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

[Exsilium]

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

Interesting ive always thought of it more on the lines of anarchistic. Much for the same reasons. More like the tribes as collectives in a sense. Let me find the link its was about how jesus was not a democrat, republican, and even a communist. It goes into how christian anarchism best describes him.

 

[mlchance]

I’m not sure where the idea that communism MUST be atheistic comes from

It comes from Karl Marx. So does the idea that communism necessarily entails terrorism.

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.

Communistic <> Communist. If the early Church were Communist, they’d have stolen property, murdered the property owners, and oppressed themselves in an effort to remove any source of conflict against the presumptive ultimate authority of the state.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[melensdad]

Communistic <> Communist. If the early Church were Communist, they’d have stolen property, murdered the property owners, and oppressed themselves in an effort to remove any source of conflict against the presumptive ultimate authority of the state.

– Mark L. Chance.

AGREED

By necessity, communism FORCES itself onto the the subjects against the free will of the population. The Church is a choice and you are welcome to join or not to join. The Church does NOT force you to give your possessions to it, however some Holy orders are made up of those who WILLINGLY GIVE all their possessions, labor and earnings to the order. There is a HUGE difference between communism and the Church.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

If we don’t count the Crips, Bloods, KKK and other anarchistic gangs.

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.

One man is not a society. And without roads and other infrastucture the United States could not support a fraction of it’s present population.

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.

I can jump into my car and drive to Texas or Virginia anytime I like.

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.

Well, I’m not up on all the latest anarchist gangs.

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

But we have hundreds of millions to house and feed.

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.

I beg to differ – they are the very epitome of anarchists.

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.

Yes, the KKK complains about the state attacking them all the time.

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

I have no idea.

 

[Silence_DoGood]

anarchism.

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.

?

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government,

1. …Wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite into one society as to quit every one his executive power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society…

…No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it. For if any man may do what he thinks fit and there be no appeal on earth for redress or security against any harm he shall do, I** ask whether he be not perfectly still in the state of Nature**, and so can be no part or member of that civil society, unless any one will say the state of Nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.

Chapter 9
Of the Ends of Political Society and Government

1. IF man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name — property.
2. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.
3. To conclude. The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without this there can be no community — no commonwealth, which is contrary to the original agreement;…

 

[Exsilium]

I would just like to add. Im just showing how anarchism goes with the church. Socialism and facisim maybe. Communism that can be debated.

 

[Jerusha]

Converging threads. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2588132#post2588132

 

[Exsilium]

AGREED

By necessity, communism FORCES itself onto the the subjects against the free will of the population. The Church is a choice and you are welcome to join or not to join. The Church does NOT force you to give your possessions to it, however some Holy orders are made up of those who WILLINGLY GIVE all their possessions, labor and earnings to the order. There is a HUGE difference between communism and the Church.

1. There not anarchistic in any way. In fact kkk members have been very political in past years. Gangs thrive on money and greed. Anarchism does not.
2. I never said one man is a whole society. I just presented what one man can do. Imagine with many. The population can and will sustain itself. Though I dont think anarchism would be on a mass scale. There are to many people who wish to be ruled by other men. To force them into our way of life would be doing what the states doing. We would not.

3.Your in the boundaries of there territory. There property. Though in all reality it is god’s.

4.Once again anarchist have nothing to do with gangs. They are not into the capitalistic system of money. They are not territorial and dont like territorial pride systems. Like patriotism or how gangs represent there areas.

1. Yet our system of government is bombing foreign countries. While those in the catholic workers shelter and feed.

6.Alright a gang has a structure. In the gang there is a leader. You generally can not leave the gang. You horde over property and you do what you do for the money. Anarchist at most have a collective structure. No leader and you may leave if you wish. They do not what so ever horde over property. Anarchist do not care about money. Nor the system of it.

7.Thats funny because in many states they get to hold meeting out in the open. With police guarding them. While anarchist cant even. Once again the kkk is very much involved with politics. They favor authority. They are racist that dosnt mean they are anti authority. Anarchism has no racism what so ever. There is no such thing as a racist anarchist.

1. It seemed to work at the time. I do the same thing some times.

 

[Exsilium]

AGREED

By necessity, communism FORCES itself onto the the subjects against the free will of the population. The Church is a choice and you are welcome to join or not to join. The Church does NOT force you to give your possessions to it, however some Holy orders are made up of those who WILLINGLY GIVE all their possessions, labor and earnings to the order. There is a HUGE difference between communism and the Church.

You are correct communism wishes to give people the power and freedom but takes away there free will. Just look at china really.

You basically described the collective nature of the church as well. Its a willingful submition that one may leave if they wish.

 

[Exsilium]

For vern

]1. There not anarchistic in any way. In fact kkk members have been very political in past years. Gangs thrive on money and greed. Anarchism does not.

1. I never said one man is a whole society. I just presented what one man can do. Imagine with many. The population can and will sustain itself. Though I dont think anarchism would be on a mass scale. There are to many people who wish to be ruled by other men. To force them into our way of life would be doing what the states doing. We would not.

3.Your in the boundaries of there territory. There property. Though in all reality it is god’s.

4.Once again anarchist have nothing to do with gangs. They are not into the capitalistic system of money. They are not territorial and dont like territorial pride systems. Like patriotism or how gangs represent there areas.

