I think we can also find out a lot about the Church’s attitude toward socialism by reading the prophetic encyclical Rerum Novarum, which primarily deals with the rights of workers in relation to the capital owners, but is also eerily prophetic about the lure and errors of socialism - a fact reinforced 100 years later by JP2’s Centisimus Annus.

Anybody read these yet?  It’ll really put the Occupy Movement into proper perspective.

Your Holiness:

Perhaps you would care to define “a dignified life” for us?
You’ll have to forgive our confusion given that
our goverment is constantly redefining poverty
upward.

In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.

[url=“http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents—-50
“]Europe and its discontents, Joseph Ratzinger 2006[/url]

This is not a Magisterial statement but is an analysis by someone who knows more about Catholic Social Teaching than anyone else here.

Note that Democratic Socialism is not the same as Communism.

Capitalism and the Free Market are also criticized in the Social Teaching of the Church.

I don’t think these scripture references can be applied at a state or national level. The passage first talks about the community being of one heart and mind (namely faith in Jesus), and that isn’t necissarily the case for a state. Even if everybody in the U.S.A. were Christian, we would still not be “of one mind” in faith because of all of the divisions. To force all of a people to have a specific religion in order to make an economic system work—whether it be Christianity or Atheism—violates inherent freedoms of religion.

CCC. 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.

As Mark points out in his quote, what the Pope is describing is a capitalistic system that works to keep greed in check and take care of it’s citizens so that they aren’t preyed on by corporations. Which is exactly what FDR was working on, it can be argued if today’s Democrats are doing that or not. Capitalism with social support programs. To one of the posters, if you really believe we are “redefining poverty upward” then I would ask when was the last time you spent time with the poor and homeless? We should also remember that we have been raised in a very materialistic and capitalistic culture over the past 40 years or so and told my many “Christian” groups that it is what God wants. It makes the idea of sharing difficult but I think the NT itself is very clear.

I Think that The Social Catholic Principles point to corporatism. Just My Opinion.

Remember that collection that Paul was taking to those Christians in Jerusalem??
He was doing so because they were becoming poor and destitute.
It seems that holding everything in common didn’t work out so well. That’s why you don’t see any other Christian communities really adopting this except in this one instance. It was a failure.

Thou shalt not steal.  If some people want to pool all of their resources - then let them do it.  It’s is very good for everyone to be taken care of.  But that doesn’t give anyone the right to take - or steal - from someone to give to someone else.  Charity is something that comes from the heart - not from an order from the government on this earth.  And shame on any gov’t, or gov’t official, who makes it more difficult for the Church to help society. Pray that Church leaders stand up for right and against evil.

No, we shouldn’t steal, but lets keep in mind that taxing is a proper power of government.  When a government taxes it is not stealing, at least as long as it is taxing to maintain its reasonable responsibilities.  The question becomes what is the proper role of government.
—
Over time I have become more critical that the role government plays in helping the poor, not because I don’t necessarily believe the government has no role in helping the poor, but rather because the modern Social Welfare State of the European and American models seem to be corrosive to the family and good values.

I think the key difference between early Christian community and communism is simply the difference between give and take.  Early Christians balanced the scales by urging those with wealth to give to those in need.  Communism seeks to balance the scales by taking from those with wealth involuntarily to redistribute to those in need.  The former is a call to “love thy neighbor.”  The latter strips love out of it entirely.

@Joe asks “when was the last time you spent time with the poor and homeless?”

Joe, are you telling me that you know “human dignity” when you
see it, evading my question, or something else?  Based on
what you say later, I think
your point might be put as
“A faithful catholic is a New Deal Democrat”; something
that my grandfather’s generation in Chicago also believed.

When
the Vatican (or Jesuits) make pronouncements about social justice,
the path to some real government policy is so torturous and fraught
with unintended consequences that the original pronouncement is
clear only to the Joes of the world;
it is certainly less than a blueprint.

