Is it possible for me to be a Catholic and a Communist?

[FidelMaestro]

According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?

[Blake's Baby]

Of course. There have been loads of religious communists. James, the brother of Jesus, and the early Christians in Jerusalem were communists; there's a good argument for Jesus being a communist ('give up all you have and follow me', 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' etc).

I can't see how it would be possible to be a religious marxist however, as a materialist approach really doesn't sit well with simultaneously believing in a benevolent invisible bearded man on a cloud who could end all the suffereing but doesn't. But them again, I don't know how anyone could believe the last part even if they weren't a materialist, seems to me it takes a certain cognitive dissonance to believe that god is a)love, and b)all powerful, but c)still allows suffering.

[Prometeo liberado]

I am a recovering RC and can tell you no. The contradictions that arise when the issues of womens' health, political movements(how to stop or support them), Childhood education vs. scientific centered education. The list goes on on on. Only Liberation theology could attempt to transform the church from it's hierarchical structure into a people's church. Thus the church could become much like that of a Social Democratic Party, merely given to manage a decayed and outdated system. It is possible to want to support communism, but calling one a red and and RC is simply just a contradiction. You can however be a comrade and a believer. Bottom line is you are working class and that means your stuck with us and we with you.
No gods nor leaders.

[Philosophos]

Of course. There have been loads of religious communists. James, the brother of Jesus, and the early Christians in Jerusalem were communists; there's a good argument for Jesus being a communist ('give up all you have and follow me', 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' etc).

I can't see how it would be possible to be a religious marxist however, as a materialist approach really doesn't sit well with simultaneously believing in a benevolent invisible bearded man on a cloud who could end all the suffereing but doesn't. But them again, I don't know how anyone could believe the last part even if they weren't a materialist, seems to me it takes a certain cognitive dissonance to believe that god is a)love, and b)all powerful, but c)still allows suffering.

Well I don't know if god is supposed to be love but there is the belief that if god is all powerful and allows us to suffer that is because he wants us to reach our full potential (become something like a small god, meet the truth of life or answer all the philosophical questions etc etc) by ourselves and not with his help...

I can't remember where I read this but it was something like: " If God really exists, he doesn't want us as slaves he wants us free from god (if he at least is a respectful god) that's why he let us all alone. He wants to see if we are capable to become truly HUMANS.

I really like this idea because it says if there is God he wants you as an atheist :lol: .

So basically you can be a materialist if you are not an atheist and believe that god is all powerful and he let's us suffer as long as you believe in the ideas I mentioned.

[A Sovereign Womb]

James, the brother of Jesus, and the early Christians in Jerusalem were communists; there's a good argument for Jesus being a communist ('give up all you have and follow me', 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' etc).
I don't see what's particularly communistic about those sentiments.

[ClassLiberator]

1 Peter 2:13: Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

There may be some Bible verses calling rich people evil but there are also verses condoning slavery. The very essence of communism is opposition to wage and economic slavery so I believe that while it is possible to believe in both communism and Christianity, it is a contradiction of beliefs. There have been Christian communists before, though, like Thomas Haggerty, Ernst Bloch, and Camilo Torres Restrepo.

[pastradamus]

Yes it is possible to be both. Just because there are some contridictions between both does not mean you can't be a practicing roman catholic and a communist. South America is full of them for example. The church does not excommunicate communists despite saying that it does, it has issues with them yes,but does not kick them out.

Just to edit and add a few more notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_against_Communism but then you get the likes of Fr arias caldera in Honduras, Romero in El Salvador http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero and closer to home you had people here in Ireland like father Ryan http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv2011-12/09-ryan.html
(http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv2011-12/09-ryan.html)

[bifo_161]

yo check out the movement liberation theology very interesting and i don't see why not as with anything there are contradiction everywhere. so go ahead. more communists the better regardless if they are religious or not. who cares!

[TheCat'sHat]

According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?

You cannot be an orthodox Marxist and an Orthodox Catholic. Plenty of people manage to adhere to both identities by committing heresy against one, or sometimes both, ideologies.

