Why are Catholics against Communism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pcordero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Communism is a form of slavery, where the master (government) owns and controls everything, including the people. Individual rights do not exist under communism. Everyone is expected to give complete obedience to the government or risk being imprisoned or killed. And when you are no longer useful to the government, you are expendable.
 
St_Francis said:
The word communism simply does not apply to religious life. It has also been a word applied to a socio-economo-political system along utopian lines; it was made up to describe that, and shortly thereafter appropriated by Maex and Lenin to describe their proposed system.

To equate religious life, which only has some superficial outer characteristics in common with the wicked and evil system is to equivocate, to set up a equivalence between a bad thing and a good thing so as to confuse people into thinking the bad thing is not all that bad.

From the beginning, Christian entry into community life has been completely voluntary. Annias and his wife did not die because they kept some of their proerty but because they loed about having done so.
Click to expand...
Satan himself has actually admitted that he is behind Communism to Fr. Amorth while explaining why he is so afraid of Blessed John Paul II.
womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=8070
 
You said:
Communism as practiced in Catholic Monasteries for the last 1500 years or so is different to Communist countries. The monasteries live a Christian system where none own anything. In this form of communism it is a voluntary system, everyone in the system freely chose to be there. If someone wanted to live a different system he or she would not enter that monastery, they could live their religion while operating political and commercial systems of their own choice. In Communist States all freedom of choice for every individual disappears. Choice of religious freedom, political systems and commercial systems is removed by force from all citizens, or comrades, as the case may be. Communism in monastic systems is a voluntary and free decision. It is not forced on all citizens of the State.
Click to expand...
As “Communism” popularly describes an economic and morally bankrupt collectivist system of human oppression for the benefit of corrupt party overlords (at least, that’s how it’s inevitably turned out in every nation where it’s been imposed), the monastic system can and should be characterized instead as “communitarianism.”
 
St Francis:
The word communism simply does not apply to religious life. It has also been a word applied to a socio-economo-political system along utopian lines; it was made up to describe that, and shortly thereafter appropriated by Maex and Lenin to describe their proposed system.

To equate religious life, which only has some superficial outer characteristics in common with the wicked and evil system is to equivocate, to set up a equivalence between a bad thing and a good thing so as to confuse people into thinking the bad thing is not all that bad.

From the beginning, Christian entry into community life has been completely voluntary. Annias and his wife did not die because they kept some of their proerty but because they loed about having done so.
Click to expand...
Arizona_Mike said:
As “Communism” popularly describes an economic and morally bankrupt collectivist system of human oppression for the benefit of corrupt party overlords (at least, that’s how it’s inevitably turned out in every nation where it’s been imposed), the monastic system can and should be characterized instead as “communitarianism.”
Click to expand...
Communism in monasteries only extends as far as it applies. Everything is held in common. Nobody owns anything. I would have thought people could figure out the difference between state communism as a political system and monastic communism as it applies to sharing everything within a system of Catholic belief which is apolitical.
 
You said:
Communism in monasteries only extends as far as it applies. Everything is held in common. Nobody owns anything. I would have thought people could figure out the difference between state communism as a political system and monastic communism as it applies to sharing everything within a system of Catholic belief which is apolitical.
Click to expand...
Arizona_Mike said:
As “Communism” popularly describes an economic and morally bankrupt collectivist system of human oppression for the benefit of corrupt party overlords (at least, that’s how it’s inevitably turned out in every nation where it’s been imposed), the monastic system can and should be characterized instead as “communitarianism.”
Click to expand...
Why can’t we just call the religiois life the religous life, as we have for many centuries? The main point of entry into this life is religious, and the life revolves around God,

Uptopias, communes, communism, collectivism, communitarianism, socialism, …'all of these are based on a system of thought which rejects God and exalts man. Why would we apply any of these labels to the religiois life? It’s really denigrating to those who have given their loves to God to describe them with the same words used for people who are immired in a secular-humanistic philosophy.
 