Joe, for example, thinks that Benedict is approving what Blessed FDR was “working on”.  I argue that FDR’s program didn’t work until
we happened onto a world war, unfortunately
followed then by the ballooning of an
unsustainable legacy of entitlements once the
rest of the world was no longer prostrate (one can only “relentlessly
experiment” as long as one is alive and in power; when one
dies the program runs off like a driveless car, it seems). 

Examples from
the bishops’ pronouncements on immigration, and the Vatican’s
recent paper on global economics are also relevant; the economic
paper envisions a global New Deal for the Joes of the world;
the unintended consequences make one shudder.

Considering in the reading that all had what they needed I highly doubt you can equate Christianity at all with Communism. In Communist countries the elite have all they need. The peons are left wanting and dealing with black market to get medicines they need. They have to pay doctors under the table to get the care they need. They go hungry. They are jammed into substandard living arrangements. No I would never dare to equate the reading with Communism.

The difference between Acts and today is that in Acts they had the Apostles to administer and oversee everything.  Socialism is great in theory, just is not practical due to human nature and the stain of Original Sin.  In Heaven I’ll be a socialist.  On Earth,  I’m an ethical, and generous, captilalist.

I always chuckle when people infer from this text that communism (of the universal and compulsory variety) is upheld as a Christian ideal.  On closer observation we can see in the text that even this early Christian community’s way of life was dependent on markets. “...for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles…”  Under universal communism, there would have been no market in which to sell the property and thus no proceeds from said sale by which to live. Even the voluntary forms of communism practiced by certain religious orders are dependent on markets (i.e. orders that sell their coffee or Christmas cards or spirits) for their livelihood.  Furthermore, the fact that this form was voluntary and not compulsory seems to me to be the key difference that we should ascertain.

“Communism” within a community is workable, if the community is, as Luke tells us, of one mind and one heart. 

As a governmental model, it stinks.  SOme pigs are more equal than other pigs…

There is a little discussed Economic ISM that G.K. Chesterton calls Distributism.

“Distributism is not re-distribution of wealth, a staple of socialism. Distributism gets its name from distributive justice. Therefore, what Distributists seek is equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of class or any other qualifier.  Distributists seek the widespread distribution of the ownership of the means of production to any who desire such freedom.  The most efficient means of accomplishing this is by defending and protecting the right to private ownership.  Clearly, defending and protecting the right of ownership is incompatible with the unjust redistribution of another man’s property.

Distributism is not a form of capitalism.  Distributism is founded upon principles at odds with those upon which capitalism is founded.  For example, capitalism relies heavily upon usury.  Distributism is against the paying of interest on non-productive loans.  Capitalism differs with Distributism, most fundamentally, in its concept of the purpose of economic activity itself.  Capitalism seeks profit above all else, whereas Distributism seeks individual freedom in providing for man’s material needs.

Distributism is not socialism. Socialism sets itself apart from Distributism in its conception of the role of government; the nature, dignity and destiny of man; the right to private ownership and the status of economic freedom as a good in and of itself. Distributism does not support the unbridled competition of dog-eat-dog capitalism, nor does it support the managed economy of socialist systems.  Distributism supports freedom, cooperation and subsidiarity.” – Excerpt From Distributism: Economics Built On Revelation By Matthew Pelicano, founder of the Distributist Exchange.
http://k2globalcommunicationsllc.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/words-matter…understanding-global-governance-ism’s-marxism-socialism-fascism-progressivism/

The key to looking at this is that the Church on a local level helps those who are in need, not the government. As an individual, if I know of someone in need and refuse assistance, that’s on me. I do not have recourse to my government to do what I ought to do.
I’m reminded of a quote from Bl. Pope John Paul II, “Freedom isn’t being free to do whatever you want to do. Freedom is being free to do whatever you ought to do.”

13:11 2012-04-17

1.  What do I think?
2.  What is the relationship between private, and community, property?
3.  What should it be in the family, in the Church, and in the state?