[Blake's Baby]

You know what? I didn't read the specifics of the question in the post. Just in the title.

To the OP: 'Marxist' and 'communist' are not synonyms. So I'll say what I said before - you can believe in god and be a communist, but I can't see how you can believe in god and be a Marxist.

For an historical perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Briton - a radical egalitarian monk from c. AD400 who wrote about how it was the "few rich who are the cause of the many poor".

[TheRedAnarchist23]

According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?


I know there is something called christian anarchism, but I never heard of christian marxism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

1 Peter 2:13: Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.

1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.


This Peter guy was an asshole!

[Rugged Collectivist]

No. The last pope was pretty opposed to communism and I can't imagine the current one is any different. I was born into the church. As an ex-Catholic I have to say, get out now. You don't have to abandon Christianity but the Catholic church is a vile, reactionary institution that needs to be abolished. You might want to look into certain protestant sects. Hell, maybe you could start your own. tons of people have done that.

[graffic]

Yes you can but it can't really inform your politics that much. It's more of an unhelpful baggage in revolutionary politics rather than something that compliments the ideology.

I don't think you can politicize Jesus. He didn't want anything to do with politics, he said "my kingdom is not of this world". I think Jesus was on the side of the oppressed and was an egalitarian however I think you would be mistaken to think you would be doing the "will of God" by going on strike or a march for example. Those might be good things to do that the faith would approve of or not disprove of but I think it's a slippery slope once you start claiming Jesus as a political figure.

I think Christianity can be bent to fit into just about any ideology with enough compromises , including even revolutionary communists because in the right circumstances God wouldn't want people to be pacifist or passive.

One thing I think Christianity cannot be stretched to and is very clearly against is commodity fetishism, free-market individualism and fetishization of growth because it makes a God out of money and idolizes money. The free-market Libertarian individualists inspired by Ayn Rand are undoubtedly, from a Christian viewpoint, doing the work of the devil.

If Jesus was around today and looked at some magazines I think he would find Christian aspects in Far left magazines, center-left, social democratic, centre-right, conservative, perhaps even in a fascist newspaper the social conservatism would have something "Christian" about it. Even if he vehemently disagreed with most of the magazines such as racism in fascism or athiesm in centre left of whatever you could attribute at least one "democratic", positive and "Christian" thing to them in the mix.

One thing I think he would comprehensively reject and really piss him off would be the type of economist magazines and financial times newspapers with columnists saying things like "greed is good" and blowing smoke about the benefits of the super rich and stock broker type "how to spend it" supplements. He would comprehensively reject that because it's straight up idolizing money and wealth.

[l'Enfermé]

You can be a Catholic and practically anything else also. In the 20th century, Catholicism was the foundation of both liberation theology and fascism in Catholic countries. But you definitely can't be a materialist and believe in this superstitious nonsense, however.

[Hit The North]

As a catholic do you believe in the virgin birth? the resurrection and ascension? the transubstantiation of matter?

If so, then you can't be a Marxist philosophically.

To me, those acts of magic are indefensible from any rational position. I would say that if you believe in the narrative of a creator God manifesting himself as his own human son in 1st century Galilee so that he could suffer, die on the cross and be reborn in order to 'save' his own finest creation (Man) from sin, then you don't have a very clear view of how either the universe or human history works.

[GoddessCleoLover]

According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?

IMO Ernesto Cardenal and Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann both have had some success navigating those waters. In an absolute sense, probably not for various reasons set out by previous posters. OTOH many Catholics have been able to reconcile their faith with Marxism.

