What was up with today's first reading? (communism)

[straykat]

OK, fair enough.

In any case, I’m just encouraging the obvious: Christians need to be generous. This is the main lesson behind Acts, which can apply anywhere. It’s not like we need to be the Amish or something.

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

I’m just trying to say you can be generous and still own stuff. The vatican is very generous and they own a lot too, but they’ve been around for 2000 years. it makes sense to own all that stuff. and it’s all open to the public

 

[straykat]

If it makes you feel better, I think you can keep your Bass. And worrying whose hands it gets into is no different than a curator of art pieces at the Vatican, imo.

 

[Kathleen18]

Divine Mercy.

 

[straykat]

There’s a reason though that this was such a hard saying even in Jesus’ time. That young rich man apparently was very faithful to the Commandments… and yet Jesus didn’t dispute him on that. It sounds like he took pity. But he required more of him:

“Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. ‘There is still one thing you haven’t done…’”

 

[philipl]

You just wait, there will be those that tell you that you should give away your property to those who dont own property.

And if you live near the border you will get to donate it to the govt!

I am willing to bet many living on the border will be more than happy to sell their property to the US government to help stop the illegal use of their lands by illegals crossing it.

 

[guanophore]

I am willing to bet many living on the border will be more than happy to sell their property to the US government to help stop the illegal use of their lands by illegals crossing it.

Actually, the govt does not have to buy it. They can take it through eminent domain. It seems clear we will get a chance to see how all those border properties will fare!

 

[anon65111186]

We should always live the gospel. Communism by definition is an atheistic political ideology, which is no where close to the Scriptures today.

The Church condemns communism in no uncertain terms, but encourages living of the word of God.

 

[philipl]

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.

Out of the five, this is the one that can do damage. It says government if it think it is for the “common good” it can regulate your land away from your use.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

New Testament , new times. A lot of smiting is going to happen pre the judgement day, read revelations

 

[Kei]

In the past, Christians weren’t allowed to loan at interest and it was considered usury. Nowadays, usury is ridiculous rates of lending. The world can sorta change, though you’ll find your own detractors.

Communism implies governmental control, state mandated atheism, etc.

Look up monasteries. It’s much more similar to how brothers live today. Friars, monks, nuns.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Horsemen of the apocalypse, rampaging angels, …

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

you have to give the people compensation for the taking though, it’s not like the US govt would get it for free

 

[RandomAlias]

First of all, that is nothing new. Hasn’t the government always had some rights over private lands?

Besides eminent domain, the wording suggests other powers of a more regulatory nature:

… to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership…

The government can regulate how the land is used. One example is zoning. These days the government is also getting into conservation aspects like protection of wetlands. I know some landowners are quite bitter about this, but messing with wetlands has effects far beyond the property lines (like flooding, erosion, pollution, not to mention homeless frogs and ducks ).

 

[Vico]

First reading Acts 4:32-35 ©
…

Haydock Commentary, Acts 4:

32 And the multitude of the believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say, that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them.

Ver. 32. All things were common. Happy would it be for society, if the rich of the present day were to imitate, in some degree, this charity of the first disciples, by distributing to those that want. Both would hereby become more happy; nor would the rich derive less pleasure from such actions, than the poor. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xi. in Acts.)

— That cold and fatal word, mine, and thine, which has caused so many misfortunes and wars, was banished from among them. (Id. hom. de St. Philogon.)

— Some take this to be the origin of a monastic life: but according to the Fathers, it is rather its progress and increase; for it began in the family of Jesus Christ. The apostles, indeed, may be said to institute here that common life, which they led under Christ, our Lord, and of which Peter speaks: behold, we have left all. This life, by St. Augustine and others, is called apostolic, and there among all, wives are particularly specified. Cajetan thinks no vow was required: St. Augustine is of a different sentiment. (Serm. x. de diversis & alibi.)

 

[mythbuster1]

Even so, Acts 5 makes it clear that these works were the free choice of the people, not imposed on them by God or the Apostles or even the Congregation. They were under no obligation to live as they did, but did so out of love for God and neighbor.

 

[HarryStotle]

There’s a reason though that this was such a hard saying even in Jesus’ time. That young rich man apparently was very faithful to the Commandments… and yet Jesus didn’t dispute him on that. It sounds like he took pity. But he required more of him:

“Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. ‘There is still one thing you haven’t done…’”

Except that the “one thing” wasn’t to sell everything he had and neither was it to give everything to the poor. If you are counting, those are TWO things. The “one thing” was to “Come, follow me.” If those other TWO things were as crucial as you make them out to be, then Jesus would have said, “There are three things you lack.” Clearly, the ONE important thing was discipleship. The other two things were obstacles for the rich young man precisely because he had become rich because of some character flaw or other, proven by the fact that he couldn’t part with his wealth.

Ergo, the universal prescript here was not to “sell everything you own,” nor was it to “give everything you have to the poor.” The universal commandment here, on a par equivalent to the original Ten Commandments, is to follow Christ, wherever that takes us.

 

[HarryStotle]

i was not criticizing celibates at all.

i’m just saying that monks can share their possessions because they’re celibate but once you have kids you have an added responsibility and you kind of have to hoard things because it’s for the raising of children.

That is one way of looking at it – the hoarding, I mean – but another way is that you are literally sharing your possessions with these naked little strangers who come into your midst looking for food, clothing and shelter, and that you are tasked with creating a community of believers by how you carry out the task of stewardship.

That is not to deny that some in that role carry it out badly, may become tyrannical, apathetic, less than vigilant, stingy, or even materialistic, but the task, itself, is inherently communal.

 

[pianistclare]

This is not about living on a commune.
It’s about stepping forward when we see a brother or sister in Christ suffering, and helping when we are able. When not able to assist, we pray.

Look at the SPIRIT of the passage, not literally.
No one is asking you to surrender your land.

 

[philipl]

Use to be the government had limited powers. Now those powers are far less limited. You see there is no limit on what is the common good. Too many really stupid people get to decide what is the common good.