” ... within the community of believers there can never be room for a poverty that denies anyone what is needed for a dignified life.  ... “

Created in the image of God, with an intelligence, and will, either to love God, and his commandments, or to love the world, and its pleasures, or first to love God and his commandments, that we might both love God, and then the world he created.  Work, I have understood, may afford us with opportunities to be dignified.  I think, that it is an amazing goal, that Christianity accomplishes through various means:  an end to poverty, or the characteristics of poverty, that lack dignity, whether through criminal behaviors, or immoral behaviors, destructive toward the love of God.  Community property—aside from what taxes purchase—is private property.  A good example is a church:  its school, and services, and properties donated to facilitate ministries, such as youth ministries, and the like.  Community property often is what taxes have purchased.  Private property, and community property, in the family, and what it should be within family, that seems arbitrary to whomever makes the purchase, and delegates authortity to family members on the basis, of ownership, and role in the family.  It would appear to be the same, or at least, similar, within the state, where either a signature, or office, or both signature, and office, might replace ownership both of property, and familial roles.

Face it, Christ would be horrified at American society and the Vatican. Cathedrals, McMansions, 25% of the population in poverty and .01% that control 50% of the all the assets.

And this isnt even to mention reality TV, swimsuit issues, internet porn, and a military that could blow the world up 10 times over all while a third of it starves.  And like Jesus we can heal the sick, only we let you die if you dont have insurance or are poor.

Jesus, we are sorry.

The problem lies in relying on government to “redistribute” wealth. God did not create governments with souls in His image.  He created man with a soul in His own image.  Each and every Man is accountable to God the almighty.  Each Man is responsible to his fellow Man.  To rely on government is blaspheme to take care of our fellow man is folly. Just look at governments’ history in this regard.

I think that to equate the communal lifestyle of the early Christians to todays communism does a diservice to that community. Communistm is a covernment imporsed economic system that results in the equar disctribution of missery. The communal life of the early church was one entered into voluntarily and our of love. In short one is imposed on is volunteer in nature.

Charity can never be impossed else it is not charity….

We must be careful not to confuse a statement of fact (something that happened) with a call to do something (a command).  The book of Acts records history and, as is the case for the rest of the Bible, it sometimes tell us a fact without condoning it or commanding us to do the same.  If a group of Christians would, today, sell their possessions and invest the proceeds in a way whereby they could live off the interest and still get along without squabbling or succumbing to other illnesses of the soul, that would be wonderful.  If God grants you the kind of grace needed to live thay way, go for it!  The problem is that some (if not, most) living in that type of arrangement may become lazy and busybodies.  The Bible commands us not to be like that.

St. Paul also stated that one must work to eat.  We are to give with love, not with force.

There are rich churches with vast property and income. Most of them do not take into account the story and principle narrated in the chapter 2 of the Acts of the Apostles. The desire for more luxurious buildings or expensive celebrations wipes away or ignores the need to ensure a dignified life for our downtrodden brethren. It is due to the unwillingness for simplicity in individual and social life

Notice in Acts that the individual faithful decided for themselves to separate themselves from their possessions and follow Christ. Just as Jesus asked of his disciples. Why would we interpret this as a government giving on our behalf? I don’t know but I think it creates a distance, a chasm between us and living our faith. Us and the theological virtue of charity. One we shouldn’t separate from ourselves.
I am guilty of offering some time or money, tithing, but not giving enough to really feel it. Not enough to hurt my lifestyle. If I failed to do even that. If I left to a government or another entity, I think I would not relate to my modest gifts of charity at all. I dont think it’s how much we give in cash value, but how much of what we have that matters. One example is the difference I have felt in charity given to me when I was younger and had nothing. A friend in poverty shared what he had with me. It wasn’t much, but it was all she had. A wealthier friend provided much more. I appreciated it, but it was clear this
Soon thought nothing of it financially, and as it seemed, literally, didn’t think much of it.
Just a few thoughts…