[Ocean Seal]

According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?
Everyone is inconsistent in the philosophies that they follow. Just continue reading in both, and you'll find where you lie. I would say don't make threads like this, decide on your own what you want to be. IMO try moving onto a more progressive theology, and question the fuck out of it, if you still believe in it, there probably isn't anything that anyone can say on this forum that will convince you either way.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Maybe the question should be: Can you be a consistent Catholic and a consistent Marxist. Then the answer is easy, of course you cannot. The magical mystical hoo ha of religion is profoundly anti-materialist. That religion still holds sway over so much of humanity speaks to the profound lack of progress we have made in recent times.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Maybe the question should be: Can you be a consistent Catholic and a consistent Marxist. Then the answer is easy, of course you cannot. The magical mystical hoo ha of religion is profoundly anti-materialist. That religion still holds sway over so much of humanity speaks to the profound lack of progress we have made in recent times.

The OP's precise question as I understand it had to do with whether one could follow the teachings of the Catholic Church as well as Marxism. Given the "squishy" nature of the OP's wording it is not surprising that responses varied. You phrased the question in more precise terms, hence one's response to your question is much easier and you have, in fact, given the proper answer.

[Let's Get Free]

Have you ever heard of the Catholic Workers movement? Here's something I read about them.


The Catholic Worker movement began in the United States in 1933 as a response to the Great Depression, but today many of the 185 Catholic Worker communities throughout North America and Europe focus on opposing the militarism of the government and creating the foundations of a peaceful society. Inseparable from their opposition to war is their commitment to social justice, which manifests in the soup kitchens, shelters, and other service projects to help the poor that form a part of every Catholic Worker house. Although Christian, the Catholic Workers generally criticize church hierarchy and promote tolerance of other religions. They are also anti-capitalist, preaching voluntary poverty and “distributist communitarianism; self-sufficien[cy] through farming, crafting, and appropriate technology; a radically new society where people will rely on the fruits of their own toil and labor; associations of mutuality, and a sense of fairness to resolve conflicts.”[10] Some Catholic Workers even call themselves Christian Anarchists. Catholic Worker communities, which function as communes or aid centers for the poor, often provide a base for protests and direct actions against the military. Catholic Workers have entered military bases to sabotage weaponry, though they waited for the police afterwards, intentionally going to jail as a further act of protest. Some of their communities also shelter victims of war, such as torture survivors fleeing the results of US imperialism in other countries.

[Manic Impressive]

Maybe the question should be: Can you be a consistent Catholic and a consistent Marxist. Then the answer is easy, of course you cannot. The magical mystical hoo ha of religion is profoundly anti-materialist. That religion still holds sway over so much of humanity speaks to the profound lack of progress we have made in recent times.
Exactly right!

You also can't be a "good" catholic and be a communist or an anarchist. As the OP alludes to, there have been two papal edicts in the last 100 years which state that private property is a God given right. Now if you are a proper catholic then you believe that the Pope is God's voice on earth, a conduit through which human beings get to know what God's will is. So according to the Catholic church private property is endorsed by God. So by working towards abolishing private property you are acting against God's will.

[Ostrinski]

It would take a a really unorthodox Catholic to have no qualms about the Vatican being turned into social property after Europe goes to the workers.

[GoddessCleoLover]

It would take a a really unorthodox Catholic to have no qualms about the Vatican being turned into social property after Europe goes to the workers.

Apologizing in advance for being Socratic; would you be willing to allow the Pope to remain in the Vatican if it were to make the revolution more likely to succeed? Specifically, if taking a soft line toward the Vatican were demonstrated to be important in winning over the support of workers in Catholic countries to the Revolution would it be acceptable to demonstrate flexibility?

[skitty]

As Gladiator said,
According to some pope a hundred years ago, Communism is sin. Is it possible to follow the teachings of Catholicism as well as Marxism?
you may find the Catholic Worker Movement interesting:
http://www.catholicworker.org/aimsandmeans.cfm

[fgilbert2]

If you look at the Catechism, the only reference to communism is a statement that the Church rejects the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated with communism or socialism.
Aside from that, the Catechism repeatedly protects the right to private property, although it is not clear to me that they are necessarily and consistently referring to property in the capitalist sense.
In any case, although it appears very clear to me that the society envisioned by the Catechism is a Western European democratic socialism, the criticisms aimed at a communistic society are very much directed at stalinism, whereas the criticisms aimed at capitalism are devastating in their implications for neoliberalism.
The fascinating thing is the Catechism's emphasis on the "universal destination of goods."
You shall not steal.186
2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men's labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world's goods to God and to fraternal charity.

