anyone asks, no, I am not interested in any of these, I was just wondering.

It’s a grey area. The Church has no expertise on running railways. So if you asked a bishop for the Catholic position on British railway privatisation, he’d probably say that there isn’t one. Certainly it would be strange if bishops were to start making pronouncements on the financial structure of the rail franchises currently being sold.

However moral issues always intrude. There doesn’t seem to be any overt fraud in the rail privatisations, thank goodness, but it could easily arise. Then the bishops have a duty to comment, particuarly if any of those involved are Catholics. Inevitably such comments will also range over the nature of the privatisations themselves. You can’t criticise Bloggs for offering bribes to civil servants to get a franchise, without also criticisng the system and values that encourage that sort of thing to happen. So the bishops will end up making comments about how to run railways after all.

With totalitarian regimes the whole issue can become much more serious. We are not just talking about a few sums of money, but systematic attempts to change whole cultures. A Catholic does not have to believe in democracy or equal rights. In fact in Spain the fascist government protected priests from murderous socialists and Communists. However democracy is so obviously a workable system that most bishops would be very relucant to see it weakened, and would indeed warn against anti-democratic tendencies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From the Catechism:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[Proletarian]

As malcolm has said its very much a grey matter.

Fascism asserts that the state is the ultimate source of authority, and therefore it subordinates the individual to the needs of the state as a whole. While the Church concedes that the State has a role within society it still teaches that the individual is endowed with inalienable rights that can never be subordinated to a civil authority.

With respect to socialism and communism the Church condemns any aspects of Marxist ideology that conflicts with the Gospel (i.e. absolute materialism, Atheism or the removal of ones right to property), while at the same time accepting those ideals that are compatible with the Church (i.e. selflessness, democracy, social justice and camaraderie on a community level)
I’m not sure that the Church supports anarchism to any real degree; seeing as anarchism seeks the abolition of any form of authority (including the Church). On the other hand the Church does teach that we are not bound to obey an unjust civil law; in this respect I suppose that the Church does permit “Christian anarchism” under certain circumstances.

 

[Milliardo]

What you are really asking about it totalitariansim. Here is a link to some papal encyclicals that deal with this subject.

It’s too bad New Advent did not add the radio address of Pope Pius XI in 1936 about the evils of Communism, Nazism and Fascism. The Pope already expounded on the evils of those three long before the world got a real look at what they can do.

 

[Exsilium]

Truth be told you can in a sense be an anarchist and a catholic. Just look at Dorothy Day. An anarchist rejects man made authority. Not authority instituted by god like the church. I do not condone communism though because true communism feels it should abolish church. Christian anarchism is very different from anarchism as a whole.

1. The state

The state presupposes that people cannot live together without coercion. People are evil (or at least potentially so), according to the state, and need to have limits put upon them from the outside. The evil that some people might do must be held in check for the common good of all people.

Not only this but the existence of the state presupposes something further: that the state’s main purpose is not to create people who are capable of living together without such coercion. The purpose of the state is to foster people who coerce each other to live in certain ways. The state is not interested in making people less dependent upon it. It is not interested in creating people who are capable of living without it - that would be suicidal for the state. The state is interested in employing those who are willing to do the coercion.

1. Christianity

The main purpose of the church is to witness to its Savior Jesus Christ. It is to be a witness of his love for men and therefore a witness to God’s purpose for humanity. This purpose is that men live together without coercion, in love for one another and for God.

The church is under no laws or compulsion to live this way. The church’s only motivation to live as such witnesses is the love each follower of Christ has for Jesus. Any rules set forth by the church are “rules” not unbendable laws. They are meant to help the community of believers live as witnesses to Jesus in a world of temptation and war. The Christian is free. He is not under coercion to love his neighbor or God.

1. There can be no mixing of the State and Church

The State, whose main purpose is to force others to live within strict boundaries or be punished for transgression of those boundaries, is not the church. And conversely, the church, whose only purpose is to witness to God’s love in Jesus Christ, is not the state. The state is based upon coercion; the gospel is based upon love. The state is based on law; the gospel is based upon freedom. The state is based upon power; the gospel is based upon weakness.

The Christian cannot accept the state. It is based upon everything the gospel is opposed too. Indeed it is directly counter to the most fundamental convictions of the Gospel: That Christians are to convert and teach men to live together without coercion and thus without the state. Christians thus mandated can never accept power, because it is based upon such coercion from it’s inception (with Cain in Genesis 4), and is not interested in men living together without coercion.