The fundamental difference between the communal life experienced by early Christians and the Socialist philosophy which dominates Communism is free choice.  None of the early Christians were forced to give up their possessions!  There may have been peer pressure-  probably was, but this,too, is different from a philosophy in which a few individuals have the power to decide who is able to keep possessions and who is not.  My husband spent some time in Vladivostok shortly after the end of the Soviet Union.  One of the people he interviewed was a farmer who (like many Soviet citizens) decided to hide a cow of his own in the woods instead of sharing EVERYTHING with the commune.  One of the farmer’s neighbors told on him, and, for this “sin,” his children were taken from him and he and his wife were forced to move 100’s of miles away. 

If people are not allowed to own possessions, there can be no true Charity.  One can only “give away” something to which he has the right of ownership.  This philosophy permeates the idea of SACRIFICE.  Remember, Jesus FREELY laid down his life for us!  Without that freedom, there could be no redemption for mankind.  There would have been NO sacrifice-  only pathos.  For our own sacrifices to be united with Christ"s, they have to be just that-  SACRIFICES.  To come full circle, this simply means that we must have the right of ownership before we can give something away.  A socialist society removes ownership; it removes freedom of choice; it obliterates the idea of sacrifice behind the smoke screen of “communal good.”

@Mark Koamski “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”

So?  Don’t commit the error of assuming that because voluntary human action (i.e., “the market”) fails to achieve a Utopia in some sphere, that coercion (i.e. the State) can succeed.

Haha.  I’m glad you decided to write about this.  Context is important: we were indeed a much smaller group at that time, and probably not lukewarm in volunteerism when fresher from the resurrection.
-
About cathedrals.  Okay, who wants to sell Notre Dame?  Does something inside you not die at the thought?  There are things we need more than food.  Beauty is food for the human spirit.

A comment about “selling” cathedrals, works of art, etc., that they, too, apparently exist as part, and parcel, of the deposit of faith, that they came into existence, that faith would be learned from them, a pictorial, sculptural, architectural testimony—monumental—of faith, to be taught.

The voluntary contribution of goods for the care of the poor is an expression of Solidarity.

But Solidarity is an expression of love, and love cannot be forced. Imagine if you found out that your wife acted affectionately towards you—had, indeed, agreed to marry you—only because she was under the sway of some mind-control device, or because her sister was being held at gunpoint and would be slain if she didn’t make you believe she loved you. Would that be love? No.

Likewise, imagine what the Polish labor union “Solidarity” would have been like if, instead of being a spontaneously-formed organization, it had been a Communist Party mandated group which all Poles were obligated to join! They’d have had the same inspiring name, and some noble-sounding slogans to go with it…and it’d all ring hollow.

Solidarity, then, is true Solidarity to the extent that it is unforced. “Forced Solidarity” is the devil’s aping of the real thing; a sort of bloated-spider parody of love in which union is compelled against the wishes of those united so that whoever is in charge of the compulsion can bend everyone to his own will and rob them of their individuality.

But that’s not real Solidarity; real Solidarity is what happens when two people say, “We want to do a good thing; why don’t we do it together?” A marriage is the classic expression of it…and of course the sacrament of marriage must be voluntarily entered to be valid.

This is why the Church’s teaching can encourage both Solidarity and Subsidiarity. The Church does not contradict Herself: There is no conflict between these things.

Now, many folks imagine Solidarity and Subsidiarity to be in conflict with one another because they are accustomed to thinking of compulsory faux-Solidiarity (like Communism or Socialism or the Welfare State) as being representative of Solidarity. It isn’t; it’s a cheap substitute for the real thing, and you can tell it isn’t authentic because of its incompatibility with Subsidiarity.