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

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.189

[PigmerikanMao]

Christian Communism Wiki Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism)

Sure you may have seen this already, but thought I'd throw it out there anyhow.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Yeah, assuming you don't believe some of the crap that some Christians believe. It's ridiculous to assume all Christians are bible humping, anti-abortion, gay-hating lunatics. I come from a pretty Christian family, and in our family, there's my gay brother and gay uncle. They're both agnostics/atheists, but the rest of the family doesn't think it's wrong at all. Religion is a fairly tricky thing, so you don't need to worry to much if Catholicism matches perfectly with Communism. And fuck the Vatican, who cares if they say Communism is bad.

[Jason]

Catholicism is pretty harsh. Up until the 1960s they actually said those who weren't Catholic were going to hell (including people un-baptized babies and those never exposed to Christ's message). But a cynic would say, "Why in the 60s did they soften thier stance?". Now they've toned it down a bit, but believe if you've been shown truth and you reject it, then your doomed. But even that's a joke cause they never make clear what the truth is. In the catechism, they've pretty much put up a white flag and said you can believe anything and your ok (for instance, saying they honor all religions of Abraham).

All in all, too much tradition and supersititon for it to be taken seriously. Plus, as I mentioned, the inconsistency of being so hardcore for all time and then suddenly turning a 360. As much as I can't stand Mel Gibson, he has a point. If your going to believe a oppressive religion, then at least be consistent by being fundementalist.

[Zostrianos]

Catholicism is pretty harsh. Up until the 1960s they actually said those who weren't Catholic were going to hell (including people un-baptized babies and those never exposed to Christ's message). But a cynic would say, "Why in the 60s did they soften thier stance?". Now they've toned it down a bit, but believe if you've been shown truth and you reject it, then your doomed. But even that's a joke cause they never make clear what the truth is. In the catechism, they've pretty much put up a white flag and said you can believe anything and your ok (for instance, saying they honor all religions of Abraham).

They had to tone down their stance in order to survive in the post 60's era, but there's still a large segment of traditionalist Catholics who cling to the old ways.
If I remember, the church's position today remains that no one can be saved if they're not catholics; however, people who never had a chance to know Christianity (and so didn't know they could go to hell), as well as children, will be saved. They reworked their dogma to exclude only people who know Christianity and rejected it or went elsewhere and so damned themselves, not those who might be damned purely by ignorance.

According to catholic dogma, the priesthood and clergy have the authority to damn or save someone - if they're wrong in the eyes of God, the responsibility would fall on the priest himself, not on the person. E.g., if the pope declared that contraception was no longer a sin, then people who would use contraceptives would - according to this doctrine - no longer incur divine punishment as a result...

In the middle ages this was taken to extremes with the doctrine of indulgences.

[Blake's Baby]

The doctrine of the 'virtuous pagan' (those that never heard the word of God don't go to Hell) has been doctrine since the Council of Trent in the 1500s, and debated since the 4th century, so I don't know what the 1960s have to do with it.

[Sheepy]

The pope is a capitalist puppet, he'll use religion only as a means of protecting capital. He can say whatever he wants while he sits on his golden throne, but as a communist, you're more of a christian than he'll ever be.

[RedAtheist]

It is not consistent with communism to believe in:

- original sin: The claim that because a woman (why I am not surprised that it's a woman) decided to make her own decision instead of being a blindly obedient robot to God, every human being is born evil, wicked, greedy, etc. and the whole world is destined to gradually get worse. This applies to any version of the original sin story, not just the one young earth creationists believe in.

- the teaching Jesus presents in his 'Sermon on the Mount': In this sermon Jesus encourages people to be doormats and allow others to walk all over them. If you think 'do not resist evil people', 'when somebody slaps you, turn the other cheek (i.e. let them slap you again)' and 'love your enemies' are good messages, then you are not looking out for the interests of the oppressed, no matter how many naster things you say about rich people. In fact you are assuring the oppressed that the rich will get what's coming to them in the afterlife and that there is no need for them to be resisted in this life.