1. Christians only option therefore is Anarchism

Therefore, since the task of the Christian is in direct conflict with power in any form, especially the state a Christian cannot be a Communist, Socialist, Republican, Democrat, etc., but must be an anarchist. Anarchy is “nonviolent repudiation of authority.” As a political option it is the only option that allows Christians to remain faithful to their calling of converting men to live peacefully together without domination.

Peter Maurin, Amman Hennacy, Thomas Merton, Léonce Crenier , Philip Berrigan,Ivan Illich, Daniel Berrigan, Thomas J. Hagerty John Seymour, and E.F. Schumacher. All were either anarchist or had anarchistic views. Though they still were part of the church some priest and monks!

catholicanarchy.org/
jesusradicals.com/

 

[vern_humphrey]

But if we are going to be anarchists, what do we do about rapists, serial killers and child molestors?

Do we just step over the dead bodies in the streets while muttering a prayer? Oh, wait a minute – under anarchy, there won’t be any streets.

 

[Exsilium]

But if we are going to be anarchists, what do we do about rapists, serial killers and child molestors?

Do we just step over the dead bodies in the streets while muttering a prayer? Oh, wait a minute – under anarchy, there won’t be any streets.

Well a person whos a christian anarchist shouldnt be raping people its sort of against there morals and being christian. And your forgetting the collective aspect of anarchism. If people want a street they will get together and make one. Simple as that.

As Emma Goldman argued, crime “is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]

Now if we were to redirect this energy to a more collective christian body who knows what would occur.

infoshop.org/faq/index.html if you really have any questions the best place to look is there. Though they are very anti religious they describe anarchistic set ups quite well.

struggle.ws/wsm/crime.html

geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html (scroll down to the part entitled crime)

jesusradicals.com/essays/theology/tribal.html (also interesting read on christian tribalism. Not really relevant.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well a person whos a christian anarchist shouldnt be raping people its sort of against there morals and being christian.

A person who is a Christian of any stripe shouldn’t be raping people. But there are people who do rape, kill, rob and commit other crimes. What will anarchists do about them?

And your forgetting the collective aspect of anarchism. If people want a street they will get together and make one. Simple as that.

And how about a street that runs from New York to San Francisco? How many people will have to get together to build a street like that? How will they maintain it? How will they keep traffic flowing, deal with wrecks and accidents?

And how will the collective group that does that differ from a government?

As Emma Goldman argued, crime “is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, moral conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 57]

Right. I know some places in this country that Emma would not choose to go and tell people that.

Now if we were to redirect this energy to a more collective christian body who knows what would occur.

And we would do that, how?

infoshop.org/faq/index.html if you really have any questions the best place to look is there. Though they are very anti religious they describe anarchistic set ups quite well.

struggle.ws/wsm/crime.html

geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secI5.html (scroll down to the part entitled crime)

jesusradicals.com/essays/theology/tribal.html (also interesting read on christian tribalism. Not really relevant.)

But no actual, working models showing the theories work.

 

[Exsilium]

1.Ive provided pages of information on crime and anarchism. Please read them.

2.Im not talking on a mass scale. If anarchism was inflicted on the whole world that would be wrong. We would be just like the state. Plus the streets are already built. People built the streets people can build the streets in the future. Men can do amazing things on there own google **** Proenneke. The man built a cabin and all the tools he used to make it by hand at 52. He stayed in alaska alone doing stuff like that till he was in his 80s.

A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. They work together for the common good. They may leave if they wish. They are not afflicted with being governed in any way. The state forces you to abide and you may not leave.

1. Emma was with some of the poorest and downtrodden people. She stood up for them.

4.Just look at the good the catholic workers movement does. They are a collective anarchist body who feed and shelter the poor.

5.No working models??? Every anarchist society in existance has thrived and became succesful. The only reason any of them have failed is because outside forces attacked them. The only cause for failure is the aggresiveness presented by the state against free society.

We should spend less time arguing about its mechanics and more time on studying it in relation to christianity.

 

[Exsilium]

Why is the Cry for a Ruler Rejection of God? Commentary on 1 Samuel 8
by Andrew Baker

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to govern us.” Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you. Now then, listen to their voice; only-you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4-9)

Jacques Ellul says of this Scripture, “This very detailed, complex passage boils down to three observations: (1) political power rests on distrust and rejection of God; (2) political power is always dictatorial, excessive, and unjust (1 Sam. 8:10-18); (3) political power is established in Israel through conformity, in imitation of what is done everywhere else.” (Jesus and Marx, pp. 165)

All this is granted fairly easily. The picture of governmental power in Scriptures as a whole is painted with undeniable strokes of condemnation. Recently I have begun to delve even further into this passage however.