Communism and the Welfare State, because they are centralized and compulsory, tend to squash localized and innovative solutions to poverty out of existence and thus prevent the existence of Subsidiary or Alternative groupings: No potentially-competing loci of power are permitted. But only faux-Solidarity, the devil’s parody, has this incompatibility with Subsidiarity. The real Solidarity only occurs when the Subsidiary persons or groups choose, as acts of their Subsidiary “sovereignty,” to unite. Thus the unity exists (that’s Solidarity) because the Subsidiary groups were free to act in a unified fashion (that’s Subsidiarity).

True Solidarity does not disrespect the personhood of the needy or of the giver, but treats them as persons created in the Image of God. The needy person receives gratefully; the giver gives lovingly; we mirror God’s grace in living out true Solidarity. When the Church cares for the poor, She does so using money and food contributed by persons, by families, by groups, by parishes, by dioceses. The persons and families and groups and parishes and dioceses are no less themselves for doing it. But imagine if someone with a lot of guns were to say to everyone, “You must collect X dollars and Y cans of food and deliver them to parties A, B, and C.” In what fashion would this be an expression of the identity of each person or family or group or parish or diocese? It wouldn’t; it would be the folks with the guns treating them like a bunch of machines to be kicked and hammered into working order.

That’s the devil’s “Solidarity,” the Welfare State, the cheap substitute, the devil’s knockoff! There, the needy person does not receive from the generosity of the Church or even from a generous and merciful neighbor, but from a bureaucratic system. They do not receive a “gift” but rather “get what they’re entitled to.” As the character Sally in the Peanuts Christmas Special says, “All I want is what’s coming to me. All I want is my fair share.” Gratitude is replaced by entitlement. Generosity is replaced by dull tax-paying and perhaps a great deal of resentment. The giver does not get involved in the life and needs of his poorer neighbors, but delegates that duty to an impersonal system so that he needn’t be bothered. In the meantime, politicians use handouts to buy votes and to whip up fear of the money being reduced so as to guarantee their re-election. Corruption and mutual mistrust between classes and groups in society increases. Politics begins to encourage envy and covetousness. The receiving classes begin to mau-mauing the others, running a sort of society-wide protection racket: “Nice neighborhood you live in. Be a shame if anything happened to it. Better pay up nice and friendly on tax day, or you may have riots in the streets.”

And let’s don’t forget: When the State performs the Church’s proper role in society, quickly the Church begins to look like a socially-irrelevant theological debating society. Why should the Average Joe have any respect for the Church, with its big impressive-looking cathedrals? It’s not as if it ever did anything for him. The State becomes the provider of all one’s needs: Big Brother is Watching You, and your Heavenly Father is comparatively distant, and man lives by bread alone. Well, bread and circuses. Well, bread and free condoms.

All of this is the norm for faux-Solidarity, and what’s outrageous is how so many have bought the lie that this has anything to do with what how the Church calls us to be Jesus’ hands and feet in the lives of the needy around us!

Amen, Papa!

Christianity can never equal communism.  That’s like saying Christ=AntiChrist?  NO!  And this form of journalism seems dangerous to me.  Taking statements from one forum and placing them in another?  It is a form of dishonesty it seems, since the Pope isn’t actually being asked the question you put his answers to. He may have added things or tailored them more to the question. His statements in this case seem to correspond with the questions though.  But the biggest difference here is recognizing the spirit at work v. human machinations.  Christ himself was clear that the poor we would always have with us. The point of the gospels was NOT to overcome all human suffering.  The Catholics that want this to be our faith are off track!  The gospels are about bringing souls to the truth of life everlasting and a God who loves them.  Not a person, but a GOD for whom nothing is impossible. It’s emphasis is not a comfortable life here. God warns about crosses and persecution. It’s about growing in this life for the next.  Growing in love. Growing in virtue. Growing in faith.  Growing in hope. Growing in closeness to God and love of neighbor.  Growing in the Spirit and knowledge of God. And so much more. This overemphasis of “social justice” is hurting us all I believe.  It is making religion about the material.  If we are born in the Spirit, the material works naturally follow. Without it, Mother Teresa called these works just social work.  The Spirit blows where it wills but it is being quenched by agendas that dictate that people must look and act all the same. That is Communism. And there is a nasty reality that is feeding that agenda and perception and that is that the enemy is very busy doing social work and seeming to care, making great gains leading souls astray, but unfortunately it is a very conditional caring.  One that stops when you confront the antiChristian values.  We aren’t called to play the same game.  We are asked to do something very different and it is the only road we’ve been given.