- Salvation through Jesus' death: This doctrine presupposes the irredeemability of humankind. According to this doctrine Jesus had to die on the cross because humanity is evil and the only way to make humans less evil is to sacrifice an innocent being, which somehow makes up for how evil humans are, and only then can God turn people good, if they believe in him. There is nothing humanity can do to make itself less evil.

If a person adheres to any of these doctrines they cannot simultaneously believe that the working class can (and more importantly) should rise up against their oppressors in order to create new material conditions which will bring about changes in people's thinking and behaviour. If you believe in the doctrines listed above, then you would have to label the former as digustingly immoral and the latter as impossible (since you would be under the impression that human beings have a permanent sinful nature.)

If you dismiss the doctrines listed above you are not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term, let alone a Catholic. You may label yourself a Christian because your parents were Christian or because you go to church or follow certain rules, but that does not mean you are one. Few Christians would take your claim to be a Christian seriously.

[Crux]

RedAtheist: I'd imagine they'd disagree with your interpretation of scripture.
Christians of any kind ultimately are people, you know. I find the idea that fundamentalist interpretations (of which there are many and mostly opposing ones) would be more "true" to be a very idealist understanding of religion.
It's the reason why some supposedly fundamentalists care a whole lot about abortion (about which the Bible has absolutely nothing to say specifically anyway) but not at all about redistributing all economic resources within society every 50 years so as to abolish class differences, something the Bible actually advocates. Conversely to some people being what they consider a consistent Christian means being a communist. I'd like to quote James Connolly on this one since I think he makes a very good point:

BUT SOCIALISM IS AGAINST RELIGION. I CAN'T BE A SOCIALIST AND BE A CHRISTIAN.
O, quit your fooling! That talk is all right for those who know nothing of the relations between capital and labor, or are innocent of any knowledge of the processes of modern industry, or imagine that men, in their daily struggles for bread or fortunes, are governed by the Sermon on the Mount.
But between workingmen that talk is absurd. We know that Socialism bears upon our daily life in the workshop, and that religion does not; we know that the man who never set foot in a church in his lifetime will, if he is rich, be more honored by Christian society than the poor man who goes to church every Sunday, and says his prayers morning and evening; we know that the capitalists of all religions pay more for the service of a good lawyer to keep them out of the clutches of the law than for the services of a good priest to keep them out of the clutches of the devil; and we never heard of a capitalist, who, in his business, respected the Sermon on the Mount as much as he did the decisions of the Supreme Court.
These things we know. We also know that neither capitalist nor worker can practice the moral precepts of religion, and without its moral precepts a religion is simply a sham. If a religion cannot enforce its moral teachings upon its votaries it has as little relation to actual life as the pre-election promises of a politician have to legislation.



We know that Christianity teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves, but we also know that if a capitalist attempted to run his business upon that plan his relatives would have no difficulty in getting lawyers, judges and physicians to declare him incompetent to conduct his affairs in the business world.



He would not be half as certain of reaching Heaven in the next world as he would be of getting into the 'bughouse' in this.
And, as for the worker. Well, in the fall of 1908, the New York World printed an advertisement for a teamster in Brooklyn, wages to be $12 per week. Over 700 applicants responded. Now, could each of these men love their neighbors in that line of hungry competitors for that pitiful wage?
As each man stood in line in that awful parade of misery could he pray for his neighbor to get the job, and could he be expected to follow up his prayer by giving up his chance, and so making certain the prolongation of the misery of his wife and little ones?



No, my friend, Socialism is a bread and butter question. It is a question of the stomach; it is going to be settled in the factories, mines and ballot boxes of this country and is not going to be settled at the altar or in the church.