1. Yet our system of government is bombing foreign countries. While those in the catholic workers shelter and feed.

6.Alright a gang has a structure. In the gang there is a leader. You generally can not leave the gang. You horde over property and you do what you do for the money. Anarchist at most have a collective structure. No leader and you may leave if you wish. They do not what so ever horde over property. Anarchist do not care about money. Nor the system of it.

7.Thats funny because in many states they get to hold meeting out in the open. With police guarding them. While anarchist cant even. Once again the kkk is very much involved with politics. They favor authority. They are racist that dosnt mean they are anti authority. Anarchism has no racism what so ever. There is no such thing as a racist anarchist.

1. It seemed to work at the time. I do the same thing some times.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would just like to add. Im just showing how anarchism goes with the church. Socialism and facisim maybe. Communism that can be debated.

Given the Church’s hierarchy and authoritarian constitution, how can anarchy be compatible with the Church?

 

[Jerusha]

Anarchism is incompatible with Christianity. The Bible and tradition contain many directives to obey the laws, so long as such obedience is within one’s conscience. There should be balance.

Now, when one is under an oppressive government, such as the Nazi’s or Stalinist Communism, that certainly fails. And the US is certainly not in such a situation.

Not even the abortion issue justifies violence. It is our responsibility to eliminate the causes of abortion, while gradually reducing the opportunities for it. Anarchy against such an error would only lead to greater loss of life. (see criteria for just war. )

 

[Exsilium]

Given the Church’s hierarchy and authoritarian constitution, how can anarchy be compatible with the Church?

Its a political option. The church is different from the state. It is not a man made authority but holy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Its a political option. The church is different from the state. It is not a man made authority but holy.

And yet Popes are elected, are they not?

And yet we have Canon Law, do we not?

And yet even God gave us rules (commandments) did He not?

 

[Exsilium]

Anarchism is incompatible with Christianity. The Bible and tradition contain many directives to obey the laws, so long as such obedience is within one’s conscience. There should be balance.

Now, when one is under an oppressive government, such as the Nazi’s or Stalinist Communism, that certainly fails. And the US is certainly not in such a situation.

Not even the abortion issue justifies violence. It is our responsibility to eliminate the causes of abortion, while gradually reducing the opportunities for it. Anarchy against such an error would only lead to greater loss of life. (see criteria for just war. )

Where did you get anarchism= violence?

Bible quotes:
My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)
We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)
To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel 8)
Christians struggle against governments, rulers, and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12)
Honest people are too busy making an honest living to accept political power, so only the corruptible will accept political power (Judges 9:7-15 The Parable of the Trees)
The devil controls man-made governments (Matthew 4:8-10).
The gentiles have rulers over them, but it shall not be so among Christians (Mark 10:42-45). (Notice that the word for rulers here in the Greek is archos. Therefore some say Christians are by simple deduction an-archos or in English anarchists).
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty. Luke 1:52-52
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.1 Corinthians 15:24-25

On romans 13 about submiting to authorities.
jesusradicals.com/essays/theology/Romans13.htm
propheticheretic.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/a-brief-case-for-a-different-framework-of-understanding-on-romans-13/
romans13.embassyofheaven.com/spiritualauthority.htm

 

[Exsilium]

And yet Popes are elected, are they not?

And yet we have Canon Law, do we not?

And yet even God gave us rules (commandments) did He not?

We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)

And we are doing this because we obey god not men. God instituted the church. He did not institute man to rule without him and disregard his law like in todays society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)

But when there is no moral conflict, we are to obey the laws. And I note the Church strongly encourages us to vote and participate in the political process.

And we are doing this because we obey god not men. God instituted the church.

And left it to the Apostles to figure out how to run it – and they rightly understood that men need rules and political structures to function.

 

[Exsilium]

But when there is no moral conflict, we are to obey the laws. And I note the Church strongly encourages us to vote and participate in the political process.

And left it to the Apostles to figure out how to run it – and they rightly understood that men need rules and political structures to function.

1. Your forgetting though anarchism is also a political process and there have been anarchist in the church. So its not strongly discouraged like communism.

2.The gentiles have rulers over them, but it shall not be so among Christians (Mark 10:42-45).

Christians struggle against governments, rulers, and spiritual wickedness (Ephesians 6:12)

To seek rule by man is to reject the rule of God (1 Samuel 8)

As ive said when you base your life on the laws and teachings of god that is way different from the laws of man. To think men truly know right and wrong is blasphemous. Only god does so by submiting yourself to any other law is against him. Also once again the church and state are different. Our kingdom and all of the churches is not of this world.

 

[Exsilium]

House of rep ron paul. A candidate in todays election states after john pauls death.

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Congress supports policies against catholic teachings this coming from a leading member of it.

 

[melensdad]

House of rep ron paul. A candidate in todays election states after john pauls death.

. . .

Congress supports policies against catholic teachings this coming from a leading member of it.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who runs for Congress under the Republican party. He is not a member of the Catholic faith. He was simply pointing out the hypocracy of the Catholic members of Congress. One thing about Ron Paul is that many may not agree with his votes, but he is sure consistent in how he votes. He is a “Constitutionalist” and when he votes he votes from the standpoint of the Constitution, not religion, or fads or the way the wind blows.

Personally I’d rather have a few more Ron Pauls who tell you their intents than a few more Ted Kennedy’s who vote for abortion and then take Communion during Sunday mass. I can respect one even if I disagree with his positions. The other one is a liar to us, himself and to our faith.