As I wrote in my November 14th article at http://www.examiner.com/article/occupy-orlando-motives-not-supported-by-jesus :

“If you want a good, real-world example of a socialist from the Bible, I’ll give you one: Judas Iscariot.  He had political influence; he kept the purse for the disciples; he presumed to tell Jesus what he ought to do (e.g., that the myrrh should have been sold to feed the poor, rather than poured on his feet - John 12:1-8); he was stealing from that same collection for the poor; and he eventually betrayed the very God he claimed to serve, when it was no longer convenient for him.  That’s a biblical socialist!”

It is important that Pope Leo XIII wrote about the natural law and the natural order given to us in his Encyclical ” RERUM NOVARUM, “On Capital and Labor”, in which he clearly states that God has set up an order which says that the person has the right to the fruits of his labor and that men do have natural property rights. This may seem to be in discord to the Acts reading but in fact just says that because we do own things we actually gain merit by giving them away to others according to our own right to be stewards of what we own. If indeed we did not have natural rights to property then there would be no merit at all in giving to others because we would then be just giving them what already was their due. Judas, in fact, was the biggest socialist in the group because he was always envious of what others had claiming that everything should be out into the general treasury for use by the poor. Even the perfume which Mary lavished on jesus feet (it was her property and she had the right to use it in this way)he complained was being wasted. I cannot agree that the early Christians were communists or socialist, they were free people and love motivated them, and love also required that they either donate or use what they had in accordance with the needs of their own families first and then according to how God led them If God led them to put it all in the treasury than they were responding freely in doing so. They had a right to their property and donating it was thus a free gift to God. Remember the term “free will offering”? Doesn’t that say it all. the couple that was struck dead for withholding property and lying about it was struck dead for pretending to be charitable and for their lies.

Pope Leo III has this to say:

“To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. 

5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.”

We all have different gifts and callings. If a couple is raising children they have the need of goods to provide for those children and it is part of their vocation to share family goods and make use of them wisely for family needs. Giving away family goods and wages for the poor is something we all aim to do but to do so without considering family needs is irresponsible and not praisworthy. It is an invalid idea that all property belongs in common to the Church or to God. It is not an idea found in the Bible where we see God bestowing wealth on some and taking from others…and who are we to always understand why we have times of need and times of blessing? Both times are important to spiritual growth. Forms of pure socialism would try to equalize all wealth, (an impossibility really) and in the end that would harm God’s plans for us at different times in our lives. Iy also takes away the ability to act charitably because it is being done for us through the Church.

I am sure I am not saying all this very well but intuitively I know that the early Christians were not communists or socialists…terms I do not associate with love and charity, but which I d associate with manipulation and power. 

@ Post by Micha Elyi on Tuesday, Apr 17, 2012 11:11 PM (EST)—

Deare Micha—

Hey, wait a minute!!!

I just offered a verbatim quote from the good old Catechism Of The Catholic Church.

I did that just as food for thought, that is all.

I side with the Church on this one.

Please do not misunderstand me.

Let’s take a closer look at the quote…

“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.”

...to which you reply…

So?  Don’t commit the error of assuming that because voluntary human action (i.e., “the market”) fails to achieve a Utopia in some sphere, that coercion (i.e. the State) can succeed.

...and I say “Amen” to that and you make a good point.

I agree with you and I hope that is OK with you.

Coercion, by definition, is contrary to free will, which is not what God intended.