“Political power is rejection of God”

This is the first observation that Ellul draws from 1 Samuel 8. But why is it rejection of God? I am tempted to take Ellul’s following observations (which are not answers but for Ellul are merely more observations), that it is dictatorial, unjust and conforms to other nations as the answer. However I do not think this is the theological answer that is most warranted.

The answers lie in Genesis 3. Adam eats a forbidden fruit in order to gain knowledge of good and evil. He is thus able to declare “Good” and “Evil.” However, “good” is not something we can know apart from God, it is God who declares what is good and what is evil. Ellul himself makes these points in To Will and To Do. If we know “the good” then God is banished to the past and is subjected to “the good.” Ellul objects that then God is not free. God is subjected to the interpretations and laws of men! Some “god” this would be!

Good is what God wills, purely and simply. God declares what is good. Adam in eating the fruit of the tree seeks to become like God, able to make this declaration on his own. But how can he declare good that which God has not declared good? Ellul says rightly, “Man who is not just, declares what is just and unjust!”

All of this sets 1 Samuel 8 into context: Israel seeks a ruler: one who would declare for them what is good and evil, make laws and judge right and wrong. They wanted a ruler who would declare who is in and who is out of “the good.” There decision to be governed comes from years of experience of their inadequacy to judge for themselves good and evil. Throughout the book of Judges the phrase “and everyone did what was right in their own eyes” lays a heavy judgment on the people of Israel. Finally in 1 Samuel they want a leader, who can tell them good and evil, for they have failed miserably to discern it on their own. The cry for a king like the other nations, is a cry of despair; a cry of being already guilty of declaring good and evil apart from God. They seek refuge in an archetype Man, one who can clearly define and pronounce for everyone what is Good and Evil so that the chaotic times of the Judges would give way to prosperity and peace.

But God, hearing their plea, declares this venture to be another rejection of Him. It will fail miserably. No ruler can replace God’s will. This ruler who seeks power - the power to decide what is good and evil - will fail. He cannot know God’s will on his own. Every single king who ruled over Israel, including David, did exactly as God said they would do. How could they do otherwise?

Israel in seeking a king like other nations was committing the original sin: to know Good and Evil apart from God. This is the reason such political power is rejection of God. It was for the Israelites and it is for the Christians of today. We have put our trust in steadfast laws of the land, in rulers who declare who is in and who is out. We have committed the sin of Adam in our day.

This essay is an analysis of our condition, not a prescription for a remedy. But surely one step of that remedy would be a rejection of centralized power, and an acknowledgment that we have attempted to force God into a box and declare for ourselves right and wrong.

 

[Exsilium]

1.Ive provided pages of information on crime and anarchism. Please read them.

2.Im not talking on a mass scale. If anarchism was inflicted on the whole world that would be wrong. We would be just like the state. Plus the streets are already built. People built the streets people can build the streets in the future. Men can do amazing things on there own google **** Proenneke. The man built a cabin and all the tools he used to make it by hand at 52. He stayed in alaska alone doing stuff like that till he was in his 80s.

A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. They work together for the common good. They may leave if they wish. They are not afflicted with being governed in any way. The state forces you to abide and you may not leave.

1. Emma was with some of the poorest and downtrodden people. She stood up for them. She was a very tough and intelligent lady im sure she could stand up to most.

4.Just look at the good the catholic workers movement does. They are a collective anarchist body who feed and shelter the poor.

5.No working models??? Every anarchist society in existance has thrived and became succesful. The only reason any of them have failed is because outside forces attacked them. The only cause for failure is the aggresiveness presented by the state against free society.

We should spend less time arguing about its mechanics and more time on studying it in relation to christianity.

 

[CreosMary]

Oh dear, that silly 6 headed monster anarchism…
Submit to no authority!!, what about our Bishops and our Pope?.
We also need police to protect those who are at the mercy of the mean and wicked.
I used to be an anarchist in my bad old days and its all about self indulgence, self destruction and vegan ism, the closest thinker to an anarchist is a fascist

 

[Exsilium]

Oh dear, that silly 6 headed monster anarchism…
Submit to no authority!!, what about our Bishops and our Pope?.
We also need police to protect those who are at the mercy of the mean and wicked.
I used to be an anarchist in my bad old days and its all about self indulgence, self destruction and vegan ism, the closest thinker to an anarchist is a fascist

Your quite wrong. Catholic anarchist recognize the power of the pope he is a power instituted by god(as ive showed there were many an anarchist who were part of the church. Even priest and monks). Though they do not believe in man made authority. A man has no right to judge right and wrong. As the essay above states. But a man like the pope of god has authority and power to. Also anarchism is not about any of those things youve listed. Did you ever look into christian anarchism? Its a much different group then the normal anarchist.

www.jesusradicals.com (Christian anarchism 101)

 

[drafdog]

Socialism tends to be a humanistic position similar to being one’s brother’s keeper. The Church may not like the philisophical arguments of the humanists or their premises, but it can hardly disapprove of the conclusion.