This is what our well-fed friends call a 'base, material standpoint', but remember that beauty, and genius and art and poetry and all the finer efflorescences of the higher nature of man can only be realized in all their completeness upon the material basis of a healthy body, that not only an army but the whole human race marches upon its stomach, and then you will grasp the full wisdom of our position.



That the question to be settled by Socialism is the effect of private ownership of the means of production upon the well-being of the race; that we are determined to have a straight fight upon the question between those who believe that such private ownership is destructive of human well-being and those who believe it to be beneficial, that as men of all religions and of none are in the ranks of the capitalists, and men of all religions and of none are on the side of the workers the attempt to make religion an issue in the question is an intrusion, an impertinence and an absurdity.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'd rather say you could be a christian and a marxist,nobody can take your believes.But to be a catholic implies that you adhere to a dogma that pretty much rejects anything that means progress.

No this is wrong. You can be a Catholic, find great value in Marx's writing, and be a communist, but you cannot be a Marxist Catholic. Marxism requires a materialist outlook, therefore no religious person can be a Marxist. Yet, they can be a communist, etc. Someone who believes in a god can also believe that the proletariat are exploited by the bourgeoisie, that the market is an inefficient mechanism, etc. etc.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What if I believe that god is a material thing?Would that contradict marxism?(I don't believe in god by the way)

Umm...yes. You still believe that an individual's thoughts created the world (idea before matter) which is idealist and contradictory to Marxism (which is materialist).

[Let's Get Free]

No this is wrong. You can be a Catholic, find great value in Marx's writing, and be a communist, but you cannot be a Marxist Catholic. Marxism requires a materialist outlook, therefore no religious person can be a Marxist. Yet, they can be a communist, etc. Someone who believes in a god can also believe that the proletariat are exploited by the bourgeoisie, that the market is an inefficient mechanism, etc. etc.

The only relevant form of materialism to a revolutionary and practically -minded socialist is historical materialism - NOT metaphysical materialism. Discussing the ultimate nature of reality, while no doubt fascinating, has got nothing at all to do with changing society

[Blake's Baby]

Women don't create babies out of thought. Perhaps your mother never told you that, but she really did have sex with your father. Sorry to break it to you.

[Pelarys]

Women don't create babies out of thought. Perhaps your mother never told you that, but she really did have sex with your father. Sorry to break it to you.

Asexophobe.


To be more on subject I don't see religion as an obstacle to communism but religious institution certainly is. You'd have to be ready to kick the pope's balls is what I mean.

[graffic]

How can you reconcile a 2000 year old text with modern European philosophy and systems of thought.

Jesus was, and will always be, a Libertarian. He said "my kingdom is not of this earth". Thats not to say if Jesus had existed 200 years ago he would have been sympathetic to Marxism or Conservatism because you don't know, it was in antiquity where society was more dis connected and Libertarian anyway so it's pointless pondering what position Jesus would take towards modern Communism or fascism. There is a clear moral code set out in the Old Testament and from lifting what Jesus supposedly said in the gospels. For example, Jesus said clearly that marriage should be between a man and a woman but never said anything homophobic. He said a lot of bad things about the rich, that "it's easier for a rich man to enter through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven" but he never advocated seizing the wealth of the rich. He was quite soft because he was a rhetorician and he understood power.

It's tempting to think that Jesus would approve of the Martin Luther King style of resistance to injustice however it's impossible to know and it's pointless because Jesus also came to turn father against son and we only know what Jesus did in the context of the Roman Empire. Jesus wasn't some wet palmed, sandal wearing pacifist hippy. He was anti-establishment but his message was not always conciliatory.

[Dave B]

Ignoring for the moment the materialist criticisms or the criticism of the magical nature of Christianity.

As has been pointed out by some; the standard old testament model of God being omniscient, and responsible, for the earth like material world is contradicted in the gospel text, and was understood as such by some forms of early Christianity.

Thus from the beginning of the gospel documents eg the temptation of JC, the possession of material wealth and power was the gift of the devil.

And to the end, as has been mentioned, JC said this world was not his kingdom etc.