St_Francis said:
Why can’t we just call the religiois life the religous life, as we have for many centuries? The main point of entry into this life is religious, and the life revolves around God,

Uptopias, communes, communism, collectivism, communitarianism, socialism, …'all of these are based on a system of thought which rejects God and exalts man. Why would we apply any of these labels to the religiois life? It’s really denigrating to those who have given their loves to God to describe them with the same words used for people who are immired in a secular-humanistic philosophy.
Click to expand...
Its only a description of an aspect of monastic life. It isn’t a label for religious life. Its a description of their dealings with material goods. Like a family is similar to communism, in that everything, in practice, is held in common for everyone. It does not go any further than that. Even the reasons for having common property are different.
 
Monasteries are by no means an endorsement of “Communism”. They are communal societies that exist within a larger social framework. While the Religious Order may hold property in trust for its members, the members still perform labor to support the order.

Mystic Monk, for instance, is a brand of coffee roasted by a small order of mid-western monks, which is sold on the free market to outside world. For many centuries previous, other monasteries have raised produce, or live stock to sell. Other still existed on public subsidies.

The point of a monastery is to separate yourself from the lifestyle of the rest of society to devote oneself to prayer, not to dictate the social organization of the outside world.
 
Foresight said:
That’s not true. Then why has the USCCB given $280 million of our collection basket donations to socialist groups?

youtube.com/watch?v=481bgi5Du0s&feature=player_embedded

youtube.com/watch?v=EbK8viMApTc&feature=player_embedded

God Bless
Click to expand...
I don’t watch You-tubes, but if this is referring to the CCHD, I have no idea why they did that, and many people would not have contributed if they had known what was going on. I think once it came out what was going on that many people and even parishes dropped out of tbat. Quite frankly, I really didn’t understand the point of giving money to non-Catholic groups to begin with.
 
You said:
Its only a description of an aspect of monastic life. It isn’t a label for religious life. Its a description of their dealings with material goods. Like a family is similar to communism, in that everything, in practice, is held in common for everyone. It does not go any further than that. Even the reasons for having common property are different.
Click to expand...
To use a word which has a different meaning altogether is odd.

For example, if I started calling my pick-up truck a carriage, because after all they both have 4wheels, that would be silly, no? So calling the religious life communistic or communitarian on the basis of superficial similarities is just as silly, if not an attempt to hide the evil of the communist philosophy.
 
St_Francis said:
To use a word which has a different meaning altogether is odd.

For example, if I started calling my pick-up truck a carriage, because after all they both have 4wheels, that would be silly, no? So calling the religious life communistic or communitarian on the basis of superficial similarities is just as silly, if not an attempt to hide the evil of the communist philosophy.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for interrupting you, but the word, communism, had a good definition long before it was co-opted by modern demagogues. Please refer to the “Early Communism” portion of this Wikipedia article for some insight into this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

True use of the word is Christian, or at least religious. That is why it was adopted by the early Church as a method to deal with the support of all believers, regardless of their status. And, yes, true communism does apply to monastic and convent life, because what is owned, is owned “in common”, and what is produced, is produced for the benefit of all.

Please don’t negate the proper use of the word, by confusing it with a social experiment which had every right to fail…for many reasons, including the attempted supression of belief in G-d.

True communism, as noted before, here in this thread, is optional. That is one reason why the word itself needs to be used properly, to illustrate the improper coercion demanded by dialectic communism.

The word, “religious” is a poor substitute for true “communism”, due to its vague application to monastic living. That we do not police our use of English more carefully is due, oftentimes, to a misunderstanding of the history of the word’s use.

So, the OP’s question used the word capitialized; that is a proper use of the word used to describe Marxism, or atheistic Communism, or materialistic Communism, all perversions of the original idea and meaning of the word.

Peace.
 
I couldn’t find the early communism section you mentioned, but in the primitive communism section, it noted that Marx and Engels applied the idea of primitive communism to hunter-gatherer tribes, which is precisely the type of equivocating I am against.

The word communism was coined in France in the 1840’s and lifted by Marx and Engels. It was a word created in the secular and anti-clerical times for their philosophy and less than 20 years later used to describe a system which has resulted in countless deaths.

Communists trying to link their foul system with the God-centered activity of Christians in an attempt to “normalize” their ideas and make them more palatable to non-Communists.