Regarding the basic concepts of communism, that property is jointly owned by the community at large, the Church is in fact the only organization which has made it work. We constructed our religious orders on this as an axiom of community organization. None of the members of an order “owns” anything; it all belongs to the order. The Church is the sole true practitioner of communism. Hard for them to disapprove of what they do best.

Matthew

 

[Exsilium]

Wow thats quite the point. Socialism and the church will never go to well. I cant really say the church is communist in nature. I was always under the impression that true communism had to result within a state of atheism.

 

[drafdog]

I’m not sure where the idea that communism MUST be atheistic comes from. Marx was of the opinion that if Protestant Christianity were practiced as it was preached, the ecomomic system would work well enough on its own to protect the poor. That showed up in a preface to one of his works; I’m not sure which.
Read the Acts of the Apostles where it reports that the early Christian community in Jerusalem owned everything in common and no one said that anything was their own. Sounds seriously communistic to me. But I am certain that others will disagree. Just because we haven’t managed to maintain it in the mainstream of the Church doesn’t mean that it is wrong or unworkable. It only means that it works (if only marginally in some cases) in a group of people who desire to do it for God’s glory and the furthering of the Gospel.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

1.Ive provided pages of information on crime and anarchism. Please read them.

I have – and they don’t provide information on crime. They theorize about this and that, including crime, but there’s no data. No real-world crime experience in an anacharchistic system – just one cockamamie theory after another, each hotly disputed by the next theory.

2.Im not talking on a mass scale. If anarchism was inflicted on the whole world that would be wrong. We would be just like the state. Plus the streets are already built. People built the streets people can build the streets in the future. Men can do amazing things on there own google **** Proenneke. The man built a cabin and all the tools he used to make it by hand at 52. He stayed in alaska alone doing stuff like that till he was in his 80s.

How many miles of Interstate highway did he build?

A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. They work together for the common good. They may leave if they wish. They are not afflicted with being governed in any way. The state forces you to abide and you may not leave.

What state forces me to abide and I may not leave?

1. Emma was with some of the poorest and downtrodden people. She stood up for them.

Like those prototypical anarchisrts, the Crips, Bloods and GS-13 gangs?

4.Just look at the good the catholic workers movement does. They are a collective anarchist body who feed and shelter the poor.

Quantify the good they have done.

5.No working models??? Every anarchist society in existance has thrived and became succesful. The only reason any of them have failed is because outside forces attacked them. The only cause for failure is the aggresiveness presented by the state against free society.

Name an anarchist society – and I just spotted you three above.

We should spend less time arguing about its mechanics and more time on studying it in relation to christianity.

In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain?

 

[Exsilium]

I have – and they don’t provide information on crime. They theorize about this and that, including crime, but there’s no data. No real-world crime experience in an anacharchistic system – just one cockamamie theory after another, each hotly disputed by the next theory.

How many miles of Interstate highway did he build?

What state forces me to abide and I may not leave?

Like those prototypical anarchisrts, the Crips, Bloods and GS-13 gangs?

Quantify the good they have done.

Name an anarchist society – and I just spotted you three above.

In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain?

1. You are correct there is very little actual crime thats ever appeared in any anarchist society. So the data as such is not put down. Now you would think there would be alot less rapist in a small community of free christians then in our current society.

2.The point of it all is that one man can do great things with the skills. Its not the government that builds a road. Its the people and there will be people. Just not a state to push them into it with money. They would be free of that system. It would come out of the need for a road. We can argue primitavism if youd like.

3.Our current one. You may not just walk out of the states. You need a permit and all this other sort of paper work. You must obide by there rules no matter.

1. No they were not around in her time. But people back then just as dangerous. Though I dont see why you would think anarchism relates to street gangs. Btw its MS-13.

5.Lets see theyve housed thousands and fed just as many. On top of that they brought the lord into there life.

6.First those are not anarchist societys those are gangs. They are a product of a society ruled by money. Just because they dont abide by all the rules they are not anarchist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Labor_Commune That would be an example of a anarchist society. Peacful unlike those gangs and actual anarchistic. As you will realize most of the communities if they had any problems it was because the state attacked them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anarchist_communities

1. How do you relate a man behind a curtain to the mechanics of a christian anarchist society?