The basic old testament understanding of god was one of materially (economically ) rewarding people of whom he approved and of god vindictively punishing those he didn’t.

And if that wasn’t enough to whip you into the party line; this material punishment was often trans-generational and inherited from the sins of your fathers etc.

This was of course an attractive ideology of the old and new ruling classes (the later above used to justify 19th century Afrian slavery) because in itself, as regards the status quo, that meant that the ruling class had god’s approval and blessing.

And likewise with the old testament interpretation that the oppressed were wicked by nature and the deserving poor under divine punishment.

That idea being that the first are the first.

JC’s thesis that the first (ruling class) are the last and that the last are blessed and had God’s approval was an anathema and a theological inversion.

And perhaps an inherent logical absurdity for a notion of a god’s kingdom on earth etc.

The contradiction between the ‘new and standard (and modern?) old testament view of god was first noted early on in one of the first chrisitian ‘heresies’ Marcionism.

Stripping it to the core, the omniscient old testament god was not the same as the one as personified in JC as told in the gospel story.

It being painfully obvious to any one who has read both that the old testament ‘jealous, wrathful, genocidal god’ is inconsistent with the one personified in the gospel as ‘merciful, sympathatic and forgiving’ etc.

Encapsulated in the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

The old god would have had her stoned the new one wouldn’t.

The idea of the material world and the economic status quo being the preserve of Satan etc also seems to have ‘reappeared’ in Catharism in the 11th to 12th century.

Complete with a contempt for the materialism and organised religion of the Roman catholic church and a more egalitarian theological approach.

No prizes for guessing what happened to them.

Marx’s Feuerbacian pre 1845 approach to origins of Christianity was that it was a religious expression of communist and anti authoritarian sentiments amongst its original believers, followers and creators.

Reflecting its class position.

As at that point in history intellectually everything was rationalized, interpreted and analysed metaphysically. It is a-historical to criticize the ‘content’ of class consciousness on the basis of the metaphysical ‘form’ it took, because it would do wouldn’t it.

Feuerbach, in his ‘Essence of Christianity’, thought that communist sentiments were a natural part of our human essence and that early christianity was an ideological reaction or response to anti communism, theorised or expressed within a metaphysical or supernatural framework.

However it was still a ‘rationalisation’ of a material reality ie the oppression of the rich by the poor.

As Marxist communism is framed in a materialist or scientific one.

The stuff about camels going through the eyes of needles isn’t likely to have written by, or appeal to, the rich.

(Probably a miss transcription or bad Greek with kamilos ('camel') instead of kamêlos rope. Apparently some of these very early Christian’s Greek left much to be desired.)

The new post 3rd century ruling class didn’t throw out the christian baby with the bath water however, and with a slight re-orientation, turned workerism into an opiate.

And stripping out its original criticism of the rich by re-introducing the old testament god back in again.

One of the first critics of Christianity Celsus, writing sometime before 200ad, thought it was hilarious that god would appear as a working class carpenter and fall for the old ones are the best crucifixion practical joke of the sponge soaked in vinegar.

The Ghandi like passive resistance thing is in there of course.

If our modern readers can’t appreciate the subversive content of the gospel material the English 16th century church did. The first version of the bible printed in English was one of the first cases of mass book burning.

The Wikileak Tyndale himself being strangled to death and burned at the stake for making it available.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm


I don’t like Kautsky’s take it much but;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch09.htm

Karl from 1844;


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm

Stirner attacked Feuerbach’s all you need is to love each other with his all you need is to look after number one.

Leading to Karl and Fred in German Ideology;


..........in the year 1845 set about: “to work out in common the opposition of our view” — the materialist conception of history which was elaborated mainly by Marx — to the ideological view of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our erstwhile philosophical consciencehttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/foreword.htm

[Decolonize The Left]

^ Reduce the size of your font please. It's extremely difficult to read.

As to the OP, yes, spirituality is not in any form incompatible with leftism is general. But that said, institutionalized religion is entirely incompatible with many forms of leftism.