I suppose that maybe those “human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market” are satisfied by those important “social bonds”. That is, it seems to me that the phrase “cannot be satisfied by the market” is to be taken in the strongest sense, “cannot EVER be satisfied by the market” as they are “human needs” satisfied by something “human” (namely other humans) not some abstract construct such as a “market” or a “system”. These are the distinctions that make for a good state of affairs where we have “the market is run by rules of humans” rather a bad state of affairs where “humans are run by the rules of the market”.

Thanks and God bless you.

—Mark Kamoski

2 Thessalonians 3:
“[10] For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat.
[11] For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.
[12] Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living.”
Let’s identify the elephant in the room.  Human nature as we find it, not as it was created.  Fact is, if we were all in a state of perfect charity, communism would work quite well, as would any other “system”.  “Systems” do not solve the problem.  Even the great experiment that is the U.S. Declaration and Constitution is running in heavy weather these days and in danger of sinking.  The best we can hope for from a system is a period of peace and freedom to evangelize, and because we are of that same human nature, we tend to waste the opportunity until we are under oppression or persecution.
It seems that the practices of the early days of the Church were running onto some rocky shoals later on.  I think we can infer that from St. Paul’s exhortation, or simply the need for it.  Check out the Mayflower experience to verify in more recent experience what the best of intentions lead to, even voluntarily.

“Fact is, if we were all in a state of perfect charity, communism would work quite well…”

Reminds me of the quote from Ronald Reagan: “There are only two places where Communism works: in Heaven, where they don’t need it; and in hell, where they already have it.”

@ Jamie B,
Precisely.

  Jim Atkin - I’m offended by the title of this article.        Thousands of Catholics were slain in the name of communism and now you have the ‘platform’ to put the two together giving the appearance to be a good!  Have you studied the heroism of Card. Mindszenty, the pillar that stood firmly against collaboration with Communists?

* While this Prelate safely conserves his post by implementing the policy of détente with Communism, another Archbishop, on the contrary, has lost his Archdiocese. We refer to one of the Church’s most outstanding personalities of the 20th century, a man whose name is pronounced with veneration and enthusiasm by all Catholics faithful to the traditional social and economic teachings of the Holy See. The name of this Prelate is respected even by persons of the most diverse religions. He is seen as a symbol of glory for the Church even by those who do not believe in her. But this symbol was recently crushed when H.E. Cardinal Mindszenty was dismissed from the Archdiocese of Esztergom to facilitate a rapprochement with the Hungarian communist government.

German Catholics support Cardinal Mindszenty, who was dismissed from the Archdiocese of Esztergom by Paul VI…...”
How care - less you are of those who were martyred combating the spread of communism.

Perfect charity allows God’s plan to work in individual lives and does not try to formulate a “one plan fits all” rule that is a big umbrella over everyobe demanding conformity in the way property is dealt with. I say this because even in Christ’s ministry there were the puur who gave up everything for him and followed him totally, especially the Apostles. But there were other Apostles who were called to be stewards over goods in other ways, for example Joseph of Aramathea who was known as a wealthy person and who was steward of that wealth, using it when it was the right time and in the right way such as providing a tomb for Christ to be laid in. We would not be able to eliminate poverty because at times it is God’s Will and the way he is glorified in a person’s life. At other times people have much and they have to be ready to understand what God wants them to do with their wealth. Even if goods were distributed evenly, someone would have some kind of illness or a storm would come or some other disaster that would leave hardship at times. It really is an impossible thing to redistribute good perfectly evenly. we all need to just review what it meeans to pray and discern what God is asking of ourselves, and for some that may mean voluntary poverty like St. Francis and for others it may mean something else. God’s Will not ours.

How many rich people (millionaires/billionaires) actually deserve their money IN GOD’S EYES, considering that others are born into starvation with almost no way out, in spite of an abundant food supply in the world? If you had to bet your life on the answer to this question, what would your answer be?