Look at the original post! Someone who asks if the Church is against Communism, and if so why, considering how their religious live!
JamestheOlder said:
Pardon me for interrupting you, but the word, communism, had a good definition long before it was co-opted by modern demagogues. Please refer to the “Early Communism” portion of this Wikipedia article for some insight into this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

True use of the word is Christian, or at least religious. That is why it was adopted by the early Church as a method to deal with the support of all believers, regardless of their status. And, yes, true communism does apply to monastic and convent life, because what is owned, is owned “in common”, and what is produced, is produced for the benefit of all.

Please don’t negate the proper use of the word, by confusing it with a social experiment which had every right to fail…for many reasons, including the attempted supression of belief in G-d.

True communism, as noted before, here in this thread, is optional. That is one reason why the word itself needs to be used properly, to illustrate the improper coercion demanded by dialectic communism.

The word, “religious” is a poor substitute for true “communism”, due to its vague application to monastic living. That we do not police our use of English more carefully is due, oftentimes, to a misunderstanding of the history of the word’s use.

So, the OP’s question used the word capitialized; that is a proper use of the word used to describe Marxism, or atheistic Communism, or materialistic Communism, all perversions of the original idea and meaning of the word.

Peace.
Click to expand...
 
jerry_joseph
Capitalism is also a social evil. It aims to make maximum money at any cost only. It does not cares about the rights of a worker. It conciders worker as a machienery in their factories. They fails to view worker as a human being. ….capitalism is also a practical atheism,
JamestheOlder
True use of the word is Christian, or at least religious.
Click to expand...
Both false.
St Francis
The word communism simply does not apply to religious life.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
This shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”
So religious communities may have prayer in common, goods in common and spiritual goals, but they are not the evil of communism which has no spiritual objectives and aims to direct and control everyone and everything to evil.

Free enterprise was developed by Catholic Late Scholastics and has enabled the banishment of the dire poverty which preceded it, part of how the Church built Western civilization. Pope John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42, 1991].

It is NOT free enterprise which is in error, it is PEOPLE who can be immoral. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, institute monopolies, and worse crimes. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West. It’s time to face reality.
 
Free market does not means that a market without any regulations. Small regulations are required for smooth going of an economy. But it does not means that full restriction on the market like in communist countries. A person has right to own private properties. It is this great motivation that motivates peoples to start business and factories and there by results in creating more job opportunities.

A reasonable profit is a right of all business men. But nobody have right to possess the wealth that belongs to others. An employee and worker have right to get reasonable return for his labor. That business man who does not give reasonable wages to the laborer is actually stealing the money of that laborer. Actually a Christian approach is required in these cases. An employer have the responsibility to provide good working condition and wages to the worker and there by providing him a good living condition and social status. In return worker has the responsibility to provide maximum out put from him and do the duties faithfully and efficiently.

We can see in capitalist countries employers hiring employees when they require and dismissing them when they don’t require without considering about family and dependents of the worker. Ok that is some what justifiable if an employer does not have enough resource to accommodate that much employees or company is passing through a financial crisis.

But we can see a trend among capitalists that dismissing those senior employees before their normal retirement age without any reasons and employing new employees in low wages or on contract basis. This is wrong. It is the responsibility of an employer to protect the employee who had given his youth and energy for the betterment of the company. Dismissing of those employees without any justifiable reason and only for increasing the profitability of a company is inhuman, cruel and brutal.

In my opinion Christianity is the only remedy for this type of social evils.
 
Abu said:
Both false.
Correct.

Voluntary sharing and communal living in a religious community have nothing to do with Communism or other such forced appropriations and destruction of freedom.

We see in Acts 4:34-35, A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953:
This shows “that property was sold, from time to time, by the owners of it, according as the Church’s need dictated. The sharing of goods was always voluntary. The story of Ananias and Saphira, cf. 5:4, makes it clear that they were not bound to sell, and that after they had, the price was still theirs. When Barnabas gave all his property, such exceptional generosity was chronicled. There are examples of houses held privately in Jerusalem, !2:12; 21:16. St James, in his Epistle, reveals the existence of rich and poor there. The community of goods does not seem to have been very successful, 6:1, and other churches had continually to send alms, voluntarily, ‘each man according to his ability’, to Jerusalem, 11:29.”
So religious communities may have prayer in common, goods in common and spiritual goals, but they are not the evil of communism which has no spiritual objectives and aims to direct and control everyone and everything to evil.

Free enterprise was developed by Catholic Late Scholastics and has enabled the banishment of the dire poverty which preceded it, part of how the Church built Western civilization. Pope John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42, 1991].

It is NOT free enterprise which is in error, it is PEOPLE who can be immoral. That’s why we have laws to seek and punish those who steal, cheat, swindle, institute monopolies, and worse crimes. That’s why we have the Catholic Church to guide us – She who invented charity in the West. It’s time to face reality.
Click to expand...
Free market does not means that a market without any regulations. Small regulations are required for smooth going of an economy. But it does not means that full restriction on the market like in communist countries. A person has right to own private properties. It is this great motivation that motivates peoples to start business and factories and there by results in creating more job opportunities.

A reasonable profit is a right of all business men. But nobody have right to possess the wealth that belongs to others. An employee and worker have right to get reasonable return for his labor. That business man who does not give reasonable wages to the laborer is actually stealing the money of that laborer. Actually a Christian approach is required in these cases. An employer have the responsibility to provide good working condition and wages to the worker and there by providing him a good living condition and social status. In return worker has the responsibility to provide maximum out put from him and do the duties faithfully and efficiently.

We can see in capitalist countries employers hiring employees when they require and dismissing them when they don’t require without considering about family and dependents of the worker. Ok that is some what justifiable if an employer does not have enough resource to accommodate that much employees or company is passing through a financial crisis.

But we can see a trend among capitalists that dismissing those senior employees before their normal retirement age without any reasons and employing new employees in low wages or on contract basis. This is wrong. It is the responsibility of an employer to protect the employee who had given his youth and energy for the betterment of the company. Dismissing of those employees without any justifiable reason and only for increasing the profitability of a company is inhuman, cruel and brutal.

In my opinion Christianity is the only remedy for this type of social evils.
 
Whose to say that a form of communism can’t be formed that incorporates religion into society? It’s all up to God, you know. When the wheels turn, we will change. Maybe not right away, but in due season.
 
Robert Sock
Whose to say that a form of communism can’t be formed that incorporates religion into society? It’s all up to God, you know.
Click to expand...
It is precisely because God has given us free-will that some have brutalized and murdered others to promote Communism. It’s up to us to use our free-will wisely, with prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.

As has been shown clearly, communal living in religious communities has never had, nor has, anything to do with the evil of Communism.

The evils of Communism are in imposing an evil system – this was seen in Apostolic times when such an imposition was established:
The Error of the Apostolici versus the Monastics
Here, it can be seen more clearly that St Augustine is comparing the error of the “Apostolics” with the monastics following, up to his time.

“The argument [of Saint Thomas] (Sed Contra, II-II, quest. 66, art. 2; also Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 3:II, chap. 127, 8) supports this response perfectly. Saint Thomas, in effect, recalls the heresy of the Apostolici mentioned by Saint Augustine (“De Haeresibus,” no. 40, in P. L., vol. 42, col. 32): ‘The Apostolici,’ writes St. Augustine, ‘assumed that name with an extreme arrogance, because they refused from their communion married persons and those who possessed property, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church. But the Apostolici are heretics precisely because, separating themselves from the Church, they consider condemned those who make use of these goods, of which they deprive themselves.’

“‘The heresy of the Apostolici does not lie in taking the vows of chastity and poverty: monks and numerous clerics do the same. But the error lies in wanting to impose the same discipline on all the faithful under pain of condemnation.’ And St. Thomas concludes: ‘It is, therefore, an error to say that it is not permitted for a man to possess property.’

“This response is of use a fortiori for the problem presented by the perfection of evangelical poverty. Religious life, be it in a monastery provided with an income or in a community living from alms, is a life of counsel, not of precept, and it cannot be imposed on everyone. Moreover, even from the point of view of the perfection of the spiritual life, St. Thomas shows that the evangelical counsel of poverty most absolutely does not prevent the rich from sanctifying themselves amidst riches: ‘Great was the virtue of Abraham, who, possessing great riches, nonetheless knew how to keep his heart free from love for his riches. . . .’ ”
tinyurl.com/3uczz5d
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top